Sitting of 5 February 1996

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

    Industrial Museums
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals she has to make additional resources available to working industrial museums. [11756]
    The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): Government support for independent and local authority museums is distributed via various bodies that we fund, including the Museums and Galleries Commission and the network of area museums councils. It is for these bodies to decide on the support to be given to industrial museums from within their overall grant in aid allocations.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Minister visit the Queen's street mill in my constituency? His visit would underline to him both the need to keep that type of museum in operation, open and working, and the considerable financial costs that are incurred in keeping such a museum in operation.
    Mr. Sproat: I would very much like to receive an invitation from the hon. Gentleman to visit that museum.
    2
    I know that it will be a splendid museum when it is reopened, I hope, during the summer. The Government have given about £200,000 for refurbishment of the museum, including European regional development funding. I am glad that we have been able to do so and I look forward to the museum being splendidly reopened.
    Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the national lottery will make available to all museums a new source of funds, which will be available to working industrial museums? I am sure that he will agree that those museums are an important part of our heritage. Is my hon. Friend able to suggest why Opposition Members are so churlish as not to acknowledge the impact of the national lottery on our museums?
    Mr. Sproat: About 60 museums and galleries have benefited from national lottery funds by about £98.6 million already. The lottery is a great addition to our ability to support museums. We already give about £24 million a year to the science museum and the Manchester museum. We recently funded a paper on how to look after working objects, which are a splendid part of our heritage.

    Civil War Sites (Newbury)
    Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what maps her Department holds detailing the civil war sites of the first and second battles of Newbury. [11757]
    Mr. Sproat: My Department has a copy of English Heritage's register of historic battlefields. This includes the first battle of Newbury, and contains a map of the site. The second battle of Newbury is not on the register, and my Department holds no maps detailing that site.
    Mr. Rendel: Can the Minister confirm, therefore, that the route of the Newbury bypass cannot be said to have a serious effect on either of the battle sites? Nobody knows

    3
    exactly where the second battle was fought and, as for the first, the route merely cuts across the north-westernmost tip of where the king's forces were drawn up the night before the battle, and does not cross the battlefield site.
    Mr. Sproat: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that what remains of the first battlefield site is not sufficiently damaged by the new bypass. As for what is known of the second battle of Newbury, little now remains save the memory.

    Broadcasting (Regulation)
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the future regulation of broadcasting content. [11759]
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The Broadcasting Bill currently before Parliament extends to new digital terrestrial services the obligations on impartiality, taste and decency now applying to commercial broadcasts. The new draft charter and agreement will place the BBC under equivalent obligations.
    Mr. Martlew: Does the Secretary of State agree that the new Bill could have a detrimental effect on small regional television stations such as Border Television, whose headquarters is in my constituency? Is it not a fact that the Bill will make it more likely that it will be taken over by larger companies? Would that not reduce local accountability and local programming, and result in the loss of many local good-quality jobs?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that detailed consultation was undergone before we published the Bill. Regional factors—we examined this carefully—were some of the considerations. That is why we propose a new power for the Independent Television Commission to require strengthened regional programming. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman. No doubt the matter will be debated at great length when the Bill reaches this place.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend really content with the standards of taste and decency at present observed on television? Does she truly believe that more will mean better?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I agree with my hon. Friend that we must be ever vigilant about questions of taste and decency. We have reason to be proud of our public service broadcasting, and the campaign is one from which we can never relax. The strengthening of the Broadcasting Standards Council and the development of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission will be a further confidence-inspiring measure, which I hope will deliver on-going results from our media.
    Dr. John Cunningham: After spending weeks drafting the Bill, including the passages on regulation of broadcasting, why did the Secretary of State wait until last Friday to publish, belatedly, a document on listed events? Why did she wait until the matter was in effect before the House before intervening? Is it not clear that it was the Government's intention in their Broadcasting Act 1990 to
    4
    give effective protection to listed events especially to prevent the monopolising of that part of our national sporting heritage by a single broadcaster? Is it not now appropriate, given the widespread public concern about these issues, that the law be strengthened to prevent the creation of a broadcasting monopoly, while not excluding any individual broadcaster from participating?
    Mrs. Bottomley: There has been a huge increase in the amount of sport on television. There has been a huge increase in the amount of money going into sport, such that there is now greater participation and better facilities throughout the country than in almost any previous phase.
    On the Bill, we first issued a detailed consultation paper on the ownership questions. We set out the arguments. We consulted. In the summer, we set out the consultation document on digital terrestrial television. We consulted in detail and listened to all the arguments. Now, as it is clearly the wish of Parliament to discuss the matter further, we have set out the arguments and the balance of interests, and we hope in the coming weeks that detailed consideration will be given to the issue so that the House can reach a conclusion.

    National Lottery
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many people have won more than £1 million on the national lottery. [11760]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: There have been more than 75 million prizes, worth £2.6 billion, and 153 of those prizes were for more than £1 million. The good causes have won as well. On Friday, the billionth pound was awarded to St. George's market in Belfast by the national heritage memorial fund. In all, 107 awards of £1 million-plus have been made to flagship projects of sporting, artistic or heritage excellence—projects that will underpin our sense of national pride for the next millennium.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. Does she agree that this is another huge Conservative success story, after having to drag the lot opposite kicking and screaming to accept a national lottery? Does she further agree that winners of huge lottery prizes might like to contemplate what might happen to their winnings if we ever have a Labour Government—who might introduce a 98 per cent. tax on high earnings? Is it not the height of hypocrisy that that lot over there, who did not want a lottery, mumble and grumble about high prizes yet queue up every Saturday for their lottery ticket? Say one thing and do another—is that not what they are all about?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Labour party, on almost every issue and undoubtedly on the lottery, says one thing and does another. As my hon. Friend knows only too well, the Labour party would increase the operating costs and reduce the amount of money coming through to good causes. We are building a better Britain with the great range of projects now available. Opposition Members sneer, but my hon. Friends are only too aware that the massive number of awards in sports, heritage and the arts are bringing new opportunities to young and old across the country.
    Mr. Rooker: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the only lottery prize that concerns me at present is

    5
    the millennium exhibition? Can she explain why she is conducting the negotiations connected with that important decision in secret? Why are those who wish to make bids unable to broadcast the contents of those bids to their relevant populations in either London or Birmingham? Why is this type of contract being put on Imagination Ltd. and the national exhibition centre? Is it just because—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have been very tolerant, but the hon. Gentleman is quite a long way off the question. There are questions about the millennium on the Order Paper; the hon. Gentleman should have tried to catch my eye when they were reached. The Secretary of State seems to be prepared to give him an answer, however, if he has reached the end of his question.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am indeed, Madam Speaker, because—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Rooker: I did not intend to be out of order, Madam Speaker. The Secretary of State mentioned the developments that would result from the lottery—
    Madam Speaker: I have to agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Secretary of State went very wide of the mark in her answer to the main question. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Would he like to finish his question? See how generous I am.
    Mr. Rooker: I have apologised to you, Madam Speaker, and I think that I have made my point to the Secretary of State.
    Mrs. Bottomley: It is a very fair question. Certainly, those who stage the millennium celebration will win much more than £1 million: a substantial sum is involved. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's strength of feeling and that of other Birmingham Members, and London Members have also put their case forcefully. The Millennium Commission and I will look in great detail at the issues involved—the financial aspects, and the way in which the festival can be celebrated. I give the House one absolute assurance, however: it will be a magnificent festival. It will lead the world. This will be a great moment for the whole country to celebrate the passing of one millennium and the potential of a new one.
    There must be a degree of confidentiality because of the size of the sum involved, and the complexity of the issue. The commercial aspects must be considered. The Labour party may approach everything with a warmer heart, but it does so with a pretty frozen head. The issue of the millennium must be approached with both a warm heart and a clear head.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many charities which assist young people have been awarded funds from the national lottery. [11761]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: More than 1,000 awards, to a value of £75 million, have been made to organisations directly concerned with young people. Of those, 101, worth more than £15 million, have been made directly to schools.
    6
    Helping the nation's young people is an investment in our future. I propose to give lottery distributors the ability to provide revenue support for initiatives to help to develop sporting and artistic excellence in our country's young people.
    Mr. Hughes: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on some marvellous achievements, including the grant for the Harrow leisure centre. That grant will enable the centre to reopen, and to help many young people in my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that a national team of young people should compete in each sport that is represented in the Olympic games? Does she also agree that, where we have no national team, the Sports Council should consider giving grants, so that young people playing volleyball, for instance, have a pinnacle to aim for—and can probably beat the world as well?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, which I know has been heard by my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport. I can tell him that, so far, 50 sports are benefiting from lottery money, and 1,226 different awards have already been made. They cover a wide range: for instance, 122 awards have been made to bowling clubs.
    Dr. John Cunningham: It is true that the lottery has been hugely successful in raising funds—so much so that four major charities have today persuaded Dame Vera Lynn and Claire Rayner to launch a new scratchcard in an attempt to repair the damage to their revenue-raising that the lottery has caused. Three of the charities involved are the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Scope and the Cancer Research Campaign.
    Ought not the Government to have taken a much closer look at the potential damage to charities' fund-raising before launching the lottery? What response does the Secretary of State give organisations whose revenue has now been undermined by it?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not read the recent account from the medical charities saying that they have had an extremely good year. In the face of expected concerns, many charities have devised a range of measures to increase their fund-raising. A recent Gallup survey suggested that, overall, there had been a 5 per cent. increase in donations to charities, and a MORI poll found that, whereas 2 per cent. of people said that they were planning to give less, 4 per cent. said that they were planning to give more. There is mixed evidence. Much information suggests that the charities have had a good year. Many of them are responding to the opportunity of scratchcards to raise their own cash, but the long and short of it is that 80 per cent. of the £1 billion that has been awarded has gone to charities. They have had a bonanza out of the lottery.
    Mr. Brooke: Does my right hon. Friend take pleasure in or feel concern for the fact that more than half the oral questions tabled for her to answer today were about the national lottery?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My right hon. Friend, who has much responsibility for the fact that we have this magnificent and, in practice, successful lottery, asks a question that is precisely to the point. The lottery has taken over as the

    7
    great conversation piece not only in the House but in all our newspapers. It is our favourite topic of conversation. It is doing a huge amount of good and is working.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: In the same vein, will the Secretary of State confirm that many of the teachers, youth leaders and people who provide facilities for young people are most concerned that, nowadays, things outside the national curriculum—the opportunity to go to theatres, concerts, films, swimming pools or sports arenas—are increasingly prohibited because of the charges that are imposed? Young people have no access to those facilities. Given the initiative that she took last week, will she consider the way in which national lottery money could help young people to have access to facilities outside core education? Otherwise, those young people, especially if they are in lower-income families, will not have access to such facilities any more.
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will be only too aware that his part of the world, for example, contains the magnificent new bankside project—which has received £50 million—a museum of modern arts and the Globe theatre. It is not so far away from another important lottery project. We intend that the change in rules, on which we are consulting, will enable youngsters to participate in our great artistic and cultural heritage, through concessionary tickets, through support for touring and through a range of educational measures. Once the consultation is complete, it will be for the arts, heritage and sporting organisations to take the opportunities and to make their applications to use that lottery money. We must invest in the country's talent as well as in its buildings.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: I recognise the lottery's fantastic achievement in funding sports facilities for young and old alike, including the new Starport sports centre in my constituency—which will give a new home to both the Starport hockey club and the Starport athletics club—but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to consider the possibility of setting up a trust fund, out of which payments could be made for sports scholarships and sports expenses for talented young sportsmen?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend deals with an issue that we have raised during our consultation on how to modify the rules. We were anxious to take forward the consultation on the modification of the rules precisely to invest in a talent fund to promote the youngsters of tomorrow to ensure that we have Olympic athletes, as well as to extend further participation generally.
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the impact on good causes of the national lottery. [11763]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The national lottery is a resounding success. In just over a year, more than £300 million has been raised for each of the five good causes.
    Mr. Banks: I am not sure that I heard the right hon. Lady say that at our last dinner party. Whatever the impact of the lottery on good causes, will she give a
    8
    categorical assurance that in no circumstances will any lottery money be used to finance the construction of a new royal yacht?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I know not whether I said that at a recent dinner party or whether it was said, for example, by the people who were interviewed about the hon. Gentleman's salary a few days ago. If he had asked those people about the lottery, they would have been much more enthusiastic in their response to that than they were about the remuneration of hon. Members.
    Be that as it may, the hon. Gentleman might like to provide advice on how he has managed to scoop the jackpot in his constituency. I see that it has received no fewer than 12 different awards for caring charities, ranging from the Newham Bengali community trust to the pier training shop and Victim Support. The hon. Gentleman has done better than any other hon. Member.
    In terms of other projects for which lottery funding might be made available, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the distributing bodies decide on the basis of applications. I am aware of no distributing body that has had an application in respect of the matter that he describes.
    Mr. John Greenway: How quickly can we get money through to the good cause of young people who have won places at arts, drama, music and dance colleges but cannot get a discretionary grant to fund their places at those colleges? Is it for the Arts Council to decide these matters? Could we not have something in place so that young people who are to go to those colleges and schools this autumn have a chance of proper funding from the lottery?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend raises an issue that is of legitimate concern to hon. Members. Overall, the lottery intends to provide talent funding for those who would not otherwise be entitled to funding from local authorities. In all sorts of areas it is possible to increase talent and promote excellence. Fundamentally, that is a matter for local education authorities, and a number of the interests that are involved are seeing whether it would be possible to assist and encourage education authorities to face their responsibilities with some assistance from lottery money.
    Mr. Fisher: Since one of the best causes will be the millennium exhibition and the celebrations associated with it, does the Secretary of State agree that, whatever site the Millennium Commission chooses for the exhibition, these are difficult celebrations to get right? The time until the end of the century is very short and the experience of Seville and other places shows the difficulties. Therefore, will the right hon. Lady turn her attention from the rhetoric on which she relies to some action, and establish a cross-departmental working party, to include the Department of Transport, the Department of the Environment and the Home Office, to look urgently at problems of infrastructure for tourism, policing, the environment and transport? Will she change this rhetoric for some action? The Government are in danger of dragging their feet and of turning what should be a great national success into a very questionable event.
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is right in suggesting that the millennium festival is of such an order

    9
    that it is far above and much more complex than the great run of awards made by the distributing bodies. The Millennium Commission has made about 303 awards so far ranging from cycle tracks, to the renaissance of Portsmouth harbour to millennial forests. The festival is an occasion of great significance and importance. When we make the announcement, we shall consider what measures the Government might wish to announce alongside the activities of the Millennium Commission itself.

    Deregulation
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is her policy on deregulation; and if she will make a statement. [11765]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Department of National Heritage fully supports the Government's initiative on deregulation. We attach great importance to the drive to reduce burdens on business in the UK. Over-regulation is particularly burdensome for small businesses, of which there are many in tourism. Progress has been made with deregulation in this sector, and we will continue to work constructively with other Departments to remove obstacles to greater competitiveness.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the industries most vulnerable to regulation is the tourism industry, which employs many people in my constituency? It is particularly vulnerable to excessive health and safety regulation; it would be especially vulnerable if the European social chapter were extended to the United Kingdom and, above all, it would be vulnerable to Labour's idea of a national minimum wage, which would destroy many young people's opportunity to start a career in that dynamic and growing industry.
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend precisely identifies the greatest threat to tourism in our generation. Employment is growing in tourism; it is of great economic significance to the country. The Government are committed to minimising regulation. The real killer of jobs would be Labour's European jobs tax—the social chapter, the minimum wage and, of course, the training levy. Once again, although Labour Members say that they support tourism, their behaviour suggests otherwise. They say one thing, but they do another.
    Mr. Grocott: Rather than giving us a lecture on the social chapter and regulation, will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the Government have failed to exercise any democratic regulation in one key area—their failure to act is massively unpopular—which is resulting in the loss of major sporting events from the main terrestrial channels? Such events are increasingly available only on satellite channels. When will she understand that, if young people in particular cannot see our major national sports at their best, performed by the best, the chances of the long-term continuation of those sports and of young people becoming involved in them will be seriously jeopardised? Even though she seems to have just woken up to the problem by issuing a consultation document, will she at least ensure that she consults not only sporting authorities and broadcasters but viewers and listeners among the public, who are overwhelmingly on Labour's side on the issue?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I certainly will give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Indeed, it is important to
    10
    consult not only viewers and listeners but sportsmen and women and children. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that investment in, for example, football, rugby and tennis has increased beyond all recognition because of the resources available. Many sport rights bodies have not chosen the highest bid. They have traded money against the maximum possible audience. The hon. Gentleman does not give the sporting bodies sufficient credit for the thought that they have given to the issue. It is, however, a complex matter, the issues are set out in the consultation document, and I shall be interested in all views, including the hon. Gentleman's.

    Art (Public Buildings)
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will undertake a survey into insurance arrangements concerning displays of art in public buildings. [11766]
    Mr. Sproat: Although I have no plans to undertake a survey of insurance arrangements as such, I shall consider this important matter as part of the Department's review of all aspects of its policies on museums.
    Mr. Cohen: I hope that the Minister will conduct a specific review of the problem with insurance. A gallery approached me with the offer to exhibit quality paintings in my local town hall, but when I approached the chief executive, he said that, although he would love to display the paintings, he knew, since it was not the first time that it had happened, that he could not because the insurance costs were prohibitive. Does the Minister agree that much more art could be displayed in our town halls and public buildings if insurance costs were not so prohibitive? Will he conduct a review with the aim of getting more art on display?
    Mr. Sproat: I know the attention that the hon. Gentleman has paid to the Crane Kalman gallery and the display of paintings by Alan Lowndes, and very much support what he has tried to do. I understand, however, that the council did not apply to have the Government indemnity scheme applied to it, which, in principle, it could have done. If objects are on loan for public benefit, councils may qualify for the benefits of the Government indemnity scheme. The hon. Gentleman's local authority may care to consider that. I shall, however, certainly consider the matter in my museums review.
    Mr. Jessel: Should such insurance not be a matter for the occupants of buildings rather than the Government? Is the hon. Gentleman's question yet another example of the Labour party's insatiable appetite for interference and the desire to have a finger in every pie?
    Mr. Sproat: The current state of play is indeed that local authorities can take out commercial insurance if they so wish, or apply for the Government indemnity scheme. Both are available to my hon. Friend's local authority.

    Broadcasting (Listed Events)
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to extend the listed events under section 182 of the Broadcasting Act 1990. [11767]
    Mr. Sproat: The list of events drawn up under section 182 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 is kept under regular review.
    Mr. Ainger: Does the Minister agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) that the Government made a mistake in the Broadcasting Act 1990 in not preventing the satellite companies from getting exclusive rights to those eight major sporting events? Does he agree with hon. Members on both sides of the House, including a majority of Conservative Members who were polled by MORI, that the Department should be defending the rights and interests of the tens of thousands of viewers, rather than the narrow, vested interests of a few broadcasters and sporting associations? If he agrees, can he tell the House why the Secretary of State for Wales is trying to scupper in the other place an amendment that would achieve the very aim that the majority of the House wants?
    Mr. Sproat: I do not believe that the House made a mistake. I was not in the House at the time, but I understand that it deliberately put a bar on pay per view and not on satellite. Sporting rights are extremely important and complex. I said so from the Dispatch Box on 20 November, in answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). I also said that it is something that we should discuss during debates on the Broadcasting Bill—and that is precisely what we are doing.
    Mr. Gale: Does my hon. Friend accept that the list has never worked properly and that, with the advent of digital subscription terrestrial television, the importance of satellite television will wane anyway? Should not the House be seeking to achieve a solution whereby sport benefits from the finance from live transmission rights and the audience benefits as far as possible from secondary rights given to free-to-air terrestrial broadcasting? Is not that the way forward?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is extremely well informed on this matter, and I have no doubt that arguments such as those will be put forward strongly when we debate the matter. I hope that both sides of the argument will be given a proper airing and that the House will reach a just and fair conclusion.
    Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister consider adding the five nations championship to the list of eight national sporting events, in spite of what happened on Saturday, when the Welsh rapier was defeated by the English bludgeon? Does he agree that that championship is the most significant sporting event to be left off the list? If the list had been drawn up after consultation with people in Wales, it would have been first and not ninth. Does he also agree that it is time to review the Government's policy, which seems to be based on the principle of reach for the sky?
    Mr. Sproat: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "in spite of Saturday". I thought that the Scottish XV displayed some of the finest rugby that we have seen in any match for years. The Rugby Football Union in England deliberately decided last time round that it would give the rights not to the highest bidder, but to the BBC, because it thought that audience reach was more
    12
    important than cash. That is an important factor that all bodies should weigh up. Indeed, that is no doubt something that we shall discuss when we debate the Broadcasting Bill.

    Tourism
    Mr. Robert Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress she has made in reducing excessive regulation in the tourism industry. [11768]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Good progress has been made. Measures such as the reforms of the liquor licensing law, Sunday trading law and food hygiene regulations have all benefited tourism. My Department has recently worked closely with the Department of Transport on the relaxation of rules governing white-on-brown road signs. This will help a wide range of tourism-related businesses.
    Mr. Banks: Will my right hon. Friend continue her determination to dispose of all unnecessary regulations that affect the tourism industry? Will she keep a particularly sharp eye on proposals from the European Commission to enhance the role of tourism in the EU? If a large and bureaucratic organisation were to be set up, would it not have regulatory powers? Should not the European Parliament and the European Commission embark on a course of deregulation? Will she ensure that our Members of the European Parliament are fully briefed before the debate on the subject next Monday?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has great knowledge in this area, and I know that about 104,000 of his constituents are employed in jobs involving tourism. The key need of those in the tourism and leisure industry is for the Government to lighten the load and reduce red tape. As Ramon Pasarez, managing director of the Savoy Group, says:
    "What I want from the Government is the freedom to run my business."
    The meddling, interference and socialist controls proposed by the Labour party are the greatest danger to our flourishing tourism industry.
    Mr. Skinner: Is not one of the biggest dangers to tourism-related small businesses the fact that some people will not pay their debts on time? Is it not even worse when the Deputy Prime Minister brags about not paying his debts and putting other businesses into bankruptcy? Will the Secretary of State now admonish the Deputy Prime Minister for the Gerald Ratner-type bombshell that he has landed on the Government?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The tourism industry needs to hear from people who know how to run small business, not windy rhetoric such as that from the hon. Gentleman. Some 90,000 new jobs were created in the tourism industry last year, which is a phenomenal success. There has been a one-fifth increase in the number of people working in tourism in the past 10 years. During those 10 years, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has played a crucial role in making this country more competitive and fought industry's corner in government.

    National Lottery
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representation she has received on providing revenue support from national lottery funds. [11769]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I have received a number of representations, of which I have taken account in considering the changes that I propose to make as part of the natural development of the national lottery. I intend to make it possible for the distributors to support the new areas of youth, talent, access and participation.
    Lady Olga Maitland: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her resounding success with the national lottery, as distributing more than £2 billion to good causes is no mean feat? It is not surprising that the Labour party carps and criticises—it never thought of the idea itself. Will she give an assurance that charities will be able to qualify for some sort of revenue support—for example, Victim Support will be able to get help to find people to man telephones; an orchestra might get help to appoint a conductor?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend pushes at an open door. Some 2,460 awards have been made to caring charities, three of which are in her constituency— Carshalton scout group, Sutton Crossroads care attendant scheme and the Sutton centre for voluntary services. All those organisations are helping my hon. Friend's constituents. I have no doubt that, as the lottery progresses, the different distributing bodies will learn from their experiences and want to modify their rules as they continue to invest in good causes.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Secretary of State comment on the remarks made to my constituent, Professor Colin Humphries, who applied for support for science funding from the Millennium Commission and was told that it would not be appropriate because it would not appeal to readers of the Daily Mail?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The Millennium Commission has made many awards, from the 303 that have been made, that would appeal greatly to readers of all the different newspapers. It is the commission's purpose to invest in the environment and regeneration and to ensure that a range of interests are addressed. It is especially looking for science projects. There has probably been a misunderstanding about the comment that the hon. Lady reports, because the commission hopes particularly to make progress with science.
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much revenue the national lottery has generated for good causes. [11770]
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the latest estimate of proceeds from the national lottery. [11771]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall answer this question and question 14 together. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give the answer, then."] I am sorry, Madam Speaker; I was overcome by the rollover answer.
    14
    Revenue generated by the national lottery for the five good causes totals more than £1,500 million so far. I think that the House may be aware of that information by now.
    Mr. Congdon: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. May I especially welcome the recent initiative, announced by the national heritage memorial fund, to invest in urban parks? I am sure that it will be greatly appreciated by people who live in cities—especially in our greatest city, London. Is that not another example of how the lottery can be used to benefit a good cause— the environment?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The national heritage memorial fund's announcement was important and significant. Investment in our built and natural heritage is of great importance. There are many projects, including cycle routes, urban forests and restoration of coastal paths, for which lottery money is being used to restore our environment. As my hon. Friend rightly says, in the inner cities it is often the natural—as much as the built—heritage that people want preserved.
    Mr. Marshall: May I welcome that figure of £1.5 billion, which demonstrates that the lottery has been a major success? I especially welcome the grant of nearly £150,000 to the Wilf Slack sports ground in Barnet, which will benefit a large number of schoolchildren, in particular those from Christ's college, which my son attends.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Conservative Members have no difficulty declaring the schools to which our children go. I hope that that school sets high standards.
    Mr. Marshall: It is a local authority school.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am most impressed to hear that.
    That is another example of how the lottery works in practice. It is probably the most successful lottery anywhere in the world. It is carefully regulated. If we can improve it further, we shall certainly do so. The Labour party sneers and jeers. It would cap prizes, reduce the amount of money coming through to good causes, and increase operating costs. The lottery has been a great success, and I pay tribute to all those who have made it possible.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Woolf Report
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many representations his Department has received on the subject of the Woolf report during the past six months. [11786]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Jonathan Evans): Approximately 260, of which 233 related to the implementation of the recommendations on raising the small claims limit and giving publicity for alternatives to litigation. Lord Woolf's secretariat has had some 311 items of correspondence.
    Mr. Llwyd: I am grateful for that reply. The hon. Gentleman knows that, over the past 10 years, great

    15
    strides have been made in the provision of Welsh language facilities for Welsh medium trials. Will he assure me that, whatever decisions are made by the Government following the Woolf recommendations, the integrity of the Wales and Chester circuit will not be placed under pressure or varied and, more important, that there will be adequate and enhanced provision for Welsh language trials?
    Mr. Evans: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning to me earlier today that he intended to raise this issue, and his concern that Lord Woolf's recommendations might have an effect on it. I have had the recommendations looked at and I can find nothing in them that would have the effect to which he refers. I share his concern to ensure that the great progress made by the Government in providing Welsh language trials is maintained. He may have in mind Lord Woolf's call for major, complex cases to be heard at particular civil proceedings centres. I do not envisage that that would in any way affect current procedures for making Welsh language facilities available. I hope that he is reassured to hear that.

    Police (Transfers of Responsibility)
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations he has received from the police concerning transfers of responsibility. [11787]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Apart from the normal consultations with the police, my Department has received one letter from the Metropolitan police, which expresses concern about the progress of the transfer of certain warrant enforcement responsibilities to magistrates courts committees.
    Mr. Flynn: Are the police as enthusiastic as everyone else about the future transfer of the government of this country from the Conservatives to Labour? Since the war, crime levels have risen under every Conservative Government and fallen under every Labour Government. Is it not true that criminals are now three times more likely to get away with their crimes than previously? Tory Britain today—as at every other time when the Tories were in control—is a paradise for criminals.
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman should know that I had a long record prior to my coming to this place— [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—of service in the criminal courts as a court advocate. I have therefore spoken to many of the police officers who are constituents of the hon. Gentleman and of many other Labour Members. They all recognise that there has been a great transformation in the conditions of service of the police under the Conservative Government. They are in no doubt about that.
    Mr. Jenkin: While we are talking about transfers of responsibility, did my hon. Friend listen to the BBC Radio 4 "Analysis" programme, which was broadcast yesterday afternoon, about the apparent transfer of responsibility and discretionary power from Parliament to the judges? Should we not be aware also of the huge transfers of power from Parliament to Brussels that are likely to occur if the Labour party is elected to government?
    Mr. Evans: I recognise the concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed over a lengthy period about the
    16
    European Commission's interference in many aspects of life in this country. I think that the points made by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) are somewhat wide of the real issue, which is the debate about the transfer of responsibilities from the police to magistrates courts regarding the enforcement of fines. The Government recognise that that issue is important and that the situation will be improved by the transfer that we are seeking to carry forward.
    Mr. Boateng: Putting the Minister's criminal antecedents to one side, let us look at the real situation in the magistrates courts at present. Does the Minister accept the very real concerns of the magistrates courts committees and of the police regarding the transfer of civilian staff from the police to those courts—not least because those staff have hitherto relied on uniformed police support for their enforcement role, for transportation to court of those who have been arrested, and for access to the police national computer? Will the Minister ensure, through increased negotiation with the magistrates courts committees, that the interests of justice are not subordinated once again to the interests of the Treasury?
    Mr. Evans: The interests of justice underpin the proposal to transfer fine enforcement responsibilities. The credibility of the magistrates courts must be supported by placing responsibility for fine enforcement in their hands, and a number of magistrates courts committees currently undertake that work very effectively. The hon. Gentleman is right: consultation is important. It is taking place both with the Association of Chief Police Officers and with magistrates courts committees. As a result of that consultation, the implementation date of the change has been altered to 1 April 1997, as the hon. Gentleman will know. That enhances the position that the Government have set out for some time: the change will increase the efficiency of the courts and be made in conjunction both with the police and with the magistrates courts committees.

    Family Law Bill [Lords]
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received from the Roman Catholic Church in relation to the Family Law Bill [Lords]. [11789]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: I have received a number of representations from Catholic organisations in relation to the Government's divorce reform proposals.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Has he read the article by Cardinal Hume, published in The Tablet on 20 January 1996, in which he admitted that his earlier statements about the Family Law Bill were wrong, and that he did not support it in its present form but had serious reservations about it? He said that the Bill needed to be strengthened, that he opposed the idea of the no-fault clause, and that the time delay of one year was far too short.
    Will my hon. Friend reassure me that he will listen carefully to Cardinal Hume's representations, bearing in mind the fact that he represents the enormously strong feeling of the vast majority of people?
    Mr. Evans: I always pay close attention to Cardinal Hume's opinions. I am aware that, in October 1995, the

    17
    Catholic media office expressed disquiet that the media had been suggesting that Catholic bishops opposed the proposals in the Bill, and it reiterated the fact that the Catholic bishops welcomed the attempt to minimise damage caused by high divorce rates.My hon. Friend mentioned Cardinal Hume's article in The Tablet. I have a note of an interview that Cardinal Hume gave to the "Today" programme that morning. He said:
    "I have not changed my mind. That seems to me to be a misreading of the text".
    Later, he said:
    "I still support the Bill … I do not side with the critics of this Bill."
    I hope that my hon. Friend also listens to what the cardinal has to say.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: In his dealings on the Bill, will the Minister bear in mind the fact that, in the part of rural Wales that he and I know well, there is significant anxiety about the poor funding of conciliation services, including Relate? Will he try to ensure that one of the Bill's consequences is that matrimonial conciliation services can function at least as effectively in rural Wales as anywhere else in the country?
    Mr. Evans: I recognise that it is important that we have effective conciliation services, but it is also important to recognise that conciliation cannot be forced on people involuntarily. It is also important that there should be no confusion between mediation—which is an important part of the Bill—and conciliation, leading, one hopes, to reconciliation. All those services are very important and, as my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has said in debates in the other place, the Government attach great importance to them.
    Mr. Tracey: Whether we or anyone else has misread Cardinal Hume's words, my hon. Friend should be well aware that there are singularly grave misgivings about the present terms of the Bill.
    Mr. Evans: I am very keen, as is my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, to take on board all those misgivings. I am very aware that many of those anxieties were expressed in Committee. It is important to have the detail of matters about which such misgivings are expressed because, as we found in Committee, many of those misgivings can be answered by what underpins the Bill. What underpins the Bill is, first, the wish to ensure the end of the quickie divorce—which, we feel, does not support married life, in which context my hon. Friend's position and mine are hardly dissimilar—and, secondly, the wish to take out of divorce much of the acrimony that the current system perpetuates.
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to make mediation binding in divorce cases; and if he will make a statement. [11790]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: The Government have no plans to make mediation binding in divorce cases.
    Mr. Cohen: Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree with the letter from the Lord Chancellor's Department of 9 January 1996, which said:
    "mediators are required … to protect the interests of the weaker party"
    and
    "required to remedy any imbalances of power"?
    If mediation is not binding, will not a stronger party have a vested interest in ignoring its process and outcome? Surely the inexorable logic of the statements in the Lord Chancellor's letter is that mediation should be binding.
    Mr. Evans: A mediated agreement can be made legally binding if the parties subsequently agree that should be the case. The hon. Gentleman seems to be proposing that the mediator should supplant himself as some sort of tribunal chairman or in a judge's role—not something that the Government intend to advance.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I am deeply reassured that mediation will not be binding, because, however much it should be encouraged, many people who deal professionally with divorce cases believe that binding mediation would be counter-productive.
    Mr. Evans: Mediation must, by definition, be voluntary—no one can be compelled to make use of it. If a mediated agreement is reached between two parties, I see no objection to the parties subsequently carrying it forward as an agreement in writing—in which case, it would take on a legal character. We need to make that distinction clear.

    Mr. Ian Brady
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will
    make a statement on the provision of legal aid to Mr. Ian Brady. [11792]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Decisions on the granting of civil legal aid are taken by the Legal Aid Board according to statutory tests. It is essential that decisions on the granting of civil legal aid are made independently and are seen to be free from political or Government interference.
    Mr. Greenway: I well understand my hon. Friend's point, but is he aware that many people are extremely puzzled that Ian Brady has been granted legal aid to challenge in the High Court a judgment by the Press Complaints Commission, which does not have any judicial authority, while other people who appear to be much more deserving cannot obtain legal aid?
    Mr. Evans: I am aware of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend from other correspondence received in my Department. I am pleased that my hon. Friend recognises that, for the reasons that I outlined, it is inappropriate for Ministers to comment on individual cases. In such circumstances, the matter is one for the Legal Aid Board. I am sure that my hon. Friend will draw his remarks to its attention.

LTS Rail
3.31 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on the future management of the LTS Rail line in light of the events over the weekend.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): Last Thursday, shortly before Enterprise Rail was due to take over the LTS Rail franchise on Sunday morning, after a routine audit of the system for allocating ticket revenue, the British Rail Board was made aware of certain ticketing irregularities in the company's accounts relating to the allocation of revenue from Travelcard between LTS and London Underground Ltd.
The board immediately instituted an investigation, which is still continuing. The Rail Regulator is also carrying out an investigation under his powers under section 55 of the Railways Act 1993.
In the circumstances, the franchising director decided that the transfer of LTS to Enterprise Rail should be postponed pending the outcome of the investigations. For the time being, LTS Rail will therefore continue to provide services as a subsidiary of the British Rail Board.
The House will understand that, as there remains a possibility of legal action, it would be inappropriate to comment on the specific allegations under investigation. Financial irregularities, whether in the public or private sector, are unacceptable and have no place in the modern railway.
Sir Teddy Taylor: While I much appreciate the Secretary of State's action in such a short space of time, as the alleged accountancy malpractices appear to be disgraceful and dishonest, will my right hon. Friend give a clear assurance that, before Enterprise Rail is given the opportunity to run the service to Southend and to deliver the pledged benefits of more regular services and new trains, any such alleged malpractices will be entirely weeded out and the persons who have been guilty of them held responsible? Will my right hon. Friend give the further assurance that, before any other steps are taken, the House will be given a full statement on how the irregularities occurred and, more important, the steps that have been taken to resolve them?
Sir George Young: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurances that he seeks. In relation to his first point, I have the franchising director's assurance that he will not be transferring LTS Rail until the allegations have been fully investigated. The franchising director, the Rail Regulator and British Rail will have to be fully satisfied that ticketing and revenue management are completely in order. As for the hon. Gentleman's second point in relation to the outcome of the investigations, in the first instance that will be a matter for British Rail and for the regulator. Should further legal proceedings be necessary, publication of full details may not be appropriate. I will, however, ensure that the House is made aware in general terms of the outcome of the investigations.
Ms Clare Short: May I ask the Secretary of State to understand how serious this matter is, and that deliberate fraud in the public services—
20
franchised or not—is a terribly serious matter for the country? Will he give us an undertaking that the offer to the LTS management team to allow it to run that service will be withdrawn, because it has shown itself to be a corrupt management team—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—if the allegations are true. Will he agree to reopen the tendering process and now allow British Rail to bid for this and other franchises?
Can the Secretary of State tell us whether a criminal investigation is taking place, and, if not, why not? Will he confirm that the fraud was discovered because the British Rail auditors held an inquiry and that, a few days later, they would not have had the authority to do so? In the future, how will he ensure that such fraud does not take place in companies that have been franchised?
Sir George Young: I made it clear at the end of my statement that the Government took the allegations very seriously and that there was no question of financial irregularities being tolerated in the modern railway, whether it is publicly or privately owned. In relation to the hon. Lady's specific questions, whether to re-tender for the LTS franchise is a decision for the franchising director, which I expect him to take in the light of the investigations once they are completed. Depending on the outcome of the investigations, it may not be necessary to re-tender, but it is too early to say. In relation to the police, it makes sense for British Rail to complete its internal investigations. However, British Rail has assured me that it will not hesitate to call in the British Transport police if that seems appropriate in the light of the investigations.
As for British Rail making a bid, again that is a matter primarily for the franchising director. He has, so far, taken the view that it is not necessary for British Rail to bid because of the quality of the bids that are coming from the private sector, but that is a matter which he has under review. In relation to the audit, the irregularities were detected soon after they occurred, and appropriate steps have been taken to put them right. It was the audit machinery that detected the irregularities and prompted the intervention.
Dr. Robert Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it inspires confidence that the irregularities were detected and acted on immediately, which shows that our systems are working very well? Will he also undertake to ensure that the investigations are completed as soon as possible, so that the undeniable benefits of privatising British Rail can be brought to bear on my constituents, who want to see the new rolling stock and improved services that the new privatised companies are offering?
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend has rightly drawn the House's attention to the benefits of franchising. Two franchises have gone ahead, offering real improvements to passengers at less cost to the taxpayer. We should not lose sight of that goal. As for his specific questions in relation to the length of time of the investigations, they will be properly carried out; there is no question of rushing them. The priority is to ensure that the investigations expose the full extent of any wrongdoing. My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the rigour of the audit procedure, which detected the irregularities soon after they occurred.
Mr. David Chidgey: Does the Secretary of State agree that, in light of the events that are now being revealed in LTS, we have clear confirmation of the folly of the current privatisation process? What guarantee can he give the House that similar practices are not being undertaken throughout the 25 train operating companies, and that they are not being allowed to maximise their revenue and profit at our expense? Will he now accept that there is an urgent need to establish a national rail authority with strong regulatory powers to ensure that we meet the twin objectives of maximising investment in our rail industry and maximising passenger and freight loading, rather than maximising profit to the shareholder at the expense of the taxpayer?
Sir George Young: As the hon. Gentleman may know, there are already two independent regulators of the railway industry, both of whom are involved in the investigations to which I have referred. There was an assumption in the hon. Gentleman's question—and, indeed, in many of his comments—that irregularities of this kind happen only in the private sector. It will be within the experience of many hon. Members that there have been problems within local authorities, housing benefit departments and home improvement grant departments. It is simply not the case that irregularities and the risk of abuse of the taxpayer occur only in the private sector. There are, sadly, all too many abuses in the public sector.
Mr. John Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for pointing out that fraud has occurred in authorities such as Lambeth, Liverpool and other havens of new and old Labour. Will he confirm that there was not just one bidder for this franchise but that others came forward with honourable proposals? Does he agree that commuters are looking forward to improvements in service and that they are fed up with the dead-beat service that they have for too long received from the nationalised British Rail?
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If he examines the detail of the new services being provided by Great Western Railways and South West Trains, he will find real benefits to passengers and commuters from extra services that were not being provided by British Rail and which will be provided at less cost to the taxpayer. It is important to retain a sense of perspective.
As for financial impropriety, my hon. Friend may have seen that today's Evening Standard contains serious allegations of financial mismanagement in the London borough of Islington. It is not the case that problems of this kind occur only in the private sector.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the Secretary of State aware that there are four stations in the borough of Newham at which LTS trains do not stop? One of them is West Ham, which is served by the District line and the North London line and will shortly be served by the Jubilee line, which will provide a convenient interchange to the whole of London. Is he further aware that, when I approached the prospective management of LTS, asking it to stop trains at that station, it declined on the basis that it would lose revenue from there to Fenchurch Street? Does he agree that this state of affairs does not help privatisation or the integration of transport? Will he
22
examine the plan for pooled fares which existed prior to the Transport Act 1947, which would mean proper services for Londoners and would avoid the risk of the accounting problems about which we have been hearing?
Sir George Young: It is worth recalling that there were proposals from LTS to increase off-peak and Sunday services and to offer fares for accompanied children travelling of only 5p. Such services are not currently available, so one needs to look at the broader picture before making a judgment. As for non-stopping trains, the matter was resolved when the passenger service requirements were set. By and large, the present service would have been carried out by the new contractors, and there were no planned reductions in service on that line.
Mr. Richard Tracey: I regret what has happened with the London-Southend-Tilbury line, but does my right hon. Friend share my deep disgust at the blanket conclusions drawn by Opposition parties about the privatisation of rail services? Will he confirm that the South West Trains privatisation in my constituency and the Great Western line privatisation went ahead successfully at the weekend, and that Stagecoach, which is taking over South West Trains, is pledging an extra £3 million to improve passenger services, punctuality and services for the business traveller?
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. Stagecoach made a financial commitment of £3 million to improve stations and provide passenger facilities that are not available under the present regime. This morning, I received from Stagecoach a new passengers charter with performance commitments to increase punctuality on main line and suburban services. It is indeed the case that, under the two franchises that are going ahead, there will be real improvements that will be welcomed by my hon. Friend's constituents and commuters throughout the south-west.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: How does the Secretary of State square his undertaking that there will be a most rigorous examination of the big smell relating to the LTS line with the words of the franchising director earlier this morning at Waterloo station? The franchising director said that he expected the privatisation to proceed on course within three or four weeks. Is not the franchising director prejudging the inquiry, and is not that an indication that both the Secretary of State and the franchising director want to minimise the embarrassment and get on with privatisation, regardless of what is discovered?
Will the Secretary of State tell us whether any employee of British Rail who formed part of the management team has been suspended, and if not, why not? Will the people who put in alternative bids be made aware of the circumstances of the distortion of the bidding process for the LTS line?
Sir George Young: I understand that the commercial director of LTS Rail has resigned and that one other member of staff has been suspended. I made it clear when I answered an earlier question that whether to re-tender for LTS is a decision for the franchising director, which I expect him to make in the light of the investigation that I have announced.
Mr. Mackinlay: He is prejudging it.
Sir George Young: There is no question of that investigation being prejudged. No decision can be taken until the inquiry is completed.
May I say how pleased I was to see the hon. Member at Waterloo station earlier this morning commemorating the inauguration of the first two privatised rail services?
Mr. Toby Jessel: Having got up at 4.30 yesterday morning to join my right hon. Friend on the first privatised South West train, the 5.10 from Twickenham to Waterloo—[HON. MEMBERS: "YOU must have been mad."] Perhaps I was mad, but that is what I did. The train was clean, punctual and comfortable, and my constituents look forward to an improved service. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there are 179 stations on South West lines as against 16 on the Southend line—
Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a very narrow private notice question. I shall be bringing it to a close shortly after those hon. Members who have a direct interest in that line have been called. The hon. Member must now come to the end of his question and make it relevant to the private notice question.
Mr. Jessel: Does not that make the Southend line only one eleventh as important as South West Trains?
Sir George Young: It is always a pleasure to meet my hon. Friend, and it was a special pleasure to meet him at five o'clock in the morning yesterday at Twickenham station and to share that historic first journey on a privatised train service with him. I had the benefit of my hon. Friend pointing out certain local features as we made the journey from Twickenham to Waterloo. My hon. Friend rightly puts the problems before the House in perspective by reminding us of the scale of the service being provided by South West Trains and of the improvements that will take place.
Ms Margaret Hodge: From the perspective of my constituents, the Southend-Tilbury line is of great importance. Barking station provides one of the few interchanges between British Rail and the underground. It is critical that there should be trust and co-operation between rail and the underground for that interchange to function. That trust and co-operation has been challenged by what has emerged this weekend.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have not heard a question from the hon. Lady yet.
Ms Hodge: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the line—known as the misery line—will not be well served if he continues the proposals to privatise it with that particular company? Will he introduce a more transparent mechanism to ensure that trust and co-operation can be built into the final authority for running the line?
Sir George Young: The hon. Lady's constituents want a reliable train service. The prospective franchisees were offering more services than those currently provided, including additional services late at night and on Sundays. We are determined to provide a better service for the nation's passengers and commuters through franchising.
24
The evidence of the first two supports our assertion that the process can drive up the quality of service and reduce the cost to the taxpayer.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Bearing in mind the fact that rail fares have risen by 22 per cent. more than inflation in the nationalised railways, will my right hon. Friend remind the House that fares on privatised lines such as the Tilbury-Southend line, which is of direct interest to my constituents, will be pegged to inflation for four years and to increases equal to or less than inflation in the following three years, so it is vital that the privatisation of that and other lines takes place as rapidly as possible?
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend has rightly reminded the House of safeguards that passengers have not had before on the level of key fares. From January this year, key fares have been capped to the retail prices index, and after three years they will go down by 1 per cent. That contrasts with the 22 per cent. real increase in fares under the last Labour Government.
Mr. Tony Banks: How many more crooks are involved in bidding for franchises in British Rail and how will the Secretary of State know that when the British Rail internal audit machinery has been abolished?
Sir George Young: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on the language that he used in the light of what I said earlier. It would be wrong to prejudge any legal proceedings before the investigation has been completed. Before any franchise is transferred, the franchising director has to be satisfied of the integrity of the management. Other safeguards are built in through the regulator. I am confident that we have the necessary safeguards to protect public services.
Mr. David Lidington: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the investigation into the alleged fraud will not hold up progress on the franchising of the Chiltern line, which is already under way, or prejudice the position of the management consortia that are bidding to make the Chiltern line service still better?
Sir George Young: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. There is no question of halting the franchising programme, which is making good progress. As we speak, 50 per cent. of passenger services by revenue have been let or are under offer. Final bids for next four franchises are due on 1 March. There is no evidence that any other train operating company has been involved in irregularities such as those we have discussed, so it would be wholly unjustified to arrest the franchising programme.
Mr. Keith Hill: On the subject of arrests, will the Secretary of State confirm that the scam would have been worth up to £360,000 a year to the future owners of the private railway company? Will he also confirm that, in future, 12 private railway companies will share their revenues with London Underground and

25
experience the same opportunities for fraud? Can he name a single example of comparable fraud under the publicly owned railway system?
Sir George Young: I can think of several comparable instances in the hon. Gentleman's borough—the London borough of Lambeth.
Mr. Michael Stephen: Can my right hon. Friend confirm a point that appears to have been missed by most Opposition Members—that, when the irregularities occurred on the LTS line, the line was being run by public servants?
Sir George Young: It is certainly the case that the LTS line was being run by British Rail when the irregularities took place.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am now going to move on. I remind the House that we will have a wide debate on these matters on Wednesday.
George Foulkes rose—
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to catch my eye on that, he should do so then.

Points of Order
3.51 pm
Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has a point of order for me because he did not get in.
Mr. Foulkes: I have been waiting since 2.30, so I am grateful. As you will know, Madam Speaker, on St. David's day, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) will introduce a Bill that would give a right to interest on commercial debt. I understand that it has the support of the Government, yet I am told that, at the weekend, the Deputy Prime Minister admitted that, when he was a small business man, he was quite skilful at stringing along the creditors. If we now have an admission from the Deputy Prime Minister that he held off his creditors for as long as possible, is it not an example of hypocrisy— of saying one thing and doing another?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite aware that that is not a point of order, and that he is abusing the time of the House.
Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had any information from the Deputy Prime Minister that he intends to make a statement setting out a changed procedure for the Government paying their bills to outside businesses? Is the right hon. Gentleman advocating that the Government start fiddling their bill-paying by depriving businesses of much-needed income, which could drive them into bankruptcy, something which apparently he has been doing for many years?
Madam Speaker: I have not had any indication that the Government are seeking to make a statement today on that or any other matter. Let me make it clear to those Members who are seeking to raise points of order about statements that we are not expecting any statements today.
Ms Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the private notice question, the Secretary of State for Transport averred that the first service provided by South West Trains was the 5.40 from Teddington to Waterloo. In fact, the first service offered by South West Trains was the 3 o'clock from Eastleigh to Southampton, and it was a bus—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is an interesting point, but it is certainly not a point of order for me. I do not carry a timetable in my top pocket so as to be able to check what the Secretary of State and the hon. Lady are saying.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It relates to the rights of the House and Government consultation documents.
You will be aware that, on Friday, the Government, out of the blue, published a so-called consultation document entitled "Broadcasting Sports Rights: Informing the Debate". As long ago as July 1994, the Select Committee on National Heritage published a unanimous report stating

27
that major sporting events should be protected for the major channels. The Government's response was to state that they proposed to take no action.
The Broadcasting Bill, which relates to the availability of sporting events, has been given a Second Reading in another place. If the Government start consulting on major issues of national policy, the Secretary of State for National Heritage should, at the very least, make a statement on which she can be questioned, especially as the consultation document to which I have referred has all the hallmarks of a paper that has been put together at the last minute. It contains no address to which representations should be sent. There is no reference to a closing date for the sending of representations and no list of the bodies that have been consulted. This is playing politics on the hoof.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman seems to be raising with me a matter that, had he thought about it at the time and had he been aware of it at the time, is really one for the Leader of the House. The hon. Gentleman is seeking a Government statement. He may wish that, as may his right hon. and hon. Friends, but that is not a matter for me. It is for the Government to decide whether Ministers should make statements, and when they make them.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If the Deputy Prime Minister ever comes to you and says, "Can I borrow some money?", will you tell him that you are tough on debt and tough on the causes of debt?
Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman would get very little change from me. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that. I have nothing in my pockets.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is there anything that you can do to dissuade hon. Members from writing works of fiction about our proceedings? A book now being sold— it was written by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie)—more or less suggests that this place is full of Members drinking themselves into oblivion and bonking their eyeballs out. Unfortunately, that is not the position. I feel that we need to be protected from such unfounded allegations.
Madam Speaker: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is quite capable of protecting himself. There is an answer: do not buy it; do not read it.

Policing of London
[Relevant document: Minutes of Evidence taken before the Home Affairs Committee on 17th January (House of Commons Paper No. 155-i.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
3.58 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): When we last debated the policing of London, I placed before the House my vision of what the Metropolitan police can deliver and are delivering for our capital city. My vision was of even more reductions in crime; an even safer city where safer streets improve the quality of life in the capital; and a city where there is a flourishing and active partnership between the police and the public, where individual members of London's public know that they can make a real difference by volunteering to support their local police in whatever way best suits their local needs.
I said that I wanted that to be delivered by a police service that is visible, approachable and predominantly unarmed, and which provides a reassuring presence right across London. I outlined my plans and those of the Commissioner for bringing that about, and the Government's commitment to providing the necessary resources.
Today, just over 13 months later, I want to return to my vision and the success that we are having in making it a reality. I want to take stock of the objectives and achievements of the Metropolitan police in the light of that vision, and I want to explain how they fit into the Government's general strategies for law and order.
I make no apology for beginning with the Met's crime figures. When—as is the case today—the police make major advances, we should celebrate those achievements and ensure that the public know about them. The Government have never accepted, and will never accept, the depressing view that we are powerless in the face of increasing crime, and neither has the Commissioner.
Let us make no mistake: there has been a major breakthrough in stemming what many had predicted was an inexorable growth in reported crime in the capital. The significant falls are precisely where we most wanted them—in the two volume crimes that make up nearly half the crime in London: breaking into our homes and stealing our cars.
Let us look at the figures for the past two years in the Met, to June 1995. Overall, we see the biggest drop in the number of crimes—118,300—since records began. In the second year alone, there were 60,000 fewer recorded crimes in the Metropolitan police district than in the previous 12 months. That is excellent news.
Ms Glenda Jackson: The Secretary of State referred to the figures for recorded crime. Does he agree that a sizeable proportion of the people of London fail to report crimes, because they know that their local police force is overstretched and undermanned, and even if it responds there is very little possibility of a clear-up for that crime?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady should know that one of the offences that has fallen sharply in recent years is that

29
of theft of cars. Indeed, if she had listened to what I said, she would have heard me draw particular attention to that a moment ago. Is she suggesting that people do not report the fact that their car has been stolen?
Ms Jackson: Yes.
Mr. Howard: I think that she is in a fantasy land if that is what she thinks, because she knows perfectly well that to make an insurance claim for theft of one's car, one has to report it to the police. If the hon. Lady thinks that people are not reporting the theft of their cars, I suggest that nothing that she says deserves to be taken seriously. I certainly do not propose to take seriously what she says after that intervention.
The even better news, of course, is that crime is coming down across the country. Whether measured by police recorded figures or the British crime survey, the overall position in the Met is better than outside London. For example, vehicle crime fell by 33 per cent. in the two years to June 1995. That is a drop of 79,200 offences. Theft of vehicles in London has dropped by 39 per cent. in the period from June 1979 to June 1995.
Look at burglary. The Met attacked it vigorously just as we asked it to. The Commissioner's anti-burglary initiative, Operation Bumblebee, used, for the first time, techniques such as intelligence gathering, surveillance and targeting of suspects, which previously had been used only for the most serious crime. The fact is that there have been 8 per cent. fewer burglaries in the Metropolitan district in the two years following the start of Londonwide Operation Bumblebee in June 1993, and a 30 per cent. leap in the number of crimes being solved.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I regularly attend neighbourhood watch meetings in my constituency, which falls within the Ealing and Southall police areas, and I know that the fall in the number of burglaries has given tremendous heart to local people. The police tell me that they have been able to pinpoint and target particular culprits and have them dealt with them, and that partly accounts for their great success. Does that mean that my right hon. and learned Friend's concern for dealing with those people, should they continue in their ways when they are released back into society, is a matter of concern for everyone?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend, who takes a close interest in these matters, is right to cite the targeting of persistent offenders as one of the reasons for the Met's success. Of course, if those offenders are not dealt with properly by the courts, much of the good that the police do will be undone. As my hon. Friend will know, that consideration prompted one of the proposals that I announced in Blackpool last October, which was intended to ensure that persistent burglars were properly dealt with.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: In 1994, 959 burglars were cautioned by the Metropolitan police, and were not prosecuted. I accept that, in the case of domestic family incidents, the police may have had some discretion, but some of those who were cautioned were not prosecuted because the Crown Prosecution Service did not think it worth while. The Home Secretary must tell us whether those people are included in the clear-up rates,
30
and what is the disparity between the use of cautions for burglars by the Metropolitan police and their use by other forces in England and Wales.
Mr. Howard: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has intervened. He made a series of allegations which were reported in the Evening Standard last week, and which disclosed depths of ignorance previously unplumbed even by him.
If the hon. Gentleman had made the slightest attempt to check his facts, he would have discovered, first, that, contrary to what he said, the guidance that I have given is designed not to increase but to decrease the number of cautions given by the police, and that it has had a considerable effect.
Secondly, he would have discovered that the number of cautions given has no effect on the crime figures, because a crime is recorded as a crime, whether a caution, a prosecution or a conviction follows. Thirdly, he would have discovered that whether a caution is given makes no difference to the clear-up figures. Each of the three components of the hon. Gentleman's allegation was completely incorrect.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Howard: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I must then continue my speech.
Mr. Hughes: In his capacity as police authority, will the Home Secretary join me in paying tribute to the success of the Metropolitan police in combating crime in London? Wearing his other hat, will he confirm that that success has been achieved despite the fact that, according to his published figures, the grant to the Met fell this year and is projected to fall again next year? The standard spending assessment has also fallen, as has the capital addition. The Met's resources are now lower than they have been at any time in the last five years.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong, as I shall shortly demonstrate, when I deal with resources. I thank him for his tribute to the Metropolitan police, however.
The latest published figures for burglary were affected by a change in the recording criteria, and appear to show a 6 per cent. increase, but the Commissioner has told me that the more recent figures for the last quarter of 1995, compared with those for the last quarter of 1994—again, comparing like with like—show a fall of 15 per cent. in the number of burglaries of people's homes. That amounts to some 5,000 fewer offences. It seems that Bumblebee is working.
Seven major Londonwide operations to date—-two involving massive joint operations with other forces— have made a significant impact. Under Bumblebee, nearly 4,500 premises have been searched and more than 3,000 people arrested. Property recovered has included firearms, high-performance cars, knives, axes, mobile telephones, forged passports, stolen licences and MOT certificates, computer equipment, jewellery, drugs, cash and electrical goods.
Operation Christmas Cracker—the nationwide Bumblebee on 5 December—was mounted by 12,000 officers from 40 forces across the country. It resulted in

31
nearly 3,500 arrests, and the recovery of property worth around £1.8 million. In the Metropolitan police district alone, 744 properties were searched, 560 arrests made, and £119,000-worth of property recovered. The Met has made a real impact on crime levels, and it is putting fear where it should be: with the burglar, not the innocent householder.
Mrs. Barbara Roche: Operation Bumblebee has undoubtedly been a tremendous success, and great credit is due to the Metropolitan police. Does the Home Secretary agree that much of the credit for the operation goes to the successful initiative that was piloted in my north London constituency, where Bumblebee started? What was important about the initiative, however, was that it relied on a partnership approach with local authorities, my own included. That is what made it a tremendous success.
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for recognising Operation Bumblebee's success. As she will know, I have always laid great emphasis on the importance of partnership between the police and the public, and that includes partnership between the police and local authorities. Of course local authorities have a part to play in these matters.
Mr. Michael Stephen: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend and the Metropolitan police on the reduced crime figures, which are welcome, but will he accept that, as a whole, crime has risen in the past 30 years? Has the problem perhaps been that some of his predecessors, of both parties, have listened far too much to the half-baked left-wing ideas that still appear to be held by Opposition Members, by people in the criminal justice establishment, and even by some judges?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I am far more interested in what is happening now, and in what we want to happen in the next few years, than in what happened in the past.
Bumblebee techniques are now being applied, through Operation Eagle Eye, to mugging—the crime that Londoners fear most after burglary. The Commissioner tells me that the Met's street crime clear-up rate has accelerated past the 15 per cent. target that I agreed with him. He tells me that, before Operation Eagle Eye, at one stage street robberies in London were running at around 850 a week. The increase has now been capped. The figure has already dropped to 500, and the Commissioner tells me that it is still dropping. Over the same period, arrests for street robbery have almost doubled.
It is all the more remarkable that all that has been achieved when the demands on the Met are greater than ever. The population of the Metropolitan police district has risen from 7,260,000 in 1990 to 7,455,000 in 1994. As the Select Committee on Public Accounts heard last November, every year, more than 1.5 million 999 calls are coming in from the public. The Metropolitan police answered 86 per cent. of them within 15 seconds over the past 12 months, and 90 per cent. of them within that time in the past four months.
32
That is well over 10 per cent. better than the Metropolitan police charter target that I agreed with the Commissioner for the force's policing plan. It would be hard to find a better emergency response service in any other capital city in the world.
Mr. Nigel Forman: On my right hon. and learned Friend's points about street robbery and the success that the Met is beginning to have, courtesy of Operation Eagle Eye and such initiatives, will he say a word or two about anything that might be learned of a constructive nature from policing experience in the New York police department? I understand that some interesting experiments have been pursued there, and that a team from the Met is shortly to go there to review the position for itself. Will he say a bit more about that?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right, and I am about to make an observation about New York. Some techniques there are worth examining, and, just a few months ago, I considered them with Commissioner Bratton. But we are too grudging about celebrating success in our own country. Compared with other major cities here and capitals abroad, London is a safe city. Other world capitals have much higher rates.
Commissioner Bratton has made great progress in New York, but, for all the most serious offences, the crime rate there is far higher than in London. For robbery it is three times as high, and for rape it is twice as high. The homicide rate there is 210 per million—10 times the London rate—and most European capitals have homicide rates much higher than that in London. Amsterdam has 84 per million; Stockholm has 54 per million; and Berlin has 39 per million. The rate in London is 21 per million.
Of course there are problems of violent crime in London, as in all capital cities, but the Met is making good progress here, too. In the 12 months to June 1995, recorded violent crime in the Met area fell to 75,300 offences. Compared with the previous 12 months, that represents a decrease of 1,260 offences. That is probably the biggest ever annual fall, and certainly the biggest since the war. The Met figure for the 12 months to November 1995 shows that the rate of decrease is now 3 per cent.
Of course, there is still far too much crime. Every crime is one too many, and we all want to see even more arrests and more detections. But the Commissioner can be justly proud of the spectacular results that he and his officers have achieved. The success of the police in getting crime down deserves our full support.
The police welcome our comprehensive strategy to turn the tables on the criminal. As the Commissioner told the Home Affairs Select Committee last month:
"The pendulum has swung back towards protecting society. The climate within the criminal justice system is more supportive of law and order."
Ms Margaret Hodge: If the record on detection and the prevention of crime is so great in the capital, will the Home Secretary explain why 90 per cent. of Londoners are so concerned about crime in the capital, and why two out of three Londoners believe that crime has got worse over the past few years?
Mr. Howard: It is largely because of the misinformation that is peddled by the hon. Lady and

33
her hon. Friends. They bear a heavy responsibility for the fact that the people of London do not yet understand how much the Metropolitan police are achieving. I hope that the hon. Lady will see the error of her ways, will help us to pay tribute to the Met for its achievements, and will help to reassure Londoners about the extent to which the capital city is becoming a safer place in which to live.
Mr. Richard Tracey: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend intends to cover the issue that I am about to raise, but in case he does not, could he tell the House what the Metropolitan police are doing to combat the crime that worries every capital city in the world—that of drug trafficking, which crime touches the lives of us all?
Mr. Howard: If my hon. Friend will bear with me for a moment or two, I shall certainly deal with that later.
A key part of our strategy is investing in technology. As the Commissioner says, technology has been responsible for many of his current successes. Good and innovative policing cannot be separated from good and innovative technology.
The national DNA database went live in April 1995. The database is revolutionary. It is the first of its kind in the world, and relies on leading edge technology and the most up-to-date DNA techniques. More than 30,000 profiles have been entered on the database already, and more than 300 matches—matching DNA profiles from individuals to profiles from traces left at scenes of crime, and profiles from traces left at one scene with another— have been made in these early months of operation.
The number of samples being sent in by the police, and the already high number of profile matches, speak well for the continued success of the database. I am pleased to be able to announce that the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory has now formally been granted authorisation to contribute DNA profiles directly to the database.
Much of the good and exciting new technology will be on display at the second annual Met technology fair that will take place from 12 to 14 March at the conference centre at 1 George street. I urge all hon. and right hon. Members to call in and see the technology behind Operation Eagle Eye, the new body armour, DNA, livescan fingerprints and the new imaging, mapping, and tracking systems of the police. Also on view will be the much-needed new personal radios that I have approved for the Met, which are already installed in the central area and delivering a much higher standard of officer safety.
Visitors will also be able to see CRIS, the Met's new computerised crime report information system, which starred in a recent episode of "The Bill". CRIS is already working in two areas of the Met, and will be implemented right across the rest of the Metropolitan police district before the end of the year. The Commissioner tells me that CRIS is already showing that it can make a contribution to the upward trend in detections and the downward trend in crime. We all want that downward trend in crime to continue. It requires the on-going commitment to resourcing the police that the Government have always demonstrated.
For the next financial year, like this year, we have agreed that the Met should have a special grant in addition to the money from the new national funding formula.
34
We are giving it £130 million in that way in recognition of its unique national and capital city functions. The Met has unique needs, and we are meeting them. Spending on policing in the Metropolitan police district is well above the national average, and so is the number of officers per 1,000 population.
In total, we are making available £1.65 billion to the Metropolitan police in 1996–97—£20.5 million more than last year and an increase of 86.8 per cent. in real terms since 1979. In addition, we have removed altogether the 2 per cent. ceiling on the amount that the Metropolitan police can carry forward from one year to the next. Due to reductions in its rates contributions, that new flexibility is likely to be worth an extra £25 million to the Met on top of the existing maximum of £34 million that can be carried forward. That gives the Commissioner very substantial extra spending power—worth up to 3.6 per cent. of this year's budget—if he needs it.
Mr. Jack Straw: For the year 1994–95, which is the subject of the debate, will the Secretary of State explain why Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary reported that the strength of the police in the Metropolitan police area fell by 131 officers during that year?
Mr. Howard: I am coming to police numbers in a moment. The hon. Gentleman will know full well that we made substantial extra resources available to the Metropolitan police for 1994–95. As he also knows, the way in which those resources are spent is a matter for the Commissioner. He has the responsibility and discretion to spend that money as he sees fit. We made money available to enable all the needs of the Metropolitan police to be met, including extra officers. It is for the Commissioner to decide on his priorities within that budget.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand the Home Secretary's point about the additional allowance for the Met because of its additional duties. Will he confirm the real-terms increase for normal operational duties—not additional capital duties, for which there is a separate grant—year on year? My understanding is that the real-terms increase this year is less than the rate of inflation.
Mr. Howard: Had the hon. Gentleman been listening to what I said, he would have appreciated that that is completely wrong. What I said—what the truth is—was that, as a result of the various changes, the Commissioner has extra spending power worth up to 3.6 per cent. of this year's budget if he needs it. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that that is in excess of the rate of inflation. That is therefore a significant increase in the budget. The hon. Gentleman's question is based on an inaccurate understanding of the facts.
Ms Hodge: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Howard: No, I have given way to the hon. Lady once.
We should not overlook, either, the Commissioner's substantial efficiency savings, which have been achieved by reducing management overheads through restructuring the force and by civilianisation. Since 1993—this is one of the reasons why the number of officers has gone down,

35
to return to the question put by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), whose attention has strayed elsewhere—the number of officers on the Association of Chief Police Officers grade in the Met has fallen from 52 to 35, and the number of chief inspectors and superintendents from 840 to 594. That is a total reduction of almost 30 per cent. In addition, about 1,000 posts have been civilianised over the same period. What all that means is more officers out on patrol. That is a key part of my vision for the Met—high public visibility of the police.
As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's pledge to provide funding for 5,000 extra police officers is worth an additional £180 million during the next three years, and £20 million in the first year. The Metropolitan police's share of that is £3.4 million. That would have enabled the Commissioner to recruit 149 extra officers. In fact, I understand that he proposes to recruit 180 more officers, and that they will all be out on duty by the middle of this year.
Contrary to some media reports, there is no problem about recruitment. I understand that the Commissioner's latest recruitment round was so successful that the force had to wind down the campaign early, and that the applicants are of high quality.
The Met has also made real progress in attracting more recruits from the ethnic minorities. Nearly 9 per cent. of recruits to the regular constabulary are now from an ethnic background, and the figure for the special constabulary is up to around the 15 per cent. mark, precisely mirroring the ethnic composition of London as a whole.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: We all appreciate the fact that ethnic minority recruitment is improving, but does the Home Secretary acknowledge that there is still a major problem with retention in the Met? Unfortunately, many of the ethnic minority police who are recruited do not remain in the force, so there is still a problem there.
Mr. Howard: I would not for a moment suggest that all is perfect, or that there is no room for improvement— of course there is. The recruitment figures I just gave, however, provide grounds for encouragement, as I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: That is an important point, and the House will be encouraged by the information that my right hon. and learned Friend has given. Does he agree that it is important that the colour of someone's skin should be as important as the colour of their eyes or their hair, and that it should be no more likely a predictor of whether or not they join the police service or become the subject of police attention?
Mr. Howard: I entirely agree and reinforce everything that my hon. Friend said.
So far as the up-to-date position on establishment is concerned, at the end of January this year there were 27,719 officers in the Metropolitan police—around 5,000 more than there were in 1979, and a 22 per cent. increase in police strength—and 16,928 civilian staff, which is over 2,600 more than in 1979. At the end of last
36
December, there were 18,769 uniformed constables, which is almost 600 above the establishment figure. The Met has more police constables than ever before.
Strength has been brought up close to establishment levels. There were 552 vacancies in the Met last month— one tenth of the vacancies in 1979. It is even more encouraging to see that the number of constables increased during that period from 16,500 to 20,833. The proportion of officers allocated to street duty has increased from 26 per cent. in 1984, when such records began, to 35 per cent. in 1995. There are more resources than ever before, and better use is being made of them.
But another and much more precious category of resources is needed for policing. I refer to the personal resources of courage and dedication needed by every police officer, and his or her family, who places the duty to uphold law and order above personal safety.
During the year—for the third time since I became Home Secretary—I had the sad duty of attending the funeral of an officer who paid the ultimate sacrifice that policing can ask from those resources. That officer was PC Phillip Walters, who died tragically last April in a shooting attack, following a call to a disturbance at a private residence in Ilford. More than 3,000 other Met officers suffered criminal violence in the past year. Every one of those attacks disgusts me.
The bald statistics hide a catalogue of valour and personal sacrifice. Let me give an example—one that is not for the squeamish. PC Barry Cawsey, a 28-year-old rugby player serving at Forest Gate, gave evidence— on crutches—last month of how he was treated by two so-called joyriders whom he tried to stop getting away. PC Cawsey was not well placed to make his arrest, but he did his best to get into the vehicle and not be shaken off. "I can't get rid of him," said one of the thugs. "He's holding on too tight". The fleeing joyriders then manoeuvred the vehicle at top speed and crushed PC Cawsey against parked cars. This young officer saw his flesh tear right down both legs and his muscles pulped. Such sacrifices are made by the Metropolitan police on our behalf day in, day out. We should always be deeply grateful for the work done by Met officers.
Ms Tessa Jowell: Will the Home Secretary join me in paying tribute to PC George Hammond, who died recently? PC Hammond was seriously injured 11 years ago in circumstances similar to those that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has described. Despite his incapacity—the officer suffered from kidney failure and other injuries arising directly from the attack—he fought for the retention of the kidney unit at Dulwich hospital. After his retirement from the police, PC Hammond continued to show the spirit that he had shown in devoting himself so selflessly and courageously to serving the residents of Dulwich.
Mr. Howard: I am very glad to join the hon. Lady in that tribute. That was a particularly sad case, and she is right to raise it.
Lady Olga Maitland: Some 2,500 police officers were stabbed by knives or other sharpened implements in the past year alone. Does my right hon. and

37
learned Friend therefore accept that my private Member's Bill, the Offensive Weapons Bill, will go some way to deterring such appalling knife crimes?
Mr. Howard: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, who knows that the Government fully support her Bill.
Attacks on the police such as those we have mentioned demonstrate the need for the best available protection. My policy is clear and simple. Anything that helps to protect police officers and others who face violence on behalf of the rest of us—including changes to the law on offensive weapons, such as those proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland)—must be looked at seriously.
The Commissioner takes the safety of the public and of his officers equally seriously. By the end of next month, all operational officers in the Met will have been trained in the use of the new long batons and the new handcuffs. They will have seen a video, been given a personal handbook and attended specialised training sessions. Once each officer has successfully completed the force tests, he will have issued to him a protective vest to a standard at least as high as anywhere in the world.
In last year's debate, I reported to the House my decision to approve replacements for the traditional wooden police truncheon. As a result, the Met is making good defensive use of the long straight acrylic baton and—for plain-clothes officers—an expanding baton. The Commissioner tells me that there has been a decrease in assaults on his officers since the new batons were introduced, and that is welcome news.
I have also explained the measures that the Commissioner was taking, with my full support, to increase his armed response units and to allow certain officers better access to firearms. Again, the Commissioner informs me that this policy has helped him to reduce armed robberies on business premises, and the use of firearms by criminals. Those measures represented, first, an essential improvement in routine self-defence, and, secondly, a balanced response to the firearms threat in London. In my judgment, they have helped to ensure that we can continue to maintain a predominantly unarmed police force on the streets of the capital.
There remains a gap between the use of a truncheon and the lethal use of a firearm by a specialist team. We need a safe means by which an officer can incapacitate a violent criminal short of hand-to-hand combat. That is why I supported the chief police officers' decision to trial CS sprays, which can be directed at a violent assailant and put him or her out of action. The Metropolitan police is one of the forces piloting the use of sprays. The trials will begin in March, and will last for six months. They will be properly evaluated, and I await the results with interest.
I said earlier that a major part of my vision for the capital, as for the whole of England and Wales, is a flourishing and active partnership between the police and the public. Partnership is not a pie-in-the-sky slogan. It is a central and completely practical part of the Government's approach to tackling crime. It means people—ordinary members of the public and local businesses—volunteering to support their local police in whatever way best suits their local needs; and especially, it is about local solutions to local problems.
38
The new Metropolitan police committee, which I put in place last April to advise me as police authority, has also been busy forming links with the various local voluntary bodies. Sir John Quinton and his committee are all volunteers themselves. They give me good advice, and are well placed to promote partnerships and pursue my approach with the Met.
The best of all possible ways in which the individual member of the public can help his local police is by signing up as a special constable. One of the objectives that I set with the Commissioner in this year's policing plan, following consultation with Sir John Quinton, was a stretching recruitment target of 650 new special constables—384 more than the previous year. The Commissioner and his colleagues have, I know, worked very hard to meet this target, including a local recruitment drive, advertising, improvements in handling applications and a push for specials right across the force. The latest figures show that he has recruited well over 400 so far, and is, I understand, well on the way to hitting the target.
I shall soon be discussing next year's target for specials with the Commissioner. We recently announced a new fund, started with £4 million of Government grant in 1995–96, to help all police forces to expand their recruitment of specials, and to improve their training and recruitment processes. I understand that the Metropolitan police has made a bid for support from the fund.
I am delighted that local businesses and organisations are also recognising the value of the special constabulary. They have done so not only by encouraging their staff to volunteer but also by practical support. For example, Wandsworth special constables have been provided with a car sponsored by a local firm, TFL Motor Group, and Harrods is providing a car for special constables in central London.
In Lambeth, some £5,000 has been given by Brixton Challenge to help boost recruitment following the public disorder there. A cable network company in east London is running an advertising campaign for specials at no cost. Other local campaigns for specials have also, the Commissioner tells me, been helped by reduced advertising rates generously offered by local companies.
Such co-operation and support in London is by no means confined to specials. A whole new crop of partnership strategies is springing up throughout the Met as local organisations gear up to improve life for their neighbourhoods. The kind of partnership that I want between the Met and the public continues to grow in all areas. There are now over 12,000 neighbourhood watch schemes, and 201 business watch and 51 school watch schemes. The Crimestoppers initiative led directly to 266 arrests last year.
Some of Britain's biggest companies are joining forces in business-led coalitions against crime. Household names like Marks and Spencer, Barclays bank, Dixons, Coca Cola, the BBC, EMI, Polygram, the Novotel hotel chain and drinks companies Seagrams and United Distillers have pledged to underwrite new initiatives that aim to make our streets safer.
Partners Against Crime in Hammersmith and Fulham was launched with grants and donations of £140,000. First results of the united front will be seen in two operations to target street crime in North End road in Fulham and around Shepherds Bush Green. Security staff from one of

39
the companies will be involved in the second scheme to monitor closed circuit television cameras in Hammersmith town centre.
Mr. Clive Soley: I am grateful for that comment, because one of the things that had so far being missing from the Home Secretary's speech was greater emphasis on crime prevention. The burglary rate in White City, which is in my area, dropped by 66 per cent. in two years—thanks to no Government funding but to money from the BBC, which was used in conjunction with the police and the local authority. We also got it down in two high-rise blocks in Shepherds Bush, despite getting only a small amount of Government money, using a concierge system, which the Government then refused to extend to the rest of the estate.
Mr. Howard: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman thinks the BBC gets its money. The truth is that there is scope for local initiatives and partnerships of that kind. Not all successes in the fight against crime are assisted by Government money—although it is clear that Opposition Members have yet to learn that lesson. Partners Against Crime is also planning training programmes that are aimed at directing persistent offenders away from crime.
The royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea also has a partnership board, and it has just received £1.6 million in funding from the single regeneration budget. Some of the money has already been earmarked for a closed circuit television system in Earl's Court. There is also a safer cities project in the borough, setting up domestic violence units and dealing with drug-related issues on the Worlds End estate. A CCTV system is again planned, this time for the north of the borough.
Wandsworth has the highest number of neighbourhood watch schemes in London, and their work in partnership with the police is rightly imitated all over the capital. The junior citizen scheme—like the one in Westminster, which was visited recently by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State—aims to teach our children the difference between good and bad citizenship. Wandsworth has a neighbourhood special constable scheme, with recruitment part funded by the council. The number of specials on Wandsworth division has increased by 50 per cent. to 33.
Later this month, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State hopes to meet Mr. David Streven, a member of Wandsworth council staff, who is about to go out on the beat as the first neighbourhood special constable in London. The borough is also funding the introduction of CCTV in two shopping areas.
Mrs. Roche: I am delighted that Westminster is following the excellent example of my borough of Haringey in introducing a junior citizen scheme. Does the Home Secretary agree that London fared very badly from the introduction of CCTV? According to an analysis that I conducted by means of responses to parliamentary questions, it is most worrying that the lion's share of the money went to the constituencies of Conservative Members of Parliament. Can the Home Secretary assure us that London will not be discriminated against in the
40
latest challenge? Will he also consider very seriously the excellent bid by my area, particularly Wood Green high road?
Mr. Howard: I do not accept for one moment that London was treated unfairly in the recent competition. It may have escaped the hon. Lady's notice—I know that she and her right hon. and hon. Friends spend much time in a fantasy world—that Conservative Members of Parliament represent more London constituencies than do Opposition Members. I am very confident that that state of affairs will continue after the next general election.
The use of closed circuit television cameras to detect and prevent crime is also spreading in close co-operation with local authorities and businesses. CCTV is a common theme in many of those initiatives, and it is one of the 1990s' big success stories in the fight against crime. Our investment in CCTV has increased from nothing two years ago, to £5 million last year and £15 million in the coming year.
Some £317,400 was allocated to schemes in the Metropolitan police force last year. Among the more well known are Newham, Wandsworth, Sutton, Enfield, Mitchum, Woolwich and the extensive City of London surveillance system. Our grants are expected to lever in another £667,300 from sponsorship, making a total of nearly £1 million to be spent in the capital under that initiative alone. That is on top of the sum that has already been invested in closed circuit television in Hammersmith and Wandsworth under safer cities schemes, which was also funded by my Department.
Lady Olga Maitland: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on that investment in CCTV. Is he aware that crime in Sutton has decreased by 15 per cent. as a result of his support for the installation of CCTV cameras?
Mr. Howard: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. That result is reproduced in many other parts of the capital.
The Metropolitan police are doing their part. They are included in all seven city challenge programmes running in London, and are an active partner in all eight of London's safer cities teams. They are represented on all 25 of London's drug action teams.
Mr. Harry Cohen: I welcome the Government's action in installing CCTV in order to increase public safety. Will the Home Secretary take on board the recent incident that occurred in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard)? In that case, there was an awful murder in a tower block which had cameras installed at the entrance, but they were so old that they were unable to identify the murderer. Does the Home Secretary accept that, if cameras are to be installed, there is a case for monitoring and updating them regularly, to ensure that they remain in good working order?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support, and I take very seriously the point he makes. That is why we have issued guidance about how to make the most of closed circuit television, how to ensure that the reproduction quality is as high as possible, and how to gain maximum benefit from the expenditure to which the Government are making such a significant contribution.

