Sitting of 19 February 1996

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

    Breast Cancer
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent assessment he has made of the mortality incidence of breast cancer in Wales relative to the rest of the United Kingdom. [14156]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards): Mortality from breast cancer in Wales is higher than in other parts of the United Kingdom, which may be partly a reflection of the higher incidence of the disease in Wales. Overall mortality from breast cancer in Wales fell by nearly 10 per cent. between 1988 and 1994, a rate of decline slightly greater than the UK average.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Why are lower targets being set in Wales than in England for a reduction in the incidence of mortality? Why are Welsh women expected to take second best? Before the Minister answers, since Scott has demonstrated that the Conservative party is in the
    2
    business of giving misleading and inaccurate answers, can he tell us whether he is telling the whole truth, part of the truth or his version of the truth?
    Mr. Richards: The hon. Lady has not lost her talent for being offensive. In Wales, the target is to reduce the breast cancer death rate in the screened age group—the group aged 50 to 64—by at least 25 per cent. by 2000. Ladies in Wales are not regarded as second best to ladies in England.

    Revenue Support Grant
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has had from local authorities in Wales concerning the level of revenue support grant proposed for the new unitary authorities. [14157]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): Several. My proposals for the 1996–97 local government revenue settlement were approved by the House on 8 February.
    Mr. Jones: Is the Secretary of State aware that the figures of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy show that the Clwyd county council area has lost roughly 400 teachers in the past three years and that, in that time, the number of pupils has increased by 700? That must mean larger class sizes. The level of revenue support grant means that the new unitary authorities in Clwyd are expected to fund teachers' pay by efficiency savings. That has to mean another cut and fewer teachers. What does the Secretary of State want to say to parents of my area, whose children will be taught in even bigger classes from April?
    Mr. Hague: Central Government support for local government spending is £864 per head in Wales, which is £132 per head higher than in England. When local authorities complain about that settlement, council tax

    3
    payers and parents should ask themselves, "Is every penny spent by the council spent wisely?" and, "Are all the things that local government spends money on necessary?" It is the right settlement and a generous one. It was approved by the House by a majority of 72 votes on 8 February and the hon. Gentleman did not even vote against it.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Opposition think that the revenue support grant is insufficient, the onus is on them to say how much it ought to be and where they would get the money from?
    Mr. Hague: Yes. There has been a notable silence from the Opposition Front Bench on that subject. They have been unable to say whether they think that the local government settlement should be higher, lower, a bit higher or a lot higher and they refused to say so throughout our debate on the subject two weeks ago. It is time that they came clean about their policy, instead of pretending to the voters that they would spend more but wanting to say in the House that they would not spend more at all.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: When considering the representations, how will the Secretary of State deal with the shortfall of more than £500,000 in the education budget in Powys caused by the decision of 200 to 300 16-year-olds to return to school rather than go to the local further education college? Will he ensure that the money that would have followed them to the college follows them back to their schools, so that they really have a choice about where to be educated?
    Mr. Hague: I do not think that it is possible to adjust budgets for local government and for the Further Education Funding Council on the basis of decisions made in each area. It is up to local authorities to manage the resources that are available to them, to use them as efficiently as possible and to serve the interests of their local residents as best as they can.
    Dr. Spink: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that council tax levels in Wales are 40 per cent. lower than they are in England, which represents a very good deal for the people of Wales? Notwithstanding that fact, does he agree that education in Wales is in good heart and in good condition, which we should welcome, and that we should be congratulating teachers in Wales rather than decrying their efforts?
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right that council tax levels in Wales are substantially lower than those in England. As he said, in recent years there have been marked improvements in education in Wales, as last week's report of our chief inspector of schools demonstrated. There is further work to be done, and the Government have a wide-ranging programme of initiatives to continue to raise standards in education in the coming years.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State confirm that his own parliamentary answers show that revenue support grant has been reduced as a proportion of local government spending? Will he further confirm—again from statistics issued by his office—that local education
    4
    authorities have reduced their administrative costs, despite which class sizes have increased, and that, under this year's settlement, central Government support for local government will reduce, as a result of which most local authorities in Wales expect to make cuts of approximately 3 per cent. in their education budgets, let alone in any of their other budgets? Why will not the Secretary of State do something positive to provide the resources to help teachers and local authorities, who are doing a good job against all the odds—and in spite of the Government?
    Mr. Hague: The figures show that, in the current year, the Government will provide 88.6 per cent. of local government total standard spending whereas in the coming year they will provide 87.8 per cent., which is a change of 0.8 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues object to that, it is incumbent on them to say what they think the percentage should be. I hand it to the hon. Gentleman because, in the debate 11 days ago, when the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), asked him whether he would spend more on education, alone among Labour Front Benchers, he said, "Yes." We now wait to hear from him how much that amount would be.

    European Currency
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment his Department has made of the effect a single European currency will have on the Welsh economy. [14158]
    Mr. Hague: None.
    Mr. Jones: That is the most astonishing answer. The Secretary of State for Wales has made no assessment whatsoever of the largest potential economic change that we can recall being predicted in recent times, which may occur no more than three years from now. The Secretary of State, with all his resources in the Welsh Office, has made no assessment. Is that because he has no interest in Wales, or is it because he wants to ensure that there is no extra room for argument on the Conservative Benches on that most vital issue?
    Mr. Hague: It is because this country has a choice about a single currency, thanks to the opt-out negotiated at Maastricht by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We will exercise that choice if or when the occasion arises. Any assessment of the benefits or otherwise would have to take into account the particular interests of Wales. As the United Kingdom has one currency, any decision would have to be based on the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Is not it a remarkable tribute to the economic management of this country that it is one of the few that could meet the convergence criteria? Our unemployment is falling, whereas it is increasing in other countries as they try to meet those criteria. Is not it clear that Conservative Members are safe on Europe, and that uncertainty results from the readiness of Opposition Members to sign anything that comes out of Brussels?
    Mr. Hague: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I sometimes get the impression that Opposition Members would sign any piece of paper that floated across the English channel. He is also right to say that we now face extraordinarily good economic circumstances—the best economic circumstances and prospects that we have had for a generation. Unemployment in Wales fell again last week—it did so by more than 1,000—and that record will continue as long as the Government are in office to pursue the policies that have achieved it.

    Unitary Authorities
    Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of Welsh local government to discuss the administration effects of the changeover to unitary authorities on 1 April. [14159]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): Last Thursday, when I met the hon. Gentleman and representatives of his local authority.
    Mr. Murphy: As we are now six weeks away from vesting day for the new unitary authorities, does the Minister agree that it is vital to ensure that—by that time, former—county council services, such as education and social services, are properly safeguarded? Will he therefore ensure that groups such as county youth orchestras and drama groups such as Gwent theatre in education are properly protected by a sound system of joint arrangements?
    Mr. Jones: As the hon. Gentleman will know, decisions on local functions can be taken only by local authorities themselves in the light of local circumstances and priorities. Our reform legislation contained a unique feature—a service delivery plan that had to be published in draft form last November and that will be finalised for each of the 22 new unitary authorities in Wales. That unique step enables everyone to see what provision is being made by local authorities. I hope that as many people as possible will take the opportunity to comment on the plans.
    Mr. Morgan: Will the Secretary of State discuss those issues with the civic leaders of Wales when he is guest of honour at their annual civic dinner in Cardiff next month? Will he confirm that that is the same civic dinner as he attacked on 8 February, producing an extraordinary report in the Western Mail on 9 February? Is it not an example of the Government's hypocrisy—or should I say duplicitousness—to attack a civil dinner in February and be its guest of honour in March? Is that not an example of dine as I say, not dine as I do?
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman asked two questions. The answer to the first is that my right hon. Friend always welcomes any occasion to have meaningful discussions with local authorities. The answer to the second is no—the hon. Gentleman should read Hansard.