41
Again this year we have seen tragic deaths arising from the pernicious activities of drug dealers. I have made it a national key objective for all police forces to take action against drugs. In London, I approved the Commissioner's priority to improve performance against drug-related crime. Each of the Metropolitan police's five areas now has a dedicated unit to help divisions target street-level drug dealing. They work closely with their colleagues in the south east regional crime squad, many of whom are seconded Metropolitan police officers, to hit at the source of the problems: the dealers and the importers.
Meanwhile, the Metropolitan police force continues to run successful partnership programmes against drug abusers where there are particular local problems. Operation Welwyn, in the King's Cross area, has set the standard for high profile enforcement activity. Since 1992, Operation Welwyn has led to the conviction of more than 300 drug dealers, trafficking in crack, cocaine and heroin, leading to prison sentences of more than 450 years.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Secretary of State do as the Commissioner does and pay tribute to both the Camden and Islington councils and the local community groups who have made such a big contribution to the success of Operation Welwyn, which was initiated by me and by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)?
Mr. Howard: I am happy to pay tribute to everyone who has played a part in Operation Welwyn. It is very important that all concerned play their role, and I accept that the hon. Gentleman certainly played his part in that initiative.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Home Secretary has paid tribute to all those who have played their part, and he has outlined a whole range of useful initiatives and issues that require co-operation and consultation in London. Does he agree that the work of the Metropolitan police advisory committee might be enhanced if, in addition to his appointees, some members were appointed from police community consultative committees and other associated groups throughout London? Many of the issues we have mentioned could then be pursued in greater detail to everyone's benefit as they occur. Would that not be an improvement on the London scene?
Mr. Howard: I know how strongly the hon. Gentleman holds that view, and I understand the force behind his question. The committee has made contact with such groups and it is working very closely with them. I think that that is a particularly effective way of ensuring that I receive the best possible advice.
Finally, I shall refer to the Metropolitan police force's public order duties during the past year. One of the core functions of any police force is the maintenance of the Queen's peace. That is especially true of the Metropolitan police force, as the policing of major events and demonstrations in the capital has always placed great demands on it.
Some will remember 1995 as the year when serious public disorder broke out again in Brixton. However, they are taking completely out of perspective an isolated local incident that was contained effectively by the local police.
42
I visited Brixton immediately following the disturbances, and it seemed to me that, in many ways, the event revealed the underlying strength of the relationships built up by the police and responsible local people since 1981.
Miss Kate Hoey: I thank the Home Secretary for his remarks. Does he agree that Lambeth has moved forward enormously in terms of the relationship between the local authority and the local police? There is a joint logo for Lambeth council and the Metropolitan police in areas of partnership—which would have been unheard of only a few years ago. Will he pay tribute again to the work that has been done, particularly by the new chief executive, Heather Rabbatts?
Mr. Howard: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I am grateful for the opportunity to pay tribute to all concerned, and to the extent to which things have improved in Lambeth. I am sure that she agrees— indeed, it was implicit in her question—that there was an awfully long way to go from the events and circumstances of a few years ago, but, yes, progress has been made, and I am happy to pay tribute to all concerned.
I especially deplore the attack that was made during the course of the disturbance in Brixton on PC Tisshaw, whom I visited in St. Thomas's hospital the day after he was hurt. His injuries might have been much worse, however, if a section of the crowd had not held off his attackers and made a way through for his colleagues to help him. Those members of the public deserve our acknowledgment and thanks.
The community in Brixton returned to normality remarkably quickly after the disturbance. That was partly due to the excellent relationship built up over the years between the local police and local residents in consultative groups. They spoke to one another and continue to do so, and that two-way communication promotes understanding and makes the job of the police much easier.
What is worth remembering, and is too readily forgotten or not fully reported, is the immense amount of work done behind the scenes by the police to ensure that many public order problems are solved peacefully— another successful and peaceful Notting Hill carnival, another round of new year celebrations in Trafalgar square without serious incident, and the immensely painstaking and successful policing of the VE day and VJ day commemorations. The Commissioner tells me that, thanks to better stewarding and planning, there is much less risk of major disorder at football matches than, sadly, was recently the case.
The year 1995 was an excellent one for the Metropolitan police. The people of London can justly be proud of the policing service they receive, and of their and the police's successes against crime. The Commissioner and I, and the Metropolitan police committee, are committed to improving that service, and to providing even better value for money.
The Government will continue to listen to the people at the sharp end of the fight against crime, and to respond to what they say. We shall continue to ensure that the police and the courts have the powers that they need, we shall continue to invest in cutting crime, and we shall continue to ensure that London and the rest of the country have the best police service that it is possible to provide.
4.51 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: When paying tribute to the bravery of many Metropolitan police officers, the Home Secretary mentioned the appalling injuries suffered by Police Constable Barry Cawsey and the immense courage with which he gave evidence in court. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) mentioned Police Constable George Hammond. I shall open my contribution to the debate by referring briefly to PC Hammond's story.
In 1985, PC Hammond was stabbed with a 12-in knife as he sought to arrest an armed robber during a raid on a sweetshop, and almost died. He had to receive one blood transfusion after another, mainly from blood supplies donated by police colleagues. He spent five months in intensive care and needed a heart bypass, a kidney transplant and an eye operation.
It is understandable that PC Hammond was never able to recover fully from his appalling injuries. He never returned to street patrol, although he was able to take on light police duties, and became a neighbourhood watch co-ordinator. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich, PC Hammond died last month, aged 58. His former colleagues and many representatives of the local community, whom he had served faithfully, attended his funeral, but it received only cursory attention in the national media.
We must never forget PC Hammond and the thousands of Metropolitan police officers who, over the years, have been killed or injured trying to make London a safer place for the rest of us. His story reminds us that, every time they go out on the streets, ordinary beat police officers face as much danger as those in specialist squads, and that, when they are unlucky enough to suffer injury, the trauma can continue for the rest of their lives.
At least PC Hammond survived for some years. As we heard from the Secretary of State, PC Phillip Walters, who was attacked in Ilford in April 1995, did not. He died almost immediately from his injuries and for his family and colleagues the trauma continues, not least because a retrial has had to be ordered of the man accused of his murder.
I pay tribute to the men and women of the Metropolitan police, to all the officers and civilian staff, especially to the 3,623 officers who were assaulted while on duty, and to the further 10,000 officers who received injuries from other causes while performing their duty.
I welcome the Secretary of State's comments about the provision of better protection for police officers in London and elsewhere, including the piloting of CS sprays.
I commend the work of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir Paul Condon, and all his colleagues in continuing Sir Paul's programme of reform to make London's police more effective, responsive and accountable to the people of London. The success of his leadership was amply shown by the way in which he and his officers dealt with the appalling riot and other criminal acts in Brixton in December 1995, and by the way in which the people of the district and the local council overwhelmingly backed the police and refused to be drawn into any continuation of that conflict. As Sir Paul commented the day after:
"It wasn't Brixton that rioted last night, it was a small minority of thugs and criminals".
44
I commend members of the public who intervene to prevent crime or to detain its perpetrators. Head teacher Philip Lawrence, who was tragically murdered before Christmas, was doing no more and no less than hundreds of teachers throughout the capital do daily—trying to keep the peace and instil discipline and good behaviour in a generation of young people who have been brought up in an unruly and, in some cases, violent culture.
As the Secretary of State said, in 1994–95 there was a welcome 7 per cent. reduction in recorded crime in the capital, but that figure masks significant variations in specific crimes and how they were reported.
Partly for reasons that the Secretary of State explained, which are to do with new definitions, burglaries declined by 1 per cent. and arrests declined by 5 per cent. I hope that that does not suggest that the effect of Operation Bumblebee has peaked. Robberies increased by 6 per cent., emphasising the need for specific action to tackle street crime, such as that which the Commissioner has undertaken with Operation Eagle Eye. It is important for all of us to remember and acknowledge that robbery— mugging—is the crime that most causes fear in the minds of men, women and children in London, and that that type of crime has increased three and a half times since 1979.
Although the Commissioner's report contains much good news about the fight against crime, I know that he would be the first to counsel against any complacency.
When the House last debated the policing of London, the Secretary of State told the House that his financial settlement for the Metropolitan police
"will enable the Commissioner at least to maintain present numbers of police officers in London."—[Official Report, 2 December 1994; Vol. 250, c. 1443.]
Despite the fact that the Secretary of State made that promise halfway through the financial year—presumably after discussion with the Commissioner—that did not happen. As the official report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary shows, the number of police officers in the metropolitan service declined in 1994–95 by 131, to 27,480.
I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State say that the Commissioner hopes to appoint more constables, but we shall be very lucky if, as a result of those appointments, the number of officers serving in the Metropolitan police reaches even the level that was last reached in 1992.
The decline in the number of police numbers in London in 1995 gives the lie to the pledge made by the Conservative party before the most recent general election to increase officers by 1,000. In the three years following that pledge, the number went down year on year, not up. It is little wonder that Londoners have lost faith in the Government's ability to tackle law and order, and that crime is the first concern of most Londoners—it is shown by every survey of Londoners' opinion. That that is Londoners' daily experience on the streets of their city is palpable.
As crime has increased and the fear of crime has grown even more, Londoners have had to change their daily routines. In many cases, that has had appalling effects on the quality of people's lives. The number of parents who allow their children to walk alone to primary school has halved in the space of 10 years. Seventy per cent. of parents in a survey recently conducted by Baraardos considered their neighbourhood to be unsafe for their

45
children to play in without adult supervision. All of us with teenage children in London feel constant anxiety about their safety.
Crime and the fear of crime has a devastating, constraining effect on how women, in particular, lead their lives. Elderly women in many parts of London feel trapped in their homes and unable to go out at night. Young women have to be instructed how to walk more safely when out alone. Although that advice is necessary, it adds to anxiety. One in two women drivers feel afraid when driving alone through the inner city.
Mr. Forman: The hon. Gentleman is making important points about fear of crime, because we must differentiate between fear and reality. Does he agree that national and local media could make an important positive contribution by reporting the sentences that courts eventually mete out to persons convicted of crime—often against the person— as fully and factually as they do the original crime? Often, there is an unsatisfactory disparity between the banner headlines given to the original crime and the lack of publicity given to the subsequent court sentence.
Mr. Straw: I agree. One problem is that the media capture the original incident but there is no follow through. As we know, the effects of crime on victims such as PC Hammond can continue for years. It would be advantageous if the press were to report sentences, where they are appropriate or inappropriate, although such is the increasing delay in the criminal justice system that it is months, and sometimes years, after a crime is committed that the perpetrator is sentenced—if he ever gets to court.
Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. Gentleman has been reciting a worrying catalogue of fears about crime. Bearing that in mind, will he explain why he and his party have consistently voted against every Government measure to tighten up the fight against crime? Surely its voting record gives lie to the old claim that Labour is tough on crime. The truth is that Labour is weak on crime and is the criminal's friend.
Mr. Straw: That was an absurd contribution, delivered badly. We will take no lectures from Conservative Members who, during the term of this Government, have presided over the fastest and largest increase in crime under any Administration since the war. Moreover, the factual basis of the hon. Lady's question was entirely wrong. The Secretary of State could, if he wanted to, explain why, in 1988, he voted against a proposal to ban the sale of knives to under-16s, when we voted in favour.
Despite the best efforts of the police, during the past 16 years, there has been more crime, and more people have got away with crime. Recorded crime in Greater London increased by 47 per cent. between 1980 and 1994, while the number of people who were cautioned or convicted fell in absolute terms by 2.5 per cent. I am all in favour of better press reporting of sentences. I am even more in favour of more offenders being caught and punished for their crimes.
Leaving aside cautions, the number of people pleading guilty or found guilty in Greater London between 1979 and 1994 fell by more than one third, or 31,000 offenders. A Home Office research study published last month, "Anxiety about Crime", found that the public were more worried about burglary and rape than about the illness of a family member, road accidents or job loss.
46
As crime across England and Wales rose in the 1980s, the response of some police forces, overwhelmed by the task facing them, was to appear to retreat into concern about serious crime alone. All too often, people who reported non-violent street crime such as theft from cars, vandalism, criminal damage, graffiti or general loutish behaviour were met with a response that appeared to suggest that the police were too busy to deal with their problems. In some cases, the next time residents experienced such behaviour, they saw little point in reporting it.
There must be some scale for determining the resources that the police should devote to the detection of particular crimes. It is plainly right, to take an extreme example, that the top priority for any police force should be the investigation of homicides, which should necessarily involve more effort than the investigation of the theft of a Mars bar from a local sweetshop. For too long, insufficient attention has been given to disorder on our streets and to the powerful connection between unchecked disorder and much more serious crime. The Home Office study found that levels of disorder measured by perceived problems caused by noisy neighbours, poor street lighting, teenagers hanging around, drunks, tramps and drug misuse was predictive of fears about burglary, theft from cars and mugging, and a general feeling of not being safe.
There is some recognition of the connection between crime and disorder by the Metropolitan police and local authorities. It is reflected in the Commissioner's reforms away from a purely reactive, firefighting service to problem-solving, sector policing. It is reflected also in the excellent work of all Greater London local councils in partnership with their local police. The Metropolitan police and London boroughs would be the first to acknowledge that much more needs to be done before there is a significant improvement in the quality of life for individuals and families, and before we rid of the streets of fear.
The existing criminal justice system does not deal effectively with disorder or apparently petty crime. For that reason, last June, I presented, with colleagues, the document "A Quiet Life", which gave Labour's proposals for community service orders and new composite offences of disorder, to give local police and local authorities much more effective powers for dealing with persistent disorder and criminal anti-social behaviour. I am in no doubt that, if those proposals were on the statute book, they would greatly help to improve the quality of life of thousands of Londoners.
I am sorry that, instead of recognising the sense of those proposals when they were first published, Ministers unwisely sought to rubbish them. Eight months later, Ministers acknowledge that existing arrangements for dealing with neighbourhood disorder are wholly inadequate by making proposals for change in the Housing Bill—but they are complicated half-measures, too little and too late. Disorder and quality of life issues do not appear among the Secretary of State's key objectives for the Metropolitan police or other forces. It is time that the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognised the importance of disorder as an issue and the impact that it can have on the peace and quiet of neighbourhoods and on the daily lives of Londoners.
Mr. Cohen: Does my hon. Friend agree that community safety orders could make a contribution to tackling racial harassment, not just in London but throughout the country?
Mr. Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is worth noting that, when we published our community safety proposals, the warmest welcomes came not only from the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales but from the Commission for Racial Equality.
Mr. Barry Jones: My hon. Friend was absolutely right when he referred to the problem of young men hanging around. Does he agree that that is not simply a problem in Greater London, but that there is barely a town or a village in our nation that does not have the same problem, and that the people who suffer the most from it are the elderly and women? There is a fear and a worry abroad. If my hon. Friend's proposals were accepted, that would go a long way towards helping to get rid of the problem.
Mr. Straw: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Ministers do not appreciate that much of the behaviour that causes fear of crime does not feature in the criminal statistics. As loutish behaviour and disorder on the streets have increased, so too, rationally, has people's fear of crime.
Ms Hodge: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the ways in which we could tackle disorder on the streets would be to increase, rather than decrease, police strength? That is why the decline in the number of police officers is so catastrophic for the people of London. Does he further agree that it is not simply police strength, but the cut in overtime that police officers are able to perform, that matters? Some 620,000 hours have been cut from those that police officers walk the streets of London. Does he agree that that adds to the disorder?
Mr. Straw: I accept a great deal of what my hon. Friend has said. She is right to mention the need to increase the number of police officers. I am proud to say that, while the number of police officers in London has increased by 300 a year since 1979, during the Labour Government, between 1974 and 1979, the number increased by 500 a year. Those are the facts.
Mr. Howard: Is the hon. Gentleman talking about numbers or about establishment, bearing in mind that, in 1979, the numbers below establishment were 10 times what they are now? Is he now prepared, at last, to admit that there are more police constables in London than there have ever been? As to his repeated allegations that there was a reduction in numbers last year, when will the hon. Gentleman—if he wants to contribute to honest debate—compare like with like? The strength in December 1994 was 27,611, while the strength in December 1995 was 27,719.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that I was making an allegation about police numbers, but I was not. I was merely reading out the annual report of the chief inspector of constabulary—
48
his own chief inspector—who drew attention to the fact that, in 1994, there were 27,611 officers in the Metropolitan police and that, by the end of year that we are talking about, the number had dropped to 27,480. If the Secretary of State is worried about the fact that that was only a part of a financial year, we can examine the figures for 1992.
The figures provided by the chief inspector of constabulary show that, in 1992, there were 27,812 officers in the Metropolitan police and that, by March 1995, and contrary to the Prime Minister's pledge to increase police officers in London and elsewhere, the number had decreased by more than 300, to 27,480. Those are the facts that have been provided by the Home Secretary's chief inspector of constabulary.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. Everyone knows that police strengths fluctuate at different times of the year. To make a proper comparison, one must compare the same month of two different years. If the hon. Gentleman were to compare December 1994 with December 1995, he would find not a decrease, but an increase. However, I expect that that simple point is too complex for the hon. Gentleman to grasp.
Mr. Straw: One thing we remember from the Secretary of State's time at the Department of Employment was his ability to switch from seasonally adjusted figures for unemployment to the actual figures as and when it suited him. If he has an argument about the figures, he had better take it up with his chief inspector of constabulary. The figures come from the chief inspector's report, and I am astonished—it is now obvious—that the Secretary of State has not even read it.
Mr. David Congdon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: No. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later. I shall deal with the important point raised by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), who mentioned the example of New York. I think that there are lessons that police in London can learn from police in New York, although the two cities have very different levels of overall crime and different political relationships with the police.
The decline in the homicide rate in New York, which has been much talked about, has been matched by declines across the United States. In any event, as the Secretary of State has acknowledged, the homicide rate has decreased from a much higher base. However, I think that the decline in the amount of street crime and disorder, and the palpable sense that people there have of a more peaceful city, can in part be attributed to the measures which Commissioner Bratton and the New York police department have taken—and those measures are worthy of further study.
Mr. Forman: I was listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. He said that those measures are worth further study. That is precisely what the Metropolitan police are doing. Will the hon. Gentleman go further and commit his party in any sense to pursuing the policies that are taking place in New York?
Mr. Straw: Yes. As the hon. Gentleman may know, I too went to New York in the summer to look at the

49
effects of those policies. It is important not to say that everything that happens in a distant city is transferable and automatically better than what is happening here. American police forces have learnt an enormous amount from our police forces, including the London police force, about community policing. As the Secretary of State said, we must not suggest that everything that happens here is worse than what happens in other countries, because, when it comes to policing, what happens here is usually better.
There are lessons to be learned from the policies being followed in New York in relation to disorder and tackling the petty disorder and petty crime that people all too often turn their faces away from, and which the police sometimes say they are too busy to deal with. I am happy to commit my party to tackling those problems.
Mr. Congdon: I should like to refer to the point about police numbers. I was not sure whether the hon. Gentleman agreed with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's statement that, at the end of December, the number of Metropolitan police was the highest ever. Does he agree with that?
Mr. Straw: I cannot agree, based on the report of the chief inspector of constabulary. The number of police officers employed in Greater London was greatest in 1992.
The important issue of juvenile offenders is related to the issue of disorder. As the commissioner's report shows, one half of all offenders in London are less than 21 years old, and one half of those are less than 17 years old. Juveniles in London are responsible for a significant proportion of crime and for much of the disorder on the streets. The criminal justice system in England and Wales is ramshackle at best but, in my view, its defects are nowhere more obvious than in respect of juvenile offenders.
Despite a reduction in the number of cases going before youth justice courts, the delays in cases reaching court are worsening. There are ludicrously complicated rules for the use of secure accommodation, which almost defeated, for example, the police in Mansfield. They certainly defeated the police and social services in Peterlee, County Durham, for a long time. Even where the hurdles of the rules for secure accommodation are overcome, there is a severe shortage of local authority accommodation in which to put young offenders.
Even more worrying is the fact that a bed desk clerk at the Department of Health headquarters in Leeds is daily effectively making judicial decisions and balancing whether one young dangerous offender should be found secure accommodation against the need of the community to find secure accommodation for another young offender.
There is uncertainty about the very concept of criminal responsibility for those who are less than 13 years old, after the House of Lords' recent decision on the concept of doli incapax. That matter is worrying for many of those who are involved in youth justice. I understand, from some of those who are involved, that the decision means that few offenders who are younger than 13 are now even being brought before the youth justice courts. There is a lack of real involvement of parents in the system and a failure to recognise that deficiencies in parenting must be involved in huge amounts of juvenile crime and disorder.
50
In my view, reform both of the juvenile justice system and of the Crown Prosecution Service in London is long overdue. We need a separate Crown prosecutor for London. There must be changes in the criteria that the Crown Prosecution Service uses for bringing cases, clear and enforced time limits on the timetable for cases and an inquiry into the appalling decline in the proportion of cases that ends with a conviction or caution of the offender.
As the reaction of the people of Brixton to the December riots showed, the Metropolitan police, under Sir Paul's leadership and that of his predecessor, have done much positive work to improve relations between the police and ethnic minority communities, including the Asian and Afro-Caribbean communities in Greater London. For example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) mentioned, racial harassment is now treated extremely seriously by the Metropolitan police service, and rightly so, but it is widely recognised that much more needs to be done in the area of community and race relations.
First, there must be renewed efforts not just to recruit ethnic minority officers, but to ensure that they remain in the service. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) was entirely right. During the year, there was a small increase in the total number of ethnic minority officers, to 730 or 2.6 per cent. of total strength, but the Commissioner's report also shows that the Metropolitan police had to run fast to stand still. In 1994, 1,277 ethnic minority officers were recruited, but 1,384 left the service—100 more, and a higher number than the total of all officers who retired at the end of their service. That is plainly unsatisfactory, and suggests, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow made clear, that, although from the outside the service is attractive to ethnic minority recruits, something is going wrong when they get into the service. I know that the Commissioner is very worried about that.
Miss Hoey: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend, but does he agree that, sometimes, there is a deliberate intention by some people—a very small number—from the ethnic minority community to target those young ethnic minority policemen and policewomen and to make their lives extremely difficult? Those young ethnic minority officers need extra support from the police service as well as from the community.
Mr. Straw: I accept that they are sometimes subject to the most appalling—and, in some cases, criminal— intimidation by other members of the community. As my hon. Friend says, that is all the more reason to ensure that ethnic minority officers have much more support that they get at the moment.
Mr. Spearing: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) in expressing concern about that issue. The Newham police community consultative group has discussed the matter and, where there are large ethnic minority populations, groups like that may be able to assist in finding out why the turnover is so great. Is not that yet another reason why those groups should be more closely integrated into the advisory committees that advise the police authority—the Home Secretary?
Mr. Straw: I accept my hon. Friend's comments.

51
Secondly, we should put into proper perspective the likelihood of those from the Afro-Caribbean communities to commit crime. In my constituency, for example, or in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, virtually no crime is committed by blacks, because there are virtually no members of the black communities living in those areas. In parts of London, much of the crime happens to be committed by black males, not because they are black, but because there are large Afro-Caribbean communities in those areas and a proportion of those communities—as in white and Asian communities—engage in crime.
A recent Home Office research study called "Young People and Crime", which contains the most thorough analysis of the question this decade, suggested that there is no difference between the propensity of the black community to commit crime and that of the white community. The report shows that the cumulative participation rate in crime by young people is 44 per cent, for whites, 43 per cent. for blacks and, as it happens, 30 per cent. for Indians, 28 per cent. for Pakistanis and 13 per cent. for Bangladeshis.
The report raised another issue, which may be a small one, but it shouted at me when I read it. The Commissioner reported that, during the year, two officers died and 883 officers were injured on duty in road traffic accidents. By definition, police officers do much more mileage in more dangerous circumstances than members of the public, but on my rough calculation a police officer is 50 times more likely to be involved in a road traffic accident and receive an injury than an ordinary member of the public in Greater London. That must be a matter of serious concern for the police and the public.
It is no accident that the New York police department has been able to show such sensitivity to public opinion about crime and disorder. The police service in New York is accountable to the people of New York. There is, however, no similar accountability to the people of London for the running of their police service. This debate is the only formal occasion for the House to hold the Home Secretary, as the police authority for London, to account.
Despite the Home Secretary's profession of concern for policing in London, this debate is taking place 10 months after the year that we are discussing. Between 1992 and 1994, there was no debate at all on policing in the capital. All that would have been different if the Secretary of State's predecessor had implemented a pledge that he gave the House in March 1993:
"to establish for the first time a police authority for the Metropolitan police on the new national model separate from the Home Office and with essentially the same tasks as police authorities elsewhere."— [Official Report, 23 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 766.]
Six weeks after the Home Secretary made that statement, there was a new Home Secretary, and six weeks later there was one of the fastest U-turns on records. The Home Secretary revealed that Londoners were not to be trusted with a democratic say over the running of their police service.
Instead, Londoners have had foisted on them a new, toothless quango—the Metropolitan police committee. Even the Conservative representative on the joint London Boroughs Association and Association of London Authorities delegation to the Home Secretary called the
52
procedure for making appointments to the committee astonishing. The committee meets in private, its minutes are confidential to the Home Secretary and, despite the fact that it began to meet during the year 1994–95, no report of its work has yet been published. That is no way to treat Londoners or their police.
The Commissioner is on record as saying that he would prefer a proper, democratically based police authority for London, and the Commissioner is right. The only coherent excuse that the Home Secretary has given for refusing a police authority for London is
"The Metropolitan Police have unique national responsibilities";
and
"the national interest in the work of the Metropolitan police makes it right tht the Home Secretary should remain the police authority for London"—[Official Report, 28 June 1993; Vol. 227, c. 666.]
There is national interest in the work of all police forces. That does not mean that the forces of Kent or Lancashire should be centrally controlled. Nor should it be so in London. Most crime in London, as elsewhere, is local. It is only right that local people in London should have a proper say in the policing of their communities.
The Home Secretary's separate argument in favour of the current arrangements is that the Metropolitan police service has certain national functions that make it different from all other forces. The Home Secretary knows that it is the opinion of senior officers at New Scotland Yard, as it was of his predecessor as Home Secretary, that those national functions could easily be ring-fenced in the short term and continue to be subject to separate accountability. In the longer term, those national functions may in any event come under new national policing arrangements, as was suggested when the House discussed the Security Service Bill recently.
I pay tribute again to the Metropolitan police for the difficult job that they do so well. During the past 15 years, they, like the community they serve, have been engulfed by an epidemic of crime and disorder. Although Greater London has only one eighth of the population of England and Wales, a huge proportion of the nation's serious crime occurs here—one third of all rapes, half of all armed robberies and an estimated three quarters of all illicit drug dealing.
In the past 15 years, the crimes that cause the greatest fear among the people of London—crimes of violence— have increased much faster in Greater London than elsewhere and 90 per cent. of Londoners are deeply concerned about the level of crime in their city. More seriously, two out of three Londoners believe that the crime and disorder that affects them will get worse. It is no wonder that the people of London reject the complacency of the Secretary of State and feel unsafe under this Government.
5.29 pm
Sir Michael Shersby: My constituency is situated in the Metropolitan police district. Our annual debate on the policing of London provides me with a valuable opportunity to speak on behalf of the people who elected me to Parliament. Uxbridge is situated in the London borough of Hillingdon, which is an outer-London borough. Of course, the problems experienced by the Metropolitan police service in Hillingdon are rather different from those in some of the central-London boroughs about which we have heard a good deal this

53
afternoon. I want to tell the House about some of the matters that concern my constituents, who live in an outer-London borough.
I should declare that I am parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales and my appointment is in accordance with the Police Acts of 1964 and 1972. I congratulate the Commissioner, Sir Paul Condon, and the men and women of the Metropolitan police service on their outstanding performance. I also pay tribute to the special constabulary and the civilian staff.
It is clear from my experience of dealing with police matters in my constituency and in central London, that there is no question whatsoever of the Metropolitan police service being engulfed by crime, as the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) suggested.
I pay a personal tribute to the bravery of the late Police Constable Phillip Walters, an unarmed officer who lost his life doing his duty to protect the people of London and I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Blackburn. We shall not forget PC Walters and other officers who gave their lives to protect the people of our great city.
In the past year, the Metropolitan police service has prevented many households and businesses from being burgled and robbed. By targeting known offenders and putting them under constant fear of being caught, it has brought much-needed relief from the misery experienced by my constituents in outer London who have lost treasured possessions. The Commissioner's report reveals a 20 per cent. reduction in burglary against a target of 15 per cent. That is a creditable performance and, together with the success of the Operation Bumblebee roadshows, it has demonstrated to the public the huge range of property that the service has recovered. In addition, the Londonwide co-ordinated searches that were carried out in June and December 1994 resulted in no fewer than 1,279 premises being searched and 987 people being arrested.
Members are keenly aware that the business community also suffers considerably from crime. Businesses welcome the drop in robbery, which causes disruption of their work and a threat to employment. The fall in robberies from 1,068 in 1983 to 644 in 1994 demonstrates the progress that has been made in dealing with that criminal activity.
One of the slightly new aspects of crime against businesses in London is the theft of computer chips. The new Bumblebee for Business campaign was launched in March, and I hope that it will be successful in dealing with that problem. When a firm loses the ability to use its computer equipment, its activities often come to a peremptory halt. I would be interested to hear from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, when he replies to the debate, what success the Metropolitan police are having in dealing with that aspect of crime against the business community.
The public has been cheered to learn of the success of Operation Bumblebee and Operation Christmas Cracker, in which the Metropolitan police and some 40 other forces took part. It resulted in several thousand suspected burglars, robbers and receivers of stolen property being arrested in the early hours of a December morning. I say "Well done" to the Metropolitan police and all the other forces concerned. That operation cheered up many people that morning.
54
The Metropolitan police dealt with more than 8,700 firearms offences during the year. The Commissioner's report reveals that shots were fired at the police on 16 occasions and that they recovered 3,305 guns and more than 74,100 rounds of ammunition. The number of officers attached to specialist firearms units increased by 50 per cent. What research is the Home Office carrying out into the source of the guns which now find their way on to the streets of London and other towns and cities? Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the customs arrangements at our ports of entry are sufficiently good to detect many of the firearms that are imported and used against the police and the law-abiding community?
One important factor in the success of the Metropolitan police is the setting of targets identifying the risks that the police should be tackling. The targets are formulated first by my right hon. and learned Friend, who identifies the tasks of police forces throughout the country. Those are the key objectives. Secondly, there are specific requirements for policing the capital city and the surrounding area, such as the outer London boroughs where my constituency is located.
I very much appreciate, as I am sure do other London Members, the opportunity to have an input to the targets that the local police set for the year and to be consulted by the divisional commanders in the areas concerned. My views are based partly on my local experience, as I know what my constituents are thinking, and I am a member of the Hillingdon community and police consultative committee. I want to illustrate the great value of that and other identical committees in the Metropolitan police district. It would be useful if their profile could be raised. They get very little coverage nationally, perhaps because they work in partnership with the police rather than criticise them.
In Hillingdon, a genuine dialogue has been established between the various community organisations represented on the committee and the police. Senior officers, including the divisional commander, attend meetings and brief the committee on local crime statistics, covering problems ranging from drinking in the streets to the need to increase closed circuit television in the town centre. Ethnic minority community organisations are represented and can express their specific concerns. A regular newsletter is published covering the many issues that are raised, so that everyone in the community knows what is going on. Those committees do a good job and deserve the thanks of the House for the opportunity that they provide for real dialogue and co-operation between members of the community and the police service in the Metropolitan police area.
My local group, together with local authorities, also developed a community safety strategy with the full participation of the police. That shows what can be done by the various agencies to tackle crime and, above all, the fear of crime. In fact, Hillingdon is a safe place in which to live, but people still fear crime. The opportunity to try to deal with that fear is extremely valuable to the community. It meets the point made by the Commissioner that the police alone cannot eliminate crime and that more needs to be done jointly.
Closed circuit television, which has been installed in Hillingdon, is a good example of the police, the Government, the local authority and, in Hillingdon's case, the British Airports Authority, working together for the benefit of the public. In response to the Home Office

55
competition, the local crime prevention adviser suggested that the group should target local problems at five small shopping parades. As a result, the council was successful in obtaining a grant as well as financial backing. Following the installation of CCTV, there has been a dramatic fall in the number of 999 calls. That has happened in areas where cameras have been placed. It is interesting that there is no evidence of criminal activity being transferred elsewhere in the borough. There will, of course, have to be longer-term monitoring to ensure that the preliminary conclusions are correct.
I believe that Uxbridge needs CCTV in its town centre. I have suggested to the leader of Hillingdon council that the authority should enter the next bidding round with the intention of securing money to make that possible. There should be a cross-party, united approach to tackling crime. That is why I am happy to support the work of the local community and the police consultative committee.
As we have heard this afternoon, much of the crime in the Metropolitan district has been attributed to young people. As with many issues, it is only a minority of young people who commit criminal offences, or just cause a nuisance. An effective way of engaging the interest of young people and diverting their energies into a positive direction is the provision of youth services and ensuring that there are active voluntary bodies of every sort. Unfortunately, resources for such services, both in terms of money and people, are scarce.
It is interesting to reflect that, in 1996, the level of voluntary activity is much less than it was 40 or 50 years ago, when many young people rose to the challenge of belonging to an organisation such as the boy scouts or the Boys Brigade. As we have heard from Opposition Members this afternoon, too many young people are hanging around the streets with nothing much to do. I put it to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that there should be a national effort to harness both money and people to the task of tackling youth crime.
Mr. Howard: I am not sure that I want to get into an argument with my hon. Friend about the extent of voluntary activity now compared with 40 years ago. Is he aware, however, that a survey demonstrated that the amount of voluntary activity over the 1980s increased by about 15 per cent? There is therefore a substantial body of evidence to suggest that the amount of voluntary activity taking place now is greater than 15 or 20 years ago.
Sir Michael Shersby: I am interested to hear what my right hon. and learned Friend says. It appears to me, however, and to many people in my constituency, that the voluntary activities that are available for young people may not be entirely appropriate to divert them from standing on street corners. They need a challenge. They need something to persuade them that there is a worthwhile task to undertake. It seems that they are not being offered that challenge in quite the way that they should.
I have always felt—this is a hobby horse of mine and I shall not bore the House with it for long—that we need something like a royal rescue corps, which young people could join to be trained. They would have the opportunity,
56
for example, to deal with civilian disasters. It worries me that so many young people do not have skills in first aid and self-survival, which were routine forms of training when I was a teenager.
Mr. Paul Boateng: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the scouts, the guides, the Boys Brigade and the Duke of Edinburgh's award scheme all have an important role in encouraging young people to participate in the community within a disciplined context? It is a tragedy that these organisations increasingly find themselves under pressure because of the collapse, in many London boroughs, of the youth service, which is hopelessly under-resourced and desperately seeking new resources. I note that the Home Secretary is making a comment from a sedentary position. However, if he talks to scouts and guides, they will tell him what I have described. Should we not do something about it?
Sir Michael Shersby: All the organisations that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned are doing an extremely valuable job, but we need more men and women in the community who are prepared to give their time voluntarily to exercise leadership skills. I have in mind the many men and women who have left the armed forces over the past few years, who have exactly those skills. I hope that they will find their way into voluntary organisations, which in my view stimulate the community to do something, and not the more bureaucratic, centrally controlled youth service.
As we note from the Commissioner's report, the police have made huge strides in reducing car crime throughout the Metropolitan police district. In Hillingdon, however, such crime is still a matter of great concern. In 1993, there were 6,281 thefts of or from vehicles and 2,427 cases of criminal damage to vehicles. These figures are to be compared with 75 robberies of people in public, 42 thefts from people by bag snatchers or pickpockets and 2,286 burglaries from dwellings. The figures illustrate the difference in criminal activity in an outer-London borough from that in an inner-London borough.
As a matter of interest, Hillingdon has the highest car ownership of any outer-London borough. It is a very prosperous area, of course. It seems clear that even more needs to be done by manufacturers and insurers to make vehicles more secure. I fully endorse the Commissioner's comments to that effect.
The knife culture is a terrible problem for those who live in the Metropolitan police district. In my judgment, it can be dealt with only if the police have the necessary powers to stop and search. We know that new provision was made in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to permit the stopping and searching of suspects in circumstances where a senior police officer gave authority for that to happen in a specific geographical area. Unfortunately, we do not yet have any detailed information about the extent to which those powers have yet been used. I hope that, when the details are known, they will be made available quickly to the House.
The murder of the headmaster of St. George's school, Maida Vale, highlights the need for urgent action to be taken by Parliament. I represented the Maida Vale ward when I was a member of the Paddington borough council. I know St. George's school and the surrounding area extremely well. I welcome the provisions set out in the

57
Offensive Weapons Bill, which has been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said that the Government will be giving their full support to the Bill, which received an unopposed Second Reading only a few days ago.
I must ask myself whether the Bill's provisions will be enough to ensure that our highly trained police officers are able to stop and search people, often young people, who they believe may be carrying a concealed weapon. The Bill's provisions are probably valuable but are not quite enough to ensure that the job is done. That is not in any way a criticism of my hon. Friend or the provisions of her Bill. Perhaps she will not mind me saying—I say this with the benefit of some knowledge gained through working with the police in the past six years or so—that what is really needed are provisions similar to those that exist in Scotland. I fully realise that it is difficult and that it is a sensitive matter to consider giving the police in England the same powers as the police in Scotland, but it would be valuable if my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues directed their thoughts to the possibility of reducing the level of suspicion that a police officer must have before stopping and searching a suspect.
At present, in England, an officer must be satisfied, in accordance with strict criteria laid down under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, that a person has on him or with him a prohibited article before searching that person. If the officer searches and is wrong, he can be exposed to an action for civil damages. That deters the searching of suspects in a number of cases. Those inhibitions do not appear to exist in Scotland.
Although I understand just how difficult it is to make such a change, because of the sensitivities of the ethnic minority community in England, I believe that it should be considered. The support of the ethnic minority community should, in my view, be sought. After all, members of that community are as much at risk from being stabbed with a knife as anyone else. Every citizen has to trust the police to use their powers fairly. Unless that trust is given, the problem of knives will not be overcome. I hope, therefore, that some sensible modification of the PACE rules can be considered. I believe that that, taken with the provisions of my hon. Friend's Bill, could bring an end to the knife culture.
We have an outstanding report from the Commissioner and his colleagues. I wish them every success in the year ahead.
5.51 pm
Miss Kate Hoey: I am pleased to have this opportunity to say a few words about policing in London, and particularly in my own area.
We have heard about the startling increase in reported crime in recent years, notwithstanding any isolated decrease in a particular period. I shall not go through the statistics, which we can all cite, about the increase in crime or the decrease in some areas. Something on which we can all agree is that we are all aware, from our constituency surgeries, letters and personal contacts, that the fear of crime continues to grow.
Policing is a major issue in my constituency— containing, as it does, a part of Brixton. Any comparisons between the disturbances on 13 December and the riots
58
of 1981 and 1985 are utterly bogus. Last December was not a spontaneous reaction by the local community to allegations of oppressive policing; it was incited by a tiny criminal minority and was joined by opportunistic looters, white and black, and a small number of people who were caught up in the hysteria of the moment.
I understand that, on 23 November, a successful anti-drugs operation was mounted in Brixton, and that a small number of people involved in the drugs trade were angry about that. It is widely felt that the unhappiness among drug dealers was a factor in the outbreak of violence against the police on 13 December. Local people and businesses in the area where the drugs raid took place were delighted with the action of the police, and I hope that the authorities will proceed and succeed in their efforts to prosecute those responsible, including anyone found guilty of incitement to riot.
Police and passers-by were attacked, cars were set alight and small businesses were looted and burnt. When I visited, it was heart-breaking to see businesses that had been built up over a number of years simply vanish overnight, particularly those of small traders who could not afford insurance or had not insured themselves. Buildings containing the offices of the community police consultative group and the publication The Gleaner were also subjected to arson attacks.
As I have constantly made clear, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) and hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, the vast majority of the community in Brixton—black and white—utterly condemn the violence. I hope that the Home Secretary will continue to commit himself to redoubling efforts to improve relations between the police and the local community after the tremendous efforts and successes of recent years. I hope that the Minister of State and the Home Secretary will also join me in recognising that Brixton is a bright and thriving area which is on the up. It is a part of London that is rightly attracting more businesses and inward investment.
The legitimate demonstration, which I believe was hijacked on that evening, concerned the death in custody in Brixton of Mr. Wayne Douglas, which came soon after the death in custody at Vauxhall police station of Mr. Brian Douglas—no relation. Deaths in police custody are a genuine concern for many, particularly in the black community, and that must be recognised. I am pleased that a working group to address that issue has been established in Brixton, containing members of the Lambeth community police consultative group, the Metropolitan police and the Police Complaints Authority. I hope that the Home Secretary will consider seriously any report or recommendations that come out of that work.
I make a suggestion that might well assist in allaying the concerns of the community following a death in police custody. It could be in everyone's interest for the police officers involved to be suspended from duty during the subsequent investigation by the independent Police Complaints Authority. Such a routine suspension would not prejudge any investigation or reflect in any way on the officers, but it would help to reassure the public. Great difficulties result from misinformation, which spreads around the community very quickly indeed.
It is in all our interests to speed up the process of the Police Complaints Authority. Although we must have respect for due process, there is concern at the length of

59
time that it takes to investigate such incidents. There is concern at the way in which information is released, how little of it can be released, when it can be released, and to whom. There are problems with the work of the coroner and the way in which coroners are involved. There is also the problem of the subsequent consideration of prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service.
As well as paying tribute to the people of Brixton for their resilience and determination to continue to build a better community, I wish to comment on the contribution, in the aftermath of December's disturbance, of Nicholas Long and Lloyd Leon, the chair and vice-chair of Lambeth community police consultative group. The local council adopted a most responsible tone when it dealt with the situation, with the chief executive and the leaders of the political groups on the council all determined to speak with one voice.
Such a display of consensus would have been unthinkable in the past, when Lambeth was the last council in London to refuse to join the community police consultative group. I hope that the Home Secretary—and also Conservative Members who are quick to use the borough of Lambeth as a way of getting at the Opposition—will recognise the great leap forward that Lambeth has made, especially the new chief executive, Heather Rabbatts, and various councillors, particularly Jim Dixon, who deserve recognition for their commitment to driving forward that progress.
I hope that the Home Secretary will also recognise the innovative collaboration between Lambeth council, the Metropolitan police and the community police consultative group in developing a multi-agency approach to a range of issues affecting the quality of life in the area. The project was formally launched in November. As I said in an intervention on the Home Secretary's speech, I believe that, a few years ago, it would have been inconceivable for the logos of the Met and Lambeth council to appear in the same heading, on documents committing the two organisations to working together.
The purpose of the partnership is to further that multi-agency approach. It will focus on tangible results. Work is already under way to improve the service given to victims of domestic violence and racial attacks, to tackle noise pollution, to see what can be done about bullying in schools and to establish joint strategies to deal with the perennial problem of prostitution. A police inspector has been seconded to the partnership, and for the next three years will work in the town hall alongside council officers.
At the launch of the partnership on 9 November, Brixton divisional commander Peter Clarke said:
"It is a partnership that will harness the energy, optimism and diversity that make Lambeth such a vibrant and exciting place in which to live and work. We must put the past behind us and move forward together in a new spirit of trust, co-operation and understanding."
The partnership will also help to tackle the serious problem of street drug dealing in the centre of Brixton. For too long, Brixton residents have had to put up with blatant drug dealing, and the violence that accompanies it. Innocent members of the public have literally been caught in the crossfire. There has been a series of long-term operations, using undercover police and new technology, to ensure the integrity of evidence presented to the courts.
60
The latest operation, which I mentioned earlier, took place in Coldharbour lane in November. It had the support of the community and drew many expressions of thanks from residents and traders whose lives had been disrupted. The enforcement effort will now be backed up by better street lighting and closed-circuit television in the town centre, financed by Brixton Challenge. That has come about as a direct result of collaboration between the police, Brixton Challenge, Lambeth council and the community.
The Lambeth safer cities project is yet another example of multi-agency work succeeding in practice. Like other hon. Members, I hope that the Home Secretary will look favourably on applications for funding for more CCTV in my area: I do not think that he will find an area in greater need of that extra security.
I have one gripe, which is infuriating, and which I am sure is shared by many other hon. Members. Just when an area is becoming used to the police officer in charge, and just when that officer is becoming used to the area, building up work in the community and getting to know the nuances of that community, he or she is moved on. I see that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) agrees.
I regret the departure of Superintendents Gallipeau and Wilson, and the fact that Superintendent Clarke is leaving Brixton after so short a time, albeit because of a well earned promotion to the rank of commander. I welcome his successor, Superintendent Peel, to the area, but I question the wisdom of moving Superintendent Godsave from his post at the same time. I had hoped for more consistency at such a crucial time for community-police relations in Brixton.
I hope that our other superintendents in Vauxhall, Superintendents Rees and Matthews, are not about to disappear as well. I have brought the matter up before, but I am never given a satisfactory answer. Of course members of the police force must be promoted and move on, but I think it misguided to keep them in an area such as Brixton for no more than just over a year. I also think that there should be informal meetings enabling Members of Parliament and community representatives to discuss who will replace the officer who is being moved. That would be one of the benefits of the establishment of a police authority for London, which my party supports. More sensitivity and continuity are needed in the appointment of divisional commanders.
There is no reason why Londoners who want their own police service should be treated differently from people in any other part of the country. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point when he winds up. Why should we in London not benefit from the same democratic accountability as the rest of the country?
I also feel that appropriate value should be placed on the role of experienced senior police constables acting as community or beat officers. Police constables in my area, such as Barrie Critchley, Alastair Reid and Mike Lacey— who have worked at the forefront of beat and community policing for a long time—do tremendously good work in building and maintaining links with residents and the business community. I also pay tribute again to PC Dunne, who gave his life in the service of our community. The anguish with which local people reacted to his death showed how strongly they feel about their community policemen and policewomen.

61
A rapid response is essential. Although we shall never see a policeman on every corner, so long as we have dedicated officers such as those I have mentioned, people will feel more in touch with the police—especially when they observe the energy, devotion and time that many young and, indeed, older police constables put into the running of initiatives such as the Lambeth summer project. Much of that work is done in their own time, and their dedication to local people bodes well for the future. The Lambeth summer project enables young people to see what is involved in working with policemen and policewomen. I also pay tribute to the continuing work of the excellent neighbourhood watch schemes in my area.
The role of sector working parties has already been mentioned. They can play an important role in allowing the community to deal face to face with officers policing their area, and to tackle problems on their estates directly. I especially welcome the excellent working party in the Waterloo area, which has involved not only the local community, businesses and traders but Waterloo station and the transport police, and, indeed, everyone with an interest in the area.
Various police operations are of particular use to my constituents. Operation Bumblebee has been tremendously successful in targeting burglaries. In Brixton alone, some 500 fewer burglaries were reported in 1995. Operation Eagle Eye has been controversial, and I know that the community police consultative committee is concerned about the amount of information and statistics being supplied by the Commissioner. Perhaps he and the Home Secretary will take that concern on board.
It should be stated openly and repeatedly that Operation Eagle Eye is not a random stop-and-search exercise. It involves the targeting of the tiny number of persistent offenders who are responsible for the vast majority of muggings. The police would do the community a disservice if they did not target that particular crime, which I know is of great concern to my constituents. I broadly support Operation Eagle Eye for that reason. The great majority of people have no sympathy with muggers; like me, they are more interested in the rights of the victim than in those of the criminal.
I express genuine disillusionment with the level of co-ordination between the various regimes in which many different agencies with an interest in community safety must work. It is a positive step that those agencies are working more closely than ever before, but that is not enough. As legislators, we must recognise that the systems within which we expect those different agencies to work are not compatible. One local case that I am dealing with—this draws on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)— involves regular meetings between the police, social services and the local housing department on how one young thug can be stopped from making the lives of a group of elderly residents in a sheltered unit a misery.
There are delays in the system. Despite arrest after arrest, there still seems to be no way of keeping that young thug away from the people whom he has been harassing until he reaches the magic age of 18 and an injunction can be sought. Meanwhile, the unlucky residents are being failed by the system. It is simply not good enough that in this day and age, with all our technology and sophisticated systems, we cannot stop a small number of young people causing misery to so many others.
62
Noise nuisance is another example. We all know that it is a terrible problem in London. Even with the best will in the world among the various authorities, the existing statutory framework is inadequate to enforce the law. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn has espoused some constructive ideas for changing the statutory framework for dealing with noise nuisance and other anti-social neighbour behaviour. I hope that the Home Secretary will realise the sense of those proposals. I welcome the private member's Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on noise nuisance, and I hope that it will reach the statute book as quickly as possible.
Overall, we need a more co-ordinated approach, not simply to the way in which existing agencies work together, but in reviewing the regulations and laws that govern their actions. We can all define the problems, but unless we give the police and others the tools for the job, the solutions that we want will not be delivered.
I put on record again the improvement in the London borough of Lambeth, in the work of the local authority and the police, and in the workings of the community police consultative committee. I pay tribute to the dedication and commitment of all the Metropolitan police officers working in my borough. We know that there will always be bad apples—they even exist in Parliament— and we must get rid of the bad apples in the police and, indeed, in Parliament, but that does not mean that the police overall are not working extremely hard and in an extremely dedicated fashion to help the people of my borough.
We want our police service to improve and to be given the support and recognition that it needs, because without that police service we shall all feel much less safe in London. I welcome the progress that has been made, especially in my borough.
6.12 pm
Mr. Roger Gale: I greatly appreciate this opportunity to thank the Metropolitan police. In the past year, with the Met police, I have been privileged to pilot the police and Parliament scheme, which is born out of the successful Parliament and Armed Forces Fellowship and the Industry and Parliament Trust. During that time, I have been allowed to spend some 25 days with the Met, both at Scotland Yard and out in the suburbs.
I have been out on patrol with the police. I have sat with them in the charge room. I have been allowed to hear their private conversations in their canteens. I have visited the police scientific research and development unit near St. Albans and the air support unit at Lippitts Hill. I have witnessed public order training and crowd control. With my own eyes, I have seen some of the grim evidence available in the paedophile unit at Scotland Yard.
I have spent time with flying squads, special branch, surveillance and intelligence units, the traffic police, the fraud squad at Holborn, the firearms unit and the murder squad. With the Federation Against Copyright Theft and the Met police, I have been out on a raid against a pirate video factory. I have also spent a day with the river police. I do not wish to see again—but appreciated at the time— the pictorial evidence they have of their work.
I have also spent time seeing the less glamorous, more mundane, but equally vital operations undertaken by the people who support those running the computer data bases

63
for the police. They provide the information that the men on the beat need to do their job. I expect that every hon. Member would wish to join me in offering a vote of thanks to the civilians and police who are engaged in anti-terrorism, in protection and in explosives disposal. Much of our safety depends on their work.
I am grateful to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and to all those at Scotland Yard who have made that experience possible, to Bill Troke-Thomas, to all the men and women on his team at Ealing and Acton, and to the others who have worked hard to make the pilot scheme both informative and challenging. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be able to learn from the scheme—as, I hope, I have done—both in the Metropolitan police area and, most probably, in county forces.
I have a general impression, as hon. Members would expect, of a highly professional, dedicated, hard-working and fair police force. It does its best to make the most of sometimes limited resources, in the knowledge that the modern criminal is sometimes using more sophisticated electronics and communications systems than are currently available to the police. They and the people who resource them are working hard to correct that.
In the past year, the Metropolitan police force has had to accommodate change in structures, while at the same time waging its war against crime. The results have been impressive. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary outlined some of them earlier. Operation Bumblebee has led to a fall in recorded burglary of many per cent. In the past two years, there has been the biggest fall in recorded crime for 40 years.
The other thing I have learnt—of the many things I have learnt—involves the dangers that the men and women of the police force face from the effects of alcohol and drug-related crime. In April last year, Police Constable Steve Collins, a young man whom I had met at his police station only a few days before, was out on patrol in a car with a woman police constable. They saw a car that they believed to be stolen. They pulled it in. Steve Collins got out and went to accost the driver. The passenger in what was a stolen car leaped out, and, without any compunction, drew a gun and shot Steve Collins in the gut. Fortunately, that young man lived, is fully recovered and is back on duty. I was told, with black police humour, that, on his first day back at work, he was punched on the nose.
The police welcome the opportunity to use longer batons. Police in Ealing and Acton certainly welcome the trial use of CS gas. When I visited the black museum at Scotland Yard, I could not help noticing on the wall the roll of honour of policemen and women killed on active service, and the fact that two thirds of the people on that list, running from 1900 until the present day, had been killed since the abolition of capital punishment.
It is a fact of police life in London, and probably throughout the United Kingdom, that today's professional criminals go about their business carrying weapons as a matter of course. That is the threat that policemen and women face on the streets of this and every other city of the country every day of the year on our behalf. Many policemen and women—they do not complain much— feel that the dice has been loaded too heavily against them.
64
I am now going to do what I promised myself and some of those policemen and women I would try not to do: cherry-pick just a few of the issues that have been raised with me. In doing so, I know that, if they read any report of this, those whose concerns I have not raised will say, "Why did he miss mine out?" I can only say that, if I were to touch on all those issues, I should be here for rather longer than I promised.
The one issue that more than any other fundamentally concerns men and women in the Metropolitan police is that of disclosure. I know that that is currently being addressed by legislation, but the police find it quite intolerable that ingenious—for want of a better word— lawyers are able to go on fishing expeditions on behalf of the defence in the knowledge that, by so doing, they will waste time and money, cause confusion and delay, and perhaps—who knows?—secure an acquittal for a guilty man.
Some three or four weeks ago, I watched a video of an armed raid. Two armed men were robbing a jewellers in Regent street, and they were under surveillance from the time they entered the shop. The extremely courageous staff slightly upset police plans by chasing the armed robbers out of the shop with fire extinguishers. The two men were pinioned on the pavement, and the bag that one of them was carrying went flying. It was all very clear.
The two men were held on the pavement, arrested, and handcuffed and, heads lifted, they were identified straight to camera in an unbroken sequence. The camera zoomed in on the bag that had flown from the hand of one of them. A police officer opened it and revealed the guns and the handcuffs that the robbers had intended to use on the shop staff. Nothing could have been clearer but that those two men entered the jewellers intent upon armed crime.
The judiciary, the judges who criticised my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for some of his measures, in their wisdom decided that in this case the police should name the informant who gave the tip-off. The police know perfectly well—and, of course, so do defence counsel—that, if the police ever named an informant in such a case, their sources of information would dry up. The police had no option but to drop the case. The men were released and are now free, walking the streets of London and presumably planning their next armed crime. The police cannot understand how we can allow them to be treated in that way by the judges, the courts and the system.
The police also find it strange that so many criminals are able to salt away the proceeds of crime; that the system does not work fast enough; and that our banks operate differently even from those in Switzerland—all of which sometimes makes it difficult for the authorities to gain sufficient evidence to be able to say, "Yes, that money, that car, that boat and that house were paid for solely out of the proceeds of crime, and can therefore be confiscated." We need to address that, to make certain that those who commit crimes cannot serve a couple of years in gaol and then enjoy the fruits of their criminal labours.
I should like our police to be allowed to do what American police, and certainly those in Washington, can do. They should be allowed to have the benefits of the proceeds that are seized as a result of successful arrests and convictions. In their fight against crime, they should

65
be allowed to use the cars that criminals have been using. That works well in the United States, and is a tremendous encouragement to the police, who feel that they are getting a little bit of their own back.
I suspect that I will not be popular with my Front-Bench colleagues, with certain echelons in the Metropolitan police and possibly with people elsewhere for saying that the principle of transferability is incomprehensible. I spent a little time with the fraud squad. I met teams of very experienced detectives, who told me that, even with the experience that they had built up by the time they joined the fraud squad, it takes perhaps two years to become fully conversant with the intricacies and technicalities of the crimes with which they have to deal. That is equally true of many other specialist departments: it is a cry that I heard throughout the Met.
Those officers have deep and detailed knowledge and experience, but it seems to me as a layman that, using the HMI 1993 tenure guidelines, almost arbitrarily after five or possibly seven years—if we are allowed to stretch it a bit—we can say, "Chum, you are going back into uniform and back on the beat, or back into uniform anyway, to do something else." That does not make sense, and it could make nonsense of training and efficiency arbitrarily to put people back into uniform at the peak of their specialist efficiency. That seems quite wrong. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) touched briefly on that in connection with community policing, but I suggest that it goes much wider.
Of course we must create room for manoeuvre, for advancement and opportunities. We cannot have a block in every branch of the Metropolitan police or, indeed, in any other police force. But, by the same token, simply to say, "You have done your time and you must now move," will certainly do a disservice to the policing of London.
I should like to touch briefly on the question of inspectors' pay, because in that there is a lesson for us to learn; I have learnt it with hindsight. It is that, if it was right to buy out inspectors' overtime, it was most certainly wrong to do it retrospectively. It has benefited some men and women in uniform who work reasonably fixed hours, but some other people, especially detectives, who are used to working long hours and earning overtime, have overnight had their incomes dramatically reduced.
That is not right. We cannot suddenly subject loyal officers who have organised their domestic commitments on the basis of one set of expectations to a different set of contracts. But that is what we have done, and it has caused considerable concern and, in some cases, serious financial difficulty. It has been suggested that the buying out of overtime may be extended to sergeants. If that happens, I hope that we do not make the same mistake again. We have dissatisfied inspectors, and in some cases we shall have dissatisfied sergeants.
The Minister knows my concern about the misuse, the abuse, of material that has been obtained by closed circuit television and about—I hesitate to call them videos—the junk that is marketed under the name of "Caught in the Act". Closed circuit television is clearly a vital tool in the police armoury in the fight against crime, and it is vital that the public have confidence in that tool and understand why and how it is being used. They must know that it will not be abused.
66
In our review of the Data Protection Act 1988, we should consider the case for covering by that legislation material that has been obtained by the use of closed circuit television cameras so as to make it a criminal offence to use such material for any form of personal or public gain in the way that was tried and, happily, in that instance, failed.
I mentioned that I had spent some time with the fraud squad. It has taken a battering in the courts, and has been subjected to press ridicule. The fraud squad consists of a number of dedicated officers who work in highly specialised departments and have achieved very many unsung successes. It is always the big, bad, complicated cases that go wrong and get reported. The press does not find the successful results of painstaking police work quite as attractive.
I stand to be corrected—I think that I wrote it down correctly when I heard it—but I understand that fraud costs the United Kingdom £18 billion a year. I believe that I am right in saying that it costs the country more than the total of all other crime. If that is so, we need to put more resources, not fewer, into curbing fraud at every level. From this place at least, the fraud squad deserves the accolade that it appears to be denied by Her Majesty's press.
I was very interested to learn about the working of the air surveillance unit. Air surveillance is another valuable tool, not only in traffic control, but—sometimes—in the solution of armed crime. "Eyes in the sky" are extremely valuable in dealing with public order disturbances as well.
It seems quite extraordinary that our police air force has to fly from Lippitts Hill, and that it is not permitted by London authorities to have a floating helipad on the Thames in the heart of the City. I am not suggesting that helicopters should be based on the Thames all the time, but there is a very strong case for seriously reconsidering the establishment of a helipad—alongside HMS Belfast, for example. We should use the river corridor, as any other sane city would, to enable the police to do their job better.
Unless things have changed since I visited Lippitts Hill, police helicopters using air-to-ground cameras are able only to transmit pictures back to command control at Scotland Yard, where the information is relayed to the controller on the ground at the scene of an incident. If that is so, at little greater expense, it would and should be possible to have a mobile ground unit that is capable of receiving pictures at the scene of the incident from a police helicopter.
When I visited a firearms unit, it struck me as bizarre that arms dealers do not keep standard records. I am not suggesting for one moment that the professional criminal would not, could not or will not obtain the weapons that he or she needs from some source. It is far too easy to go into virtually any market in northern France, buy a handgun fitted with ammunition and bring it back across the channel.
We make it doubly easy for criminals, however, if they are able to go to a crooked gun dealer, hire for a day a handgun and eight rounds of ammunition for, say, £500, take it back at the end of the day like a tool from a hire shop, and say, "Thank you very much, but I didn't need to use it," or, "I used it, and here's another £300 to launder it." The gun can be taken away, washed out, have its

67
barrel profile changed by repeated firing, and passed to another crooked gun dealer in another part of the country, where it can be used again.
When firearms units visit gun dealers to examine records, they do not find any standard forms, any record of what has come in and gone out, or any detailed information from which they can determine whether the records have been falsified. There are no detailed records of the disposal of guns that are taken to be destroyed. Instead, a shoe box full of slips of paper—apparently— in no particular order is handed to them. They are told, "Okay, sunshine, look your way through that." They have to spend painstaking hours doing such work, because there appears to be—again, I stand to be corrected if it is wrong—no official system for keeping records. Standard records may not greatly assist the police, but if they help slightly, the matter should be addressed.
I did not intend my speech to be a litany of demands. We should recognise that the policemen and women of the capital city do a difficult, demanding and often dangerous job. Such a job can be done only with the full consent and support of the public, and, on behalf of the public, with the full consent, and most certainly the support, of the House.
6.34 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I join those who have paid tribute to the police for all they do. I pay tribute to the Commissioner at the top and to the home beat officers—who in hierarchical terms I suppose are at the other end of the scale—who patrol the neighbourhoods where we live. I add my tribute to the local troops who look after my community. The range of service that they give is as all-embracing as that described by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). Like him, I do not want at all to suggest that the people who do the difficult and often frustrating work in squads such as the fraud squad are any less deserving of support and encouragement than those who work in squads such as the flying squad.
The hon. Member for North Thanet specifically addressed the issue of helicopters and the use of the river, and he also mentioned the river police. The river police are certainly an important part of the network of police services. Those of us who live near or along the river appreciate them very much.
I have a hunch that the police in London have very nearly regained the reputation that they used to have, which is still enjoyed by the other two public services— the ambulance and fire services—which are both hugely appreciated. Seeing the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) sitting on the Opposition Front Bench reminds me—if I needed reminding—that there is a great, lively, if not fiery, debate going on about the level of support and resources that we give our fire service. That is why there is proper concern about any suggestion of reducing the support and resources that we give to our police. That is why the debate about resources—although technical—is very important. I shall return to that, but briefly, because this debate is not the best forum in which to barney and banter about statistics that deserve to be considered elsewhere. Such statistics could easily be misleadingly misquoted.
68
Those of us who live and work in London are very conscious—as we all should be—of the risks that the police take on our behalf. I therefore join the tribute paid to the police officer who died last year in service of the citizens of London, and send my condolences on behalf of my party to his family and colleagues in the force.
We must view what is happening in London against the background of the changes in its population. Interestingly, the most recent figures come not from police documentation but from last week's King's Fund report, in which I observed the following telling statistics on our capital city.
First, we are a relatively younger community than much of the rest of the country; there are considerably more people aged between 25 and 44. Secondly, our population will rise over the next couple of years by about 175,000, and in inner London it will increase at double the rate it does elsewhere. We need to take that into account in policing.
Thirdly, in the next few years the number of people aged over 85 will increase by almost 25 per cent. We have a very large number of older citizens in the capital, many of whom live on their own. Fourthly, unemployment is 43 per cent. higher than the national average. Since that impacts most acutely on young people and especially young men, it is obvious that, if we not address the problem of high unemployment, a huge resource of human energy is liable to be misdirected.
The police want to ensure that their resources are not a lottery. The funding formula should not be arbitrary or extraordinary. In principle, I welcome the new formula set out in the police grant report, which we debated and voted on last week and which breaks down how we calculate what the Met police receive. I still contend that, if one takes out the additional money that comes to London because of the unique nature of policing in the capital—as extra money comes to London for many other things—it is at best arguable that the resources are being reined in, rather than growing.
That was the burden of an answer given to the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) on 18 January. He was told:
"In the current fiscal climate of budgetary constraint in the public sector the MPS is not expecting growth; the focus of management is on value for money and gaining more from the resources available."
The reality is much more about redirecting resources than about giving the Met police more, though they are responding positively to that. The nation and the people of the capital would rather pay a little more for a well-policed capital city than cut back in the interests of a tax cut here or an election bribe there.
Under the formula one or two years ago—this was touched on last time we debated the subject—large resources were directed to the outer boroughs, where there was far less crime, which seemed unfair to the inner boroughs. The people of London need to know that the resources are spread evenly to start with, but that they then follow the need—the victims and the crimes—so that those who are most at risk are commensurately protected.
The figures certainly suggest that there has been a reduction in the number of officer hours spent on street duty in each of the London divisions each year since 1988–89. The figures are given in overall man days, and the average was 13,684 in 1988. It increased in 1989, came down in 1990, 1991 and 1992, and went up again

69
in 1993, 1994 and 1995, but it is still lower than in 1988, at 13,384. Those figures were supplied by New Scotland yard and checked today. I accept that the percentage of officer time spent on street duties has increased from 31 to 35 per cent., which is welcome—I do not cavil about that—but on the average day, fewer people are acting as police officers back in our police stations than seven years ago.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): What is the hon. Gentleman interested in—people acting as police officers, or people out on street duties?
Mr. Hughes: I am interested in both, because one cannot have one without the other. There always has to be someone back at base—the custody officers, desk sergeants and so forth. There have to be both. It is important that the balance is changed, but we should not pretend that the overall number has increased, as it has decreased slightly.
What have been the successes of the past year? The first is more police on the street, which is positive. The second is the fact that there are more special constables. The Minister will know that, in my annual meeting with the Home Secretary, I have argued that we should and could do more to recruit specials. He is sympathetic and receptive to that, but we could do much more yet.
The third success is that the Met police's target for dealing with burglary was hugely successful, which is much appreciated. Fourthly, as I said from the beginning, it was right that the Met then went on to deal with street robbery, which is an extremely offensive crime that often targets some of the most vulnerable people. The Met was right to do so, even though, out of caution rather than anything else, it probably got the way in which it announced what it intended to do slightly wrong. Fifthly, the knives amnesty has been a good thing and has been relatively successful.
Like the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby), judging not only from my perspective here, but from that of my local police and community consultative group, which I attend regularly, I must, however, point out that police statistics must be compiled in a more user-friendly way, rather than by picking only this month or this year compared with last. They need to be cumulative, easily accessible and comparable across the capital and between divisions. We are getting there, but we are not there yet. Clear statistics that can be used for accurate assessment of the crime trends would be welcome.
I pay tribute to some of the divisions in my constituency for successfully reaching and exceeding targets. Southwark is the principal division, followed by Walworth, Peckham and Kennington—I list them in the order in which they have the most impact on the area that I represent. I also pay tribute to their officers, chief superintendents and troops.
Like other colleagues, I must also pay tribute to the community liaison officers. The Minister knows that a long-serving community liaison officer is hugely appreciated. Andy Jagger, a local police constable who retired last year, was a hugely valued member of the police service. People like him give the service a good name. Andy Jagger and Boyd Schofield, among others, have served well on patches like mine for decades. They know everyone, they do such a good job and they are very useful.
70
Last year, the police did an excellent job, as they did the year before, working with young people at Easter and in the summer on the Southwark youth project. That is exactly the sort of activity with which the police are keen to get involved. It is sad that they have had to pull out of work on sporting events because of the priority of other duties, and I hope that that work will be reinstated.
Many good things are going on at all levels. The public perception of crime and of the dangers in London is lagging behind the successes. It is a little like school reputations, which take a few years to change round. I will not take issue with the Government or side with the anti-Government lobby on this subject, as we are making considerable strides in London. We need to build up that reputation, but to do so on the basis of accurate statistics that people can see, as well as measures on the ground that they can sense around them.
I have a short list of complaints. I join the hon. Members for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) and for North Thanet in complaining about the fact that senior and relatively senior police officers are moved so frequently. They are no sooner there than they are gone. I know that they have careers and promotion prospects and that they often do not want to go, but it is unsettling for communities and, if a chief superintendent is only somewhere for two years or a local inspector for a year, the sense of professional commitment cannot be built up.
There is something wrong with police stop-and-search activities. Clearly, young black people and black people in general are being stopped so much more frequently than people from the other communities in London. Black families need some assurances that that is being tackled, as the figures are clear and it is unacceptable.
This may be controversial, but I think that the police also sometimes go over the top when carrying out drugs raids—I have said so to my local police. For example, to use 100 officers to raid a local establishment in my patch the other day, out of which four charges have arisen— none among the most serious—seems to be over-egging the pudding. I can understand the public pressure to expose the clubs in which Ecstasy is peddled.
The devil is not the individual user but the dealer— particularly the commercial dealer. If one asked people of my borough or any other whether they thought it was a good use of police time for 100 officers to be involved in a raid on a night club in Wandsworth or Southwark to look for even a relatively large number of Ecstasy tablets, I believe that they would say that it was not. We must reconsider our priorities. I am all in favour of catching those who import and retail them, and make a lot money from lethal drugs, but 17, 18 or 19-year-old users should not be not a particularly high police priority.
Mr. Maclean: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that 17 and 18-year-old users must be supplied from somewhere, and that some night clubs are major sources of custom for dealers, who can make thousands from their evil trade? Is not Ecstasy a death-dealing tablet?
Mr. Hughes: It is, although not to the extent of tobacco or other drugs. We must put matters in perspective.
Mr. Congdon: Be serious.
Mr. Hughes: I am quite serious. The figures are entirely clear. They show that the number of deaths from

71
Ecstasy is small compared with many other drugs, including drugs that the Government promote or allow to be promoted. Let us not get the balance wrong. The Minister is right to say that dealers must be clobbered, but 100 police officers are not necessary to pick up one or two dealers in a club. My point is that that is a huge use of police resources. If the police know the dealers, they can arrest them in a club perfectly easily.
The policy on closed circuit television is odd. CCTV should have been deployed in some parts of London but has not been, whereas places where crime is lower have received money for CCTV. Something is badly wrong with the mix.
Some other matters concerning policing in London clearly need to be remedied. I shall not elaborate the argument, but we need a democratic police authority— every other part of the country has such an authority— and I have no doubt that one will be established soon. We need a better sequence for consultation on Metropolitan police strategy. The police and community consultative committees and the police and neighbourhood forums need to take part early on, so that the strategy each year is properly formulated. It is good to have such a consultation process, but it would be better if it were carried out in good time.
We need a guarantee that someone will be on the desk at every police station at any hour of the day or night. I have taken this matter up locally and found that that is not always so. One must sometimes wait a long time for all sorts of reasons. Police station desks should have someone available all the time.
We need to tackle the fact that, for historical reasons, a conspiracy of silence often allows people who commit the most serious crimes to get away with them. Peer group pressure means that grassing on others does not happen, and we must make sure that every facility is provided to make it more likely that people will give information. If someone is stabbed, attacked or, worse, murdered in a pub or club or on the street, we should not have a situation where 50 people were there but nobody saw anything. That can best be avoided by better appealing for information locally, or by making an appeal particularly to the pride of a local community.
In relation to racial incidents, we must ensure that last year's problems with Operation Eagle Eye are not repeated. The figures concerning both the victims and the perpetrators of racial attacks must be given objectively, factually and accurately. There is no reason to keep the figures secret.
The most important groups are the young and the old. It is clear that a huge number of crimes are committed by a minute proportion of young people, who can start their criminal activities under the age of 10. They then play truant from school and are out on the streets. Young people hanging around are not the criminals: only the young people who are out of control, either on their own or with others, are the real bugbear of life in our capital city.
The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) intervened to say that that matter must be dealt with by a network of projects, including out-of-school assistance, homework classes and, in particular, the youth service. Training and employment opportunities will help to keep
72
youngsters on the straight and narrow and stop them becoming diverted into a life of crime. Vulnerable youngsters often join gangs such as the one to whom Philip Lawrence lost his life defending one of his pupils. Sadly, more gangs are seeking to recruit more youngsters outside more school gates.
Such gang members harm and hurt the elderly most. We had a successful campaign in Southwark a couple of years ago against street robbery in which we tried to get across the message that street robbers are cowards. Young people—or anybody else—who jump out on elderly people on their own at a bus stop, going home or in a lift are the scum of the earth, and there should be no remission of their punishment. While the police have a good record in responding to community feeling, it is about time that the rest of us made it a priority to defend the old and the vulnerable. They are the most afraid in our capital city, and many of them have given the most to this city. We must make the streets safe for them again.
The minority of young people who are troublemakers should be dealt with and their parents made to take full responsibility, while the majority of elderly people who are afraid should be given the opportunity once again to be free citizens of London. We must make pensioners the priority as we try to beat crime. That would be a good test of whether the Government's policies were working for the rest of us.
6.56 pm
Mr. Richard Tracey: May I begin with an apology to the House for my enforced absence from the early part of the debate, as I was called away to duties upstairs on the Public Accounts Committee? I missed some of the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), and I must tell my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that I may have to leave again during his speech.
This is a most important debate, and hon. Members on, both sides of the House will welcome the fact that, this year, the business managers have enabled it to held on a Monday. I recall too many occasions in the past when similar debates were held on Fridays. We can now have something of a prime-time discussion of the policing of the metropolis, although it is unfortunate that there are fewer London Members in the Chamber than many of us would have hoped.
We have an opportunity today to discuss with the Home Secretary, as the police authority for London, what is happening and what we think should be happening to the police on the streets of London, and to reflect what our constituents are saying about the priorities for police operations. It is also a good day to pay tribute not only to the chief officers, who must manage the London force, but to those great stalwarts, the home beat officers and all the people who participate in the consultative committees and the sector working parties. They form a most important network of communication in the policing of our great city.
I congratulate the Commissioner and the Metropolitan police force, as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, on the enormous success of Operation Bumblebee. There is no doubt that that has reaped a great harvest of arrests, convictions and returned property. I was invited to the Operation Bumblebee roadshow for south-west London, which was held at Sandown park racecourse.

73
I found strange the enormous amount of property that had been recovered in swoops on burglars' premises in various parts of London but not reclaimed. Senior officers wondered whether it would ever be reclaimed. People do not mark their property. It amazes me that some of them do not realise that it has disappeared or do not seek it more assiduously when it is stolen.
The roadshows, where the public are invited to come and see whether any of their lost property has turned up, are good. I have encouraged the Commissioner—and I again publicly ask him—to hold more Bumblebee roadshows in all the 32 London boroughs so that people do not have to travel too far to be able to inspect property and, if it theirs, to start the process of laying claim to it.
It has been mentioned that the Commissioner sets the priorities and the prime objectives for police operations each year. He consults the 84 London Members of Parliament and the police consultative committees in the boroughs. In their turn, the chief officers in our areas ask us what we think about the various aspects and the way in which they are setting priorities.
For as many years as I can remember, in my area of Kingston upon Thames and Surbiton, the No. 1 priority has been domestic burglary. It remains so this year and so it should. My constituents, whenever I talk to them or when they write to me, have no doubt that they want police to set the prevention of burglary as the No. 1 objective, but if the police and our good citizens cannot prevent it, they want burglars to be pursued and arrested.
An allied problem is that many elderly people fear attack on their homes by burglars. That fear is over-accentuated—unfortunately, sometimes, by the many television programmes about crime. Although they deliver good returns in catching the perpetrators of crime, the issue of whether elderly people are being excessively frightened by such publicity deserves discussion.
Nevertheless, the police should be aware that there is a fear of attack, as there of vandalism, especially in the quieter streets. Hon. Members who represent the more suburban parts of London will have seen much evidence of mindless vandalism, graffiti and, even worse, damage to people's houses and gardens—garden walls that have been pushed over and damage to motor cars.
I must pay tribute to a constituent of mine, a doughty individual who lives in Tolworth, Mr. Donald Parker, who for a long time has campaigned against mindless vandalism in the streets. He operates almost as a sheriff in his road. Early last year, he collected a petition of residents of the road which he asked me to present to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. A result of his efforts, the local police superintendent met Mr. Parker, myself, and officers, including the home beat officers, with the result that policing has almost eliminated vandalism in that area.
The efforts of the local people have caught the perpetrators who, for too long, had managed to escape because information had not been co-ordinated. Thanks to those local efforts, vandalism has been rooted out of that road for the time being. However, the efforts of the local people and the neighbourhood watch need to continue. It is good that we have such a thriving neighbourhood watch network across London.
The visibility of the police is regularly mentioned by my constituents. I was grateful for the pledge of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at our last party conference
74
to have 5,000 more police officers over the next three years. In London, which is covered by that undertaking and is, to us, the most important part of policing in Britain, I understand that the commissioner is to put 180 more full-time police officers on the beat.
We must also consider the contribution of the special constables. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, together with the commissioner, wants 650 special constables to be recruited in London—of whom, apparently, 400 have already been recruited. That is something to which local neighbourhoods can make a great contribution.
Wandsworth council has always put a high premium on the visibility of police on the beat. That led Wandsworth, a year or two ago, to talk about extending its parks police to patrol on the streets and be more visible. It has recruited special constables. Local business has donated one vehicle, as a start, to assist with that operation. I believe that that has also happened in Knightsbridge, where a store has contributed a vehicle to assist the special constabulary. That is the sort of police visibility that our constituents want.
I was slightly surprised by the attitude of the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke in a slightly confused manner about his party's approach to police officers on the beat. I thought that he was calling for more such officers, but then I discovered a policy document that was produced by the Liberal Democrats in September 1993. The document, entitled "Tackling Crime Together", contains the rather extraordinary statement:
"increasing the number of police officers has had no measurable impact on the level of crime. Putting more police officers on the beat will likewise have little effect in reducing levels of crime, although there may be other arguments in favour of it."
That argument would not carry any weight with my constituents, who want to see more police on the beat and more evidence of police surveillance in public places. In that regard, I signal—in the best cross-party spirit—that I shall support the efforts of Kingston council to secure a grant from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), for installing closed circuit television cameras in the main public areas of Kingston and Surbiton.
There is no doubt that closed circuit television contributes greatly to combating crime and to ensuring that the police obtain evidence of criminal or less violent, anti-social acts committed on our high streets and around our stations. Those of us with pubs and young people's clubs in our constituencies know the sort of crime that can centre around them. My right hon. Friend should note that, at the next round of grants, I shall push hard to have closed circuit television installed in Kingston.
I now turn to the extremely important issue of illegal drugs, which I raised by way of intervention during my right hon. and learned Friend's speech. We must move to combat the sale of drugs in all areas. I am afraid that nowhere in London—be it leafy suburbia or central London—seems to be free of the hazards of drugs and drug peddlers. Whenever politicians from all over the world meet to discuss our fears for the future, without exception the main topic of conversation is drugs. Drugs are far too easily available these days. They come from many parts of the world and cause great harm, especially

75
to our young people, often pushing them to the point of mental illness and suicide, and shattering families, local neighbourhoods and groups of old friends.
I believe that the schools and youth clubs should undertake many more initiatives in conjunction with police forces to provide information to those who wish to root out drugs. At the end of last week, I attended a first-class seminar at the well-known Tiffin girls school in my constituency. The parents association and the staff at that school organised a seminar which was addressed by experts from the excellent Kaleidoscope project in Kingston, which is an anti-drugs counselling service. Staff from the centre told parents what to look for if they suspected that their children were using drugs, and alerted them to the signs of drug pushing and supplying.
As a parent of four, I found the seminar most revealing and informative. I believe that more schools, in conjunction with the local education authorities, should provide that kind of information to parents. There should certainly be an exchange of intelligence between head teachers, teaching staff and police forces when it is obvious that drug pushing is occurring outside the school gates and when children are entering schools with drugs that they have procured in clubs, pubs and on the street.
Extending the role of the security services is one of the Government's most important initiatives against drug peddling. It will form part of the intelligence network that will prove increasingly vital as the drug threat to this country grows. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on introducing the Security Service Bill and I hope that that law and order legislation will be supported on both sides of the House.
7.17 pm
Mr. Neil Gerrard: I begin by returning to a point that was raised a number of times during the debate: why we are debating the policing of London in this manner. I shall not dwell upon that issue, but it is important to stress that the Home Secretary is the police authority for London.
Ms Hodge: Where is he?
Mr. Gerrard: Exactly. The debate is taking place and the police authority is not in the Chamber. We have debated the subject three times since the general election of April 1992—that has been the sum total of the direct input of elected representatives from London on the subject of policing in London.
The previous Home Secretary accepted that London needed a police authority, but a few weeks after his predecessor left that office, the present Home Secretary established the current quango, which does not meet in public, does not report to anyone and operates completely in secret—in fact, it operates virtually as a creature of the Secretary of State: it is not accountable to anyone else.
We have heard how the Metropolitan police have special national functions that are distinct from their local policing role. Although we all acknowledge that fact, I believe that it is often exaggerated. I have noticed little evidence of the activities of the diplomatic service in my constituency, and I suspect that the story is similar in many constituencies throughout London. The problems are exaggerated.
76
I am convinced that, before the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), decided that he was willing to go down the road of a police authority for London, he well knew that the Metropolitan police would be prepared to accept one and had considered what might be done to their structures and functions to cope with the separation of national functions, if necessary.
In the past three weeks, Sir Paul Condon, giving evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, said that that remained his opinion. He said:
"I remain on record and have been for a number of years saying that I believe that the Metropolitan Police Service and the arrangements for accountability should replicate as closely as possible the accountability processes outside of London".
Sir Paul Condon made an interesting comment about his reasons for wanting to develop closer accountability and closer links with the community:
"if we are to improve confidence in the police service, if we are going to deal with a significant emerging group of alienated young people in London and the communities they are drawn from … we"
need to
"move towards … different and tighter links into the democratic process in London."
When the Minister replies to the debate, it is incumbent on him to answer again the question, "Why does London have to be different?"
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that he believed that in recent years the people of London's opinion of the Metropolitan police had improved. There is some truth in that. A few years ago, there was an extremely worrying distrust of the police in many communities in London. There has been a shift since then; we should acknowledge that fact and give credit where it is due—to the police and to people in local communities who have worked with them.
In London, people's beliefs about crime trends make them afraid. A recent survey showed the extent of that fear. The crime figures for 1994–95 show a drop compared with the preceding year, but I suspect that many people in London pay more attention to the longer-term picture, which is far from comforting. There were 852,700 offences in 1990–91 and 837,000 in 1994–95—a small drop in four years.
We all welcome what has been done in Operation Bumblebee and the like. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) earlier, I was grateful not to have entered a secondhand shop that I was nearly tempted into in Hoe street, Walthamstow, which turned out later to have been run by the police for the purpose of attracting people in to sell goods to the police. I have no wish to appear on their video, even if I was going in innocently to make an inquiry about something in the window.
The small decrease in figures for the past year or two conceals worrying trends, especially the increase in crimes of violence, which are up from 36,000 in 1990–91 to more than 43,000 in 1994–95, the increase in robbery from 18,000 to 26,000 in that period, the increase in sexual offences and the increase in crimes against the person, which worry and frighten many people. As hon. Members have said, the use of firearms has increased, as has drug-related crime. It emerged that many of the burglaries that the police solved in Operation Bumblebee

77
were carried out to fund the purchase of drugs. There is a close relationship between drugs and the commission of crime.
The recently published youth crime report, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), contained evidence that there were not the disparities between black and white youth in the commission of crime that are often the subject of popular myth, but it also showed that a generation of young men were not growing out of crime by their late teens, as their predecessors had done. There has been, and continues to be, a high rate of offending among 14 to 17-year-olds, but previously people tended to drop out of crime as they entered employment and formed stable relationships. Worryingly, more than 30 per cent. of young men aged 25 are now involved in some type of crime.
The report comments that, as the number of young people in employment declines, the capacity for the world of work to provide a rite of passage for young males diminishes. If the report is accurate in saying that people are not only becoming involved in crime when they are 14 to 17 but continuing into their 20s and 30s and turning into career criminals, the trend is extremely worrying.
There are worrying trends in racial attacks and racial harassment. Last year, 5,500 such incidents were reported—8 per cent. more than in the previous year. Given some Government policies, I fear that there will be a further increase next year. I wonder what the effect will be on some of the thugs in east London of seeing asylum seekers begging in the streets. That is Government policy, which will come into force next week, and I suspect that it will be used by racists and people who are responsible for racial harassment and racial attacks as an excuse to step up their activities.
I compliment my local police force in Chingford—the police division with which I communicate most often— on what it has done in the past year or two, especially to tackle racial violence. There has been an enormous improvement in the way in which the division tackles racist crimes compared with 10 years ago. It has also tremendously improved the way in which it deals with several sensitive matters such as domestic violence and mental health disorder.
In common with everyone who is connected with the problem, I am convinced that racist crime and racial attacks are significantly under-reported and that 5,500 incidents is far from the true scale of the problem. People are not yet entirely confident of what the police response will be. That leads to under-reporting.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn mentioned recruitment, and especially retention, of ethnic minority officers. The fact that, in the last year for which figures are available, more ethnic minority officers left the force than were recruited to the Metropolitan police shows that we are running to stand still. I am also worried about the increasing number of black police officers who, before industrial tribunals, allege racial discrimination against them within the police. I have been involved in a complicated case of that type. There is a problem.
I have no doubts or worries about attitudes at the top of the Metropolitan police. There has been continuous significant improvement for some years. When I talk to senior officers, I detect a sea change in attitudes to ethnic minorities compared with 10 years ago. The problem is ensuring that change is reflected on the ground. The
78
experiences of some black police officers to whom I have spoken is that it is not—that they are subjected to insults and harassment from their colleagues. There is no room for complacency. Senior ranks need to keep up the pressure, to make sure that black recruits in the average police station do not suffer the harassment that some of them still have to tolerate.
As to public confidence in the police complaints procedure, I have no doubt that, in the long term, an independent complaints procedure is needed so that the police are not left to investigate the police. Many people in London question why the Metropolitan police fight complaints and take cases to court. In 1994, according to press reports, the Metropolitan police paid out £1.4 million in damages and costs. Recently, £90,000 was awarded in a case of assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Out of 304 civil actions, the Metropolitan police won just 24. There must be a question mark over the reasons for fighting some of actions in the first place. Damages and costs of £1.4 million is a lot to pay out of the Metropolitan police budget in one year.
I will not get into the argument of whether or not there were one or two extra policemen on the beat this year, or will be next year, but I return to my earlier point about control. The Home Secretary decides how resources will be allocated to police forces throughout the country, yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself is the police authority for London. The lack of a police authority for London means that there is nobody to argue the specific case for Metropolitan police resources in the way that police authorities outside London are able to do.
As to police and local authority co-operation, again there is an enormous difference compared with 10 or 15 years ago, and nobody would object to that. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton mentioned a case in my constituency of a woman who was murdered in a tower block, when the closed circuit television picture was not good enough to provide a clear picture of persons who might have entered and left the block of flats at the time of that murder. Money is needed not only to install CCTV systems but to update and maintain them. It is not good enough to install a camera and think that is the end of it.
Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is correct to say that I intervened in the Home Secretary's speech on that point. Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that money is being put into CCTV, he did not respond to my specific point that money should go into a programme of monitoring existing CCTV systems. If I cannot get the Home Secretary to his feet to make a commitment in that respect, I hope that the Minister will return to that issue later.
Mr. Howard rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. There cannot be one intervention on another.
Mr. Gerrard: I will be happy to give way to the Secretary of State.
Mr. Howard: I am delighted to respond. I made it perfectly plain to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) that we had issued guidance designed to ensure that CCTV schemes are brought up to date and

79
made to operate as effectively as possible. Now it emerges that Labour Members want more money. Have they checked with the shadow Chancellor? Are they aware that claims for more spending are completely banned by Labour, which is trying to hoodwink the public into thinking that Labour is the party of low taxation? We ought to have the full facts before Labour Members start asking for more Government money.
Mr. Gerrard: My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton was making the point that, if CCTV cameras do not work, one might as well not have them. Unless money is available to keep CCTV systems functional, they are not worth having. It is like the argument about the national lottery money, which is available for capital projects but not for revenue to keep schemes running.
Some points that I and other hon. Members make may be seen as criticism of the Metropolitan police, but there is only one debate like this each year. If we do not use it to express our concerns, there are few other opportunities. We all want to support the Metropolitan police and to see them operate efficiently. Constituents in the poorest areas of London suffer the worst consequences of crime. People on estates are victims of some of the worst vandalism, break-in rates and consequences of drug dealing. It is not in our interests to have a police force which operates less than efficiently.
The biggest threat to improvement and further progress, judging from today's debate, is the complacency reflected in the Home Secretary's opening speech. He claimed that everything is all right and getting better, that there is no need to worry and that it should be left to him as the police authority to do all that is necessary. That was more or less the implication of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, and it is not the way to achieve a more efficient police force in London or permanently to reduce crime levels.
7.37 pm
Mr. David Congdon: The debate on policing in London must be conducted in the context of the significant extra resources that the Government have put into law and order nationally. Funding of the police service has increased by 96 per cent. in real terms since the Government came to power in 1979, which is no mean achievement and deserves recognition. I welcome the proposed 5,000 additional police over the next three years and the £260 million increase in funding in the coming year, which is 4 per cent. nationally.
Hon. Members acknowledge that the police do a first-class job. It is equally clear that the Metropolitan police have the toughest job of all as the force that serves the capital and all the difficulties that it brings. London is a large city with a substantial daytime community. We know the problems presented by organised crime, particularly in respect of drugs and firearms. I would not argue that London is badly treated in funding terms, because police expenditure per head is £228, compared with a national average of £97. I do not think that colleagues from other parts of the country would say that London is badly treated in terms of funding.
The situation is much more difficult, of course, when we examine changes in funding from one year to the next. I listened carefully to my right hon. and learned Friend
80
the Home Secretary when he explained exactly how the funding for London is to change. I noted with interest his statement that extra spending power—as much as 3.6 per cent.—will be available for the coming year in a variety of different forms. I certainly welcome the increase.
The distribution function is carried out by the Commissioner and is based on a formula, but I must confess that I am not always clear about exactly what the basis is. The latest information that I have is based on a written answer in Hansard of March 1993, which contains some revealing figures, although some of them might have changed since then.
The figures reveal that Croydon, which is the largest and best London borough, has a population of 314,000 and 590 police officers in its two police divisions. Lambeth, which is an adjoining borough, has 245,000 people—far fewer—and 970 police officers. I am not in any way complaining that Lambeth has more police than Croydon, but is that ratio right? In Croydon, the ratio works out at 1.9 police per 1,000 population; in Lambeth, it is slightly less than four police per 1,000 people.
What is interesting about the figures is that the national average is 2.2 police per 1,000 people. I highlight those figures because, for the reasons that I have mentioned, such as its size and the scale of crime, one would expect London to have a higher ratio. However, is the balance between inner and outer London necessarily right?
I have taken the opportunity to examine the number of burglaries in 1993–94 and assumed that there might be a correlation between burglaries and the number of police officers. Croydon had slightly fewer than 6,000 burglaries, while Lambeth had just under 8,000. The difference is not massive, and it would probably not justify the difference in manpower. I think that Members of Parliament from London constituencies should consider that.
In the previous debate on the Metropolitan police, in December 1994, the Home Secretary told the House that the number of police in London had increased from 22,000 to 28,000. I was pleased to hear those figures broadly confirmed again in this debate. The monthly variation is not significant—contrary to what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) tried to demonstrate—but there is no doubt that the general trend is an increase in the number of Metropolitan police officers.
I must put one qualification on that figure—it must be considered in the context of the number of posts that have been civilianised. There is not much point in having additional policemen and policewomen if they are doing office jobs that could be done by civilians. There could, therefore, be occasional small dips because there has been more civilianisation. With the new powers available to divisional superintendents to allocate their manpower budgets as they think fit, I would expect variations. As more duties are carried out by civilians, more police manpower will be freed up so that police officers can be on the beat, which is what the people of London want. People in London want to see the police on the beat, patrolling the areas in which they live.
I recognise that it is essential for the police to have modern computers and communications systems. Their importance must never be forgotten. In the debate in 1994, we were told that the Metropolitan police were on target

81
for a trunked radio system to be fully operational by 1998. In his reply, I trust that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to confirm that that system will be operational by the target date.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary rightly placed emphasis on the fact that there has been a significant decrease in crime during the past two years. None of us is complacent about the decrease, because the struggle to reduce crime is tough. There is no doubt that the police must be given credit for their improved crime fighting and their useful targeting of resources.
I must say, however, that I was somewhat surprised that the targeting of resources on known offenders in target areas was not normal practice before, and that the police had to be dragged into using modern-day techniques to deal with crime. That is why the Government were absolutely right to introduce the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, which forces the police to set targets and objectives. I am sure that that Act will lead to further improvements in the future.
The 1994–95 figures for the Metropolitan police show an overall decrease in crime of slightly more than 7 per cent., but we cannot be complacent about the figures for specific crimes. There were 41,000 crimes against the person, 6,000 sexual offences and 28,000 robberies. My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) mentioned people's particular concern about burglary. I think that it is quite right for the Metropolitan police to target burglary and to try to reduce the number from 173,000.
I strongly welcome the increased co-operation between local authorities and the police. I remember the bad old days, in the 1970s and the 1980s, when many councils in London, particularly Labour-controlled councils, refused even to allow the police into their schools to talk to children. The idea of consultative committees sitting down and working with the police was anathema. There has been significant progress, and police consultative committees are doing a first-class job, as are the neighbourhood committees under them.
In Croydon, we have sector police consultative groups, in which many local people play key roles. I should like to pay tribute to the police who have been involved in community liaison in my borough. We have an excellent team there, under Chief Inspector David Hewetson and Alex Cashin, a very long-serving police constable who has done excellent work in the community.
Earlier in the debate, some hon. Members rightly spoke about the problems of racial harassment and about the need for good relations between communities. I am convinced that the work of community liaison officers, who visit various local groups and attend the community functions of Asian and Afro-Caribbean groups in particular, has done much to ensure good community relations in Croydon. When there have been incidents that have caused great concern, I know that the community liaison officers have gone into action, got alongside the various communities groups and done a great deal of good work. That work is similar to that which the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) described in relation to Brixton following the recent riots.
I echo a point made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall, and make a special plea to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in relation to moving chief superintendents on too quickly from the areas in which
82
they serve. These days, the police depend far more on good relations with the local community and with community leaders. It is frustrating for all concerned to find that, once good relations and trust are established, the chief superintendent must move on because of a career move or for whatever reason. It is a real bone of contention if those chief superintendents are moved on too quickly. Of course they cannot stay in the area, even if many of us might like them to, but it is important that they are not moved on as soon as they have established good relations.
In the debate in December 1994, the awful murder in New Addington of Sergeant Derek Robertson was mentioned. There have been other murders since then. The police in Croydon are divided into two divisions—south Norwood and Croydon. It is fair to say that that murder, which happened shortly after some horrific knife attacks on officers in south Norwood, had a profound effect on the attitude and approach of the police in south Norwood. I am pleased that the new chief superintendent is doing all in his power to try to improve the morale of his staff following those awful incidents.
The level of casual violence against the police—violence in various forms—is most disturbing. The most recent report to the Croydon police consultative committee gives separate figures for the south Norwood and Croydon divisions and shows that, in November and December, 37 officers were injured in the course of their duties in the Croydon division and that 24 were injured in the south Norwood division. Those figures are disturbing—it seems that too many people are only too keen to attack policemen and policewomen with fists, bottles or knives. I should like the courts to impose heavier sentences on anyone found guilty of assaulting a police officer.
The type of crime in London also gives cause for concern. I happened to see in the Croydon Advertiser on Friday that, in 24 hours last week, there were three armed raids and two serious stabbing incidents. That level of crime is probably mirrored across London, and we should all view it with gave concern.
I shall not say too much about drugs, although I recognise that they are a serious problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton hit the nail on the head. I know that much good work is being done by the police and others in schools in Croydon to try to improve young people's understanding of the dangers of taking drugs.
The huge success of Operations Bumblebee and Eagle Eye has been mentioned, and I am sure that all hon. Members welcome it. More has to be done to reduce even further the number of burglaries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton said, what people fear most is coming home after a night out to find that their home has been burgled or, perhaps even worse—fortunately, it occurs less frequently—waking in the middle of the night to find someone in the process of burgling their home. Such crimes are awful, and too many people have had to put up with them.
The Metropolitan police serve London as well. I have, however, expressed some concern about the allocation of resources between inner and outer London, and hope that the Commissioner will take such concern into account.
The foundations for improved relations between the police and the community have been well laid, and we are seeing the benefits in terms of greater co-operation

83
between the two. I pay tribute to the police for their work in dealing with the terrible crime of racial harassment. Such crime is difficult to solve because people are often not prepared to come forward as witnesses. Several people have come to see me, complaining of racial harassment. When I have spoken to the police about such cases, they have always handled them sensitively and professionally in a genuine attempt to solve them.
Difficult neighbours, noise and the like have been mentioned. They are serious problems, but if there is a racial element to them, they can be much worse. Such cases need sensitive handling by the police, and I believe that they have struck the right balance by working closely with local housing authorities to deal with the problem.
7.53 pm
Ms Margaret Hodge: I join other hon. Members who have congratulated the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on his stewardship of the Metropolitan police, especially during the year under discussion. Of course, we all warmly welcome the small reduction in recorded crime in that period.
I was extremely concerned about what I would call the rather complacent attitude of the Home Secretary towards policing in London. If the same reduction in recorded crime that he reported to the House were sustained, it would still take us 15 years to reach the level of recorded crime that the Government inherited when they took office. That is a long time for Londoners to have to tolerate unacceptably high levels of crime. The Government cannot be trusted on crime, any more than they can be trusted on other aspects of public policy.
My contribution to the debate will focus on two aspects of great importance to my constituents and to the people of London in general. The first is the number of front-line officers working in London and the predicted resourcing of the police service in London in the coming year. The second is the police service's accountability to Londoners.
The Home Secretary is very good at claiming that he has significantly strengthened the front-line resourcing of police in London. If I may say so, he is at best disingenuous; at worst, he would appear to be misleading the House by selecting figures that may suit his argument but which do not, in my view, paint the full picture. The figures that we have are those that we gleaned from the annual report of the chief inspector of constabulary at the Home Office. I think that those returns can be trusted by all. They are not figures dreamed up by a partial group of Labour party supporters; nor are they compiled on the instruction of a senior Minister who is trying to justify what he wants the public to believe.
Mr. Howard: They are neither dreamed up nor unreliable—they are just out of date.
Ms Hodge: I fail to see how figures relating back to 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983, right through to 1995, can be said to be out of date. Either the Home Secretary is claiming that they are inaccurate or he is not. I would suggest that they are not inaccurate and therefore cannot be said to be out of date. They go back 15 years.
Mr. Howard: This clearly needs to be spelled out to the hon. Lady in words of one syllable. She began
84
by accusing me of misleading the House—I do not know whether you noticed that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but that is how she began—
Mr. Dobson: No, she did not.
Mr. Howard: Yes, she did. That was how she began this part of her remarks. She made that serious charge, which I am slightly surprised that she was allowed to make, with reference to figures that I had cited—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) want to say something?
Mr. Dobson: No; I want you to shut up.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making an intervention; we cannot have one intervention on another.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady made her point by referring to figures that I had given earlier and which she was challenging, as she is perfectly entitled to do. I am trying to point out that the reason why the figures that I gave differ from those that she is citing is that the figures that I gave are more up to date. The figures in the document to which she is referring take us to April last year, whereas the figures that I was using take us to December last year and are therefore more up to date. It is perfectly simple.
Madam Deputy Speaker: There seemed to be a note of criticism in the Home Secretary's remarks. I was listening carefully to what was said and did not think that the hon. Lady's remarks were such that she should be pulled up for using unparliamentary language.
Ms Hodge: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for protecting me. I had selected my words extremely carefully. As my hon. Friends have said, the Home Secretary tries to produce seasonally adjusted figures, and the House is used to that. I repeat that the Home Secretary may have selected figures that suit his argument, but they do not paint an honest and full picture of what is happening to the resourcing of police in London.
The figures that I have before me demonstrate—the Home Secretary has not denied it—that police strength in London has not been increased substantially. It has not even been held at a level appropriate to the need. In 1990, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon became Prime Minister. In his speech at the party conference in October 1995, the Prime Minister made a commitment that he would increase the police strength throughout the country, and one presumes that that includes the police strength for the capital. The record speaks for itself. When the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister, the Metropolitan police strength was 28,126. By 1995, that figure had fallen to 27,574. As I read those figures, that means there are 500 fewer bobbies on the streets of London than when the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister.
That reduction has occurred at a time when there has been an unprecedented increase in crime levels in the capital. Yes, there was a reduction in the levels of recorded crime last year and, of course, every responsible hon. Member welcomes that, but the figures are still running at record high levels. The Government's failure

85
to invest in policing in London—shown by the cuts in police strength and by the cuts in the Metropolitan police's budget, which they will have to absorb next year and in ensuing years—is selling Londoners short on their policing.
No wonder the fear of crime is so high. No wonder there is a loss of confidence in the police in London. No wonder the Home Secretary is the least trusted man about town.
Mr. Howard: Can the hon. Lady explain how a 3.6 increase in spending power can be characterised as a cut?
Ms Hodge: I am extremely happy to respond to that point, because the Home Secretary has made it several times. The 3.6 per cent. increase in spending comes partly from an underspending in the current year. That is partly how it is being financed. However, every other police force has had a real increase, as promised by the Home Secretary, of 3.6 per cent. London has been given less additional money than elsewhere and Londoners will be expected to fund the Metropolitan police in a way that they have never been before—from an underspend that was no doubt encouraged by the Home Secretary.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady is piling inaccuracy on inaccuracy. It is simply not true to suggest that every other police force has an increase of 3.6 per cent. The hon. Lady simply does not have a clue what she is talking about.
Ms Hodge: If that is not true, the commitment given by the Home Secretary that he would increase the police budgets of every police force by 3.6 per cent. was also not true. I understand that that is the commitment he gave.
We have 500 fewer police in London, but between 1991 and 1994–95, sexual offences have increased by 26 per cent.—those are my figures. We have 500 fewer police in London, but crimes of violence have increased by 16 per cent., and we have 500 fewer police in London but, in the borough of Barking and Dagenham, the number of burglaries has more than trebled in the past 16 years. In 1979, one in 34 households in my constituency experienced a burglary, but by 1995—the most recent figures I have available—that figure had increased to one in 11. That is a terrific increase in an outer-London borough. The same pattern exists for violent crime in my constituency. In 1979, one in 82 people in Barking had been the victim of a violent crime. By 1995, that had almost doubled, to the horrifying figure of one in 45.
I am sure that other hon. Members are also being visited at their surgeries by an increasing number of people coming to complain about disorder in the streets. Groups of residents come to talk about young people collecting on open spaces and about their fears as they watch, unprotected, the vandalising of cars and street furniture. Disorder on the streets is a growing problem which can only partly be addressed if we increase the presence of police in our streets. With the cuts in police strength in London, the ability of the Commissioner to deliver an increase in police presence in ordinary streets is undoubtedly curtailed.
Mr. Howard indicated dissent.
Ms Hodge: The Home Secretary may shake his head, but it is true.
86
The failure of the Government to develop a proper policy on youth crime has had a horrendous impact. I have met the police and shopkeepers from Barking town centre and I have been told that a family of three sons, all of whom are under 18, is probably responsible for about 50 per cent. of the petty crime and burglaries that take place in Barking town centre. That is a very small number of people responsible for a very large amount of crime. Yet, despite 16 years in government and a constant pretence of being tough on crime—especially youth crime—the Conservative party has done nothing to assist the people and businesses in my constituency to tackle the very real problem of crime in the centre of Barking.
Lady Olga Maitland: Bearing in mind the hon. Lady's concern about juvenile crime, does she support the Government's policy to put young people into secure training centres if they are persistent offenders? Perhaps the hon. Lady could explain why the Labour party voted against such a measure during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
Ms Hodge: The hon. Lady has been misinformed in her contributions to the debate today. The Labour party supports secure training centres for young people. My quarrel would be with the failure of the Government to deliver a policy that they have been promoting for a number of years. We have heard the Home Secretary, in the Chamber and outside, talk about investment in secure training centres for young people for a long time, but we have yet to see that put into practice. The suggestion that Opposition Members have not supported that is just wrong.
Let me raise another issue of concern not just to my constituents, but to those who live and work in London. We have heard much about the fear of crime, particularly among women. For every woman who is assaulted on the streets of London, there are probably 1,000 who are so frightened that they put themselves under voluntary house arrest. That is totally unacceptable. The lack of confidence in the Government's ability to tackle crime in the capital city has increased the fear of crime among women.
There are many implications. Not only are some women too frightened to leave their homes, but women are less likely to use public transport. That has a bad environmental impact on the capital city, and leads to the capital becoming clogged up with traffic at the expense of those who really need to travel by car. We must judge the Home Secretary's record of policing in London against that background.
I distinguish between operational management by the Commissioner and the responsibility for policy that I presume the Home Secretary still believes he has. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has left the Chamber.
The increase in police strength since the Conservatives took office has been too small adequately to meet the needs of London. Figures from the annual reports of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary, which are available in the Library, taking into account the decrease in the years since the Prime Minister took office, reveal that the increase was only 4 per cent. That is simply not enough to address the massive rise in crime. When we compare what the Government have delivered for London over the past 16 years with what they have done this year

87
and intend to do next year, we reach the simple and clear conclusion that the Home Secretary and the Government cannot be trusted with policing in London.
There will be fewer bobbies on the streets this year and again next year. Those on the front line in the battle against crime will be doing less. According to the commissioner's report, the Metropolitan police have cut overtime by 620,000 hours. On a crude calculation, that represents about 400 policemen and policewomen, so Londoners have 400 fewer bobbies on the beat simply because of the cut in overtime. It is a hidden cut, but it represents a real reduction. There are 400 fewer dedicated men and women serving the community in London. If we add that to the 500 we have lost since 1990, we begin to unravel the truth behind the Government's hollow rhetoric about tackling crime.
From what we have seen of the budget figures that are being considered at present, the position can only get worse. The new formula that has been devised for distributing resources for policing has made matters worse for London. This year, London lost £115 million. The loss has been protected by a dampening grant of £85 million, but that is simply a short-term palliative and £30 million has gone. Next year, a further £30 million will go and London will be progressively deprived of much-needed resources.
Mr. Congdon: I am intrigued by what the hon. Lady is saying. Is she saying that London, at a figure of £228 per head compared with an average of £97 per head nationally, is under-provided? If so, is Labour pledging to increase the total funding available to the police above the 97 per cent. increase in real terms since 1979, or is she suggesting that London should have even more of an increase over and above other authorities and that, in effect, we should rob other cities to pay London? Is that what she is suggesting, or is it another spending pledge by the Labour party?
Ms Hodge: The hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) spoke about the lack of policing resources in his own constituency, so it is rather surprising that he now attacks me for talking about policing resources in the capital. He should also know that it is nonsense to make a crude comparison between spending per head on policing in London and that in the rest of the country. The Metropolitan police have a number of national duties over and above those covered by other police services.
Finally, I was referring to the distribution of resources. I should have thought that every London Member who cared about London would have joined me in saying that London will lose the money it desperately needs to provide a more secure place for people to live and work by having an effective police service.
The Government claim to be the party of law and order. If that is the case, why are they cutting police strength in London and the police budgets for London? Why is London the only police service not to receive the minimum 3.6 per cent. increase in funding that the Home Secretary promised all police services? Why are the Government letting London down? It is now part of the well-worn political lexicon, but it is a classic example of a Minister failing miserably to do what he says.
Could all that have happened if there had been a properly accountable police service in London? I think not. If London had a proper democratically accountable
88
police authority, we would not be facing the crisis of confidence that exists in every community in London. The accountability of police in London is wrong.
It is wrong in principle, as every police service should be democratically accountable to the community that it seeks to serve and the people who foot the bill for that service. London council tax payers pay a precept, yet they have no say. It is wrong in practice because a necessary precondition for an effective police service is the consent and support of the community that is being policed. London lacks the transparent institutional link between the community and the police that must form the basis for building the trust and consensus that are required for effective policing.
It is particularly wrong because of the present Home Secretary. Theoretically, the Metropolitan police should be accountable to the Home Secretary and, through him, to Parliament. Our problem in London is that the present Home Secretary weaves and dives every time anybody suggests that he is responsible for anything. He may be trying to cover his own back, but he does so at the expense of Londoners. The creation of yet another unelected quango stuffed with Conservative yes people is an insult to Londoners.
When I asked the Home Secretary a series of questions about the newly formed Metropolitan police committee for London, he replied:
"These are matters for the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Committee.".
Therefore, I dutifully sought a reply to my questions from the chairman of the Metropolitan police committee only to be told that he could not reply to my questions because his advice is confidential. That was in the name of accountability—what a farce.
The Metropolitan police committee for London has not yet celebrated its first birthday, yet it is already clear that the band of unknown men and women plucked from the Government's politically partial list of the good and the great is bound to fail. The committee was dreamed up as a sop in response to the legitimate protests of Londoners that the police service is not accountable to them. The committee is not succeeding, and it will not succeed. Indeed, it can never succeed.
The committee's members are selected, not elected. As I read the list of members, it is difficult to find a good reason for their appointment to such an "august" body. The members include, for example, a retired general from the Falklands. The members have no legitimacy in the eyes of London. The chairman is Sir John Quinton— I have no doubt that he is an honest and good man—who assures me that he has never paid a penny into Conservative party funds. He knows all about London. He lives in Chenies in Buckinghamshire, which is the last Conservative-controlled shire. His background and experience are utterly relevant to policing the capital!
Sir John is a banker by trade. He is chairman of Wimpey plc and the non-executive director of an East Anglian building society. When I asked him to describe how he kept in touch with Londoners and their needs when it came to policing, he said that he obtained a useful insight from people he came across at his local tennis club. When I asked him how he saw his role, he gave me his mission statement. None of us has seen that statement because it is confidential. It appears, however, that he saw

89
his job as providing the best possible police service in London within existing resources. That seems fine but surely that is the job of the Home Secretary—or is it not?
The Metropolitan police committee costs London council taxpayers nearly £400,000. What for'? What is the added value of the committee? I do not know and its members cannot tell me. The chairman tells me that it is consulted on matters such as whether a firing range should be bought or a new helicopter. I am sure that these are vital matters, but the chairman cannot tell me what input, or effect, he is having, for example, on next year's policing plan for London.
I understand from what I have read in the newspapers that there is a row going on between the committee and the Commissioner on next year's policing plan. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us when he replies. What is the nature of the argument? Why do we want a police committee for London? We want a committee that acts as the public voice in policing matters. Instead, the Metropolitan police committee meets in secret. It gives advice to the Home Secretary that we shall never see. It has yet to publish a public report. How can that be said to reflect the voice of Londoners?
The situation becomes worse. When I asked Sir John Quinton whether he carried out surveys to test customers' views on policing—our views—he said that the committee did not carry out its own surveys but used those of the Metropolitan police. It seems that the committee has no independent means of testing Londoners' views.
When I asked whether the committee was taking a view on the effectiveness of existing police consultative groups, Sir John said that he had not interfered with the way in which the Metropolitan police consults these groups. When I asked how he incorporated Londoners' views in his report, he replied that, if his report was heavily criticised by the people of London, "we shall take account of it." That reflects the inadequacy of the current structure.
In answer to a question put to the Home Secretary in October 1995 by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), the Home Secretary replied:
"I am confident that the Metropolitan Police Committee will play an important part in improving the way in which policing in London can involve the community."—[Official Report, 19 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 471.]
Given the way in which the committee functions, however, it does nothing to involve the community any more in the policing of London. Unelected individuals who have no clear locus and no democratic constituency cannot improve the way in which policing in London involves the community. They are not doing that and they do not pretend in their mission statement to recognise that as their legitimate role.
We know that £400,000 would buy us an extra 20 policemen and women for London. I believe that that sum would be better spent on extra police officers rather than on a committee that is unelected and unaccountable, and ultimately will be unsuccessful.
8.26 pm
Mr. Nigel Forman: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. Having taken part in similar debates in previous years, I hope that the annuality of these debates can be restored. As Opposition Members have said, there was a period of, I think, two or three years recently when these debates did not take place. I hope that those who manage the business of this place will ensure that in future these debates are annual. They give us a useful opportunity to take stock of law-and-order issues as they affect our constituents. They enable us to make some constructive suggestions about how such difficult matters can be handled in future.
I make no apology for the fact that I shall make a rather parochial speech. I do so deliberately, because I believe that law-and-order issues are often matters of local concern. I believe also that the best policing is local, in many instances. I shall speak from that point of view.
I do not know what your experience is, Madam Deputy Speaker, but on the basis of recent contacts in my constituency, it seems to me that the fear of crime and the reality of crime are still, alas, all too evident among the general public. In my part of south London, however— that is Sutton, and specifically the constituency of Carshalton and Wallington—considerable progress is being made by the excellent local police force of Z division, under the command of Superintendent Duncan Croll, and more locally still by the sector police under Inspector Trevor Shepherd, who covers much of the Carshalton area and some of the Sutton area within the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), and Inspector Rick Algar, whose officers police the Wallington sector.
I pay a warm tribute, as have other hon. Members, to the local police for all their efforts in the difficult area that we are discussing, and to the law-abiding majority of my constituents, who give the police their support. A point well made throughout the debate is that it is not possible to achieve real law and order in any modern community without the full partnership and support of many agencies and that of the general public.
As we shall never have enough resources to do everything we want and need to do in crime prevention and detection, it is clear that crime will be controlled, and ultimately reduced, only through partnership among the police, courts, parents, teachers, local authorities, youth workers, politicians and, above all, the general public, whether mobilised in the shape of neighbourhood watch or in any other good local schemes. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and I are pleased to receive the minutes of the police liaison committee in Sutton and to attend its meetings whenever we can, as we did last week, and to see the valuable way in which all its members, under the excellent chairmanship of Mrs. Heather Shaw, contribute to useful dialogue between representatives of the local community and the police who serve it.
As recently as last Friday, I made another visit to Wallington police station, the vital police station in my constituency, and benefited greatly from a useful exchange of views with Inspector Algar and his officers. I took the opportunity to go out on patrol in the Roundshaw area of my constituency with the beat officer concerned, PC Graham Curtis, and his colleague, PC Robert Butters.

91
That experience underlined to me the importance of partnership on the ground with officials from the housing department, youth workers and all those who can have a positive influence, especially on young people. With such a police presence, which is reassuring and well focused, it is possible to make greater efforts in youth club activity, neighbourhood watch and common citizenship, which ensures that crime is kept below the level that it would otherwise reach in the absence of such arrangements.
I was struck by what PC Curtis told me from his observations about the architecture of some of the estates that were built in the 1960s and 1970s. As the London borough of Sutton and the private sector have been successful with the single regeneration bid, we should be able to design out many of the opportunities that exist for crime in the architecture of large estates, just as, alas, they had been designed in when they were first built.
The good news about law and order in my constituency is demonstrated by the significant fall in reported crime for the second year running, and by the significant improvement in the clear-up rates on the most sensitive categories of crime. The clear-up rate is still not as good as the officers would wish, but it is getting better, and, with the support of the local community, it could get better still.
The police have had considerable success in targeting known criminals, which has already been mentioned. In one local example given to me today, a young man apparently admitted, once in custody, to 600 other vehicle crimes in addition to the ones with which he had been charged. Clearly, those factors affect the clear-up rate considerably.
I note the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam about the value of closed circuit television. She said, quite rightly, that there has been considerable success with the CCTV that was installed in the Sutton high street area. As soon as resources permit, I should like to see that technology spread to other parts of my constituency, to ensure that we do not simply displace crime and anti-social behaviour rather than eradicate it altogether.
I am confident that CCTV has a positive effect, but it needs to be spread as widely as possible to maximise the return on the investment. That can be done satisfactorily only as long as there is a strong partnership and understanding among the council, youth workers, teachers, the probation service, and projects to combat problems such as drugs through the youth awareness programme.
All that is good news, but the House will not be surprised to learn that there remain some important concerns on law and order in my constituency. Perhaps the most frequently expressed is that there still do not appear to be enough officers on duty at any given time. I do not know whether the problem is made worse by the common funding formula.
It would appear from what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said earlier today that there will be a real increase in the coming year of 3.6 per cent., which, as he rightly pointed out, is ahead of the current rate of inflation. He also told us that some 35 per cent. of all officers are now on street duty. That is very welcome,
92
but my constituents would like the proportion to be higher still. They would wish that the common funding formula for the Met did not have the effect, as allegedly it does, of deterring Londoners from enjoying the police protection that they believe the special problems of the London area deserve.
It is a sobering thought that in the greater part of my constituency that is covered by the Wallington sector live some 60,000 people, in some six square miles of densely populated suburbia. Yet at any given time, if one were to carry out a spot check of the number of officers on duty, whether on bicycles, on foot or in quick-response vehicles, the true figure would be about six. Even though they do a marvellous job, and it is even more important that there is a partnership with all aspects of the local community, it causes genuine concern, especially among the lay public.
Furthermore, if we are to have the common funding formula, it is important that we do not penalise success in policing, in areas such as Z division—my own area— where, mercifully, the reported crime figures are not as high as those in other areas; indeed, they are falling when compared with the less fortunate areas, where the rate of crime is still high and rising.
In so far as we seek to resolve the problems with resources as and when they come available, we should do so on the basis of differential expansion rather than zero sum calculations, where, if one part of the metropolitan area gets relatively more resources, another part must get less.
I believe that we need to upgrade and extend the use of new information technology, which is already proving successful. That would certainly assist the officers in my constituency in dealing with what they regard as a blizzard of paperwork, and it would release more of them for active duty on the streets and in quick-response vehicles. They have argued strongly both to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and to me at recent meetings that it would assist them in combating street robbery.
There has been one good step in that direction. I understand that, in dealings between the local police and the Crown Prosecution Service, there is a tendency to use what are called abbreviated files, whereby some four elements are used in a particular case rather than 15, which was previously the position.
In so far as police officers have to deal with urgent and violent crime, it is important that they are suitably protected. I was glad to hear what my right hon. and learned Friend had to say about that. I welcome the forthcoming trial of CS aerosol sprays. I hope that, when it has been properly considered, it will be available to officers.
The advantage, as explained to me, is that it is better designed to restrain or put off somebody who threatens a police officer physically, without necessarily doing excessive damage to that person, which might be the case with long-handled batons. It would be a welcome accessory for police officers.
It must, of course, be accompanied by tougher powers to deal with the carrying of knives and other offensive weapons. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her Bill. It was significant that, in the recent amnesty, in the Sutton and Wallington police stations alone, some 108 knifes and other weapons were collected.

93
In the long run, the continuing battle against crime must involve all of us—all members of the community. The police do their best, and we now have a professional and dedicated police service in Z division and in other parts of the country, but the police on their own cannot do everything. Notwithstanding modern technology and all the other modern techniques, the real key must be the partnership of which I have spoken, involving all members of the law-abiding community.
If we establish such a partnership, the level of crime will continue to fall steadily, as it has in recent years. Moreover, after a due delay, the fear of crime that disables and perplexes so many people will also be reduced, and people of all types and ages will be able to enjoy their pleasures and go about their business freely, without being dogged by that fear.
I commend the Metropolitan police for their efforts.
8.40 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) on, as usual, making a thoughtful speech. I agreed with much of it, especially his opening remarks about "designing out" crime on housing estates. As he said, we need to invest money for that purpose. Closed circuit television, entryphones and street lighting can all help.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) paid tribute to his local police force. As my hon. Friend's neighbour, I am happy to pay tribute to my local force, which has a good record in tackling racial and domestic violence every day, as well as more unusual crimes. It also has a good record on community policing.
The Waltham Forest panel of lay visitors has raised two important issues. The first is the detention of immigrants in police cells. In a report, the panel stated that in the summer of last year, four detainees were kept for as long as 80 hours in cells that were suitable only for detention for up to 24 hours. That, said the panel, imposed an unnecessary strain on both police and detainees— including other detainees being held in police cells.
Such lengthy detentions are unacceptable. Police cells, after all, are not prison cells; nor are they immigration detention centres. It should be borne in mind that the detainees have committed no crime.
The panel's second point relates to forensic medical examiners. Its report states:
"We have noted that many female detainees for cultural or personal reasons have expressed a preference for the services of a female FME."
Female FMEs, however, are not available. I wrote to the Minister of State, Home Office, who is responsible for prisons. She replied in September, saying that the Metropolitan police currently employed 117 FMEs, of whom only 25 were women.
The letter added:
"If the sex of the person being examined is different to that of the FME, a chaperon is always present."
The next sentence—with which I take issue—states:
"The Commissioner tells me that custody officers are sensitive to the individual needs of detainees, and if a female FME is requested they will do their best to oblige."
I do not think that that is good enough. The panel referred to "cultural or personal reasons"; some of the women involved may have been victims of sexual assault,
94
and should have the right to be examined by a female FME if they request it. I shall not go into the details of women being shackled in prisons, but one of the obscene aspects of that is the fact that they were shackled to men. It is just as bad for a forensic medical examination to be carried out by a man against the wishes of the woman concerned.
The number of police officers from ethnic minorities is still very low, as is the proportion. At the time of a report issued by the Commissioner, only 11 police officers out of a total of 237 in Leyton were from ethnic minorities—4.64 per cent. In all divisions, out of 19,693 police—including school crossing patrols—only 625, or 3.17 per cent., were from ethnic minorities. In that context, the police are not representative of the wider community they serve.
According to one report, some 60 per cent. of London's black 16 to 24-year-olds are out of work. There is discrimination against black people in general in terms of employment, but there is clearly discrimination against them in terms of police employment as well. If the police do not have enough officers from ethnic minorities, they will not have the necessary links with the ethnic minority communities where some crime occurs, and they will not be able to achieve the necessary results. My police chief tells me that many London police forces cannot take on more ethnic minority officers, because they are "downsizing"
The 1990 Trust—in conjunction with the National Black Caucus, the Association of Black Probation Officers, the Society of Black Lawyers and the Black Police Association—wrote to me about police recruitment. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, the trust pointed out:
"a higher proportion of ethnic minority officers quit the force compared to white officers."
According to the Black Police Association,
"a large and increasing number of Black officers are forced to take the Met to Industrial Tribunals."
The trust also quoted from an article in The Guardian, published in late 1994, which referred to police attitudes. Mike Bennett, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, complained of
"a growing feeling in the police force that white heterosexual officers are an endangered species".
As the figures show, that was a very silly comment. Such attitudes need to be tackled.
The Conservative Government have a bad record on crime. Only one crime in 50 now results in a successful court conviction: that represents a 15 per cent. drop since 1980. The Government have cut compensation for victims. A woman who had been raped in a near-fatal attack received about £75,000 under the old scheme; now, she would receive only £7,500. A police officer who was the victim of crime would probably receive only a tenth of what he would have received under the old scheme.
The number of offences has risen by 47 per cent. since 1979 in London; within that figure, the level of violent crime has risen by 199 per cent., and the level of criminal damage by 116 per cent. The clear-up rate still hovers around 16 per cent.
The Government boast that the number of police officers has increased over the same period, but that is because the crime rate has soared. I will not go into the

95
details of the police formula to which my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) referred, but it seems that there will be cuts. The Association of London Authorities speaks of cuts of £30 million last year, £30 million this year and the possibility of £30 million in each of the next six years. That must be reflected in police numbers.
Deaths in custody are an important issue. The verdict of unlawful killing that was returned at the inquest into the death of Shiji Lapite a couple of weeks ago was the second unlawful killing verdict returned on deaths involving Metropolitan police officers in three months. The Lapite verdict was made on 25 January; that on Richard O'Brien was made on 10 November last year.
Those verdicts are a terrible indictment of London's police service. Both juries accepted that unlawful, excessive and reckless force had been used by the police officers concerned. Both coroners expressed their concerns, in the form of coroners' recommendations, about the restraint techniques used by the police, and referred the files back to the Crown Prosecution Service. Decisions by the CPS on the cases of Brian Douglas and Wayne Douglas, who also died at the hands of the police, are awaited.
At the Lapite inquest, it was astonishing that police officers' evidence was that they were unaware of the dangers of neckholds and had received no training about those dangers, despite the fact that the Police Complaints Authority and the Association of Chief Police Officers had expressed concern about them.
On the day of the Lapite verdict, the Met paid out £90,000-worth of damages to three people assaulted by officers, one of whom had applied a neckhold. I will not go into all the comments and into what the coroner said about those cases. In the Shiji Lapite case, the officer admitted kicking the head
"as hard as he could".
The coroner described a "gross disparity" between injuries sustained by Lapite and what the officers said was the case.
The police seem to have learnt nothing from those deaths in custody. In 1981, Winston Rose, a mentally ill man in my constituency of Leyton, died after suffocating on his vomit. In 1983, the same happened to Nicholas Ofusi. Those deaths in police custody from suffocation put out warning signals. In my opinion, they spell malpractice. Both the recent deaths of Shiji Lapite and Richard O'Brien raise questions about the police's lack of accountability. Action has not been taken to prevent future brutalities.
The "Spitting Image" programme has a question and answer feature either side of the break. The question in the forthcoming week could be, "Who issued no statement of apology following those verdicts, including that on the unlawful killing of Shiji Lapite, but instead, the day after the Lapite verdict was returned, issued an attack on the largest-selling black newspaper, The Voice, for complaining about racism in the Met?"
The answer would be Sir Paul Condon, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. His reaction to those deaths in custody and to having to pay out those amounts of compensation are little short of shameful. He has a lot of good will, but he will lose it if he does not take firm action in relation to such deaths.
96
In a parliamentary question, I asked the Minister whether he would ban the use of neck "choke" holds, which have been banned in other countries. The Police Complaints Authority has produced evidence, and given it to him, saying that such holds are deadly. To his shame, in one of the worst answers that I have received in the House—and we receive plenty of bad answers—he said that he would not ban neckholds, despite all the evidence and the case of Shiji Lapite. That is a shameful episode.
The police must deal with the issue of deaths in custody or, as I said in a parliamentary question, they will supply a blue touchpaper for riots that no hon. Member wants to see.
8.54 pm
Mr. Piers Merchant: Like many capital cities, London is a city of crime, yet its streets are freer of crime and safer to walk down than most streets in cities of comparable size throughout the world. The reason is the work that has been put in over the years and, more recently, by the Metropolitan police in particular. That is a great tribute to them.
There are, of course, numerous causes of crime and many solutions are needed, but the single most important requirement is effective policing. That means, first, having a police force that, fundamentally, consists of good, honest and well-trained men. I am glad to say that that applies to the Met—its expertise is improving by the day.
Secondly, the police force needs to be of the right size. We have heard today that the Metropolitan police force is large and growing. It has about 5,000 more officers than in 1979; it got 259 extra policemen in 1995–96, and 180 more are promised in the coming year, so the size is increasing. More to the point, however, a record number of men are at the sharp end on the streets because officers have been released by civilianisation. We have the highest ever number of uniformed police constables on the streets. That applies in most regions in London, as well as across the board.
Thirdly, the police force needs to be correctly utilised. It needs to be targeted in the most effective way. That requires community policing—police on the beat—sector policing and the structure that supports that. It requires expertise, with police working in specialised areas to deal with, and to target, specialised crime. It requires police to be released from jobs that can be done by civilians so that they can concentrate on what one might call—as I am sure they would call it—real police work.
The results have been as follows. First, the police can more effectively deter crime by being visible on the streets. Secondly, they can produce a higher detection rate, which can be achieved, in particular, by expertise and specialised units in the force. That not only deters crime, but ensures that the people who are guilty of crime and who are detected are punished, often being removed from society. They cannot, therefore, at least for a while, commit that crime again. The results of those effective policies can be seen in the crime figures. As the Home Secretary said, over the past two years the crime rate throughout London has declined by 13 per cent. That means that more than 60,000 fewer crimes are now being committed in the capital than were being committed two years ago. That is no small matter.
That trend is reflected in my area, which is covered by Bromley police division, where there has been a decline in the number of crimes over each of the past two years,

97
and the figure is improving. There has also been an improvement in the feelings of ordinary citizens in terms of their being safe from the effects of crime. The policies have produced real and sustainable benefits.
The detection rate has improved. It has nearly doubled from 12 to 23 per cent. which is also a good source of comfort. Of course there are differences within the borough and I am concerned that some areas are still showing signs of an increase in crime. In addition, some crimes are not showing the same decline as the general trend. Those areas need targeting, and to that extent I support my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) who rightly drew attention to outer London and the need for police resources and manpower to be distributed in a way that will tackle crime most effectively. I am not criticising the present level of resources, but it is wise to keep a close eye on those resources to ensure that they are best deployed.
Benefits flow from community liaison. In my area there are three police community liaison bodies: the Bromley police consultative committee, the Beckenham sector police discussion group, and the Penge area police community working party. Those three groups work effectively. I am a regular attender at the meetings of all three. They help to keep the police in contact with the views of ordinary people but they have other functions as well. They are part of the process of policing in a democracy and in that sense they are an important part of that system. They also help the police and the community through a two-way flow of information. More than that, in some cases they directly assist in protecting the public and assisting the police in carrying out their duty. In that context, I think especially of the neighbourhood watch groups in the area, which perform a useful function. I add my thanks to those, in the House and outside, who volunteer their time and effort to support neighbourhood watch.
The three discussion groups, or police-community liaison groups—whatever we call them—are useful from the politician's viewpoint because they enable local councillors and hon. Members in London boroughs to meet regularly not just one local police officer but officers throughout the hierarchy to discuss semi-formally the various problems that are emerging, as well as hearing community feedback. I praise the chairman of the Beckenham discussion group, Peter North, for his consistent work over a number of years. I welcome and thank the new chief superintendent for the borough, David Martin, for his commitment, even early on in his new post, to police-community liaison work.
The police do not work in a vacuum. They cannot carry out their job effectively without the backing of the whole law and order framework. Sensitive and useful reform of sentencing, the courts, rules of evidence and so on are essential. The Government's work on that over the past few years is reaping benefits and dividends that the police recognise. The toughening of sentencing policy, the improvement in the balance between defendants and prosecuting authorities in the courts and changes to the rules of evidence have succeeded in ensuring that the police can do their job more effectively. Those measures also ensure that their morale is improved, and they bring back confidence to the general public.
I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for his personal work in this area. He has led, guided and determined the direction that should be
98
taken. He has proved to be the most effective Home Secretary that I can remember. I support his plans to introduce minimum sentences, after consultation and after taking into account the views of people who are intimately connected with the enforcement of the law. That would also help the police in London in their difficult role.
Various innovations in new technology in terms of communication and of detecting crime, and the introduction of genetic data banks are already proving that they are useful in deterring and detecting crime. They are a useful additional armoury for the police in their difficult role.
Of course closed circuit television has a very important part to play. I suspect that its role will massively expand in coming years. In Bromley, there is an excellent example of its use in the town centre, where a new CCTV system has already prevented and detected crime. I am glad that the London borough of Bromley is planning next to introduce it in Beckenham town centre in the middle of my constituency. I hope that that is only the beginning, because I would like the use of such systems to be extended much further. They play an important role in making our society safer.
Sensitive reforms and innovation bring about a dramatic turn in the battle against crime, which is now being won. The benefits of the new measures and of Government policy are reflected in figures which increasingly show that things are moving in the right direction.
9.5 pm
Mr. Paul Boateng: There is no room in a debate on policing in London for self-satisfaction or complacency on any side. Crime and the fear of crime are part and parcel of the reality of the daily lives of those whom we represent. Whether one considers the number of police in December, as the Home Secretary would ask us to do, or the figures for April, the reality is, as the Home Office itself has accepted in its report "Anxiety About Crime", fear of, and anxiety about, crime are at their highest ever levels. That is the backcloth against which we debate policing in London and judge the Home Secretary's performance.
We owe the police, who are in the front line of the battle to reduce that anxiety and fear, a debt of gratitude. We owe them our gratitude and support—unconditional but not uncritical support—in the battle that they wage. In doing that, we owe it to them to be frank about some of the challenges that remain. At the forefront of those challenges is a continuing democratic deficit in the policing of London.
Reference has been made to Sir Paul Condon's views on that issue, and with good cause. When answering questions put by the Home Affairs Select Committee, he made it clear, especially in relation to the alienation of young people, that he felt that we needed to be prepared to look at ways in which to revitalise the links between the police and democratically accountable local bodies. That need is very clear to anyone who has any experience of working with young people in our city and anyone who has any knowledge or appreciation of the crisis that affects the youth service and voluntary youth work in London today.
Young people offend for a number of reasons. There is a complex pattern of causes of juvenile crime. There is no doubt that devilment is part of that pattern, but idleness

99
and alienation play their part, too. One of the benefits of a properly resourced youth service, which enables partnership at local level between the local authority, the voluntary youth service and the police, is that it enables them to show young people another way.
When I was a young community lawyer, I sat on Westminster youth council. That council consisted of people from the uniformed sector, church youth clubs—one of which I represented—and local authorities. They sat with the police. Graham Dark, who, as hon. Members may remember, was head of security here, sat on Westminster youth council as a young inspector.
A whole cross-section of people in the local community were determined to ensure that young people had options and alternatives to the idleness that is all too often at the root of offending, that they were brought into the system, rather than alienated from it, and that they had some sense of responsibility to the local communities of which they were a part.
The fabric of that youth and community service has been stretched to breaking point and the increase in offending among young people must be seen in that context. We look to local authorities and to the Government to begin to tackle how we rebuild communities and a youth service that can act as a forum in which young people, the police, youth workers, the churches and the uniformed services can get together and show that there is another way.
Until and unless that is done, much of what we do and say about policing and young people will be to no avail. The local authority has a vital role to play. A police authority for London would also have a vital role to play—the fact that one does not exist is of profound regret. It does not end there. The lack of a police authority for London also acts as an obstacle to the development of strategies to prevent crime.
Recently, the Home Secretary visited Wembley, where the Chalkhill estate is due to be redeveloped. There is a partnership between local neighbourhood watch schemes, the police and people who live on the estate and who are desperately concerned about crime and offending. It has been a fruitful partnership.
I must pay tribute to Gloria Gold, who is the chairperson of the St. David's close and Barnhill road residents committee. Like many other people in London, she is involved in her local tenants' and residents' group and her local neighbourhood watch scheme. She is concerned about the pressure on resources, in terms of the provision of police officers on the beat. More importantly, she is concerned that the local authority does not seem to be giving the police and the local community the backing that they both seek to ensure that the developers provide for a police post on the estate. That is absolutely vital. I have taken up the case with the Minister, and I am grateful for his response.
The local divisional commander, Mr. Bligh, has obtained the promise of resources. All that is needed is a willingness on the part of the local authority that such important considerations for policing and crime prevention should be built into the development plan.
Just as we saw all too often in the 1960s and 1970s that crime was built into estates, so with co-ordination and effective strategies based on partnership, we can help
100
build crime out of the estates. The fact that Brent council is not taking every opportunity to do so is a failure that it may come to regret.
My plea, which is echoed by other Members of Parliament and communities throughout London, is that we build on the partnership that is beginning to grow in our capital city—a partnership against crime.
We recognise that challenges remain. Reference has been made to recruitment into the police from a broader cross-section of the community, and that is a real challenge. The Metropolitan police still has some way to go in addressing that issue in terms of its equal opportunities policies, but it is supported by the community and this House as it does so. The real concerns about deaths in police custody remain, as do concerns about stopping and searching. Metropolitan police research into that matter has shown that a disproportionate number of young black people are picked up during such stopping and searching exercises. That is undoubtedly a cause of the suspicion that continues to exist in some sections of the community towards the police, and it also undermines the attempts by the police to recruit more young people from ethnic minority communities.
The challenges are there, but they can be overcome with goodwill and determination. Nothing is more likely to underpin our efforts to overcome the problem of crime and the fear of crime in our community than some sign that the Government have learnt the lessons of history and are prepared to give London what it demands—a directly elected police authority.
9.15 pm
Lady Olga Maitland: A serious and thoughtful debate has been somewhat marred by the unrealistic claims of Labour Members that the Government are somehow responsible for rocketing crime. I note that Labour has produced a briefing note for its Members which runs to only one and a half pages. The briefing shows the paucity of Labour's arguments, and demonstrates how it is clutching and clawing at the air as it tries to produce figures to substantiate its point of view.
The truth is that Labour is full of hot air, signifying nothing. Interestingly, the briefing contains not a single mention of Labour's failure to support Government legislation to take tough action on crime and on thugs. The Government have a positive record of tackling crime, and we know that we have the public's confidence to carry on in that regard. No one can blame the Government, however, for the criminal actions of some people, and society must look to its conscience on that matter.
I am concerned about juvenile crime, and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner's report is disturbing. Twenty-eight per cent. of all notifiable crime is carried out by 14 to 20-year-olds, while 53 per cent. of those arrested for robbery and 50 per cent. of those arrested for car crime are from the same age group. I feel that parents and schools have a key role in setting standards and insisting on law-abiding behaviour.
Mr. Soley: While I agree about the need to a set a good example, does the hon. Lady agree that that would be easier if we did not have a Home Secretary who was

101
constantly at war with the courts, losing cases before them, undermining and sniping at them and generally undermining the rule of law?
Lady Olga Maitland: The most important thing is that we have a Home Secretary who is totally dedicated to tackling crime. My right hon. and learned Friend has introduced legislation to deter crime and to deal with bullies who try to flout the law.
Young people and young criminals should be taught not just the three Rs in school, but the difference between right and wrong. School bullies should not be tolerated; school authorities have turned a blind eye to their activities for far too long. There are no excuses for committing crimes—we cannot blame socio-economic factors. The vast majority of poor people in this country would regard such a view as frankly insulting.
We cannot blame the police for amoral attitudes in society. Their duty is to protect the public, and our duty is to give them all the support and back-up that they need. That is why the Metropolitan police can spend £228 per head tackling crime, which is a generous figure compared with just under £100 per head in the regions.
Spending has increased by 87 per cent., even allowing for inflation, since 1979, which means that more officers are available for operational duty—contrary to the remarks of the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge). A further 5,000 police officers are due to come on stream over the next five years, following my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's announcement at our last party conference. The job of the police is to deter crime and to make sure that it does not pay; our job is to give the judiciary the necessary framework to impose heavy penalties. Above all, we must put the victims first. The Government have done all that.
I especially endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) about the hard work of the police in the borough of Sutton, where I am proud to be Member of Parliament for Sutton and Cheam. I endorse my hon. Friend's tribute to Chief Superintendent Duncan Kroll and I pay tribute to Chief Inspector Broadhurst, the senior officer at Sutton police station. They have a proud record. Reported crime has fallen significantly for the second year running: reported burglary is down 13 per cent. on the 1994 figures, reported vehicle crime is down 6 per cent. and clear-up rates remain above the Metropolitan police average, which is 30 per cent. both for total offences and for burglary.
I am glad to report that the Sutton burglary posse is now on the run. Those persistent juvenile offenders—young thugs aged 12 to 14 who build up hero worship among their peer group for burglary, taking and driving cars and plain stealing—are on the wane. That is largely due to improved policing and tougher sentencing, with more offenders being sent to secure units. They have now left town. That is the direct result of Sutton's policing policy of targeting known offenders. Their families, friends and movements were known to the police who, using good intelligence, decided to focus on the relatively small number of individuals who committed a disproportionate number of criminal offences.
Such tasking has had a considerable effect, because the police were able to build up a complete picture of young offenders—their life style, friends and movements—and
102
put them under sufficient surveillance to be able to catch them red-handed. They have also been tackling car crime. Tasking is being focused in a similar way to make sure that young people do not take and drive away cars in the great numbers that they used to.
I am concerned about the large number of 19 to 21-year-olds who are vulnerable to the temptation of taking high-performance cars—whether stolen or belonging to their families—careering down motorways and causing the most terrible accidents. Car manufacturers should look to their consciences. Do they really need to sell cars capable of speeds of up to 180 mph when the motorway speed limit is 70 mph?
By the same token, it is important that we should focus on drug dealers, suppliers and the locations where drugs are known to be supplied. That has to be backed up by more health and education, which has been shown to be a better way of getting the message home than the law and order route alone.
I applaud the Sutton initiative on closed circuit television. That is undoubtedly the result of the input from the Government, who have made an overall investment of £15 million. It has changed the face of Sutton's town centre. Crime is down by 15 per cent. and the confidence of local shopkeepers is up. CCTV is an important innovation which has been introduced to car parks and, one hopes, will be extended to other high streets in the area.
I pay particular tribute to the 3,000 Metropolitan police officers who have been grievously attacked by criminals. It is essential that the police receive proper assistance to protect themselves as they go about their duties. Thugs take advantage of the fact that police officers are unarmed.
Stabbings constitute the majority of injuries to police. At Kilburn police station, I watched a training video about how police should deal with a knife attack. It was based on real-life experiences, with first-hand accounts from victims—both men and women—which are humbling to us all and should be compulsory viewing on television. If that video were shown on television, people would have a better understanding of the high risks that police officers run on their behalf. Those accounts emphasise how important it is that my private Member's Bill, the Offensive Weapons Bill, passes through Parliament, as it will play a key part in eliminating the knife culture.
Young thugs should not be allowed to get away with knife attacks. Society should say, "Enough—we have decided that you should clear off; it will end today." The knife culture is encouraged by peer group pressure and the propaganda that it is masculine to carry a knife. That must come to an end. Severe penalties should be introduced for those who carry knives and the police should be given greater powers of arrest. That will change the future face of society in London and make it safer.
9.25 pm
Mrs. Bridget Prentice: This has been a good debate, in which London Members of Parliament have shown a passion for and commitment to safety in our capital city. It is a pity that the Home Secretary has taken so long to come to the House and be accountable to hon. Members for the policing of London. In some 40 months, this is only the third time that London Members of Parliament have had the opportunity to test

103
his accountability. That says very little for the Home Secretary's concern about democracy and open government.
We have come to expect Ministers to say one thing and do another. With regard to an accountable police force for London, with the Government it is a matter of one Home Secretary saying one thing and the next Home Secretary doing another. Perhaps the Minister of State will tell us whether we can have fixed dates for debating policing in London.
It is astonishing that the Home Secretary is against proper accountability of the police service in London when senior police officers favour it—as indeed do the majority of people in London. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) said, why does London have to be different from the rest of the country? In a witty and devastating attack on the Metropolitan police advisory committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) explained exactly why we need proper accountability.
Throughout the debate, it has been quite clear that all hon. Members have the greatest respect for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and his staff and for the way in which they have approached the serious problems in our capital city. I remind the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) that there are female as well as male police officers. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) made a very telling point when he talked about the effect that the changes to criminal injuries compensation will have on police officers.
London suffers because some believe that its streets are paved with gold and that opportunity and wealth hang from every tree. However, London's scale and size is matched only by the scale and size of its problems. With 9.5 per cent. of the population out of work, unemployment is a bigger problem in London than in many other parts of the country. The Government's increasing practice of providing care in the community has hit London hardest and placed many at risk from serious crime. London and Londoners are confronted with a higher proportion of serious crimes—murder, rape, armed robbery, fraud and drug-related offences—than elsewhere in the country. Londoners do not need that. Officers of the Met have worked closely with councillors and community groups—the people of London—to try to combat those horrendous offences.
There have been notable successes. Before discussing some of the other issues that are of great concern to the people and the police of London, I pay tribute to the police in achieving results against considerable odds. Operation Bumblebee and Operation Eagle Eye have achieved and are achieving considerable success. I pay special tribute to Chief Superintendents Ken Chapman and Jane Stitchbury and their officers in the Lewisham and Catford divisions. Members of Parliament representing Lewisham work in close partnership with them and could not do our work so well without them.
In Catford division there has been a considerable increase in the clear-up rate due to the introduction of dedicated proactive teams. Nevertheless, the police believe that they are under-resourced and could do more if they were fairly treated by the Government. Unlike other police authorities, the Met will not receive part of
104
the special grant that will guarantee at least a 3 per cent. increase in funding. They have been specifically excluded. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking, in a robust speech which obviously rattled the Home Secretary, made that argument extremely well—indeed, she rattled him so much that he had to leave the Chamber.
If, in response, the Minister says that the police will be able for the first time to carry over reserves, I say that, although that is true, it does not properly reflect the costs of providing a police service in London. The "crime management" formula assumes that similar crimes in different areas take the same amount of resources to solve. No allowance is made for variations in the time it takes to solve crimes and, in a densely populated city such as London with, among other things, a transient population, it is more likely to take more time to resolve problems.
We are equally worried about the "community relations" part of the formula, which is distributed purely on the basis of resident population. The consultants, Price Waterhouse, suggested that factors such as council estates, ethnic origins and levels of crime should be taken into account.
Much of the work that the police do is not reflected in the performance indicators. The chief superintendent in the Lewisham division said that a disabled woman's daughter has to call the police out at 3 am to help her put her mother back into bed. Because of the severity of that woman's disability, it takes five officers to help the daughter do that and preserve that woman's dignity. That is not reflected in the performance indicators, but who else is there for that family to turn to?
What about the case of Officer John Dine in Deptford, who has built up such a trust in his community that people whose first language is not English ask him to fill in their forms for them? That is not recognised in performance indicators, yet that is part of the police service.
Why has the Home Secretary rejected his consultants' advice on that issue? Why should the Met be prevented from qualifying for the specific grant because it has a rate refund this year, when other authorities are perfectly at liberty to carry forward reserves?
Last time we debated this subject, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) predicted that there would be a reduction in the number of police officers. Sadly, her prediction has proved all too true. The original budget for 1996–97 provided for 27,808 officers. The latest figures provide for 27,674–134 fewer officers. The Commissioner will try to deal with that at inspector and sergeant level to protect the number of bobbies on the beat. He has said, however:
"the impact on divisional policing will be significant and will undermine the ability to maintain proactive initiatives to meet local priorities."
I recently requested figures for street patrols. They show that, in 1995, the percentage of time spent on street duties was 35 per cent. Given that only one third of police time is spent on the street, it is little wonder that the Commissioner—with, I am sure, the support of the majority of Londoners—is doing everything that he can to protect that part of the service. Perhaps the Minister can say what initiatives the Home Secretary is taking to help the police spend less time on administration and more time on the street, catching criminals.
Another success in crime prevention has been closed circuit television. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), in an excellent speech, described

105
the use of the safer cities initiative in her constituency. Many police officers remain concerned about which areas in London will be covered—as are the small businesses that would benefit most. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) also raised that point.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green said, the guidelines have been biased against London, giving priority to smaller centres of population. Can the Minister reassure Londoners that he will take their fears seriously and play fair with London in distributing funds for CCTV, so that the capital gets its fair share? Crime in London has too high a cost for the Government to duck their responsibilities. Crime against business is a problem not only for individual business men and women but for their employees, the economy and the country.
The Forum of Private Business survey showed that more than 40 per cent. of businesses throughout the country were burgled last year, yet the figure for London was an astounding 61 per cent. Businesses are increasingly having to incorporate the cost of crime in their budgeting, with £525.6 million spent on crime prevention in 1994–95. London businesses are increasingly refused insurance cover, or are hit with exorbitant premiums. At the same time, shutters and closed shops encourage vandalism, graffiti and fear. It is estimated that crime costs businesses more than half a billion pounds every year, and that only two thirds of that sum is recovered. The message is clear: under the Tories, it is not the criminals who pay for their victims, as the crime tax hits the capital's economic and employment prospects.
It is clear that Londoners, in common with people throughout the country, have a considerable fear of crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall made a thoughtful speech on that issue and she was absolutely right. A Metropolitan police survey showed that half the respondents felt threatened by crime in their areas. Asked whether they felt safe walking home after dark, the number who felt very safe fell from a previously poor 23 per cent. to a staggeringly low 16 per cent. Thirty-seven per cent. of Londoners were "quite concerned" about crime, and 55 per cent. were "very concerned". Two out of three Londoners believe that crime in the capital will worsen. That is an appalling indictment of Government policies. We know also that 49 per cent. of women are afraid to walk down their own streets at night.
It is time to give our streets and public places back to our law-abiding citizens. That can be done. A number of hon. Members mentioned partnerships between police and local authorities. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) did not feel able to congratulate his Labour council on its excellent work in that regard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) spoke eloquently of the need for partnership to develop further. If I may give a plug for my own authority, there have been a large number of successful partnership schemes between the council, police and local community—so much so that good liaison and response has become part of the fabric of policing in Lewisham. The police in Lewisham—as elsewhere in London, I imagine—believe that it is vital to increase public confidence in the police. As Superintendent Ken Chapman said,
106
"that boils down to increasing police visibility."
Confidence may be falling because the service remains under-resourced while its domain is extended. The police and the public want more bobbies to be putting in more hours on the beat, but that is difficult because of the increase in paperwork and the developing administrative role that the police are taking on, in addition to the increasing pressure on the police as other groups and support networks are eroded.
Many police officers feel increasingly frustrated by the amount of paperwork that they have to do, which is often thrown back in their faces when the Crown Prosecution Service decides not to proceed with a case. The police officer is then expected to go back to the victim and explain why a vandal, thief, mugger or worse is to get away with it. When will the Government review the way in which the Crown Prosecution Service works so that it enhances and supports the work done by the police, rather than causing deep distress and growing cynicism among the police and the public, and particularly among victims?
There have been a number of tragic examples of people being returned to the local community from care in hospitals when clearly they are not able to cope. Those people regularly end up on the streets. I do not wish to go into the details of individual cases, but due to cuts in council and other services the police inevitably end up picking up the pieces. The reduced network of other support agencies means that the police, instead of being a service of last resort, have become the only resort. Cuts in local government funding have meant that community organisations such as youth groups have to be closed or scaled down. Valuable preventive safeguards are therefore lost. The Government have done and are doing nothing to tackle that problem.
If we are to give people—children, the elderly and vulnerable, women, ethnic communities—and small businesses a stake in their community, we must surely begin by giving them a safe environment. A safe environment is one in which the elderly do not fear to go out at night and one in which women can choose which form of transport they use without concern. A safe environment is one in which our children are not pressured into petty theft or drug taking and in which our ethnic minorities no longer fear racial harassment and victimisation. A safe environment is a community in which the police, the council and the people work together in partnership to prevent crime and to deal with it.
It is clear that we do not yet have a safe environment in London, and that Londoners are not safe with the Tories.
9.42 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) on her first appearance at the Dispatch Box as a Labour Front-Bench spokesman. I shall enjoy debating with her, in my current capacity, for some years to come, while she remains in that capacity.
I must tell the hon. Lady that the hollow laughter that met her peroration at the end of her speech was not directed at her. It is just that my hon. Friends have longer memories than she does. Nearly all Opposition Members who have spoken in the debate have called for more money to be spent on the police and have pretended that they will be the guardians of the British police service, but Conservative Members recall that, during the last days

107
of the previous Labour Government—after practically destroying the morale of the British police force—they left the police 7,500 officers short. They left the Metropolitan police 3,740 officers short. Lectures from the hon. Lady on whether the police are safe with the Government therefore ring rather hollow.
What is the constitutional position? Due to its unique position, the Metropolitan police accounts for its performance to the House through the Home Secretary. I believe that this debate has shown the tightness and wisdom of continuing that arrangement. That accountability is not, as several Opposition Members have suggested, merely a matter of a once-a-year debate. The Home Secretary and I answer more than 150 letters or questions from hon. Members about the Metropolitan police each year; the Home Secretary meets all the London Members of Parliament in their party groupings; we discuss the annual policing plan; we meet local authority representatives to discuss financial issues; and we present to Parliament the Metropolitan police estimates, the Metropolitan police accounts and the Commissioner's annual report.
Mr. Straw: How can the Minister make such preposterous assertions when only five Tory Members from constituencies in Greater London have bothered to turn up to hear him winding up?
Mr. Maclean: If that is the thrust of the attack from the man who wants to be the future Home Secretary, frankly I find it rather pathetic. I can understand that. Because of the savaging that the hon. Gentleman has had from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary over the past few months, he is scared to sit on the Front Bench unless he has a phalanx of colleagues around him. They are even there to protect him from poor little me.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) spoke from his personal experience of the Metropolitan police, gleaned from his attachment as part of the police parliamentary scheme. He referred to concerns about the tenure of specialist officers. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) raised her concerns and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made a related point about the length of time senior officers spend in divisions.
The operational deployment of officers is, of course, a matter for the Commissioner but, as I think hon. Members recognise, there is a trade-off between giving officers continuity of experience, whether in a particular locality or in a particular speciality, and ensuring that training and promotion needs are met.
As the hon. Member for Vauxhall noted, the divisional commander at Brixton, Peter Clarke, is leaving his post on a well deserved promotion. I know that the Commissioner is alive to local concerns and that he will always listen to local people's representations, but in the last analysis he has to weigh up all the relevant considerations—including, in the case of specialist squads, the chief inspector of constabulary's recommendations on tenure. Reasonably frequent turnover guards against complacency and staleness.
I should like to mention some of the exciting new technological and hardware back-up that we have made available to the Met over the past two or three years.
108
Hon. Members have mentioned some of them. My right hon. and learned Friend made it clear how vital it is for professional policing in the late 20th century that police officers are supported by the latest developments. The Commissioner sets great store by that and we have supported him to the hilt.
I shall, as an example, describe some of the backstage equipment that supports Operation Bumblebee, one of the most successful operations that the Met has run in the past 12 months. Just before Christmas, the Marylebone division of the Met organised a seminar on computer-related crime, at which it introduced Tracer, which it billed as "the thief s worst nightmare."
Tracer carries a DNA-style code. It is made up of millions of microscopic particles dissolved in water, each carrying a special chemical code just like DNA. The solution is simply brushed on to the item that is being marked. Its presence is revealed under ultra violet light. When a burglar tries to remove the Tracer marks, he faces millions of particles in all the awkward cracks and corners which have to be removed before the stolen property can be disposed of. Burglary of computers, especially computer chips, can be highly lucrative. The introduction of technology such as Tracer will make a real contribution to minimising the success of the computer thief.
The counter-action partnership initiative offers advice on how to cut crime in the high street, and commercial robberies have been cut across London by 31 per cent. Now Dixons and the Met, via the consumer electronics security initiative, are looking to the electronics industry to co-operate in making its products—which are highly desirable to criminals, who have created a flourishing marketplace for goods that are easily stolen and quickly re-sold—much more secure. That top technology is benefiting the law-abiding in society and getting at the criminal.
Operation Eagle Eye is underpinned by technology. All 25 of the divisions that are involved in Eagle Eye will, by the end of this month, have received a range of sophisticated equipment, including high quality video cameras and powerful computer systems.
An officer involved with CRIMINT—the crime intelligence system—was quoted as saying:
"With CRIMINT we are in a new world. I was recently asked if I knew something about a certain car. In the old days I would have had to hunt through my cards. I would probably have said, 'Yes, I do, but … '. With CRIMINT I was able to answer the question in about fifteen seconds. And with CRIMINT things just don't go missing.".
That is the answer to the hon. Member for Lewisham, East, who asked what we were doing to speed things up and reduce paperwork. That is just one example. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary mentioned CRIS, which is another.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) asked about business crime. I mentioned the partnership with commercial interests. The Oxford street partnership is another exciting initiative, in which major retailers are using Metropolitan police targeting techniques and are as successful against shop thieves as the Met has been.
My hon. Friend also asked about firearms research. Research funded by the Home Office at the Oxford university centre for criminological research concluded that there was no particular illegal firearm and that there

109
was no Mr. Big. We remain concerned about illegal firearms getting into the hands of criminals and the police and Customs and Excise remain extremely vigilant.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) mentioned the increasing use of firearms. I am sorry, but that is not the case. Firearms were used less in crime in the Metropolitan police area last year than in any year since 1983.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) mentioned fear of burglars among old people. He is right to point out that the fear is more widespread than crime. The people who fear crime least are young men who hang around street corners. They are also most likely to be the victims of crime—they are most likely to commit offences against each other. Nevertheless, all our studies show that older people, who most fear crime have the least to fear from it.
Hon. Members and the media have an obligation to try to get across to elderly people the message that they do not stand a great risk of being burgled and that, if they are burgled, they do not stand a great risk of being attacked in their homes. Only a small percentage of old people are attacked in their homes during a burglary.
My hon. Friend mentioned the initiative by the Met to recruit more specials. I congratulate Wandsworth on revising its plans on policing the borough and for taking an initiative to increase visible policing in the area. The answer was not to use the parks police but, as Wandsworth has now decided, to back the Metropolitan police by recruiting more special constables. My hon. Friend also highlighted the view of the Liberal party that putting more officers on the beat would not help the fight against crime. Liberal Members must regret those words.
I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey praise the Met on its success and admit that there were more officers than ever before on street duties. The number of man days allocated to street duties has increased consistently since we started measuring operational duties in 1984.
With regard to stop and search, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not read the evidence of Sir Paul Condon to the Home Affairs Committee. He was asked:
"Do you feel that the concerns which have been expressed by the black community that a disproportionate number of black people are subject to these police powers are justified? If, as I understand it, the powers are exercised on reasonable suspicion, why is it then that there is only an arrest with one in ten of those stop and search procedures?"
He replied:
"I will answer that, but I will start just slightly off at a tangent. The one arrest out of ten stops is consistent, but I would argue my officers are colour-blind in its application, and the one in ten arrest is of all suspects regardless of whether they were white, Afro-Caribbean, European Asian, whatever. Now, if the figures reveal massive over-stopping of young Afro-Caribbeans and no arrests, then I would perhaps be prepared to accept your assertion."
That was a rather robust put-down to the suggestion that his officers were biased in stop and search.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey will also regret his remarks tonight on drugs raids. He suggested that the police use too many officers. There is a world of difference between arresting a burglar, when one can get by with two or three officers, and raiding a
110
night club where there may be 500 to 700 fit young people. Ecstasy may be on sale and there may be not one or two harmless users, but a dozen hardened pushers of a drug that kills. While I might be happy to go on a burglary raid with two or three other bobbies, I would want 200 around me on that raid and the highland light infantry thrown in to cover my back.
In some ways, I am glad that the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) said what she did. It will give Conservative central office scope over many months to quote some gross inaccuracies. The hon. Lady's speech was a tissue of fantasies. It reminded me of the propaganda maxim that, if a lie is to be told, make sure that it is a big one. I think that the hon. Lady will regret her remarks. Her allegations have no credibility. Her remarks about policing in London were about as accurate as her assertion that there were no problems in the child welfare department in Islington. Let the House judge the hon. Lady's credibility. I do not say "honesty" or "integrity": I merely ask the House to judge her credibility.
The hon. Lady made great play, in ridiculing an answer that I provided, of the number of occasions that the Metropolitan police committee had met to carry out public consultation in London. She had great fun at the committee's expense. She began her attack with the suggestion that, when she asked me about what the committee had done—for example, what publicity materials had been prepared, whether it would consult the boroughs' police consultative committee and when and with whom the committee had held public meetings, my answer began:
"These are all matters for the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Committee."
She continued to make fun by suggesting that the Metropolitan Police Committee gives confidential advice to the Home Secretary so, therefore, she was prevented from getting at the facts. The hon. Lady quoted only the first line of my reply. I said:
"These are all matters for the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Committee.
However, I understand that since the inception of the Metropolitan Police Committee the members have met representatives of the Association of London Government, the Outer London Metropolitan Police Consultative Association and the Government office for London, made more than 40 visits to individual police and community consultative groups, lay visitors' panels and community groups, held a meeting for all PCCG chairmen, open to the press and public, and held nine full formal meetings, and several meetings of sub-committees on remuneration matters and performance indicators."— [Official Report, 12 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 606.]
Mr. Dobson: Keep going.
Mr. Maclean: I have had to keep going, because the hon. Lady chose to misrepresent the facts. If this evening is an example of how accurate the hon. Lady can be in quoting from something in Hansard, how accurate was she when she said that there was a commitment—a promise by the Home Secretary—that every force would get a minimum increase of 3.6 per cent? There is no such commitment. She said that there are fewer bobbies on London's streets. That is not so. She alleged that there is less money for London police. Again, that is not so.

111
Then we had the wonderful, magical pronouncement that Labour supports secure training centres. No wonder the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) had to leave the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Lady's pronouncement is patently not true.
I move on to police numbers in London, which has been the crux of the debate. What is the Labour party's quibble? What is the castle that it has built from which to make its case? Labour Members say that, in March 1995, there were 131 fewer officers overall in the Metropolitan police than in 1994. Let us put that in perspective. It seems that Labour is now the great defender of police numbers.
In 1979, the Metropolitan police was 3,797 bobbies under strength. That shortfall was brought about by a Labour Government. England and Wales were 7,500 short. In 1979, the Metropolitan police had only 16,500 constables. We have steadily increased the number of bobbies in London with the result that, at the end of March 1995, the Metropolitan police had 21,433. The Metropolitan police now has 5,000 more constables—bobbies on the beat—so we shall not take lectures from the Opposition about 131.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) quoted from the report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary. Again, he quoted only the table. He did not go on to quote the paragraph that says:
"The impact of the reorganisation programme is beginning to become more apparent, with further reductions in the number of senior and intermediate ranks … This continues the trend since 1992, which has seen an increase in constable strength of 1,892 (up by 396 constables in 1994)."
The Labour party does not seem to understand that.
Opposition Members do not understand that the Met has deliberately streamlined its senior management. It has cut 260 senior management posts and 429 sergeant posts. With the cuts at senior level, there are 600 more constables in the Met. That is the truth—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sheffield Supertram
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Streeter.]
10 pm
Mr. Eric Illsley: My debate relates to the Sheffield light rapid transit railway, otherwise known as the Sheffield supertram. The purpose of the debate is to draw the Government's attention to the problems that surround the supertram project, particularly those that are experienced by my local authority and its council tax payers as a result of the somewhat complex funding formulae that apply to the supertram. The supertram is funded through the South Yorkshire passenger transport authority, which is made up of representatives from the four local authorities in South Yorkshire—hence my speaking on a subject that is perhaps more in line with Sheffield.
The light rapid transit railway is located in Sheffield but funded by the South Yorkshire passenger transport authority. I should like at the outset to make it clear that the project was entered into by all concerned in good faith and with a commitment to ensure its success. That good faith extended to the local authorities, the passenger transport authority and, of course, the Government, who gave a commitment to fund it in full. Indeed, the rationale for supertram that existed when the Government agreed to finance it was accepted by all the parties involved. The Government made a financial commitment to supertram on the evidence available at the time, as did all the other parties involved. They accepted the original business plan and assumptions in terms of construction, operation, financing and the timetable for the project.
Although the system currently has problems, it is important that we do not to lose sight of the fact that the project was completed on time and within its budget. Despite the problems, that is something of which we can be proud. The Government's commitment to funding the supertram system has not been disputed by them or by local authorities other than when certain problems have arisen. Successive Ministers have reiterated and given assurances that the revenue support grant funding—the local government funding—would cover the costs that would not eventually be reimbursed through the sale proceeds or through operational revenues.
At the moment, however, there are no operational revenues, and the sale prospects, or the sale value, looks very poor. That has caused debt to accumulate which was not envisaged throughout the construction of the project. Supertram is not currently profitable. Because there are no operational revenues, the sale prospects are looking bleak. That is where the problem lies, and it is where my local authority—and perhaps one or two other local authorities in South Yorkshire—faces difficulty. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it was never intended that the construction costs of the project would fall on the local authorities, but the fear is that that is precisely what will happen. Those costs were to be financed by operational revenues and, of course, the sale.
The Government may say that they committed themselves to funding the construction only, but, as I have said, even that cost is now falling on the local authorities. With the Minister's permission and yours, Madam Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) may say a little about the construction period shortly.