    Countryside (Development)
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of areas of countryside which have been developed for (a) industrial and (b) other use in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [14160]
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Reliable information on the take-up of land in Wales is not available.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that 15,000 acres have been reclaimed at 900 sites since the Welsh Development Agency was established and that work on a further 100 sites is in hand? Would it not be tragic for Wales and for the whole of Britain if the Pembroke coast was allowed to be disfigured by the oil spillage in recent days from a tanker that ought to have been double-hulled? Will he give an undertaking to the House to do all that he can to ensure that marine life is secured, that beaches are cleaned as thoroughly and as soon as possible and that birdlife is safeguarded?
    Mr. Jones: The Welsh Development Agency's land reclamation programme is the largest landscape improvement programme in Europe. Since its formation in 1976, the agency has reclaimed more than 15,000 acres at 900 sites and work has started on a further 100 sites. I share my hon. Friend's concern about what has happened at Milford Haven. We all want to ensure that everything possible is done there and I am advised that all the necessary manpower and materials are available to meet present needs.
    Mr. Llwyd: Why has the Welsh Office dragged its heels so terribly over the out-of-town shopping planning policy guidance? It has been enforced in England by the Department of the Environment for the past 18 months, but the Welsh Office is still playing around with it. Meanwhile, our town centres are being run down and virgin land is being used to build out-of-town shopping malls to the detriment of everyone in Wales. The Welsh Office should get its act together.
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman creates a good soundbite, but once again he is not right. There has been no dragging of heels. He will know that we have a draft planning policy guidance and that we are now considering all the responses to it. The draft guidance lays out, very simply, the sequential approach to retailing in Wales. First, consideration should be given to town centres and only then should consideration be given to out-of-town locations.
    Mr. Ron Davies: I am disappointed that the Secretary of State chose not to answer this question—he must have known that a question about the Sea Empress would arise. The Opposition are concerned about the potential consequences of the incident to which the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) referred. There is a unique and precious assemblage of bird, sea mammal and marine life in the area affected by the Sea Empress incident. The Pembrokeshire cliffs are a candidate for special protection area status. Skomer is a marine nature

    7
    reserve. The coast to the east of St. Anne's head is a possible European special area of conservation, as are the islands of Skokholm, Skomer and Grassholm.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question, not make a statement.
    Mr. Davies: Given that the whole coast is a priceless part of our national heritage, which good fortune has so far protected, will the Minister convey to the Secretary of State the great concern of the Opposition and ensure that the official view of the Welsh Office is that there has to be the fullest possible public inquiry?
    Mr. Jones: I have no need to convey that concern to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State because the hon. Gentleman only echoes what my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has already voiced. We all have the same anxieties about what has happened. The concern of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is amply demonstrated by the fact that, as soon as he heard about the incident, he changed his diary so as to be able to visit Milford Haven straight away on Friday morning to see for himself. Calling for a public inquiry at this stage is, at best, premature. The Department of Transport's marine accident investigation branch will investigate and report.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about inward investment levels. [14163]
    Mr. Hague: Inward investment into Wales continues at high levels and I expect this trend to continue. Already this financial year, almost 8,000 new and safeguarded jobs have been promised with associated capital investment of almost £600 million.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that, if this country were to sign up to the social chapter or adopt a national minimum wage or a Welsh Assembly, which would make Wales an over-governed country, inward investment would dry up?
    Mr. Hague: I fear that my hon. Friend is right. What attracts companies to the United Kingdom, and to Wales in particular, is good industrial relations, lower tax on companies and less regulation than in other parts of Europe. None of those would obtain if the Labour party was in power.
    Mr. Llew Smith: If inward investment has been so effective under the Government, can the Secretary of State explain why, according to the Library, since the Government came to power in May 1979, we have lost 500 million days through unemployment? Will he comment on the likely effect of those lost days on the economy and on the individuals and families who have been destroyed by it in communities such as mine in Blaenau Gwent?
    Mr. Hague: Over the past 18 months, unemployment in Wales has been at or around the United Kingdom average. We are the first Government since the 1920s to
    8
    be able to say that. What is more, unemployment in Wales is lower than it is in Italy, France and Spain and our major international competitors across Europe. It is continuing to fall and it will continue to fall if we maintain our present policies.
    Mr. Barry Porter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason for that high level of inward investment is the cultural facilities offered in Wales? If so, would he take a sympathetic look at the future funding of Theatr Clwyd in Mold when the new authorities come into being?
    Mr. Hague: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that, 11 days ago, I announced that the Government would be prepared to write off the £1.3 million debts of Theatr Clwyd if local authorities would guarantee that it would continue to run as at present for the foreseeable future. I am pleased that, since then, the Arts Council of Wales has announced additional help for the theatre and I hope that its future can be secured.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the Labour-controlled Merthyr borough council and the Labour-created Welsh Development Agency on their recent success in bringing the Halla investment to Merthyr Tydfil? Will he confirm that, since the last general election, total inward investment in Wales up to and including the current financial year has fallen by 40 per cent.? Does he agree that at least part of that fall is due to the Welsh Office's failure to fund the Welsh Development Agency properly, its failure to support local authority initiatives, its failure to secure available European Union investment and its failure to protect our development area status? Would the Secretary of State like to set an example to some of his less fastidious colleagues and admit to some responsibility for the consequences of his Department's policies?
    Mr. Hague: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Wales has done well to maintain a high level of inward investment against increased competition from the rest of the United Kingdom and other parts of Europe. I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the Merthyr Tydfil council and other local authorities which have helped to attract inward investment. It is a team effort, involving local authorities, the Welsh Development Agency and my colleagues and me in the Welsh Office—as did the investment by Halla Industries of Korea, with which I had three meetings when I visited Korea last September. It is a team effort involving all of those people, and it is clearly working.

    Schools (Information Technology)
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to promote the use of information technology in Welsh schools. [14164]
    Mr. Richards: In the current financial year, we are providing grants totalling up to £2.7 million to support the acquisition and greater use of information technology in primary and secondary schools. A further £3 million will be available in the next financial year. On top of that, I have just announced the latest stage of our £3 million initiative to equip more than 1,600 primary and special

    9
    schools in Wales with multi-media hardware and software, or portable computers and the training to go with them.
    Mrs. Campbell: Has not the Welsh Office done a single-manufacturer deal to supply that information technology equipment to Welsh schools? Will that mean that schools will not have any choice about which IT equipment they purchase? Is that not another example of a Tory central Government dictatorship?
    Mr. Richards: The Welsh Office steering group decided what equipment would be chosen and that group comprised representatives of Her Majesty's chief inspector's office and local education authorities. As to choice, all primary schools in Wales were asked whether they wanted a multi-media suite or a portable computer. The hon. Lady may shake her head, but if she listens she will learn something. Some 93 per cent. of schools chose the multi-media suite over the portable computer, and that is what they will receive.

    Tourism
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the contribution of section 4 grants to tourism in Wales. [14165]
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: In 1994–95, the Wales tourist board approved grants of £3.6 million, which secures capital investment of £20.7 million, and that should save or maintain more than 400 jobs.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that section 4 grants in Wales represent extremely good value for money, particularly as they create jobs? Can he confirm the figure that was recently quoted to me by the Wales tourist board—that as little as £6,000 in public money is required to create a new job in the tourism industry in Wales? What does my hon. Friend think would have a greater impact on Welsh tourism: the rugby World cup or a national minimum wage?
    Mr. Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend that the grants available through the Wales tourist board are a very effective use of taxpayers' money in taking forward an important segment of the Welsh economy. Tourism contributes about £1.3 billion a year to the Welsh economy. As to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I rush to agree with his premise that the rugby World cup will prove a great advantage to Wales—not least because of the excellent way in which the Welsh team played on Saturday. They did not deserve to lose by two points. The rugby World cup will provide very positive opportunities for Wales—unlike the job-destroying measures that the Labour party would impose.
    Mr. Ainger: Does the Under-Secretary accept that the Sea Empress incident has caused great concern to the tourism industry in Pembrokeshire and that several serious questions need to be asked about large vessels' propulsion systems, steering systems and hull design and about port activities at Milford Haven, and that those serious
    10
    questions can be answered only by a full public inquiry, along the same lines as the Donaldson inquiry into the Braer incident?
    Mr. Jones: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern but, as I said to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), it is at best premature to suggest a public inquiry. The Department of Transport's marine accident investigation branch will inquire into the incident and report.
    We must concentrate on ensuring that all necessary action is taken—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is to make a statement about the matter later this afternoon—but it is premature to call for a public inquiry now.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Given his tremendous enthusiasm for section 4 grants in Wales and the tremendous benefits that we all agree that they have achieved, can the Minister give the House a categoric assurance that the Government will not abolish section 4 grants?
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: There is no intention of abolishing section 4 grants, but we must continue to pay attention to the amounts of money that are provided to the Wales tourist board and how they are spent. We want to ensure that they are spent more and more effectively and that Wales continues to develop its tourist industry—and not, as Opposition Members would probably want, separate Wales and make it less attractive, especially to tourists, who represent inward investment.

    Welsh Assembly
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received about a Welsh Assembly. [14166]
    Mr. Hague: Five written representations and various others.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a Welsh Assembly would be a complete waste of public money—money that would be far better spent on health and education? Is not it significant that Labour Members are completely divided about the form that such an assembly should take and are in a shambles? Should not the idea be consigned to the dustbin?
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right—it would be a waste of public money, divide the United Kingdom and diminish the influence of Wales here at Westminster. She is also right to draw attention to the difficulty that Opposition Members have on the matter. In a recent BBC programme, some members of the Labour party insisted that their assembly plan involved legislative power; others insist that it would not. The attempts of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) to clear the confusion only confused some people who had not been at the start. It is time that Labour Members sorted themselves out.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: As we gradually move into an election campaign, the Secretary of State will stand on political platforms parroting the formula that the Welsh

    11
    Assembly will inevitably lead to the fragmentation of the United Kingdom. Will he stop for a moment and consider whether he is not demeaning and insulting the people of Wales, by implying that we are not as politically sophisticated as the people of Spain, Germany, Belgium and France, who have regional assemblies while remaining part of a united country?
    Mr. Hague: The people of Wales are sufficiently politically sophisticated to have voted four to one against an assembly last time the proposition was put to them. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on that. A great many people in Wales believe that it would be a roomful of hot air that would serve no useful purpose. If the Labour party's plans were to be the subject of a referendum again, they would again be rejected.
    Mr. Wigley: Is not it revealing that this question was asked by a Member of Parliament from the home counties and answered by one from Yorkshire, both of whom appear to know better than do the Welsh people themselves? A couple of weeks ago, when the Secretary of State appeared on the "Week In, Week Out" programme, did he not give the impression that there was not one issue on which he did not know better than 80 or 100 elected people from Wales? Does not that come over as the height of arrogance? How on earth can he justify overruling all the interests of Wales in that cavalier way?
    Mr. Hague: We get a foretaste of what such an assembly would be like from the difficulties of Labour Members. When the hon. Member for Caerphilly wanted to propose a proportional voting system at a meeting in the House of Commons, the Daily Post reported that the Labour party in Wales ganged up on him, there was an explosion of anger and the mood of the meeting was vicious. If that is a foretaste of an assembly, the people of Wales want nothing to do with it.