113
The project was delivered within its budget of some £240 million, of which about £80 million took the form of trading credit approvals. It was envisaged that those would eventually be repaid from operating profits; the interest and minimum revenue provision would come from operating revenues, and the rest from the sale proceeds. During the construction period, the interest payments on the trading credit approvals were capitalised—they had to be, because no revenues were available—and that built up further heavy debts.
I understand that the total cost of the trading credit approvals and the capitalised interest is currently around £97.5 million. So far, the Government have funded the trading credit approvals, but that is now ending because, in the Government's eyes, the construction period is over. The bulk of the figure would have been met from the sale proceeds; the sale was expected to take place soon after the completion of the project, and the proceeds from a profitable operation would have been substantial. Now, however, there is some doubt about whether the profits of the operation would meet anything like a third of that £97.5 million.
Even if the sale proceeds produced £35 million—a figure that has been mentioned to me—other costs of privatisation could leave as little as £17 million, landing local authorities with unfunded liabilities amounting to more than £80 million. My authority's share of that, in terms of interest payments, would be between £2 million and £3 million per annum—assuming that no further debt is incurred by the system this year or next year.
The Government have refused to issue further trading credit approvals to fund the interest payments. Because no profits or revenues are available, the position may become even worse. I understand that the cost of operating losses is also unfunded by the Government, and that the interest on those losses has also been capitalised. It seems that local authorities must bear the cost of interest on operating losses as well as the construction costs. The sale value is not looking too clever, and there are no operating revenues to pay off what should have been paid off from the end of the construction period.
The Government's current deadline for the sale of supertram is early next year. That does not allow much time in which to turn the position round and make the system profitable. If the losses continue, the sale value is likely to be minimal, and it is feared that very little will be recouped to bite into the construction debt and the interest on the capitalised losses.
If the sale proceeds are insufficient, the local authorities will be left with a huge debt—anything between £40 million and £100 million—which they will have to service in future. As I have said, a debt of £2 million to £3 million will fall on Barnsley district council. Similar amounts will fall on the other local authorities in proportion to their share of the total debt. Moneys from the council's revenue support grant and its council tax, and money available to the local authority will be spent every year on interest to fund supertram, depending on how long the council is left with that debt burden.
That means that services in my local authority, which are being and have been cut for the past five years because of the shortfall in funding against budget, are likely to be cut further simply to fund the supertram system. The sum of £2 million to £3 million will be paid with no benefit to Barnsley council tax payers because the supertram system
114
does not extend to Barnsley, although the council accepts its responsibilities in the South Yorkshire passenger transport authority. The worry is that we are facing the debt, but have nothing to show for it. We entered the system in good faith, as did all the other local authorities, and we never envisaged that that level of debt would fall on us.
I understand that revisions to Supertram's business plan are being made to determine when or whether it will make a profit. Without that profit, it will be unattractive to buyers and cannot pay its way. The local authorities involved and the SYPTA must take on board the fact that it is essential that someone now does a feasibility study to determine how soon the system can be brought into profit to ensure that it is saleable before it is offered for sale, to maximise sale revenues and to reduce the debt. It is essential to show that the system may make a profit.
If the system is to be sold next year, I fear that it will be too soon to generate any repayment of the debt, and that, because of the losses and the system's lack of profitability, the sale will be at a low value and will not recover sufficient money even to cover the operating losses, let alone the debt on the construction costs, bearing in mind the projected figures that have been supplied to me by my local authority.
It must be accepted that any new system has teething problems. I accept that this is the first tram system, running side by side with motor vehicles, to be built for the past 50 years. There is therefore the novelty of the new system. There are the traffic systems in Sheffield. There has been substantial construction in that city to accommodate supertram. Obviously, there will be a need for time to allow the system to bed in and to operate properly. Traffic priorities may need to be altered and some co-operation must take place with the other public transport systems in Sheffield to ensure that the project runs at a profit, but that will take time. I ask the Minister whether the sale timetable is realistic, given the debt level and the need for the project to show a profit and to generate a sale value.
No one disputes that the project should be sold, as was envisaged by the original business plan. The questions are when—whether we sell it now and cut the losses or wait and give it a timetable to achieve profitability and hope that it generates a sale value. At the same time, we must determine how the local authorities will fund the debts that they face. Difficult decisions need to be made as to whether to wait for profitability or to stop those losses now, to stand the losses and not to allow them to generate any further, or to find a way of getting round the debt burden that is placed on the local authority. I understand that Sheffield district council is taking steps to examine the operation of supertram, traffic management, car restraint, and pedestrianisation, and that the SYPTA and supertram are working hard to improve its marketing. I believe that steps are being taken to try and deal with the problem.
As I have said, all parties entered into the project in good faith. My local authority agreed to go along with it, but it now faces huge financial burdens not of its own making from a project that it did not construct and that does not operate in Barnsley. An annual debt of £2 million to £3 million is a substantial proportion of Barnsley council's budget, bearing in mind the financial difficulties that it has. I appeal to the Government to accept that their commitment fully to fund supertram was given to all the local authorities before they or the Government envisaged

115
the current problems. They should look to see whether further assistance can be given to the local authorities to get matters sorted at the moment. Perhaps they could also consider funding the local authorities, as happened before, until the system can be put into a saleable condition with operating revenues to reduce some of the debt.
10.15 pm
Mr. Richard Caborn: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) for the fair way in which he presented his case. He has obviously mastered much of a complex financial deal. More importantly, he said that South Yorkshire in its totality has borne much of the brunt of the financial arrangements, although it has not had any benefit from the supertram. Supertram runs from one side of my constituency to the other, so I am able to tell the House all about the problems we have had with traffic management since supertram was installed.
As my hon. Friend said, the authority in Sheffield is trying to make sure that, in terms of traffic management, the effectiveness of supertram is maximised. I am sure that everybody welcomes this innovative system, which hopefully will have a beneficial impact upon the environment of the major city of Sheffield.
In a letter dated 2 February to the leader of Sheffield city council, Mike Bower, the Minister quoted from a letter sent by the former Minister of State, Department of Transport, now the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to the local authority on 13 May 1991. The quote in the Minister's letter read:
'"No authority to continue capitalisation is likely to extend beyond the construction period'".
That is true, but the letter of 13 May continued:
"ie, later than a year or two after entry into operation of the Supertram system."
One could ask what was the operational date, but it had been interpreted as the date on which supertram was up and running, and October last year is the effective month. Therefore, there are two interpretations of the examples that the Minister gave of the construction period in his letter of 13 May 1991. I hope that the Minister will take that on board, and say that last October was two years after the total construction of the programme.
I hope that the Minister will agree that the letter of 2 February would be a way to solve the problems. We all accept that the financial arrangement was complex. In addition, supertram was the first project of its kind in the UK and was built on a green-field site, as it were. The letter referred to a joint working group and said that that might be one way to get at least an understanding of the problems, and probably some pathways out of them. I suggest to the Minister that that joint working group should not just consist of civil servants, but could also involve politicians from the Department of the Environment and the Minister's Department, and representatives from local authorities in South Yorkshire.
I am sure that we all want to find a solution to this problem, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central said, the four local authorities in Rotherham, Doncaster, Barnsley and Sheffield are in a serious financial situation. If the Minister can respond
116
positively to that suggestion, I am sure that it will be welcomed in South Yorkshire. If he does, we shall respond as well.
10.18 pm
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on having secured a debate on the undoubtedly important subject of the South Yorkshire supertram, and I welcome the contribution to the debate made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn).
There is no doubt that the supertram is a highly attractive modern tram system. It provides a real alternative to the car, and I am quite sure that in due course it can be a great success. I have ridden on it. It is comfortable and pleasant, and the people I met when I rode on the system liked it and welcomed it.
Although the supertram can be a good thing, it is not particularly a good thing yet, as the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central so accurately defined. There is general agreement on a number of ways in which the system can much improve. It has been said that marketing might be a good place to start. It is a matter of record that the public relations department of supertram told the press:
"the people of Sheffield are just a load of whingers".
As the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central will know, there is some apocryphal evidence of how a man who was tipped off his bicycle received a letter telling him to get off and push next time. Supertram needs to understand that it is the servant of the public, not the other way round.
To achieve its obvious potential, the operating environment in which supertram works, to which the hon. Members for Barnsley, Central and Sheffield, Central have referred, is important. For example, the park-and-ride sites that the local authorities promised for the tram should be provided. We should ensure that the traffic light priority system works, so that the one feature of a light rail system that should be taken for granted—the quickest way in which to access the city centre—is realised.
It is being found that the private car and the bus are able to make the journey to the city centre more quickly. Journey time is fundamental to the operation of such a system. If one wonders why the system has so miserably failed to meet its operating objectives, I respectfully suggest that that might be the reason. I know that both hon. Gentlemen, for whom I have the greatest respect, appreciate the common sense of that argument.
In Manchester, only trams, buses and taxis have access to whole swathes of the city centre. That will be the case to some degree in Leeds as well. It will have what it calls a public transport box, where only buses and trams will be able to travel. I want to make it clear that it is not my business to tell Sheffield how to pedestrianise its centre if it wishes to do so, but it must consider a co-ordinated transport plan if it wants supertram to be a success.
The passenger transport executive of course invested its funds in obtaining Acts of Parliament giving powers to build and operate supertram. It then submitted a bid to my Department for funding. To make it absolutely clear, the funding was sought under the general heading of the public transport facilities grant available under section 56 of the Transport Act 1968.

117
I should emphasise that, under the published rules for that funding, the South Yorkshire supertram had to be the most economic way in which to meet the identified transport need; it had to need no operating subsidy; the future income from it had to be sufficient to make a real contribution to its capital cost; and it had to attract enough drivers off the road to deliver wider economic and environmental benefits, thus justifying the taxpayers' investment.
It is important to this debate on the precise meaning of the various elements of correspondence that have been exchanged to understand that the South Yorkshire PTE made the case that all those requirements were met. My Department certainly probed, argued and queried the case, but in the end it was not for my Department to produce research analysis and forecasts of South Yorkshire's transport needs. The PTE was responsible for that, and made the case for it, and we in central Government in due course accepted it.
I have already said that future incomes from supertram have to be made available to contribute to the capital cost. Again, the House will be aware that, in Manchester, for example, the operating concession for the metro link was sold up front, so a capital contribution was attracted immediately, and the revenue risk was with the private sector. That is also the case in the west midlands. Frankly, the same approach is planned in every other light rail scheme in the country.
As is occasionally the case, South Yorkshire did it differently. Ironically, so confident was the PTE of its forecast profit that it decided to build the scheme first, operate it itself and sell it later at what it no doubt believed would be a good profit, which meant that the only way that future supertram incomes could be made to contribute to the capital cost of the system was for the PTE to borrow against those future profits.
Now, the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central tells me that the profits are not sufficient to repay the borrowing. He asserts that the people of Barnsley have to repay it. I quite understand his concern on behalf of his constituents, but I hope that he will recognise that, while that may be an issue for the people of Barnsley, it is arguable as to whether it should be an issue for the wider taxpaying public. The PTE made this proposition, advanced it, and argued the case that was ultimately accepted.
I must make it clear that I do not run day-to-day transport in metropolitan areas, and there would be a great deal of criticism if I tried to do so. On that basis, it is not for me to interfere in how the project is managed. Ultimately, it is for those constituent authorities—here is the point that I must underline and which the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central made—to sort the matter out. There is the germ of a solution to the problem. A considerable rethink about the management and operation of the system is required, and that cannot start too soon.
On the impact of having to underwrite the costs on the financial arrangements of the local authority, and on the capping arrangements, the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central knows that the Department has consistently made the case to our colleagues in the Department of the Environment that it is an issue that ought to be considered sympathetically. Obviously, I regret the fact that there has
118
been an impact, and equally, that the constituent authorities spend so close to the cap that they are under that risk. None the less, without making a cheap party political point on a serious occasion such as this, we have been sympathetic on the matter.
On the promises made by my predecessors that supertram would be fully funded, I know the letter to which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central referred—indeed, I have a copy here in my hand—and I understand the quotation. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to show me the wider context of the original quotation from my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman).
I must make it clear that, as far as the Government are concerned, we have delivered every commitment made by my predecessors about supertram. We have said that the capital cost, net of the future revenues forecast by the passenger transport authority, would be provided for by 50 per cent. section 56 grant and 50 per cent. credit approval. It ought not to have been necessary to underline that fact, because it is the standard advice on the issuing of section 56 grant. But it has been spelt out, and the way in which the funding system works is that future revenues from major transport schemes such as this are put towards the capital cost, in this case by the PTE undertaking borrowing, to which the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central referred, with the remaining capital cost paid for partly by grant—paid by the Department—and partly by credit approval, supported by the Department of the Environment through the revenue grant system.
Judging from the analysis, it is clear that the system was and is fully funded. Now that there is no revenue to support that element of the scheme that should have been self-generating, the problem—one that I understand perfectly well—is that the authorities are saying that it is a burden that they did not contemplate. In all honesty, I hope that they will appreciate that it was not us, but the PTE, that made the case. The authorities are jointly responsible for the PTE, and it is to them that we must all turn in the first instance.
I hope that the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central will understand that we have felt it necessary to be fairly firm on the timetable, not least because I do not believe that allowing any laxity in it would necessarily have the desired result. I believe in keeping to the firm timetable— it has been on the table for some time. Frankly, I am concerned that, even at this stage, there may not be sufficient urgency behind the process. In the present climate, I do not envisage the position getting any better if we start to indicate any laxity in the system.
Secondly, I understand that there is interest in the joint working group being reconstituted. My officials are certainly happy to be part of it. As to the suggestion that it should include elected members, I can tell the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central that I am determined to work with elected members as well as all the other interested bodies in South Yorkshire to try to do the best we can to rescue the project and let it fulfil the potential we believe it has.
The motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Drivers)
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of new regulations for drivers of heavy goods vehicles on the work prospects of drivers who wear spectacles; and if he will make a statement. [12913]

  Mr. Norris
  We estimate that some 3,000 drivers will be unable to renew their entitlement to drive large goods and passenger-carrying vehicles when the new eyesight regulations are introduced. It is not possible to estimate how many of these will lose their job or how many will find some other work with their present employer. The work prospects of those who wish to take up the driving of these vehicles will not be affected.

  Bus-to-rail Connections
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to improve bus-to-rail connections. [13107]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government recognise the importance of ease of interchange for people using both buses and trains. By maximising private sector involvement, through our policies of privatisation and deregulations, we expect to see connections improve as bus and rail operators respond innovatively to passenger demand and seek to generate custom. The winning franchisee for South West Trains has committed itself to introducing a number of dedicated bus links to SWT stations. In the publication PPG 13: "A guide to better practice", which we published last October, we stressed the need for local authorities to consider both the location and the attractiveness of bus to rail and bus to bus interchanges when developing their transport strategies.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport from which railway stations rail services have been withdrawn in 1995. [13133]

  Mr. Watts
  Passenger rail services were withdrawn from five stations during 1995—Attercliffe Road and Brightside in South Yorkshire and Godley East, Miles Platting and Park in Greater Manchester. The services at these stations immediately before closure were nine trains per week day for Attercliffe Road and four for Brightside; one train a week at Godley East, five trains per week day at Miles Platting, and three per weekday at Park. All were very lightly used.

  Vehicle Inspectorate (Enforcement Activities)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many rolling road brake testing machines there have been in operation within the Vehicle Inspectorate in each of the last five years; [13234]

  (2) if he will list the targets set out for the Vehicle Inspectorate regarding traffic and vehicle reinforcement for each of the last 10 years; [13242]

  (3) if he will list the number of immediate and delayed prohibitions imposed by the Vehicle Inspectorate on heavy goods vehicles for each year from 1984 to 1994; [13282]

  (4) how many inspections have been undertaken by his Department on tankers contracted by Yorkshire Water in the Yorkshire area; and how many were found to be defective; [13239]

  (5) how many traffic examiners and vehicles examiners have been employed as a result of the extra £350,000 invested in the Vehicle Inspectorate in the last year; [13241]

  (6) if he will list the procedures that have to be followed by officers from the Vehicle Inspectorate and the police following an accident involving heavy goods and passenger carrying vehicles. [13233]

  (7) if he will list the number of (a) prosecutions brought and (b) convictions in magistrates courts for (i) tachograph and hours offences and (ii) mechanical illegalities. [13273]

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

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 5 February 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions relating to enforcement activities within the Vehicle Inspectorate (VI).

  The number of roller brake testers in operation within VI in each of the last 5 years was

  1991: 193

  1992: 193

  1993: 193

  1994: 193

  1995: 192

  (191 roller brake testers are in use at February 1996).

  Additional roller brake testing capacity is available in vehicle operators' (designated) premises, primarily for annual statutory testing purposes. This capacity has increased by 43 roller brake testers over the past 3 years.

  The number of immediate and delayed prohibitions issued from 1984 to 1994 is shown in the attached Table 1.

  The key targets for enforcement activities are shown in the attached Table 2. Previous to 1991, performance on 5 activities was measured against targets related to the number of operators and vehicles. The targets were:

  a) MOT Inspections—the equivalent of 1.5 routine visits per year per garage on the broad assumption that there would be one visit. The additional effort would be spent in applying extra checks on garages where it was evident that attention was necessary.

  3

  b) HGV Premises—the number of visits would equate to one visit per operator every 5 years. After the initial visit following granting or consideration of a licence, subsequent visits would depend upon need relative to evidence of poor maintenance or substantial changes in the nature of operation.

  c) HGV Spot Checks—the equivalent of 20% of the HGV population examined per year (including vehicles examined at operators' premises).

  d) PSV Premises—the equivalent of one visit every 5 years with each operator being visited when the licence was being granted or considered. Subsequent visits would be based upon evidence of poor maintenance or a considerable change in operating circumstances.

  e) PSV Spot Checks—the equivalent of 30% of vehicle population (including vehicles examined at operators' premises).

  All heavy goods vehicles have an annual statutory roadworthiness examination and are subject to roadside checks conducted by VI regardless of the nature of the goods carried. We do not have separate information for tankers carrying water which are checked as part of this normal routine. However, we have carried out special roadside checks on water tankers in the Yorkshire area; total of 203 vehicles were checked between October and December, 29 immediate and 19 delayed prohibitions were issued.

  The number of additional posts created because of additional funding provided to VI is 11.5 traffic examiners and 2.5 vehicle examiners.

  In accidents involving HGVs or PSVs, a VI vehicle examiner, on notification from the Police, will arrange to inspect the vehicle at the accident site, if possible, or at a suitable location that allows a full examination of the vehicle to be carried out. Particular attention is paid to safety critical systems eg brakes, steering, tyres and suspension, and any defects which the examiner considers may have contributed to the accident recorded. When the examination is complete, the relevant information is entered on VI's accident database. The examiner may issue an immediate or delayed prohibition if, in his opinion, the vehicle is unfit for service. The Police may also request a written factual statement of his findings which can be produced as evidence in Court. In "Special Interest" accident cases eg serious accidents involving passenger carrying vehicles or serious multiple collisions with several fatalities, the procedures are the same although in the case of coaches a detailed examination of the coach interior will be carried out to establish possible causes of passenger injury eg crushing by seats, normally by specially trained teams.

  Separate statistics for prosecutions are only currently available for drivers' hours and overloading. All other offences, including tachograph and mechanical illegalities, are counted under a general heading and we cannot provide separate information

  The detailed breakdown for drivers hours offences for 1994/95 is as follows.

  Total offences reported for prosecution

  Offences successfully prosecuted

  HGV's

  2,835

  2,386

  PSVs

  198

  170

  Table 1: Immediate and delayed prohibitions issued to Heavy Goods Vehicles for roadworthiness defects

  All prohibitions

  Immediate

  Delayed

  1984–85

  3,619

  6,956

  1985–86

  5,545

  8,477

  1986–87

  4,260

  5,331

  1987–88

  7,693

  11,727

  4

  Table 1: Immediate and delayed prohibitions issued to Heavy Goods Vehicles for roadworthiness defects

  All prohibitions

  Immediate

  Delayed

  1988–89

  7,774

  10,446

  1989–90

  7,816

  9,433

  1990–91

  9,229

  10,615

  1991–92

  9,827

  10,788

  1992–93

  11,041

  11,040

  1993–94

  10,834

  11,426

  1994–95

  11,516

  11,788

  Table 2: Key targets set for enforcement activity within the vehicle inspectorate

  Target set

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Turnaround time on MOT documentation

  1.4 days

  1.4 days

  1.4 days

  1non applicable

  Production of traffic enforcement operator licence reports to Traffic Commissioners

  non applicable

  90 per cent. within 4 weeks

  1non applicable

  non applicable

  Time to produce interim or completed traffic enforcement operator reports for the Traffic Commissioner

  non applicable

  non applicable

  95 per cent. of cases within 4 weeks unless another deadline has been agreed

  95 per cent. within 4 weeks unless another deadline has been agreed. 95 per cent. within the agreed deadline

  Roadworthiness prohibition error rate

  non applicable

  non applicable

  non applicable

  0.5 per cent.

  Time to return maintenance assessments for operator licence renewals and variations

  non applicable

  non applicable

  non applicable

  95 per cent. within 6 weeks. 99 per cent. within 12 weeks

  Time to decide all MOT statutory appeals against refusal to issue a test certificate

  non applicable

  non applicable

  non applicable

  99 per cent. within 5 working days

  Minimum number of tachographs charts to be examined—minimum 15 per cent. at roadside: 25 per cent. at operators premises

  non applicable

  non applicable

  non applicable

  HGV 1.4 million. PSV 0.145 million

  5

  Table 2: Key targets set for enforcement activity within the vehicle inspectorate

  Target set

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Minimum number of heavy goods vehicles weighed

  non applicable

  non applicable

  non applicable

  115,000

  Weighbridge equipment availability (nationally)

  non applicable

  non applicable

  non applicable

  90 per cent.

  1 Target no longer used as a key target.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what qualifications are required by personnel who carry out the maintenance of brakes and other safety critical parts on heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles. [13237]

  Mr. Norris
  Responsibility lies with goods and passenger vehicle operators to ensure their vehicles are roadworthy; there is no legal obligation for maintenance personnel to hold a relevant qualification. However, when applying for a licence, operators make a formal declaration to the traffic commissioner that they will"undertake to make proper arrangements so that motor vehicles and trailers, including hired vehicles and trailers, are kept fit and serviceable." Advice on how this should be achieved is set out in the "Guide for Maintaining Roadworthiness" which incorporates the procedures necessary to satisfy the requirements for traffic commissioners.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals his Department has to investigate incidents of wheel loss involving heavy goods vehicles; and what funding his Department has made available to investigate this problem. [13240]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Trade and Industry contributed £35,000 to a study of wheel loss which resulted in a 1989 report by the Institute of Road Transport Engineers and led to a British Standard—BS AU 50: Part 2: Section 3:1994—and a British standard code practice—BSAU50 Part 2: Section 7a 1995. The code of practice is referred to in the Department's "Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness" for operators of heavy vehicles.

  An information leaflet, outlining various aspects of the problem and suggesting ways of overcoming some of the difficulties, was produced by the Department at the time of the IRTE report. We plan to update the leaflet to draw attention to the code of practice.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what controls his Department has put in place to prevent the sale of inferior brake pads and linings and other safety critical replacement parts for heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles. [13236]
  6
  Mr. Norris
  None. However, discussions in Europe have resulted in a proposal for the control of replacement brake pads and linings which is expected to be incorporated in the braking directive 71/320/EEC. We shall consider taking advantage of these initiatives to introduce into the UK controls for replacement pads and linings. Decisions on the control of other replacement parts will continue to be taken on a case by case basis.

  Vehicle and Traffic Computer Information
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each of the last five years the expenditure by the Vehicle Inspectorate and the traffic areas specifically on computerisation of enforcement intelligence. [13232]

  Mr. Norris
  The expenditure on computerisation of enforcement intelligence by the traffic areas is as follows:

  1991–92: nil

  1992–93: £131,000

  1993–94: £46,000

  1994–95: £10,200

  (1995–96: year to date £3,400).

  The initial set-up cost of the Vehicle Inspectorate's enforcement roadworthiness database in 1991–92 was £379,000. Subsequent running costs are not identified separately from all other computer running costs.

  Brake Testing Machines
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many portable air brake testing machines are currently in use for the purpose of detecting air leaks in commercial vehicle breaking systems at roadside vehicle checks. [13235]

  Mr. Norris
  None

  Disabled People (Bus Access)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines and advice he has issued to(a) manufacturers and (b) purchasers of buses about access for disabled people since the introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [13188]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport has set up working groups with both manufacturers and operators of buses to discuss the regulations that will be drawn up under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

  We will also shortly be publishing the first in a series of information bulletins which will report the progress we are making in implementing the transport provisions of the Act. Bulletins will be circulated widely to manufacturers and operators, as well as to local authorities and to disability organisations. When regulations are made under part V of the Act we will issue separate detailed guidance to all those affected.

  Vehicle and Traffic Examiners
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicle examiners and traffic examiners were employed by his Department in(a) 1989, (b) 1990 and (c) 1991. [13244]

  Mr. Norris
  The number of vehicle examiners and traffic examiners employed for 1989, 1990 and 1991 were:

  Vehicle examiners

  Traffic examiners1

  1989

  480

  213

  1990

  474

  222

  1991

  477

  204

  1 Figures include traffic examiners, senior traffic examiners and enforcement managers.

  Vehicle Crashes
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of vehicles weighing(a) 3.5 to 7.5 tonnes, (b) 7.5 to 17 tonnes and (c) more than 17 tonnes which were involved in crashes producing (i) fatalities, (ii) serious injuries and (iii) minor injuries in each of the last 10 years. [13238]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Number of heavy goods vehicles1 involved in injury road accidents: by accident severity: Greater Britain: 1994

  Accident severity

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  All injury accident

  All heavy goods vehicles involved

  633

  2,924

  11,009

  14,566

  Of which, gross vehicle weight known1

  3.5 to 7.5 tonnes

  80

  417

  1,597

  2,094

  7.5 to 17 tonnes

  65

  406

  1,551

  2,022

  More than 17 tonnes

  411

  1,571

  5,353

  7,335

  Total known

  556

  2,394

  8,501

  11,451

  1 Goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight.

  2 The police record heavy goods vehicles as such as on the STATS19 road accident report form.

  However, the exact gross vehicle weight is only known for those cases where a link can be made with the vehicle details held by DVLA.

  Railtrack Staff
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many members of staff are employed by Railtrack to oversee safety on the railways; how many of these have been appointed within the last year; how many people employed in this capacity have left the employment of Railtrack in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [13218]

  Mr. Watts
  I understand that Railtrack's safety and standards directorate currently employs 103 permanent staff and 12 temporary staff. During the last 12 months, six staff in this capacity have been appointed and eight staff have left the employment of Railtrack.

  Rail Franchise Agreements
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the franchise agreements and related documents for the LTS Rail, Great Western Trains and South West Trains passenger rail franchise. [13589]

  Mr. Watts
  Copies of the franchise agreements for Great Western Trains and South West Trains have today been placed in the Library, together with the disabled, senior and young persons railcard schemes, the staff travel scheme, the ticketing and settlement agreement, the Association of Train Operating Companies' LRT scheme, the Travelcard agreement and the through-ticketing (non-travelcard) agreement. Certain provisions of these documents have been deleted in line with section 73 of the Railways Act 1993.

  The franchise agreement for the LTS rail franchise will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Railtrack (Privatisation)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the eligible amounts for capital allowances on plant and machinery and on industrial building in respect of the qualifying assets transferred to Railtrack which will be transferred to the private sector. [13747]

  Mr. Watts
  The amounts of capital allowances allocated to Railtrack PLC in respect of property transferred to it from the British Railways Board on 30 March 1994 are as follows:

  in relation to plant and machinery: £521,536,242

  in relation to industrial buildings: £618,530,990

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  International Trials
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's relations with the Dutch legal authorities in relation to international trials in The Hague. [12000]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  No. if the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Libyan proposal to hold in The Hague the trial of those accused of the Lockerbie bombing, we have made clear to the Dutch and other Governments our view on holding the trial in a third country.

  Prisoners of Conscience
  Mr. Fachett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department circulates country-specific lists of prisoners of conscience to other Departments whose Ministers are about to undertake visits aborad; if he encourages Ministers from outside his Department to raise such cases on visits; and if he will make a statement. [13221]
  9
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We frequently raise cases of individual political prisoners with our Governments. When a reliable, country-specific list is available, and is likely to be an effective means of alerting another Government to our concerns, Ministers from other Departments due to visit the country in question may be briefed accordingly and encouraged to make use of it.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  UNICEF
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was Britain's contribution to UNICEF in each of the last five years, at constant prices; and what is the planned contribution for 1996–97. [12578]

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:

  £ million

  Core contribution at cash prices

  Core contribution at constant 1995–96 prices

  1991–92

  9.00

  10.09

  1992–93

  9.50

  10.23

  1993–94

  9.50

  9.94

  1994–95

  8.50

  8.73

  1995–96

  8.50

  8.50

  We plan to contribute £8.5 million to UNICEF's core budget in 1996–97.

  In addition to its annual core contribution, the ODA also makes ad hoc contributions to UNICEF's supplementary and emergency activities. These figures are as follows:

  £ million

  Contribution at cash prices

  Contribution at constant 1995–96 prices

  1991–92

  4.75

  5.33

  1992–93

  4.50

  4.85

  1993–94

  13.60

  14.23

  1994–95

  17.10

  17.57

TREASURY

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the percentage of information on the Inland Revenue's Corporation's tax pay and file system which(a) is unreliable, (b) is inaccurate, (c) is not updated and (d) omits interest charges. [11121]

  Mr. Jack
  The Inland Revenue continually assesses the performance of the CT pay and file system. There are no significant problems with the reliability and accuracy of the information which the system handles.
  10
  A recently identified software problem in the updating of information used by collectors of taxes—including information on interest charges—is scheduled to be fixed early this month.

  Office for National Statistics
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of market research undertaken on the name of the new office for national statistics; what were the options considered for the name of this agency; what market research was undertaken; if he will publish the results of this market research; and if he will make a statement; [11629]

  (2) what is his estimate of the expenditure by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on market research associated with the renaming of the combined Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and the Central Statistical Office; and if he will make a statement. [13172]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have asked the director of the Central Statistical Office to write to the hon. Member and will arrange for a copy of the letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 5 February 1996:

  The Economic Secretary has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Questions on the cost of market research undertaken in selecting the name of the new Office for National Statistics.

  2 The choice of name for the new agency formed by the merger of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and the Central Statistical Office is particularly important. Individuals and businesses who will supply the new agency with its data have to recognise it as a safe guardian of data. It must also be widely recognised by users of statistics.

  3 In terms of public confidence, the new agency must be identified with professionalism, integrity and independence from governmental control of statistical processes.

  4 The existing names of the two organisations had created a measure of confusion in the public's mind as to the roles and functions of each organisation. It is important to create a simple, easily identifiable identity for the new agency. The new name also had to be carefully chosen so as to avoid conflicts with the roles and responsibilities of the territorial statistical services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  5 To help in the difficult task of choosing a name for the new agency that would do all these things, a small scale market research consultancy was commissioned in 1995. This tested possible names amongst a range of users and other interested groups to identify the connotations of various terms, including "Official", "National" and "Government".

  6 The clear findings of the market research were that there were strong benefits in using the terms "National" or "UK" rather than "Official" or "Government". This strongly influenced the choice of "Office for National Statistics" as the name for the new agency.

  7 Almost all the work associated with publications design, design of a new logo and style of new office stationery was concluded in-house. The total money expended on consultancy advice was £4,250.

  8. The research was significantly different from the large scale quantitative enquiries normally carried out by the CSO and is therefore not suitable for publication.

  Incomes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the percentage year on year change in real personal disposable income in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) Germany, (d) the United States of America, and (e) Japan since 1979. [11936]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  UK figures can be found in table 4.1 of the UK national accounts. For the remaining countries, figures on a comparable basis are available in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development publication, "National Accounts", various issues. These publications are in the House of Commons Library.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money in 1995 prices the nuclear industry has received from the Exchequer in grants, subsidies and debt write-offs in each year since 1966. [12470]

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  British Energy
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the sum that the proposed sale of British energy will raise for the Exchequer. [12473]

  Mr. Jack
  The proceeds of the British energy sale will depend on a variety of factors, including market conditions at the time of the sale. The Government never release estimates of proceeds from forthcoming sales as such information would be market sensitive.

  Privatised Companies' Debt (Sale)
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the sale of part of the Government's holding of privatized companies' debt. [14018]

  Mr. Jack
  The following bonds were offered for sale.

  Issuer

  Face value £ million

  Coupon (Per cent.)

  Maturity

  National Grid

  150

  12.895

  March 2001

  Norweb

  76

  12.365

  September 2008

  Norweb

  77

  12.661

  September 1999

  SWEB

  80

  12.365

  September 2008

  Northern Electric

  55

  12.661

  September 1999

  I am pleased to report that the sale was successfully completed on 2 February. Three of the issuers, National Grid, Norweb and SWEB have purchased their bonds for early redemption. BZW has sold the Northern Electric bond on behalf of the Treasury.

  Payment will be made to the Exchequer on 9 February. The net proceeds from the sale will total £538 million.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the annual cost to his Department and his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies of their empty and under utilised properties for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11450]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: The properties occupied by the Treasury, the Central Statistical Office, the Paymaster agency and the Valuation Office formed part of the Government's civil estate until 1990 and then the Government's common user estate. Information relating to the costs of holding CUE space vacant were given my hon. Friend Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on 31 January, columns 648–49.

  From 1 April 1996, Departments and their agencies assume responsibility for the CUE vacant space. The cost of such vacant space to the Treasury and the agencies responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is estimated to be £574,000 for 1996–97. The Treasury is making every effort to dispose of the empty property as efficiently as possible.

  The Royal Mint is responsible for its own property. It has not incurred, and does not envisage incurring, any costs in respect of vacant space for the years in question.

  Inter-agency Co-operation
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made on co-operation between the Inland Revenue, the Contributions Agency, and Customs and Excise since 19 September 1995. [12540]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 1 February 1996]: Excellent progress continues to be made on co-operation between the Inland Revenue, the Contributions Agency and Customs and Excise. A number of measures have been implemented since 19 September 1995, including the successful launch of a telephone helpline pilot in Scotland for employers and VAT traders; a joint leaflet to help those setting up in business on their own; and new arrangements being piloted in the North of England to give new businesses a single form to register with all three departments. Peter Wyman—head of tax at Coopers and Lybrand and a member of the deregulation task force— has accepted an invitation to oversee work on joint working between the Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency to bring in an external perspective. All three departments are continuing to work closely to identify other areas which will streamline their relationship with business.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage of people unemployed for(a) up three months, (b) three to six months, (c) six to nine months, (d) nine to 12 months, (e) one to two years, (f) two to three years, (g) three to four years, (h) four to five years and (i) five years and over who get a job in the following month. [13084]
  13
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 1 February 1996]: The following table shows the percentage of claimants unemployed on 9 November 1995, in the UK, who left claimant unemployment in the following month for each unemployment duration band. No information is available on the destination of claimants who cease to claim unemployment-related benefit.

  Percentage of UK Claimants Unemployed on 9 November 1995 who left the claimant count in the following month

  Duration on 9 November 1995

  Percentage in the following month (ie. before 14 December 1995)

  Up to 3 months

  17.8

  Over 3 and up to 6 months

  12.4

  Over 6 and up to 9 months

  11.8

  Over 9 and up to 12 months

  8.7

  Over 1 and up to 2 years

  9,5

  Over 2 and up to 3 years

  7.4

  Over 3 and up to 4 years

  4.7

  Over 4 and up to 5 years

  4.3

  Over 5 years

  2.7

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many persons, according to the latest available information, are employed under contract for(a) zero hours per week, (b) one to eight hours, (c) nine to 15 hours, (d) 16 to 24 hours, (e) 25 to 30 hours, (f) 31 to 40 hours, (g) 41 to 50 hours, (h) 51 to 60 hours, (i) 61 to 70 hours, (j) 71 to 80 hours and (k) more than 80 hours per week; and what percentage of the total work force each group represents. [13169]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 31 January 1996]: The available information from the labour force survey is as follows:

  Basic usual hours1 worked by employees in Great Britain (summer 1995, not seasonally adjusted)

  Basic usual hours worked per week1

  Number of employees (thousands)

  As a percentage of all employees

  0

  n/a

  n/a

  1 to 8

  968

  4.4

  9 to 15

  1,394

  6.3

  16 to 24

  2,095

  9.5

  25 to 30

  1,355

  6.1

  31 to 40

  13,154

  59.7

  41 to 50

  2,069

  9.4

  51 to 60

  571

  2.6

  61 to 70

  159

  0.7

  71 to 80

  69

  0.3

  more than 80

  83

  0.4

  1 Hours usually worked in their main job, excluding meal breaks and overtime.

  n/a not available, estimate below 10,000.

  Cyclical Social Security
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what definition his Department has of cyclical social security; and if he will indicate each category of person included with spending on each category in 1994–95, and a forecast of 1995–96,1996–97 and 1997–98. [13616]
  14
  Mr. Roger Evans
  I have been asked to reply.

  Cyclical social security is defined as unemployment benefit and income support paid to people of working age. From October 1996 it will cover jobseeker's allowance and income support to people of working age.

  The client group definition for cyclical social security is as follows:

  "Unemployed" includes Unemployment Benefit (JSA from October 1996) plus IS to the unemployed.

  "Short term sick" is IS to people who are sick for up to six months and who do not receive a disability pension.

  "Long term sick and disabled" is IS paid to disabled people and people who are sick for more than six months.

  "Families" is IS to lone parents.

  "Widows and others" is IS paid to people who do not fall into the other client groups.

  The expenditure details are shown in the attached table.

  Cyclical Social Security client group expenditure

  £ millions

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Unemployed

  6,583

  6,522

  6,473

  6,468

  Short term sick

  429

  457

  478

  503

  Long term sick and disabled

  2,218

  2,290

  2,364

  2,460

  Family

  3,992

  3,770

  3,623

  3,836

  Widows and others

  379

  420

  468

  531

  Total

  13,602

  13,459

  13,400

  13,800

  Notes:

  1. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  2. 1994–95 estimated outturn; 1995–96 to 1997–98 planned expenditure.

  3. These figures are currently being updated and will be available in the 1996 Departmental report which will be published at the end of March 1996.

  Source:

  1995 Social Security Departmental Report.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  British Coal Properties
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much revenue he expects to be generated from the remaining sales of British Coal properties. [13258]

  Mr. Page
  The disposal of its property is a matter for British Coal. It would not be appropriate to speculate on what the eventual proceeds might be.

  Domestic Electricity Consumers (Discount)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what number and percentage of domestic electricity consumers will not receive the National Grid discount because they live in mobile homes; and if he will provide an age breakdown of the affected consumers. [13551]

  Mr. Page
  My Department does not keep this information.

  The National Grid discount is being made by the regional electricity companies to their 21 million domestic customers.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to restrict the use of category 3 fireworks to those operating under licence from the local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [13491]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have no plans to restrict the use of category 3 fireworks to organisers of fireworks displays. Category 3 covers a wide range of firework types, some of which are not suitable for use in small spaces. For this reason, category 3 fireworks are required to be clearly marked as "display" fireworks, carry instructions for use and indicate the safe distance for spectators. This allows people to make choices and purchase fireworks to suit their own circumstances.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the average price for a kilowatt hour of electricity in each of the organisations for Economic Co-operation and Development countries; and if he will make a statement. [13738]

  Mr. Page
  The information requested is given in the table and relates to the annual average prices for 1994. Data for all countries include any duties or taxes payable which are non-recoverable.

  pence per kWh

  Industrial electricity

  Domestic electricity

  Austria

  4.68

  10.79

  Belgium

  3.84

  11.44

  Canada

  2.47

  3.90

  Denmark

  4.10

  11.70

  Finland

  3.38

  5.72

  France

  3.45

  9.75

  Germany

  5.98

  11.57

  Ireland

  3.97

  8.00

  Italy

  6.11

  10.27

  Japan

  11.25

  16.19

  Luxembourg

  n/a

  8.32

  Mexico

  2.73

  4.49

  Netherlands

  3.71

  7.48

  New Zealand

  2.34

  4.36

  Norway

  n/a

  4.36

  Portugal

  7.54

  10.60

  Spain

  5.20

  11.31

  Sweden

  2.41

  5.53

  Switzerland

  6.89

  8.52

  Turkey

  5.01

  4.94

  United Kingdom

  4.42

  8.00

  United States

  3.06

  5.46

  Note:

  Data for Australia and Greece are not available.

  Source:

  International Energy Agency.

  Electricity prices for both industrial and domestic consumers in the UK have fallen, in real terms, by 10 and 7 per cent. respectively since privatisation of the electricity supply industry. The above table show that United Kingdom prices are among the lowest in the industrialised world and are generally lower than our main European competitors. Further reductions in UK prices during 1996 are likely to improve the UK's position even more.
  16
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the average price for a kilowatt hour of electricity charged to consumers in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [13739]

  Mr. Page
  In 1995, the average standard tariff charge for a kilowatt hour of electricity in the United Kingdom was 7.3p. Domestic customers also pay a quarterly standing charge. In 1995, the average standing charge in the UK was £10.39. The standard tariff and standing charge quoted do not include VAT.

  In 1995, the average price paid by industrial electricity consumers per kilowatt hour was about 4.5p.

  Domestic electricity prices in the UK have fallen, in real terms, since 1990. The average price of electricity is now 7 per cent. lower, in real terms excluding VAT, than it was before privatisation. Domestic consumers will benefit from further reductions during 1996. The National Grid rebate, tightened distribution price controls and a reduction in the fossil fuel levy, mean that average domestic electricity bills in 1996 should be around one fifth lower, in 1995 prices, than in 1995.

  Since privatisation, industrial electricity prices have fallen by 10 per cent. in real terms. Industrial electricity prices are now at their lowest level, in real terms, than at any time since records began in 1970. Reduction in distribution charges and the fossil fuel levy will also benefit industrial customers during 1996.

  Research and Technological Development
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the total sums allocated to(a) the United Kingdom and (b) each other EU state under the European Union's framework programme for research and technological development in each of the years from the establishment of the programme. [13364]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Payments from European Community expenditure programmes are not allocated to member states in the legislation supporting the programmes.

  Framework IV, which runs from 1994–98 is the EU's main research and development programme. It has a budget of 13.1 billion ecu—approximately £10.9 billion. It is administered by the European Commission, which receives applications and manages the project selection process. The budget is not pre-allocated in any way among member states. Projects are selected on the basis of scientific excellence. UK researchers have participated strongly in successive framework programmes.

  Official Receiver
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 12 December 1995,Official Report, column 600, what contracts have been awarded with regard to the functions of the official receiver. [13112]
  17
  Mr. Oppenheim
  Following the conclusions of the initial and financial evaluation of the six tenders received for the case administration work of official receivers, I have agreed to an extension of the timetable to allow additional discussions to take place with those bidders most likely to be able to offer increased value for money. It is now my intention to make an announcement on the outcome of this exercise before the end of February.

  Company Procedures
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 12 December 1995,Official Report, column 600–01, what progress he has made with the British Bankers Association on a binding code of practice. [13113]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The British Bankers' Association has accepted the invitation to develop a code of practice.

  Departmental Publicity
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) of 26 January,Official Report, column 424, how much has been spent by his Department on publicity and media relations for each year since 1990, including staff costs and how many press officers have been employed by his Department in each year since 1979. [13114]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  (a) Expenditure from centrally managed budgets on publicity and media relations, including staff costs, has been as follows:

  1990–91: £18,199,000

  1991–92: £12,326,000

  1992–93: £13,002,000

  1993–94: £11,482,000

  1994–95: £10,685,000

  (b) Some 19 press officers are currently employed in the Department's Press Office. Corresponding figures for previous years are as follows:

  1995: 19

  1994: 17

  1993: 19

  The numbers of press officers before 1993 are not separately identifiable.

  Departmental Running Costs (Limits)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 20 December,Official Report, column 1265, when he expects the MINIS process currently being used to seek savings in all areas of the Department's running costs completed. [13591]

  Mr. Lang
  The MINIS 96 process is continuing on schedule. I expect to publish the outcome for the financial year 1996–97 by May 1996. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  European Legislation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how he ensures that the negotiating brief for his officials discussing EU legislation takes fully into account the need to minimise the burdens on United Kingdom business. [13685]

  Mr. Page
  Official guidance on how officials are to apply deregulatory principles when negotiating EC regulations are contained in the booklet "Getting a Good Deal in Europe". This guidance has also been supplemented by the recent publication of guidance on the preparation of compliance cost assessments which stresses that the likely burdens on business highlighted by UK compliance cost assessments of EC proposals should be integral to the UK's negotiating strategy.

  Copies of both these guidance booklets have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade after which date National Power and PowerGen can dispose of sites owned at the time of privatisation without a share of the proceeds going to Her Majesty's Government; and if he will make a statement. [12856]

  Mr. Page
  The provisions of the property clawback regime will continue to apply to all of the privatised electricity companies until 31 March 2000.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which power stations or other sites have closed or become surplus to requirements since privatisation by(a) PowerGen and (b) National Power; which of such sites have been sold; and what Her Majesty's Government have received in each instance. [12855]

  Mr. Page
  Detailed questions about the classification, use or sale of sites are a commercial matter for the companies. Since 1990, under the property clawback provisions which apply to all the privatised electricity companies HM Government have received £0.56 million and £0.89 million from National Power and PowerGen respectively.

  Combat-induced Post-traumatic Stress Disorder
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research is or has been undertaken by the Medical Research Council into combat-induced post-traumatic stress disorder. [12905]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Medical Research Council is not currently carrying out, and has not carried out any research into combat-induced post-traumatic stress disorder.

HEALTH

  Private Health Care (Referrals)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients were referred to private health care by NHS doctors in 1995–96. [12938]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the number of medium secure beds provided in each year since 1985 by each private psychiatric hospital, analysed by location and health authority; and what is the average current cost of such beds as compared with equivalent NHS beds; [12297]

  (2) how many medium secure psychiatric hospital beds there have been in each region in each year since 1985; [12296]

  Purpose-built medium secure places by region

  Regional health authorities

  31-01-85

  31-01-86

  31-01-87

  31-01-88

  31-01-89

  31-01-90

  31-01-91

  31-01-92

  31-01-93

  East Anglia

  36

  36

  36

  36

  36

  34

  34

  34

  34

  Oxford

  —

  —

  14

  26

  36

  36

  25

  25

  25

  North-east Thames

  10

  10

  10

  14

  14

  14

  14

  14

  14

  North-west Thames

  —

  40

  40

  40

  40

  40

  46

  46

  48

  South-east Thames

  75

  90

  90

  90

  82

  85

  85

  85

  85

  South-west Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South western

  30

  30

  30

  60

  46

  60

  60

  60

  65

  Wessex

  31

  31

  31

  31

  22

  26

  26

  28

  29

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  40

  58

  63

  77

  77

  77

  Trent

  45

  22

  45

  30

  45

  45

  45

  48

  48

  Yorkshire

  48

  48

  48

  48

  39

  44

  44

  44

  44

  Northern

  30

  30

  30

  25

  15

  15

  21

  25

  27

  North Western

  20

  102

  102

  86

  73

  74

  82

  82

  82

  Mersey

  50

  50

  50

  50

  36

  36

  36

  36

  36

  National total

  375

  489

  526

  576

  542

  572

  595

  604

  614

  Purpose built medium secure places by region

  Regional health authorities

  31 March 1994

  31 March 1995

  5 January 1996

  Anglia and Oxford

  89

  121

  121

  North Thames

  108

  108

  165

  South Thames

  90

  90

  141

  South and West

  94

  108

  112

  West Midlands

  77

  77

  95

  Trent

  48

  48

  48

  Northern and Yorkshire

  101

  101

  131

  North West

  110

  139

  139

  National total

  717

  792

  952

  Regional health authority boundaries changed in 1994 and the date on which the figures were collected changed from 31 January to 31 March. These figures are for medium secure places in the new regions.

  Hospital-at-home Schemes
  Sir Timothy Sainsbury
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the number of patients now being treated under hospital-at-home schemes annually. [12697]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information concerning hospital-at-home schemes is not collected centrally, however health authorities and national health service trusts are continuing to show interest in such developments. Recent initiatives include the expansion of the Peterborough hospital-at-home scheme to include paediatric services and the introduction of a new hospital-at-home scheme funded by East Sussex district health authority and established by collaboration between the South Downs Health and Brighton Healthcare NHS trusts. Further
  20
  (3) how many of the patients currently in medium secure provision in each of the private psychiatric hospitals live within their health authority catchment area; and how many come from homes outside the area. [12298]

  Mr. Bowis
  The tables show the number of purpose-built medium secure places in each region. Since 31 March 1995 a further 160 places have opened. There are also about 450 places nationally in interim secure psychiatric units, many of which are of medium secure standard. The other information requested is not available centrally.

  information is available from the chairman of the North West Anglia Health Commission and the chairman of the South Downs Health NHS Trust respectively.

  Public Health Laboratory Service
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Public Health Laboratory Service abandoned work on hospital disinfectants; and if he was consulted on that decision. [13132]

  Mr. Horam
  The Public Health Laboratory Service has not abandoned work on hospital disinfectants. Its central public health laboratory maintains a continuing expertise in this field. CPHL gives expert advice in response to numerous enquiries, and has in hand a number of specific projects such as testing disinfectants which are suspected of contamination and, for the World Health Organisation, tests of systems currently used for the asepsis and safety of vaccines.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many scientists are employed in the Public Health Laboratory Service; and what number it is planned will be made redundant. [13130]

  Mr. Horam
  The Public Health Laboratory Service employs 224 scientists. Consultations on four redundant posts have recently been completed and are still proceeding on a further two scientists' posts.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors underlay the decision that the Public Health Laboratory Service would no longer be represented on EC committees engaged in writing procedures for testing disinfectants. [13131]
  21
  Mr. Horam
  The Public Health Laboratory Service continues to have an input to European consideration of matters relating to the testing of disinfectants. A PHLS representative sits on the British Standards Institute technical committee IH/57 "Chemical Disinfectants and Antiseptics", which links directly with its European counterpart.

  Family Planning
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the medical centres(a) dealing with abortion, (b) providing contraceptive advice and (c) with in vitro fertilisation facilities. [12983]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on medical centres dealing with abortion or providing contraceptive advice is not available centrally.

  On 11 October 1995 the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority published "The Patients' Guide to Donor Insemination and IVF Clinics". The publication contains information on treatments offered by licensed centres. Copies are available in the Library.

  Alcohol Information Leaflets
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make funds available for the reprinting of alcohol information leaflets; and if he will make a statement. [12996]

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make money available to assist local alcohol advisory services to rewrite and reprint information leaflets, to reflect the recent changes in the Government statement on weekly guidelines for alcohol consumption. [13560]

  Mr. Bowis
  We recognise that the recommendations in the report of the interdepartmental group on sensible drinking need to be communicated effectively to the public. We are funding the Health Education Authority to do this.

  Cardiac Services, London
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who is responsible for strategic planning of London's cardiac services; and what is his current plan. [13260]

  Mr. Malone
  The strategic planning of cardiac services in London—as elsewhere—is a matter for purchasing authorities and national health service trusts working together to ensure that comprehensive services are provided to meet patients' needs both now and in the future, taking into account national planning and priorities guidelines.

  Plans for developing specialist services in London are set out in "Making London Better" including an independent review of cardiac services, which was published in July 1993. Its recommendations have contributed to planning the future configuration of these services in the capital. Copies of the documents are available in the Library.
  22
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what proportion of the hospitals listed as providing specialist treatment for cardiac patients in the 1993 London implementation group report of the cardiac speciality review(a) have since closed and (b) are in the process of closure. [13245]

  Mr. Malone
  The independent review of the 14 tertiary cardiac centres in London, published in July 1993, is only part of a range of available advice taken into account in considering the future configuration of these services in the capital. In April 1995, decisions were announced on the concentration of cardiac services in south east London at St. Thomas's hospital and in east London at the Royal London hospital site at Whitechapel. Since then, cardiac services provided in outdated accommodation at the Brook hospital have transferred to Guy's hospital and St. Thomas's hospital. The Brook hospital closed in November 1995. There are no immediate plans for the closure of other hospitals named in the report.

  Junior Doctors' Hours
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many newly qualified doctors have joined the NHS in each year since 1979; and how many hours newly qualified doctors work each week on average. [13267]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the numbers of newly qualified doctors joining the NHS is not held centrally. However, the normal route is for them to become pre-registration house officers. Figures for these are shown in the table.

  Number of pre-registration house officers in England as at 30 September each year since 1979

  Year

  Number

  1979

  2,610

  1980

  2,650

  1981

  2,720

  1982

  2,710

  1983

  2,830

  1984

  2,770

  1985

  2,840

  1986

  2,810

  1987

  2,790

  1988

  2,860

  1989

  2,940

  1990

  3,020

  1991

  3,060

  1992

  3,040

  1993

  3,090

  1994

  3,020

  Normally, the duration of the PRHO training period is one year.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest '10'.

  Again, figures for the average number of hours worked each week by junior doctors, whether or not newly qualified, are not held centrally. However, returns from regional task forces on junior doctors' hours indicate that under 1 per cent. of PRHOs were contracted for hours above the December 1994 limits and under 2 per cent. in total remain above the target to be reached by December 1996. These limits are set out in the "New Deal on Junior Doctors' Hours," a copy of which is placed in the Library.

  Secure Places
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made by local authorities involved in providing the 170 additional secure places required for criminal justice purposes; and when he expects all the additional places to be available. [13818]

  Mr. Bowis
  The first additional places became available in December of last year. Further new places will come on stream throughout 1996 leading to around 100 additional places being completed by the end of this year and the balance by mid-1997.

  Details of the new places being provided within the capital development programme are shown in the table.

  Local authority

  Number of new places from within the 170 supply plan

  Northumberland county council

  7

  Lancashire county council

  8

  Salford city council

  12

  Leeds city council

  9

  Sheffield city council

  8

  Coventry city council

  8

  Staffordshire county council

  12

  Derbyshire county council

  3

  Lincolnshire county council

  4

  Nottinghamshire county council

  10

  Cambridgeshire county council

  10

  Essex county council

  16

  Northamptonshire county council

  16

  Southwark London borough

  16

  Hammersmith and Fulham London borough

  10

  Hampshire county council

  5

  Avon county council

  6

  Devon county council

  4

  Wales—West Glamorgan

  6

  Total

  170

  Methylphenidate
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions his Department has had with the drug company Ciba regarding(a) the production and (b) distribution of the drug methylphenidate; and if he will make a statement; [ 13700]

  (2) how much methylphenidate is produced annually; and if he will make a statement; [13698]

  (3) what further steps he is taking to control the (a) production and (b) distribution of the drug methylphenidate; and if he will make a statement; [13693]

  (4) what guidance he has issued to general practitioner fundholding practices regarding the drug methylphenidate; and if he will make a statement; [13699]

  (5) what assessment he has made of the effects of the drug methylphenidate; and if he will make a statement; [13692]

  (6) what representations he has received on the drug methylphenidate; and if he will make a statement. [13694]
  24
  Mr. Malone
  Methylphenidate—Ritalin—has been assessed by the normal procedures for licensing of medicinal products in the United Kingdom to ensure its efficacy, safety and quality. As for all medicines, there is continuous monitoring of safety after marketing by the Medicines Control Agency. Methylphenidate is not manufactured in this country. It is available as a prescription-only medicine under the controls of schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Any discussions between the licensing authority and the marketing authorisation holders are treated in confidence. There are no plans for further controls on the availability of methylphenidate.

  Methylphenidate—Ritalin—is licensed for use under the supervision of a specialist in childhood behaviour disorders. No guidance has been issued regarding prescribing by a general practitioner in a fundholding practice, but this may be done by mutual agreement as part of a joint protocol of care with such a specialist. The Department of Health has received representations in the form of four parliamentary questions and a small amount of correspondence.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on what basis the decision was taken to make the drug methylphenidate available as a controlled drug through general practitioners; [13697]

  (2) what consultations took place prior to the decision to make the drug methylphenidate available as a controlled drug through general practitioners; on what basis it was previously available; and if he will make a statement. [13696]

  Mr. Malone
  I understand from the Home Department that methylphenidate, in conformity with the United Nations convention on psychotropic substances 1971, has been a controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 since it came into force. It can therefore be prescribed by general practitioners.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the number of prescriptions dispensed for the drug methylphenidate since it became available; and if he will provide a breakdown by(a) general practitioner fundholding practice and (b) health authority for (i) the nations and (ii) regions of the United Kingdom. [13695]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department has a duty of confidence relating to the use of information derived from patient records and, following our usual practice, the information requested cannot be supplied at this level of detail because it is confidential.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department collects on(a) travel expenses and (b) overseas visits made by trust personnel. [13751]

  Mr. Malone
  The National Health Service Executive collects annual information on the total staff travelling and subsistence expenditure by each trust. Information is not held centrally on overseas visits by trust personnel.
  25
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department maintains on(a) sickness levels and (b) employee dismissals in trusts. [13750]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of BSE were confirmed in cattle(a) under two years of age, (b) between two and three years, (c) between three and four years, (d) between four and five years, (e) between five years and six years, (f) between six and seven years and (g) seven years and over for each breed of cattle in the United Kingdom, for each year since 1985. [12177]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Tables showing the number of cases of BSE by breed and age and by year of the disease for Great Britain and Northern Ireland are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Cyclamates
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each European Community country the permitted amount of cyclamates which were granted with effect from 1 January; what were the figures 12 months ago; and if he will make a statement. [12865]

  Mrs. Browning
  From 1 January 1996, all member states were required to permit the use of cyclamates in table-top sweeteners and in certain foods up to specified maximum levels in accordance with European Parliament and Council directive 94/35/EC of 30 June 1994 on sweeteners for use in foodstuffs—OJ No. L237, 10.9.94, p.3). Details concerning the maximum permissible levels of use of cyclamates in those foods are given in the annex to that directive.

  Prior to the 1 January 1996 the use of sweeteners in foods was not subject to Community legislation and national rules applied in each member state. While precise details are not available, it is understood that the use of cyclamates was authorised to varying degrees in Germany, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal. Although these sweeteners were not permitted for food use in the United Kingdom because of uncertainties over their safety, the Department of Health's independent expert committee, the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, has recently advised on the basis of the results of new studies, that there are no longer any health concerns preventing their use.

  I have arranged for the COT's statement to be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in how many cases in September 1995 animal export health certificates were presented to his officials at Dover where the certificates or 26
  their accompanying schedules had not been completed in accordance with his Department's instructions to local veterinary inspectors; and if he will make a
  statement. [12637]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) on 26 October 1995, Official Report, column 751. Subsequent returns have identified two further minor deficiencies in documentation of which one was resolved locally and the other was referred back for resolution to the divisional veterinary manager for the area from which the animals originated.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether all consignments of animals for further fattening and calves destined for export from Brightlingsea between 18 January and 25 October 1995 arrived at the port with completed export certificates; and if consignments were unloaded from their respective vehicles and loaded into the MV Caroline with the same accompanying certificates. [12541]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 1 February 1996]: All consignments of animals for export from Brightlingsea, with one exception, arrived with completed export health certification although a number of minor irregularities were identified and resolved. The sole exception related to one certificate for slaughter sheep which was not signed and stamped by a LVI and the consignment had to be re-certified by a LVI at the port. All consignments were loaded on to the vessel in such a way as to ensure that individual consignments of animals remained segregated, each with the same accompanying health certification.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many consignments of sheep for further fattening and calves were issued with an export health certificate for exit through the port of Brightlingsea between 18 January and 25 October 1995. [12542]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 1 February 1996]: Export health certification is not specific to a port, but 384 consignments of sheep and 664 consignments of calves were exported from the port in this period. It is not possible to given separate figures for sheep for slaughter and for further fattening except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the anomalies in respect of the implementation of health export certificates for calves between(a) Holland, (b) Belgium, (c) France, (d) Italy and (e) the United Kingdom. [12916]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 1 February 1996]: All certificates for export of live animals to other EC member states are drawn up to ensure that they meet the necessary animal health requirements.

PRIME MINISTER

  Prime Minister's Question Time
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions since 9 June 1995 when answers given at Prime Minister's Question Time were subsequently corrected or otherwise qualified. [13669]

  The Prime Minister
  This is a matter of public record.

  Crime Rates
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 30 January,Official Report, column 773, if he will set out the basis of his statement that crime is falling for the first time in 40 years. [13721]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) on 1 February 1996,Official Report, columns 1120–21.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Pendle Borough Council
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the
  Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the organisations located within the boundaries of Pendle borough council that received grants from the Duchy's benevolent fund in
  (i) 1994 and (ii) 1995. [13144]

  Mr. Freeman
  I am not a trustee of the benevolent fund and thus do not have details of donations. However the Secretary of the fund has provided the following information:

  Year

  Fund

  £

  1994

  Burnley and Pendle Greenspace

  400

  A handicapped lady in Nelson

  250

  1995

  A young person in Earby

  200

  Mansfield High school Brierfield

  400

  Barnoldswick Park Rovers FC

  450

  Pendle Duke of Edinburgh's award team

  1,000

  Colne parish church

  500

  Donations are also made to other charities which may assist causes or individuals within the boundaries of Pendle borough council.

  Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what cost savings he expects to accrue from the contracting out of the principal civil service pension scheme; [12932]

  (2) what representations he has received from members of the principal civil service pension scheme concerning the contracting out of the scheme; and what percentage of those representations have been in favour of the contracting out proposals; [12936]

  (3) when the decision to contact out the principal civil service pension scheme was taken; [12934]
  28
  (4) what the level of investment in the administration of the principal civil service pension scheme has been since 1992; [12933]

  (5) how many members there are in the principal civil service pension scheme; [12937]

  (6) if he will make a statement on the conclusion of the efficiency scrutiny into the principal civil service pension scheme, published in December 1992, with particular reference to administration of the scheme; [12931]

  (7) what discussions his Department has had with the current administrators of the principal civil service pension scheme with respect to the contracting-out of the principal civil service pension scheme. [12935]

  Mr. Willetts
  The efficiency scrutiny of administration of the principal civil service pension scheme identified the administration function as suitable for market testing and recommended that departments should be encouraged to pursue this. All the recommendations of the scrutiny were accepted, including those directed at raising standards of service quality and delivery to scheme members. New pensions administration software is being developed at a cost of some £1.2 million. This will facilitate the market testing process and make it particularly effective. Employing departments have been fully involved in the development of the new software, as they have with other aspects of implementation of the efficiency scrutiny recommendations.

  There are some 520,000 active members of the PCSPS. Some 544,000 former civil servants or their dependants are in receipt of a pension, and there are approximately 240,000 former civil servants with pension benefits preserved for payment at pension age.

  It is not possible to specify in advance the savings which result from subjecting particular activities to competition, but I have no reason to doubt that market testing PCSPS administration will identify cost savings consistent with the average saving of 21 per cent. that has resulted from the £2.6 billion worth of activities reviewed under the competing for quality programme in the three years to March 1995.

  My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), announced in a written answer on 17 October 1995, Official Report, columns 184–85, that an order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 opening up administration of the PCSPS to the private sector would be laid in this Session of Parliament. Various representations that had been made were taken fully into account in the decision to open up to competition the administration of the PCSPS. The Council of Civil Service Unions and the Civil Service Pensioners' Alliance have been formally consulted. I can assure scheme members that occupational pension arrangements for civil servants will continue to be provided through the PCSPS and that the scheme will continue to be managed and controlled by the Office of Public Service. It is scheme administration that is to be market tested.

  Deregulation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which regulations have been repealed under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994; and which of them applied to firms with(a) under 100 employees, (b) under 50 employees and (c) under 10 employees. [13099]

  Mr. Freeman
  Two orders have been enacted under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. They contain a number of measures to assist the greyhound industry and building societies. Both measures benefit industry as a whole and were not targeted specifically at small businesses.

  A further 19 proposals have been laid before the Parliamentary Committees which will ease burdens on a wide range of industrial sectors including Scottish salmon fishers and private companies.

  European Directives
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the interdepartmental review of guidance on gold plating is planned to be completed; and which Departments have been involved. [13617]

  Mr. Freeman
  It is expected that the interdepartmental review of guidance on gold plating will be completed by Easter. All Departments with responsibility for implementing EC directives are involved in the review.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what date it became Government policy not to gold plate EC directives; and how may(a) existing pieces of legislation have been reviewed and (b) changes to United Kingdom law have been made since that date. [13635]

  Mr. Freeman
  This Government's long-standing policy on the implementation of EC directives in the UK has been to avoid the addition of unnecessary burdens. Government Departments keep existing legislation under review in the light of this policy.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-flying sorties were booked in 1995 by non-United Kingdom based aircraft from each foreign air force. [12893]

  Mr. Soames
  The number of sorties booked in the United Kingdom low flying system in 1995 by non-United Kingdom-based foreign aircraft were as follows:

  Number

  Belgium

  154

  Denmark

  99

  France

  139

  Germany

  111

  Holland

  164

  Italy

  115

  New Zealand

  1

  Norway

  45

  30

  Number

  Portugal

  21

  Switzerland

  4

  USA

  53

  Total

  906

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the pilots of the four Italian air force AMXs involved in an aircraft proximity incident near Teesside airport on 12 July 1994 were(a) given a pre-flight briefing by RAF personnel on the rules of the United Kingdom low flying system and (b) interviewed by the Royal Air Force personnel following the report of the incident; and how many formal approaches seeking a report from the Italian pilots were made to the Italian authorities by the Civil Aviation Authority personnel. [13255]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is as follows:(a) yes; (b) no. The Civil Aviation Authority advised that it has no records of any formal approaches to the Italian" authorities.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions are given to Royal Air Force Chinook crews concerning the safety aspects of prolonged cruising flight at heights of less than 300 ft above ground level. [13211]

  Mr. Soames
  To maintain essential skills for operational low flying, it is routine for RAF Chinook crews to train below 300 ft above ground level. Normal RAF rules for low flying apply and Chinook crews receive training, both in the simulator and in the aircraft, to cope with emergencies which might arise.

  Arms Sales (Saudi Arabia)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of Sir Colin Chandler in respect of arms deals with the Government of Saudi Arabia; and if he will make a statement. [13102]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  While head of defence sales, from 1985 to 1989, Sir Colin Chandler discussed the sale of British defence equipment with many countries including Saudi Arabia.

  Munitions Dumping
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Huddersfield of 19 January,Official Report, columns 844–45, for what reasons complete records of past Ministry sea dumping operations are not available. [13382]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is contained in correspondence between my Department and the House of Commons Defence Committee, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.
  31
  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all(a) ships sunk and (b) aircraft ditched off the coast of the United Kingdom since 1966 which records list as carrying (i) chemical weapons, (ii) toxic wastes and (iii) conventional explosives and munitions; and if he will make a statement on the environmental impact of these wrecks. [13352]

  Mr. Soames
  There are no records of either accidental or deliberate sinkings of RN ships or ditchings of military aircraft carrying these materials.

  Tornado Accidents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the accident involving a Royal Air Force Tornado GR.l on 11 January. [13212]

  Mr. Soames
  A RAF board of inquiry is conducting a detailed investigation into the cause of this accident and a copy of a summary of its findings will be placed in the Library of the House in due course.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the nationality of each of the crew involved in the mid-air collision between two Tornado F.3 aircraft on 10 January. [13213]

  Mr. Soames
  The crews were British.

  Air Misses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates, aircraft types and nationalities, locations, risk classifications and causes of air misses involving military aircraft in United Kingdom airspace from 1 January 1994 to the latest available date. [13207]

  Mr. Soames
  Information on air misses in the UK is published by the Civil Aviation Authority three times a year in the joint air miss working group compendium, copies of which are routinely placed in the Library of the House.

  Aircraft Proximity Incident (Perth)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British military personnel, and from which units, were on board the Portuguese air force helicopter involved in an aircraft proximity incident at Perth airfield on 6 June 1994. [13254]
  32
  Mr. Soames
  There is no record that any British military personnel were on board.

  Italian Air Force (Exchange Visits)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates of exchange visits by aircraft or crews from No. 56 Squadron Royal Air Force to units of the Italian air force since 1992. [13214]

  Mr. Soames
  Aircraft and crew from No. 56 Squadron have taken part in exchange visits to units of the Italian air force on the following occasions since 1992:

  10–12 October 1994: to Aviano

  17–19 March 1995: to Grossetto

  21–27 April 1995: to Ghedi

  22 June: to Grossetto

  4–6 July 1995: to Gioia Del Colle

  Official Residences
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence
  what decision has been made about the future of the official service residence, Haymes Garth; and if he will make a statement. [14019]

  Mr. Soames
  Haymes Garth will be sold on the open market. Thereafter, the air officer commanding in chief, personnel and training command will be accommodated in an existing quarter adjacent to his headquarters which is presently occupied by the air officer training. Disposal will follow AOT's vacation of the quarter on completion of his tour of duty.

  Land Mines (Bosnia)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the dangers of anti-personnel land mines for implementation force troops in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement. [12274]

  Mr. Soames
  IFOR estimates that up to 5 million land mines, including anti-personnel mines, may have been laid in Bosnia. Under the terms of the peace agreement, the clearance of mines and related devices is the responsibility of the consenting parties themselves. IFOR's role is limited to monitoring and co-ordinating this programme, except where there is a serious threat to life or where clearance is necessary to allow IFOR to complete assigned tasks. In a tragic incident on 28 January, three British service men were killed when their armoured vehicle triggered a mine while on patrol.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of staff employed by his Department or related agencies in each of the travel-to-work areas of Carmarthen, South Pembrokeshire, Haverfordwest, Fishguard and Cardigan on(a) 31 March 1979, (b) 31 March 1990, (c) 31 March 1992, (d) 31 March 1995, (e) the latest available figure and (f) the estimate for 31 March 1997. [13298]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Historical information is not available in the form requested. However, data are available for 1 April 1995 and 1 April 1998. Details are:

  Travel to work area1

  1 April 1995

  21 April 1998

  Carmarthen

  750

  740

  South Pembrokeshire

  1,050

  873

  Haverfordwest

  1,021

  870

  Fishguard

  992

  852

  Cardigan

  540

  468

  1 Travel to work area is defined as a radius of 25 miles.

  2 1 April 1998 figures are a forecast based on current plans and could be subject to change.

  1. Figures are for civilian and service personnel.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence
  if all individuals that served in the Gulf war will now qualify for medical assessment following his recent announcement. [13754]

  Mr. Soames
  All service and ex-service personnel who think that they are suffering some form of illness as a result of their service in the Gulf war are entitled, upon referral by a service medical officer or general practitioner, to be seen under the medical assessment programme run by my Department.

  Equal Treatment Directive
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, (1) pursuant to his answer of 23 January,Official Report, column 139, if he will list the measures taken by his Department to implement article 7 of the equal treatment directive; and when each was taken; [13587]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the documents showing how article 7 of the equal treatment directive has been implemented by his Department. [13588]

  Mr. Soames
  Members of the armed forces were brought within the scope of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 on 1 February 1995, the effective date of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (Application to Armed Forces etc.) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/3276). Sections 4 and 6 of the SDA have the effect of implementing article 7 of the equal treatment directive. Copies of all these documents are already held in the Library of the House.

  Royal Flight
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many flights are charged to the Privy Purse when the aircraft of B2 (the Royal Squadron) return to 34
  base between the outward and return journey by the passenger. [13684]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department does not levy a charge for the positioning or recovery of flights associated with private travel in aircraft of No. 32 (The Royal Squadron) by those entitled members of the royal family.

ENVIRONMENT

  European Commission Meeting
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what matters relating to the environment were discussed at the European Commission weekly meeting on 24 January. [12683]

  Mr. Clappison
  The agenda for the weekly Commission meeting is a matter for the Commission rather than my Department. I understand, however, that at the meeting on 24 January the Commission adopted its review of the fifth environmental action programme.

  Wind Farm, Forest of Bowland
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the possibility of a wind farm in the forest of Bowland area of outstanding natural beauty. [12597]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish(a) the proposed or actual total external support in 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 and (b) the proposed or actual spending limit, taking into account the revision of Somerset's spending limit during 1995–96 for each of the seven counties of the south-west plus Kent, Oxfordshire and Warwickshire. [11827]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is given in the following tables.

  Total external support (revenue support grant + income from non-domestic rates + damping grants)

  £ million

  Local authority

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Somerset

  199.328

  186.054

  197.383

  Cornwall

  215.42

  208.475

  220.175

  Devon

  449.441

  434.932

  463.274

  Dorset

  255.181

  247.173

  260.960

  Avon

  413.732

  387.500

  —

  Wiltshire

  238.899

  222.890

  233.338

  Gloucestershire

  224.118

  215.769

  227.311

  Kent

  754.492

  714.126

  744.804

  Oxfordshire

  234.920

  221.320

  229.819

  Warwickshire

  198.916

  186.319

  197.072

  Provisional cap limits

  £ million

  Local authority

  1994–95

  1995–96

  21996–97

  Somerset

  280.204

  1264.920

  279.277

  Cornwall

  294.73

  280.749

  296.637

  35

  Provisional cap limits

  £ million

  Local authority

  1994–95

  1995–96

  21996–97

  Devon

  622.177

  592.045

  627.857

  Dorset

  373.866

  358.274

  379.241

  Avon

  588.244

  558.317

  n/a

  Wiltshire

  336.801

  313.981

  330.177

  Gloucestershire

  318.382

  300.713

  317.968

  Kent

  1005.828

  955.879

  1004.539

  Oxfordshire

  330.891

  315.959

  332.024

  Warwickshire

  288.339

  273.596

  287.877

  1 Figure shown is the cap imposed on Somerset; Somerset's provisional cap limit for 1995–96 was £262.320 million.

  2 Cap limits implied by provisional criteria for 1996–97, announced on 31 January 1996.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the
  Environment what was(a) the per capita and (b) the total standard spending assessment in both current and real terms for Hereford and Worcester county council for (a) social services, (b) education and (c) total council expenditure in (i) 1992–93, (ii) 1993–94, (iii) 1994–95, (iv) 1995–96 and (v) 1996–97. [12070]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is as follows:

  SSA for each category of spending in education for the years 1991–92 to 1996–97 inclusive

  SSA element

  Local authority

  Primary education

  Secondary education

  Post 16 education

  Under 5 education

  Other education

  Total

  1991–92

  Lancashire

  179.247

  198.909

  92.713

  22.900

  24.031

  517.800

  Essex

  183.498

  218.819

  90.652

  21.632

  23.523

  538.123

  Kent

  181.129

  213.555

  92.536

  22.099

  23.990

  533.309

  Hampshire

  179.192

  197.356

  101.458

  22.770

  24.140

  524.916

  1992–93

  Lancashire

  191.442

  209.223

  102.651

  24.919

  25.012

  553.247

  Essex

  196.384

  232.814

  102.760

  23.912

  24.945

  580.814

  Kent

  192.767

  225.967

  100.210

  24.136

  25.051

  568.131

  Hampshire

  193.503

  209.809

  109.316

  24.830

  25.182

  562.640

  1993–94

  Lancashire

  193.978

  211.548

  18.347

  24.725

  24.562

  473.160

  Essex

  203.468

  240.749

  34.788

  25.188

  26.534

  530.727

  Kent

  201.056

  235.907

  47.953

  25.740

  26.704

  537.360

  Hampshire

  203.178

  219.978

  11.352

  26.346

  27.623

  488.477

  1994–95

  Lancashire

  200.410

  211.902

  18.264

  25.773

  23.593

  479.942

  Essex

  214.362

  246.484

  34.373

  28.051

  25.248

  548.518

  Kent

  211.578

  240.234

  48.900

  27.953

  24.857

  553.522

  Hampshire

  213.330

  224.759

  11.244

  28.230

  25.427

  502.990

  1995–96

  Lancashire

  204.835

  211.310

  17.384

  26.372

  24.078

  483.978

  Essex

  218.850

  235.083

  31.779

  28.851

  25.892

  540.456

  Kent

  217.906

  237.703

  49.414

  28.640

  25.400

  559.063

  Hampshire

  217.771

  221.297

  9.239

  28.678

  25.572

  502.556

  1996–97

  Lancashire

  216.964

  223.726

  18.074

  28.439

  23.246

  510.448

  Essex

  230.935

  248.624

  31.758

  30.963

  24.701

  566.981

  Kent

  229.337

  246.442

  51.288

  30.520

  24.147

  581.733

  Hampshire

  229.349

  230.093

  10.680

  30.660

  24.371

  525.153

  36

  Hereford and Worcester County Council Standard Spending Assessments

  SSA

  Year

  Education

  Social services

  Total

  1992–93

  358

  70

  587

  1993–94

  308 (299)

  75 (73)

  543 (528)

  1994–95

  314(299)

  89 (85)

  562 (536)

  1995–96

  320 (297)

  101 (94)

  531 (493)

  1996–97

  331 (299)

  114(103)

  556 (502)

  SSA

  Year

  Education

  Social services

  Total

  1992–93

  241.88

  47.19

  397.04

  1993–94

  211.59

  51.24(49.78)

  372.57 (362.00)

  1994–95

  216.53

  61.28 (58.45)

  388.04 (370.09)

  1995–96

  219.79

  69.57 (64.57)

  364.55 (338.39)

  1996–97

  229.01

  78.60 (71.01)

  384.19 (347.07)

  £ million (figures in parenthesis are at 1992–93 prices, using the current GDP deflators).

  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give figures for standard spending assessments to cover each category of spending in education for the counties of(a) Lancashire, (b) Essex, (c) Kent and (d) Hampshire each year since 1991–92. [12492]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is given in the table.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment the Health and Safety Executive has made of whether health and safety arrangements made by contractors and security companies employed to clear the route of the Newbury bypass are sufficient to minimise risks to the public. [12745]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Health and Safety Executive inspectors are working closely with the contractors, security company, the Highways Agency, police and local authorities and are monitoring site activities to ensure that risks to the health and safety of the public are minimised.

  Right to Buy (Discounts)
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each year since 1980–81 the total value of discounts to public sector tenants in England exercising their right to buy. [13090]

  Mr. Clappison
  Figures for discounts given to council tenants exercising their right-to-buy were not collected by the Department before 1994, nor were such data collected in respect of new town tenants. However, information is available for the total value of discounts allowed from all sales of council dwellings for owner-occupation in England and this is shown in the table:

  Value of discounts allowed on completed disposals by local authorities and New Towns

  England

  1980–81 to 1994–95 £ million

  1980–81

  430.8

  1981–82

  926.4

  1982–83

  1,316.4

  1983–84

  960.2

  1984–85

  885.1

  1985–86

  914.8

  1986–87

  1,089.9

  1987–88

  1,557.0

  1988–89

  2,688.2

  1989–90

  2,865.2

  1990–91

  1,800.2

  1991–92

  1,167.9

  1992–93

  880.1

  1993–94

  1,011.6

  1994–95

  918.4

  The number of public sector sales for owner-occupation during this period was about 1.450 million, and 85 per cent. of such sales resulted from tenants exercising their right-to-buy.

  Whales
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many whales have become stranded and have died around the shore of the United Kingdom in each year since 1990; what research he has commissioned into the causes; and what advice he has issued to local authorities on the disposal of the carcases. [13143]

  Mr. Clappison
  The numbers of whales, including dolphins and porpoises, recorded as stranded around the United Kingdom since 1990 are shown in the table.
  38
  The marine mammals stranding project, funded by the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office, includes post mortems to study gross pathology, bacteriology and virology. Results of post mortems have been used to consider contaminant levels and incidences of bycatch in fishing nets.

  The project co-ordinators and veterinarians offer advice to local authorities on disposal of carcases according to individual circumstances including the location, the size of carcase, and matters affecting public health and safety.