    Schools (Vocational Courses)
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent action he has taken to encourage schools in Wales to offer vocational courses. [14167]
    Mr. Richards: Our "bright future" programme charts the way ahead. General national vocational qualifications are being introduced in a range of subjects in schools and colleges throughout Wales. By September 1996 a total of 46 schools will be participating in our development scheme for 14 to 16-year-olds.
    Mr. Arnold: Is it not significant that there will be an even wider choice of GNVQ subjects in Wales than in England? Is that not extremely important, given that the requirement for skills is vital to the success of Britain as a whole and of Wales in particular in the economy of the future?
    Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The development scheme in Wales is supporting the introduction of full GNVQ, GNVQ units and GNVQ part 1, because the national curriculum requirements are different in Wales and permit schools greater flexibility in timetabling.
    Mr. Hain: How can the Minister expect schools to undertake additional responsibilities when he is cutting the budget of the new Neath and Port Talbot authority by more than £7 million, which will have a savage impact on local schools, nursery provision and the rest for which West Glamorgan has a proud record? Should not the Government approach that settlement afresh and grant the new unitary authority the extra funds that it so desperately needs to maintain essential services?
    Mr. Richards: Whenever a Labour Member speaks on education, the stench of hypocrisy fills the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that local authorities and local education authorities decide their own priorities.

    Duffryn Gardens
    Mr. Sweeney: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to keep Duffryn gardens open to the public after 1 April. [14168]
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: The lease for Duffryn house and gardens is proposed to be transferred to the residuary body for Wales for a maximum period of 12 months, to allow the new Vale of Glamorgan council to progress its plans. That will also enable the gardens to remain open to the public after 1 April this year.
    Mr. Sweeney: Does my hon. Friend agree that Duffryn gardens is a unique feature not only in the Vale of Glamorgan but in the whole of Wales? Can he give an assurance that during the time when the gardens rest with the residuary body they will be properly maintained and that all co-operation will be extended to Vale of Glamorgan council to ensure that that happens until a long-term solution is found?
    Mr. Jones: I rush to agree with my hon. Friend. It is a matter of the deepest regret that local government has brought Duffryn house and gardens to the verge of closure. Because of our regard for the gardens, we have acted to enable the rescue plan to go ahead. I give my hon. Friend the fullest assurance that I will do anything that I can to see that come about, including looking to the new Vale of Glamorgan council to carry forward work in the gardens.
    Mr. Rogers: Twice today—first in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and then in response to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney)—the Minister has adopted not just a hypocritical but a Pontius Pilate attitude in washing his hands of major institutions in Wales. Does the Minister not realise that many of the institutions to which reference was made earlier, which were run under joint arrangements, will be cut loose as a result of his local government reforms and will not be able to continue providing for the youth and other people of Wales as they have in the past?
    Mr. Jones: No. The hon. Gentleman and his friends have the expertise in hypocrisy. They are the people who say one thing and do another. We are the people who have acted, because of our regard for Duffryn gardens. It is not this Government who brought about the current situation. Local government action threatened the closure of Duffryn gardens.

    Male Unemployment
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the figure for male unemployment in (a) Newport, Gwent and (b) Wales, at the latest available date; and if he will express the figures in percentage
    terms. [14170]
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: As at January 1996, the respective figures were 6,161 and 86,544, or 10.9 per cent. and 11.6 per cent.
    Mr. Hughes: May I remind the Minister that in the next few months the opening of the second Severn crossing will provide tremendous opportunities for the Welsh economy? To coincide with that, what new initiatives will the Welsh Office take to bring new jobs to our hard-pressed communities?
    Mr. Jones: I can confirm that the second Severn crossing will be opening shortly. Had the hon. Gentleman asked me, I would also have confirmed that it is a tribute to the Government's private finance initiative, which has enabled economic capacity in Wales to expand far more quickly than with traditional financing arrangements. I should also like to confirm the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the new jobs which have been announced in his area recently. I have given the example of the merger of Sumitomo and Surface Technology Systems Ltd.—a £5 million expansion creating 100 new jobs in Newport. Where is the hon. Gentleman's welcome for that and for the way in which the Welsh economy is moving forward?

    Education Standards
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he intends to introduce to improve education standards in primary and secondary schools in Wales. [14171]
    Mr. Hague: The "bright future" initiative sets out our full programme of action to raise education standards for all pupils at school. It looks to all schools to set targets for improvement year on year. I have also published my requirements for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools for Wales in 1996–97. They will ensure that the inspectorate continues to give close attention to the quality of teaching and standards in schools.
    Mr. Williams: The Secretary of State may know that education standards in schools in my constituency are very good. They are above the Welsh average and that for England and Scotland. How will they be helped by the acute stringency in local education authorities? I have a letter from the head teacher of a comprehensive school that is about to lose between 2.4 and 4.0 teachers in the current financial year. Carmarthenshire county council will lose 57 secondary school teachers, thanks to this year's revenue support grant settlement. How will that affect education standards in my constituency and for the people of Wales?
    Mr. Hague: As I have explained in answer to previous questions, I am giving more money to local authorities in the coming year. It is up to them to make sure that a proportion of that increase feeds through into education.
    14
    He will also know that education standards are not just about funding. A few weeks ago, I visited a school at Merthyr which has achieved 100 per cent. improvement in examination results in one year. That is to do with the standards set by staff, discipline, clear objectives and dedicated staff—quite irrespective of funding. An enormous amount can be achieved in addition to providing proper funding for our schools.

    Further Education Colleges
    Mr. Dafis: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration he has given to the funding formula for the further education colleges. [14172]
    Mr. Richards: It is for the Further Education Funding Council for Wales to determine, within the total provision made available to it by the House, the allocation of funds to further education institutions in Wales.
    Mr. Dafis: The Welsh Office and its Ministers are responsible for ensuring that a proper range of courses is available to students in further education in all parts of Wales. Does that not mean that we must have a more realistic formula for funding colleges that serve sparsely populated areas and therefore have limited scope for recruitment? Will the Minister ensure that at the end of the year, when the funding formula is revisited, changes are made to ensure that Coleg Ceredigion and others receive an adequate level of funding?
    Mr. Richards: The recurring funding methodology takes account of the courses that are available. It consists of three stages: recruitment, learning and attainment. The volume of units earned at each stage gives colleges incentives to help students to choose the most appropriate learning programme. The funding methodology is also fine-tuned to reward widening participation, plurality factors, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and bilingualism.

    Regional Theatre
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next expects to meet the Arts Council of Wales to discuss funding of regional theatre. [14173]
    Mr. Richards: I meet the Arts Council of Wales regularly as part of the annual cycle of corporate and operational planning and performance review. The next meeting is in March, to review the council's operational plan for 1996–97.
    Mr. Hanson: Will the Minister accept on behalf of the people of Delyn and of Mold their great thanks for the additional contribution of £200,000 that the Arts Council has made to help keep open Theatr Clwyd this year? The money is very welcome. Will he do more to encourage neighbouring local authorities to give the theatre assistance, so that it stays open this year and in future years?
    Mr. Richards: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's recognition of the part played by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Department in ensuring the continued success of Theatr Clwyd.

    15
    As the hon. Gentleman has said, and as my right hon. Friend has insisted, the neighbouring local authorities will, we hope, contribute to future recurrent funding of the theatre.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Crown Prosecution Service (Liaison)
    Sir Wyn Roberts: To ask the Attorney-General what action he is taking to improve liaison between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. [14186]
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The Crown Prosecution Service and the police are working closely together on a number of initiatives, including co-ordinated training, greater use of information technology and a scheme involving CPS lawyers giving on-the-spot legal advice in busy police stations.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: In thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply and expressing my satisfaction at the co-operation between the two services—contrary to the impression given by some of the media from time to time—may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to reject the shoddy, unwarranted slur on his integrity, as did the six Queen's counsel who signed a letter to that effect published in The Times on Saturday? Will he reaffirm what we already know—namely, his total commitment to fairness in all matters relating to his office?
    The Attorney-General: I am most grateful for what my right hon. Friend has said. I can reaffirm not only that I was careful and fair on that occasion, but that the 139 lawyers of the Crown Prosecution Service are working day in and day out in Wales to assist the 6,200 police officers in the common task of bringing alleged wrongdoers before the courts, firmly but fairly.
    Mr. Skinner: Why does the Attorney-General not do the decent thing, as Ministers used to do at one time, and resign?
    The Attorney-General: The decent thing, although the hon. Gentleman might not recognise it, is to give clear and careful legal advice when it is asked for. And that is what I did.

    Prosecution of Juveniles
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received from the Crown Prosecution Service regarding the prosecution of juveniles [14187]
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The prosecution of youth offenders is one of a number of issues that my right hon. and learned Friend and I discuss in our regular meetings with the Director of Public Prosecutions.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Is he aware that the Crown Prosecution youth service warmly welcomes my private
    16
    Member's Bill dealing with offensive weapons—in particular, because it gives powers of arrest to police to stop and challenge teenage hooligans carrying knives? Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of a problem brought to light by the experience of the youth service—the fact that the prosecutions of a large number of 14-year-olds have to be discontinued because the CPS cannot prove that they know the difference between right and serious wrong?
    Does my hon. and learned Friend further agree that it is extremely important to show our determination—
    Madam Speaker: Order. That is much too long a question.
    The Solicitor-General: Yes. Two judges in the divisional court, in the case of C, held that the presumption was no longer part of our law. In the House of Lords, five judges held that it was. So far as I am aware, there has been no call for the two judges in the divisional court to resign. As a result of that decision in re C, the Government are looking very closely at the position to see whether any reform of the law is necessary. The Crown Prosecution Service is drafting guidance, to be issued to investigators and prosecutors, to help them to obtain and present whatever evidence is necessary in court to show that such young people know the difference between right and wrong.

    Public Interest Immunity Certificates
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to reform the procedure in respect of public interest immunity certificates. [14188]
    The Attorney-General: The recommendations in the Scott report with respect to public interest immunity will receive careful and detailed consideration. Sir Richard Scott has made it clear that there was no conspiracy and no cover-up. He casts not the slightest doubt on my integrity. The advice that I gave was fully in accordance with the law as it then stood.
    Mr. Hain: The issue is the Attorney-General's competence. Does he accept the verdict of section G of the Scott report that he was personally at fault in the advice that he gave in relation to public interest immunity certificates? As the first Law Officer of the Crown and the Government's chief legal adviser, how can the Attorney-General possibly stay in office after Scott's savage condemnation of his incompetence and the subsequent public collapse in confidence in his role? Surely the only course—
    Madam Speaker: Order. That is much too long. The hon. Gentleman has already put a question.
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is continuing what seems to be the Labour party policy of distortion on that issue. My integrity is unquestioned. I took the most careful legal advice. My view of the law is endorsed by a succession of legal decisions, by the express views of a number of top Queen's counsel and today by the view—expressed in trenchant terms—of Lord Lloyd of Berwick, a current Law Lord.

    17
    The one instance in which the report says that I was personally at fault rests on Sir Richard Scott's different view of the law, with which all those others respectfully disagree. I took specific steps to ensure, through my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's special public interest immunity certificate, that the judge was alerted to the need for special care. He was. After proper argument, all necessary documents were disclosed. There was a completely fair trial, as three defence counsel have publicly confirmed.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the immense anger that many of us feel at the bogus and ill-informed attacks by the Opposition? Is he aware that the allegations against him are no worse than when a High Court judge's decision is reversed on a point of law by the Court of Appeal, which decision may itself in due course be reversed by the House of Lords?
    Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that our anger is the greater because we know that he took the best advice in the Temple before he gave his advice, and that that advice has been upheld not only by the best lawyers in the Temple but by the best lawyers in the Court of Appeal? Those lawyers say that in those matters of law the Attorney-General was right and Sir Richard Scott was plainly wrong.
    The Attorney-General: I am indeed so aware, and the House will join me in anticipating that the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who may be about to ask me a question, will make it his very first task to withdraw the statement that he made in 1992, when he accused Ministers of being prepared to connive at the sacrifice of accused men. The Scott report has made it clear that that was wholly unfounded.
    Mr. John Morris: Whatever else there is in the Scott report about conniving—which I accept—should not the Attorney-General accept the guilty verdicts that Scott returned upon him: that he had a major responsibility for the inadequacy of the prosecutor's instructions, and that he was personally at fault in not ensuring that the Deputy Prime Minister's reservations were conveyed? Mr. Moses asserted that his attitude was no different from that of other Ministers.
    Is it not bizarre that the Attorney-General had still, many months later, not read the documents on which he had advised Ministers, and that the Deputy Prime Minister's letter about a difficult matter was unread for a period of three to seven weeks? Is that not a finding of breathtaking incompetence? Where does the buck stop? Should not the Attorney-General go?
    The Attorney-General: The letter was not unread, and that point—contrary to the inquiry's own procedures—was never put to me. I remind the House that, after I had been alerted by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, I took specific steps to ensure—through my right hon. Friend's specially drafted public interest immunity certificate, which was recognised by everyone in court—that the judge should look at every document.
    The case could not have been more fairly prosecuted by prosecuting counsel. He invited the judge to look at every document. The judge did so, and he decided, in accordance with the law as understood at the time, what
    18
    documents should and should not be made available. The trial then started the following week and, as three defence counsel themselves have said, was completely fair.
    Sir Peter Hordern: In regard to the public interest immunity certificates, is it not the case that defence counsel appearing for Matrix Churchill not only made no criticism of my right hon. and learned Friend, but wrote to The Times commending him and the way in which the certificates had been handled? If that is the case, what justification have the Opposition for making such a fuss?
    The Attorney-General: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The House and the country should know that the trial was conducted with scrupulous fairness. I welcome the Scott report, because those who read it carefully will see that for themselves.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Attorney-General—who advises Ministers on legal matters—explain to the House now what he understands to be the meaning of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility for departmental actions? If it does not apply to him now, when does it apply, and why?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman should read the report carefully. I repeat for his benefit that I had two involvements in the matter. The first was to advise on the law. I did so carefully and conscientiously, not only in accordance with the top legal advice that I obtained, but in a way which, since the report's publication on Thursday, has been endorsed by the great majority of senior members of the Bar—who understand these matters—as well as the higher judiciary, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will have read today.
    On the question of communicating the views of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, I have made it clear that I did so in a specially designed certificate which brought all relevant matters to the court. All relevant documents were before the court when the trial began, and there was a completely fair trial. In those circumstances, I submit that no one could have acted more fairly.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether judges created each part of the disclosure system for such documents? Can he say whether he is minded to propose to the House that the system should now be frozen on a statutory basis, or that we should continue to rely on judges to develop the process?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is quite right. This is judge-made law. It has been very carefully considered by Sir Richard Scott, and the Government have made it clear that they will look at his recommendations for the future with great care. That is just what we shall do.

    Scott Report
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on references in the Scott report to his official role. [14189]
    The Attorney-General: As will be clear, I welcome the Scott report, which conclusively shows that there was no conspiracy to send innocent men to gaol. My role was to advise Ministers on the law of public interest immunity. I did so carefully, and strictly in accordance with the accepted view of the law as it then stood. Following my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's request and the drafting of his special public interest immunity certificate, I took the exceptional course of calling in the prosecution team, who assured me that the prosecution was fair.
    Mr. Winnick: Does the Attorney-General realise that he has not managed to persuade public opinion since the Scott report was published, and that he has not even managed to persuade some of his own Back Benchers,
    20
    who rightly take the view that out of honour he should resign? Has the Attorney-General not made the comparison between the way in which he pathetically clings to office and the way in which, five years ago this month, members of the armed forces reacted, as one would expect them to do, to Saddam' s criminal aggression? They made no excuses. They acted honourably. It is a pity that the Attorney-General does not do the same.
    The Attorney-General: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. I acted carefully and properly throughout. If there has been any distortion, it is in the material of which I have received a copy today and which, regrettably—indeed, lamentably—is being sent around by the hon. Gentleman's party.