  Numbers of whales (including dolphins and porpoises) stranded and perished around the shores of the United Kingdom since 1990

  Year

  Total strandings

  Confirmed live when stranded

  Live strandings which subsequently perished

  1990

  147

  8

  8

  1991

  192

  14

  10

  1992

  423

  15

  5

  1993

  321

  25

  16

  1994

  368

  55

  31

  19951

  252

  20

  15

  19961

  36

  0

  0

  1 Provisional (some data still to be assimilated).

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 30 January,Official Report, columns 648–50, if he will provide a breakdown of the total costs of holding common user estate space vacant in 1995–96, to show how much of the cost is due to space vacated by each Government Department. [13742]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Vacant space is managed by Property Holdings as an entity. Once space has been surrendered to Property Holdings in accordance with the established rules, the identity of the former occupant or occupants becomes unimportant. In consequence, financial information on vacant space costs does not identify the last occupant. This information is therefore not available.

  Water Companies (Delayed Payments)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the cost to council tax payers of water companies' delaying payment for works undertaken on their behalf by local authorities. [13201]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None. Any arrangements between local authorities and water companies are a matter for the individual parties concerned.

  Planning (Warminster)
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all those(a) organisations and (b) individuals who have made representations to his Department concerning planning application no. W95/0535 at Folly lane, Warminster. [12928]
  39
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State has received representations from

  (a) MAFF, and

  (b) WD Gregory (enclosing petition containing 365 signatures)

  Mr. and Mrs. J. F. Burton

  Mrs. R. D. Irwin

  Mrs. P. M. Robertson

  Mrs. L. P. Anderson

  Councillor John Syme, Wiltshire CC

  C. Bell

  C. R. Bell

  M. G. Bryant

  A. M. Kinman

  Garry Jones

  Michael Hibbs

  S. D. Pick

  A. Pick

  J. M. May

  G. T. Sprangle

  N. Hill

  A. Burt

  G. Hill

  A. M. Stewart

  David Faber MP

  There have also been four representations received where an address was not given. They therefore cannot be acknowledged and consequently have not been taken into account.

  Standard Spending Assessment (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the standard spending assessment in each year since 1990–91 for (i) Buckinghamshire county council, (ii) Aylesbury Vale district council, (iii)
  Chiltern district council and (iv) Wycombe district council. [13351]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is given in the table.

  Table to show the total SSA for the years 1990–91 to 1996–97 inclusive

  Total SSA local authority

  Year

  Buckinghamshire

  Aylesbury Vale

  Chiltern

  Wycombe

  1990–91

  324.970

  9.593

  4.213

  9.510

  1991–92

  385.943

  12.541

  5.333

  12.181

  1992–93

  418.926

  13.435

  5.606

  13.090

  1993–94

  409.877

  13.595

  6.105

  13.506

  1994–95

  427.261

  13.401

  7.185

  14.223

  1995–96

  393.493

  13.414

  7.226

  14.231

  1996–97

  408.220

  12.685

  7.078

  13.404

  Government Accommodation
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of Government accommodation in(a) the SW1 postal district of London and (b) the remainder of the United Kingdom is currently vacant. [13741]
  40
  Sir Paul Beresford
  Property Holdings is responsible for the whole of the Government common user (office) estate in which Government Departments and their agencies are housed. At 31 December 1995:

  (a) The total area of the CUE offices in SW1 was 856,377 sq metres of which 66,271 sq metres was vacant. (7.7 per cent.)

  (b) The total area of the CUE was 7,496,713 sq metres of which 1,017,304 sq metres was vacant (13.6 per cent.) When the SW1 area is excluded from the national figure, the CUE area of the remainder of the United Kingdom reduces to 6,613,336 sq metres of which 951,033 sq metres (14.4 per cent.) was vacant.

  Furs
  Mr. Tyler: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to implement European Union regulation 3254/91 requiring a ban on the import of furs from animals caught in leghold traps; and if he will make a statement. [13590]
  Mr. Clappison
  The UK wishes to see leghold traps phased out as quickly as possible, and has strongly supported the EU regulation introduced in 1991 for this purpose. We have expressed our disappointment with the Commission's proposal to postpone the ban on import of furs caught by leghold traps, and have urged it to bring forward stronger measures. However, the 1991 regulation requires the Commission to determine which countries have met the conditions to import furs into the Community. Since this has not been done, and the necessary implementing measures have not been adopted, there is some doubt as to whether member states would be acting lawfully if they attempted to implement a fur import ban on 1 January 1996. In view of this, and the absence of routine controls in intra-Community trade, the Government have reluctantly concluded that it would not be appropriate to implement the ban.

  Rough Sleepers, London
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the number of deaths of rough sleepers during the very cold spell over Christmas and the new year; if he will estimate the number who died from causes directly attributed to the cold weather; and if he will make a statement. [9970]

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: This information is not held centrally.

  Council Houses
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses in the United Kingdom are currently unfit for habitation. [10501]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 23 January 1996]: The 1991 English house condition survey found 307,000—7.7 per cent.—local authority dwellings in England to be unfit under section 604 of the Housing Act 1985, as amended by schedule 9 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Scotland does not operate a comparable standard of fitness. The figures for Wales and Northern Ireland may be available from the respective Secretaries of State.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisons (Transsexuals)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the guidelines for the treatment of transsexuals in prison; what plans he has to review these; and what is the time scale for the review. [12842]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 5 February 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about what guidelines there are for the treatment of transsexuals in prison, what plans there are to review them and what is the timescale for any review.

  No formal guidelines have been issued to Prison Service establishments on the care, management and treatment of transsexuals in prison. Clinicians have, however, always been able to call on advice from the Prison Service's directorate of health care to assist them in dealing with individual cases.

  The general principles underlying such advice were set out in letters to you of 29 June 1994 and 22 May 1995, from the former Director General, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House.

  The directorate of health care does intend to draw up some formal guidelines to assist clinicians in the field, who may have to deal with transsexuals. It does however, have many competing priorities for its resources and I cannot say when the work will be completed.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of(a) boys and (b) girls to the age of 18 years who are at present serving prison sentences in England and Wales (i) for murder and (ii) for manslaughter of children. [12851]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 5 February 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking, what is the number of (a) boys and (b) girls to the age of 18 years who are at present serving prison sentences in England and Wales (i) for murder and (ii) for manslaughter of children.

  The latest information is for 30 January 1996 and is given in the attached table.

  Population of persons aged under 18 years1 currently serving prison sentences in England and Wales for murder of children and manslaughter of children, by sex, on 30 January 19962

  Offence

  Boys

  Girls

  Murder of children

  3

  —

  Manslaughter of children

  —

  1

  Total

  3

  1

  'The age interpretation used is where age is currently under 18, convicted of murder/manslaughter of someone who was also under 18.

  2 Includes those in Prison Service establishments and local authority secure accommodation.

  British Citizenship (Hong Kong)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the deadline for applications from Hong Kong residents for British citizenship; and what arrangements govern applications made after that date. [13145]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Applications from principal beneficiaries for the governor's recommendation for registration as a British citizen under section 1(1) of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990 were to be made before 31 March 1994 or, in the case of an application made in response to an invitation from the governor, before the date specified in the invitation. Applications for recommendation for registration as a British citizen as the spouse or minor child of a principle beneficiary under section 1(4) are to be made before 31 December 1996. Thereafter, the sole avenue to British citizenship for Hong Kong residents who do not already hold that status will be by way of an application for registration or naturalisation under the British Nationality Act 1981. Such applications are not subject to any deadline.

  Civil Defence Grant
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in respect of civil defence grant allocations for the financial year 1996–97 for each metropolitan fire and civil defence authority, each metropolitan borough, each London borough, each county council and each unitary authority, the expenditure approved by him for grant aid at a rate of 100 per cent. on(a) emergency planning staff, (b) other employees' expenses, (c) rent, rates and premises service charges, (d) other premises-related expenses, (e) offices expenses, (f) departmental recharges, (g) miscellaneous supplies and services and (h) training and exercising costs and the expenditure on activities eligible for grant aid at a rate of 75 per cent.; and if he will make a statement. [13106]

  Mr. Sackville
  Civil defence grant is provided to local authorities as a contribution towards their expenses in meeting their civil defence responsibilities. The following table sets out the total approved expenditure for 1996–97 in respect of each fire and civil defence authority, metropolitan district, London borough, county council and unitary authority. I regret that it would be possible to provide a meaningful breakdown of this expenditure for all the authorities in the nine categories requested only at disproportionate cost.

  Authority

  Expenditure

  Counties

  Bedfordshire

  196,125

  Berkshire

  224,465

  Buckinghamshire

  210,860

  Cambridgeshire

  225,275

  Cheshire

  252,340

  Cornwall

  238,050

  Cumbria

  224,000

  Derbyshire

  266,450

  Devon

  281,575

  Dorset

  252,000

  Durham

  252,000

  Essex

  336,575

  East Sussex

  238,550

  Gloucestershire

  226,112

  43

  Authority

  Expenditure

  Hampshire

  329,250

  Hereford and Worcester

  266,462

  Hertfordshire

  280,250

  Kent

  338,000

  Lancashire

  307,730

  Leicestershire

  266,000

  Lincolnshire

  238,000

  Norfolk

  238,000

  Northamptonshire

  238,000

  Northumberland

  224,550

  North Yorkshire

  197,530

  Nottinghamshire

  253,362

  Oxfordshire

  213,125

  Shropshire

  224,000

  Somerset

  212,570

  Staffordshire

  266,000

  Suffolk

  238,000

  Surrey

  294,740

  Warwickshire

  211,593

  West Sussex

  238,350

  Wiltshire

  211,875

  FCDAs

  Greater Manchester

  334,000

  London

  not yet approved

  Merseyside

  369,000

  South Yorkshire

  229,000

  Tyne and Wear

  369,000

  West Midlands

  194,000

  West Yorkshire

  195,775

  Districts

  Barking

  35,000

  Barnet

  35,000

  Bexley

  35,000

  Brent

  35,000

  Bromley

  35,233

  Camden

  35,000

  Corporation

  35,000

  Croydon

  35,000

  Ealing

  35,000

  Enfield

  35,000

  Greenwich

  35,000

  Hackney

  35,000

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  35,000

  Haringey

  35,000

  Harrow

  35,000

  Havering

  35,000

  Hillingdon

  35,000

  Hounslow

  not yet approved

  Islington

  35,000

  Kensington and Chelsea

  35,000

  Kingston

  35,000

  Lambeth

  35,000

  Lewisham

  35,000

  Merton

  35,000

  Newham

  not yet approved

  Redbridge

  35,000

  Richmond

  35,000

  Southwark

  35,000

  Sutton

  35,000

  Tower Hamlets

  35,000

  Waltham Forest

  35,000

  Wandsworth

  35,000

  Westminster

  35,000

  Bradford

  35,000

  Calderdale

  35,000

  Kirklees

  35,000

  Leeds

  35,000

  Wakefield

  35,000

  Birmingham

  35,000

  Coventry

  35,000

  Dudley

  35,000

  Sandwell

  35,000

  44

  Authority

  Expenditure

  Solihull

  35,000

  Walsall

  35,000

  Wolverhampton

  35,000

  Barnsley

  35,000

  Doncaster

  35,000

  Rotherham

  35,000

  Bolton

  35,000

  Bury

  35,000

  Manchester

  35,750

  Oldham

  35,000

  Rochdale

  35,000

  Trafford

  35,000

  Bristol

  56,000

  Bath and North-East Somerset

  56,000

  South Gloucester

  56,000

  North Somerset

  56,000

  Hartlepool

  196,000

  Middlesborough

  see Hartlepool

  Stockton

  see Hartlepool

  Redcar and Cleveland

  see Hartlepool

  Hull

  not yet approved

  North Lincoln

  not yet approved

  North-East Lincoln

  not yet approved

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  not yet approved

  Isle of Wight

  168,662

  York

  55,400

  Denbighshire

  not yet approved

  Flintshire

  not yet approved

  Wrexham

  not yet approved

  Cardiganshire

  not yet approved

  Carmarthenshire

  not yet approved

  Pembrokeshire

  not yet approved

  Blaenau Gwent

  not yet approved

  Monmouthshire

  not yet approved

  Newport

  not yet approved

  Torfaen

  not yet approved

  Aberconwy and Colwyn Bay

  not yet approved

  Anglesey

  not yet approved

  Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire

  not yet approved

  Cardiff

  not yet approved

  Vale of Glamorgan

  not yet approved

  Caerphilly

  not yet approved

  Bridgend

  not yet approved

  Merthyr Tydfil

  not yet approved

  Rhondda Cynon and Taff

  not yet approved

  Neath and Port Talbot

  not yet approved

  Swansea

  not yet approved

  Powys

  not yet approved

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 January,Official Report, column 56, if he will make a statement on the outcome of the cases of Tamil asylum seekers involved in the incident of 13 February 1989. [13095]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave him on 22 January 1996,Official Report, column 56. If he would care to provide further details of the incident he has in mind to enable the cases to be identified, I will arrange for inquiries to be made.

  Prison Population
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the projected prison population for England and Wales for(a) 30 June 1996, (b) 30 June 1997, (c) 30 June 1998 and (d) 30 June 1999. [13279]
  45
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. George Howarth, dated 5 February 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking for the projected prison population of England and Wales for 1996–99.

  The latest long term prison population projections were published in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 4/95 'Projections of the Long Term Trends in the Prison Population to 2002', a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The next update of the long term projections is due to be published in spring 1996.

  Revised short term projections that cover a period of 18 months were produced in October 1995, based on an assessment of current trends. The population is expected to be about 52,700 by June 1996.

  Prison Service Costs
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the planned expenditure on the Prison Service for(a) capital and (b) running costs in (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98 and (iii) 1998–99. [13386]

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

  Letter from A.J. Pearson to Mr. Jack Straw, dated 5 February 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the planned expenditure on the Prison Service for the next three years.

  The provision agreed in the 1995 Public Expenditure Survey is given below.

  The figures shown are for conventional capital funding. We are now exploring the scope for private finance of capital investment.

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Current

  1,404

  1,389

  1,433

  Capital

  117

  110

  112

  Total

  1,521

  1,499

  1,545

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give figures for each prison establishment showing(a) the projected current expenditure for 1995–96, (b) the projected current expenditure for 1996–97 and (c) both the percentage and absolute change in each case. [12766]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 5 February 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about projected current expenditure for each prison establishment.

  The information, by area, is given in the attached table.
  46

  Establishment

  Projected amount expenditure 1995–96, (£ million rounded)

  Provisional allocation for 1996–97, (£ million rounded)

  Percentage variation

  Actual variation

  East Midlands

  Lincoln

  10.8

  10.5

  -2.6

  -280k

  Lindholme

  10.8

  10.7

  -1.1

  -120k

  Moorland

  10.9

  11.2

  +2.7

  +295k

  Morton Hall

  2.3

  2.4

  +4.1

  +95k

  North Sea Camp

  2.9

  2.9

  +1.5

  +43k

  Nottingham

  5.7

  6.7

  +19.1

  +1.1m

  Ranby

  6.8

  8.3

  +22.4

  +1.5m

  Stocken

  6.4

  6.3

  -1.9

  -125k

  Whatton

  4.0

  3.9

  -1.8

  -70k

  North-east

  Acklington

  9.1

  8.5

  -7.4

  -680k

  Castington

  5.8

  5.6

  -3.5

  -202k

  Durham

  15.2

  17.2

  +13.2

  +2.0m

  Frankland

  15.4

  15.2

  -0.8

  -130k

  Full Sutton

  19.7

  19.1

  -3.1

  -614k

  Holme House

  12.2

  13.3

  +8.9

  +1.1m

  Kirklevington

  2.0

  1.9

  -2.2

  -44k

  Low Newton

  5.3

  5.1

  -2.9

  -154k

  North-west

  Garth

  9.9

  9.9

  +0.1

  +12k

  Haverigg

  7.4

  6.9

  -6.0

  -442k

  Hindley

  7.9

  10.0

  +26.6

  +2.1m

  Kirkham

  6.9

  6.7

  -2.7

  -187k

  Lancaster Castle

  4.2

  4.3

  +2.8

  +115k

  Lancaster Farms

  8.0

  9.5

  +18.5

  +1.5m

  Preston

  11.4

  11.1

  -3.0

  -348k

  Thorn Cross

  4.3

  5.5

  +27.6

  +1.2m

  Wymott

  9.5

  13.5

  +42.2

  +4.0m

  Trans Pennine

  Leeds

  18.9

  17.3

  -8.4

  -1.6m

  Liverpool

  21.6

  21.3

  -1.3

  -290k

  Manchester

  21.1

  20.4

  -3.2

  -668k

  New Hall

  5.6

  5.6

  -0.8

  -441k

  Risley

  15.4

  14.7

  -4.0

  -622k

  Styal

  6.2

  6.1

  -1.1

  -71k

  Wakefield

  17.1

  16.9

  -1.3

  -219k

  Yorkshire

  Askham Grange

  2.3

  2.2

  -2.3

  -53k

  Deerbolt

  7.6

  7.3

  -4.0

  -307k

  Everthorpe

  6.2

  6.7

  +8.1

  +503k

  Hatfield

  3.7

  3.5

  -6.3

  -235k

  Hull

  11.5

  12.0

  +4.3

  +497k

  Northallerton

  4.7

  4.5

  -4.0

  -188k

  Wealstun

  7.9

  8.9

  +11.8

  +936k

  Wetherby

  3.7

  3.5

  -4.3

  -158k

  Central

  Ashwell

  5.7

  5.6

  -1.7

  -98k

  Birmingham

  16.6

  16.1

  -3.1

  -517k

  Brinsford

  9.2

  8.8

  -4.4

  -408k

  Featherstone

  8.9

  8.4

  -5.8

  -521k

  Gartree

  8.0

  7.9

  -1.0

  -82k

  Glen Parva

  13.4

  12.9

  -4.3

  -583k

  Leicester

  8.4

  8.4

  +0.6

  +48k

  Long Lartin

  14.3

  13.8

  -3.4

  -485k

  Stafford

  10.1

  9.6

  -4.7

  -470k

  Mercia

  Brockhill

  3.3

  3.4

  +3.3

  109k

  Drake Hall

  3.9

  3.7

  -3.7

  -142k

  Hewell Grange

  2.6

  2.7

  2.7

  +69k

  Shrewsbury

  5.9

  5.5

  -5.5

  -320k

  Stoke Heath

  6.1

  6.0

  -1.8

  -111k

  Sudbury/Foston

  6.2

  6.1

  -0.6

  -35k

  Swinfen Hall

  4.5

  4.3

  -2.8

  -127k

  Werrington

  2.4

  2.3

  -2.4

  -57k

  East Anglia

  Blundeston

  7.9

  7.6

  -4.0

  -315k

  Bullwood Hall

  3.7

  3.6

  -1.4

  -44k

  Chelmsford

  8.2

  9.1

  +10.1

  +836k

  47

  Establishment

  Projected amount expenditure 1995–96, (£ million rounded)

  Provisional allocation for 1996–97, (£ million rounded)

  Percentage variation

  Actual variation

  Highpoint

  10.2

  9.6

  -6.2

  -632k

  Hollesley Bay

  9.7

  9.5

  -2.2

  -215k

  Norwich

  11.0

  11.5

  +4.4

  +488k

  Wayland

  8.1

  8.0

  -0.6

  -47k

  Kent

  Aldington

  2.2

  2.3

  +4.1

  +93k

  Blantyre House

  2.1

  2.1

  +1.0

  +21k

  Canterbury

  6.3

  6.1

  -4.2

  -266k

  Cookham Wood

  2.9

  2.9

  +1.2

  +36k

  Dover

  5.6

  5.5

  -1.8

  -104k

  East Sutton Park

  1.7

  1.7

  -0.3

  -6k

  Elmley

  11.5

  11.5

  +0.2

  +20k

  Maidstone

  9.8

  9.7

  -1.0

  -102k

  Rochester

  7.9

  7.8

  -1.4

  -111k

  Standford Hill

  5.7

  5.4

  -6.0

  -346k

  Swaleside

  9.3

  9.1

  -1.7

  -157k

  London North

  Bedford

  7.1

  6.9

  -3.4

  -241k

  Grendon

  8.7

  8.5

  -1.3

  -110k

  Holloway

  15.5

  15.9

  +2.6

  +406k

  Littlehey

  8.6

  8.5

  -0.4

  -33k

  Pentonville

  16.2

  16.2

  -0.2

  -40k

  Wellingborough

  4.5

  5.7

  -1.3

  -74k

  Whitemoor

  18.5

  19.1

  +2.9

  +541

  Woodhill

  13.7

  14.2

  +3.6

  +489k

  Wormwood Scrubs

  20.1

  20.1

  +0.3

  +59k

  London South

  Albany

  8.5

  8.3

  -2.1

  -180k

  Belmarsh

  21.9

  22.5

  +2.6

  +572k

  Brixton

  18.3

  18.0

  -1.6

  -297k

  Camp Hill

  8.1

  7.8

  -2.8

  -228k

  Feltham

  15.4

  15.1

  -1.7

  -259k

  Latchmere House

  2.2

  2.2

  +2.3

  +51k

  Parkhurst

  15.1

  12.7

  -15.8

  -24k

  Wandsworth

  21.2

  19.6

  -7.8

  -1.652m

  South Coast

  Downview

  5.6

  5.6

  -0.7

  -40k

  Ford

  5.6

  5.8

  +3.1

  +173k

  Haslar

  2.5

  2.5

  -0.8

  -21k

  Highdown

  12.6

  12.4

  -1.3

  -168k

  Kingston

  3.7

  3.6

  -1.1

  -42k

  Lewes

  8.7

  8.5

  -2.1

  -181k

  Send

  2.4

  2.4

  +0.6

  +16k

  Winchester

  11.8

  11.2

  -4.7

  -554k

  Chilterns

  Aylesbury

  7.1

  7.5

  +4.6

  +332k

  Bullingdon1

  12.5

  11.7

  -6.1

  -758k

  Coldingley

  6.1

  6.1

  -0.9

  -53k

  Huntercombe

  5.5

  5.9

  +7.2

  +398k

  The Mount

  7.8

  8.1

  +3.2

  +249k

  Omley

  7.6

  7.5

  -1.3

  -96k

  Oxford1

  1.7

  1.2

  -29.8

  -516k

  Reading

  5.1

  5.0

  -2.0

  -103k

  Wales and West

  Bristol

  12.9

  12.6

  -2.9

  -371k

  Cardiff

  9.8

  10.9

  +11.1

  +1.0m

  Eastwood Park2

  0.4

  2.7

  +544.6

  +2.3m

  Erlestoke

  5.2

  5.0

  -4.6

  -242k

  Gloucester

  6.2

  6.0

  -2.6

  -163k

  Leyhill

  6.1

  6.1

  +0.2

  +9k

  Pucklechurch2

  2.6

  —

  —

  -2.6m

  Swansea

  6.0

  6.0

  -0.4

  -27k

  Usk

  5.3

  5.1

  -2.8

  -145k

  Wessex

  Channings Wood

  8.4

  8.4

  +0.5

  +44k

  Dartmoor

  11.8

  11.6

  -1.1

  -132k

  Dorchester

  4.4

  4.3

  -2.8

  -125k

  48

  Establishment

  Projected amount expenditure 1995–96, (£ million rounded)

  Provisional allocation for 1996–97, (£ million rounded)

  Percentage variation

  Actual variation

  Exeter

  9.3

  8.9

  -4.6

  -432k

  Guys Marsh

  5.2

  5.2

  +0.2

  +13k

  Portland

  8.5

  8.5

  +0.3

  +29k

  Shepton Mallet

  3.9

  3.9

  -0.5

  -21k

  The Verne

  8.3

  8.2

  -1.2

  -102k

  1Bullingdon/Oxford as one:

  14.2

  12.9

  -9.0

  -1.3m

  2Eastwood/Pucklechurch as one:

  3.1

  2.7

  -10.9

  -0.4m

  Some funds are held centrally and allocated for operational difficulties.

  Private Prisons.
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to revise the existing contracts for private prisons in respect of cost reductions in the state sector. [13277]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 5 February 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the revision of contractual requirements for the contractually-managed prisons in regard to cost reductions in the public sector.

  No decision has been taken about whether the services provided by contractually-managed prisons should be changed. However, consideration is being given to whether this can contribute to the Prison Service's cost-reduction strategy for 1996–99.

  Resettlement Grants
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have(a) applied for and (b) been granted a resettlement grant to meet their repatriation costs to their country of origin; what has been the average cost of such grants; and how many were to non-United Kingdom citizens. [13735]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Resettlement grants are not available under the voluntary repatriation scheme run by the International Social Service of the United Kingdom on behalf of the Home Office. The scheme provides limited financial assistance towards travel and baggage costs. A total of 7,390 applications have been received under the scheme between 1972 and 1995 inclusive, and 2,545 individuals have been assisted financially during that period. The average cost per individual assisted in 1994–95 was £1,200. British citizens are not eligible for assistance.

  Ethnic Minority Business Advisory Group
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the ethnic minority business advisory group was established; how many times it met;
  49
  what were the results of its meetings; and what factors led
  to its being disbanded. [13100]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The first meeting of the ethnic minority business advisory group was held on 8 December 1992. There were four more meetings. It provided a forum in which issues of concern to ethnic minority businesses could be raised with mainstream business support organisations and relevant Government Departments. The transfer of the ethnic minority business initiative grant scheme into the single regeneration budget and the establishment of the Government offices for the regions, which moved the focus of activity from central to regional level, were the principal factors in the disbandment of EMBAG.

  Holloway Prison
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the annual expenditure on education at Her Majesty's prison Holloway for each of the past 10 years, the total weekly teaching hours available and the number of teachers in post; and if he will make a statement. [12272]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 31 January 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary 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 5 February 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about education expenditure at Holloway Prison.

  Information for the last six years is given in table one, attached. Information is not available before then.

  The weekly teaching hours and teachers in post for the years 1993–94 and 1994–95 are given in table two.

  Information before then is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Table one: Annual expenditure education (includes salaries, material and capital)

  £

  1989–90

  354,024

  1990–91

  346,182

  1991–92

  523,297

  1992–93

  429,526

  1993–94

  390,223

  1994–95

  441,805

  Table two

  1993–94

  228

  7 full time 31 part time

  1994–95

  270

  7 full time 27 Part time

  50

  Salaries £

  Materials (VT, CIT, pre-release) £

  Education capital £

  1990–91

  285,525

  53,122

  7,535

  1991–92

  403,129

  87,634

  32,534

  1992–93

  343,837

  67,553

  18,136

  1993–94

  321,817

  68,406

  nil

  1994–95

  383,871

  47,967

  9,967

  1995–96

  348,000

  58,900

  2,000

  Women Prisoners
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date the Prison Service first issued instructions for the use of restraints on women prisoners attending hospital; and if he will list the dates of subsequent instructions issued. [12420]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 31 January 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 5 February 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking on what date the Prison Service first issued instructions for the use of restraints on women prisoners attending hospital, and the dates of subsequent instructions.

  The policy on the use of restraints on all prisoners in hospital, including women prisoners, is a long standing one. Guidance on the use of restraints under Prison Rule 46 was set out in a variety of circular instructions, standing orders and letters to individual governors. These instructions were issued over many years.

  The Security Manual, which codified security instructions was first issued in autumn 1991. A section bringing together instructions on handcuffing, including handcuffing of women prisoner generally and prisoners of either sex in hospital was added in October 1992. Amendments in April 1994 gave further guidance about handcuffing women. In April 1995 an amendment to the manual gave guidance about complying with medical requests when handcuffing women prisoners attending hospital, including for childbirth. In November 1995 a letter was sent to governors which reiterated the policy that women in labour and childbirth should not be restrained.

  On 18 January, the Home Secretary Announced a revised policy to the House. This took into account the meeting I had with representatives of the Royal College of Midwives on 15 January. Instructions reflecting the new arrangements were sent to governors on 19 January.

  Release of Offenders
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on informing police authorities of the release of offenders convicted of manslaughter and murder. [13004]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 1 February 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Ms Ann Coffey, dated 5 February 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General, to reply to your recent Question about the policy on informing police authorities of the release of offenders convicted of manslaughter and murder.
  51
  The current procedure for informing the police of the final discharge of all prisoners on completion of sentence is that on or about 28 days before discharge, the establishment where the prisoner is serving completes a Form 99. This form is then sent to the National Identification Service (formerly National Identification Bureau) at New Scotland Yard.

  The form gives all personal details of the prisoner, including, if known, his CRS number. Details of the present conviction, offence, committing courts and sentence are also included as is the discharge address, if known.

  The relevant instructions to establishments to carry out this procedure are contained in Prison Service Standing Order 1I (Discharge of Prisoners), paragraph 11 and Prison Service Circular Instruction 40/1992, paragraph 8.

  Under the arrangements introduced in April 1995 governing the release on temporary licence of prisoners, the Prison Service must notify the police about such releases in cases where the post trial report prepared by the police indicates that notification is required. Post trial reports are completed on any offender serving a custodial sentence (of any length) involving sex, violence or drugs and in respect of any prisoner serving a custodial sentence of 12 months or more.

  The notice of temporary release is faxed to the Force Intelligence Bureau (FIB) of the police service in whose area the prison is located, at least 5 working days before the temporary release is due to take place. The force FIB will then relay the information either to the police service which originally dealt with the offences and/or the police service to which the prisoner will be going on temporary release.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the(a) mean, and (b) median income for (i) single male pensioners who are aged (1) 65 to 69, (2) 70 to 74, (3) 75 to 79 and (4) 80 years and over, (ii) single female pensioners in groups 1 to 4, (iii) pensioner couples who are in groups 1 to 4, (iv) all pensioners who are (5) aged 60/65 years to 74 years and (6) aged 75 years and over and (v) all pensioners. [12155]

  Mr. Heald
  The available information is in the tables:

  Table 1: Average income—single male pensioners: £ per week at July 1993 prices

  Age

  65 to 74

  75+

  Mean

  169.80

  143.50

  Median

  108.30

  103.00

  Table 2: Average income—single female pensioners: £ per week at July 1993 prices

  Age

  65 to 69

  70 to 74

  75 to 79

  80+

  Mean

  150.70

  111.50

  108.30

  108.10

  Median

  105.10

  96.30

  94.70

  97.50

  Table 3: Average income—pensioner couples: £ per week at July 1993 prices

  Age

  65 to 69

  70 to 74

  75 to 79

  80+

  Mean

  274.40

  233.40

  214.10

  189.70

  Median

  207.80

  178.30

  161.90

  160.00

  52

  Table 4: Average income—all pensioner units: £ per week at July 1993 prices

  Age

  Mean

  Median

  60–65 to 74

  192.50

  139.50

  75+

  139.70

  106.40

  60–65+

  170.20

  123.80

  Source:

  Family Expenditure Survey 1993.

  Notes:

  1. Income figures are gross income before housing costs.

  2. A pensioner unit is defined as a single person over State Pension Age (SPA) or a couple where the husband, or head, is over SPA.

  3.Due to insufficient sample sizes reliable estimates of further age breakdowns for single male pensioners are not available at Table 1.

  Child Rearing Costs
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 23 January,Official Report, column 213, if he will list the specific evidence evaluated by his Department which supported his conclusion concerning the relative costs of bringing up children by lone parents and by couples. [13398]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 30 January,Official Report, columns 745–46.

  There is a wide range of research on the costs of a child. There is no consistent evidence of a difference in these costs for lone parents and couples, other than a potentially greater need for child care for working lone parents.

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the locations which provide the temperature information upon which decisions on severe weather payments are based. [13300]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  All weather stations and the areas they cover are listed in the schedules to the Social Fund Cold Weather Payments Regulations, a copy of which is in the Library. The weather station at Whithorn, which is listed in the regulations, has closed. The weather station at Dumfries has been used to cover the postcode areas specified for Whithorn.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of staff employed by his Department or related agencies in each of the travel-to-work areas of Carmarthen, South Pembrokeshire, Haverfordwest, Fishguard and Cardigan on(a) 31 March 1979, (b) 31 March 1990, (c) 31 March 1992, (d) 31 March 1995, (e) the latest available figure and (f) the estimate for 31 March 1997. [13293]

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.
  53

  Staff in post in DSS agencies

  31 March 1992

  31 March 1995

  Areas

  Benefits agency1

  Contributions agency2

  Child support agency3

  Benefits agency1

  Contributions agency2

  Child support agency3

  Carmarthen

  54

  5

  0

  56

  6

  0

  South Pembrokeshire

  50

  4

  0

  51

  0

  0

  Haverfordwest

  63

  5

  0

  64

  7

  5

  Fishguard

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cardigan

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Staff in post in DSS agencies

  31 March 1992

  31 March 1995

  Areas

  Benefits agency1

  Contributions agency2

  Child support agency3

  Benefits agency1

  Contributions agency2

  Child support agency3

  Carmarthen

  56

  3

  0

  55

  0

  0

  South Pembrokeshire

  59

  0

  0

  59

  0

  0

  Haverfordwest

  69

  4

  5

  68

  5

  6

  Fishguard

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cardigan

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Source:

  Personnel data from individual agencies.

  Notes:

  1 Launched April 1991.

  2 Launched April 1991.

  3 Launched April 1993.

  4 Estimate.

  1. Resettlement Agency (RA) Information Technology Services Agency (ITSA) and War Pensions Agency (WPA) have no staff in these areas at the specified dates.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the class 1A national insurance contributions collected though(a) the Contributions Agency and (b) the Inland Revenue for (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95. [13744]

  Mr. Heald
  The information requested is in the table.

  £ million

  Estimated total of class 1A collection

  Actual contributions agency (APM) collection

  Estimated inland revenue portion

  1993–94

  419

  246

  173

  1994–95

  476

  283

  193

  1. Figures shown for Contributions Agency class 1A collection via the alternative payment method—APM—for both financial years are actual collection totals.

  2.Figures shown for total class 1A collection and the Inland Revenue portion are based on provisional estimates provided by the Government Actuary's Department and are subject to change.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library the report undertaken by the Contributions Agency of a random sample of employers to provide information on error rates in the collection of national insurance mentioned in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the national insurance fund 1993–94. [13746]
  54
  Mr. Heald
  The report, referred to in the 1993–94 report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the national insurance fund report, was produced by the Department's analytical services division in August 1994. I have today arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Upper Waiting Hall Exhibitions
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to timeshare to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall. [13376]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 18 March to Friday 22 March 1996.

  Lobby Journalists
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to require lobby journalists to declare their salaries, employers' pension contributions, allowances and other forms of income as a condition of their retaining lobby passes. [13701]

  Mr. Newton
  I have no such plans.

WALES

  Public Transport
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives his Department is pursuing to encourage the use of public transport in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [10705]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  County councils have been given powers to promote the use of public transport in their areas. Grant assistance is available to them from the Welsh Office in the form of transport grant for major projects; revenue support grant and non-domestic rate income; and grants for public transport operators in the rural areas under the rural transport innovation scheme. Other support can be given under the strategic development scheme and the bus priority scheme, the most recent examples of which I announced on 4 January. They include:£6.8 million over three years to help Rhondda Cynon Taff and Cardiff councils to improve rail links between the valleys and Cardiff;
  £1.3 million to complete rail signalling between Pontypridd and Taffs Well;
  £150,000 for a traffic signalling project to improve bus journey times between Pontypridd and Caerphilly; and
  £52,000 for a bus-only route at Swansea.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each unitary authority area and for Wales as a whole in 1996 prices the estimated revenue cost of local government reorganisation for 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [12429]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the costs of reorganisation to each local authority is not held centrally.

  My right hon. Friend will provide supplementary credit approvals totalling £41,394,000 to unitary authorities for 1996–97 to cover a proportion of councils' expenditure on compensation, accommodation and information technology.

  The figures for accommodation and information technology are broken down as follows:

  Council

  Information technology £

  Accommodation £

  Aberconwy and Colwyn

  348,219

  600,000

  Anglesey

  338,546

  1,000,000

  Blaenau Gwent

  562,180

  217,000

  Bridgend

  673,427

  —

  Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire

  889,342

  —

  Caerphilly

  482,142

  —

  Cardiff

  456,987

  —

  Cardiganshire

  445,457

  —

  Carmarthenshire

  366,847

  —

  Denbighshire

  436,048

  2,214,750

  Flintshire

  725,309

  —

  Merthyr Tydfil

  220,000

  —

  Monmouthshire

  460,131

  —

  Neath and Port Talbot

  895,107

  —

  Newport

  505,725

  —

  Pembrokeshire

  236,789

  800,000

  56

  Council

  Information technology £

  Accommodation £

  Powys

  488,431

  —

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  812,304

  —

  Swansea

  576,000

  —

  Torfaen

  752,037

  —

  Wrexham

  424,512

  1,440,000

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  668,710

  —

  Total

  11,764,250

  6,271,750

  No such breakdown is available for compensation costs in 1996–97. SCAs will be authorised upon receipt of audited claims for actual expenditure, up to a limit of £23,538,000.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales under what terms and conditions additional resources will be made available to local authorities in Wales for the year 1996–97; and under what criteria these resources will be distributed. [12885]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer to the answer which I gave to the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) on 30 January,Official Report, columns 682–83.

  Agricultural Marketing and Processing
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the amount of aid for agricultural marketing and processing by each county and for Wales as a whole for each of the last three years. [12813]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The amount of aid offered for agricultural marketing and processing schemes is as follows:

  County

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  Clwyd

  255,000

  73,033

  74,250

  Dyfed

  380,630

  294,298

  791,828

  Gwent

  —

  392,750

  —

  Gwynedd

  625,188

  1,745

  183,479

  Mid Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  Powys

  46,330

  120,473

  2,500

  South Glamorgan

  —

  —

  56,500

  West Glamorgan

  53,550

  36,889

  5,000

  Total

  1,360,698

  919,188

  1,113,557

  1 Up to 31 December 1995.

  These figures represent the offers which the Welsh Office made to companies in these years. There is a slight time lag between offers being made and expenditure being incurred.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of staff employed by his
  57
  Department or related agencies in each of the travel-to-work areas of Carmarthern, South Pembrokeshire, Haverfordwest, Fishguard and Cardigan on (a) 31 March 1979, (b) 31 March 1990, (c) 31 March

  Date

  Carmarthen TTWA

  South Pembrokeshire TTWA

  Haverfordwest TTWA

  Cardigan TTWA

  30 September 19801

  92

  —

  15

  1

  31 March 1990

  102

  2

  9

  —

  31 March 1992

  123

  2

  6

  —

  31 March 1995

  146

  —

  7

  —

  31 January 19962

  152

  —

  7

  —

  1. Estimates are not available for March 1997.

  1 Does not include Ancient Monument Staff.

  2 Excludes temporary staff—(ie, staff employed for less than three months).

  Welsh Joint Education Committee
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what accreditation role he has with respect to the setting of standards by, and response to, requests for(a) remarkings and (b) independent review of the Welsh Joint Education Committee. [13740]

  Mr. Hague
  Requests for remarking are matters for consideration by individual examination boards. Individual appeals relating to GCSE, A and AS-level examinations can, with the support of the examination centre concerned, be made to the Independent Appeals Authority for School Examinations. These arrangements apply to the Welsh Joint Education Committee, as they do to other GCSE, A and AS-level examination boards.

  NVQs

  Gwent

  Mid Glamorgan

  North-east Wales

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  Targed

  West Wales

  Total

  1993–94

  Sub level 1

  107

  123

  9

  7

  42

  7

  42

  337

  Level 1

  400

  253

  150

  52

  361

  245

  952

  2,413

  Level 2

  481

  696

  308

  129

  455

  244

  857

  3,170

  Level 3

  105

  40

  12

  5

  22

  96

  74

  354

  Level 4+

  12

  6

  0

  0

  25

  1

  41

  85

  Total

  1,105

  1,118

  479

  193

  905

  593

  1,966

  6,359

  1994–95

  Sub level 1

  101

  454

  0

  4

  80

  24

  46

  709

  Level 1

  539

  415

  259

  28

  278

  211

  1,103

  2,833

  Level 2

  482

  622

  259

  55

  596

  268

  715

  2,997

  Level 3

  120

  94

  6

  20

  49

  86

  82

  457

  Level 4+

  48

  29

  13

  3

  26

  21

  33

  173

  Total

  1,290

  1,614

  537

  110

  1,029

  610

  1,979

  7,169

  Source:

  TEC Management Information Statistics

  Conservation Schemes
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the annual expenditure figures and forecasts for the(a) countryside access scheme, (b) environmentally sensitive areas, (c) farm conservation grant scheme, (d) farm woodland premium
  58
  1992, (d) 31 March 1995, (e) the latest available figures and (f) the estimate for 31 March 1997. [13297]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is as follows:

  Training for Work Programmes
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 31 January,Official Report, columns 820–22 if he will give comparable figures for non-vocational qualifications levels for those undertaking training for work for (a) 1993 and (b) 1994. [13760]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is contained in the following table. The figures quoted are for complete financial years—that is April to March—whereas the figures quoted in my answer of 31 January were for the period 27 March 1995 to 3 December 1995, the latest then available. Finalised figures for 1995–96 will be available in September 1996.

  scheme, (e) habitat scheme, (f) nitrate sensitive areas, (g) moorland scheme, (h) organic aid scheme and (i) countryside stewardship for each year between 1990–91 and 1997–98. [13633]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is set out in the following table.
  59

  £ thousands

  Scheme

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Countryside access scheme

  —

  —>

  —

  —>

  —>

  2

  2

  2

  Environmentally sensitive areas1

  882

  1,458

  1,503

  1,542

  1,536

  3,029

  8,527

  8,201

  Farm conservation grant scheme

  3,867

  6,224

  5,537

  6,249

  5,251

  4,500

  4,722

  4,222

  Farm woodland scheme2

  27

  35

  40

  41

  40

  50

  78

  78

  Farm woodland premium scheme

  —

  —

  —

  57

  117

  160

  271

  284

  Habitat scheme

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  516

  516

  Nitrate sensitive areas3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Moorland scheme

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,640

  1,140

  Organic aid scheme

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  34

  348

  348

  Tir Cymen4

  —

  —

  —

  1,540

  2,940

  3,500

  4,980

  6,370

  1. Years 1990–91 to 1994–95 inclusive, are actual outturn figures as shown in the respective Appropriation Accounts for those years.

  2. Year 1995–96 is forecast outturn and may be subject to change.

  3. Years 1996–97 and 1997–98 are planned expenditure and may be subject to change.

  1 Includes figures for Public Access in Environmentally Sensitive Areas.

  2 The Farm Woodland Premium Scheme replaced the Farm Woodland Scheme.

  3 There are no Nitrate Sensitive Areas in Wales.

  4 In Wales the pilot scheme "Tir Cymen" is considered to be the nearest equivalent to the Countryside Stewardship Scheme.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 17 January 1996 to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney),Official Report, columns 624–25, (1) if he will set out the rights of those farmers not wishing to sell or lease their land to the Land Authority for Wales as compensatory feeding grounds for those lost behind the Cardiff bay barrage; [11906]

  (2) if he will name each of the farms in the proposed compensation area east of the River Usk for the loss of inter-tidal feeding grounds at Cardiff bay; and whether they (a) have been bought by voluntary means, (b) are under negotiation for voluntary purchase, (c) are under negotiation for management agreement of (d) are expected to be bought by compulsory order; [11907]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the length of time required to complete the arrangements for the setting up of the bird reserve east of the River Usk to compensate for the loss of feeding grounds at Cardiff bay on the basis of (a) voluntary purchase of the requisite farm, (b) management agreements with land owners and (c) compulsory purchase; and if he will make a statement. [11904]

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer Thursday 25 January]: These are operational matters for the Cardiff Bay development corporation. The chief executive has replied and a copy of his letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Access Centres
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received relating to access centres for children of separated parents; what was his response; and if he will make a statement. [11788]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I have recently received an enquiry about the funding of access and child contact centres in connection with the Government's proposals for reform of divorce law and the legal aid system. Under 60
  the Government's proposals, services providing mediation in disputes relating to family matters may become eligible to receive funding through the legal aid system. If centres consider that they provide such services, it may become open to them to apply for such funding.

  Contact centres play a valuable role in facilitating contact with children following family breakdown, and can provide a variety of services. There are at present a range of local family centres, some of which are run by charitable organisations, which receive funding from the voluntary sector and from local authorities.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much was spent on state-funded legal aid in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other European Union member states in the last year for which figures are available. [11793]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Excluding administration costs, in 1994–95 the net cost of legal aid in the United Kingdom was £1.4 billion. It is not possible to make direct comparisons with other EU member states since the legal systems are different and the coverage and nature of their legal aid schemes vary considerably.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the cost of legal aid received by asylum seekers in the last financial year for which figures are available. [11794]

  Mr. Evans
  No separate figures are kept for the legal aid costs attributable to asylum matters alone. In 1994–95, total legal aid expenditure for advice and assistance on immigration and nationality cases was less than £14.6 million, representing just over 1 per cent. of the total cost of legal aid.

  Mr. John Marshall
  : To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has recently received about legal aid. [11796]

  Mr. Evans
  I have received many representations about the legal aid scheme.
  61
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to broaden the eligibility rules for legal aid; and if he will make a statement. [11795]

  Mr. Evans
  The Lord Chancellor published a Green Paper setting out proposals for the reform of legal aid in May 1995. Both financial eligibility and merits assessment are being examined as part of this process. The Lord Chancellor intends to make an announcement on the future of the Green Paper proposals in the spring.

  Census Returns
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what arrangements he is making for continued public access to the census returns following the closure of the Public Record Office, Chancery Lane. [11797]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Following the closure of the Public Record Office, Chancery lane, public access to the census returns now consulted there will be continued at another central London site, for which negotiations are proceeding.

  Divorce
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations he has received on the question of fault in divorce law reform. [11798]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I have received a large number of representations relating to the question of divorce law reform. The records kept do not specify how many of these raised the issue of fault.

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to make additional funding available for mediation services. [11799]

  Mr. Evans
  The Government have no plans to make additional funding directly available to mediation services. However, under the proposals set out in the Family Law Bill, it is intended that legal aid will be made available for mediation to eligible parties in appropriate cases.

  Mrs. Elaine Steele
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what sums of legal aid were expended in the case of Elaine Steele of Workington. [11800]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Legal aid payments to counsel and solicitors for the criminal proceedings with which Mrs. Steele was faced totalled £31,436.09. In a civil case for which Mrs. Steele was granted legal aid, a final bill has not been received, and the legal aid costs have not yet been assessed.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the number of staff employed by his Department or related agencies in each of the travel-to-work areas of Carmarthen, south Pembrokeshire, Haverfordwest, Fishguard and Cardigan 62
  on (a) 31 March 1979, (b) 31 March 1990, (c) 31 March 1992, (d) 31 March 1995, (e) the latest available figure and (f) the estimate for 31 March 1997. [13296]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested for 31 March 1979 and 31 March 1990 is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. For the periods 31 March 1992 and 31 March 1995 no staff were employed in the Lord Chancellor's Department or related agencies in south Pembrokeshire, Fishguard or Cardigan. For Carmarthen and Haverfordwest the information is set out in the table.

  The remaining parts of he question relate to information on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Number of staff employed by the Lord Chancellor's Department

  Area

  Courts

  District Probate Registry

  31 March 1992

  Carmarthen

  10.5

  4

  Haverfordwest

  10

  n/a

  31 March 1995

  Carmarthen

  10.5

  2.5

  Haverfordwest

  10

  n/a

  Letter from M. D. Heubner to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 5 February 1996:

  NUMBER OF STAFF EMPLOYED IN TRAVEL-TO-WORK AREAS OF CARMARTHEN, SOUTH PEMBROKESHIRE, HAVERFORD WEST, FISHGUARD AND CARDIGAN

  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of staff employed in these areas.

  The Court Service does not hold information about staff employed in travel-to-work areas, and it could be collated only at a disproportionate cost. However, at present there are no Court Service staff employed in Fishguard, South Pembrokeshire or Cardigan and there are no plans for staff to be employed in these areas in the future. There are 24 members of Court Service staff, 21 full time and 2 part-time, employed in Haverfordwest and Carmarthen and it is estimated that 22 full time members of staff will be employed in these areas on 31 March 1997.

  Probate Offices
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many interviews took place at each probate office in England and Wales in each year from 1990 to 1995; and if he will make a statement. [13494]

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

  Letter from M. D. Heubner to Mr. David Lidington, dated 5 February 1996:

  NUMBER OF PROBATE OFFICE INTERVIEWS 1990–1995

  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to the above Question about the number of Probate Office interviews in the years 1990–95.

  I attach a schedule which details this information. As the table accompanying this letter is too long to be printed in the Official Report, arrangements will be made for a copy to be deposited in the Library of the House.
  63

  Number of interviews arranged at Probate Offices

  Probate Office staffed from:

  Probate Office

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Birmingham

  Coventry

  382

  421

  489

  533

  530

  595

  Kidderminster

  163

  161

  225

  258

  217

  265

  Litchfield

  170

  208

  143

  253

  266

  281

  Northampton

  223

  281

  336

  359

  362

  429

  Wolverhampton

  459

  438

  492

  577

  467

  539

  Stoke on Trent

  Crewe

  132

  104

  153

  154

  137

  276

  Shrewsbury

  225

  225

  299

  258

  275

  347

  Stafford

  168

  188

  196

  191

  166

  146

  Brighton

  Chichester

  —

  54

  141

  255

  295

  287

  Crawley

  276

  254

  333

  395

  406

  411

  Hastings

  161

  197

  232

  266

  244

  254

  Worthing

  268

  184

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Maidstone

  Canterbury

  368

  351

  391

  349

  434

  450

  Chatham

  219

  145

  —

  302

  250

  152

  Folkestone

  119

  109

  153

  192

  192

  176

  Tunbridge Wells

  258

  266

  284

  403

  370

  375

  Bristol

  Bath

  339

  349

  354

  422

  488

  485

  Taunton

  159

  189

  189

  218

  247

  290

  Weston Super Mare

  146

  158

  159

  200

  196

  182

  Bodmin

  Penzance

  44

  39

  57

  44

  50

  8

  Plymouth

  298

  300

  352

  442

  385

  445

  Truro

  197

  229

  250

  213

  263

  298

  Exeter

  Barnstable

  79

  75

  72

  100

  126

  116

  Newton Abbott

  162

  133

  170

  175

  170

  167

  Yeovil

  110

  111

  135

  144

  133

  162

  Ipswich

  Chelmsford

  361

  471

  568

  694

  783

  810

  Colchester

  299

  289

  352

  422

  455

  406

  Norwich

  Lowestoft

  71

  75

  104

  100

  127

  119

  Peterborough

  Cambridge

  275

  383

  396

  430

  503

  486

  King's Lynn

  74

  64

  97

  125

  149

  148

  Leeds

  Bradford

  184

  229

  209

  287

  281

  309

  Harrogate

  69

  70

  95

  132

  134

  131

  Huddersfield

  190

  249

  257

  254

  315

  334

  Wakefield

  163

  190

  203

  240

  279

  318

  Lincoln

  Grimsby

  68

  53

  72

  80

  103

  102

  Sheffield

  Chesterfield

  96

  110

  131

  137

  170

  168

  Doncaster

  129

  169

  203

  204

  243

  251

  Liverpool

  St. Helen's

  209

  224

  244

  273

  289

  248

  Southport

  135

  159

  176

  221

  272

  243

  Wallasey

  145

  141

  187

  218

  211

  200

  Chester

  Rhyl

  73

  67

  61

  78

  68

  57

  Wrexham

  60

  53

  73

  64

  66

  32

  Lancaster

  Barrow

  48

  48

  64

  73

  89

  85

  Blackpool

  230

  239

  263

  323

  293

  323

  Preston

  299

  327

  375

  393

  452

  418

  Manchester

  Bolton

  609

  601

  651

  738

  718

  457

  Nelson

  127

  134

  145

  156

  160

  213

  Oldham

  294

  409

  422

  465

  484

  582

  Stockport

  496

  489

  520

  634

  521

  —

  Warrington

  241

  218

  272

  279

  311

  342

  Wigan

  169

  175

  277

  220

  251

  248

  Nottingham

  Derby

  233

  231

  249

  299

  350

  302

  Mansfield

  76

  87

  97

  121

  150

  149

  Newcastle

  Morpeth

  54

  57

  59

  58

  40

  15

  Sunderland

  154

  126

  140

  119

  70

  49

  64

  65

  Number of interviews arranged at Probate Offices

  Probate Office staffed from:

  Probate Office

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Carlisle

  Workington

  104

  96

  77

  —

  —

  —

  Middlesbrough

  Darlington

  107

  96

  99

  134

  168

  101

  Durham

  148

  146

  142

  93

  93

  59

  York

  Hull

  307

  284

  346

  348

  351

  400

  Scarborough

  72

  88

  88

  82

  114

  116

  Oxford

  Aylesbury

  200

  217

  259

  228

  233

  264

  Banbury

  7

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  High Wycombe

  290

  292

  350

  414

  254

  367

  Reading

  518

  536

  596

  562

  371

  807

  Slough

  526

  561

  596

  637

  591

  670

  Swindon

  141

  137

  173

  195

  137

  310

  Leicester

  Bedford

  205

  217

  287

  282

  331

  380

  Kettering

  105

  92

  130

  154

  94

  —

  Winchester

  Basingstoke

  199

  240

  224

  278

  306

  279

  Bournemouth

  530

  561

  628

  703

  712

  755

  Dorchester

  170

  144

  161

  177

  197

  184

  Guildford

  640

  744

  851

  846

  980

  942

  Newport, Isle of Wight

  101

  97

  97

  151

  149

  143

  Portsmouth

  434

  491

  491

  528

  568

  540

  Salisbury

  93

  92

  97

  151

  149

  143

  Southampton

  340

  327

  441

  433

  448

  402

  Probate Registry of Wales

  Bridgend

  183

  181

  190

  212

  217

  269

  Newport

  402

  378

  491

  499

  525

  549

  Pontypridd

  261

  319

  284

  365

  378

  398

  Carmarthen

  Aberystwyth

  39

  31

  43

  37

  48

  49

  Haverfordwest

  66

  69

  79

  69

  62

  96

  Swansea

  364

  368

  437

  451

  456

  458

  Gloucester

  Cheltenham

  233

  227

  246

  257

  240

  239

  Hereford

  128

  163

  179

  154

  189

  181

  Worcester

  190

  217

  247

  232

  230

  218

  Principal Registry of the Family Division

  Croydon

  1,186

  1,169

  1,266

  1,383

  827

  1,424

  Edmonton

  789

  764

  866

  949

  563

  968

  Harlow

  263

  344

  423

  509

  399

  605

  Kingston

  1,142

  1,131

  1,311

  1,454

  932

  1,505

  Luton

  507

  592

  712

  814

  588

  871

  Southend

  560

  641

  691

  787

  673

  830

  Woolwich

  580

  583

  702

  770

  520

  742

  Probate Offices
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the probate offices which the court service plans to close; and if he will make a statement. [13495]

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

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. David Lidington, dated 5 February 1996

  PROPOSED CLOSURE OF PROBATE OFFICES

  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to your Question about Probate Offices.

  The recommendation that a number of Probate Offices should close follows a review of the locations in England and Wales where a probate service is provided to personal applicants. A public consultation about these proposals began on 23 January 1996 and will conclude on 1 March 1996. Full consideration will be given to all comments received during the public consultation before the Lord Chancellor decides whether to proceed with these proposals.
  66
  The Probate Offices recommended for closure are:

  Coventry

  Kidderminister

  Wolverhampton

  Lichfield

  Crewe

  Stafford

  Chichester

  Chatham

  Folkestone

  Bath

  Penzance

  Newton

  Abbott

  Colchester

  Lowestoft

  King's Lynn

  Bradford

  Harrogate

  Huddersfield

  67

  Wakefield

  Grimsby

  Chesterfield

  Doncaster

  St. Helens

  Southport

  Wallasey

  Barrow

  Oldham

  Stockport

  Warrington

  Wigan

  Derby

  Mansfield

  Morpeth

  Sunderland

  Nelson

  Workington

  Scarborough

  Darlington

  Blackpool

  Durham

  Aylesbury

  Bedford

  Kettering

  Cheltenham

  Worcester

  Basingstoke

  Dorchester

  Salisbury

  Southampton

  Bridgend

  Newport

  Pontypridd

  Rhyl

  Aberystwyth

  Haverfordwest

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has for probate registries and probate offices to open to the public on Saturdays. [13496]

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

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. David Lidington, dated 5 February 1996:

  PLANS FOR PROBATE REGISTRIES AND PROBATE OFFICES TO OPEN ON SATURDAYS

  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to your Question about probate registries and offices.

  There are no plans to open any Court Service offices, including Probate Registries and Probate Offices, to the public on Saturdays.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Access to Work
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of those successfully applying for access to work over the past year were employed when applying; and how many were unemployed. [13135]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. David Blunkett, dated 5 February 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the numbers of employed and unemployed people successfully applying for Access to Work.

  During the period January to December 1995 there were 9,393 new Access to Work beneficiaries. Of these 7,566 were employed and 1,827 were unemployed. For these purposes we count as "unemployed" those who did not have a job when they applied for Access to Work, and newly employed people who had gained that employment with help from Access to Work.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of access to work funding was given to those who(a) were employed when the applied for assistance and (b) were previously unemployed. [13134]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. David Blunkett, dated 5 February 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the proportion of Access to Work funding given to those who were (a) employed and (b) unemployed when they applied for assistance.

  The Employment Service does not collect information about the proportion of funding given to employed and unemployed applicants. However, during the period January to December 1995, 81 per cent. of new Access to work beneficiaries were employed and 19 per cent. were unemployed. For these purposes we count as "unemployed" those who did not have a job when they applied for Access to Work, and newly employed people who had gained that employment with help from Access to Work.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Workstart
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what evaluation studies were carried out by her Department into the success of the workstart pilots; and if she will place copies in the Library. [13408]

  Mr. Forth
  I plan to publish the evaluation report on the current pilots, located in the west midlands and the north-west, at the end of this year. The evaluation reports of the initial pilots were published on 12 December 1994 and copies are available from the Library.
  69
  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will update the estimates given in the Department of Employment press release of 6 April 1995 on(a) the effect on public revenues of the workstart pilots and (b) the estimated numbers who will benefit from the scheme in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98 and (iv) 1998–99. [13410]

  Mr. Forth
  The two workstart pilots which began in April 1995 will continue to help long-term unemployed people into jobs until the end of March 1996. By then, it is estimated that those pilots will have helped some 800 people at an estimated final cost of £1.02 million.

  Jobfinder Grant Scheme
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will update the estimates given by the Department of Employment press release of 29 November 1994 on(a) the effect on public revenues of the jobfinder grant scheme and pilots and (b) the estimated numbers who will benefit from the scheme in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98 and (iv) 1998–99. [13407]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from, Mike Fogden to Mr. Chris Smith, dated 5 February 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question which seeks an update on the estimated effect on public revenues and the number of people who will benefit from the Jobfinder's Grant in each of the following years 1995–96, 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99.

  The table below sets out the expenditure and number of opportunities for this programme.

  11995–96

  21996–97

  21997–98

  21998–99

  Expenditure £ million

  3.0

  5.0

  5.0

  5.0

  Opportunities

  13,000

  25,000

  25,000

  25,000

  1 Estimated outturn.

  2 Plan.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what evaluation studies were carried out by her Department into the success rate of the jobfinder grant pilots; and if she will place copies in the Library. [13406]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mike Fodgen to Mr. Chris Smith, dated 5 February 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the Jobfinder Grant pilots.

  The following evaluation study has been carried out into the success of the Jobfinder Grant pilots:

  Evaluation of the Jobfinders' Grant

  Demonstration Pilot Project

  by Joanne Moore, Peter Dickinson

  The Research Partnership

  September 1995

  70
  This report will be lodged in the House of Commons Library. It is currently available from the Research and Evaluation Division, Employment Service, Rockingham House, 123, West Street, Sheffield.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Jobmatch Scheme
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is she will update the estimates given in the Department of Employment press release of 29 March 1995 on(a) the effect on public revenues of the jobmatch pilots and (b) the estimated numbers who will benefit from the scheme, giving figures for (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98 and (iv) 1998–99. [13405]

  Mr. Forth
  The jobmatch programme started in April 1995 and is a three-year pilot. The total budget for 1995–96 is £5 million, and will benefit an estimated 3,000 people. The programme budget in 1996–97 will be £4.359 million, and for 1997–98, £4.354 million. In each of these years, jobmatch should continue to benefit an estimated 3,000 people.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what evaluation studies were carried out by her Department into the success of the jobmatch pilots; and if she will place copies in the Library. [13404]

  Mr. Forth
  "A Qualitative Study of Jobmatch", which sought to provide early feedback on the progress and operation of the pilots has been carried out. Copies of this report will be placed in the Library in March. Further evaluation of jobmatch is currently being conducted.

  Class Sizes (Greater Manchester)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children in primary schools in the Greater Manchester area were educated in class sizes of 40 and above in 1994–95; and what proportion this figure represents of all primary children educated in classes of this size in the United Kingdom. [13165]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In January 1995, 1,595 pupils were being taught in single-teacher classes of 40 or more pupils in maintained primary schools in Greater Manchester area. This represented 9 per cent. of pupils in single-teacher classes of 40 or more in maintained primary schools in England.

  Information about schools in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland respectively.

  Student Debts
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the average debt of students on completion of their studies in(a) 1992, (b) 1993, (c) 1994 and (d) 1995. [13166]

  Mr. Forth
  Information on total student indebtedness is not collected centrally. I have asked the chief executive of the Student Loans Company to write to the hon. Member providing the approximate average debt to the Student Loans Company of borrowers entering repayment status on 1 April of each of the years listed.

  Work Trials
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what evaluation studies were carried out by her Department into the success of work trials; and if she will place copies in the Library. [13413]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Chris Smith, dated 5 February 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the evaluation of work trials.

  The following evaluation reports have been published by the Employment Service into the success of work trials:

  CEI Consultants Ltd (1990), Evaluation of Work Trials, volumes 1 and 2, July, CEI.

  DVL Smith Business Research (1993), Evaluation of Work Trials-Employer Survey, November, DVL Smith.

  These reports are available from the House of Commons Library.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Job Interview Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what evaluation studies were carried out by her Department into the success of the job interview guarantee scheme;, and if she will place copies in the Library. [13411]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Chris Smith, dated 5 February 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the Evaluation of the Job Interview Guarantee Scheme.

  The following evaluation studies have been carried out into the success of the Job Interview Guarantee Scheme:

  Job Interview Guarantee Scheme:

  Analysis of monitoring information

  By Kay Pattinson

  RED Report No. 58 November 1990

  Job Interview Guarantee Evaluation:

  Report on a survey of JIG participants

  British Market Research Bureau Limited

  May 1992

  Job Interview Guarantee Evaluation:

  Report on survey of JIG employers

  British Market Research Bureau Limited

  May 1992

  These reports are available from the House of Commons Library.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Work Scheme Costs
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will update the estimates given in Cm. 2805 on(a) the effect on public revenues of work trials and (b) the estimated numbers who will benefit from the scheme in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98 and (iv) 1998–99. [13414]
  72
  (2) if she will update the estimates given in Cm. 2805 on (a) the effect on public revenues of the job interview guarantee scheme and (b) the estimated numbers who will benefit from the scheme in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98 and (iv) 1998–99. [13412]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Chris Smith, dated 5 February 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about updating the estimates given in Cm. 2805 (the Departmental Report) for the effect on public revenues and the estimated number of people who will benefit from Work Trials and Job Interview Guarantee (JIG) Scheme in each of the following years 1995–96, 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99.

  The tables below set out both expenditure and the number of opportunities for each of the programmes in a similar format to the 1995 Departmental Report to allow comparisons to be made.

  Work Trials

  11995–96

  21996–97

  21997–98

  21998–99

  Expenditure £ million1

  1.8

  2.4

  2.4

  2.4

  Opportunities

  30,000

  40,000

  40,000

  40,000

  1 Estimated outturn.

  2 Plan.

  3 This expenditure only represents the programme expenditure for Work Trials which is used for paying participants travel and other expenses. Work Trials is also supported by administrative running costs for ES people.

  Job Interview Guarantee Scheme

  11995–96

  21996–97

  11997–98

  21998–99

  Expenditure (£ million)3

  0.9

  1.3

  1.3

  1.3

  Opportunities

  300,000

  300,000

  300,000

  300,000

  1 Estimated outturn.

  2 Plan.

  3 Programme expenditure is used to fund Job Preparation Courses. Running Cost expenditure for the other elements of JIG are not included in this table.

  Education SSA (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the education standing spending assessment for Buckinghamshire county council for each year since 1990–91; and if she will make a statement. [13350]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is set out in the list. The figures are in cash terms and therefore unadjusted for local education authorities' loss of responsibility for certain functions, notably most further education 1993–94, and for the reform of inter-authority recoupment in 1995–96.

  1990–91 £206.348 million

  1991–92 £241.804 million

  1992–93 £259.972 million

  1993–94 £242.179 million

  1994–95 £249.922 million

  1995–96 £244.491 million

  1996–97 £252.855 million

  73

  Universities
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many vice-chancellors have been sent a formal invitation to meet her to discuss(a) their institutions and (b) the university sector. [13347]

  Mr. Forth
  It is not generally my right hon. Friend's practice to send individual vice-chancellors formal invitations to meet her. She does meet them and visit universities from time to time at their invitation and she has regular contact with their representative bodies. She wrote to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals on 1 February inviting them to meet her shortly.

  Older Workers
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the evaluation of the Government's policy to promote the skills of the over-45's in the workplace will(a) be completed and (b) be published. [13261]

  Mr. Forth
  The evaluation of the Department's campaign for older workers, which includes a survey of employers' policies, practices and attitudes towards older workers, will be(a) completed by the end of April and (b) published during September 1996.

  Information Technology (Consultation)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has for consulting the teaching profession before the moratorium on curriculum changes ends on the effect which the increasing use of information technology, both in school and in the home, will have on the national curriculum and assessment methods. [13558]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None. There was widespread consultation about technology during Sir Ron Dealing's review of the national curriculum. One outcome was that information technology became a national curriculum subject on its own; this was generally welcomed. The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority has a programme for monitoring the implementation of the revised national curriculum subject orders, including IT, during the moratorium period. It will consider, in the light of evidence received as part of this monitoring programme, whether there is a need for further review when the moratorium expires.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the number of staff employed by his Department or related agencies in each of the travel-to-work areas of Carmarthen, South Pembrokeshire, Haverfordwest, Fishguard and Cardigan on(a) 31 March 1979, (b) 31 March 1990, (c) 31 March 1992, (d) 31 March 1995, (e) the latest available figure and (f) the estimate for 31 March 1997. [13294]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The only part of the Department with staff in these areas is the Employment Service, for which this information is not available either in the form requested or before 1994. Full-time equivalent ES staff numbers of 14 April 1995, the nearest available to 74
  31 March 1995, and for 12 January 1996, are shown in the following table. The estimate for March 1997 is not yet available.

  12 January 1996

  14 April 1995

  Cardigan1

  17

  19

  Carmarthen

  20

  19

  Haverfordwest2

  27

  29

  Milford Haven

  17

  17

  Pembroke Dock3

  27

  28

  Total

  108

  112

  1 Cardigan includes Llandysul ES jobcentre.

  2 Haverfordwest includes Fishguard ES jobcentre.

  3 Pembroke Dock includes Tenby ES jobcentre.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Concessionary Fares Scheme
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are currently issued with travel passes under the concessionary fares scheme in Northern Ireland, broken down by category. [12695]

  Mr. Moss
  This information is not currently available, but has been collected since July 1995 in respect of new passes issued.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had, and with which bodies, over the possibility of making travel passes issued under the concessionary fares scheme in Northern Ireland valid in the Republic of Ireland and vice versa. [12696]

  Mr. Moss
  There have been no discussions on this issue at ministerial level. However, officials were involved in discussions with the Department of Social Welfare in the Republic of Ireland about the establishment of the Republic's free cross-border travel scheme for senior citizens, which came into effect on 1 July 1995. That scheme entitles concessionary pass holders in either Northern Ireland or the Republic to travel free on a journey from any point within one jurisdiction to any point within the other.

  Fishing Industry (Portavogie)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the impact of the weather conditions in the past two months on the fishing industry in Portavogie; what proposals he has for severe weather compensation for the fishing fleet; and if he will make a statement. [12515]

  Mr. Ancram
  In November and December the total value of fish landed in Portavogie was lower than in recent past years, which is partly due to the reductions of vessels based at Portavogie of which 30 have been decommissioned since the UK introduced decommissioning schemes in 1993. However, the total value of landings in 1995 is only marginally less than that
  75
  in 1993 and is in keeping with an overall general decline in the value of landings at Portavogie. There are no plans to give severe weather compensation. The vagaries of the weather is one of the several factors which fishermen have to take into account in the evaluation of their operations on a longer-term basis.

  Arms Decommissioning
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what have been the costs of the Mitchell decommissioning body; what public money the Government paid towards those costs; and what arrangements have been made with the Eire Government for sharing those costs and in what proportions. [12823]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The cost of providing office accommodation, equipment and furnishings in Belfast and Dublin for the international body on decommissioning is being met by the British and Irish Governments separately; all other costs are being met jointly and equally by the two Governments. It is not yet possible to give details of the costs; but as soon as they are available I shall write to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

  Cultural Traditions Group
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will require the Cultural Traditions Group to include the word "Fowkgates" in its logo. [12824]

  Mr. Ancram
  No. I am aware that the Cultural Traditions Group is keen to give greater expression to the Scottish strand in Northern Ireland's cultural heritage and I will give it every encouragement in this respect.

  Firearm Certificates
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the adult male population in Northern Ireland holds a firearm certificate. [12845]

  Sir John Wheeler
  At 30 November 1995, 88,092 persons held firearm certificates issued under the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. A male/female breakdown of this figure could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, it represents approximately 15.65 percent, of the adult population1 of Northern Ireland.1 Based on the General Register Office, 1994 mid-year estimate.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he has taken, or proposes to take, to reduce the number of people who hold a firearm certificate. [12847]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has not taken, nor is he proposing to take at this time, any measures specifically aimed at reducing the number of people who would otherwise be permitted to hold firearm certificates. The current review of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 aims to ensure that the law strikes the right balance between individual and public safety and the maintenance of order, and reasonable expectations of those who wish to use firearms in a responsible and legitimate manner.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many holders of firearm certificates 76
  have used their weapons in incidents which led to their facing criminal charges in the past five years. [12848]

  Sir John Wheeler
  This information is not available in the form requested and to obtain it would incur disproportionate cost. However, the Chief Constable has advised that the number of incidents in which licensed firearm holders have used their own guns in the commission of a crime, within the past five years, is negligible.

  Planning (Donaghadee)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what factors led to the woodlands known as "The Walks" at Moat street, Donaghadee being white zoned; and if he will review that decision. [12826]

  Mr. Moss
  The woodlands, which are within the development limits of Donaghadee, are not zoned for a specific use but are referred to as "white land" in the North Down and Ards area plan 1984 to 1995. The Department proposes to commence preparation of a new plan for the Ards borough council area later this year, which will involve the review of existing land use zonings, development limits and planning policies.

  Employment
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the change in the number of people annually who will(a) not get action for community employment in North Down and (b) not obtain alternative employment as a result of proposed budget reductions. [12829]

  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 Mr. Robert McCartney, dated 5 February 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency to reply to your questions about the Action for Community Employment (ACE) programme.

  (a) The Agency estimates that in North Down there will be 74 fewer places available for ACE workers in 1996/97 than were available in 1995/96;

  (b) This is impossible to judge precisely. However, the performance of the Northern Ireland economy provides good ause for optimism. Unemployment is at its lowest level for 14 years and employment at record levels. Job vacancies being notified by employers to the Training and Employment Agency's local offices are at record levels—currently standing at 7,500. The opportunities for jobseekers to find work are better now than they have been for some considerable time.

  I hope that you find this reply useful. I will of course be pleased to provide further information if you would find it helpful.

  Family Credit
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average hourly wage earned by family heads in receipt of family credit in(a) Northern Ireland, (b) England, (c) Scotland and (d) Wales. [12545]
  77
  Mr. Moss
  The average hourly wage earned by family heads in receipt of family credit in Northern Ireland, England and Scotland and Wales at 31 January 1995, the latest date for which comparable data are available, are shown in the table.

  Average hourly wage earned by family heads in receipt of Family Credit1

  Average hourly wage (£)

  Northern Ireland

  3.22

  England

  3.63

  Scotland

  3.70

  Wales

  3.50

  1 Figures at 31 January 1995.

  Child Support Agency
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the operation in Northern Ireland of the review procedure of the Child Support Agency. [12546]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Child Support Agency under its chief executive, Patrick Devlin. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from P. Devlin to Rev. William McCrea, dated 5 February 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your question about the operation in Northern Ireland of the review procedure of the Child Support Agency.

  The procedures used by the Agency in reviewing child maintenance assessments are governed by the provisions of the Child Support (NI) Order 1991; the Child Support (Maintenance Assessment Procedure) Regulations (NI) 1992 and the Child Support (NI) Order 1995.

  Where either parent is not satisfied with a decision of a Child Support Officer he or she may ask for it to be reviewed. The case is then reconsidered by a different Child Support Officer who may refuse to review the decision; or may review and confirm or review and revise the assessment.

  If either party remains aggrieved by the decision of a Child Support Officer in respect of a review or a refusal to refuse an assessment, he or she may appeal to a Child Support Appeal Tribunal.

  During the period 6 April 1995 to 18 January 1996 the Agency reviewed 2273 maintenance assessments. In the same period the Agency referred 78 appeals to the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS).

  I hope you find this information useful.

  Child Rearing Costs
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the current costs of bringing up children to(a) lone parents and (b) couples. [12547]

  Mr. Moss
  Where a lone parent is in employment there is a potentially greater need to pay for child care. Apart from this, there is no consistent evidence that the financial requirements of a lone-parent household in bringing up a child are different from those of a two-parent household.

  Suicides
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many suicides there have been in the Province in each of the last 10 years. [12548]
  78
  Sir John Wheeler
  The number of deaths registered as suicides in the Province in each of the last 10 years is set out in the list. Deaths are recorded according to date of registration and not by date of occurrence.

  1985: 117

  1986: 145

  1987: 86

  1988: 153

  1989: 116

  1990: 158

  1991: 129

  1992: 107

  1993: 129

  1994: 138

  1995: 55 up to 30 June

  Social Security (Fraud)
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many fraud investigation officers were employed in social security offices in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years; [12549]

  (2) what priority has been given to tackling fraud in the social service reforms. [12550]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie. I have asked him to arrange for a response to be given.

  Letter from Alec Wylie to Rev. William McCrea, dated 1 February 1996:

  I have been asked to reply to your recent questions on fraud investigation officers and social security fraud.

  You asked for information on the number of fraud investigation officers employed in social security offices in each of the last 10 years. I'm sorry that records are only available from the 1988/89 financial year and I have set these out in the attached table. I should explain that wile these officers cover social security office areas they are managed centrally by the Agency's Fraud and Prosecutions Unit in a regional office structure and not by SSO management.

  You also wished to know the level of priority given to tackling fraud in social security benefits. I would wish to assure your that providing safeguards against fraud and abuse in the social security system has been and continues to be one of the Agency's top priorities. This stems from the main aims and objectives set out in the Agency's Framework Document and annual Business plans and through my responsibilities as an Accounting Officer. Each year the Agency is set targets for benefit savings from anti-fraud work and these have increased from £7.84m in 1991/92 to £14m for 1995/96. Despite the difficult security conditions in which our investigation officers have had to operate, the Agency has met all its fraud savings targets up to the end of 1994/95 and has saved some £44m in total.

  Recently, responsibility for formulating the policy for social security fraud has been transferred from the Department to the Agency and at the beginning of January this year the Department issued a corporate statement on fraud to all its business areas. The statement contains a set of principles which include the duty to ensure that steps are taken to prevent, deter and detect fraud and, where appropriate, to prosecute offenders. The Agency is in the process of developing a new security strategy for social security benefits which will shift the focus of fraud work from detection and investigation to prevention of offences before they occur. An important element of the new anti-fraud strategy is the introduction of a benefit payment card which will provide a much more secure payment system as well as more efficient accounting arrangements.
  79
  Finally, the Social Security Agency will continue to review its operational procedures, savings targets and objectives to ensure that they meet our main aim that only the right amount of benefit is paid to the right person.

  I hope this explains the position for you but I would be happy to provide you with any further information you may require.

  Number of investigation officers employed on social security fraud

  Year

  Number of investigators

  1988–89

  41

  1989–90

  45

  1990–91

  73

  1991–92

  71

  1992–93

  74

  1993–94

  73

  1994–951

  66

  1995–961

  61

  1 The reduction in staff in 1994–95 and 1995–96 was due to problems the Agency had in filling vacancies.

  School Curriculum
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the quality and diversity of the curriculum in school education. [12551]

  Mr. Ancram
  For pupils aged four to 16, the Northern Ireland curriculum provides a broad range of subjects offering high-quality programmes of study and ensuring a curriculum of appropriate breadth, balance and depth. The requirements for all compulsory subjects—apart from the statutory core syllabus for religious education, the content of which has not been reviewed—have recently been reduced to give teachers and pupils at all ages more flexibility to study subjects and topics in which they are interested beyond the requirements. The revised programmes will come into effect from September 1996, and I am confident that teachers will welcome them.

  For pupils aged 16 to 19 in schools, there is no compulsory curriculum beyond religious education; each school with a sixth form offers a range of subjects according to its own strengths and students' needs. The Dearing review will be reporting within the next few months on ways to strengthen, consolidate and improve the national framework of qualifications for young people aged 16-plus which of course also applies in Northern Ireland.

  Stormont Parliament Building
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress made in restoring the Chamber at Stormont and other parts of the Parliament building damaged or destroyed by fire. [12919]

  Mr. Moss
  The first priority, after the weatherproofing and salvage had been carried out, was to ensure that the Chamber was structurally sound. This was achieved by demolishing unstable masonry and repairing damaged roof structural steelwork. This was completed in October 1995. The condition of the structure continues to be monitored to establish when conditions have stabilised sufficiently to allow the commencement of the interior fit out of the Chamber. Work is well under way to restore 80
  those other areas of the building damaged by the fire and to refurbish the remainder of the building. The contract should be completed by spring 1997.

  Suckled Calves (Prices)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the price paid for suckled calves in the main Northern Ireland markets in actual and in real terms over each of the last 25 years or for as long a period as is readily available to him. [13447]

  Mr. Ancram
  Estimates of prices paid for suckled calves in a sample of the main markets in Northern Ireland in each of the last 25 years are given in the table, in current prices and in real terms.

  Suckled calf prices in Northern Ireland

  £/head

  Year

  Current prices

  Prices in real terms using 1995 as the base year

  1971

  47.34

  347.55

  1972

  80.53

  553.41

  1973

  78.51

  493.61

  1974

  32.80

  177.84

  1975

  72.17

  314.78

  1976

  164.23

  614.30

  1977

  165.54

  534.61

  1978

  204.20

  609.51

  1979

  176.74

  465.27

  1980

  159.11

  354.85

  1981

  227.41

  453.29

  1982

  257.47

  472.56

  1983

  258.60

  453.51

  1984

  267.10

  446.55

  1985

  230.88

  363.87

  1986

  227.73

  346.88

  1987

  298.87

  437.21

  1988

  357.32

  498.64

  1989

  330.27

  427.11

  1990

  278.97

  329.74

  1991

  263.82

  294.46

  1992

  305.36

  328.72

  1993

  329.91

  349.73

  1994

  374.87

  387.66

  1995

  426.14

  426.14

  Potatoes
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to ensure that diseased potatoes from elsewhere in the European Community are not imported into Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [13448]

  Mr. Ancram
  Council directive 77/93/EEC, implemented in Northern Ireland by the Plant Health Order (Northern Ireland) 1993, sets out the plant health requirements which have to be met before potatoes can be moved into Northern Ireland.

  Commission directive 93/17/EEC, implemented in Northern Ireland by the Seed Potatoes (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1994, provides a series of measures which set high-quality standards for seed potatoes being imported into Northern Ireland.
  81
  More recently, as a result of outbreaks of the potato disease brown rot in the Netherlands, the EU has laid down requirements to be met by the Dutch authorities to prevent the spread of the disease, Commission decision 95/506/EC. The Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland used enabling powers provided by this Commission decision to require the pre-notification of all Dutch potatoes being imported into Northern Ireland. Should any Dutch potatoes be imported they will be subject to detention, inspection and testing.

  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish in the Official Report the tonnage of seed potatoes exported from Northern Ireland to (a) Great Britain and (b) elsewhere from the (i) 1994 crop, (ii) 1995 crop, or his estimate of the 1995 crop, (iii) 1985 crop and (iv) the 1975 crop. [13449]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  Tonnage shipped to:

  Crop year

  Great Britain

  Elsewhere

  1975

  10,884

  39,358

  1985

  7,453

  42,348

  1994

  4,167

  21,163

  1995

  14,000

  120,000

  1 Estimated.

SCOTLAND

  Positive about Disabled People Symbol
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for his Department and each of the agencies for which he is responsible if it uses the Employment Services's positive about disabled people symbol for(a) external recruitment and (b) internal recruitment and promotion. [11911]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None of my departments or agencies currently use the Employment Services's positive about disabled people symbol. However, my Department and agencies are giving further consideration to becoming symbol users.