Higher Education
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on higher education.
Just over 30 years ago, the Robbins committee set out a vision for expanding higher education in Great Britain. Since then, higher education has been transformed beyond the expectations even of Robbins. It no longer caters just for a privileged elite but provides opportunities for a significant proportion of our young people. In Robbins' day, just one young person in 17 went on to higher education. Now, the figure is approaching one in three.
Higher education no longer exists to educate just young people—predominantly young men—prior to their outset on a career for life, and there are as many female students as there are male students, and more mature than young entrants. In total, there are more than 1 million full-time students in the United Kingdom—five times as many as in Robbins' day. In addition, half a million people study part-time.
Much of this growth has taken place since 1988, as a result of independence for polytechnics and colleges, abolishing the binary line, and introducing more competitive funding. Thanks to those policies, higher education now provides more highly qualified people than ever before for the labour market.
The number of newly qualified graduates gaining first degrees each year in the United Kingdom has doubled since 1979, and more than a third of those are science, maths and engineering graduates. Our graduation rate is now one of the highest in Europe, second only to Denmark in the European Union, and the UK produces more science graduates relative to the young work force than any other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country. By the year 2001, the number of graduates in the work force is likely to be well over 3 million—twice as high as in 1981. It is not just academic qualifications to which higher education leads. More than 15 per cent. of those who have followed undergraduate courses leave with professional qualifications.
Impressive though those achievements are, future success requires universities and colleges to continue to develop, while preserving their best traditions. After such fast growth, it is time to take stock and to consider the future of higher education. That is why, just over a year ago, I launched a review of higher education with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of Sate for Northern Ireland. We asked consumers as well as producers for their views.
Their responses paid tribute to higher education's continuing role in advancing understanding and learning, and in developing the powers of the mind. But they also emphasised the growing importance of higher education in securing our future competitiveness and economic growth. The global markets in which the UK has to compete have been transformed by an information revolution and other technological advances. Our economic success will increasingly depend on higher levels of knowledge, understanding and skills. Higher
22
education has a vital role to play. It can supply both young and mature people with those higher levels of skills and understanding, and the ability to adapt to changing knowledge.
Today's graduates face a world different from their predecessors'. They must be prepared for changes in the nature of work and the greater demands it makes. Increasingly, they will need to switch career more than once in their lifetime. We must ensure that they are equipped with the skills and flexibility needed by the labour market of the 21st century, both through initial education and through updating and upskilling throughout their lives. Higher education must be in the best shape possible to meet those needs.
As the pace of change quickens, there will be a greater premium on the capacity to innovate. The universities' contribution to the research base underpins the UK's ability to harness scientific and technological advances. It will become ever more important in enhancing wealth creation and our quality of life. Higher education can also help to drive local and regional regeneration through services to employers.
As the world around is changing, so too is higher education itself. Changes in institutional structures, modes of study and information technology are opening up opportunities to a broader range of students, both at home and abroad. Links with other parts of education and training are becoming more important, and boundaries are blurring. Higher education no longer needs to take place only inside a university or college. New technology enables more students to study in the workplace or from home.
Our consultations have made clear the extent of changes in both higher education itself and the context in which it operates. A huge and exciting agenda faces all of us with an interest in higher education. The scale of that agenda exceeds anything facing higher education since the early 1960s.
Thirty-five years ago—almost to the day—the then Prime Minister proposed the appointment of the Robbins committee to review higher education in Britain and advise on its development. The Robbins report provided a landmark for higher education policy that has stood the test of time well. But it is time to take a fresh and comprehensive look at the challenges facing higher education as we approach the 21st century.
So, with the agreement of the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I intend to appoint a committee of inquiry into higher education. [Interruption.] In carrying out its task, the committee will make appropriate arrangements to take account of the distinctive features of higher education in different parts of the UK. [Interruption.] I am delighted that Sir Ron Dearing has agreed to chair the committee.
We propose to invite the committee to make recommendations on how the shape, structure, size and funding of higher education, including support for students, should develop to meet the needs of the UK over the next 20 years. We shall supply the committee with the preparatory work that has already been undertaken in the education Departments as part of my review.
We shall consult widely on the committee's precise terms of reference and composition. I shall place a copy of the draft terms of reference and the consultation letter

23
in the Library. In due course, I shall make a further announcement on the committee's remit and membership in the light of the consultations. I expect the committee to start work after Easter, and to report by the summer of 1997. [Interruption.]
Mr. David Blunkett: Madam Speaker—[Interruption.]
Hon. Members: Get on with it.
Mr. Blunkett: I am getting on with it, thank you. Hon. Members must not act like a rabble.
May I take the unusual step of welcoming the statement, and commending the Secretary of State for her approach to the national inquiry? The public are heartily sick and tired of the knockabout politics that characterises so much of our public debate. It is in marked contrast to the antics of last week, therefore, that the Secretary of State has been prepared to offer a bipartisan national approach to the important long-term question of the part that further and higher education can play in the economic and social future of the United Kingdom. It is in that spirit that I welcome the inquiry.
Will the Secretary of State confirm her willingness to continue her approach to seeking solutions that will build agreement, in the same way as the Robbins committee built agreement and facilitated a way forward more than 30 years ago? I welcome the appointment of Sir Ron Dearing. Will she confirm that the approach that she adopted in developing the terms of reference with me will be carried forward into developing the membership of the inquiry? Will she lay to rest the belief that the inquiry will be a short-term fix? Will she rather confirm that it will be a long-term look at the needs of the United Kingdom for the next two decades?
Does the Secretary of State agree that we now have an opportunity to build on the four key principles of Robbins by adding to them—in this European Year of Lifelong Learning—commitments to lifelong learning for everyone, to the value of further and higher education to the economic and social well-being of each individual and to the nation as a whole, and to placing quality, equity and access at the very forefront of our deliberations?
Does the Secretary of State agree that we have a choice as a nation as to whether we are a low-wage, low-tech, low-added-value economy, or whether we build on the knowledge base that is possible in the decades ahead to produce a high-tech, high-wage, high-added-value Britain that can compete at the cutting edge of the global economy?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the way in which we proceed with the inquiry in terms of Britain's future needs in the global economy will determine whether our people have jobs that are built on the knowledge base and innovation that higher education offers the United Kingdom of the future, or whether we merely fill existing jobs? Does she agree that we must use higher education to foster enterprise and innovation, so that higher education itself can help to create employment, rather than simply fill the job market?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the humanities, arts and social sciences—as well as technology and science—will have a key role in the new economy of the
24
future not only in offering opportunities to individuals, but in opening up opportunities world wide for our industry and commerce? Does she agree that equity and access for all capable of benefiting from it require actions to alleviate student poverty and parental worry and that, in seeking a way forward, no one should be precluded from entering higher education because of their income or background? Does she agree that, while the future is the responsibility of all of us—the Labour party is ready and willing to take up that challenge—the responsibility for the current crisis rests with the actions of the Government?
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, in addressing the problems and the challenges of the future, it is necessary to face up to the responsibilities of the present? Will she therefore ask her right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to think again about the substantial cuts facing further and higher education, the £550 million that will be removed from the universities' budget in 1998–99, the two-thirds cut in capital spending for further education in the next three years, and the virtual collapse of the Student Loans Company and the loans system?
Will the Secretary of State provide a firm foundation on which Sir Ron Dearing can build? Will she ensure that, when looking to the decades ahead, we do not have to pick up the pieces that exist at the moment? We must agree with the way in which we provide probably the most important aspect of economic and social life for future generations. There must be a genuine consensus on opening up further and higher education, so that every young person—and every mature adult who wishes to seek it—has the opportunity to develop their talents and to flourish for the future.
Mrs. Shephard: I welcome the hon. Member's comments about the committee of inquiry. The future of higher education should be above party interests, as the interests of the nation are tightly interwoven with it. As I said in my statement, the membership of the committee of inquiry and its terms of reference will be the subject of consultation—which we expect to be completed by Easter.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the four key principles that were outlined by Robbins. In the course of our higher education review, it has become clear that there is a need to rebalance the aims and to look at the links between higher education and other sectors of the education service—particularly further education. We must look at the whole context and at the quality of what the system is producing—quality is essential.
The products of our higher education system and the system itself are subject to strong competition from other countries. That is why competitiveness and the contribution that higher education can make to our competitiveness will be important elements in the work of the committee of inquiry.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the so-called current crisis. I cannot accept that any sector that receives £7 billion of funding—21 per cent. of the total funding of the education system—is in crisis. We spend more per student in higher education than any other country in the western industrialised world. There has been no collapse of student loans, but the committee of inquiry will examine the context of what is being spent overall and the way the system is funded. It will also examine a number of the broader issues that were outlined by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Peter Brooke: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I hope that Dearing becomes as notable a landmark in our history as Robbins. I hope that the review, while looking forward 20 years, will also examine two problems of the current era: at the bottom, the problems that recruiting pressures have in potentially distorting the market; and, at the top, the funding problems, not so much for buildings—which the private finance initiative resolves—as for equipment that is absolutely critical.
Mrs. Shephard: The committee of inquiry will be considering all aspects of the higher education system, of course, including the way in which the funding methodology adopted by the Higher Education Funding Council affects recruiting methods, and the balance—this is extremely important—between research and teaching in different establishments. As far as equipment is concerned, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be aware of the fund that has been set up between the Office of Science and Technology, the Higher Education Funding Council and the Department to help higher education institutions to cope with the needs of replacement of equipment and infrastructure in the current climate.
Mr. Don Foster: I too welcome the establishment of this inquiry, but does not the Secretary of State agree that some issues need urgent attention and cannot wait for the outcome of the inquiry? In particular, will she be prepared to find ways to reverse the damaging cuts to the capital budgets in further and higher education?
May I also welcome the appointment of Sir Ron Dearing to head the inquiry? Does the Secretary of State not agree, however, that, since the Government have so often had to turn to Sir Ron Dearing in recent years to clear up the mess that they have created, he might be justified in stealing Oliver Hardy's line and saying, "That's another fine mess you've got me into"?
Mrs. Shephard: May I set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest straight away—Sir Ron Dearing is delighted to undertake this task, and is very well qualified because he chaired the Council for National Academic Awards and the Universities Funding Council in England.
I must say something of the same to the hon. Gentleman as I said to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). We are spending £7 billion of taxpayers' money on the higher education sector. The recurrent spending of universities was maintained in the recent public expenditure survey round.
There have been reductions in capital but, with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, we are setting up a small expert group to help universities make the best they can of the opportunities afforded by the private finance initiative. Many are doing well in that respect already. I have already mentioned the equipment fund set up by the OST, the Higher Education Funding Council and so forth.
Mr. Robert Jackson: I am sure that the appointment of Sir Ron Dearing to head the review will give it a weight that will exceed the weight of the previous review on the same subject, which has just been completed in my right hon. Friend's Department. Will
26
she recognise, meanwhile, that the financial problems of the universities have been building up for some time, and have reached a critical point after the public expenditure settlement of last November?
Does my right hon. Friend also accept that many Conservative Members would not regard unit spending on the continent as a model for which we should be aiming? Does she recognise that universities have a duty to maintain their standards, that they are independent of the Government, and that they have a right as well as a duty to take appropriate steps to secure the resources they need to underpin the quality of their courses?
Mrs. Shephard: It is always a delight to hear from my hon. Friend on this subject, about which he knows such a great deal. Only part 1 of our higher education review was completed in the Department. The second part, which would have been putting out the findings of part 1 to consultation, will obviously be remitted to the committee of inquiry for it to take forward the questions that resulted from that analysis.
My hon. Friend's other questions underline why it is essential to have the committee of inquiry. It is necessary to consider the balance between research and teaching, and, before one looks at funding and the way in which that is carried out, to study the future size, shape and function of the higher education sector as we approach the 21st century.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Secretary of State also consider the shambles that has been created by the research assessment exercise, with football transfer fees being paid to lure productive lecturers into other institutions? Will she consider the effect of that on the institutions themselves and on the expectations of some of the students who join them?
Mrs. Shephard: I do not accept the hon. Lady's assessment of the research assessment exercise as a shambles. There is the exercise of brisk competition. There should be a thorough and profound examination of the relationship between funding mechanisms and their effect on research and teaching as components of the activities of higher education institutions. I imagine that the hon. Lady would agree with that.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the two periods of greatest expansion of opportunity for higher education have occurred since the war and under Conservative Governments: under the Macmillan Government, and then as a result of the reforms that this Government have introduced? Does she agree that the huge doubling of numbers has created acute financial pressures on higher education? Will she consider instructing Sir Ron Dearing immediately to produce an interim report specifically to examine funding, and in particular the financing of students, at a time when universities and Opposition Members are floating notions of graduate taxes, which some of us do not believe to be the most suitable way forward? Funding is the real issue, rather than the structure and shape of the system, at a time when we need some consolidation.
Mrs. Shephard: The very welcome expansion in higher education that my hon. Friend describes has, in

27
a way, caused the current emphasis on funding. That is why I think that future size should be one of the first considerations of Sir Ron Dearing and his committee. When my hon. Friend has had a chance to examine the terms of reference, he will find that that necessary emphasis is clearly laid out.
We have reached a time of rapid and welcome expansion—most rapid expansion has occurred under Conservative Governments—and it is time to consider whether we now need consolidation, more expansion, or more emphasis on quality. We need to consider where we are going with higher education, and that will be the committee of inquiry's main purpose. Obviously we are consulting on the terms of reference, but it will be for the committee of inquiry to establish where it wishes to begin.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, which is long overdue, and the fact that it has been supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Does the right hon. Lady think that it is occasionally worth reiterating that higher education is not and has never been free, that it must be paid for, at some point, by someone? I suggest to her—or, through her, to Sir Ron Dearing—that one of the biggest problems in coming to grips with the difficulties and the opportunities of higher education is that, by and large, the overwhelming majority of hon. Members think that higher education is still like it was when they were students.
There is a good case for making it compulsory for hon. Members to attend a seminar, run by Sir Ron, that would give them the facts and figures. Hon. Members do not believe what has happened in higher education in recent years. Unless they accept what has happened, I must emphasise that we shall never reach a solution that will benefit our constituents of all ages. There is no hope for any change or progress for all our constituents without that acceptance.
Mrs. Shephard: I am most intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. It is obvious that education must be paid for, which is why I keep reiterating the figure of £7 billion—21 per cent. of the total education budget. That is worth thinking about for a moment, because that money directly benefits 1.5 million people, the broader economy and research, as compared with the 6 million schoolchildren who benefit from the remainder of the budget. Yes, education must be paid for.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, on higher education issues more than any other, hon. Members' views are coloured by their own generation's experiences. Because the House encompasses hon. Members of many different generations, the generational baggage they bring varies. However, I do not think that I would go as far as the hon. Gentleman and insist on all hon. Members attending a higher education establishment for a refresher course.
It is very difficult to obtain dispassionate views on the state of higher education, and that will be one of the committee of inquiry's starting points.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a timely and appropriate moment for her to take stock of the big
28
questions, which must include both the finance and the future role of post-compulsory education? I deliberately say "post-compulsory" education, because the old adjective "higher" is no longer the most appropriate word to use. In that context, will my right hon. Friend do everything she can to ensure that Sir Ron Dearing has access to the widest possible range of advice and input, as that will benefit the result of his findings?
Mrs. Shephard: I agree that we need to ensure that the best possible range of information and advice is given to the committee of inquiry. As I said, we shall consult on its membership, but, knowing Sir Ron Dearing's ways of working, I think that the expertise made available to the committee will go far beyond its immediate members.
Mr. Alan Howarth: I add my welcome to the right hon. Lady's decision to establish the inquiry. I particularly welcome her appointment of Sir Ron Dearing—there is no one wiser or better fitted to undertake the task. I am pleased that the right hon. Lady is asking Sir Ron Dearing to include in his purview further as well as higher education.
Whatever the outcome of the inquiry and the debate on the most appropriate use of the £7 billion of expenditure on higher education, according to the present pattern and plans—under which I understand there is to be a 5.1 per cent. squeeze on unit funding by 1996–97 and a 9.4 per cent. squeeze on overall higher education funding by 1998–99—we are liable to witness some damaging effects on the academic system. Those effects will include unfilled academic posts, libraries and laboratories that are not brought up to date, academic staff who are so overstretched by teaching and administration that they are unable to pursue scholarship, and impoverished students. Will the right hon. Lady do all she can in government to ensure that the squeeze on the academic system is at least relaxed, until we have been given Sir Ron's recommendations and have had time to consider them?
Mrs. Shephard: I have already made it clear that we are working closely with the sector to help it to take advantage of private finance initiatives in respect of capital. We are closely in touch—full stop—with those in the sector on all aspects of their budget and general working. Universities have been efficient in absorbing efficiency savings that we have demanded of them, on which I congratulate them. There is clearly a division between the immediate, with which we are closer in touch, and the bigger and broader questions, on which we hope we shall receive their full co-operation—I have no reason to believe otherwise. The hon. Gentleman, who, after all, was closely involved in abolishing the binary line, will understand that it must be right to look at the issues of consolidation, continued expansion and demand-led expansion, while at the same time considering how they might be financed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: I cannot give a commitment to the House, but I want to try to call every hon. Member who wants to speak, as this is an important statement. There is another statement to follow and hon. Members could help me enormously by making their questions and answers brisk.
Sir David Madel: Will the inquiry have a close look at the relationship between industry and universities, and will it also look at training methods for university lecturers and teachers?
Mrs. Shephard: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Thank you. That is very helpful.
Mr. Harry Barnes: It is not the Government's normal approach to set up such inquiries, or, where there are inquiries, to adhere to their recommendations. It is even more unusual for those on our Front Bench to agree. Would it not therefore have been appropriate to have the draft terms of reference, so that we could all see whether the right action was being taken?
Can we be assured that those of us who may have different views on education from those that are normally expressed by the Government have opportunities to present our views on continued education, lifetime education and access to higher education for people with abilities but without formal qualifications?
Mrs. Shephard: The terms of reference have been placed in the Libraries of the two Houses. They will, as I have made clear, be subject to consultation, and the hon. Gentleman's concerns will be part of that.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: As the Member who represents the university of Essex, I emphasise the view expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House that finance is the crunch issue of Sir Ron Dearing's inquiry. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that we want universities to remain non-state, private institutions, and not become entirely beholden to the taxpayer and to the Government?
Mrs. Shephard: I entirely agree that one of the great strengths of our system is the essential independence—both financial and academic—of our higher education institutions. Many of them have done marvellous work in diversifying and in responding to the needs of employers, industry and enterprise, and to the challenge posed by competition overseas. All those questions will be considered by the committee of inquiry, which I am sure will want to consider best practice.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I remind the Secretary of State that it is some nine months, if I might modestly say so, since I published and launched the document "The Case for the University of the Lakes", which was the product of four and a half years' work? Will the inquiry draw upon the application of developments in information technology, and especially the use of an electronic library linked to a multi-campus university, which is essentially the concept behind the university of the Lakes?
Mrs. Shephard: Yes.
Dr. Ian Twinn: I join in the all-party support for my right hon. Friend's statement. Does she agree that the success of the Conservative expansion of higher education has been due to the magnificent response of universities and their staff, and the positive way in
30
which they have adapted to the challenge of expansion? Will she ensure that quality of staff and students is maintained by considering the way in which universities are funded, so that they get continuity, not Treasury stop-start funding?
Mrs. Shephard: That is an important matter. I pay tribute to the way in which the whole sector has taken advantage of the greater independence given to it by the Government—not to mention the increased funding—and turned itself into a sector of flourishing and diverse institutions. One thing that concerns me is career structure for academic staff, and I hope that the committee of inquiry will consider that.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: When does the Secretary of State hope that the inquiry will be completed? Does she realise that, in the interim, she must do far more to raise the morale of today's students and academics than offer them an inquiry?
Mrs. Shephard: I have already described the work that we are doing to cope with the current situation, with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and others. I expect the inquiry to report in early summer 1997.
Mr. David Lidington: Will my right hon. Friend invite Sir Ron to consider whether all courses now offered reach the standards that one would expect of a university course, and consider the approaches to university teaching that, in its experience, produce the best results and the highest quality?
Mrs. Shephard: I hope that the assurance of quality will be at the heart of the work of the committee of inquiry.
Mr. Max Madden: As the Dearing inquiry will not report for a long time, will the Secretary of State urgently look into the hardship that is being caused to students with disabilities, including blind students, who now have to pay VAT on the information technology that they require for their studies? That seems to be an unfair imposition on students who used to be exempt from VAT on such purchases. I hope that the Secretary of State can intervene quickly, to ensure that that hardship is not allowed to continue.
Mrs. Shephard: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in such matters, and, if he will send me details of those cases, we shall look at them urgently.
Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the inquiry will focus very much on the way in which education can improve the United Kingdom's competitive position in the world? In that regard, will she also say whether the inquiry will properly consider the way in which distance learning techniques—using the information super-highway and the Internet—may be enhanced so that people may undertake higher education in their own homes?
Mrs. Shephard: We felt it necessary to establish the committee of inquiry partly because of those changes in emphasis and in circumstances. If my hon. Friend looks