  Scottish Grand Committee (Costs)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the cost to public funds to his Department of each meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in the current Session, and what estimate he has made of the cost of each meeting which is due to take place; and if he will itemise the costs. [12016]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The cost of hiring venues, catering, security and use of equipment and so on, is borne by the House authorities. Scottish Office officials supporting Ministers in connection with Committee meetings do so as part of their normal duties and no additional staff costs are incurred.

  Agriculture Department
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many full-time members of staff are currently employed by the Scottish Office Agriculture Department in Edinburgh; and at what grades are they employed. [12306]
  82
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers and grades of staff employed on a full-time basis in the agricultural divisions of the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department who are based in Edinburgh are shown in the table. The table reflects the position as at 1 January 1996.

  Full-time staff employed in agricultural divisions of the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department in Edinburgh

  Position as at 1 January 1996

  Grade

  Permanent

  Casual

  Total

  Professional and Technical Staff

  Grade 4: Chief Agricultural Officer

  1

  —

  1

  Grade 5: Deputy Chief Agricultural Officer

  1

  —

  1

  Grade 6: Assistant Chief Agricultural Officer

  4

  —

  4

  Grade 7: Surveyor

  2

  —

  2

  Principal Agricultural/Horticultural Officer

  3

  —

  3

  Senior Agricultural/Horticultural Officer

  10

  —

  10

  Higher Agricultural/Horticultural Officer

  5

  —

  5

  Higher Marketing Officer

  2

  —

  2

  Agricultural/Horticultural Officer

  4

  —

  4

  Marketing Officer

  4

  —

  4

  Food and Dairy Officer

  2

  —

  2

  Senior Professional and Technical Officer

  2

  —

  2

  Higher Professional and Technical Officer

  1

  —

  1

  Professional and Technical Officer

  6

  —

  6

  TG2—Tracer

  2

  —

  2

  Administrative Staff

  Grade 3: Under Secretary

  1

  —

  1

  Grade 5: Assistant Secretary

  5

  —

  5

  Grade 7: Principal

  18

  —

  18

  Senior Executive Officer

  5

  —

  5

  Higher Executive Officer

  32

  —

  32

  Executive Officer

  37

  —

  37

  Administrative Officer

  51

  —

  51

  Administrative Assistant

  33

  8

  41

  Personal Secretary

  14

  —

  14

  Typist

  8

  —

  8

  Industrial Staff

  1

  —

  1

  Totals

  254

  8

  262

  Parliamentary Electorates
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the electorates of the new parliamentary constituencies in Scotland as at 16 February 1995. [12730]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The electorates of the new parliamentary constituencies as at 16 February 1995 are not known, as the Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1995 was not made until 11 April 1995.
  83
  Information was collected as at 2 June 1995, however, for the purposes of the European Parliamentary constituencies review, as follows:

  Parliamentary constituency

  Total electors 1995

  Aberdeen Central

  56,278

  Aberdeen North

  54,869

  Aberdeen South

  61,296

  Airdrie and Shotts

  59,047

  Angus

  60,219

  Argyll and Bute

  49,981

  Ayr

  56,138

  Banff and Buchan

  59,781

  Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross

  41,801

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  66,967

  Central Fife

  58,680

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  52,245

  Clydesdale

  63,781

  Coatbridge and Chryston

  52,645

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  47,895

  Cunninghame North

  56,073

  Cunninghame South

  49,826

  Dumbarton

  57,569

  Dumfries

  63,149

  Dundee East

  58,569

  Dundee West

  57,340

  Dunfermline East

  51,481

  Dunfermline West

  53,255

  East Kilbride

  65,519

  East Lothian

  57,232

  Eastwood

  66,280

  Edinburgh Central

  62,072

  Edinburgh East and Musselburgh

  59,640

  Edinburgh North and Leith

  60,715

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  59,265

  Edinburgh South

  62,522

  Edinburgh West

  61,682

  Falkirk East

  56,993

  Falkirk West

  53,558

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  53,440

  Glasgow Anniesland

  53,574

  Glasgow Baillieston

  51,158

  Glasgow Cathcart

  50,578

  Glasgow Govan

  50,339

  Glasgow Kelvin

  55,722

  Glasgow Maryhill

  53,193

  Glasgow Pollok

  50,729

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  51,782

  Glasgow Shettleston

  49,845

  Glasgow Sprinburn

  53,598

  Gordon

  58,998

  Greenock and Inverclyde

  50,300

  Hamilton North and Bellshill

  53,970

  Hamilton South

  47,146

  Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber

  64,755

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  62,610

  Kirkcaldy

  52,018

  Linlithgow

  53,674

  GP fundholder management allowance

  £000

  Health board

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Argyll and Clyde

  5

  17

  134

  170

  211

  Ayrshire and Arran

  —

  —

  77

  132

  133

  Borders

  —

  —

  26

  55

  71

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  33

  92

  Fife

  —

  —

  36

  85

  125

  Forth Valley

  —

  32

  86

  127

  165

  Grampian

  —

  85

  539

  1,006

  1,310

  Greater Glasgow

  —

  35

  90

  275

  552

  Highland

  —

  —

  34

  101

  105

  84

  Parliamentary constituency

  Total electors 1995

  Livingston

  59,226

  Midlothian

  47,873

  Moray

  59,401

  Motherwell and Wishaw

  52,847

  North-east Fife

  58,390

  North Tayside

  61,166

  Ochil

  57,191

  Orkney and Shetland

  32,421

  Paisley North

  49,548

  Paisley South

  53,467

  Perth

  59,995

  Ross, Skye and Inverness West

  55,638

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  47,318

  Stirling

  52,588

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  63,495

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  51,085

  West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine

  58,248

  West Renfrewshire

  52,927

  Western Isles

  23,313

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to vet private health companies which tender for contracts to run NHS services under the Government's private finance initiative. [12611]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  All private sector organisations wishing to become involved in NHS schemes must, under European procurement legislation, pass through a prequalification stage under which their financial position, legal status and competence to carry out the task are explored. All companies which succeed in reaching tender stage of a project will have demonstrated their soundness in all these areas. It is the responsibility of NHS trusts and health boards to establish the suitability of prospective partners.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent on the management allowances of general practitioner fundholding practices; and how much this represented for each GP fundholder practice in operation in each financial year since the introduction of GP fundholding for each health board area in Scotland. [12505]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Expenditure on management allowances for general practitioner fundholding practices in Scotland in the period 1990–91 to 1994–95 is set out in the table. Details of management allowances for individual GP fundholding practices are not held centrally.
  85

  GP fundholder management allowance

  £000

  Health board

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Lanarkshire

  —

  —

  178

  418

  535

  Lothian

  16

  33

  168

  429

  697

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland Tayside

  4

  50

  186

  283

  337

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland

  25

  252

  1,554

  3,114

  4,333

  1 Provisional.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been at the end of each financial year since the introduction of general practitioner fundholding for each health board area in Scotland the amounts retained by general practitioner fundholding practices. [12507]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information in the table sets out GP fundholder savings which are retained by the health board on the fundholder's behalf to be used for the benefit of patients.

  £000

  Health board

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Argyll and Clyde

  56

  nil

  55

  214

  Ayrshire and Arran

  —

  —

  330

  214

  Borders

  —

  —

  65

  291

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  76

  Fife

  —

  —

  96

  150

  Forth Valley

  —

  —

  23

  101

  Grampian

  103

  95

  551

  1,207

  Greater Glasgow

  —

  13

  185

  888

  Highland

  —

  —

  87

  —

  Lanarkshire

  —

  —

  458

  1,360

  Lothian

  29

  39

  354

  868

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  —

  12

  278

  363

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland

  188

  159

  2,482

  5,732

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial support is available to general practitioner fundholding practices from(a) Scottish health boards, (b) his Department and (c) the NHS Management Executive in addition to management allowances paid to general practitioner fundholding practices. [12509]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In addition to the management allowance, GP fundholders can receive reimbursement for the purchase of computer systems required for fundholding purposes. This provision allows for GP fundholders to receive 75 per cent. of the cost of computer hardware and 100 per cent. of the cost of the software.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the maximum level of the management allowances payable to general practitioner fundholding practices has been set at in each financial year since the introduction of fundholding; and what additional expenditure incurred by general practitioner fundholders the management allowances is supposed to cover. [12513]
  86
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Year

  Maximum amount of management allowance £

  1990–91

  16,000

  1991–92

  33,000

  1992–93

  34,500

  1993–94

  35,000

  1994–95

  35,000

  From 1 April 1995:

  Standard fundholding practices

  £

  Fixed standard fundholding allowance (per fund)

  27,258

  List size allowance per patient for the first 0–6,999

  1.88

  then 7,000–10,999

  1.61

  11,000–14,999

  1.52

  15,000–20,999

  1.17

  21,000+

  1.02

  Site allowance (for each major branch surgery)

  650

  Standard fundholding group allowance (for each practice in excess of one in a single fund)

  1,400

  Primary care purchasing practices

  £

  Fixed primary care purchasing allowance (per fund)

  14,135

  Site allowance (for each major branch surgery)

  650

  Standard primary care purchasing group allowance (for each practice in excess of one in a single fund)

  1,250

  Management expenses are defined in the National Health Service (Fund-Holding Practices) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1995 as:

  (a) the cost of employing staff in connection with the management of the allotted sum;

  (b) the cost of training members of the practice or their staff in connection with the management of the allotted sum;

  (c) the cost of either—

  (i) employing or engaging (as an assistant or deputy) a registered medical practitioner to provide general medical services to the patients of a member of the practice who is engaged in the management of the allotted sum, or

  (ii) paying a member of the practice for his time in connection with the management of the allotted sum;

  (d) the cost of acquiring office equipment (excluding computers) required for the purposes of the management of the allotted sum;

  87

  (e) the upkeep and running costs of office equipment required for the purposes of the management of the allotted sum, including computer hardware and software running costs;

  (f) the cost of specialist advice required in connection with the management of the allotted sum; and

  (g) the cost of minor internal modifications to any premises from which the members of the practice carry on their practice which are required to provide office accommodation for staff employed in connection with the management of the allotted sum.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been retained out of surplus in their budgets by each general practitioner fundholding practice in Scotland at the end of each financial year. [12508]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what responsibility health boards and the NHS Management Executive have in respect of monitoring the

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Practices1

  Patients2

  Percentage of all patients1

  Total1

  Patients2

  Percentage of all patients3

  Argyll and Clyde

  —

  —

  —

  1

  9,017

  2

  Ayrshire and Arran

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Borders

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fife

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Forth Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grampian

  6

  65,656

  12.5

  6

  66,355

  12.5

  Greater Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  2

  20,054

  2

  Highland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lanarkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lothian

  2

  10,649

  1.3

  2

  10,587

  1.3

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  3

  19,195

  4.7

  3

  19,432

  4.7

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Total1

  Patients2

  Percentage of all patients3

  Total1

  Patients2

  Percentage of all patients3

  Argyll and Clyde

  5

  36,508

  8.2

  5

  35,996

  8.2

  Ayrshire and Arran

  4

  25,479

  6.5

  5

  34,773

  8.9

  Borders

  1

  7,003

  6.5

  3

  15,984

  14.8

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  1

  7,071

  4.6

  Fife

  3

  31,274

  8.9

  4

  39,959

  11.3

  Forth Valley

  2

  12,390

  4.3

  4

  31,392

  10.8

  Grampian

  26

  251,404

  46.9

  39

  332,484

  61.7

  Greater Glasgow

  6

  39,208

  3.9

  13

  90,096

  9.0

  Highland

  3

  12,218

  5.8

  7

  29,084

  13.7

  Lanarkshire

  9

  93,685

  16.1

  16

  174,059

  29.8

  Lothian

  12

  78,898

  9.8

  26

  159,457

  19.8

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  10

  73,121

  17.8

  11

  83,880

  20.4

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 GP practices which were 'live' fundholders for all or part of the financial year, ie excludes practices in the preparatory stage of fundholding. There were none in the year ended 31 March 1991.

  2 All patients on the lists of practices, as defined above, including those living outwith the health board area, as at 1 April immediately following the end of the financial year.

  3 Patients, as defined above, as a percentage of all patients of all principals contracted to the health board, as at 1 April immediately following the end of the financial year. Includes patients living outwith the health board area and excludes patients who reside in the health board area but are on the lists of principals contracted to other health boards.

  88
  use made of general practitioner fundholding practices of any surpluses retained by their practices at the end of the financial year. [12510]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Under the National Health Service (Fundholding Practices) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1995, it is the responsibility of health boards to be satisfied that expenditure by GP fundholders on audited savings is for the benefit of the patients of the members of practice and represents value for money.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many general practitioner fundholding practices have been in operation, giving the number of patients covered by general practitioner fundholding practices; and what percentage this represented of the health board's total population for each financial year since the introduction of general practitioner fundholding for each health board area in Scotland. [12506]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Edzell Base
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what studies he has commissioned regarding the effects of closure of Edzell base on the local economy; and if he will make a statement; [13687]

  (2) what forms of (a) financial and (b) other assistance from his Department will be available to address the effects of the closure of Edzell base; [13691]

  (3) what additional finance he has provided to (a) Edzell base and (b) the local economy during the transition phase to closure; and if he will make a statement. [13686]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Scottish Office has assisted in planning for the rundown through membership of the Ministry of Defence joint working group and the Edzell task force. In addition, the Scottish Office contributed to the costs of a consultancy study, assessing the likely impact of the closure, which has been commissioned on behalf of the task force. The need for additional finance from the Scottish Office or any other source to address the effects of the closure of the Edzell base can be assessed only once the consultancy report has been considered and proposals to tackle any problems have been developed. The task force will be considering the consultants' draft report shortly.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whom he has met to discuss the closure of the Edzell base; what alternative uses have been proposed for the base after its closure; and if he will make a statement. [13689]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend has not been involved in any meetings specifically concerned with the closure of the RAF base at Edzell. However, he is represented by officials on the Ministry of Defence joint working group, which is considering issues related to the disposal of the base. In addition, a Scottish Office official chairs the Edzell task force, which is considering the need for measures to address the impact of the closure on the local economy. Several possible alternative uses for the base have been proposed by members of the public and bodies with an interest in the area. The task force provides an appropriate forum in which to consider these suggestions.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates he has made of(a) the employment and (b) other economic effects arising from the closure of Edzell base. [13688]

  Mr. Kynoch
  When the closure was announced in July 1995, Scottish Office economists prepared a rough estimate, based on limited provisional information, of the likely impact of the closure on local employment and unemployment. This suggested a reduction in employment of about 400 and a likely increase of about 270 in registered unemployment in the Brechin and Montrose travel-to-work area. Consultants commissioned on behalf of the Edzell task force are currently preparing more refined estimates, based on the results of local surveys, and the preliminary indication is that the initial estimates overstate both the loss of jobs and the impact on unemployment.
  90
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has made to the United States authorities regarding the retention of infrastructure, buildings and other assets after the closure of the Edzell base. [13690]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend has made no direct representations to the United States authorities regarding the retention of infrastructure, buildings and other assets after the closure of the RAF base at Edzell. However, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces wrote to the United States ambassador in July 1995 on a range of issues, including the infrastructure to be retained at Edzell, relevant to minimising the impact of the closure. On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I also wrote to the ambassador in July expressing my support for the approach taken in the letter from my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. The response from the ambassador confirms my expectation that the United States authorities will adopt a flexible approach on these issues.

  Scottish Office Media Monitoring
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 22 January,Official Report, column 94, if he will list those agencies or companies which submitted tenders for (a) the trial media monitoring service and (b) the long-term media monitoring service. [12740]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: Tenders have been invited for a press cuttings service. This service is the identification, selection and compilation of any articles in daily or Sunday newspapers on matters for which the Scottish Office is responsible. It is not possible to identify those press cuttings agencies which have either provided this service on a trial basis or submitted tenders, as this information is classed as restricted-commercial.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 22 January,Official Report, column 94, if he will list the independent press cuttings agencies which have been providing a trail media monitoring service to the Scottish Office since October 1995; and what has been the cost to date of such expenditure, including the tender process. [12739]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: This information is classed as restricted-commercial.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 22 January,Official Report, column 94, to whom the companies and agencies engaged in media monitoring activities will be directly responsible on a daily basis; and if he will make a statement. [12771]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: The company which wins the contract will, like the company at present providing the service on a trial basis, be responsible on a daily basis to the head of the secretariat in the information directorate of the Scottish Office.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 22 January,Official Report, column 94, on what dates he invited the tenders for the media monitoring service on (a) a trial and (b) long-term basis; and what form the invitations took. [12741]
  91
  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: Tenders for providing the press cuttings service for a period of three years—with the possibility of an extension to five years—were issued on 8 December 1995 and are in accordance with standard invitation to tender documents used by the Scottish Office.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 22 January,Official Report, column 94, what guidance was given to the press cuttings agencies which have been providing a media monitoring service since October 1995 to ensure that the media monitoring activities were limited to coverage of official Scottish Office activities. [12769]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: I understand that the agencies which have provided a press cuttings service on a trial basis were asked in writing to select only articles on matters for which the Scottish Office is responsible.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 22 January,Official Report, column 94, if he will make a statement on the criteria to be used in selecting the companies or agencies, during the current tender exercise, to provide the media monitoring service to the Scottish Office. [12743]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: The criteria will be the price, the delivery of the service, the quality of the service, experience of similar contracts and customer service.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 22 January,Official Report, column 94, if he will make a statement on the criteria which were used in selecting the press cutting agencies to provide the trial media monitoring service to the Scottish Office. [12742]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: I understand that both companies approached the Scottish Office offering to provide a press cuttings service. It was decided to offer both companies a trial period to evaluate the quality of their service against that of the in-house one and to ensure value for money.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 22 January,Official Report, columns 94, what conventions or guidelines apply to outside agencies or companies engaged in media monitoring activities on behalf of the Scottish Office; and if he will make a statement. [12770]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: When the contract is awarded, the successful company will provide the press cuttings service in accordance with the tender specification and will comply with Scottish Office terms and conditions of contract.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 22 January,Official Report, column 94, if he will publish the remit which was given to the press cuttings agencies which have been providing a media monitoring service since October 1995. [12744]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: The companies have been asked to provide cuttings from daily and Sunday newspapers on articles on matters for which
  92
  the Scottish Office is responsible and to deliver the cuttings to St. Andrew's house, Edinburgh or Dover house, London by specified times.

  Highlands and Islands Veterinary Services Scheme
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level of expenditure on the highlands and islands veterinary services scheme in 1994– 95; and what is the estimated expenditure in 1995–96 and 1996–97. [12574]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 1 February 1996]: In the financial year 1994–95 a total of £231,717 was expended on the Highlands and Islands veterinary services scheme. Planned provision in 1995–96 and 1996— 97 is just under £300,000.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many practices have resigned from the highlands and islands veterinary services scheme since 1 January 1995. [12575]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 1 February 1996]: There have been no resignations from the highlands and islands veterinary services scheme since 1 January 1995.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when it was decided to fund the new Scottish ambulance communication system through a private finance initiative; when tenders were sought on this basis; when they were submitted to the Scottish Office; how many were received; and when he expects the result of this to be announced. [12958]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 February 1996]: Recognising that private sector capabilities and skills might more effectively manage the installation and operation of modern telecommunications systems, early replacement of the remaining old ambulance radio system was included as a key element of a procurement exercise initiated in October 1994. This open procurement, conducted under European Community rules, resulted in keen competition. The proposals of three potential suppliers were evaluated and subjected to field trials in early 1995, following which detailed contract negotiations have continued with a single consortium. It was invited to submit a tender on 28 December 1995; this was submitted on 15 January 1996 and it is expected that a decision will be announced at the end of February.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the decision to equip the Scottish ambulance service with a new command and control communication system was announced; and when he expects it to be fully operational. [12957]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 February 1996]: The decision to provide a new radio system, and associated command and control computer system for the Scottish ambulance service was announced to the Scottish Grand Committee on 7 March 1989, Official Report, column 4. The radio system became operational in the Grampian region in December 1993 and was successfully linked to the command and control system in March 1994. Extension of the system to

  93
  Highland region and the western isles was completed by the end of 1994; present installation work in Tayside is nearing completion.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many incidents there have been in each year since 1988 when ambulances have been unable to be contacted in emergencies because they were out of contact with the control headquarters. [12959]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 February 1996]: A comprehensive record of the numbers of such incidents is not maintained by the Scottish Ambulance Service NHS trust. Ambulance performance for emergency calls is measured in terms of the time taken for an ambulance to reach the patient. Performance against response time targets has improved consistently across Scotland including in those areas where the new radio communications system has still to be installed.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many prizes have been paid out by the national lottery. [11772]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To date, the total number of prizes that have been paid out by the national lottery is 315,155,491. Of this amount, 73,730,101 are from the on-line game, and 241,425,390 from instants.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representations she has received on the subject of the size of national lottery jackpots. [11773]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  I have received a number of representations on the size of national lottery jackpots.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many art galleries have been awarded funds from the national lottery. [11774]

  Mr. Sproat
  Twenty art galleries throughout the United Kingdom have received grants from the national lottery totalling £58.6 million.

  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans her Department has to enable small, rural communities to apply for national lottery funds. [11777]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  The Government and the distributors want to see lottery funds going to communities throughout the UK. The proposals I announced on Monday 22 January,Official Report, columns 41–42, would enable the national lottery to support projects giving greater access to the arts and sport, including in rural areas.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many museums have been awarded funds from the national lottery. [11779]

  Mr. Sproat
  Forty-one museums throughout the United Kingdom have received grants from the national lottery totalling £38.5 million.
  94
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what further discussions she expects to have with Camelot regarding the national lottery. [11780]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  I plan to visit Camelot's operations centre in Watford on 22 February.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on recent developments in the national lottery. [11764]

  Mr. Sproat
  The changes which I propose to make are a natural development of the national lottery. I intend to make it possible for the distributors to support new initiatives particularly aimed at youth, talent, access and participation. I shall be encouraging the arts councils to make awards that help innovation—for example, to aspiring new playwrights or composers.

  Sport (Young People)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she is taking to promote sport among young people. [11775]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government published the sports policy statement "Sport: Raising the Game" last July which detailed plans for improving the opportunities for young people to take part in sport. The Department of National Heritage, the Department for Education and Employment and the Sports Council are now implementing the initiatives outlined in the document.

  Arts (Business Sponsorship)
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she is taking to promote business sponsorship of the arts. [11776]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department actively encourages private sector support of the arts, particularly through its pairing scheme which to date has brought in more than £96 million in new money to the arts since it was introduced in 1984. My right hon. Friend recently announced changes to the scheme which will now be even more attractive for longer-term sponsors and initiatives that aim to attract new and younger audiences.

  Millennium Projects
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many projects in Wales have been, or are being, considered by the Millennium Commission. [11778]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In the first round of the competition, the commission received 31 full applications for grant for millennium schemes in Wales including three umbrella projects that incorporate projects in Wales. Of these, 10 projects have been awarded grants totalling £35 million, one is under negotiation and one has been granted an extended deadline to submit further information for consideration in February.

  In the second application round the commission has received 71 outline proposals from organisations in Wales. The closing date for full applications is 12 February.
  95
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she expects to(a) receive a further edition of proposals from Imagination Group Ltd. concerning the forthcoming millennium exhibition in London, (b)make those proposals and any further decisions public and (c) publish the terms and conditions of any agreement or contract with that company. [11782]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  The Millennium Commission expects to receive in the next few days the result of additional work undertaken at its request by Imagination Group Ltd. so that the commission can make a decision regarding the two potential sites for the national exhibition, Greenwich and the national exhibition centre. It is hoped that an announcement will be made within the next few weeks. Terms and conditions of any contract would not be negotiated in detail until mid-1996.

  The Millennium Commission makes all funding decisions entirely independently of Government, and conditions of contract relating to grants are a matter for the commission.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans have been made to celebrate the millennium. [11783]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  Twenty per cent. of the net proceeds from the national lottery is distributed by the Millennium Commission to projects which celebrate the year 2000 and the beginning of the new millennium. To date, £336 million has been committed to 303 awards, including four landmark projects. The commission will soon announce 96
  details of the site for a year-long exhibition, to be held throughout the year 2000, as part of the UK-wide millennium festival.

  Sport Broadcasts (Digital Technology)
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if her Department has examined the likely impact of digital technology on the broadcasting of sporting events; and if she will make a statement. [11784]

  Mr. Sproat
  More channels will mean that there will be more opportunities for the coverage of sport on television, giving viewers more choice.

  Welsh National Opera House
  Mrs Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many representations she has received on the funding of the Welsh national opera house. [11785]

  Mr. Sproat
  The decision on this project was, of course, a matter for the Millennium Commission.

  Olympic Games (Televising)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action she is taking to prevent a single broadcaster buying up exclusive rights to televise the Olympic games. [11762]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government have said that, with the exception of listed sporting events including the Olympic games which cannot be shown live on pay-per-view, sporting bodies should in general be free to sell their broadcasting rights in the interests of their sport. We are strongly aware of the public debate on this issue and are keeping it under close review.

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

THORP Reprocessing Plant: Safety
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have received reports of breaches of safety rules at the THORP reprocessing plant at Sellafield (Observer 21st January 1996), whether stipendiary magistrate Gillespie has said that "many serious errors …must be attributed to more than mere negligence" and whether they are instituting a public inquiry.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the report in the Observer is misleading. The Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has confirmed that there were no reportable breaches of the site licence conditions at the THORP reprocessing plant at Sellafield. I have placed a copy of the magistrate's full judgment in the Library of the House. The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate will not allow nuclear plants to operate if it has doubts about their safety. There is no need for a public inquiry.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that reassuring Answer. Is he aware that there is some concern that those assurances may not be entirely justified? Is it not desirable to have an examination of the situation? I must tell the noble and learned Lord that I have not read the document that has been placed in the Library and perhaps I should reserve any further questions until I have done so.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, in some respects I am not surprised that the noble Lord has
2
expressed some concern. The report in the Observer says that documents released to Greenpeace reveal that there was an incident in which a 120-tonne flask of nuclear fuel from Germany was damaged during unloading and that that was not recorded in the plant's accident log. In addition, it claimed that safety checks on the flask, including radiation and monitoring to ensure that there was no dangerous leakage, were bypassed.
I would have gained a clear impression from that statement that the flask was full; in fact, it was empty at the time. The damage that occurred was to one of the rings on the flask and that flask was one that was not used and not to be used at Sellafield. If the noble Lord reads the judgment of the stipendiary magistrate he will see that he reports specifically that the flask was devoid of nuclear matter at the time. Security checks were carried out. I can only conclude that part of Greenpeace's mission is to mislead.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that of course we do not condone any safety breaches at the Sellafield plant, but neither do we condone the dangerous practices of Greenpeace activists who were chaining themselves to a railway track to prevent the movement of materials there? To put matters into proper perspective, will the Minister tell the House for how long the Sellafield plant has been operating and how many people have been killed through accidents there?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord exactly how long, but the plant has been operating for a considerable period of time and has a very good safety record. It is completely open about any small incidents that might occur. If anyone has any concerns, the very skilled Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is called in. I wish to emphasise that on this occasion there was no question of a cover-up. The

3
inspectorate concluded and, indeed, confirmed that there was no reportable breach of the site licence conditions on that day.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can the Minister explain the reason for the very serious remarks attributed to the stipendiary magistrate? He said:
"Many serious errors…must be attributed to more than mere negligence".
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord indicated that he will read the judgment and I certainly recommend that he does so. It is long and elaborate. The points which the magistrate made, which are used in direct quotations in that article, relate to some written documents—what is called a quality plan. As British Nuclear Fuels has subsequently explained, that plan does not require Health and Safety Executive approval. However, I urge the noble Lord to read the context within which the stipendiary magistrate made his remarks.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will know that the Government of the Republic of Ireland have expressed their concerns about the adequacy of the safety regulations at this plant. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government of the Republic of Ireland are still pursuing those concerns or whether they are satisfied about them?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I understand that a civil case is being brought in the Irish courts by four residents of Dundalk in relation to the operations at Sellafield. The outcome of an appeal by BNFL is awaited on whether the Irish courts have jurisdiction to hear the case. In view of the fact that the outcome of an appeal is pending, it would be inappropriate for me to offer any further comment.

AIDS: Treatment Costs
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
The number of patients currently being treated for AIDS, the average cost per patient for hospital treatment, and whether the cost per patient varies from hospital to hospital.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the number of people being treated for AIDS in the United Kingdom in 1994 was around 4,000. The annual average cost of hospital treatment for an AIDS patient is in the region of £21,000 and costs vary from hospital to hospital.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware of the concern about this year's change in the method of funding AIDS treatment clinics, which until now has been ring-fenced? In view of the health service principle
4
of the money following the patient, will she consider reassessing the situation at the end of the year to discover whether the money for treating AIDS cases went where the patients were treated?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes. The money that is given to regions by the department takes into account the caseloads for HIV and AIDS within each region. Regions then take into account the treatment centres when allocating their funding. However, the formula is not so fine-tuned that the money to regions is exactly related to patient workloads. We expect regions to take that into account when considering the trusts which run the centres.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, while the latest PHLS report is welcome news, projecting a declining trend in new AIDS cases from 1999, for which everyone concerned—the Government, the voluntary sector and the medical profession—deserves congratulation, will the Minister accept that the total caseload, even in the revised projections, is forecast to rise from 3,485 in 1995 to 3,690 in 1996 (approximately 200 additional cases) and to continue that upward trend for the next three years? In those circumstances, will the Minister assure us that that trend will be taken into account when the Government make their cost calculations for the treatment and care of AIDS?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes, I can give that assurance. In fact, the trend is likely not to rise by 10 per cent. but to reduce by 10 per cent. according to the predictions. The funding in real terms is reduced by 7.7 per cent. so there is a margin for health authorities.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, my noble friend said that the costing appeared to be falling. Can she say whether the number of new AIDS cases that are reported in this country is on the increase or on the decrease?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is on the increase. If one looks at specific groups, such as men who have sex with men or bisexual men, the numbers are decreasing. However, the numbers in other groups, such as drug users, are increasing.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Minister has given some remarkable details today. However, will the Government consider issuing more information in order to warn people of the danger of AIDS and the fact that there are measures which can be taken to stop them catching this awful disease?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, three national campaigns are being run at the moment. The first is targeted at young people, the second at gay and bisexual men and the third at holidaymakers. In addition, a great deal of work is going on locally through health promotion departments.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in a recent answer given to my noble friend Lady Jay the Minister said that the total amount spent on AIDS patients by the National Health Service was £236 million a year. That

5
does Not appear to tie up with the figure of £21,000 per patient that the Minister has given today because the total amounts to £84 million. Will the Minister explain the discrepancy?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the AIDS budgets are made up of a number of different factors. There is the national aids public campaign, the health authorities' money for treatment and care and for health promotion, and there is also money to voluntary organisations and local authorities. All that amounts to £281 million this year.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that much of the money is spent on research? A document published last year by the Institute of Economic Affairs Limited pointed out that for every person who dies of heart disease in this country the research funds amount to £51 and for every person who dies of AIDS in this country the research funds amount to £285,000.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the research funds for coronary heart disease are considerable because they are made up of money from all kinds of different charities and other organisations. However, the money spent on AIDS must come from the Government because no charities or other organisations contribute to it.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the Minister confirmed that the funding allocated to the treatment of AIDS will fall by 7.7 per cent in the coming financial year. That confirms the figure given by the Providers of AIDS Care and Treatment. In view of the fact that the number of AIDS cases does not appear to be declining and will not decline for the next three years and that the preventive treatment for AIDS is becoming more complex and expensive, how can the Minister justify that reduction in funding?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as I tried to explain, the reduction in funding is less than the reduction in predicted numbers.

Property Services Agency
2.49 p.m.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much public finances benefited from the privatisation of the Property Services Agency.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the sale of the five Property Services Agency building management businesses saved the taxpayer over £100 million by comparison with the alternative of closure. The sale of the Property Services Agency projects business in December 1992 also saved money over the alternative of closure.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that according to the National Audit Office the Government spent nearly £220 million, including £18.4 million alone
6
on consultants, to privatise the Property Services Agency? Has the Minister taken that expenditure into account when calculating the income which has been received from the privatisation?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it was decided that civil servants were not the best people to do the work which the Property Services Agency did. Therefore, either it had to be closed or it had to be sold. The cost of the closure would have been somewhere between £195 million to £310 million—the mid-point of that was £251 million—whereas the cost of the sale was £141 million. Therefore, the taxpayer has benefited.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, in asking this Question referred to the important report of the National Audit Office. Is the noble Earl aware that paragraph 4.26 on page 35 of that report refers to the estimated indirect costs of closure? It states that a large part of the costs of closure were subjective and that,
"The National Audit Office were, therefore, unable to validate these figures".
Therefore, is it not a little surprising that the noble Earl spoke with so much certainty about the benefits of selling as opposed to closing?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am surprised the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, should say that because I said that the costs of closure would be somewhere between £195 million to £310 million. I should have thought that I had not described those figures with pinpoint accuracy and that I provided a certain range. Of course, it is perfectly true—I am not hedging—that these figures are difficult to get at because some of the payments were made over a period of years. It is difficult to discern how much one would have saved had the PSA been privatised earlier. However, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that over the six years from 1990 to 1996, if the privatisation of the Property Services Agency had followed the pattern of other privatised businesses, there would have been a saving of about 20 per cent., or £1,500 million to £2,000 million, over the six years.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in order to maximise the proceeds of the sale the Property Services Agency was divided into five units and each one was sold separately? Can the Minister explain why W. S. Atkins was paid £11.5 million to acquire the Manchester division? Noble Lords will not be surprised that the National Audit Office in its report considered this to be,
"an unusual way of effecting a sale".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, will be the first to appreciate that it is not every day that one sells an organisation such as the Property Services Agency. We therefore took advice from consultants and they suggested that it would be best to split the organisation into five parts. Having done that, one then has to obtain the best possible price, or the least possible cost. We took their advice and that is why that part of the PSA was sold in the way that it was.

Turkey: Human Rights
2.53 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What visits have been made by officials from the British embassy in Ankara to the emergency region during and after the Turkish general election, and what conclusions they have reached about the state of human rights in the region.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, officials from the British embassy visited Diyarbakir, Mardin and Midyat from 6th to 8th November. The next visit will be to Diyarbakir in mid-February. Their visits and other sources confirm that there are grounds for continuing concern about human rights in the emergency region. We continue to urge the Turkish authorities to deal with the conflict in the south east with due regard for human rights and the rule of law.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, did the officials obtain any information about the voting arrangements for the 2½ million people who have been forcibly displaced from their homes in the south east by the conflict? Can the noble Lord say whether on the advice that he has received so far the ceasefire which was announced by the PKK has been properly observed, and what inquiries have been made about the murder of 11 passengers in a minibus near Sirnak recently which was ascribed to the PKK by the authorities but which eye witnesses have now said was perpetrated by the security forces themselves?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, as to the second part of that question, the credibility of any ceasefire declarations by the PKK is to be questioned. The PKK conducts terrorist acts which we unreservedly condemn. However, it is for the Turkish Government to decide how to react. It is unclear who is responsible for the killing of 11 people in a minibus in Sirnak province on 16th January. The Turkish Government initially stated that it was carried out by the PKK. The PKK has denied this.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that this is an extremely serious matter and that the conduct of the Turkish Government is totally unsatisfactory? While it is good to know that the Government have made representations to the Turkish Government, is not this a matter which should be taken to the United Nations as well?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we are trying every area that we can to exert influence on the Turkish Government to respect the human rights situation in Turkey.
Lord Cledwyn of Penhros: My Lords, I asked a question which I hope the noble Lord will be good enough to answer. Have the Government considered taking this matter to the Security Council of the United Nations?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the most effective way of helping progress in human rights is to encourage
8
closer ties between Turkey and the western institutions. A Turkey/EU customs union and increased political dialogue are an important part of that process.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I recognise the dilemma that isolating Turkey will simply encourage a move towards fundamentalism. But will it be made clear to the Turkish Government that that argument rests on the assumption that the present Turkish Government are more likely than any alternative to observe human rights; to reach an accommodation with the Kurds; to put an end to the torture and the disappearances; and to permit free expression? If there is nothing to choose between the present Turkish Government and the alternatives, then isolation is the inevitable consequence.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, it is important that we set the concerns about human rights in a broader context. We want Turkey firmly anchored to western institutions. The closer Turkey is to western institutions, the better we are able to put across our concerns on human rights and the more influence we can bring to bear. Co-operation is a much more effective approach than confrontation.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, will the Minister give an assurance that so long as human rights are treated in Turkey in much the same way as they are treated in Bosnia, we will oppose Turkey joining the European Union?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I wish to stress the point that I have made; namely, that the closer we can get to Turkey, the more influence we can put on it to make certain that the human rights situation is properly regarded.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the specific question put by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn concerning reference to the United Nations?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I cannot answer that question. I shall write to the noble Lord with the answer.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the recent elections in Turkey there was widespread intimidation of supporters and members of HADEP—the party that represents Kurdish interests—as well as the inability of many of the displaced persons to vote at all, with the result that that party did not gain representation in the Turkish Parliament? Will this not drive Kurdish people to support the PKK, whereas if they had had democratic representation in parliament, that might possibly have moved them away from supporting that particular organisation?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, some problems did occur in the election on 24th December. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who is not present, for sharing with us his observations following his visit to Turkey in December, in particular on the situation in the south east. It is unfortunate that the 10 per cent. national threshold prevented smaller parties from winning seats in parliament. Neither HADEP nor MHP is represented

9
In that parliament. However, HADEP did well in areas where it was expected to do so. There is no doubt that some harassment of the HADEP party took place. However, it is not clear that that affected the party's performance in the polls. The outcome of the general election for the three largest parties broadly reflected the preference of the people.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain why closer ties with Turkey are deemed to be the best way to eliminate human rights abuses in that country, whereas in the case of Nigeria, where abuses of human rights have taken place and still occur, isolation is recommended?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, that is slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I remind your Lordships that there will be a full debate on this matter on 14th February.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to he optimistic about the outcome of discussions with Turkey. On what does he base his optimism? How does he equate that with the abysmal record of Turkey over Cyprus, despite 20 or so years of negotiation?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I would hope that one could always be optimistic in these matters. There is still much room for improvement. We shall urge the new Turkish Government, when in place, to maintain the momentum of democratic and human rights reforms and in relation to Cyprus.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister noticed that in the annual report of the OSCE reference is made to 12 conflict situations in the region where the OSCE is involved in conflict resolution and crisis management and that the situation in the south east of Turkey is the one instance where the OSCE is excluded? How does the noble Lord reconcile that fact with his assurance that membership by Turkey of western institutions will enable us to have any influence on it?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I am afraid that I rather lost the thread of that question. Is the noble Lord prepared to repeat it?
Lord Avebury: My Lords, briefly, how does the noble Lord reconcile the fact that Turkey has been a member of the OSCE for many years but has not allowed the OSCE to visit the region with his assurance to the House that Turkey's membership of western institutions will enable us to influence it in the direction of better observance of human rights?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we continue to stress to the Turks the importance of respecting international obligations on human rights. However, we believe that a more interventionist approach, such as using all enforceable mechanisms available through the OSCE, would be counterproductive. Turkey invited the OSCE parliamentary assembly delegation to visit in May 1995.
10
If interventionist mechanisms had been applied the delegation might not have been able to enter the country at all.

Edinburgh Assay Office OrderConfirmation Bill
Considered on report.

Arbitration Bill [H.L.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the order of commitment to a special Public Bill Committee of 18th January last be discharged and that the Bill be committed to a Committee in the Moses Room.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to express gratitude to the noble and learned Lord for his decision.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further Report.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 15 [Introduction]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 9, line 32, after ("officers") insert ("or officers of another investigating agency").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 46 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 80 and 81. These are the first amendments on Report which deal with Part II of the Bill, which relates to criminal investigations, and in particular with the code of practice. Part II of the Bill consists, in effect, of a summary of the most important issues raised in the code of practice.
Those who were present on 19th December will know that there were differences between the Minister and myself on how best to approach these matters. I hasten to say that those differences were political and procedural rather than personal. I am very glad to say that as a result of discussions which took place on that day the Minister has sent to me and to other noble Lords who have expressed an interest in these matters a full and helpful letter—perhaps it is best described as a discussion paper—in which she addresses the issues

11
raised in our Committee stage amendments to the code of practice, including those which in the end were not moved.
The Minister's letter was accompanied by a version of the code of practice which incorporated our amendments in order to see what the effect of those amendments should be. She followed up the letter by readily agreeing to a most helpful meeting, at which we were able to discuss all the issues raised by the code of practice and also other issues. I want to begin my remarks this afternoon by paying tribute to the noble Baroness for the co-operation that she has shown in ensuring that our debates on the code of practice are as helpful as possible.
It is important that those debates should be as helpful and as full as is necessary because, as the Minister made clear before Christmas, the code of practice is still in the process of finalisation. It is still out to consultation and views are still coming in. The debates ought to make, and I hope will make, a substantial contribution to the consultation process. Although they do not arise in consideration of the present amendments, your Lordships will have noted that Amendments Nos. 74 to 77 and 119, some of which are in my name and some in the Minister's name, address the issues both of formal consultation on the code of practice and of parliamentary approval of the code of practice which we urged at the Committee stage.
Again, without anticipating in detail the debate which will take place on that amendment, I am glad to say that the outcome of those discussions and the further consideration by the Minister and her officials has been that the Government have agreed with the Select Committee on Delegated Legislation that the code of practice, which is such an important part of this Bill, shall be subject to formal consultation and to approval by Parliament in due course. Therefore, I believe that that issue, which might have divided us, will no longer divide us. The views that we expressed at an earlier stage have been not merely taken into account but accepted by the Government at this stage.
I hope that that fact will colour the way in which we debate specific issues relating to the code of practice. That is the spirit in which I want to address the issues. We may still disagree about particular aspects of them. It may be that the Government will find it possible to agree to some of the suggestions that we made in amendments tabled in Committee and in amendments tabled again today. It is certainly true that, following correspondence and talks, we have found it possible to amend some of our own Committee stage amendments in order to recognise the justice of the points that the Government have made and to remove some of the anomalies which they pointed out as regards the amendments. Of course, we should have preferred the Bill to have been produced for Second Reading in its final form rather than subject to so many amendments. Of course, we should have preferred the code of practice to have been available at the outset rather than only a few days before the Committee stage. However, I
12
recognise that the Minister and her officials have done the best they can in the intervening period to remedy those initial defects.
Amendments Nos. 46, 80 and 81 are concerned with the issue as regards to whom the code of practice applies. Amendment No. 46 was moved and debated at Committee stage and, if I may say so, we had some rather extraordinary replies from the Minister. In part she was entirely justified in drawing attention to the defect of an amendment in Clause 15 in that it did not refer to Clause 19 which provides that people other than the police shall have regard to the code of practice. I offered my apologies straightaway to the Minister for not recognising that point fully in the way in which the amendments were drafted. I hope that by adding Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 we have overcome that difficulty and can return to address the substantive issue.
Amendment No. 46 provides that the code of practice shall apply to all investigative authorities. That is reinforced—perhaps it is an alternative formulation—by Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 to Clause 19 which provide that the other investigative agencies shall not only have regard to the code of practice, as in the Bill as drafted, but shall comply with the code of practice. It seems to us essential that if a code of practice is to be complete, it shall include the ability of the police to delegate parts of their investigation to other people, and to recognise that in many investigations other people such as the local authority officials, Customs and Excise, or private investigators may have a responsibility for some parts of the investigation. If the code of practice is to be fully effective, it must cover them too. That is what we seek to achieve in the amendment.
In response to an amendment in Committee, the Minister correctly described the effect of Amendment No. 46. However, she said that it could not be done because the Bill is being put forward by the Home Secretary who was responsible for preparing the code; and that many of the people in other investigatory agencies—Customs and Excise, or trading standards officers—are under the command of other Secretaries of State.
In replying, I made the point—I repeat it—that legislation does not need to take account of such differences. Legislation is prepared by "the Secretary of State"; and that is deliberate. The titles and responsibilities of Secretaries of State may change. Legislation is put forward by government rather than on behalf of a particular Secretary of State although each Bill is presented by a specific department.
I return to the point because I did not receive a satisfactory answer from the Minister. If it is true that in order to have a satisfactory code of practice in the conduct of criminal investigations we must include in that code agencies which are not the responsibility of the Home Secretary, then other Secretaries of State will have to be involved in preparing and enforcing the code. The conduct of government requires that that should happen. Indeed, legislation constantly and regularly provides for that. It is not necessary to say in legislation on every single occasion that, for example, on producing

13
an environmental measure the Secretary of State for the Environment has to be backed by the Secretary of State for Wales in so far as that legislation covers Wales. To a lesser extent, the same is true for Scotland where the system of law is different and legislation often has to be framed differently. However, the principle that government are seeing to the effectiveness of legislation rather than a specific department is well known and well understood. Denial of that principle ought not to be used as an argument against amendments of this kind.
I put it to the Howe, as I put it to the Committee, that if the codes of practice are to be effective, and if they are to cover, as I believe they should, all those involved in criminal investigations, then it is necessary for the codes to cover other investigative authorities and for them to be required not to have regard to but actually to comply with them. On that basis, apologising for the length of the introduction, I beg to move Amendment No. 46.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, having been the cause of part of the trouble starting at Second Reading. I am very relieved that the matter should have been resolved in this amicable way. I thank my noble friend the Minister.
I find it difficult to understand why these amendments are grouped. I wish to agree unreservedly with Amendment No. 80. However, I am under some difficulty with Amendments Nos. 46 and 81 because surely they are too wide. I agree that we must cover all prosecuting authorities including, for example, the Customs and Excise, but surely not local authorities. I seek the assistance of my noble friend the Minister on this. Is it really the intendment that this provision should go so wide; and, if so, would it not be somewhat impracticable?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I support the amendment. One normally thinks of investigations as being substantially conducted by police officers. However, there are many other investigating authorities which now have extraordinary powers, many of which are not known to the ordinary citizen. One thinks of departments relating to trade descriptions, VAT, Inland Revenue, and food and drink, all of which are capable of bringing criminal charges. It seems strange that an obligation should be less on those investigating authorities than on the police. For instance, what is to happen if the latest trailed provisions of the present Home Secretary about the involvement of the security services come into effect? Are they not to be subject to the code of procedure which will bind police officers investigating quite often the same class of offence—serious drugs offences, wide-scale fraud, or racketeering, if one may put it generally?
14
As regards the point of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, the wording may be too wide. However, an important point of substance underlies the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I, of course, understand all the concerns about the amendment, but, as I shall explain, in our view the existing provisions in the Bill are sufficient to achieve what I think we all want to achieve.
Amendment No. 46 widens the definition in Clause 15 of a criminal investigation to include investigations conducted by officers of another investigating agency as well as by police officers. Because Clause 16 refers to criminal investigations, the amendment ensures that the code of practice prepared under Clause 16 is a code for all investigators as well as for the police. That means officers of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, Serious Fraud Office inspectors, local authority trading standards officers and many others.
I explained in the earlier debate why we did not think it possible to have one code whose provisions would apply to every investigating agency. The operational practices of such agencies are different from those of the police, and they need the flexibility to adapt the provisions of the code to their own particular circumstances. Moreover, some of them, such as the Health and Safety Executive, both investigate and prosecute. Where the investigator is also the prosecutor, it would not be sensible for the code of practice to require a person to reveal material to himself and certify to himself that he has done so.
It seems to us that the correct approach is to require other investigators to have regard to the relevant provisions of the code of practice. This is the course taken in Clause 19(1). Amendment No. 80 to Clause 19 would replace the requirement to have regard to the relevant provisions with a requirement to comply with them.
The current wording of Clause 19(1) is based on the precedent in Section 67 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Section 67 requires persons other than police officers who are charged with the duty of investigating offences to have regard to the relevant provisions of the codes of practice issued under PACE to which the police are subject. Subsequent case law has established that the effect of Section 67 is to apply the relevant provisions of the PACE codes of practice to such diverse groups as officers of Customs and Excise, officers of the Serious Fraud Office, store detectives and commercial investigators in so far as they are charged with the duty of investigating offences, and investigators operating with a warrant under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. So the requirement to have regard to the provisions of the code of practice under our Bill is a real and not a theoretical obligation.
We would be reluctant to amend Clause 19(1) as in this amendment, for two reasons. First, the current wording already achieves what I think the noble Lord wants it to achieve. Secondly, requiring investigators to comply with the provisions of the code means that they must follow them to the letter. There is no flexibility to adapt the relevant provisions to their own particular

15
circumstances. As I have explained, that is one of the difficulties with extending the definition of a criminal investigation as in Amendment No. 46 to Clause 15.
Finally, Amendment No. 81 to Clause 19 provides that the duties in Clause 19(1)—including those imposed by Amendment No. 80 to Clause 19—extend also to a person other than a police officer who is instructed to conduct an examination or investigation with a view to ascertaining whether a person should be charged with an offence, or whether a person who has been charged with an offence is guilty of it.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has explained that this is designed to ensure that persons such as forensic scientists are under the same obligations as police officers or others who instruct them. The effect of the amendments is that such persons would be required to comply with the relevant provisions of the code of practice.
This amounts to treating a forensic scientist or similar person as if he was a police officer. But a forensic scientist is not like a police officer and could not properly comply with these duties. He is an expert witness who is asked for an opinion on a particular item of material. He receives only a restricted and selected number of items submitted to him by the investigating officer, and does not see all the other material in the possession of the prosecutor or investigator. Under this amendment he would be required to retain material obtained in the course of a criminal investigation if it might be relevant to the investigation—but he will not know whether it is relevant or not. Furthermore, in most cases the only contact the forensic scientist has will be with the police or other investigator, and he would not be able to reveal material to the prosecutor as the code of practice requires.
It seems to us that the better course is not to treat forensic scientists and others as if they were charged with the duty of investigating offences, but to impose duties on those who are investigators and who are able to comply with the provisions of the Bill and the code of practice. It is not necessary to subject forensic scientists to detailed requirements relating to disclosure, because the police will be required under these provisions to ensure that the prosecutor has access to all the material he needs to form a view on whether material should be disclosed to the accused. The police officer will retain reports of work by expert witnesses, and, if necessary, the material which is the basis of the report will be available for inspection.
As I have said, I think these amendments are unnecessary for the reasons I have given, and I hope the noble Lord will not press them.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was quite right to chide me about my reply to him on the numbers of Secretaries of State. The Bill would accordingly not need to specify a requirement on different Secretaries of State to produce different codes of practice. But, as I have explained, it is the case that if the definition of a criminal investigation were widened to include the officers of all investigating agencies, all of them would be bound by the exact terms of the code of practice
16
prepared under Part II. For the reasons I have given, that would not be possible. Because their operating practices are different and there are so many different investigating agencies, it would be necessary to make a large number of different codes of practice, rather than them being subject to large numbers of different Secretaries of State—albeit under the one Secretary of State—setting out exactly the different requirements each of them must meet. I do not believe that that is sensible. It seems to me to be much more sensible to adopt the approach taken with the PACE codes of practice, whereby other investigators must have regard to the code.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, is not the phrase "have regard to" extremely uncertain? Would her point be met by stipulating that the other agencies should "comply so far as practicable" with the code of practice?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord will see, Clause 19 states that:
"A person other than a police officer who is charged with the duty of conducting an investigation with a view to it being ascertained—",
then it goes through the responsibilities of other investigators, as well as those of a police officer. Clause 19(4) states:
"If it appears to a court or tribunal conducting criminal or civil proceedings that…any provision of a code in operation at any time by virtue of an order under section 18, or…any failure mentioned in subsection (2)(a) or (b), is relevant to any question arising in the proceedings, the provision or failure shall be taken into account in deciding the question".
That means that having regard to the relevant aspects of the code is very much a binding provision.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am relieved at one part of the Minister's answer. If it had not been the case that the legislation was put forward by one Secretary of State, then much of my claimed understanding of legislation, when I have opposed it over the past 12 or 13 years, would have been in error. Therefore, to some extent we have made progress.
In my over-long introductory speech, I did not repeat the argument (because I hoped that it would not be necessary) about the difference between "have regard to" and "comply with". The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has properly drawn attention to the weakness of the words "have regard to". I am not reassured by the Minister's comment that it is what happens with the police and the codes of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. The fact that criminal investigations are carried on by so many agencies does not absolve the Government from the responsibility of ensuring that in effect there are codes of practice which apply to all those taking part in criminal investigations. I suggest that unless the code of practice is comprehensive in that way, the opportunity for challenge to verdicts on the grounds that the code has not been complied with—and I mean "complied with" and not "had regard to"—at an earlier stage in the investigation is that much greater.

17
A challenge, trial and conviction based on evidence collected by those who are not necessarily bound by the code of practice make nonsense of the whole of Part II of the Bill. Since Part I of the Bill in turn depends on the definition of matter not already disclosed under the code of practice, it makes nonsense of the disclosure provisions in the Bill.
The only argument left to the Government is that given in the Minister's rather self-contradictory reply; namely, that it would be too difficult to frame a code of practice that covered different investigative agencies. Of course it would be more difficult; of course it is easier to have a code of practice covering only the police. But that means that the Government are sacrificing completeness and justice for the sake of administrative convenience. That cannot be satisfactory.
Perhaps I may return to the example given by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn about the security services. One of the arguments we shall have when the Security Service Bill reaches this House will relate to the extent to which the security services are covered by the codes of practice and the laws that regulate police work. This is a fairly non-party matter. Many in another place argue that if the security services are carrying out functions that would otherwise be carried out by the police, they must be bound by the same codes of practice as the police. They cannot be independent and unquestioned, as they are in matters of national security. The same applies to all aspects of criminal investigation.
If the Government have to redraft the code of practice to cover other agencies, then so be it. The position at the moment is that the Government have decided to take the simple way out in the drafting and coverage of the code of practice. That is simply not good enough.
I have used this analogy before, and therefore apologise to those who have heard it. The Government's approach is rather similar to that of the drunk who loses his keys. He is found looking for the keys under the nearest lamp-post. Somebody asks him, "Did you lose your keys here?". He says, "No, I didn't, but the light's better here". The Minister is in fact saying that the light is better only for police investigations, and therefore the Government will not look for a proper code of practice where it is darker but may be more appropriate. I gladly give way to the Minister.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. With the leave of the House I shall address two points which I did not address in the course of my response. The first is the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to the security services, mentioned again by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
The new functions given to them by the Bill passing through the other place will mean that the security services will not act in their own right but in support of the police. That has been made very clear during the course of the Bill's passage. They will not be self-tasking. That is the important point. That is certainly how the police see it. The police will have the duty to conduct the investigation.
18
The second point, which I did not cover fully, is that subsequent case law has established that the effect of Section 67 is to apply to the relevant provisions in the PACE code for other diverse groups such as Customs and Excise, serious fraud officers, store detectives and commercial investigators. It has been proved through the working of that Act that "having regard to" the code is a very proper part; it can be taken into account if they do not have regard to the code.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, both those additional points seem helpful to my argument. I am very glad to hear the point about the security services. However, it follows that what is good enough for the security services is good enough for others who collaborate with the police or undertake criminal investigations on their own. Incidentally, I see no difficulty in regard to those agencies that are responsible both for investigation and prosecution. There should be no difficulty at all—other than its simply being a little laborious—why the code should not be adapted for them to recognise the fact and to streamline, as it were, the process of revealing information to themselves.
I turn to the other question raised by the Minister on subsequent case law to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That strengthens my case. Knowing the need, recognised by the courts, for a wider applicability of the codes of practice under PACE, we cannot seriously allow ourselves to pass legislation now which would have to be interpreted by the courts in the same way as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act has had to be interpreted. Surely, once it has been recognised that "have regard to" is not good enough and there needs to be subsequent case law to establish what the relationship is, the right alternative is to do it now.
On that basis, I suggest that this proposal is not only a correct extension of the code of practice but is the minimum extension that provides that the code of practice, which is not on the face of the Bill, shall provide the necessary reform for the avoidance of miscarriages of justice—the basis on which this legislation in the first instance and the report of the Royal Commission were framed. I wish to seek the opinion of the House.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 46) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 106.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L

Craig of Radley, L.

Addington, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

David, B.

Annan, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Donoughue, L.

Avebury, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Barnett, L.

Ezra, L.

Borrie, L.

Falkland, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Carter, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L. [Teller.]

Chapple, L

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Clinton-Davis, L.

Gregson, L.

19

Grey, E

Prys-Davies, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rea, L.

Hamwee, B.

Redesdale, L.

Haskel, L.

Richard, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Richardson, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Kennet, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Simon, V.

Lincoln, Bp.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Longford, E.

Stallard, L.

McCarthy, L.

Stedman, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McNair, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Marsh, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Tordoff, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Methuen, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Warnock, B.

Molloy, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Nicol, B.

White, B.

Palmer, L.

Wigoder, L.

Peston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Addison, V.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Ailsa, M.

Hayhoe, L

Aldington, L.

Henley, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Hooper, B.

Arran, E.

Inglewood, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kimball, L.

Blaker, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Blatch, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Blyth, L.

Liverpool, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Long, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Lyell, L.

Brentford, V.

McConnell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Cadman, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Manton, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Merrivale, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Middleton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Milverton, L.

Courtown, E.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mottistone, L

Cumberlege, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denham, L.

Norrie, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Northesk, E.

Dilhorne, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Elibank, L.

Orkney, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elles, B.

Peel, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pender, L.

Ferrers, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L

Pym, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gage, V.

Reay, L.

Gainford, L.

Rennell, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renwick, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

St. Davids, V.

Goschen, V.

Seccombe, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

20

Shrewsbury, E.

Swinton, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Teviot, L.

Slim, V.

Teynham, L

Strathcarron, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

Sudeley, L.

Vivian, L.

Swinfen, L.

Wynford, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.45 p.m.
Clause 16 [Code of practice]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 10, line 2, leave out ("designed").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we debated this amendment also in Committee. However, we tabled it again because we did not think that the answers were at all satisfactory. The amendment provides not just that the code of practice "shall" secure the various provisions—the phrasing is:
"The Secretary of State shall prepare a code of practice containing provisions designed to secure",
various objectives and results.
We take the view that that is simply not good enough. The word "designed", which provides that the intent is satisfactory even if the result is not satisfactory, is not simply unnecessary but positively dangerous. Even with all the precautions that are now being taken and even allowing for the probability of parliamentary approval, the code of practice has to be justified in itself; it has to provide that the objectives of the legislation are in fact carried out.
As the code of practice and the provisions for the code of practice in the Bill at present stand, they are rather curious. Clause 15 looks at the definitions used in the code of practice and in the definition of a criminal investigation. Clause 16 provides certain elements of a code of practice which the Government consider to be so important that they ought to be spelt out in the Bill, although, for reasons that we shall discuss later, some of them are only spelt out in terms of "may" include rather than "shall" include.
Clause 17 is even more peculiar. It states:
"This section gives examples of the kinds of provision that may be included in the code".
I do not believe that I have ever before seen quite that degree of vagueness in legislation. It always used to be argued by lawyers with whom I found myself debating these matters that if one includes one example, another example is excluded. There must be some Latin words for that which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, will give us in a minute if he is tempted any further. He tells me that it is expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
Here is a whole clause of a Bill which simply gives examples of things that may be included. If I were a Minister and the Opposition proposed a clause of that kind, I should be inclined to say, "It is entirely unnecessary. We can do what we like and there is

21
nothing to stop us, whether or not it is included in the legislation". But that is another matter and one which perhaps we can deal with in more detail when we discuss Clause 17.
At the present time, we are dealing with Clause 16. Clause 16(1) provides specifically for some core elements in the code of practice. But that provision and the firmness of it is ruined by the inclusion of the word "designed". It is not just that it makes it possible for a code of practice to he drawn up which, although designed to produce such results, does not in fact do so. It means that there is not any objective criterion afterwards to judge whether the code of practice complied with the constraints laid down by Parliament in the legislation. All that the Secretary of State has to say is, "Well, okay, we accept that it does not do what Parliament said it should do, but it was designed to do it and so that is perfectly all right; and any criticism of the code of practice on the basis that it frustrates the will of Parliament has no basis in law". That can he dealt with extremely simply by taking out the one word "designed". I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the Secretary of State is under a mandatory duty to prepare the code of practice. This code of practice has legal efficacy. Using the word "designed" if we do not deliver, merely weakens the prospect of enforcement and mitigates the efficacy of the code.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, during Committee I gave an undertaking to look again at the substance of this amendment. Having heard the noble Lord again today, I believe that this is one of those cases where we must agree to differ.
Paragraphs (a) to (f) of Clause 16(1) set out the objectives of the code. The Secretary of State is required to prepare a code which contains provisions designed to secure those objectives. That leaves some flexibility as to how the objectives are achieved. Clause 16(1) is intended to specify not what provision must be in the code, but what the end results of that provision should he. In that way, the provisions are designed to secure certain things; but it is the investigator, acting in accordance with the provisions in the code, who will actually secure them. It is the investigator who must secure those ends.
It seems more natural to say that a code of practice contains provisions which are "designed" to secure certain things than that the provisions actually do secure them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that argument is as awful this time as it was last time. The objectives of the code of practice and their ability to meet the wishes of Parliament are the responsibility of the Secretary of State. As the Minister said, it is the responsibility of the investigator to carry out the will of Parliament in accordance with the code of practice. But ultimately—I am sure the Minister will agree that this is the case everywhere else—the responsibility for matters which Parliament has determined lies with the Secretary
22
of State and cannot be shuffled off onto the investigator or anybody else. I did not mean to take the opinion of the House on this matter, but I shall.
3.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 47) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 107.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L

McCarthy, L.

Addington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

McNair, L.

Archer of Sandwell,

Mallalieu, B.L.

Avebury, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bancroft, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Barnett, L.

Methuen, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Borrie, L.

Molloy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Nicol, B.

Carter, L.

Palmer, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Rea, L.

David, B.

Redesdale, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Richard, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Donoughue, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shepherd, L.

Geraint, L.

Simon, V.

Gladwin of Clee, L. [Teller.]

Stallard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Gregson L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hamwee, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Haskel, L

Tordoff, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Warnock, B.

Howell, L

Wedderbum of Chariton, L.

Jenkins of Hilihead, L.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kennet, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Longford, E.

Williams of Mostyn, L

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Chesham, L [Teller.]

Addison, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Ailsa, M.

Cockfield, L.

Aldington, L.

Courtown, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Arran, E

Cumberlege, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

De Freyne, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L

Dean of Harptree, L.

Blaker, L.

Denham, L.

Blatch, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Blyth, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elibank, L

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Elles, B.

Brentford, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Faithfull, B.

Butterworth, L.

Ferrers, E.

Cadman, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gage, V.

Cannock, L.

Gainford, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

23

Goschen, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Gray of Contin, L

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Northesk, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Orkney, E.

Henley, L.

Oxfuird, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Peel, E.

Hooper, B.

Pender, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Inglewood, L.

Pym, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Reay, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Rennell, L.

Kimball, L.

Renwick, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Richardson, L.

Lauderdale, E

St. Davids, V.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E Lucas, L

Seccombe, B.

Lucas L

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Lyell, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Skelmersdale, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Strathcarron, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sudeley, L.

Manton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Merrivale, L.

Swinton, E.

Mersey, V.

Teviot, L.

Middleton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Trumpington, B.

Milverton, L.

Vivian, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Wynford, L.

Mottistone, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.1 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 48, I should point out that, if it is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 49.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 10, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert—
("(a) that when information is obtained in the course of a criminal investigation it is recorded at the time it is obtained or as soon as practicable after that time;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my purpose in moving the amendment is to find out whether I cannot coax the Minister into seeing that there is some virtue in it. The message one derives loud and clear from the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure is that the more order and regulation one has about the conduct of criminal investigations the better the conclusion is likely to be. This amendment is intended to ensure that, in respect of information obtained in the course of a criminal investigation, it is not simply recorded—that is on the face of the Bill in Clause 16(1)(a)—but that it is recorded, with the important qualification,
"at the time it is obtained"—
we know that there are sometimes difficulties in investigations
"or as soon as practicable after that time".
The proposal we put forward is that the structure often determines the conclusion, so that if one has an ordered regime it is capable of being a self-regulating mechanism, it forms a useful and necessary internal
24
check, it is likely to assist police officers and it is likely to assist the scrutiny of criminal investigations. This is simply an echo of what is presently required from the custody officer who has to make the record of custody, requests for solicitors and the usual requests at the time. I cannot see any disadvantage to this proposal. I strongly suggest that it is likely to improve the quality of police investigations because it imposes the necessary internal discipline that material is recorded either at the time or as soon as practicable thereafter. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if Clause 16 is merely designed to ensure, surely there is nothing to prevent the detail of this amendment, which appears to have considerable merit, appearing in the code of practice.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we now come to a series of amendments which are concerned with the detailed content of the code of practice to be prepared under Part II of the Bill. I should like to preface my response to the amendments with some remarks about the status of the code of practice and its drafting.
The code was published in draft shortly before the Bill went into Committee. We received a number of comments on it, not least in the form of amendments tabled by noble Lords opposite. Some refinements to the draft code are needed, but its structure and general content so far have stood up well. As the House will be aware, I have tabled amendments to Clauses 18 and 53 to provide that the code of practice will be subject to statutory consultation and affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament before it is implemented in accordance with the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. In the light of the detailed comments received and of the proceedings in your Lordships' House, we intend to produce a further draft when the Bill goes to another place so as to inform the debates on the Bill in that place.
The noble Lord has not made it clear to the House whether he intends to press the amendment in order to have it placed on the face of the Bill, which was the point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. The last time these amendments were debated I recall that they were tabled not with the intention of placing them on the face of the Bill but of using the occasion to discuss them as possible changes to the code of practice. I am happy to set out the Government's interim views on the points, which will of course be subject to further consultation. I have already written to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, with detailed comments on his amendments, and I shall draw on these in responding to this and other amendments in the series.
Amendment No. 48 to Clause 16 requires information to be recorded at the time it is obtained or as soon as practicable afterwards. We agree with the principle that information should be recorded promptly as long as it is considered to be relevant to the investigation. But we are concerned that this amendment might imply that an investigator has a duty to take a statement whenever he contacts a potential witness. He should not have to take statements when they would not ordinarily be taken,

25
although he should make a note of any potential witnesses. Subject to this caveat, we intend to incorporate into the draft code a modified version of Amendment No. 48 and I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the point. That would require the prompt recording of material, without prejudice to the existing practice relating to whether statements should be taken or not.
Perhaps I may give an example of such an occasion. At riots where large numbers of people are present many people will be approached but statements will be taken only from a restricted number of people. Therefore, as long as all the events are recorded, only the relevant statements will be produced. I hope the noble Lord is satisfied that we will bring forward a modification of his amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most obliged for that helpful response. The amendment was not designed to insist that statements should be obtained on every occasion but that information should be recorded. The Minister has said that there is nothing between us in the thrust of what we aim to secure. Upon that basis, for which I am most grateful, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 49, I should point out that if it is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 50 or 51 because of pre-emption.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 10, line 3, leave out from ("information") to end of line 7 and insert ("which is obtained in the course of a criminal investigation and may be relevant to the investigation is recorded;

(b) that any record of such information is retained;

(bb) that any other material which is obtained in the course of a criminal investigation and may be relevant to the investigation is retained;

(c) that information falling within paragraph (a) and material falling within paragraph (bb) is").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, perhaps I may speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 52 and 56. These amendments ensure that the enabling provisions of Clause 16 are consistent with the provisions of the draft code of practice. Under Clause 16 as currently drafted, the code of practice would have to require the retention of all material obtained during a criminal investigation regardless of its relevance to the investigation. On reflection, we have concluded that that would be unworkable. For example, if the police seized a dustbin, searched it and found drugs, they would need to retain the entire contents of the dustbin as well as the drugs. Amendment No. 49 accordingly limits the retention requirement to material which may be relevant to the investigation. Although narrower, this should still catch all material which the prosecutor needs to see to form a view on whether material needs to be disclosed. It also accords with current police practice.
Amendment No. 52 ensures that the police can give material to the accused at the request of the prosecutor either by copying it to him or by allowing him to inspect
26
it. At present Clause 16 only provides for inspection, with copying subsequently if appropriate, but I understand that generally, unless the material is, for example, a very long document, it will he more efficient simply to copy it to the accused without requiring him or his legal representative to turn up at a police station to inspect it
Amendment No. 56 ensures that some of the tasks which must be carried out in pursuance of the code of practice can be carried out either by police officers or by civilians employed in the police force, although a police officer will always be ultimately responsible for ensuring that these tasks are carried out.
Under Clause 16 at present, all tasks, even administrative ones, must be carried out by police officers. That does not take account of the modern practice of employing civilians within the police service on tasks which do not need the specialist skills of a police officer. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, these are very welcome amendments not only in themselves, but in the way in which the Minister introduced them and the way in which they have been linked. Strictly speaking, they are all on very different subjects and, under some circumstances, I believe that we would have wished to debate them separately. After all, one is about the retention of irrelevant material; another concerns the way in which material can be disclosed to the accused and the third refers to the implementation of the code of practice by civilians as well as police officers. One could not have more different subjects for those three amendments, but they are linked for a very welcome reason. They are linked because the Government are recognising the force of the arguments we put forward at Committee stage that the important elements of the code of practice ought to be subject to legislative authority. That indeed is what the Government are now doing. They are recognising that the will of Parliament extends not only to the establishment of a code of practice itself, but also to significant elements of the code of practice. So in putting forward these amendments which, as the Minister rightly said, bring the Bill into line with the code of practice, as at present drafted, she is in effect conceding that our arguments for debating these issues on the Floor of the House have been correct, and for that I am grateful.
The Deputy Speaker pointed out that Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 will be pre-empted if Amendment No. 49 is carried, as I believe it will. I hope that the House will forgive me if I make some reference to those two amendments. I do not know whether the Minister has simply assumed that Amendment No. 49 would be carried and that she did not need to refer to Amendments Nos. 50 and 51. I hope she may feel able to respond to my points about those two amendments which I shall be unable to move.
In both cases we have taken account of points made by the Government. We have made changes to the amendments that we tabled at Committee stage. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that these amendments are sensible and that it would be entirely

27
proper for them not to be pressed here—they cannot be—but for them to be incorporated in the next version of the code.
The first issue concerns material which at present is to be kept in durable form. In the amendment we are saying that where possible it should be kept in the original form as well. The Minister rightly said to me in a letter that our original amendments put an impossible task on the investigator requiring him to keep in the original form material which was not necessarily in his possession, but in that of a third party. The Minister acknowledges, and I acknowledge, that the issue of evidence in the possession of third parties is extremely complicated. I accept her point that although she is trying to table amendments to the Bill which recognise these points, the Minister has been unable to do so yet and that it will be necessary to do that at a later stage and possibly not even in this House. Now that we have added the words, "obtained by the investigator" in Amendment No. 50—in other words, we have limited the scope of our Amendment No. 69 tabled at Committee stage—I hope that the Minister will agree that there is something of substance here which deserves to be considered further.
Amendment No. 51 is extremely important because it is about samples and particularly forensic evidence. I believe that the Minister will be able to agree to the thrust of some part of this amendment. My understanding is that the present rule is that non-perishable material, such as a boot, is returned to the police by the forensic scientist, but that perishable material is subject to a notice under rules which have been drawn up by the Crown Prosecution Service and by the Lord Chief Justice; namely, notification of intent to destroy a piece of evidence. All this sounds entirely satisfactory to me, but it is important that there should be recognition in the code of practice that samples of this kind are, under appropriate and enforceable rules, kept under the control of the code of practice and included in its scope. We have no objection to Amendments Nos. 49, 52 and 56.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the suggestion that when the code of practice is drawn, serious consideration may be given to Amendments Nos. 50 and 51, which are very useful.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I thought that it might be presumptuous of me to have jumped ahead. I am happy to respond to Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 before a decision is taken on my amendment.
I understand the concerns about the issue raised in Amendment No. 50. But again, the requirement—and this is the distinction—to retain material in a durable form and as far as practicable in its original form, is insufficiently flexible to take account of operational practice. Perhaps I may give an example. Where papers are obtained from a company, it makes sense for the police to take a copy and return the originals to the company so that it can continue its work. For that reason
28
we prefer to retain the existing provision in the draft code, which recognises that material may be retained either in its original form or in the form of a copy, but nothing that would prejudice justice in these cases.
Amendment No. 51 requires the retention of both draft and final versions of witness statements. The code requires only final versions to be retained. We accept that draft versions of witness statements should in general be retained. Although special considerations apply to statements of opinion prepared by expert witnesses, these tend to evolve as further information comes to light and additional expert contributions are obtained. Earlier versions of such statements tend to be based on incomplete information and could be misleading. We see no advantage in their retention for their own sake. I have already given the noble Lord an undertaking that we shall amend the draft code to require the retention of draft witness statements subject to that qualification.
The second amendment seeks to specify the material which the expert must retain to support the report on any work carried out and the schedule of scientific material which are sent to the investigator. The code is not designed to regulate the activities of expert witnesses—we have had this debate already—but only of those persons who are charged with the duty of conducting an investigation. Again, we discussed this point when debating a previous amendment. What is important is that where there is a requirement to retain samples in a condition that will be appropriate, that responsibility lies with the investigator.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 10, line 12, leave out from first ("it,") to end of line 13 and insert ("and he requests that it be disclosed to the accused, the accused is allowed to inspect it or is given a copy of it;
(dd) that the person who is to allow the accused to inspect information or other material or to give him a copy of it shall decide which of those (inspecting or giving a copy) is appropriate;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was taken with Amendment No. 49. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 10, line 20, at end insert—
("(1A) The code shall include provision that a police officer shall be identified for each criminal investigation who shall secure—

(a) that information obtained in the course of a criminal investigation is recorded;

(b) that any record of information so obtained, and any other material so obtained, is retained;

(c) that information obtained, and any other material so obtained, is disclosed to a person who is involved in the prosecution of criminal proceedings arising out of or relating to the investigation and who is identified in accordance with prescribed provisions;

(d) the person so identified shall sign a certificate that these provisions have been complied with.").

The, noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 53, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 55 and 57. The purpose of these amendments is similar to that of certain other amendments: to devise and institute a scheme which will designate a specific police officer in a criminal investigation who will have the duty of recording and, in particular, the obligation of signing a certificate to say that certain obligations have been discharged. It is not a new proposition. It was suggested in the past by the Bar Council before the commission of the noble Lord, Lord Runciman, was set up, and has been suggested also by the Criminal Bar Association. It is not suggested or necessary that in every criminal investigation the designated officer should be a senior officer. Obviously in the smaller run of the ordinary criminal case the officer involved in the case will be designated. More senior officers may be required in more complex cases and the duty may need to be delegated to a specific detective officer.
The amendments are designed to bring about the result that there will be someone with a duty set upon him or her, and that that duty will be identified and enforced by virtue of the obligation and the necessity that the designated officer shall sign the certificate to say that all has been properly complied with. If the Minister were of the view that that is something that could usefully be accepted in principle for inclusion in the code, I would be more than satisfied. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if the amendment cannot be accepted verbatim, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give serious consideration to accepting it in principle.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that I can be helpful. These amendments to Clause 16 provide that the code of practice must include provision for an identified police officer to secure the recording of information, the retention of records of information and other material and their disclosure to the prosecutor, and to certify that this has been done. I believe that the amendments are not necessary to achieve the desired result because Clause 16 already requires the Secretary of State to prepare a code of practice which is designed to secure compliance with the duties specified in the amendments.
Nevertheless, I understand the concern to ensure that the duties relating to disclosure which fall on the police are carried out by someone who is identified and who will certify that he has complied with his duties. As I have already indicated to the noble Lord in correspondence, I agree with this in principle. We will, as Clause 16 allows, ensure that in the next draft of the code of practice the duties of the "disclosure officer", as he will be called, are clearly identified. If a disclosure officer is to perform those revelatory functions, there is no need to record his name in a log book: it will appear on the schedule and on the certificate supplied to the prosecutor. I hope that noble Lords will be satisfied that that explanation is a positive response to the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is indeed a positive response. I believe it to be a helpful response
30
which will improve the working of the code and therefore the Bill. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 10, line 21, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first of a long series of amendments. The grouping also includes Amendments Nos. 59, 63, 64, 65, 68, 71 and 72, all of which have the same effect. They do not seek to write the provisions of the code of practice on the face of the Bill—we do not want to start that argument again—but they seek to do what the Bill already provides; in other words, they seek to change the provisions which state that "the code of practice may do so and so" to provisions stating, "the code of practice shall do so and so".
Taking into account Amendments Nos. 49, 52 and 56, I believe that the Government now recognise that the provisions in Clauses 16 and 17 which seek to constrain and to bring out into the open air, so to speak, the provisions of the code of practice are included in the code of practice, or will be.
I repeat the acknowledgement that my noble friend Lord Williams has just made. On occasions we are receiving helpful replies to our suggestions about the code of practice. I believe that that justifies the effort that we have put into examining the code of practice to ensure that it meets the requirements of justice and fits properly into the structure of the Bill.
If that is the case, what is the point of having Clauses 16 and 17 unless they provide that the code of practice includes what it does in fact include? It is difficult to check because the code of practice is formulated in a different way—in paragraphs rather than clauses—but as far as I can see, all of the provisions of Clauses 16 and 17 are reflected in the code of practice, so why not secure that parliamentary approval is given to those inclusions and that the code cannot be changed without further parliamentary approval? I believe that these are sensible provisions which increase Parliament's control over the code of practice without taking away the necessary flexibility. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Clauses 16 and 17 currently provide that the code of practice "may" make provision for a number of matters. The amendments seek to replace "may" with "shall" in Clause 16(2) and in seven other places in Clauses 16 and 17.
I understand the desire of the noble Lords to ensure that the code is required to do the things it currently may do. But I do not think that it is necessary to go as far as they have done in these amendments. The Secretary of State is already required to prepare a code under Clause 16, and the code is required to contain such provision as is described in subsection (1) of Clause 16. The remaining provisions of Clause 16 are designed to amplify the requirements in subsection (1) rather than to stand independently of them. Similarly,

31
the provisions of Clause 17 merely give examples of what the code may include to amplify what is in subsection (5) of Clause 16.
I should also point out that the draft code is a recent creation. The comments that we have received suggest, as I said earlier, that its structure and contents are broadly right. But without further reflection and consultation we cannot be certain that it contains all that it needs to contain; nor can we be sure that it is necessary to include in the code all the provisions which it is permitted to include under Clauses 16 and 17 but which under these amendments it would be required to include. Given the status of the code—as a draft subject to consultation and to approval by Parliament—we would be reluctant to remove the flexibility that derives from the use of the word "may" rather than "shall". There will be changes of circumstance and there may be other examples. Certainly, Clause 17 is not wholly inclusive of examples that may be covered in the code of practice. However, the ultimate safeguard will be that Parliament is invited to approve the code of practice. It will be for Parliament to decide whether the Secretary of State has produced a code to secure the desired ends.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can see how this debate could degenerate into a theological debate about structure as between what is wholly codified in primary legislation and what is left to the most flexible provisions of the code of practice. I acknowledge that the Government have moved a considerable way to protecting the code of practice by providing that it shall be the subject of statutory consultation and subject to approval by Parliament. To that extent, the differences between us are at least squeezed a little.
However, I am disappointed because it seems to me that our amendments to Clause 16—Clause 17 is the peculiarity that I have already described—recognise the fact that all of those elements are included in the code of practice. I cannot see the faintest danger in drawing attention to that fact and saying that they shall not be changed. After all, they are pretty fundamental.
This very much reminds me of our debates about some of the provisions of the criminal injuries compensation scheme when, except on a few occasions, I did not succeed in persuading the Government to accept that the basic elements of criminal injuries compensation are pretty robust, pretty long-standing and ought to be (and could perfectly well be) incorporated in legislation and not left to the chance of a scheme even when that scheme is subject to parliamentary approval.
We have been over this ground before. It is an issue upon which it would be improper for me to divide the House, because it does not write any element of the scheme into legislation, although I do not say that writing some elements would not on occasion be proper upon which to divide. However, in view of the changes that have taken place in the status of the code of practice, I shall not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 10, line 26, after ("out") insert ("by a person (whether or not a police officer)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
4.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 10, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) that if a police officer knows or believes that other investigating agencies are or may be in possession of material that is or may be relevant to the investigation, he shall notify both the agency concerned and the prosecutor.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again, this is an approach similar to that adopted earlier. It deals with the situation, which is not uncommon in serious criminal investigations, where a police officer in one investigation may be in the position of sharing, pooling or exchanging information with another investigating agency. I have mentioned possible agencies. There may be further ones, not least security services if legislative action is taken, as seems likely.
If the Minister says that it is better for this to be considered as part of the code, I shall entirely accept that. This is a situation where information may be obtained in a police investigation, and a different investigating agency or authority is in possession of material which may well be relevant to the defence of a an accused person or a potentially accused person. The only obligation here is—it is a limited one—to notify that other investigating agency and the prosecutor. There is no present obligation in the draft code to notify a prospective defendant. This again is put forward on the basis of wanting to make the code work in practice. There will not be many occasions when this will happen, but there will be some, and those some may be significant. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is a more limited version of an amendment which noble Lords tabled in Committee. I have again already written to explain why we could not make provision in the draft code of practice for that amendment. It would have required the police to conduct speculative inquiries and would have given the courts a new role in directing the investigation of offences. I think that the noble Lord has accepted that in bringing forward a revised amendment for the current code of practice.
In the current draft of the code of practice, if a police officer knows that another investigating agency is in possession of material that may be relevant to the investigation, he is required to notify the agency concerned and the prosecutor. But he is not required to make speculative inquiries of other agencies to establish whether they may have any material that may be relevant.
The amendment would require the police officer to notify the agency and prosecutor if he believed that the agency might be in possession of material that might be relevant. In its more limited form, I think that may be acceptable in principle as an amendment to the draft

33
code, as long as it is recognised that a police officer is under no obligation to make speculative inquiries. In other words, there must be some foundation for his belief that the other agency may be in possession of relevant material, but the noble Lord has already made that point. With that response, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful again for that reply. It was not the intention of the amendment to put the burden on any police officer or investigating agency to make speculative inquiries. It is merely that if there is knowledge or sensible, reasonable belief that there is relevant material, that would be notified to the other agency—the third party agency, as it were—and the prosecutor. I am grateful to the Minister for her helpful response. Upon that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 10, line 30, at end insert ("including provision that it is recorded in sufficient detail to enable the prosecutor and the accused (if the record were subsequently to be disclosed to him) to form a judgement as to its relevance").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 61. These are further examples of amendments that we tabled in Committee and did not move because of the state of play between the two Front Benches at that time, but which have been the subject of correspondence and a meeting between Ministers and ourselves since that time.
As the Minister will recognise, we have amended the amendments to reflect those parts of the Government's answers which we considered to have validity. We are grateful for that. In particular, our earlier amendments referred to specified information enabling the accused as well as the prosecutor to form a view as to its relevance. We recognise that if the material is sensitive, it will be recorded on a sensitive schedule and the accused will not have access to it. Therefore, it would have been improper to include the wording that we then included.
However, the issue behind the amendments is still the same. The wording used in the legislation to describe what is called in the Royal Commission report, and has been called by Ministers in correspondence,
"The schedule of material to be disclosed to the accused", is not described in that way in the legislation. Normally, the wording used is "a document". A document is not the same thing, to me at any rate, as a schedule of material which is necessary in order to comply with what I understand to be the intention of the legislation.
We are again in danger of theological points, or perhaps semantic points, about the meaning of different words and phrases and the way in which they are put together. Nevertheless, it is important to have enough detail in the primary disclosure by the prosecution. The criterion by which the amount of material to be
34
disclosed to the accused at the primary disclosure stage should not be merely administrative convenience and the workload on the prosecution.
Of course the workload and the burden must be taken into account, but the purpose of the primary disclosure by the prosecution and therefore the revelation by the investigator to the prosecution is what information will be necessary to trigger the compulsory defence disclosure which is provided for in Part I.
I still believe that it is desirable to have greater precision about what is provided in order to balance the administrative convenience and the burden of work on the investigator and the prosecutor with the interests of justice which require that the defence should have adequate information upon which to present its own disclosure and therefore contribute to a fair trial. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have had the advantage of correspondence and discussion with the noble Lord about these amendments, in the course of which I explained to him that the main function of the schedule is to notify the prosecutor of material retained by the investigator, material which does not form part of the case against the accused and which the prosecutor will not previously have seen, so that the prosecutor can make informed decisions on disclosure. The schedule has to be sufficiently detailed for the prosecutor to do this. The amendment would not, in my view, add anything of practical value.
The second amendment requires the source, date and nature of the material to be specified on the schedule. It is not clear—at least not to me—why these specific details are required to be recorded given that the schedule must already provide sufficient detail for the prosecutor to form a view on whether any item on it needs to be disclosed. Not only is it not necessary to record information in the way specified in all cases, it would place an unjustifiable burden on the investigator to require him to do so. For example, in most cases the source of the item will be the investigator, who has generated interview records or other material.
The amendment would also require the schedule to list the names and addresses of witnesses to the offence who were known to the prosecutor and from whom witness statements had not been taken. But the function of the schedule is to list material which does exist, and I do not see why it should extend to material which does not exist.
There is another consideration which I should mention. Disclosure of the names and addresses of witnesses before the trial is not required under the law at present. I do not think it would be desirable to disclose such information. The prosecutor will know about such witnesses only if they have come forward to the police. Many witnesses come forward on the basis that their anonymity will be protected because they fear reprisals from the accused or his friends. This amendment would remove that protection. Witnesses of crimes would be more reluctant to report them. That would not be in the interests of justice. It would also treat them unfavourably in comparison with witnesses who have given witness statements and who are to give

35
evidence at trial—the judge has a discretion to allow them to hand in their addresses to the court in writing rather than to read them out. As I have explained in previous debates, I cannot, for those reasons, accept these as amendments to the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I accept that those are arguments—in particular the argument about the names and addresses of witnesses—which have some force and which in themselves persuade me not to press the amendment to a Division.
But we are still some way from reaching agreement about the extent to which there should be an obligation on the investigator to provide enough material to enable the prosecutor to make a good judgment about what should be disclosed to the accused.
Again, I suppose that we are stuck with the peculiar structure of this Bill. Here we have Part I of the Bill which describes the second act of the play—the process between a plea of not guilty and coming up to trial—whereas Part II describes an outline of Act 1 of the play. In a well-made play, Act 3 would be the trial itself. But Act 1 of the play is defined only in terms of the content of a code of practice, and the code of practice is not sufficiently precise and comprehensive to secure that the plot as laid down in Act 2, which is what people are mostly concerned with when they are looking at the implementation of the recommendations of the Runicman Royal Commission, unfolds clearly and that the rationale behind it is clear to the audience.
Here were are trying to secure that the structure of Act 1, the structure of the code of practice, is as clear as it is for Act 2. We recognise that it must be flexible and that there are burdens on the investigators and the prosecutor which should be minimised. But I am still not persuaded that the amendments which I have tabled do not contribute positively to the effective conduct of the disclosure process contained in Act 2 or Part I of the Bill. Nevertheless, it is not an issue on which I wish to seek the opinion of the House, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 10, line 31, leave out from ("code") to end of line 36 and insert ("shall include provision that all relevant material shall be retained for a prescribed period, such period—

(a) to be the same period for every police force area, although the period may differ for different categories of material and for different categories of case (including the plea entered and the length of sentence); and

(b) in any case where a criminal investigation results in a person being charged with an offence, to be at least until the period for any appeal has expired.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is rather a different matter. The intention of Amendment No. 62 is to secure that the policies regarding retention of material are the same in all police forces in the country. That is a matter of very fundamental importance and it is an
36
issue which the Government have fudged. I do not know the extent to which they are in negotiation with police authorities and chief police officers or how close are those negotiations to reaching an end. But to have a provision, as we do in the code of practice, which says that chief officers of police shall reproduce codes which will lay down the length of time over which material shall be retained is frankly dodging the issue. It is the responsibility of government, by agreement if possible and by diktat if necessary, to make sure that all police forces have the same policies.
The issue was somewhat muddied in Committee by our failure to recognise in the amendment which we then tabled that not all material but only relevant material has to be retained. Similarly it was muddied by our failure to make it clear than the relevant period could be different for different categories of case; in other words, for different kinds of offences and for different lengths of sentence. But now we have dealt with those problems.
Our amendment now recognises the genuine differences which would have to be taken into account in any code which is to apply to all police authorities. Our case is strengthened by having a common series of rules applying to all police forces. After all, it is not just within the scope of this Bill that we are concerned with a rational structure of retention of material. The Criminal Cases Review Authority, established last year, must have some basis on which to act which is the same for, for example, Thames Valley Police as for the Metropolitan Police or the West Mercia Police. It must be sure that there are no differences in the material available to it according to the whim of the chief constable or police authority.
As the House knows, I am not one of those who seek to extend the authority of the Home Secretary over the operations of the police force. Indeed, last year I spent a great deal of time arguing for the independence of police forces; but surely not on an issue such as this. The policy as regards the retention of material which may be required as evidence in criminal cases should be the same all over the country. It is incomprehensible to me that the Government should come forward with this legislation before they have resolved that simple negotiating issue. This amendment is of considerable importance in itself. The failure of the Government to reach a satisfactory conclusion and present it to the House is a serious criticism of their ability to get the legislation through in the form that they wish. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right to raise the matter of a national retention period. As I have already indicated to him, that idea is attractive. Indeed, my officials will meet representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers to discuss whether a national policy can be developed. But achieving that is not straightforward. First, each police force currently operates its own policy, retaining material for different periods and applying different criteria, and there is no common practice. Whatever policy is selected will require some forces to keep material for longer than at present and others possibly

37
for shorter. Secondly, it is not clear how long the periods should be in particular circumstances. Obviously, the longer material is retained the more likely it is to be available if a conviction is challenged long after it happened. But retaining all material for a very long period would impose unmanageable burdens. It is necessary to distinguish between those cases where material does need to be kept for a long time and those where it may be disposed of relatively quickly.
The amendment does indeed provide for different retention periods for different categories of material and different categories of case. But I am not sure that even this is quite as flexible as it needs to be. For example, it does not allow the disposal of material when a decision is taken not to bring charges.
Certainly, where a person has been charged and convicted it must be right to retain material at least until the time limit for an appeal has expired. On that, I can give the House an undertaking, as I have given to the noble Lord. that we will amend the draft code accordingly.
I hope that the House will be reassured to know that we are trying to develop a national policy for the retention of material by the police and that we hope to incorporate that into the draft code of practice before it is submitted for approval under the affirmative resolution procedure. We agree in principle; the debate is about how we get there.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we must be grateful for the assurance as regards keeping material until an appeal has been heard and determined. Frankly, the rest of the argument is anarchy and it does not hold up at all. Perhaps we may take the example of the serial child killer, Black, who came from Scotland and killed children in different parts of the north of England and in the Borders region of Scotland. I believe that I am free to talk about the case because there is no question of an appeal. The evidence in the case comes from at least three different police forces, all of which are allowed to have their different rules about the retention of material. That makes no sense and the sooner the Government get their act together the better.
I shall not press the amendment in perhaps the vain hope that before Third Reading the Government will have reached agreement with the Association of Chief Police Officers. Let us hope for that and table the amendment again on Third Reading to see where we gel. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Examples of disclosure provisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 11, line 8, at end insert ("including the reason for his belief').
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 66, 67 and 73 relate to sensitive material. For the sake of the record, and in order to make it clear to noble Lords what is meant by sensitive material, we have
38
included in the Marshalled List, as we did in Committee, the text of the draft code of practice. I refer to Amendment No. 73. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who I am sorry is not in his place, found difficulty in believing that sensitive material is so widely drawn as to include material given in confidence. If your Lordships look at items (a) to (p) in Amendment No. 73 they will see that the definition of sensitive material is extremely widely drawn. In that amendment we have not sought to restrict the definition to those items or to insist that all of them should be included because, following the example of vagueness set by the Government in Clause 17 as a whole, we have allowed that the items may be included depending on the circumstances. We are not seeking to prescribe what should be included in sensitive material.
The important amendments are Nos. 66 and 67. Amendment No. 66, line 8 on page 11, provides that if the person required to reveal the material, that is the investigator:
"has possession of material which he believes is sensitive he must give a document which…indicates the nature of that material, and…states that he so believes", and, we suggest, includes the reason for his belief.
Amendment No. 67 goes further by suggesting that the prosecutor has the responsibility for reviewing:
"whether or not it is in the public interest that it should not be disclosed to the accused".
In other words, it is defined as being sensitive. In order to do so he must have access to the sensitive material and he must have the opinion of the investigator, as provided in Amendment No. 66, as to his belief that the material is sensitive and the reasons for the belief. Without that he could hardly make a sensible judgment.
In Committee there was a certain amount of to-ing and fro-ing about security clearance. We can pass over that and take it that if there is ever to be a question of sensitive material which is concerned with national security or the intelligence and security agencies the Crown Prosecution Service will in any event ensure that the prosector is cleared for dealing with such matters. If the nature of sensitivity is confidentiality or non-security matters, security clearance is not relevant.
The fundamental principle behind the amendments still stands. Our criminal justice system requires that there should not be the possibility of enormous amounts of evidence, perhaps critical evidence, being excluded on the say so of the investigator and there being no opportunity whatever for the prosecutor to make a simple judgment; a sound judgment on whether the classification of the material as being sensitive is justified or not. Without that judgment, and without the prosecutor having the responsibility for reviewing the sensitivity decision, the prosecutor cannot make a sensible decision about what to disclose to the accused under the procedures in Part I.
We have revised the amendments that were tabled in Committee to reflect the sensible criticisms which the Minister made of them in correspondence. I hope that

39
she will recognise that what is left is a significant improvement to the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, under Amendment No. 66 the code of practice would require a police officer to indicate on the sensitive schedule the reason that he believes particular material is sensitive. This will help the prosecutor in his assessment of whether the material needs to be brought before the court for a ruling on whether it should be disclosed. It accords with current practice. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having raised the point and we will amend the draft code accordingly.
Under Amendment No. 73 the code of practice would define sensitive material for the purposes of preparing a schedule of sensitive material. The terms of the amendment are the same as those of the existing provisions of the draft code of practice. I have no difficulty with the content of the amendment but, as I have already explained to the House, I cannot accept amendments which place the detailed content of the code of practice on the face of the Bill.
I turn now to Amendment No. 67, about which I have rather more to say. The amendment inserts a new provision into the Bill after Clause 17(2). It requires the code of practice to provide that the prosecutor must be given the schedule of sensitive material; must have access to all material listed on it; and may amend the schedule in the light of his own decision about whether it is in the public interest to disclose the material listed. The effect of the Bill, which is clearly brought out in the draft code of practice, is that the police must give the prosecutor the schedule of the sensitive material and must give him access to all material listed on it. Accordingly the first two of these requirements are already catered for.
However, I have more difficulty with the third requirement. The purpose of the sensitive schedule is to draw the attention of the prosecutor to material which it may not be in the public interest to disclose. All of the material will be sensitive; some of it may fall within the test for disclosure, some of it may not. It is for the prosecutor to assess whether the material listed on the schedule meets the tests for disclosure in the Bill, and if so whether he should apply to the court for a ruling to protect it. The test whether it is in the public interest to disclose sensitive material only applies where the material would otherwise have to be disclosed because it fell within the disclosure tests in the Bill.
The noble Lord explained in Committee that his main concern was to ensure that the prosecutor and not the police was responsible for deciding what was sensitive and what was not. Although the police will initially categorise material as either sensitive or non-sensitive for the purposes of preparing schedules, it is for the prosecutor and not the police to assess whether material—sensitive or non-sensitive—should be disclosed, and it is for the prosecutor and not the police to make an application to the court if he thinks that
40
material is so sensitive that it is not in the public interest to disclose it, notwithstanding that it is of a category required to be disclosed under the provisions of the Bill.
I am concerned about the effect of the amendment in practice. It explicitly provides that the prosecutor may amend the sensitive schedule which the police have given him. Why would he want to do that? The sensitive schedule itself is not a public document. The only reason why the prosecutor would want to amend the schedule is that he intends to give the amended version to the accused. Now one of two consequences must follow from this. Either the prosecutor removes from the sensitive schedule everything except sensitive material which falls within the test for disclosure and which is not protected by the public interest test—in which case the accused will receive all material listed on the schedule, and there would be no point in giving him the schedule because there is nothing on it which he will not have seen—or the prosecutor leaves on the sensitive schedule not only sensitive material which meets the test for disclosure and which is not protected by the public interest test, but other sensitive material which is not being disclosed, either because it does not meet the test for disclosure or because it does but a court has ruled it is not in the public interest to disclose it. This would defeat the purpose of listing sensitive material on a separate schedule in the first place.
If the second scenario applies, then, as I explained when we debated this amendment in Committee, the accused would have the schedule of sensitive material, listing details of informants, covert surveillance techniques and other methods of fighting crime. This would significantly impede the fight against serious crime. As the noble Lord explained in Committee, that is not what he intends, and of course I accept that. For all of these reasons I hope again that these amendments will not be pressed.
5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think Joseph Heller would be proud of that reply. We are in Catch-22 territory here. The responsibility of the prosecutor is to judge what elements of the schedule of material that he has been given should be given to the accused. There are two criteria that he has to take into account in making the decision on what to disclose to the accused. One is the provisions in Clause 3 as to whether it undermines the prosecution case; in other words, the entirely separate issue which we are not debating today about the criteria for disclosure. The second matter, which runs alongside the first obligation and could either add to or subtract from the material which has to be disclosed, is the question of sensitivity—of whether it is in the public interest for the matter to be disclosed.
Therefore the responsibility of the prosecutor is clear. He has to make judgments under Part I of the Bill, and under Part H of the Bill he has to decide whether material which he believes should be disclosed under Part I should in fact be withheld on the grounds that it is sensitive material. The Catch-22 matter arises because, although we have, I think, come fairly close to reaching agreement about the detail and the comprehensiveness

41
of the material to be revealed to him by the investigator, he cannot know, as the Bill is at present drafted and as the code of practice is at present drafted, whether the material that he wants to disclose should or should not he classified as sensitive. All that is happening is that he is being given a schedule of non-sensitive material—he can see the material himself if he wants to—and he is being given a list of sensitive material which he is not allowed to see. Under those circumstances I suggest that It is not possible for the prosecutor to meet his obligations under Part I unless he has the schedule of sensitive material and unless he is able to make a judgment for himself.
Of course I am grateful for the assurance the Minister has given that the provisions of Amendment No. 66 will be included in the next draft of the code. Of course we are at one about Amendment No. 73. It is not our intention that it should be included in the text of the Bill. We tabled it to help noble Lords who do not wish to carry their draft code of practice around with them. As regards Amendment No. 67, we really are in disagreement and we shall have to return to this matter. I gladly give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wish to ask a question of the noble Lord. Did I hear him aright when he said that the prosecutor does not see the sensitive material? In fact the prosecutor sees the sensitive and the non-sensitive material but he makes judgments about the sensitivity or non-sensitivity of it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in that case much of the debate that we had about the security clearance of the prosecutor is irrelevant for a reason that I had not suspected. What we are saying in Amendment No. 67—to which the Minister is objecting—is that the prosecutor must have access to the material and may amend the document; that is, the schedule of sensitive material. He is not amending the material; he is amending the document having himself reviewed whether it is in the public interest hat it should not be disclosed to the accused. I am taken aback by the Minister's statement. If the prosecutor has access not only to the schedule of sensitive material but also to the material itself—which is what I think I am now being told—Amendment No. 67 is not dangerous but unnecessary. I shall have to reflect on what the Minister has said in both of her interventions. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 11, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) The code shall provide that a document shall be prepared under subsection (3) in every case except where the accused has indicated an intention to plead guilty or a police officer witnessed the offence and the accused has not denied the offence or indicated an intention to plead not guilty.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will be relieved to know that we are coming close to the end of the series of amendments about the code of practice. However, Amendment No. 69 is genuinely designed to be helpful. I have a feeling that we have been talking at cross purposes earlier about this matter. What we are saying here relates to the debates we had at the beginning of Thursday afternoon; in other words, about what event triggers the primary disclosure by the prosecutor, because behind the primary disclosure by the prosecutor—which, under the Bill, is triggered by a plea of not guilty—lies the obligation to produce a schedule. If there is to be no disclosure, then there is no need for revelation in the first place in the form that is provided for in the legislation. Of course revelation of material designed to support the prosecution is still as necessary as always.
In Amendment No. 69 we give four examples where a document or schedule does not need to be prepared. Those are: when the accused has indicated an intention to plead guilty; when a police officer has witnessed the offence (which is where "a fair cop, Guy" comes into it); when the accused has not denied the offence; and when he has not indicated an intention to plead not guilty. With this amendment I am trying to save work for the police and the prosecutor. I suggest that there should be wider grounds on which no schedule or disclosure, and none of the elaborate to-ing and fro-ing which is provided for in the Bill, should be required. I hope that it will be thought that the amendment is helpful rather than damaging to the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, unlike the tests in the current draft code of practice, the test in the amendment is not linked to any identifiable stage in the court process. An indication by the accused of a guilty plea can be made in several ways. It is not clear whether the investigator is to await a formal indication, for example at a mode of trial hearing, or whether he is to act on the basis of an informal indication which may later be reversed.
The amendment would require schedules to be prepared unnecessarily in relation to summary offences where a police officer correctly believes that the accused is likely to plead guilty at a summary trial but the accused has not given any indication of that in advance. Given the very large number of summary offences tried each year, that would represent a considerable additional burden for the police. Accordingly, we do not intend to incorporate the amendment into the draft code.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we do not understand each other, or perhaps I do not understand the Minister. I am sure that that is my fault. I believe that the amendment would reduce the burdens on the prosecutor rather than the reverse. It provides for an exemption from production of a schedule in circumstances where there has not yet been a not guilty plea. That seems to me to be helpful rather than damaging. However, just in case I am wrong I had better beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Loral McIntosh of Haringey Loral McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 11, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) The code shall provide that the person required to reveal material must give the prosecutor, at the same time as he gives him the document prepared under subsection (3), a copy of any material which falls into the following categories—

(a) information from potential witnesses containing a description of the alleged offender which does not conform to the description of the person charged with an offence;

(b) information provided by an accused person which indicates an explanation for the offence with which he has been charged;

(c) any material casting doubt on the reliability of a confession;

(d) any material casting doubt on the reliability of a witness;

(e) details of confessions or investigations which relate to another person where the enquiry has been terminated; and

(f) any other material which the investigator believes might undermine the prosecution case or assist the accused.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 70 is a revised version of Amendment No. 92 which we put forward at the Committee stage. Again, not having debated it previously, we have the benefit of an explanation from and discussion with the Minister, for which I am grateful.
One of the Minister's objections to our previous amendment was that it included provision in the list of material to be disclosed for details of the criminal convictions of witnesses. I accept entirely that either those criminal convictions would tend to undermine the prosecution case, in which they would have to be revealed in any event, or they are irrelevant, in which case the fact of their being disclosed could discourage a witness from coming forward. Therefore, we have altered our amendment to reflect that argument.
However, we believe that it is necessary to spell out rather more than at present the details of the material which ought to be included. We have spelt those out in paragraphs (a) to (f) of Amendment No. 70. Those are matters which may not be included because they may undermine the prosecution case, but they are matters which the defence may need to know for reasons which are not evident to the prosecution. They ought to be included in the revelation procedures because they may need to be included in the disclosure. It is only the defence, which has not yet been required to make a primary disclosure, which can understand the relevance of some items to the defence case and to the conduct of the trial. That may not be obvious to the prosecution because they may not have been revealed in the right way by the investigator.
Again, we have Act 2 coming before Act 1 in the drama, which makes life extremely confusing for those of us who like to think of Act 1 coming first and like to see the plot unfold in a logical way. I believe that there is a great need for the prosecutor to have at his disposal all the elements which may be relevant to the ultimate production of an effective defence disclosure. That ought to be reflected in the code of practice, and it ought to be protected in some way by the will of Parliament in the way in which Part II of the Bill defines and constrains the code of practice. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have not intervened on any of the amendments and do not propose to do so on this one. That is for the simple reason that I have received copies of the correspondence between my noble friend the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, relating to matters which arose after stumps were drawn in fading light and were therefore not debated on the previous occasion. I happen to agree with the substance of the correspondence and therefore have not intervened.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for saying that he found the correspondence helpful.
The amendment specifies certain items of material which the investigator must reveal to the prosecutor. It is similar to the existing provisions of the draft code of practice. However, there are some additional requirements, about which I have already written to the noble Lord, and I shall explain to the House what those are.
The first additional requirement is that the investigator should have to provide details of confessions or investigations which relate to another person where the inquiry has been terminated. It is not clear whether the inquiry which has been terminated refers to the elimination of a person from the inquiry into the offence for which the accused stands charged or whether it refers to an inquiry into another offence altogether. In either case we do not see why the material should have to be provided unless it casts doubt on the reliability of a confession made by the accused or otherwise appears to undermine the prosecution case. In those circumstances it is already covered by the draft code. Otherwise, the requirement imposes an unnecessary burden on the investigator and provides the prosecutor with material that he does not need to see.
The second additional requirement is to reveal material to the prosecutor which the investigator believes might assist the accused. We do not think that it is right to require that. Generally, that judgment can only be made when the defence is known, and it will not be known when the investigator prepares the schedule of material. The proper time to make that assessment is after defence disclosure, not before. The amendment would operate before either primary prosecution disclosure or defence disclosure.
I hope that the noble Lord will understand that I cannot therefore accept the two additional requirements which the amendment imposes. As to the other requirements, they are already in the code and, as I have already explained to the House, I cannot accept that the detail of the amendment should feature on the face of the Bill. Nevertheless, I confirm that they are in the code.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not want them on the face of the Bill either. I raised the matter in order to provoke debate and I am grateful to the Minister for responding as she has. Like the Government, I want the most important aspects of the code to be prescribed as far as possible by primary

45
legislation. The extent to which the code does that is recognised and welcomed, even though not all of the suggestions we have made have found favour with the Government. However, enough of them have found favour for us to be satisfied that our labours have not been in vain. I read what the Minister wrote to me about the problem of ambiguity where the inquiry has been terminated. It seems to me clear that we are talking about a different person rather than the same inquiry, but a comma or two might be helpful.
I am insistent—I really believe—that the phrase "or assist the accused" is helpful and should be included at the primary disclosure and revelation stage. It is so easy for things to go wrong because the prosecutor has to guess what the defence disclosure may reveal. It is so easy for people who in most respects are not allowed to talk to each other but who have to follow rules of communication which inevitably are artificial to fail to achieve the degree of communication which, if the process were not adversarial, would be valuable.
The anticipation of assisting the accused is the natural complement to the provision already in the code and the Bill about undermining the prosecution case. However, it is not an issue on which the House should be required to make a judgment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 71 to 73 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Operation and revision of code]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 12, line 1, leave out from beginning to second ("he") in line 2 and insert—
("(1) When the Secretary of State has prepared a code under section 16—

(a) he shall publish it in the form of a draft,

(b) he shall consider any representations made to him about the draft, and

(c) he may modify the draft accordingly.

(1A) When the Secretary of State has acted under subsection (1) he shall lay the code before each House of Parliament, and when he has done so").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to government Amendment No. 74 to Clause 18, I shall, with permission, speak also to government Amendment No. 119 to Clause 53. If noble Lords opposite would think it helpful, I can refer to Opposition Amendments Nos. 75 to 77.
The government amendments require the Secretary of State to publish a draft code of practice and to consider representations made to him about it, after which he may modify the draft accordingly. He must then lay the code before Parliament. He may then bring it into operation by order made by statutory instrument, but only when the order has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
This gives effect to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. It is the result of reflection on its report and the debate on this issue in Committee. I understand that the scrutiny committee is content with the amendments that we have tabled.
I should point out for completeness that the amendments bring the procedure for implementing this code of practice into line with the existing procedures for implementing the codes of practice made under Section 67 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I beg to move Amendment No. 74.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord opposite are designed to achieve broadly the same purpose as the government amendments—that is, to make the code subject to statutory consultation and the affirmative resolution procedure. But they are technically not quite right. Amendment No. 77 to Clause 18 provides for the Secretary of State to consult interested parties about the code, but it does not provide for him to modify the code in the light of their comments.
Amendment No. 76 to Clause 18 deletes subsection (2). That currently provides for the code of practice to apply in relation to criminal investigations beginning on or after the day appointed for the code to come into operation. The effect of the amendment is to leave the courts, police and prosecutors with no guidance on the circumstances in which the code is to apply when it is first implemented. For example, it would not be clear whether the code was to apply if the offence was committed after the appointed day; or if the offence was committed before the appointed day and a criminal investigation began after the appointed day; or if the offence was committed and a criminal investigation began before the appointed day, but criminal proceedings were instituted after the appointed day.
We have linked the commencement provision in subsection (2) to cases where the criminal investigation begins on or after the appointed day, because the code is concerned with criminal investigations by the police. If an investigation begins before the appointed day, it will be in accordance with the existing practice of the police. If it begins on or after the appointed day, it will be in accordance with the new code of practice.
In the light of this explanation I hope that the noble Lord will feel that he does not need to press his amendments but will accept the government amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is nothing between us on the substance of the amendments. The Minister has made up handsomely for the failure of her office to inform her adequately about the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee which caused so much difficulty at Committee stage.
I am very ready to accept that her amendments are better drafted than mine. I am very ready to accept that they achieve the same result. I am very ready to accept that they achieve the result that would have been wished by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. It said that the additional procedural safeguards needed were provisions in the Bill for consultation about the contents of the code and for subjecting the code when it is laid before Parliament to the affirmative resolution procedure.
I wish that that could have been accepted at the beginning of our debates. As the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee said, there are perfectly good

47
precedents in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and, most recently, in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995. Without being threatening, I hope that we shall not go through this issue again.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as I set the ball rolling on Second Reading, I really do wish to express my gratitude to my noble friend the Minister, who has kept an open mind in a difficult situation and has come to the correct conclusion.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, having listened to our debate this afternoon when goodwill has been flowing like milk and honey from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to the Minister and back, I wonder whether the Bill might have been better dealt with from the beginning by correspondence. It was difficult to make progress on the second day of the Committee stage. However, a great deal of progress has been made since that time. I wish to pay tribute to the Minister, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, earlier, for the helpful correspondence to which I have had access during that period.
Whatever arguments one may have had at any stage of the Bill, in particular at Committee stage, the paperwork in relation to the Bill has been excellent in terms both of correspondence from the Minister and of other work in the department. I am aware that I may have added my name to the amendment after the Minister had conceded the principle in her letter of 17th January. However, I have no regret at having done so. In some ways this is the most important issue that we are discussing today. Had the Minister not come forward helpfully with her amendments, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would have pressed his amendment to a Division.
Looking back at our rather uncomfortable discussion at what turned out to be a non-event in Committee, the House and the Minister will remember that I was among those who pressed hard for the Minister to say whether the draft code represented the policy of Her Majesty's Government—in other words, that it was the view of the Government at that stage. It seemed important to know, if we were to discuss many of the amendments to the code in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, among others, whether or not those amendments were to be pressed to a Division.
At that time the Minister was not able to be as specific as in her letter of 17th January, in which she made clear that the draft did indeed represent the Government's view of what its provisions ought to be. That was a helpful statement. We on these Benches, among others, fully recognise that a document may be made available for consultation or modified in the light of that consultation. However, until it is modified—until the Government have considered representations and changed their minds—it represents the policies of Her Majesty's Government. Thus the amendments taken together now get the balance right.
One of my anxieties in Committee concerned the fact that over the past 20 or 30 years there has been a great deal more consultation with outside bodies. That is
48
absolutely right. It is also right that consultation should have taken place over the code of practice and that there should be further consultation in future. However, it is important that if there is such consultation it does not usurp the proper role of Parliament. When we discussed the point on the last occasion, I felt that whatever consultation there had been and might be, Parliament would not have a proper opportunity—both because of the way in which the Minister felt she had to deal with the amendments and because the order would be subject to negative resolution—to consider the important provisions of the code. However, all that anxiety has been removed and again I express my thanks to the Minister and support her amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 75 to 77 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Effect of code]:
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 79 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 12, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in this section shall affect registered medical practitioners.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the course of Second Reading I drew attention to an anxiety expressed by the British Medical Association about the status of police surgeons and the extent to which their role might be prejudiced by the Bill. On 14th December the Minister replied to me, explaining the extent to which she was clear that that would not be the case. At the same time she made a number of appropriate points about the Bill. Her letter stated:
"If police surgeons did count as investigators for the purposes of Part II, then we should need to consider amending the Bill or drafting the code of practice in such a way as to distinguish between their reports for the purposes of criminal proceedings and their other notes which are subject to confidentiality".
That went to the heart of the point about the dual responsibility of a police surgeon to the police and at the same time to his patients in every other respect. Following the Second Reading debate, the Minister wrote to me on 14th December and, had events not moved in the way that they did, I had intended to raise the point during Committee stage. Be that as it may, I did not do so. I am aware that discussions have taken place between the BMA and the Home Office and certain assurances have been given.
It was the traditional practice for the police surgeon to provide a statement for the police with the consent of the individual, giving only the forensic evidence obtained. However, the cause of our anxiety is that recently the police and the Crown Prosecution Service have been requiring a copy of the police surgeon's handwritten notes which include the patient's past medical history, as well as therapeutic information which the patient or the victim of the crime had given for treatment purposes. The disclosure of such

49
information is a breach of the rules of the General Medical Council which allow disclosure to the police only when there is an overriding public interest or if ordered by a court to do so.
The amendment is not so much a probing amendment as one which gives the Minister an opportunity to put on the parliamentary record in the Official Report the views that she has previously expressed to me and any other considerations which she thinks may be germane to an understanding of the issue. It may well be that at a later stage it would be right to press an amendment, perhaps in another place. However, at this stage I simply ask the Minister to comment on the amendment as it stands. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that I shall be able to give the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, the reassurance he seeks about the effect of the Bill on the disclosure of material by registered medical practitioners who act as police surgeons.
Before responding to the amendment, I ought to say that the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, is not in his place today. He wanted very much to be present but his absence from the Chamber is unavoidable. He took a close interest in the effect of the disclosure regime on registered medical practitioners. We have corresponded about the issue and I believe he would have been reassured by what I shall say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers.
The current disclosure requirements derive from a series of judicial decisions in recent cases, including the case of Judith Ward. Although there is room for interpretation, it appears that the duty of disclosure owed by the prosecution extends to almost all material generated not only by the prosecutor but by anyone who has assisted with the prosecution, including police surgeons. This is what lies behind the request of the Crown Prosecution Service for all the notes made by police surgeons when examining suspects. I can understand the difficulties which the current law causes for doctors who owe a duty of confidentiality to their patients and who have previously provided forensic statements only.
In our view, the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill resolves the difficulty. This is because it abolishes the common law rules relating to prosecution disclosure (except those relating to whether disclosure is in the public interest), and imposes disclosure duties on a narrower range of persons and organisations than those currently included in the concept of the prosecution team. The disclosure requirements in Part I do not affect doctors, including police surgeons, because they are not prosecutors. Part II may affect them, but only if a police surgeon is a person charged with a duty of conducting an investigation as defined in Clause 19, which requires such persons to have regard to the relevant provisions of the code of practice prepared for the police under Part II.
If police surgeons did count as investigators for the purposes of Part II, then we should need to consider amending the Bill or drafting the code of practice in such a way as to distinguish between their reports for the purposes of criminal proceedings and their other
50
notes which are subject to confidentiality. I agree that the difficulty they now face needs to be resolved in some way.
However, in our view, a police surgeon is not an investigator for the purposes of Clause 19. Police surgeons have no statutory position within police forces, and they are under no statutory duty, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or elsewhere, to conduct investigations of the kind described in the Bill. On this basis, a police surgeon would be in the same position as any other third party who may have information which may be relevant to a criminal investigation, and would be under no duty arising from this Bill to retain material and reveal it to the investigator or prosecutor. The reports they prepare for the purposes of criminal proceedings would be given to the police and would be subject to the requirements of this Bill relating to disclosure. The other material they generate, which is concerned with the doctor-patient relationship, would be protected.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I am grateful for what the Minister said. I wish to reflect upon it. In her letter to me she referred to a sensible non-statutory arrangement and I understand that that is what she still has in mind. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Introduction]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 13, line 6, leave out from ("relation") to end of line 13 and insert ("to an offence if—

(a) proceedings for the trial on the charge concerned are transferred to the Crown Court on or after the appointed day, or

(b) a bill of indictment relating to the offence is preferred on or after the appointed day under the authority of section 2(2)(b) of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 (bill preferred by direction of Court of Appeal, or by direction or with consent of a judge).

(1A) References in subsection (1) to the appointed day are to such day as is appointed for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State by order.
(1B) If an order under this section so provides, this Part applies only in relation to the Crown Court sitting at a place or places specified in the order.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 2.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [The preparatory hearing]:
Lord Bridge of Harwich Lord Bridge of Harwich moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 14, line 8, at end insert ("which shall include the question whether proceedings on the indictment should be stayed on the ground that they are an abuse of process").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Part III of the Bill introduces a preparatory hearing procedure which is modelled on a similar procedure already on the

51
statute book under the Criminal Justice Act 1987, but under that statute it is only applicable to serious fraud cases.
Now Part III would give to a trial judge before any criminal trial a discretion to order a preparatory hearing and consequently to make available to himself the special powers which are operative under a preparatory hearing in any case where, by reason of the length or complexity of the anticipated trial, he saw advantages in so doing, for certain defined purposes.
Once the trial judge has ordered a preparatory hearing, he then has power in the course of that hearing to make rulings in relation to any question as to the admissibility of evidence or any other question of law relating to the case. Once he has made such a ruling, the ruling becomes subject to an interlocutory appeal: in the first instance to the Court of Appeal under Clause 28 and, if necessary, on to this House in its judicial capacity under Clause 29. Both clauses make specific provision that the appeal is to be finally determined before a trial begins.
It appears to me that the philosophy underlying that scheme of preliminary rulings, made in a case where a long and difficult trial is anticipated, and the provision that they be subject to interlocutory appeal before the trial begins, serves the end of ensuring that there should be no miscarriage of justice and no abortive trial by reason of a judicial error which could have been corrected in the first place.
The sole purpose of my amendment to Clause 24(3) is to enlarge the ambit of the judge's power to make rulings in the course of the preparatory hearing; and consequentially to render subject to the provisions for interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeal, and possibly on to the house of Lords, any decision by a judge as to whether or not proceedings on an indictment should be stayed on the ground that they are an abuse of the process of the court.
I accept that in general terms interlocutory appeals are undesirable in criminal cases. They may occasion delay. Worse still—even if, as here, leave to appeal lies only with the judge or the Court of Appeal, they may provide an opportunity for abuse of the procedure by a defendant who wants to occasion unnecessary delay if he can. That I perfectly well understand and agree with.
It appears that any delay arising from an interlocutory appeal, where a long and difficult trial is anticipated, is a price worth paying in order to ensure that disputed questions of law which will arise in any event, and questions as to the admissibility of evidence, are rightly decided before the trial begins. So, equally, it is a price worth paying in order to ensure that any decision as to whether the proceedings should be stayed as an abuse of process will be rightly decided at the beginning and before the trial starts.
In order to make good that proposition, I invite the House, and in particular the Minister, to consider a hypothetical example. A defendant is indicted for a murder that he is alleged to have committed 20 years ago. The trial judge, foreseeing a very long and difficult trial, orders a preparatory hearing under Part III of this
52
Bill when it is on the statute book. At the preparatory hearing the defendant raises two contentions. One is that the central piece of evidence, vital to the prosecution's case against him, is inadmissible. The other is that, because the trial has been so long delayed, he can no longer receive a fair trial and, accordingly, invites the judge to stay the proceedings on the ground that they are an abuse of process.
If the judge wrongly decides either of those questions in the defendant's favour, when they ought to be decided against him, it means that a man who ought to be tried will escape trial altogether. There is nothing that the prosecution can do about it. That is to say, that would be the case were neither issue subject to interlocutory appeal. If neither issue were subject to interlocutory appeal, and the judge decided both issues in favour of the Crown and against the defendant, if the judge was wrong the ruling would result in an abortive trial. If the trial led to conviction, it would eventually lead to the conviction being quashed by the Court of Appeal.
Unless my amendment is carried, the worst situation of all would be this. The judge has decided both issues against the defendant at the preparatory hearing and there is an interlocutory appeal on the question of admissibility of evidence. The defendant takes his case to the Court of Appeal, but fails there; the court says that the crucial evidence is admissible. Because he cannot, unless my amendment is carried, appeal the judge's ruling that the case should not be stayed on the ground of abuse, that is not appealable. Then there is a long trial, at the end of which he is duly convicted. There is a second appeal to the Court of Appeal—which says, no, the judge was wrong, he ought to have stayed the proceedings as an abuse of process.
I outlined this hypothetical example (in rather less detail) in correspondence to the Minister following Committee stage. I hope, in replying, she will address the example and tell us, in the light of it, how it makes sense for the Government to say that there can be an interlocutory appeal in one case but there should not be one in the other. I understand that to be the Government's case. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, there is no way in which this amendment could distress the tattered fabric of relationships between my right honourable friend and the judiciary, which is in urgent need of repair. The amendment is devoid of any political significance. In the battle of the slogans, it is neither tough nor soft on crime, and may not be so described. It is in no way concerned with judicial discretion on sentencing. The irenic purpose is to persuade, not to confront. As yet, all attempts to persuade have failed. The opinion of this House will be sought on the merits of the argument. If in favour of this amendment, it can but serve as a powerful source of persuasion.
Since another place has not, as yet, considered this Bill, the opinion of your Lordships would be advisory and without hint of confrontation. If the merits of the. argument commend themselves to the House, why not?—they may well commend themselves to another

53
place. If not, on a matter such as this the House would never dream of seeking to insist that there is no element of confrontation. Such is the reality of the situation in which your Lordships' support for this amendment is sought, notwithstanding the customary measures of exhortation which government Bills inevitably attract.
As to the merits, the noble and learned Lord, with his wealth of practical expertise—advocate, red judge, member of the Court of Appeal and Member of your Lordships' Appellate Committee—commends the amendment as a sensible, requisite and procedural contribution to the due administration of justice, affecting not only public perception but the interests of the prosecution, the defence and the victims of crime. Your Lordships may well feel that the speech of the noble and learned Lord bears the hallmark of authority. The logic of his analysis to which a response is sought is not based upon any abstract esoteric process of reasoning but upon sound straightforward common sense.
As to the justification, is it not, in the simplest of terms, that it invokes an appellate procedure to rectify a wholly unsatisfactory situation, a situation in which, if an application to stay is rejected in error, a trial takes place which should never have taken place, and, if granted in error, a trial which ought to have taken place can never take place, as in such circumstances as the noble and learned Lord explained? The error may be corrected before substantive trial as regards any question of admissibility of evidence or any question of law. Why exclude the application to stay on grounds of abuse?
The effect of the amendment is none other than to introduce a procedure akin to that which obtains in Scotland. If my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate were present, no doubt he would confirm that the procedure in Scotland is entirely satisfactory and occasions no unacceptable delay or tactical abuse. Indeed, as appears on the official record, the principle of the amendment has already claimed the sympathetic approval of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, albeit in another context. I am not aware that the amendment is opposed by any noble and learned Lord, any other member of the judiciary or any member of the legal profession.
This Bill is of general application, save as regards the serious and complex fraud cases to which the noble and learned Lord referred and which reflect similar provisions. As it is of general application, it would apply to proceedings under the War Crimes Act to avoid wrongful conviction on an abortive trial which ought not to have taken place, a matter—I stress this point—on which both Houses have made common cause. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in his place as it is a matter on which he addressed your Lordships, namely, the subject of a fair trial. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Ferrers gave an assurance on such matter to your Lordships' House.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that to that end your Lordships accepted the substance of this amendment under Clauses 2 and 3 of the War Crimes (Supplementary Provisions) Bill. To that extent, this amendment of general application would subsume those
54
provisions already accepted by your Lordships. The Bill inevitably is at rest in the graveyard of another place. It is opposed by the Government.
Since Committee stage, the sands of objection have shifted to reveal an entirely new ground. But at this stage, it would be wrong to anticipate. To conclude, under the Royal prerogative, as exercised by Her Majesty's judges, the power to stay proceedings for abuse of process was assimilated by the common law as part of the inherent jurisdiction. Long before there was a Court of Appeal or an Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House, although your Lordships' House sat as a forum of appeal, that court of appeal was set up by statute. However, the statute fettered the appellate jurisdiction so as to prevent any review before conviction. This Bill proposes to remove that fetter in other respects, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, in order to avoid abortive trials.
The true and disinterested administration of justice is no exact science. Sound practical procedures such as are proposed by this amendment, your Lordships may think, are wholly requisite.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I support the amendment. I am happy to adopt the arguments put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. None of the three of us could sensibly be accused of being the "villains' friend", in that particularly insulting and ill-judged phrase.
Perhaps I may offer a cruel example from the real world. A female child of three is raped. The trial judge wrongly sentences the accused to three years' imprisonment. The Attorney-General rightly takes that absurdly over-lenient sentence to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, which can hear the appeal and put matters right. The same judge may well rule that, because of publicity or the passage of time, the case should go no further. The child remains attacked, assaulted and wounded for life; her parents are appalled; the wider community is rightly incensed; and that cannot be put right. Where is the intellectual sensible justification for that? There is none.
I shall not touch on particular cases. I have discussed them privately with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. It is not suitable to mention them publicly. But, to my knowledge, there are Crown Court centres where there are serious questions about whether judges should properly have stopped cases on the grounds of abuse of process, either by virtue of delay, because of the difficulties in sexual complaints or because of adverse publicity.
The judges at first instance may be right or they may be wrong. There are no further alternatives. But their decisions in these important matters ought to be subject to review in the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division. Therefore, the importance of the amendment is not in its standing alone but in its irretrievable and necessary connection, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, pointed out, to Clause 28 of the Bill at present—in other words, the interlocutory appeal is allowed.

55
It is otiose for the Government to say that interlocutory appeals are bad as a matter of principle in criminal cases. They certainly have disadvantages, but Clause 28 provides for exactly that. Indeed, if one traces through Clause 28, the opportunity of an appeal lies not only to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, but also to the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House. That has many virtues, but speed of decision—because of the delays of which we are all aware—is not one of them.
If rulings are made to stay cases on the grounds of abuse of process, which frequently attaches itself to adverse publicity or to the difficulties in sexual cases to which I referred earlier, the public may feel and conclude that the law is not only an ass, but also a cruel, unfeeling and unthinking ass.
I do not apply my remarks to anything to do with war crimes; that is a debate long since over and in which I have no specific pressing interest. However, I have a pressing interest in this. If trials should properly be seen through, an application to stay the proceedings should be made as soon as is sensibly possible. I suggest that that is the preparatory hearing time when the evidence is to hand and when both parties have armed themselves for the coming ordeal. But it is vital that that decision by a judge at first instance, which can be devastating for legitimate complainants who want their injury examined and to an extent redressed, should be subject to appeal. It is not at the moment.
To return to my first example—I am sorry it is brutal but circumstances of that kind are cruel—why is it that there may be an appeal against an over-lenient sentence, but no appeal against a wrong decision, made too late, that a trial ought not to continue?
6 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, following debate on this matter at Committee stage, I met my noble friend Lord Campbell and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, to discuss the issues raised. I am grateful to both of them because it was a very constructive meeting which helped to identify the arguments on both sides.
Before considering the practical effect of this amendment, it is important to be clear about the purpose of preparatory hearings. Any elaboration of procedures carries with it the risk of delay and of extra cost. We therefore considered long and hard whether to introduce preparatory hearings as an additional step in procedure but we concluded that, in exceptionally long or complex cases, the potential for streamlining the trial outweighed the possible risks. Accordingly, preparatory hearings have very specific purposes which relate to the good management of the trial. Those purposes are set out in Clause 22 of the Bill, while Clause 24 specifies the matters which may be dealt with by a judge prior to the swearing in of the jury. It was never envisaged that all matters which could arise in a case should be dealt with at the preparatory hearing. And the intention, endorsed at Second Reading by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice is that such hearings will not be widely used.
56
On that limited basis, provision has been made for interlocutory appeals on points of law and admissibility of evidence only. Those are matters on which final and authoritative rulings can be given. Abuse of process is different. It may already be dealt with by the judge at any time prior to the trial without a preparatory hearing. Accordingly, the only practical effect of the amendment would be to create an interlocutory right of appeal. But a decision whether to stay proceedings on grounds of abuse of process at one particular stage of the proceedings cannot necessarily be regarded as final. It may have to be reviewed or a further application may be made at a later stage of the proceedings in the light of changed circumstances. The arguments for having an interlocutory appeal on points of law and admissibility of evidence on which final and authoritative rulings can be given do not apply to abuse of process applications. On that basis alone, we do not believe that it is right to adapt the purposes of preparatory hearings simply to enable them to deal with abuse of process and so attract interlocutory appeals.
But there are wider practical objections. The Court of Appeal has held, in cases of which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, are aware, that there are a range of matters which are outside the scope of preparatory hearings. Those matters include applications to sever counts on an indictment; applications to quash counts on an indictment, and applications to discharge witness summonses. We can see no rational basis for bringing abuse of process within the scope of preparatory hearings, yet not to include those and other matters. It would make them more complicated and divert them from their primary purpose of securing better management of the trial. It would mean that they might take longer because there would he a wider range of matters which might have to be resolved. It would increase costs and delays because the additional matters to be resolved could generate additional interlocutory appeals.
I had hoped to be able to give your Lordships some figures about the number of additional interlocutory appeals which might result if all those matters were to be brought within the scope of preparatory hearings. I regret, however, that such information is not collected centrally. On the other hand, perhaps it will not be a matter of regret to the House if I refrain from plying it with statistics. However that may be, it does seem likely that the number of additional interlocutory appeals which would result if this amendment is passed would be significant. That is a matter which the Law Officers have pondered carefully on a number of occasions. It remains their view, having consulted the Director of Public Prosecutions who shares their view, that any benefits which might flow would be far outweighed by the additional delays which would be inevitable.
When ruling in one of the cases about matters which are outside the scope of preparatory hearings, the Court of Appeal itself commented on the plethora of applications being received for leave to appeal against judges' rulings at preparatory hearings and the delay that was causing to other cases. It is also the case that the grounds on which an abuse of process application can

57
be made are now much wider, and the law is still developing. Applications have been made on the grounds of pre-trial publicity, absent witnesses and alleged notification that no proceedings would be brought, to name but a few. And dealing with an appeal against an abuse of process decision can add months to the length of the trial. If appeals on those and other matters were made in any number, the burden on the Court of Appeal could he substantial and, in turn, that would add to delay. In those circumstances, extending the scope of preparatory hearings to a much wider range of matters would cast doubt on whether the present provisions for interlocutory appeals could be sustained or should instead be restricted or removed.
This is a complex matter and it raises some complex issues. I have sought to explain as clearly as possible why we do not think it is right to bring decisions on abuse of process within the scope of preparatory hearings. They were not intended to deal with such matters and it would divert them from their primary purpose of the good management of the trial. I recognise that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, and my noble friend Lord Campbell have reached a different view.
Just before I sit down, perhaps I can refer to the specific case raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. As I understand the provisions of this Bill, the specific case raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would simply not qualify for a preparatory hearing, unless the noble Lord is suggesting that interlocutory appeal should be considered in the generality of cases and not simply for preparatory hearings. That would make his example more pertinent. But for the reasons I have given, the Government are unable to accept the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, before the Minister sits down and the noble and learned Lord replies, perhaps I can ask a question. How is it sustainable as the Government's position that the orders made on preparatory hearings must be final, when one sees in Clause 24(11) the specific contrary? The clause states that:
"An order or ruling made under this section shall have effect throughout the trial, unless it appears to the judge on application made to him that the interests of justice require him to vary or discharge it".
Secondly, if the attorney and director both say that there may be a significant number of appeals against rulings in applications in respect of abuse of process, does not that abundantly underline and confirm the importance of the amendment?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the examples I gave about finality refer to admissibility of evidence and points of law. What we are saying about an appeal for stay of proceedings on the basis of abuse of proceedings is that it is an application that can be made at any time during the process of the trial. Even if the application is not granted, it is open to the accused or to the accused's lawyer to continue, especially if circumstances change
58
throughout the trial, to reapply for an application. If there is any merit in these arguments it is that the prosecution could be disadvantaged, not the defendant.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not want to take up the time of the House or to trespass on the patience of your Lordships, but there is no finality about a ruling on admissibility of evidence or a ruling on any other question of law because Clause 24(11) specifically allows for it to be reviewed. That is not final; that is reviewable.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am resting the Government's case on the balance with regard to allowing for interlocutory appeals at preparatory hearings on the particular issue of a stay of proceedings on the basis of abuse of proceedings. We have taken the view that the delay and the possibility of abuse of proceedings far outweigh giving in to this amendment. On that basis, I rest my case.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, replies, perhaps I may ask my noble friend one question. In her speech she referred to extending the preparatory hearing to all sorts of circumstances, such as severing the indictment and so on and so forth. Does she not appreciate that this is a limited extension in like circumstances to admissibility of evidence or a question of law? It is not extending; it is strictly limited. A distinction has not yet been drawn logically between the question of admissibility, a question of law and the substance of this amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand what my noble friend is saying. He is right as it relates to the particular amendments that are being pressed by my noble friend and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge. I know that it is not their intention to extend it beyond that. The point I was making is that it would seriously weaken the case for allowing other grounds for interlocutory appeals if the amendment were accepted.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Mostyn and Lord Campbell of Alloway, have already replied to two of the points made by the Minister in support of the Government's opposition to the amendment. That saves me from making similar replies. What is left of the points is that the amendment is objectionable because a decision whether or not to stay proceedings on the ground of abuse of process is not necessarily final and is not necessarily made before the trial.
I should have thought that in the vast majority of cases an application to have proceedings on indictment stayed on the ground that they are an abuse of process would be made before the trial. Of course it is only such decisions which my amendment would bring within the ambit of the preparatory hearing and only such decisions as would become subject to interlocutory appeals under Clauses 28 and 29. The only ground I apprehend on which a further

59
application could be made in the course of a trial would be on some matter which had come to light only after the trial had begun and was not there at the time when the preparatory hearing decision was made. That does not seem to be a ground of any cogency in opposition to the main thrust of the arguments which have been advanced in support of the amendment.
Turning next to the case law to which the Minister referred, of course that is a set of decisions. I have looked at them all—all of the cases to which the Minister's advisers have drawn my attention. They are a set of decisions on the existing provisions in the Criminal Justice Act. It is true that the relevant provision corresponding to Clause 24(3) of the Bill is in the same terms. But they are decisions on the construction of that provision unamended. I am not in the least surprised that the courts have construed that provision narrowly. Indeed, the first position was that a decision on an application to stay proceedings on the ground of abuse of process was not a ruling as to any other question of law relating to the case under the corresponding provisions of subsection (3)(b) of the Bill. That is no doubt quite right. The language is not apt. But those cases do not throw any light on the merits of this amendment.
I cannot help wondering whether the Minister's advisers—who can blame her for depending on her advisers; it is only right that she should do so—are not attaching far too much importance to what they have read in decided cases. It is a habit some lawyers have that anything one can provide a specific authority for must be right if it saves one the trouble of trying to think out the general principle applicable.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. With the leave of the House, perhaps I may put a question to him. If, for the sake of my hypothesis, I cited the case that was put by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and that fell outside preparatory hearings' territory, what is the case for saying that an application made in a preparatory hearing should carry with it the right of appeal—an interlocutory appeal—when the same application may have been made and a stay granted but there is no right of appeal? There seems to me to be a logic in the generality of cases but not a logic for it applying only in preparatory hearings. I think I know, underlying what the noble and learned Lord is saying, that he would prefer it to be applied in the generality of cases. But then one really does open it up to being available generally. I cannot see the distinction between allowing for an interlocutory appeal for preparatory hearings only and not for the generality of cases. In the generality of cases we would have a stronger case for saying that the scope for abuse was even greater.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: My Lords, the ground for distinction is precisely the same as the ground for distinguishing between preparatory hearings which lead to interlocutory appeals with reference to questions of admissibility of evidence and questions
60
of law relating to the case. It is because the case is exceptionally long and complex that the preparatory hearing procedure provides for interlocutory appeals.
As I said in commending the amendment initially, the object is to ensure that there are no miscarriages of justice and no abortive trials brought about through judicial error which could have been corrected. In the ordinary run of cases the objection to interlocutory appeals in criminal trials on the ground of the delay that they are capable of causing outweighs any advantage to be derived from having preliminary issues finally and authoritatively settled before the trial begins. But that consideration is in turn outweighed in the exceptionally long and complex case which in the judge's discretion has earned an order that it should be the subject of preparatory hearing. The whole scheme of rulings subject to interlocutory appeals in relation to questions of law and questions of admissibility can only be designed to ensure that those questions are rightly decided at the outset.
I found nothing in the case law, adopting a narrow construction of the corresponding provisions in the 1987 Act, which in any way bears on the merits of the present proposed amendment. There is an exception as regards one observation in one case, which I believe must have influenced the Minister's advisers. She said several times in her reply that the primary purpose of the preparatory hearing procedure was to ensure the satisfactory management of the case. There is a decision of the Court of Appeal—I do not quarrel with what was decided—where some of the observations of one of the Lord Justices, in the course of delivering judgment, suggest that the whole of the preparatory hearing procedure is in some way subject to the purposes set out in Clause 22(2), which the Minister referred to generally as referring to the management of the case, and quite rightly.
A number of the powers exercisable by the judge in a preparatory hearing are designed to enhance the management of the case, to define and narrow issues and expedite the trial. The whole scheme as regards rulings as to admissibility, questions of law and making those rulings subject to interlocutory appeal, which will be finally decided before the trial begins, have nothing to do with the management of the trial. They are designed, and can only be designed, to ensure that those issues are rightly decided before the trial begins.
In my submission, precisely the same considerations apply to the desirability that when an application to stay on the ground of abuse is made at the outset it should be rightly decided, if necessary, on appeal before the trial begins. I am not wholly surprised to note that the Minister did not feel able to respond to my specific invitation to address my hypothetical example and the difficulties which will arise if there is a right of interlocutory appeal in one case, but not in the other. In those circumstances it is right to seek the opinion of the House.
6.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 84) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 86.

Division No.3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Acton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Addington, L.

Judd, L.

Airedale, L.

Kennet, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Attlee, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Barnett, L.

Lawrence, L.

Berkeley, L.

Listowel, E.

Birk, B.

Lockwood, B.

Borrie, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bridge of Harwich, L. [Teller.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McNair, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L. [Teller.]

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carter, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Mishcon, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Nicol, B.

Craigavon, V.

Palmer, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

David, B.

Rea, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Richard, L.

Desai, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Dubs, L.

Shepherd, L.

Falkender, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Freyberg, L.

Templeman, L.

Geraint, L.

Tordoff, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Halsbury, E.

Waverley, V.

Hamwee, B.

Weatherill, L

Haskel, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Hayman, B.

Whaddon, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

White, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wilberforce, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Courtown, E.

Aldington, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seat]

Ampthill, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Elles, B.

Blaker, L.

Ferrers, E.

Blatch, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Blyth, L.

Geddes, L.

Boardman, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Goschen, V.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Hanson, L.

Bridgman, V.

Hartnsworth, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Henley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hertford, M.

Burnham, L.

Hogg, B.

Cadman, L.

Holdemess, L.

Caithness, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Howe, E.

Carnock, L.

Inglewood, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Kenilworth, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Kimball, L.

62

Lane of Horsell, L.

Mountevans, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Long, V.

Northesk, E.

Lucas, L. [Teller.]

Norton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

O' Cathain, B.

Lyell, L.

Orkney, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Oxfurid, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Pender, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L [Lord Chancellor.]

Rankeillour, L.

Reay, L.

Mackay of Dnimadoon, L.

Rennell, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Selsdon, L.

Marlesford, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Shrewsbury, E.

Melville, V.

Sudeley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Swinton, E.

Mersey, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Trumpington, B.

Milverton, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Vivian, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.31 p.m.
Clause 30 [Restrictions on reporting]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 17, line 41, leave out ("or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as drafted, Clause 30 permits the reporting of a preparatory hearing once the trial for all the defendants in the case has been concluded. The three amendments in this group will extend this provision so that an application for leave to appeal, or an appeal, in relation to a preparatory hearing may also be reported once the trial for all the defendants has been concluded. The first amendment is a consequential drafting amendment, arising from the two substantive amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 86 and 87:
Page 17, line 41, at end insert —
("(aa) the publication of a report of an appeal in relation to a preparatory hearing or of an application for leave to appeal in relation to such a hearing,").
Page 17, line 43, at end insert ("or
(c) the inclusion in a relevant programme of a report of an appeal in relation to a preparatory hearing or of an application for leave to appeal in relation to such a hearing,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 32 [Meaning of pre-trial hearing]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 88 and 89:
Page 19, line 5, leave out from first ("a") to ("takes") in line 6 and insert ("hearing is a pre-trial hearing if it relates to atrial on indictment and it").
Page 19, line 9, at end insert—
("(1A) For the purposes of this Part a hearing is also a pre-trial hearing if—

(a) it relates to a trial on indictment to be held in pursuance of a bill of indictment preferred under the authority of section 2(2)(b) of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 (bill preferred by direction of Court of Appeal, or by direction or with consent of a judge), and

(b) it takes place after the bill of indictment has been preferred and before the start of the trial.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments were considered with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 90:
Before Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
INDEMNIFICATION OF JUSTICES AND JUSTICES' CLERKS
(".—(1) Section 53 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 (Indemnification of justices and justices clerks) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) after "may" insert "and shall, in the exercise of any criminal jurisdiction,": and

(b) at the end, insert "or, in the exercise of any criminal jurisdiction, unless it is proved, in respect of the matters giving rise to the proceedings or claims, he aced in bad faith".").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I do not think that we fully acknowledge the service given to the administration of justice by justices' clerks and by justices of the peace. Justices of the peace dispose of over 90 per cent. of all criminal prosecutions. They do so in their own spare time. They do so without payment and wholly voluntarily. How then do we seek to show our gratitude? Certainly not by making them, as we have, liable personally to pay the costs of successful appeals. I know of no such liability being imposed upon professional judges. I believe that I have enjoyed immunity from my days of assistant recorder onwards.
The basis for the liability is to be found in Section 53 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979. Omitting unnecessary language for the purpose of this particular matter, that section provides as follows:
"Subject to the provisions of this section … a justice of the peace or justices' clerk may be indemnified out of local funds in respect of …
(b) … costs ordered to be paid by him in any such proceedings …
and shall be entitled to be so indemnified if, in respect of the matters giving rise to the proceedings or claim, he acted reasonably and in good faith".
Therefore, two hurdles have to be jumped: acting reasonably and in good faith.
My amendment seeks to alter the statute by providing that justices and their clerks shall, in the exercise of any criminal jurisdiction, be entitled to be indemnified unless it is proved in respect of the matters giving rise to the proceedings or claims that they acted in bad faith. That does not take away the total risk of the liability for costs; it keeps it there if the justices acted in bad faith or if it is so proved.
The information that I have received from the Justices' Clerks' Society includes the following observations: first, that the reimbursement to which the section refers is not automatic. An application has to be made to the magistrates' courts committee for indemnification in accordance with the Section 53 provisions. The indemnification is only in respect of
64
costs reasonably incurred and is obligatory only if the justices of the peace or the justices' clerk acted reasonably and in good faith.
What is "reasonable" may be a matter of dispute, more easily determined with the benefit of hindsight. I assume that the test is objective, but it might be contended that in all fairness it should be subjective. If the justice believed that he was acting reasonably, why should there be an objective test? Even though indemnification is obligatory, the magistrates' courts committee may have no funds remaining available—they are heavily strapped for cash—so that is a situation that can occur. In such a case, an application for further funds would either have to be made to the Lord Chancellor's Department or to the local authority for supplementary payments. Those parties may be unable, or even unwilling, to help. The local authority could be the body entitled to the cost, the subject matter of the award, and be in the invidious position of having to agree to reimburse or to refuse to reimburse costs due to itself. I am informed that at least one instance has been traced, some years ago, of a magistrate being left to bear the costs personally. I am told that there have been other such instances. Magistrates have expressed fears concerning bankruptcy and at least one has resigned because of her concern. I have thus been instructed by the Justices' Clerks' Society.
I shall not weary your Lordships with statistics of any size, but I can inform the House that during the period 1st January 1994 to 1st November 1995, of the response, 10 court areas—that is 8 per cent.—not including inner London which has a separate organisation, for which the clerks were responsible, had had orders for costs made against them. There are indications that at least 18 courts—that is, 15 per cent.—again excluding Inner London, have applications pending where costs against them may be sought.
Some of your Lordships may have been in the Chamber on 15th January when the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, stimulated I believe by an order for costs in the sum of £2,000 made against his own Bench but not against himself, tabled a Starred Question. The noble Viscount had prepared a speech for today but rang me up shortly before lunch saying that he had been prevented from coming. The Question that he raised was as follows:
"Viscount Tenby asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they are yet in a position to offer indemnity to lay magistrates in the event of a successful appeal for costs by a defendant".
The reply given by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor read:
"My Lords, Section 53 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 already provides for a magistrate to be indemnified against costs orders. A magistrate is entitled to indemnity provided he or she acted reasonably and in good faith".
That reply astonished both the noble Viscount and myself because it had no note of urgency about it; no suggestion of criticism of the present situation.
The reason for our astonishment was in each case the same: we had been provided with a copy of a letter dated 19th December, written only a few weeks before that reply, from Mr. Jonathan Evans MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department

65
addressed to Mrs. R.E.R. Thomson, chairman of the council of the Magistrates' Association. Some days ago I provided a copy of that letter to the Minister. I read, selectively, two or three short passages from it. It starts by saying:
"The Lord Chancellor has asked me, amongst other tasks he has assigned to me on my arrival here, urgently to resolve this issue".
He then goes on to refer to the immunity against actions for damages which was achieved by the medium of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. He states:
"However, it has since become apparent from recent case law that costs orders can and are being made against Justices in case stated or judicial review proceedings in a different range of circumstances. Whilst that case law indicates that this should happen in only exceptional circumstances, I understand your concerns both at the principle and at the uncertainty thereby created, particularly as there appears already to be an increasing number of cases in which costs orders will be sought".
The other parts I want to quote are on the second page of the letter. They are:
"I am sympathetic towards the arguments which have been put and am committed to finding a solution. My current provisional view is that it would be appropriate to provide immunity unless the Justice acted in had faith. This would require legislation".
That is precisely what I have set out to do, with the one difference—I am limited to providing this immunity from costs in criminal cases only, because this is a criminal procedure Bill and I am not entitled to go outside it.
I shall return to the way in which the Starred Question proceeded. Having recovered somewhat from his surprise, the noble Viscount said:
"My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that reply, which will be partly reassuring to the magistracy. However, is he aware that there is considerable anxiety within that service because of the danger that magistrates may be taken to appeal and have damages found against them?".
He means costs. He continued:
"Some magistrates are talking of resigning from the service. As this problem has been in existence for some years, will he undertake as a matter of some urgency to bring forward a solution which will be equitable with others in the legal service?".
In the course of his reply, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said:
"I think that magistrates are currently concerned that Section 53 provides an indemnity only against costs".
I am not sure how that comes about. He continued:
"I hope that we may be able to do something in this area. Obviously consultation would have to precede anything that we did. I am hoping that we might be able to go so far as a consultation at least by the middle of the year".
Again, that absence of any note of urgency was picked up immediately by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who said:
"My Lords, can my noble and learned friend possibly hurry up the consultations? I believe that he referred to the middle of the year. It is a matter of great urgency. The point that the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, made about magistrates now seeking to resign is most unwelcome. Perhaps an impression could be given that the Government will not waste any time in getting on with the consultation. Can my noble and learned friend give us that assurance?".
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said:
"My Lords. I would find it most unwelcome if magistrates were seeking to resign on this ground. It is quite clear that there is no real basis for any fear which would require them to do so".
I find that incomprehensible. I have already indicated orders which have been made, to the liability which exists, and the concern that was recorded in his own Parliamentary Under-Secretary's letter written four weeks earlier. He goes on to say:
"As I say, the law already provides for a magistrate to be indemnified against costs orders so long as he or she acted reasonably and in good faith. That is a pretty secure type of indemnity".—[Official Report, 15/1/96; cols. 359–611]
The contrast between that reply and the letter written four weeks previously was so marked that I thought that it was only right to put down this amendment so that the House could see the strange contrast between the written answer coming from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and the verbal answer given to the House when the Question was put. As I informed your Lordships, I provided a copy of that letter some weeks ago to the noble Baroness and she was kind enough to write to me. In her letter of 1st February she said:
"As you will know the Lord Chancellor has said that he will address the question of immunity against costs orders as a matter of urgency. However, as anything which is done in respect of justices and justices' clerks would have ramifications for other judicial post holders he believes that, before moving to legislation, it would be wise to consult. As you know he has said that he would hope to issue a paper later this year.
"As this, and any legislation change which follows, will take time the Lord Chancellor is also looking at ways in which the arrangements for providing indemnity under the provisions of section 53 can be improved. This will give those affected greater confidence that the existing statutory protections will work until a longer term solution can be found".
That is precisely what I have sought to do in this amendment.
The penultimate paragraph of the letter states:
"Your amendment, while it seeks to strengthen indemnity, does not address the question of immunity".
I pause there merely to ask why it should. One is endeavouring to deal with the liability for costs on the basis that the justices have not acted reasonably. It is that which gives them the sense of insecurity. I have not sought to cure the danger arising out of bad faith. I have sought to do precisely what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department seemed to agree with; namely, to remove that liability on the grounds of acting unreasonably, whatever that may mean in the circumstances.
The letter goes on:
"And it would restrict additional protection to matters arising from criminal cases".
That is not my fault. Initially I sought to extend this to both criminal and civil proceedings but I was naturally called to order. The letter goes on:
"The Lord Chancellor's proposals are aimed at providing more comprehensive protection".
I am delighted to hear it, but while he is consulting and arranging for that more comprehensive protection, why should not the justices and their clerks have the very simple protection of no longer being under any liability on the basis that they have acted unreasonably?
My proposals will provide non-contentious and much-needed interim protection while the leisurely process to which I have referred takes it course. I beg to move.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I chose to associate my name with the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, very much for the reasons which he has already explained to the House and in my case in particular, in view of the exchanges which took place on 15th January to which the noble and learned Lord referred.
I confess that this was a new issue to me but I felt then that the replies were wholly unsatisfactory. Indeed, the two sentences in the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that struck me were, first, that it was not a new problem which had arisen overnight; and secondly, that it required considerable examination in depth before Parliament would be invited to bring forward solutions.
It seems to me that if it is not a new problem but one which has been in the responsibility of government for some while—and that view is very much strengthened by the letter from the Parliamentary Secretary of 19th December to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred—I cannot understand why it is only at this late hour that it requires considerable examination in depth. Having already attracted the attention of the Government, I would have assumed that it was something to which thought had been given. Therefore, coupled with the very leisurely proposals which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor then seemed to make, it seemed right to take an opportunity in the course of discussions on this Bill to resolve the matter.
Nothing that I have heard today, seen in the correspondence or noted in the exchanges which took place on 15th January convinced me that an examination in depth is required. It seems to me that it is clear that there needs to be a willingness to correct the problem and the courage to make the necessary decisions. That being so, if those decisions cannot be made today on the hoof by the Minister, I do not see why she cannot consider an amendment which may he available at a later stage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if indemnities are good enough for the judges who are paid, they are good enough for magistrates who are not paid.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this amendment would bring the test of whether indemnity (that is, an arrangement to make good a loss suffered by a party) should be given to justices (and justices' clerks) in line with the test for immunity (that is, freedom or exemption from legal proceedings) in respect of actions arising from matters outside a magistrate's jurisdiction. It would require bad faith to be proved.
Although the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, would strengthen the indemnity provisions which are contained in Section
68
53 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979, it covers only criminal cases and therefore excludes many of the cases which, I understand, have given rise to the current concerns expressed by magistrates. Nor does it address the separate question of immunity.
As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor himself explained in this House on 15th January, the Government are aware of the concerns which magistrates have and of their view that in order to be adequately protected in the proper discharge of their functions, they should be given immunity against costs orders. My noble and learned friend made the point then that legislation to give greater immunity to magistrates would have ramifications for other members of the judiciary. He has announced that he intends to issue a consultation paper later in the year.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, suggested that what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said in the House on 15th January was inconsistent with the contents of the Parliamentary Secretary's letter of 19th December to the Magistrates' Association. There is no inconsistency. The Parliamentary Secretary said that he is sympathetic to the arguments for immunity and is committed to finding a solution. As that would require legislation and would therefore take time, he said that he would also consider improved arrangements for giving effect to the current indemnity provisions as an interim measure.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor also indicated that he wished to address the question of immunity as a matter of urgency, but said that in view of the ramifications, he thought it right to consult before bringing forward legislation. He did not refer to the proposals for finding an interim solution, but that does not signify that he has rejected them. The two strands of the proposal—looking at immunity as the preferred solution and improving the indemnity arrangements in the interim—together represent my noble and learned friend's intended approach.
I recognise the desire of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, to safeguard the interests of the magistracy. However, I believe that it would be premature to deal with the matter in this fashion. The work which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has put in hand should result in a comprehensive solution to the difficulties which have been identified and for which there is much sympathy on the part of both the Parliamentary Secretary and my noble and learned friend. This proposal would not achieve that, and for that reason I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will she be kind enough to tell me who are the other members of the judiciary against whom costs orders are made?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot answer that question because I simply do not know.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I find that surprising because the mainstay of resisting the amendment is that it is

69
premature because consultation is required and because there are other members of the judiciary who would be involved and therefore affected. It is surprising that the Minister's brief does not provide the very foundation to her resistance to the amendment. It makes me doubt even more the expedition which it is now said will occur to remedy this grossly unsatisfactory position.
We talk in high flowing language about protecting the independence of the judiciary. I would have thought that the possibility of there hanging over the heads of members of the judiciary a potential order for costs if they get their decisions unreasonably wrong is the very contradiction of independence. The risk of a judge looking over his shoulder in that situation is not to be discounted.
The Minister says that there is no conflict between the Parliamentary Under-Secretary's letter and the reply from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I refer merely to the strange observation at col. 361 of Hansard:
"That is a pretty secure type of indemnity".—[Official Report, 15/1/96; col. 361.1
There is clear evidence that the magistrates are unhappy and some are resigning or threatening to resign. I compare that with the phrase that I read out from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary's letter:
"I am sympathetic towards the arguments which have been put and am committed to finding a solution. My current provisional view is that it would be appropriate to provide immunity unless the Justice acted in bad faith".
I believe that this is a most important matter since it goes to the very administration of justice. I seek the opinion of the House.
7.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 90) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 72.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Ackner, L. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Acton, L.

Dubs, L.

Addington, L.

Falkender, B.

Airedale, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Barnett, L.

Fitt, L.

Berkeley, L.

Geraint, L

Birk, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Blackstone, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Borrie, L.

Greenway, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L

Gregson, L.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Grenfell, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Halsbury, E.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hamwee, B.

Carter, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Haskel, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Craigavon, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

David, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Jeger, B.

Desai, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Donoughue, L.

Judd, L.

70

Kennet, L.

Rea, L.

Killbracken, L.

Richard, L

Kirkhill, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. [Teller.]

Listowel, E.

Lockwood, B.

Sefton of Garston, L

Longford, E

Shepherd, L.

Lytton, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McCarthy, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Templeman, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Tordoff, L.

Mishcon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Molloy, L.

Weatherill, L

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L

Napier and Ettrick, L.

White, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Nicol, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Palmer, L.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Keyes, L

Ailesbury, M.

Kimball, L.

Aldington, L

Lane of Horsell, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Long, V.

Beloff, L.

Lucas, L

Blaker, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Brentford, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Burnham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Caithness, E

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marlesford, L

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mountevans, L

Courtown, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craigmyle, L., B.

Northesk, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Elles, B.

Pender, L.

Elton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Geddes, L

Reay, L.

Goschen, V.

Rennell, L.

Hanson, L.

Selborne, E.

Hamiar-Nicholls, L

Selsdon, L

Hayhoe, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hogg, B.

Skidelsky, L.

Holderness, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

HoImPatrick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Inglewood, L.

Torrington, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Trumpington, B.

Tugendhat, L.

Vivian, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.10 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begins again not before 7.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Agricultural Holdings(Fee) Regulations 1996
7.11 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of these regulations is to increase, from £70 to £115, the statutory fee for the appointment by the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors of agricultural arbitrators, or persons to make a record of the condition of an agricultural holding.
The current fee of £70 is prescribed by the Agricultural Holdings (Fee) Regulations 1985 and has been in place since 1st January 1986. That is the date on which the function of appointing arbitrators, and persons to make a record of the condition of a holding, under the 1986 Act was transferred from the Ministry to the RICS. The RICS agreed to hold the fee at the same level for at least five years from the date it was introduced. In the 10 years that have elapsed since the fee was first prescribed by regulation, the RICS has faced substantial increases in the costs of providing the service, exceeding annual levels of inflation. The institution has now applied for an increase in the fee to £115. The intention is that the new fee will take effect from 1st March this year. The agricultural industry organisations have been consulted on the proposed increase, which has been widely accepted. The case presented by the RICS for the revised fee has been carefully examined. I am satisfied that £115 is a fair and reasonable fee. I ask your Lordships to approve the regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Lucas.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be extremely grateful to the Minister for explaining this measure. As he said, there has not been an increase for 10 years. We understand the increase in costs that the RICS has to bear. I believe that the measure has to apply only to the RICS; otherwise, the actual wording of the 1986 Act would have to be altered. That wording requires the president of the RICS to act in this way. It is a 64 per cent. increase over the 10 years compared to an RPI of 53 per cent. However, I am sure that the Government have looked hard at the arguments that the RICS has produced for increasing the fee. We certainly agree with the measure.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Corn Returns Act 1882)Order 1995
7.13 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th November he approved [5th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, since 1882 there has been a requirement under the Corn Returns Act for all first hand purchasers of grain in England and Wales, and since 1954 in Scotland, to complete a weekly return showing the volume and price of purchases made. This currently places a requirement on some 1,400 businesses to complete and forward the required data to the Home-Grown Cereals Authority, which collects it on behalf of the Government.
In 1994, my noble friend Lord Howe set up a working group comprising both officials and industry representatives in order to review the requirements of the Corn Returns Act. The working group confirmed the continued importance to Government and industry of the data collected under the Act. However, it also recommended that the requirement to complete returns could be lifted from the very smallest traders—who accounted for less than 1 per cent. of the total purchases—without compromising the value of the resultant data. Subsequent wider consultation with the industry supported this recommendation which is being implemented by the order before you today.
Under the order traders who purchase fewer than 1,000 tonnes of British corn during any one harvest year—a harvest year runs from 1st July to 30th June—will no longer be liable to submit corn returns during the subsequent year. This will remove the return requirement from some 800 small businesses, resulting in total estimated saving to those businesses of around £100,000 a year.
With the support of the industry, the order also provides for a relaxation of the current requirement for returns to be in writing and signed. This effectively means that purchasers have to send a signed copy of the corn return by first class post. This is clearly outdated. In future, regulations made under the Act must specify at least one alternative way of submitting returns.
Since it was first laid before Parliament in June 1995, the order has been the subject of careful study by the House of Commons Deregulation Committee and this House's Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers. Both committees recommended acceptance of the order without amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th November be approved [5th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].—(Lord Lucas.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, once again, we have to thank the Minister for explaining this important order. If I heard him right, he said that the Act was introduced in 1882 but it did not apply to Scotland until 1954. Why did it take Scotland 72 years to catch up with the rest of the UK? The Minister need not answer my next point now, but I would he interested to learn the actual definition of "corn" under the Corn Returns Act. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, is in the Chamber. She may remember that we debated an order which stated that oilseed rape had to become a cereal for a levy to be collected on it under the 1965 Act. I presume that "corn" includes wheat, barley, oats and rye. I would be interested to learn whether what I have mentioned is the case. The one other provision, I

73
presume, is to allow for the use of the Internet, computers or something similar. With those observations, I support the order.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I think the likely provision is for fax. I do not think the Internet has caught up with most corn traders yet. As the noble Lord said, corn comprises wheat, barley, oats, rye and maize. For the purpose of this order it does not include oilseed rape which is not deemed to he a cereal for these purposes. Perhaps in future it will be but that is not the case now.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.17 to 7.25 p.m.]

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 91:
Before Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
TRANSFER FOR TRIAL
(".—(1) Where a magistrates' court inquires into an offence as examining justice in accordance with section 6 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 (discharge or committal for trial) the court—

(a) shall consider only written evidence when deciding under subsection (1) of that section whether to commit the accused for trial by jury; and

(b) may, at the request of the legal representative of the accused, commit the accused for trial under subsection (2) of that section without the accused being present in court.