31
closely at the terms of reference, which have been placed in the Library, he will see that both those aims are laid out very clearly.
Mr. William O'Brien: Before Sir Ron Dearing reports to the House, will the Secretary of State examine the education situation in the Wakefield area in my constituency, and the distribution of part of the £7 billion to further and higher education in that area? My constituents wish to extend their education, but they are unable to do so because of the current economic situation. That fact is borne out by the training and enterprise council, which has revealed that only 25 per cent. of local people are properly trained or receive adequate levels of training and education.
Mrs. Shephard: Obviously, people have a wide range of opportunities—although I cannot speak in detail about the hon. Gentleman's constituency—offered through training and enterprise councils, further education, linked courses with higher education and so on. I wish that I were able to comment in detail on the cases that are worrying the hon. Gentleman. If he will provide those details, I shall try to help. However, I hope that his constituents are taking advantage of existing mechanisms, such as career development loans and non-mandatory grants. I shall be glad to hear from him about the matter.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that having one in three people in higher education is a superb achievement? However, does she not also agree that too many universities have too many courses which do not lead graduates into work? One of the great problems of higher education throughout history is that courses are not market led—despite the best efforts of the inspectorate, of which my right hon. Friend was a distinguished member, to ensure that courses would lead students into work. Does she believe that the Dearing committee should consider that issue?
Mrs. Shephard: The expansion of higher education-which has meant that nearly one in three people are now in higher education, compared with one in eight in 1979–80—is a major achievement. Some 15 per cent. of university courses now lead to vocational qualifications. It is important that young people leaving higher education should be employable, although they may require further vocational training in order to get a job.
It is absolutely clear that young people must do well in education and attain high-quality qualifications. Their education must equip them to express themselves well, to be members of teams, to be thoroughly literate and
32
numerate—in short, to be employable. The question of employability and the contribution that higher education makes to the broader economy will be at the heart of the terms of reference of the committee of inquiry.
Mr. Bryan Davies: Although the committee will not report until summer next year, does the Secretary of State acknowledge that that in no way absolves her from her responsibility of ensuring that the immediate needs of higher education are fully met? This year's budgetary settlement—in contrast to the position last year—must recognise that fact.
Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that, although the siren voices on her side of the House and perhaps from parts of the education sector are saying that consolidation must be the lodestar for the committee, Labour Members and others in many parts of the country will be emphasising Robbins' initial principle: higher education courses should be available to all those who are qualified to undertake them and who are able to benefit from them? As that number will inevitably increase as our schools produce more qualified students, we will expect the committee to consider expanding higher education.
Mrs. Shephard: The Robbins initial conclusion was that higher education should principally concern itself with instruction in employment skills, and that only after that should it promote the general powers of the mind, the advancement of learning and the transmission of a common culture and common standards in citizenship.
I have explained the ways in which we keep in close touch with the sector about matters immediately of the moment, but I repeat that, when considering expansion, consolidation or future role, one must set all those in the context of what the needs of the economy will be, the future of the country, and the contribution that higher education can make to meeting those needs. It is a broader issue, which affects the issues that immediately confront us this year, and that will be the focus of the committee of inquiry.
Mr. John Marshall: Will Sir Ron Dearing consider the success of Buckingham university in managing to grant degrees after only two years of study—degrees that are internationally recognised as very satisfactory? Will the Dearing committee also consider the different staff-student ratios that apply in the old polytechnics and the long-standing universities? Does not the success of the polytechnics suggest that there may be slack in staff-student ratios at universities?
Mrs. Shephard: I expect the committee of inquiry to consider length of courses and good practice throughout all institutions.

Oil Tanker (Milford Haven)
4.17 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): With permission, I wish to make a statement about the continuing operation to salvage the oil tanker Sea Empress.
At 8 pm on Thursday 15 February 1996, the Sea Empress ran aground at the entrance to Milford Haven on her passage inward to port. She began to spill oil shortly afterwards. The vessel, built in 1993, is Liberian flagged and managed by a British company. At the time of the incident, she was carrying about 131,000 tonnes of light crude oil. As a result of the initial grounding, about 2,000 tonnes of crude oil were spilt. That formed an oil slick, causing pollution along a stretch of coastline near the entrance to and in Milford Haven.
The Marine Pollution Control Unit, part of the Coastguard Agency in the Department of Transport, quickly implemented the agreed national contingency plan for oil spill response. A joint response centre was established with Dyfed county council and other interested parties, including environmental groups. The shipowner quickly reached agreement with a salvage company to undertake the necessary salvage operations.
The immediate problem was that the vessel had listed and was too deep in the water to be brought into the shelter of Milford Haven for the removal of the crude oil remaining on board. Therefore, attention was concentrated on stabilising the vessel as a prelude to salvage and on preventing a further escape of oil.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I visited the site on Friday, and my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping inspected salvage and recovery operations by helicopter on Saturday 17 February. On Saturday evening, in worsening weather, the vessel broke loose from salvage tugs and grounded outside the main channel into the haven.
The current position is that the Sea Empress continues to be held by two tugs in the entrance to Milford Haven. Salvors are back on board undertaking preparatory work to allow for a transfer of oil to a smaller tanker. Throughout this morning, oil leaked from the vessel, much more slowly than yesterday, but at low water she appeared to touch bottom and a quantity of oil escaped from the starboard side tanks as the sea level dropped. The oil was quickly sprayed with dispersant by MPCU aircraft. Undoubtedly, most of the Sea Empress's cargo is still on board. The prevention of further pollution depends crucially on the success of the salvage operations.
Beach-cleaning operations are continuing at three main sites and more than 150 people are involved. Within the Haven, two booms have been rigged to protect sensitive sites and more will be put out today if conditions permit. Three small specialist craft are recovering oil from the sea surface in the Haven.
During the incident, oil was sprayed with dispersant from aircraft under conditions agreed with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
It is too soon to assess the likely impact of the pollution caused by the incident, but the House will appreciate the great environmental sensitivity of the area. The coastline falls within the Pembrokeshire coast national park, reflecting its great natural beauty. The area is of
34
importance to wildlife, particularly birds. Accordingly, the local authorities, the Countryside Council for Wales and other environmental and welfare interests such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds are playing their full part at the joint response centre. Every action is being taken to help protect those areas and the wildlife from contamination.
There is a system in place under international treaty to provide compensation in such incidents—first, from the shipowner's insurer and secondly, if that is not sufficient, from the international oil pollution compensation fund. The independent marine accident investigation branch, which will report directly to me, has initiated an investigation into the causes of the accident and will provide a full report. As usual, that report will be published. At this stage, it would be unwise to speculate on the outcome of the investigation.
The Government's policy is first and foremost to seek to prevent incidents of this type through improvements in vessel safety. In that context, we are implementing the vast majority of the recommendations of Lord Donaldson's report "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas". However, carriage by sea will always have some element of risk. Where an incident does occur, we are determined to react swiftly, thus effectively to reduce the pollution or damage caused.
In this instance, despite severe weather, the practised implementation of our national contingency plan should ensure that the situation will be brought under control. The House will recognise that the weather will remain the crucial factor in making progress. The immediate priority is to anchor the ship in position, so that we do not have to continue to rely on tugs alone. When the weather abates, we shall start to lighten the vessel, so that she can be moved to a less-exposed anchorage. The operation will take time and needs to be done carefully and safely. Every effort will be made to prevent any further release of oil.
I am sure that the House will join me in recognising the extremely hard work put in by all who have helped to mitigate the effects of this regrettable incident. Work will continue to be done to stabilise the vessel, minimise further release of oil and deal with oil that has come ashore. The House will recognise the hazardous nature of that work in an exposed location, and it will wish to pay particular tribute to those who have returned to the ship as part of the salvage operation. We wish them every success in a satisfactory conclusion to a distressing incident.
Ms Clare Short: I join the Secretary of State and the rest of the House in sending our best wishes to the salvage team working on the Sea Empress, with our hopes that it manages to transfer enough oil from the vessel to allow her to be refloated and moved without a major accident or large-scale oil leak, which would do terrible damage to the beauty of the Pembrokeshire coastline and the wildlife in the surrounding sea.
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is most disappointing—following the 1993 Braer disaster, the fine work undertaken by Lord Donaldson's inquiry and the acceptance of most of his recommendations—that we should continue to suffer the danger of major spillages from oil tankers in areas of great natural beauty?