(2) In section 6(1) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980, for the word "evidence" where it first occurs there shall be substituted the words "written evidence".
(3) Section 102(4) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 (which requires a person to attend before a court to give evidence) shall cease to have effect.
(4) Section 44 and Schedule 4 to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (which provide for transfer for trial proceedings in place of committal proceedings) shall cease to have effect.
(5) In this section, "legal representative" mean an authorised advocate or authorised litigator as defined) in section 119(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and "written evidence" means evidence tendered in writing in accordance with section 102 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 91 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 93, 94 and 122, which have the minor additional effect of removing two clauses and a schedule from the Bill.
The amendments deal with the issue of transfer for trial from the magistrates' court to the Crown Court. It is an issue which has a history of aborted reform over a considerable period. I understand that on no fewer than
74
three occasions the Government have tried to come forward with reform and on each occasion reform has been delayed.
The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice—the Runciman Commission—recommended in respect of full committals from the magistrates' court, in their present form, that where the defendant makes a submission of no case it is considered on the basis of the papers rather than in person and that the defence is able to advance oral argument in support of a submission but that witnesses should not be called.
Those who are deeply concerned with these matters; namely, the Law Society, the Justices' Clerks' Society, the Association of Magisterial Officers and the Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, broadly support the Royal Commission's recommendations. They had a meeting with the Home Secretary last Tuesday which led them to feel that it was necessary to air the matter again today.
The Government's proposals, which were introduced in amendments at Committee stage rather than in the Bill as originally published, replace all committals with a transfer for trial scheme. The object was to spare witnesses having to give evidence twice—once at committal and again at the Crown Court trial—and to improve the efficiency of the courts. We agree that the first of those objectives is met by the Government's amendments, but we do not think that the second objective is met. That is the reason for the amendment and the consequential amendments.
We agree that the number of committals will be reduced by the Government's proposals. However, there are not very many committals at present. Old-style committals make up only 7 per cent. of all committals, and witnesses give evidence only in some of those. The Government propose to make a radical change to make all committals unnecessary, in order to produce benefits which will in any event apply only to a small proportion of cases. It is our view that the Royal Commission's recommendations could be achieved by Amendment No. 91, which is in effect an amendment to the Magistrates' Court Act 1980. Under the amendment a court would consider only written evidence when deciding whether to commit an accused for trial by jury under subsection (1) and could, at the request of the legal representative of the accused, commit the accused for trial under subsection (2) without the accused being in court.
The reasons that we are worried about the Government's proposals are, first, that there will be delays. The Government's proposals introduce for the first time new time limits which are supposed to be a discipline. Between the mode of trial and the first hearing guidelines exist as regards eight weeks in bail cases and six weeks in custody cases. They are met in most cases. However, the problem is that the proposals are likely to bring delays. Experience is that time limits imposed in this way are used fully. In other words, cases are not made until the last minute. In order to provide a workable scheme with statutory time limits, the Government have had to extend the existing time limits to 12 weeks, an increase of 50 per cent. in bail cases

75
and 100 per cent. in custody cases. We do not believe that the Government's proposals will speed up cases coming to trial.
Secondly, we think that the Government's proposals are inflexible. They are claimed to give greater control of the pre-trial process. However, we believe that they are inflexible and will take control away from the courts. If the prosecutor fails to serve notice of the case within the prescribed period—let us remember that the prescribed period is required because the CPS has a record of taking a long time to bring a case—the court has to discharge the accused regardless of the seriousness of the offence and the strength of the prosecution evidence. That must happen under the Government's proposals. I suggest that there would be a justified public outcry.
There is no provision in the Government's proposals for the courts to require the prosecution to serve notice of its case in a shorter time than the prescribed period. The proposals take no account of whether the accused is in custody or on bail, whether the case is straightforward or complex or whether the evidence is already available or still being gathered. At present courts have some control over how long the prosecution will take and are able to press the prosecution to serve its evidence sooner if that is possible. If the prosecution do not serve a formal piece of evidence in its notice of case, that cannot be put right before the magistrates consider the evidence, and the accused will have to be discharged.
Where defendants elect for Crown Court trial but agree to summary trial after they have seen the prosecution evidence, the government scheme does not allow the accused to change their mind in cases of summary trial. Cases will be sent to the Crown Court unnecessarily.
The conclusion is that the scheme will cost more. The savings which the Minister stated at Committee would result from this scheme will be non-existent. The reverse may even take place. Where the accused is in custody there will be a larger remand prison population and greater costs for the Prison Service. There will have to be new administrative systems, new training given in their use, and new costs for the magistrates' courts, the Crown Prosecution Service and defence solicitors.
The Law Society and those concerned with magistrates' courts have always been in favour of reform. They have always wanted the same objectives that the Government have sought. But they simply do not believe that the wholesale scrapping of the existing procedures is necessary. It suggests that the more modest measures proposed in Amendment No. 91 would be better. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I recognise that there is concern among practitioners about the new transfer procedure. That is perhaps understandable since transfer for trial represents a major change to practice and procedure in the magistrates' courts, but it is a change which I believe to be both necessary and overdue.
76
Practitioners and commentators may be having difficulties in coming to terms with the principle and practical application of transfer because of the understandable tendency to try to equate it with the existing system. It is essential, though, to recognise that transfer is a completely new system for dealing with pre-trial procedure in the magistrates' courts. When Parliament decided to abolish the committal system, the central aim was to introduce an entirely new mechanism in its place, to move from a mainly court-based system to a mainly administrative one. This will bring with it significant savings, both in terms of time and cost, as well as greatly improving the efficiency of the process.
The proposed alternative set out in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is deceptively simple in that it appears, on the face of it, not to involve wide changes to existing legislation and practice. But it misses completely the fundamental point about the new transfer procedure which is that, in uncontested cases, as soon as the prosecution has served notice of its case, the case will automatically and immediately be transferred to the Crown Court. In 1994, over 97,000 cases—some 93 per cent. of the total—fell into that category. In such cases, there will be no need for any court hearing, or for any consideration of the evidence. The procedure will be a simple one without elaborate paperwork. Savings will arise for the courts because of this streamlining and for the legal aid bill, because it will not be necessary for the parties' representatives to attend court.
Turning to the specific details of the noble Lords' amendment, the first part—it has the effect of limiting evidence to written statements—is similar to what is proposed with regard to an application for dismissal under the transfer procedure, but with one vital difference. Under transfer arrangements, hearings where the prosecution and defence representatives are actively involved will be the exception. Most cases will be dealt with entirely on paper, with no need even for the parties to attend. Under the noble Lords' proposal, by contrast, there would be a hearing attended by all the parties in every such case. Oral submissions by the parties, but not oral evidence, would routinely be allowed.
The second part of the noble Lords' amendment, which deals with uncontested cases, still envisages a court-based procedure in such cases, although it removes the requirement on the parties to attend. Valuable court time would be taken up to no clear purpose. As I have said, the transfer procedure by contrast provides for uncontested cases (the vast majority of all cases) to be transferred automatically for trial at Crown Court.
The noble Lords' proposal would thus not deliver the efficiency savings flowing from the transfer procedure. Nor under their proposal would there be the discipline of time limits, which the Royal Commission specifically recommended. Some have argued that the prescribed time limits under transfer arrangements will result in -time delays, rather than in driving forward the proceedings as quickly as possible. I find it difficult to see why this should be so. The fact of the matter is that, under the existing committal system, the 42-day pre-trial issues guideline for service of the prosecution case

77
appears to be met in only a relatively few cases. Although no comprehensive figures are available, sampling suggests that as many as 75 per cent. of cases exceed that timescale. The prescribed period of 70 days for service of notice of the prosecution case under the transfer procedure reflects that reality. It does not change it. The Government remain committed to the PTI guidelines and expect the police and the CPS to continue working to the 42-day period in the majority of cases. The 70-day period is a maximum limit. It does not mean that where cases can he processed more quickly they will not be. The 70-day period is also avowedly an initial limit. That is to say, my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary have agreed that the position should be monitored carefully. They are both determined that the time limit should be progressively reduced. The longer prescribed period initially will mean that in the majority of cases there will be no need to apply for extensions, thereby avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy and additional burdens on the courts or on any of the parties concerned.
Implementation of the new procedure has been delayed a number of times in recognition of practitioners' concerns which the Government are addressing in these amendments. Working together with practitioners, we will be able to produce an efficient procedure to act as a filter to stop weak cases from getting to the Crown Court, and avoids the problems associated with committals. There can be no real benefits from replacing committals with a procedure which would take up similar amounts of time and resources, as proposed under the terms of the noble Lords' amendment.
I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. I should like if I may to draw another point to noble Lords' attention. The Government recognise and share practitioners' concerns that the transfer should be workable and effective. This is, of course, our principal aim in making amendments to the transfer provisions. The views of practitioners on the operational aspects of the procedure are clearly of invaluable assistance in achieving this aim. We are very grateful for their detailed comments on the mechanics of the procedure, and we are currently considering these in full.
As a result of the consultation which is still in progress, we wish to make some further technical refinements to the amendments which were tabled at Committee stage and clarification of the provisions contained in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, as inserted by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it is essential that we should take the views of practitioners into account so as to ensure a system that operates effectively. I am sorry that that means that we are not in a position to table the amendments at Report as originally planned, but I hope that, in the light of the reason I have given—that is consultation with those who will be affected by it—the delay in order to get the legislation right is justified.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister will understand that we sometimes feel that we
78
are aiming at a moving target. After all, the Bill as originally introduced did not include any of the new provisions about transfer for trial. We only saw them at the Committee stage and we have to respond to them in the time between Committee and Report stages. It is longer than usual and we do the best we can in the circumstances. The Law Society and others were unable to obtain a meeting with the Home Secretary until last Tuesday and we have had to do the best we could after that. We now hear that further amendments will be introduced, presumably at Third Reading or in another place.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I cannot be precise about that. I shall keep the noble Lord informed and, if the amendments are not ready for Third Reading, they will have to be addressed in another place.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful and recognise that any amendments would be introduced as a result of consultation with the practitioners in the field. However, the Minister will understand that I am not happy with the situation. I do not feel that we have had the opportunity that we need. However, in order to allow the consultation to continue, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 [Transfer for Trial]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 21, line 21, leave out ("to this Act").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 92 is a technical amendment which removes some unnecessary words from Clause 37. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]
Clause 38 [Provisions connected with transfer for trial]:
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
Clause 40 [Either way offences: accused's intention as to plea]:
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
7.45 p.m.
Clause 44 [Acquittals tainted by intimidation etc.]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 26, line 37, after ("commit") insert (", or committing,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to Clause 44, regarding acquittals tainted by intimidation etc. The clause is new so far as forensic philosophy is concerned, because it sets aside an acquittal where the person has achieved that acquittal as a result of being convicted of an administration of justice offence.
The clause initially centred around the intimidation of witnesses, jurors and others. I suggested at Committee stage that, if one were to concern oneself with tainted acquittals, then perjury ought to feature. The Government kindly took up that suggestion and at

79
Committee stage provided an amendment which introduced in subsection (6) an offence involving the administration of justice, and under (c) there is,
"an offence of aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring, suborning or inciting another person to commit an offence under section 1 of the Perjury Act 1911".
The lacuna—and it is a remarkable one—in what the Government propose is this. Under Clause 44 (1)(a), a person who is the acquitted person can be the same as the person in (b) who has been convicted of an administration of justice offence. One and the same person can be the subject of the acquittal tainted by his intimidation etc. of witnesses. One would have expected the same consistency to have followed once one introduced perjury as a category of tainted acquittal. The acquittal could be obtained by the perjury of the acquitted person himself or by his having aided, abetted, counselled etc.
For some reason which I find incomprehensible, the arch villain, the person who actually commits perjury, can hang on to his acquittal, it is not tainted. He will lose his acquittal if he has not himself committed perjury but has aided, abetted, counselled, procured, suborned or incited another person to commit such an offence. The provision contains the clear lacuna which we have sought to fill by adding the words "or committing" after "commit" so as to bring within the category of tainted acquittals those that have been achieved by the acquitted person's own perjury. That makes sense. As it stands at the moment, if he himself commits the perjury, he is allowed to retain what to all the world is as tainted as, if not more tainted than, an acquittal provided for in subsection 6(c). I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am chided by my noble friend Lord McIntosh, who accused me on the last occasion of confessing that I had an open mind. I have to plead guilty. Having listened to the noble and learned Lord, I find that it is plain that there is a gap here. Vicarious liability as a concept is well known in civil law and to a limited extent in criminal law, but I have never understood the concept of vicarious liability to displace personal individual liability in criminal law. The whole of the scheme depends on double jeopardy to an extent, but as I observed on the last occasion, if I had a brother—and I do—and I get him or suborn him for a consideration (since we are both Welsh!)to carry out the offence described, he is guilty and I am not. There must be something wrong there somewhere.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon): My Lords, I oppose the amendment. Having had the privilege of prosecuting many cases, some of which, I regret to say, resulted in acquittals, I can readily understand the sympathy which lies behind the amendment. Any prosecutor whose efforts have resulted in an acquittal brought about by evidence he believes to have been perjured evidence would wish to have the opportunity of a second bite at the cherry.
However, having thought about the matter carefully since it was first raised in Committee, the Government have reached the firm view that the amendment takes the new matter too far. As the noble and learned Lord,
80
Lord Ackner, said, this is a new matter so far as forensic philosophy is concerned, to set aside an acquittal. Clearly the view is that the limited basis on which the Bill proceeds at the moment is as far as it would be appropriate to go. It is suggested that there is a lacuna and that as presently framed the Bill is wrong.
There is a clear distinction to be drawn between overt acts which positively interfere with the course of justice in one way or another, whether in relation to witnesses, jurors, subornation of perjury, etc., and the act of committing perjury itself. In many cases where acquittals result, perjured evidence is given. Sometimes it is given by witnesses giving evidence on behalf of the prosecution, who may be minded to assist the defendant as far as possible; in other instances the perjured evidence is given by the defendant; and in yet other cases by some witness called on behalf of the defendant. If perjury has been committed, it is always open to prosecute the perjurer for the perjured evidence he gave.
The amendment would take matters further. It would make a further inroad into the finality of criminal proceedings, which is an important principle. I accept that it has been departed from by the clause as presently framed. However, the amendment would make a far greater inroad than the Government feel is appropriate at the present time. For those reasons, while to some extent my heart sympathises with the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, my head is very firmly against it and I invite the House to resist it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, is he able to assist us on this question? Is there any other circumstance known to the criminal law, on either side of the Border that separates and joins us, where it is an offence to aid, abet, counsel, procure, suborn or incite, but not an offence to commit the substantive offence?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, in those terms, off the top of my head, I am not quite sure that the noble Lord is correct. However, we are not concentrating on the offence that the individual has committed, but on the possible effect, an acquittal already determined by a jury. As I said earlier, Clause 44(6) concentrates upon the overt acts of individuals: whether they are perverting the course of justice, committing an offence under the 1994 Act or are guilty of an offence of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring. Those offences can be committed only when some third party interferes with the evidence or deliberations of somebody already involved in a criminal trial. That is a clear distinction that can be drawn in deciding where one draws the line in introducing serious inroads into the finality of criminal proceedings, which is a very important part of our criminal justice system.
Were this proposal to be introduced, it would undoubtedly protract proceedings in many cases. While there may be a limited number of cases where it is possible to establish that a part of subsection (6) can be

81
made out, there are many, many more where perjury could be established. That is why I urge the House to resist the amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he explain why that differentiation has not been drawn in subsection (6)(b), but only in (6)(c)? It has been accepted that (6)(b) involves, or can involve, the very person who has been acquitted; but under (6)(c)that is not to be the case. There must be some reason for the differentiation between (b) and (c).
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I hesitate to disagree with my noble and learned friend but, in my construction of subsection (6)(c) as presently framed, it could be the defendant who was guilty of the offence of aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring, suborning or inciting another person. I do not see the distinction between (6)(b) and (6)(c) as currently drafted.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate sits down, may I repeat the question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in respect of (6)(a)? The defendant could have done that.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, he could indeed have done that. But in doing that he would have been guilty of an overt act outwith, or beyond, the giving of his evidence in the trial on the charge upon which he had originally been acquitted. Again, there is a distinction to be drawn where there is the giving of perjured evidence by an individual—which anyone with experience of criminal trials recognises occurs from time to time, and which is suspected by, let us say, unhappy prosecutors of occurring very frequently. That is a valid distinction and one that falls to be drawn from the situation set out in subsections (6)(a), (6)(b) and (6)(c) as to whether the defendant or some associate of the defendant requires some actings beyond the giving of the perjured evidence itself.
Clearly, assuming that the Bill becomes law in the terms in which it is presently framed, experience of the use of this section will be obtained. In the fullness of time there may be some scope for taking the matter further. The Government, having considered the matter very carefully—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon. I was remarking on the "if pressed" bit.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, that reminds me. Because of my regretted absence earlier in giving a statement to a committee of the other place—in Inverness of all places!—I was not able to be present earlier, for which I apologise, and I have not yet read the part of the brief that says, "if pressed".
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that this is Report stage. Apart from the mover, everybody else has just one crack of the whip.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the observations of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate remind me
82
of a forensic story I heard. A very large Canadian QC was dining with an equally large Canadian, who was no longer a QC but who had just become a judge. The bill for the meal arrived, and the QC who was still a QC moved forward and took hold of the bill. The recently appointed judge put his great hand on top of the QC's hand and said: "Tainted, but it tain't enough". That seems to sum up exactly the submission that we have heard in this case. It is clearly tainted by the ex hypothesi forgery of the acquitted person. I can think of no better stimulus for dividing the House than to be told that I have the noble and learned Lord's heart on my side. To have broken through that granite reinforcement fills me with so much enthusiasm that I shall invite the decision of the House.
7.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 96) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 63.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Ackner, L [Teller.]

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Acton, L

Jeger, B.

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Judd, L.

Birk, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E.

Borrie, L.

McCarthy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L [Teller.]

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Desai, L.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Richard, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L

Dubs, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Falkender, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Templeman, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Tordoff, L

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

White, B.

Hamwee, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Aldington, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Ampthill, L

Dean of Harptree, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L

Denham, L.

Beloff, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Blaker, L.

Goschen, V.

Blatch, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L

Blyth, L

Harmsworth, L.

Brentford, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Bridgman, V.

Inglewood, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Burnham, L.

Kimball, L.

Caithness, E

Lane of Horsell, L.

Carnock, L

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Clanwilliam, E

Lucas, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Courtown, E.

Lyell, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Lytton, E.

83

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Rennell, L

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Shrewsbury, E

Skelmersdale, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Skidelsky, L

Macleod of Borve, B.

Stockton, E.

Marlesford, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Swinton, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Torrington, V.

Northesk, E.

Trumpington, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Vivian, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Wakeham, L.

Reay, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.6 p.m.
Clause 47 [Tainted acquittals: supplementary]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 28, line 19, leave out ("the granting of a certificate") and insert ("a certification").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor amendment to improve the drafting of Clause 47 of the Bill. Clause 47 itself sets out amendments to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Contempt of Court Act 1981 which are consequential upon the provisions of Clauses 44 to 46, dealing with retrials following acquittals tainted by intimidation. One of the requirements for seeking a retrial is that the court before which a person is convicted of an intimidation offence must certify that it appears to the court that there is a real possibility that, but for the interference or intimidation, the acquitted person would not have been acquitted. That does not actually involve the granting of a certificate, as is implied by the current text of Clause 47(4). It is more accurate to refer to it as a process of certification, which is what this amendment achieves. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Restriction on reporting of certain assertions]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 29, line 2, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) Section (Restriction on reporting of assertions) has effect where a court makes an order under subsection (7) or (8).").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 99, 102, 103, 104, 106 and 107.
These amendments extend to Great Britain, rather than just England and Wales, the prohibition on reporting derogatory assertions which are the subject of a restriction order made by a court in England and Wales in line with the other reporting restrictions in the Bill.
The first amendment removes the existing subsection (6) of Clause 48, which specifies that the reporting restrictions apply to publications and broadcasts in England and Wales. It is replaced by a new subsection that explains that the provisions of the new clause inserted after Clause 48 will have effect where the court
84
makes an interim or final restriction order. The second amendment removes subsections (9) and (10). The text of these subsections is incorporated into one new clause (referred to below) which has the effect of extending the prohibition on reporting to Scotland.
The effect of the new clause inserted after Clause 48 is that, where an order preventing the publication or broadcasting of a derogatory assertion is made, it will prohibit reporting in Great Britain. In addition to extending the prohibition to Scotland, the new clause reproduces and replaces the effect of subsections (6), (9) and (10) of the current Clause 48.
The third and fourth amendments to Clause 49, and the fifth and sixth amendments to Clause 50, are technical amendments which translate the cross-referencing of the provisions of these clauses into references to the new clause after Clause 48 in consequence of the redrafting of the provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 29, line 23, leave out subsections (9) and (10).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 29, line 44, leave out ("(4)(a)") and insert ("(2)(a)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these are technical and consequential amendments to Clauses 48 and 50. They are necessary to correct the numbering of references to subsections in Clause 48 following amendments made to that clause at Committee stage. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am puzzled by those comments. I thought that renumbering took place as a matter of course after amendments had been introduced. I did not know that we needed separate amendments for the renumbering.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if the noble Lord reads the amendment, it indicates that parts of the Bill need to be amended. For example, the first one reads,
"leave out (`4)(a)') and insert (`(2)(a)')",
and indicates consequential changes which need to be made to the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 101 and 102:
Page 29, line 46, leave out ("(4)(b)") and insert ("(2)(b)").
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause—
RESTRICTION ON REPORTING OF ASSERTIONS
(" .—(1) Where a court makes an order under section 48(7) or (8) in relation to any assertion, at any time when the order has effect the assertion must not—

(a) be published in Great Britain in a written publication available to the public, or

(b) be included in a relevant programme for reception in Great Britain.

(2) In this section—

"relevant programme" means a programme included in a programme service, within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990;

"written publication" includes a film, a soundtrack and any other record in permanent form but does not include an indictment or other document prepared for use in particular legal proceedings.

(3) For the purposes of this section an assertion is published or included in a programme if the material published or included—

(a) names the person about whom the assertion is made or, without naming him, contains enough to make it likely that members of the public will identify him as the person about whom it is made, and

(b) reproduces the actual wording of the matter asserted or contains its substance.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 49 [Reporting of assertions: offences]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 103 and 104:
Page 30, line 2, leave out ("48") and insert ("Restriction on reporting of assertions").
Page 30, line 33, leave out ("(9) and (10) of section 48") and insert ("(2) and (3) of section (Restriction on reporting of assertions)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 50 [Reporting of assertions: commencement and supplementary]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 30, line 35, at end insert ("or (2)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 100. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 106 and 107:
Page 30, line 39, after ("48") insert (" or (Restriction on reporting of assertions)").
Page 30, line 42, after ("48") insert ("or (Restriction on reporting of assertions)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. With the leave of the House, I shall move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 108:
After Clause 50, insert the following new clause—
Child witnesses
TELEVISION LINKS AND VIDEO RECORDINGS
.—(1) In section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (evidence through television links) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (3B)—
"(3C) Where—

(a) the court gives leave for a person to give evidence through a live television link, and

(b) the leave is given by virtue of subsection (1)(b) above,

then, subject to subsection (3D) below, the person concerned may not give evidence otherwise than through a live television link.
(3D) In a case falling within subsection (3C) above the court may give permission for the person to give evidence otherwise than through a live television link if it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to give such permission.
(3E) Permission may be given under subsection (3D) above—

(a) on an application by a party to the case, or

(b) of the court's own motion;

but no application may be made under paragraph (a) above unless there has been a material change of circumstances since the leave was given by virtue of subsection (1)(b) above."
(2) In section 32A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (video recordings of testimony from child witnesses) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (6)—
"(6A) Where the court gives leave under subsection (2) above the child witness shall not give relevant evidence (within the meaning given by subsection (6D) below) otherwise than by means of the video recording; but this is subject to subsection (6B) below.
(6B) In a case falling within subsection (6A) above the court may give permission for the child witness to give relevant evidence (within the meaning given by subsection (6D) below) otherwise than by means of the video recording if it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to give such permission.
(6C) Permission may be given under subsection (6B) above—

(a) on an application by a party to the case, or

(b) of the court's own motion;

but no application may be made under paragraph (a) above unless there has been a material change of circumstances since the leave was given under subsection (2) above.
(6D) For the purposes of subsections (6A) and (6B) above evidence is relevant evidence if—

(a) it is evidence in chief on behalf of the party who tendered the video recording, and

(b) it relates to matter which, in the opinion of the court, is dealt with in the recording and which the court has not directed to be excluded under subsection (3) above."

(3) This section applies where the leave concerned is given on or after the appointed day.
(4) The reference in subsection (3) to the appointed day is to such day as is appointed for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State by order.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 108 provides for binding rulings to be made in relation to applications under Sections 32 and 32A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for a child witness to give evidence by live television link or by means of a video recording.
The House will be aware that these amendments were tabled at Committee stage, but not moved in order that discussions could take place on other possible changes to the child witness arrangements. The meeting which was held was primarily concerned with the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Faithfull and other noble Lords. So far as the Government's amendment was concerned, there was broad agreement that binding rulings were desirable.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the noble Baroness not speak quite so fast. It makes the proceedings exceedingly difficult to follow.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it may be helpful to the House if I briefly explain the earlier background. The process of consultation which led to the provisions of the Bill dealing with binding rulings at pre-trial hearings also revealed that binding decisions in these cases would

87
be generally welcome. If decisions can be taken at an early stage in proceedings, and if those decisions can be made to stick, there will be enormous benefits for the children concerned. They can be reasonably confident that they will be able to give their evidence by live television link or by video recording. They will be able to prepare themselves on that basis which is likely to make their evidence all the more valuable. It will be very much less likely that they will be faced at short notice, and with insufficient preparation, with the trauma of having to give evidence in court.
These are compelling arguments. It is clearly in the best interests of children that there should be as much certainty as possible about the manner in which they will be giving evidence. This new clause will help to reduce uncertainty. It seeks to ensure that, once a decision has been made that a child should give evidence by live television link or video recording, it cannot lightly be reversed. But we have retained some flexibility to take account of changes in circumstances. Either party to the proceedings will be able to make an application for the child to give evidence in person if there has been a material change in circumstances. The child might, for example, have a last minute change of heart about using the live television link. Judges will retain discretion to vary an earlier ruling if it appears to be in the interests of justice to do so.
These amendments reflect the Government's continuing determination to take whatever practical steps we can to improve the arrangements for child witnesses to give evidence. We are pursuing a range of other measures. There is not time to mention them all tonight; but it may be helpful to give some examples: exploring the role for the companion who accompanies the child when using the live TV link to put the child at ease and reduce stress; engaging the Criminal Justice Consultative Council in further consideration of practical measures to ease stress on children, such as improved arrangements for familiarising children with the court and preparing them for what to expect; further consideration of ways to reduce delays in dealing with child witness cases in the courts; supporting the preparation of a video on best practice in dealing with child witnesses, including the development of more suitable questioning techniques. We welcome that project in which the NSPCC and others are involved. Government departments, including the Home Office, have already promised £20,000 towards the costs. I am pleased to be able to announce today that the Home Office will be providing an additional £30,000 this financial year; encouraging best practice in the conduct of video recorded interviews to be used as evidence-in-chief; encouraging earlier applications and decisions on the use of TV links or video recordings; and action to improve the technical quality of video recordings in order to encourage their greater use in court.
This is not a comprehensive account of all the work in hand to improve the operation of the present arrangements. We monitor them carefully, and when we identify anything that will improve the situation for child witnesses we take action, as with this amendment.
88
But I am convinced that radical change to arrangements put in place barely three years ago after extensive consultation, far from benefiting children, would be potentially harmful. Rather, we need to press ahead with practical improvements which we can be confident will benefit children. That is what this amendment achieves. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister. We are all grateful for the amendments. However, perhaps I may make two points. First, if a child wants to vary or change the way in which he or she gives evidence, will the child be given the opportunity to do so? Secondly, in view of the amendments that are to follow and possible consultation between now and the next stage of the Bill, will my noble friend be willing to vary this amendment in the light of those that are to follow?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I touched on the point in relation to the situation where a child may wish to vary the way in which he or she gives evidence. We want as much certainty as possible. However, at the end of the day if a child decides that he or she wants to give evidence in a different way, that will need to be considered by the judge. If they are acceptable to the court and do not militate against the justice for the defendant (who is, after all, standing accused), I have no doubt that the new arrangements will be acceded to. However, the new arrangements at this stage will not include the arrangements set out in the proposals of the next set of amendments.
In relation to my noble friend's second point, it all depends on the way in which my noble friend feels that my amendment needs to be changed in the light of the following amendments. My understanding has always been that the binding rulings amendment, irrespective of what follows, is a freestanding amendment except for those that we have already spoken to.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, can I take it that she confirms that last-minute changes of heart by the child amount to, potentially, a material change of circumstances?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the binding ruling would determine the arrangements. If there was a last-minute change of heart, it would mean that there would need to be reconsideration by the judge of the arrangements and the degree to which he could accede to the desires of the child, so long as it was permissible within the arrangements set out in the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 109:
After Clause 50, insert the following new clause—
VIDEO RECORDINGS OF TESTIMONY FROM CHILD WITNESSES
(".—(1) Section 32A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3), paragraph (a) shall be omitted.
(3) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted,—
"(3A) Where a video recording is to be tendered in evidence under this section the court may grant leave for a child witness to be cross-examined at a pre-trial hearing in informal surroundings at which only—

(a) the judge;

(b) counsel for the parties;

(c) an appropriate adult to accompany the child as set out in the rules of court,

shall be present in the same room as the child.
(3B) At any pre-trial hearing the defendant shall be permitted to see and hear the proceedings and to communicate with his legal advisors by such means as shall be laid down by rules of court.
(3C) The pre-trial hearing of the cross-examination of the child witness shall be video recorded and the video recording shall, with leave to the court, be tendered in evidence before the jury.".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to enable children to give their cross-examination evidence at an early stage prior to the trial. The cross-examination will be video recorded and played at the trial. Under our current system, children have to wait for 10 months on average before they can be cross-examined on the evidence they provide(' in the video recorded interview. Prosecution cases can reach the transfer or committal stages within four to six weeks of the first disclosure interview. All the prosecution papers have to be with the defence by that time. If this amendment were implemented, the defence could be given a further four to six weeks to prepare for cross-examination of the child witness on video. This would reduce the waiting time for the child witness to an average of seven months. The amendment would not prejudice the legitimate rights of the defendant in any way. The welfare of child witnesses would be better protected and the interests of justice would be served because the child witness would be able to provide his or her possible evidence.
In moving this amendment I am referring also to Amendments Nos. 110 to 113A which will be spoken to by other noble Lords. Perhaps I may make some general comments. The Children Act 1989 lays down:
"When a court determines any question with respect to…the upbringing of a child…the child's welfare shall be the court's paramount consideration".
But, on the other hand, the prime duty of the criminal court is for justice to be done. Therefore, there seems to be some conflict between the welfare of the child, on the one hand, and the need for justice on the other.
I have found that there are varying opinions as to whether the Criminal Justice Acts of 1988 and 1991 are working well. The Association of Directors of Social Services is dissatisfied with the present situation. I have also heard from all the childcare voluntary organisations, including the NSPCC and the National Children's Bureau. We are grateful for their help. The police also have some reservations about the present situation. At an interdisciplinary conference held by the Sieff Foundation at Cumberland Lodge in 1995 great divisions of opinion were expressed. It therefore seems that we need to look closely at reforming the law as it stands not only for children's sake but also for the sake cif the accused.
I am the chairman of the Faithfull Foundation, an organisation of which my noble friend the Minister is well aware and one with which she has helped me. It seeks to help men who want to return to their families but cannot do so because they must have treatment. The position is that a judge can make a probation order with a condition of residence at the clinic which we run. The men tell me that if a child will not give evidence because of fear—there are many such children—and if a child gives different evidence from the evidence-in-chief, the jury and the judge are in real difficulties. In a case where the accused is discharged, the man has said to me, "Where do I stand?" Indeed, where does he stand? Is he guilty or not guilty? The social services are in a great difficulty. Do they allow the child to go home or not? I thought that I should bring this matter to your Lordships' attention.
Opinions on the judicial side vary. Some circuit judges agree with the present situation and consider that it is working well in their courts. Others consider that it is not working well. There is a division of opinion among the QCs. At a dinner party the other night I was speaking to a QC. He disagrees with the present arrangements and wants changes. He is conducting research on the matter. It seems to me that after five years' experience we need to give careful consideration to the future. I wonder whether before the next stage of the Bill we might have interdisciplinary consultation between all those concerned with the welfare of the child and justice for the accused.
Amendment No. 110 is a new clause to which the noble Baroness, Lady David, will be speaking. She will also be speaking to Amendments Nos. 111 and 112. The noble Lord, Lord Acton, will be speaking to Amendment No. 113 and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will be speaking to Amendment No. 113A. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to support this group of amendments and have great pleasure in doing so, as I normally do like to support the noble Baroness, who takes such trouble about all these matters of children, justice and the courts.
I should like to say a word about Amendment No. 110. The purpose of the amendment is to give the court power to allow a video recording to be accepted as an alternative to written evidence in circumstances where a child witness cannot attend the trial. Leave can already be given under the provisions in Sections 42 and 43 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 for children to give written evidence in specified circumstances where they cannot attend a trial. Video taped evidence would allow the court to see and hear a child witness giving evidence. This is clearly a superior form of evidence to that which is already accepted. If the provisions in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 were expanded to include video taped depositions we might well see these procedures brought to life whereas they are currently not used in our jurisdiction. This is in contrast to other jurisdictions, where broadly similar provisions are widely used. Video taped evidence would be a very substantial improvement, surely, on written evidence which is now allowed.

91
I should like to move on to Amendment No. 111. The purpose of this amendment is to give the court power to order that advocates' questions should be put to the child by a person who is better able to communicate with the child and with whom the child feels comfortable—someone thoroughly experienced in dealing with children. This could apply to children with disabilities as well as to very young or very disturbed children. Once again, this amendment is based on the proposal from the Pigot Committee that a court could only grant leave in appropriate cases. I should like to emphasise that this amendment refers to very young or very disturbed children. The interlocutor might be a paediatrician, a child psychiatrist or a social worker. The role of that person would be similar to that of the interpreter in court where a witness does not know the language.
In other words, this provision would only be appropriate where the child witness would be prevented from giving a full account of his or her evidence were it not for the help of the interlocutor. Particularly vulnerable children who have been abused, such as children with learning difficulties, should not be denied the opportunity to take part as child witnesses in criminal proceedings.
It will be equally important to be certain that the defendant's interests are protected by ensuring that counsel for the parties decide what questions are to be put to the child. It will be for the judge to ensure that the interlocutor puts the questions in a neutral manner. This should ensure that Article 6.3.c of the European Convention on Human Rights is not contravened. The article states:
"Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights…to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing".
At present many vulnerable children who have been abused cannot be heard under our criminal justice system. Those children should not be denied the opportunity to be child witnesses in criminal proceedings. This amendment will help to give those children a voice in our judicial system. This is a very important amendment both for the child and for justice.
The third amendment I wish to speak to is Amendment No. 112. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the child witness is given an opportunity to express his or her views on whether they wish to give their evidence prior to the trial or wait until the trial. A number of us have been trying for a long time to get the views of the child accepted in various Bills and this again is another attempt to do so.
This amendment was debated in Parliament during our discussions on the Criminal Justice Bill in May 1991. It was said then that everyone agrees that it is best practice to take account of the wishes of the child when deciding how a child witness should give evidence. However, it was also said that the consultation does not need express provision in statute. But nearly five years later, those who have had the greatest experience of working with that Act, as it now is—and that means a great many people who are officers in the NSPCC—
92
regrettably see at first hand how frequently the wishes and feelings of child witnesses are not known by the court and are not properly taken into account. All too often the lines of communication are so weak that basic information does not get relayed from the child to the judicial system or from the judicial system to the child.
The amendment will give child witnesses an opportunity to express their views at a level appropriate to their age and understanding. But it would not be for the child to determine the matter. It will remain the judge's responsibility to balance the interests of the parties and of justice in all the circumstances of the case.
If express provision were made for this consultation in the statute we would begin to see consistent, fair and equal treatment of all child witnesses across the country in relation to this issue. I would like to add that the Metropolitan Police see a very real need for counsel and judges to become far more child aware in their dealings with these cases.
Our present criminal justice system is not meeting the needs of children or of justice. The purpose of this group of amendments is to eliminate unnecessary stress which is caused to child witnesses. Reducing their stress will not only result in the positive benefit of protecting the child's welfare; it will also mean that the interests of justice will be served because the child witness will be more able to give his or her best possible evidence.
I support the noble Baroness. This is an extremely important group of amendments. Although I appreciate very much what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has put forward in her amendment, I would like very careful consideration to be given to this very important group of amendments.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments Nos. 109 to 113, and I would like to speak to Amendment No. 113.
Under this amendment a child witness who has already been cross-examined under Amendment No. 109, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful], spoke, may be recalled by the court for a further out-of-court hearing. That would happen when it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice; for example, when fresh evidence comes to light. In this way the defendant's rights are preserved. The conditions at the second hearing would be the same as at the first hearing.
Thereafter, the defence can make an application for a further out-of-court hearing only if there has been a further material change since the second hearing. A significant proportion of children will undoubtedly not be recalled. Those children who are recalled will at least have had most of their cross-examination got out of the way and recorded on video at a much earlier stage. Moreover, they will have had the benefit of therapy thereafter.
In the interests of justice to the defendant, Amendment No. 113 forms an essential part of a scheme, with Amendment No. 109. Perhaps I may add that the Criminal Bar Association supports the principle of Amendments Nos. 109 and 113. I join with the noble Baroness, Lady David, in all that she has said as regards

93
the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the group of amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 113A. I was not involved in this matter before. I came into it because I had the good fortune to be invited by the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, to what I found to be a very interesting and helpful meeting at which the NSPCC and the Home Office officials concerned with these matters were able to exchange views very freely and openly. I have no professional or personal knowledge of what happens in court, and therefore I do not have any view about the other amendments in particular. However, it was brought home to me by that discussion that one of the most important keys both as regards the civilised way to deal with child witnesses and the quality of evidence, and therefore the quality of justice, was that the delay between the offence and the child giving evidence at the trial should be as short as possible. I understood that in many cases a trial takes place and the child gives evidence eight months, 10 months or even more than a year after the offence has taken place and the charge has been laid. That is both unfair to the child in that it cannot embark on any programme of therapy or help and also unfair to justice and the defendant in that the child's memory is likely to become less accurate and its confidence in giving evidence is likely to be less.
Therefore, it seems to me that the key to this matter, whatever the justice or otherwise of the other proposals, is to bring these cases to court as quickly as possible. I am confirmed in that view by the letters from the Lord Chief Justice and the Minister to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, which came together. The Lord Chief Justice confirmed that his object was to bring these cases to trial as quickly as possible.
It seems to me that there is only one way to bring cases on quickly, and that was confirmed by the transfer of trial debate which we had earlier this evening; namely, to set time limits. Unless there is a time limit, we shall get into the classic situation where there is no listing of the case because there is no assurance that the defence and the prosecution are ready. The defence and the prosecution do not conclude their case because there is no listing and therefore nothing happens. If there were a fixed timescale as proposed in Amendment No. 113A, with the provision, as shown in the second part of the amendment, for that to be varied with the approval of the court, then everyone would know that the case had to be prepared, as I am sure that it can be, so that the children can give evidence as quickly as possible and be released to get on with their lives and with whatever therapy is necessary. I strongly support Amendment No. 113A.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to our debate in May 1991 when we considered the question of fully implementing the Pigot Report. I supported the amendments that were designed for that purpose and was able to tell the House that the Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges supported Pigot both when the report came out and despite the criticisms
94
made in the House in the debate on the Criminal Justice Bill the previous month. I also informed the House that the Criminal Bar Association was also in favour of the full implementation of the Pigot Report, which would have meant cross-examination following, as soon as the defence was able, on the examination-in-chief, or whatever was the appropriate description.
I also attended the meeting to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred, and at that stage had assumed that the present support for the full implementation of Pigot continued to exist, particularly as one of the circuit judges who had been in communication with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, had indicated that. It was following the meeting called by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that I learnt that the Lord Chief Justice had asked Lord Justice Rose to confer with his group to discover the attitude to having cross-examination earlier, and before the trial. The information which we received, and which was recorded in the letter from the Lord Chief Justice to the Minister, indicated that the judges consulted by Lord Justice Rose were not in favour of the proposals.
The judges who are at the sharp end of the subject are the circuit judges. Therefore, anxious to see whether there had been a change in the reaction of the Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges, I recently got in touch with the president, his Honour Judge Fawcus, who got in touch with Judge Balston, the chairman in charge of the committee concerned with this aspect of law reform. In the very limited time available, he sought views. Some of the views were provided under a misconception that the proposal was that within days of the completion of the video of the evidence-in-chief the defence should be obliged to cross-examine. That was never the proposal. The proposal always was that that should happen as soon as the defence was ready to cross-examine. That might be a matter of even two or three months. As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful], said, there is a degree of split between the judges as to how the present system is working. All of them agree that a balance has to be held between the interests of the child witness and fairness to the defendant. The question is how to achieve that balance.
One of the factors which is holding up the speedy implementation of trials is the public interest immunity plea which is taken in regard to local authority documents where the child is in care because the defence wishes to see whether there is any material which relates to the defence. The public interest immunity plea is then taken and the unfortunate judge has to wade through a mass of documents to see to what extent the plea is valid and to what extent there is material which will assist the defence.
I very much agree with the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that more minds have to be brought to bear on this question. Experiences need to be exchanged and consideration must be given to trying to expedite the hearing because the answer to the rival views is accepted by them to be, "Get the hearing on as soon as you can and then the question of having the cross-examination prior to the trial won't arise".

95
I should like to make one final point with regard to the proposals. The bogeys that are always produced are that you have the cross-examination and everybody is happy, but that all of a sudden new material comes onto the scene and the child has to be recalled, and then more new material comes onto the scene and there are further recalls and recalls. That is not how I envisaged it at all. If there has to be a recall, I have always assumed that that recall will take place at or very close to the trial because if further requests for cross-examination arise, those are all grouped together.
However, there is a danger of over-exaggerating the risk of recall. One is not dealing with many potential defences. The question of consent does not arise as it does with many sexual offences. The issue often may be: did it ever happen at all? Is it a case of childish imagination? Was it the defendant who was the guilty party or some other person? That does not throw up many potential fields for further cross-examination once cross-examination has taken place at a time when the defence is confident of being able to exercise it. Therefore, as I have said, I support very much the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull.
8.45 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly support the amendments and make one or two additional points that have not yet been made. Although I support Amendment No. 108, I believe that there are some significant additions in the current group of amendments which I should like to see incorporated into the Bill. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, rightly said, we are pressing for fairness and justice between the prosecution, the defendant and the child witness. Clearly, it is a question of balance. Although the prosecution and the defence will have their members of the Bar with them, the main problem with which we are all concerned is the welfare of the child. That is the most tricky point to resolve.
Various points have been made to me in my discussions with people who are expert with young children. First, where there is a long delay, it is perfectly possible for a child who has had a nasty experience to be able, as a self-defence mechanism, to blot the memory right out of his or her mind. That means that, although the child will give evidence on a video shortly after the event, if six months then pass before recall, the child may quite truthfully have no recollection of the event. That does not mean that the child has had therapy and has been cured of the trauma of the disastrous event, because it will resurface later. It means that the later bout of evidence will be unreliable. Therefore I urge that we do our utmost to ensure speedy events and for any recall evidence to be unable to contradict what was said previously. I have been given examples of how that has wrecked cases.
I should like to emphasise the need to have any child hearings, whether videoed or not, in informal surroundings. While I do not press for judges to wear jeans and a teeshirt to hear a matter involving a child, I press for an informal room, with the parties not wearing
96
robes or wigs. If a child can be signed off after a video hearing at which, after all, defence and prosecution representatives are present, the therapy can begin straightaway, as the noble Lord, Lord Acton, rightly said. That is important for the welfare of the child.
As the 1994 Social Services Inspectorate report on this matter stated:
"The users of the video link are more likely to describe the proceedings as fair".
That is the right and proper way in which we should be going. Therefore I end where I began: in the pursuit of fairness these amendments are important. I hope that further consultations will bear fruit before Third Reading. I warmly support the principles embodied in the amendments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government share the concern for the welfare of child witnesses which has motivated this group of amendments. When introducing them, my noble friend mentioned our recent meeting to discuss the child witness arrangements and how they might be improved. It was a very helpful meeting and illustrated that there is much more upon which we agree than upon which we differ. The Government accept that there is scope to improve the present arrangements. I outlined a few minutes ago the range of measures which we are taking. We are confident that they will secure practical benefits for children. I have to say that we are not persuaded that the same can be said of the changes proposed in these amendments.
My noble friend has explained that the new clause (Amendment No. 109) provides for pre-trial cross-examination of children to be conducted in informal surroundings and to be video recorded for use at the trial. The aim is to conduct the cross-examination sooner so that the quality of evidence is better, stress is reduced and the child can, if necessary, receive therapy sooner. I think we would probably all agree that if those benefits could be achieved they would be a prize worth having. Unfortunately, we doubt that they can be achieved. Indeed, we are concerned that the result could be more stress for the child, not less. As your Lordships would expect, on an issue as important as this, we have also sought the views of the Lord Chief Justice who shares our concerns.
Although it might be possible to put some questions at an early stage, a proper cross-examination cannot take place until the defence is fully prepared and ready to proceed with the trial. I might say in passing that that is where the delays arise. They are proper delays, because until the defence is properly prepared for the trial it would be inappropriate and unfair to go ahead. That means that in most cases cross-examination could not take place more than a few days earlier than at present. I recognise that the further amendment (Amendment No. 113A) tabled by my noble friend seeks to reduce delays by imposing a time limit within which the pre-trial cross-examination must take place. For the reasons I have just explained, the practical effect would be to impose a time limit within which both sides must be ready, not just for cross-examination, but for the trial to proceed. It is clear, therefore, that pre-trial

97
cross-examination does not of itself provide a practical solution to the problem of delay. It is a problem which we are keen to tackle. We and the Lord Chief Justice believe that action to reduce delay provides a better way of helping children than pre-trial cross-examination. Whether time limits of the kind proposed by my noble friend have a part to play in achieving that objective is a matter which we need to consider carefully and as regards which we need to consult others.
We are concerned also that whenever it does take place, pre-trial cross-examination could lead to recall and more stress for the child. It is most unlikely that in a contested case the defendant would guarantee not to seek a recall in any circumstances. The amendments recognise that a recall might be needed and provide that it shall take place out of court and under the same conditions as the original cross-examination. The scope for recalls is a matter upon which we have specifically sought the views of the Lord Chief Justice. He considers that further questions which the defence want to put to the child might easily arise and that, bearing in mind the judge's overriding responsibility to ensure a fair trial, the judge could not reasonably refuse the defence the chance to do so. The result would be not one cross-examination as at present, but two or perhaps even more. The possibility of recall would create uncertainty for the child who might have to appear again at short notice.
I understand the desire that children who are victims of these hideous crimes should receive any therapy they need as soon as possible. But again, pre-trial cross-examination does not appear to provide the answer. It is already possible for therapy to be given in some cases in advance of the trial. But if cross-examination cannot be done much earlier than at present, and if there would still be the possibility of recall, the difficulties of providing therapy in certain cases would still arise under these proposed arrangements.
If we were convinced of the benefits of pre-trial cross-examination, we would have adopted it by now. There are genuine reservations—reservations which I must say are shared by the Lord Chief Justice and his senior colleagues—about the principle of pre-trial cross-examination and its potential effect on the child. Those reservations must be resolved before it would be right to legislate. We will continue to keep the arrangements under review, but we cannot support this new clause.
The new clause (Amendment No. 110) appears to be designed to achieve a similar outcome, but by a different route. Sections 42 and 43 of the 1933 Act were intended to provide a method of getting emergency so-called "sick-bed" evidence by children tested at the bedside and admitted into court. The test that giving evidence in court would involve a serious danger to the child's life or health is a very high one to meet. That may explain why the provisions are hardly ever used. In addition, evidence taken that way is admissible only if the defence has had an opportunity to cross-examine the child. In other words, allowing video recording of evidence taken that way raises all the difficulties about
98
pre-trial cross-examination to which I have just referred. If a child is seriously ill it must be doubtful whether the child should be expected to have to video record evidence or undergo cross-examination. If a child is fit enough to give evidence on video or a live link, the best course must be to make use of the specific provisions which have been introduced following the Pigot Report. Those provisions are subject to detailed rules of court and the Memorandum of Good Practice is designed to ensure that they operate as effectively as possible.
My noble friend explained how the amendment to provide for questioning by an intermediary would work. It is also important to recognise that the proposal assumes that provision has been made for video recording of pre-trial cross-examination which, as I have explained, the Government cannot support. That apart, it is clear that we are not talking about the use of interpreters who are already used when necessary. Nor would there be any benefit to the child if the intermediary relayed the question in precisely the same style and words. The proposal is that the intermediary should be able to adjust the style and content of the questioning. The danger here is that in doing so, the intermediary could ask questions in a way that is prejudicial to the conduct of the case, and so to the interests of the child, and flies in the face of justice for the defendant. Questions could be misunderstood or may lose their purpose and the value of spontaneous dialogue could be lost.
Those are reservations which were recognised by the Pigot Committee when the proposal was first made. They are concerns which the Lord Chief Justice shares. There are ways in which the present arrangements might be improved to try to ensure that so far as possible questioning of children reflects their particular needs and abilities. We are considering what more can be done to encourage best practice.
The Government accept that the wishes of the child should be taken into account in deciding whether to make use of the facilities to give evidence by live TV link or video recording. That is already the firm policy of the Crown Prosecution Service. It may sometimes not be possible to obtain the child's views before, as this amendment requires, an application to the court is made. The difficulty with statutory requirements of this kind is that they cannot always cater for the variety of cases which arise in practice. Where, as in this case, the objective can as well, and more flexibly, be achieved without legislation, we believe that that is the right course. We shall, as part of our further work to improve the existing arrangements, be seeking ways to ensure that the wishes of the child are so far as possible taken into account at all stages.
I am sorry to have spoken at such length, but it is important that the arguments for and against these amendments should be properly understood. We all have the same objective—making it easier for children to give their evidence with the minimum of distress. The Government are determined to implement changes which fulfil that objective. In addition to provision for binding rulings, there are a number of practical steps which we are taking to improve the present arrangements—measures which aim to increase the use

99
of video recorded evidence; make the television link easier to use; and, with the additional £30,000 funding we are providing, encourage best practice in dealing with child witnesses. We believe we should focus our efforts on achieving such practical improvements which will benefit children.
My noble friend posed a particular question. She asked whether I would respond positively to a request to meet an inter-disciplinary team. That is a useful suggestion and I would be prepared to meet such a team. I should like us to focus our attention on the ways in which the arrangements are working now and to consider proposals that the Government have put in hand and see how they will work while at the same time discussing other issues. I believe that it would be difficult to achieve fruitful conclusions between now and Third Reading. However, I have no argument at all in relation to the suggestion made by my noble friend.
I believe that monitoring should continue and that we should continue to do what can be done which is both compatible with justice to the defendant and addresses the pressures and stresses created for child witnesses.
9 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very full explanation which we are very grateful to have. However, I am disappointed. We are working in a democracy and it seems to me that we are not listening to the people who do the work; namely, social services workers, voluntary organisations, many, although not all, of the circuit judges and many, although not all, of the QCs and other members of the Bar. We must listen to the people who do the work and who have had experience of the provisions over the past five years. I realise that the noble Baroness has made some very valuable proposals which may improve matters, but I believe that they will not meet the anxieties which have been expressed this evening.
I wish to consider this matter between now and Third Reading. I wish there to be an inter-disciplinary meeting, which I believe could be arranged. On that basis, I hope that other noble Lords whose names are to the amendment will allow me to withdraw it this evening.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 110 to 113A not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 114:
After Clause 51, insert the following new clause—
("Fraud
FRAUD
. Schedule (Fraud) (which amends provisions relating to serious or complex fraud) shall have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 123 and 144. These provisions contain a number of amendments to the Criminal Justice Act 1987 in respect of the provisions on preparatory
100
hearings in cases of serious or complex fraud to ensure that, where necessary, the provisions in the 1987 Act are consistent with those in Part III of the Bill.
The main changes are as follows. First, Section 9 of the 1987 Act is amended so that an order made before the preparatory hearing will have the same status at the trial as an order made at the preparatory hearing. Secondly, new Section 9A after Section 9 provides that where a judge makes an order before the preparatory hearing, that order will be subject to the same provisions as orders made at the hearing. Thirdly, the judge may comment, and the jury may draw inferences, from any failure by either party to comply with the requirement of an order made before, as well as at, the preparatory hearing. Similarly, the judge may comment and the jury may draw inferences from any departure from the case disclosed before the hearing in exactly the same way as at the hearing. Finally, the reporting restrictions under Section 11 of the 1987 Act are brought into line with those under Part III of the Bill and a number of omissions in the 1987 Act are rectified. There are a number of other technical amendments of limited consequence. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 115:
After Clause 51, insert the following new clause—
("Alibi
ALIBI
.—(1) Section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (notice of alibi) shall cease to have effect, but subject to the following provisions of this section.
(2) Subsection (1) does not affect the application of section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 to proceedings before courts-martial by virtue of section 12 of that Act.
(3) The reference in section 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 to section 11 as it applies to proceedings on indictment shall be construed as a reference to it as it would apply to proceedings on indictment apart from subsection (1) of this section.
(4) In section 9(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 (disclosure in cases involving fraud) in paragraph (a) for the words "section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967" there shall be substituted "section 5(5) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996".
(5) This section applies in relation to alleged offences into which no criminal investigation, within the meaning given by section 1(4), has begun before the day appointed under section 1(5).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Orders and regulations]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendments Nos. 116 to 118:
Page 32, line 19, at beginning insert —
("( ) This section concerns the power of the Secretary of State to make an order or regulations under this Act.").
Page 32, line 19, leave out ("under this Act").
Page 32, line 22, leave out ("under this Act").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving these amendments I shall speak also to Amendment No. 120. These are technical amendments. Clause 53 provides that the power to make an order under the Bill is to be exercised by statutory instrument. This is designed with orders made by the Secretary of State in mind. The Bill also provides for the court to

101
make an order in certain circumstances; for example, an order relating to the disclosure of material to the accused under Part I. These are not orders which should be made by statutory instrument. Accordingly, Amendment No. 116 limits Clause 53 to orders made by the Secretary of State. The other three amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 32, line 23, at end insert—
("(2A) No order under section 18 shall have effect unless approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 74. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 32, line 24, leave out ("under this Act").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 116. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [Extent]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 32, line 27, leave out from ("exception") to end of line 28 and insert ("of—

(a) sections 30, 31, 34, 35, (Restriction on reporting of assertions), 49, 50(3), (Fraud), this section and section 56;

(b) paragraph 6 of Schedule (Fraud), and paragraph 7 of that Schedule so far as it relates to paragraph 6;

(c) paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 so far as it relates to provisions amending section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 54(1) sets out the provisions of the Bill which extend to Scotland. The relevant provisions are concerned with reporting restrictions which operate throughout Great Britain. This amendment is consequential on two other sets of government amendments to the Bill which have been made on Report and which also extend to Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Transfer for Trial]:
[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 123:
After Schedule I, insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE
FRAUD
Introduction
1. The Criminal Justice Act 1987 shall be amended as provided by this Schedule.
Preparatory hearings
2. In section 7 (power to order preparatory hearing) subsections (3) to (5) (power to make order that could be made at the hearing) shall be omitted.
3.—(1) Section 9 (the preparatory hearing) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (7) (warning of possible consequence under section 10(1)) the word "(1)" shall be omitted.
(3) In subsection (10) for the words "at or for the purposes of a preparatory hearing" there shall be substituted "under this section".
4. The following section shall be inserted after section 9—
"Orders before preparatory hearing.
9A.—(1) Subsection (2) below applies where—

(a) a judge orders a preparatory hearing, and

(b) he decides that any order which could be made under section 9(4) or (5) above at the hearing should be made before the hearing.

(2) In such a case—

(a) he may make any such order before the hearing (or at the hearing), and

(b) subsections (4) to (10) of section 9 above shall apply accordingly."

5. The following section shall be substituted for section 10 (later stages of trial)—
"Later stages of trial.
10.—(1) Any party may depart from the case he disclosed in pursuance of a requirement imposed under section 9 above.
(2) Where—

(a) a party departs from the case he disclosed in pursuance of a requirement imposed under section 9 above, or

(b) a party fails to comply with such a requirement,

the judge or, with the leave of the judge, any other party may make such comment as appears to the judge or the other party (as the case may be) to be appropriate and the jury may draw such inference as appears proper.
(3) In deciding whether to give leave the judge shall have regard—

(a) to the extent of the departure or failure, and

(b) to whether there was any justification for it.

(4) Except as provided by this section no part—

(a) of a statement given under section 9(5) above, or

(b) of any other information relating to the case for the accused or, if there is more than one, the case for any of them, which was given in pursuance of a requirement imposed under section 9 above,

may be disclosed at a stage in the trial after the jury have been sworn without the consent of the accused concerned."
Reporting restrictions
6. The following sections shall be substituted for section 11 (reporting restrictions)—
"Restrictions on reporting.
11 .—(1) Except as provided by this section—

(a) no written report of proceedings falling within subsection (2) below shall be published in Great Britain;

(b) no report of proceedings falling within subsection (2) below shall be included in a relevant programme for reception in Great Britain.

(2) The following proceedings fall within this subsection—

(a) an application under section 6(1) above;

(b) a preparatory hearing;

(c) an application for leave to appeal in relation to such a hearing;

(d) an appeal in relation to such a hearing.

(3) The judge dealing with an application under section 6(1) above may order that subsection (1) above shall not apply, or shall not apply to a specified extent, to a report of the application.
(4) The judge dealing with a preparatory hearing may order that subsection (1) above shall not apply, or shall not apply to a specified extent, to a report of—

(a) the preparatory hearing, or

103

(b) an application to the judge for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal under section 9(11) above in relation to the preparatory hearing.

(5) The Court of Appeal may order that subsection (1) above shall not apply, or shall not apply to a specified extent, to a report of—

(a) an appeal to the Court of Appeal under section 9(11) above in relation to a preparatory hearing,

(b) an application to that Court for leave to appeal to it under section 9(11) above in relation to a preparatory hearing, or

(c) an application to that Court for leave to appeal to the House of Lords under Part II of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 in relation to a preparatory hearing.

(6) The House of Lords may order that subsection (1) above shall not apply, or shall not apply to a specified extent, to a report of—

(a) an appeal to that House under Part II of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 in relation to a preparatory hearing, or

(b) an application to that House for leave to appeal to it under Part II of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 in relation to a preparatory hearing.

(7) Where there is only one accused and he objects to the making of an order under subsection (3), (4), (5) or (6) above the judge or the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords shall make the order if (and only if) satisfied after hearing the representations of the accused that it is in the interests of justice to do so; and if the order is made it shall not apply to the extent that a report deals with any such objection or representations.
(8) Where there are two or more accused and one or more of them objects to the making of an order under subsection (3), (4), (5) or (6) above the judge or the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords shall make the order if (and only if) satisfied after hearing the representations of each of the accused that it is in the interests of justice to do so; and if the order is made it shall not apply to the extent that a report deals with any such objection or representations.
(9) Subsection (1) above does not apply to—

(a) the publication of a report of an application under section 6(1) above, or

(b) the inclusion in a relevant programme of a report of an application under section 6(1) above,

where the application is successful.
(10) Where—

(a) two or more persons are jointly charged, and

(b) applications under section 6(1) above are made by more than one of them,

subsection (9) above shall have effect as if for the words "the application is" there were substituted "all the applications are".
(11) Subsection (1) above does not apply to—

(a) the publication of a report of an unsuccessful application made under section 6(1) above,

(b) the publication of a report of a preparatory hearing,

(c) the publication of a report of an appeal in relation to a preparatory hearing or of an application for leave to appeal in relation to such a hearing,

(d) the inclusion in a relevant programme of a report of an unsuccessful application made under section 6(1) above,

(e) the inclusion in a relevant programme of a report of a preparatory hearing, or

(f) the inclusion in a relevant programme of a report of an appeal in relation to a preparatory hearing or of an application for leave to appeal in relation to such a hearing,

at the conclusion of the trial of the accused or of the last of the accused to be tried.
(12) Subsection (1) above does not apply to a report which contains only one or more of the following matters—

(a) the identity of the court and the name of the judge;

(b) the names, ages, home addresses and occupations of the accused and witnesses;

(c) any relevant business information;

(d) the offence or offences, or a summary of them, with which the accused is or are charged;

(e) the names of counsel and solicitors in the proceedings;

(f) where the proceedings are adjourned, the date and place to which they are adjourned;

(g) any arrangements as to bail;

(h) whether legal aid was granted to the accused or any of the accused.

(13) The addresses that may be published or included in a relevant programme under subsection (12) above are addresses—

(a) at any relevant time, and

(b) at the time of their publication or inclusion in a relevant programme;

and "relevant time" here means a time when events giving rise to the charges to which the proceedings relate occurred.
(14) The following is relevant business information for the purposes of subsection (12) above—

(a) any address used by the accused for carrying on a business on his own account;

(b) the name of any business which he was carrying on on his own account at any relevant time;

(c) the name of any firm in which he was a partner at any relevant time or by which he was engaged at any such time;

(d) the address of any such firm;

(e) the name of any company of which he was a director at any relevant time or by which he was otherwise engaged at any such time;

(f) the address of the registered or principal office of any such company;

(g) any working address of the accused in his capacity as a person engaged by any such company;

and here "engaged" means engaged under a contract of service or a contract for services, and "relevant time" has the same meaning as in subsection (13) above.
(15) Nothing in this section affects any prohibition or restriction imposed by virtue of any other enactment on a publication or on matter included in a programme.
(16) In this section—

(a) "publish", in relation to a report, means publish the report, either by itself or as part of a newspaper or periodical, for distribution to the public;

(b) expressions cognate with "publish" shall be construed accordingly;

(c) "relevant programme" means a programme included in a programme service, within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990.

Offences in connection with reporting.
11A.—(1) If a report is published or included in a relevant programme in contravention of section 11 above each of the following persons is guilty of an offence—

(a) in the case of a publication of a written report as part of a newspaper or periodical, any proprietor, editor or publisher of the newspaper or periodical;

(b) in the case of a publication of a written report otherwise than as part of a newspaper or periodical, the person who publishes it;

(c) in the case of the inclusion of a report in a relevant programme, any body corporate which is engaged in providing the service in which the programme is included and any person having functions in relation to the programme corresponding to those of an editor of a newspaper.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(3) Proceedings for an offence under this section shall not he instituted in England and Wales otherwise than by or with the consent of the Attorney General.
(4) Subsection (16) of section 11 above applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that."
General.
7.—(1) This Schedule applies in relation to an offence if—

(a) proceedings for the trial on the charge concerned are transferred to the Crown Court on or after the appointed day. or

(b) a bill of indictment relating to the offence is preferred on or after the appointed day under the authority of section 2(2)(b) of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 (bill preferred by direction of Court of Appeal, or by direction or with consent of a judge).

(2) References in this paragraph to the appointed day are to such day as is appointed for the purposes of this Schedule by the Secretary of State by order.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 114. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Modifications for Northern Ireland]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendments Nos. 124 to 141.
Page 37, line 22, at end insert —
( ) paragraph 7 of the Schedule to the War Crimes Act 1991; or").
Page 37, leave out lines 27 to 37 and insert—
(""(1) This Part applies where a person is charged with an offence, the court proceeds to deal summarily with the charge and that person pleads not guilty.
(2) This Part also applies where—

(a) a person is charged with an indictable offence and —

(i) he is committed for trial on the charge concerned; or

(ii) a notice of transfer relating to the charge is given to the court;

(b) a count charging a person with a summary offence is included in an indictment under the authority of Article 193A of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (offences relating to drink or drugs), or

(c) an indictment charging a person with an indictable offence is presented under the authority of section 2(2)(c), (d), (e) or (f) of the Grand Jury (Abolition) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969.

(2A) In subsection (2)—

"indictable offence" means an offence which is triable on indictment, whether it is exclusively so triable or not;

"summary offence" has the same meaning as in Article 193A of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981."").

Page 37. line 46, at end insert ("paragraph 10 of the Schedule to the War Crimes Act 1991 or").
Page 37, line 48, at end insert ("or
(c) section 1(2)(c) applies and the prosecutor has served on the accused a copy of the set of documents containing the evidence which is the basis of the charge.").
Page 38, leave out lines 11 to 13.
Page 38, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert—
("8. In section 14(3) for paragraphs (b) to (d) substitute—

"(b) the accused is committed for trial or the notice of transfer is given (where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2)(a)),

(c) the count is included in the indictment (where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2)(b)), or

(d) the indictment is presented (where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2)(c))".").

Page 38, line 26, leave out from first ("a") to ("takes") in line 27 and insert ("hearing is a pre-trial hearing if it relates to a trial on indictment and it").
Page 38, line 30, at end insert—
("(1A) For the purposes of this Part a hearing is also a pre-trial hearing if

(a) it relates to a trial on indictment to be held in pursuance of an indictment presented under the authority of section 2(2)(c). (d), (e) or (f) of the Grand Jury (Abolition) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, and

(b) it takes place after the indictment has been presented and before the start of the trial.").

Page 39, leave out lines 2 to 4 and insert—
("12. In section 44(6) omit paragraph (b) and in paragraph (c) for "section 1 of the Perjury Act 1911" substitute "Article 3 of the Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979".").
Page 39, leave out lines 17 to 19 and insert—
("15.—(1) In section 48(1) omit paragraph (b) and the word "or" immediately before it.
(2) In section 48(11) omit paragraph (b).
15A. In section (Restriction on reporting of assertions)(1) for "Great Britain" where it twice occurs substitute "Northern Ireland".").
Page 39, line 19, at end insert—
(". In section (Television links and video recordings) for subsections (1) and (2) substitute—
"(1) In Article 81 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (evidence through television links) the following paragraphs shall be inserted after paragraph (3) —
"(3A) Where the court gives leave under paragraph (2) for a witness falling within paragraph (1)(b)(ii) to give evidence through a live television link, then, subject to paragraph (3B), the witness concerned may not give evidence otherwise than through a live television link.
(3B) In a case falling within paragraph (3A) the court may give permission for the witness to give evidence otherwise than through a live television link if it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to give such permission.
(3C) Permission may be given under paragraph (3B)—

(a) on an application by a party to the case, or

(b) of the court's own motion;

but no application may be made under sub-paragraph (a) unless there has been a material change of circumstances since the leave was given under paragraph (2)."
(2) In Article 81A of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (video recordings of testimony from child witnesses) the following paragraphs shall be inserted after paragraph (6)—
"(6A) Where the court gives leave under paragraph (2) the child witness shall not give relevant evidence (within the meaning given by paragraph (6D)) otherwise than by means of the video recording; but this is subject to paragraph (6B).
(6B) In a case falling within paragraph (6A) the court may give permission for the child witness to give relevant evidence (within the meaning given by paragraph (6D)) otherwise than by means of the video recording if it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to give such permission.
(6C) Permission may be given under paragraph (6B)—

(a) on an application by a party to the case, or

(b) of the court's own motion;

but no application may be made under sub-paragraph (a) unless there has been a material change of circumstances since the leave was given under paragraph (2).
(6D) For the purposes of paragraphs (6A) and (6B) evidence is relevant evidence if—

(a) it is evidence in chief on behalf of the party who tendered the video recording, and

(b) it relates to matter which, in the opinion of the court, is dealt with in the recording and which the court has not directed to be excluded under paragraph (3).".").

Page 39, line 19, at end insert—
(".—(1) In section (Alibi) for subsection (1) substitute—

"(1) The Evidence of Alibi Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 shall cease to have effect."

(2) In section (Alibi) omit subsections (2) and (3).

(3) In section (Alibi) for subsection (4) substitute—

"(4) In Article 8(6) of the Criminal Justice (Serious Fraud) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (disclosure in cases involving fraud) in sub-paragraph (a) for the words "section 1 of the Evidence of Alibi Act (Northern Ireland) 1972" there shall be substituted the words "section 5(5) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996".").

Page 39, leave out line 20 and insert—
("16. In section 52(1) for "sections 42(3) and 44(7)" substitute "section 44(7)".").
Page 39, line 21, at end insert—
("17A. For Schedule (Fraud) substitute—
"SCHEDULE
FRAUD
Introduction
1. The Criminal Justice (Serious Fraud) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 shall be amended as provided by this Schedule.
Notice of transfer
2. In Article 3 (transfer of certain fraud cases to the Crown Court) in paragraph (1)(b)(ii) for the words "seriousness and complexity" there shall be substituted the words "seriousness or complexity".
Preparatory hearings
3.—(1) Article 6 (power to order preparatory hearing) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (1) for the words "seriousness and complexity" there shall be substituted the words "seriousness or complexity".
(3) Paragraphs (3) to (5) (power to make order that could be made at the hearing) shall be omitted.
4.—(1) Article 8 (the preparatory hearing) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (7) (warning of possible consequence under Article 9(1)) the word "(1)" shall be omitted.
(3) In paragraph (10) for the words "at or for the purposes of a preparatory hearing" there shall be substituted "under this Article".
5. The following Article shall be inserted after Article 8—
"Orders before preparatory hearing
8A.—(1) Paragraph (2) applies where—

(a) a judge orders a preparatory hearing, and

(b) he decides that any order which could be made under Article 8(4) or (5) at the hearing should be made before the hearing.

(2) In such a case—

(a) he may make any such order before the hearing (or at the hearing), and

(b) paragraphs (4) to (10) of Article 8 shall apply accordingly."

6. The following Article shall be substituted for Article 9 (later stages of trial)—
"Later stages of trial
9.—(1) Any party may depart from the case he disclosed in pursuance of a requirement imposed under Article 8.
(2) Where—

(a) a party departs from the case he disclosed in pursuance of a requirement imposed under Article 8, or

(b) a party fails to comply with such a requirement,

the judge or, with the leave of the judge, any other party may make such comment as appears to the judge or the other party (as the case may be) to be appropriate and the jury may draw such inference as appears proper.
(3) In deciding whether to give leave the judge shall have regard—

(a) to the extent of the departure or failure, and

(b) to whether there was any justification for it

(4) Except as provided by this Article no part—

(a) of a statement given under Article 8(5), or

(b) of any other information relating to the case for the accused or, if there is more than one, the case for any of them, which was given in pursuance of a requirement imposed under Article 8,

may be disclosed at a stage in the trial after the jury have been sworn without the consent of the accused concerned."
Reporting restrictions
7. The following Articles shall be substituted for Article 10 (reporting restrictions)—
"Restrictions on reporting
10.—(1) Except as provided by this Article—

(a) no written report of proceedings falling within paragraph (2) shall be published in Northern Ireland;

(b) no report of proceedings falling within paragraph (2) shall be included in a relevant programme for reception in Northern Ireland.

(2) The following proceedings fall within this paragraph—

(a) an application under Article 5(1);

(b) a preparatory hearing;

(c) an application for leave to appeal in relation to such a hearing;

(d) an appeal in relation to such a hearing.

(3) The judge dealing with an application under Article 5(1) may order that paragraph (1) shall not apply, or shall not apply to a specified extent, to a report of the application.
(4) The judge dealing with a preparatory hearing may order that paragraph (1) shall not apply, or shall not apply to a specified extent, to a report of—

(a) the preparatory hearing, or

(b) an application to the judge for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal under Article 8(11) in relation to the preparatory hearing.

(5) The Court of Appeal may order that paragraph (1) shall not apply, or shall not apply to a specified extent, to a report of—

(a) an appeal to the Court of Appeal under Article 8(11) in relation to a preparatory hearing,

(b) an application to that Court for leave to appeal to it under Article 8(11) in relation to a preparatory hearing, or

(c) an application to that Court for leave to appeal to the House of Lords under Part II of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 in relation to a preparatory hearing.

(6) The House of Lords may order that paragraph (1) shall not apply, or shall not apply to a specified extent, to a report of—

(a) an appeal to that House under Part II of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 in relation to a preparatory hearing, or

(b) an application to that House for leave to appeal to it under Part II of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 in relation to a preparatory hearing.

(7) Where there is only one accused and he objects to the making of an order under paragraph (3), (4), (5) or (6) the judge or the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords shall make the order if (and only if) satisfied after hearing the representations of the accused that it is in the interests of justice to do so; and if the order is made it shall riot apply to the extent that a report deals with any such objection or representations.
(8) Where there are two or more accused and one or more of them objects to the making of an order under paragraph (3), (4), (5) or (6) the judge or the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords shall make the order if (and only if) satisfied after hearing the representations of each of the accused that it is in the interests of justice to do so; and if the order is made it shall not apply to the extent that a report deals with any such objection or representations.
(9) Paragraph (1) does not apply to—

(a) the publication of a report of an application under Article 5(1), or

(b) the inclusion in a relevant programme of a report of an application under Article 5(1),

where the application is successful.
(10) Where—

(a) two or more persons are jointly charged, and

(b) applications under Article 5(1) are made by more than one of them,

paragraph (9) shall have effect as if for the words "the application is" there were substituted "all the applications are".
(11) Paragraph (1) does not apply to—

(a) the publication of a report of an unsuccessful application made under Article 5(1),

(b) the publication of a report of a preparatory hearing,

(c) the publication of a report of an appeal in relation to a preparatory hearing or of an application for leave to appeal in relation to such a hearing,

(d) the inclusion in a relevant programme of a report of an unsuccessful application made under Article 5(1),

(e) the inclusion in a relevant programme of a report of a preparatory hearing, or

(f) the inclusion in a relevant programme of a report of an appeal in relation to a preparatory hearing or of an application for leave to appeal in relation to such a hearing,

at the conclusion of the trial of the accused or of the last of the accused to be tried.
(12) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a report which contains only one or more of the following matters—

(a) the identity of the court and the name of the judge;

(b) the names, ages, home addresses and occupations of the accused and witnesses;

(c) any relevant business information;

(d) the offence or offences, or a summary of them, with which the accused is or are charged;

(e) the names of counsel and solicitors in the proceedings;

(f) where the proceedings are adjourned, the date and place to which they are adjourned;

(g) any arrangements as to bail;

(h) whether legal aid was granted to the accused or any of the accused.

(13) The addresses that may be published or included in a relevant programme under paragraph (12) are addresses—

(a) at any relevant time, and

(b) at the time of their publication or inclusion in a relevant programme;

and "relevant time" here means a time when events giving rise to the charges to which the proceedings relate occurred.
(14) The following is relevant business information for the purposes of paragraph (12)—

(a) any address used by the accused for carrying on a business on his own account;

(b) the name of any business which he was carrying on on his own account at any relevant time;

(c) the name of any firm in which he was a partner at any relevant time or by which he was engaged at any such time;

(d) the address of any such firm;

(e) the name of any company of which he was a director at any relevant time or by which he was otherwise engaged at any such time;

(f) the address of the registered or principal office of any such company;

(g) any working address of the accused in his capacity as a person engaged by any such company;

and here "engaged" means engaged under a contract of service or a contract for services, and "relevant time" has the same meaning as in paragraph (13).
(15) Nothing in this Article affects any prohibition or restriction imposed by virtue of any other enactment on a publication or on matter included in a programme.
(16) In this Article—

(a) "publish", in relation to a report, means publish the report, either by itself or as part of a newspaper or periodical, for distribution to the public;

(b) expressions cognate with "publish" shall be construed accordingly;

(c) "relevant programme" means a programme included in a programme service, within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990.

Offences in connection with reporting
10A.—(1) If a report is published or included in a relevant programme in contravention of Article 10 each of the following persons is guilty of an offence—

(a) in the case of a publication of a written report as part of a newspaper or periodical, any proprietor, editor or publisher of the newspaper or periodical;

(b) in the case of a publication of a written report otherwise than as part of a newspaper or periodical, the person who publishes it;

(c) in the case of the inclusion of a report in a relevant programme, any body corporate which is engaged in providing the service in which the programme is included and any person having functions in relation to the programme corresponding to those of an editor of a newspaper.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this Article is liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(3) Proceedings for an offence under this Article shall not be instituted otherwise than by or with the consent of the Attorney General for Northern Ireland.
(4) Paragraph (16) of Article 10 applies for the purposes of this Article as it applies for the purposes of that."
General
8.—(1) This Schedule applies in relation to an offence if—

(a) the accused is committed for trial on the charge concerned, or proceedings for the trial on the charge concerned are transferred to the Crown Court, on or after the appointed day, or

(b) an indictment relating to the offence is presented on or after the appointed day under the authority of section 2(2)(c), (e) or (1) of the Grand Jury (Abolition) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969.

(2) References in this paragraph to the appointed day are to such day as is appointed for the purposes of this Schedule by the Secretary of State by order.").
Page 39, line 24, at end insert—
(" 1. ALIBI ").
Page 39, line 35, at end insert—

("1995 NI 3.

The Children's Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.

In Schedule 2, paragraph 6.").

Page 39, line 36, leave out ("1(3)") and insert ("(Alibi)").
Page 39, line 36, at end insert—
(" 2. FRAUD

Chapter or number

Short title

Extent of repeal

1988 NI 16.

The Criminal Justice Article 6(3) to (5). (Serious Fraud)(Northern Ireland) Order 1988.

Article 6(3) to (5)

In Article 8(7) the word "(1)".

1990 c. 42.

The Broadcasting Act 1990.

In Schedule 20, paragraph 50.

These repeals have effect in accordance with Schedule (Fraud) to this Act.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, all these amendments concern the application of the Bill to Northern Ireland. They amend Schedule 2, which in turn modifies the way the Bill operates in relation to Northern Ireland, taking account of the different statutory framework there. For the most part, the amendments correspond entirely in their purpose to those already approved by your Lordships' House in respect of England and Wales. Unless your Lordships wish to raise particular points, I do not wish to detain the House by seeking to explain them in detail.
However, I should draw attention to paragraphs 2 and 3(2) of the schedule relating to fraud in Northern Ireland. It is proposed to substitute this for the schedule
112
that your Lordships have already approved in respect of England and Wales. It is largely to the same effect, but it also widens the scope of the provisions on notices of transfer and preparatory hearings by permitting them to be held in any case of fraud of sufficient seriousness or complexity. The criterion at present is "seriousness and complexity". Similar amendments, which follow a recommendation of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, have already been made in the England and Wales provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to. Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 142 and 143:
Page 40, leave out lines 3 to 11.
Page 41, line 14, at end insert—
("7. ALIBI

Chapter

Short title

Extent of repeal

1967 c. 80.

Criminal Justice Act 1967

Section 11.

1980 c. 43.

Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

In Schedule 7, paragraph 64.

1987 c. 38.

Criminal Justice Act 1987

In Schedule 2,paragraph 2.

1994 c. 33.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

In Schedule 4, paragraph 15(3). In Schedule 9, paragraphs 6(2) and 7.

These repeals have effect in accordance with section (Alibi) of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 140. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 41, line 14, at end insert—
("8. FRAUD

Chapter

Short title

Extent of repeal

1987 c.38.

Criminal Justice Act 1987.

In section 7,subsections (3) to (5).

In section 9(7), the word "(1)".

1988 c.33.

Criminal Justice Act 1988.

In Schedule 15, paragraph 114.

1990 c.42.

Broadcasting Act 1990.

In Schedule 20, paragraph 47.")

These repeals have effect in accordance with Schedule (Fraud) to this Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past nine o'clock.

  Judgments: Control of Enforcement Agencies
  Judgments: Control of Enforcement Agencies
  Campbeltown/Ballycastle Ferry Service
  Campbeltown/Ballycastle Ferry Service
  Satellite Sensors: Development Policy
  Satellite Sensors: Development Policy
  Lloyd's
  Lloyd's
  Mentally Handicapped People: Community Care
  Mentally Handicapped People: Community Care
  Women Prisoners with Children
  Women Prisoners with Children
  Bracken Control Grants
  Bracken Control Grants
  Passenger Rail Franchise Agreements
  Passenger Rail Franchise Agreements
  Bunscoil an Iuir: Grant-aid Application
  Bunscoil an Iuir: Grant-aid Application
  Treaties in Force
  Treaties in Force
  Former Yugoslavia: US Military Activities and OSCE
  Former Yugoslavia: US Military Activities and OSCE
  Former Yugoslavia: Withdrawal of US Troops
  Former Yugoslavia: Withdrawal of US Troops
  Former Yugoslavia: US Troops outside IFOR
  Former Yugoslavia: US Troops outside IFOR
  NATO: US Policy
  NATO: US Policy
  Russian Federation: Council of Europe Membership
  Russian Federation: Council of Europe Membership
  South Lebanon: Protests against Use of Banned Weapons
  South Lebanon: Protests against Use of Banned Weapons
  UN Special Representative of Internally Displaced People
  UN Special Representative of Internally Displaced People
  Bahrain
  Bahrain