35
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that—as Lloyd's List International claimed on Saturday 17 February—the Sea Empress is the 12th tanker to have grounded in United Kingdom waters since early 1993? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of suspicions in the industry that masters have failed to disclose a number of other incidents in which damage was avoided?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that there is increasing concern that Milford Haven has become accident prone, that this is the second reported incident in the estuary in the past four months and that—again according to Lloyd's List International—there are fears that other close shaves at Milford Haven have been covered up? In those circumstances, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the port authority's inquiry into Milford Haven should be extended, to establish whether commercial considerations are outweighing safety and environmental considerations?
Does the Secretary of State accept that there are four possible causes of the Sea Empress disaster—pilot error, engine or steering problems, and crew error? Given that the Sea Empress is only three years old and was involved in an incident in Sullom Voe in 1994, is the Minister aware that many suspect that the problem with that vessel and other cheap designs lies in the lack of engine power and back-up for the steering system? May I suggest that it is essential that those matters are properly and independently investigated? Will he give urgent consideration to excluding all ships without adequate design protection against spillages—either double hulling or mid-deck design—from all environmentally sensitive waters?
Given the importance of the issue, will the Secretary of State reconsider his decision today? An internal inquiry by his own marine accident investigation branch is inadequate, given the serious questions that have been raised. Will he instead recall Lord Donaldson and ask him to review the problems that remain following the implementation of the previous report?
Last but not least, will the Secretary of State admit that, as the Merchant Navy officers union said, the Government have allowed increasing amounts of
"sub-standard flag of convenience shipping to take trade from Britain while presiding over the demise of the British fleet."?
Will he immediately set up a commission—and chair it himself—with the remit to rebuild a strong British fleet with high standards of safety and respect for the protection of the environment?
Sir George Young: I am grateful for the comments that the hon. Lady made at the beginning of her remarks, and I endorse them. The Donaldson report made 103 recommendations. The Government accepted 86 and 13 are under further consideration. Half of those that we accepted have been implemented, so we have made good progress in taking forward the wide-ranging report that Lord Donaldson initiated. The hon. Lady suggested that unreported incidents have taken place, and I shall make inquires to see whether there is substance in that suggestion. As for her speculation as to the causes of the incident, it makes sense to await the outcome of the MAIB investigation. Although the MAIB reports to me, it is independent and its credibility and integrity are widely recognised in the marine world.
36
I was interested to read what Lord Donaldson said about double hulls and their merits in paragraph 23.14 of his report:
"We have some doubts on the merits of double hulls and consider that there is scope for discussion. We accept the line that IMO has taken in promoting double hulled tankers or equivalents but believe that there is a need for further research."
One needs to be cautious about the suggestions in the press that it would make sense to exclude single-hulled vessels from the United Kingdom.
In regard to the hon. Lady's other suggestions, the priority of the House is to initiate an authoritative, speedy inquiry to find out what went wrong and then to take action on that. Some of the alternative suggestions, such as public inquiries, would inevitably take longer and might deny us the information that we need urgently if we are to get to the bottom of the matter.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am sure that all hon. Members will join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the speed, professionalism and efficiency of the emergency services, and we wish them well. As the Secretary of State clearly appreciates, oil tankers tend to operate in coastal waters that are peculiarly environmentally vulnerable and ecologically sensitive. Is it not time, therefore, for the right hon. Gentleman to consider what steps the United Kingdom can take to make progress on the issues on which he has just spoken?
It is some time since the Donaldson report examined the case for double hulls. Is there not a case for a British initiative on the issue, to prevent the use of vessels that are clearly not up to the required standards in our very vulnerable waters?
Sir George Young: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, there is on-going work within the International Maritime Organisation on double hulls. The present position is that single-hulled ships have progressively to be phased out, the date varying according to particular countries, and double-hulled ships or those of equivalent safety introduced. That is the right way forward. Although at the end of the day the United Kingdom will retain the right to take unilateral action, I am sure that the House will agree that, where possible, it makes sense to make progress on an international basis, given the nature of the shipping trade.
Mr. Nick Ainger: I, too, should like to send my best wishes to my constituents, many of whom are involved in the clean-up and the salvage operation. I have been closely involved since late on Thursday night, when the vessel first went aground.
I am grateful that the Secretary of State took the trouble to come down and look at the operation, but I must tell him that an MAIB investigation is far too restrictive. This is the second time in four months that a large crude carrier has run aground at the entrance to Milford Haven. The indications are that there were steering and—possibly—propulsion problems connected with both incidents. Both were modern vessels; had they been motor cars they would not even have qualified for MOTs yet.
I believe that there is something wrong with the minimum standards that have been set; only a public inquiry can deal with such wider issues. We also need to sort out, once and for all, the issues of double-hull and

37
mid-deck design. I appreciate what Lord Donaldson said, but the point is that he did not argue in favour of single hulls.
The Secretary of State did not tell us that the IMO has recommended that it will be 25 to 30 years before all the single hulls have been phased out. That means that we will be about 80 before the last single hulls disappear. If the Secretary of State is willing to accept that, I am not.
I believe that there are sufficient grounds for a public inquiry, to examine some of the issues specifically related to Milford Haven. Everyone accepts that it is probably the most environmentally sensitive area in the United Kingdom, and professionals working at Milford Haven, or who have retired from it, have flagged up serious problems.
The right hon. Gentleman must ask the port authority how on earth a modern port can function without radar cover at its entrance. That cover has been out of action for about six months, which shows that something is seriously wrong with the whole operation at Milford Haven. I urge the Secretary of State to hold a public inquiry.
Sir George Young: If the hon. Gentleman's last point was a contributory factor to the incident, I would expect the MAIB to reflect on that while compiling its report. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman is reported as saying in The Guardian today—he said that he had no criticism to make of the salvage efforts. He speaks with feeling about a matter of deep concern to his constituency.
The MAIB inquiry will look at allegations about power and steering. I hope that the report on the earlier incident will be available shortly, when it will be published.
The hon. Gentleman pressed me again to hold a public inquiry. The MAIB is usually entrusted with the investigation of sea accidents, however serious. There has been no formal public inquiry into a major shipping accident since the formation of the MAIB in 1989. Indeed, there has been no formal public inquiry into an air accident since 1973. My view is that MAIB and air accident investigation branch procedures have so far commanded wide public acceptance.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: My constituents in north Pembrokeshire are worried about the environmental impact of this incident. I support the points made by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger).
It is inevitable that this crisis will also concentrate people's minds on the proposals to burn orimulsion at Pembroke power station. Is the Secretary of State aware of the great concern in the area about the effects of burning orimulsion? Does not this incident revive fears about the transportation of orimulsion into the Haven, especially as that will involve significantly increased quantities?
While pursuing the question of the public inquiry, will the right hon. Gentleman press his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry to hold a public inquiry into the application to burn orimulsion, which is currently under consideration?
Sir George Young: The plans for an orimulsion jetty are being considered by a number of regulators, including
38
the Department, and no decisions have yet been reached. There are a range of objections to the proposals, including concerns about new dangers to navigation in the Haven.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I represent an adjacent constituency, that of Carmarthen, and I well remember, when Milford Haven was developed, the serious concern throughout Dyfed that it was at the heart of the Pembrokeshire coast national park. Regular assurances were given that the highest standards would be imposed and maintained, and that was the case in the 1960s and 1970s. Can the Secretary of State explain to me and to the people of Wales why incidents now happen regularly? We have heard today about the incident four months ago and about the Braer incident in the Shetlands. Why is there now such a high accident rate in oil transportation?
Sir George Young: The objective of the two inquiries, into the earlier incident involving the Borga and into the Sea Empress, is to find out why there are incidents and to take appropriate action. My Department's priority is to prevent such incidents taking place, and that is why we set up the MAIB inquiries, which are published, and take urgent action to implement them.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: If the Secretary of State wishes to demonstrate good will, he should take some vigorous action on those ships, which are now plying British waters, that are not suitable. However good the MAIB investigation of the Sea Empress accident is, if the Secretary of State will not take immediate action against sub-standard, non-British ships carrying oil in British waters, that is a dereliction of his duty and everyone's time is being wasted. It is vital that the evidence on double hulls, given to the Select Committee, is studied by the Secretary of State now and that he follows up the evidence and the conclusions of Lord Donaldson as quickly as possible.
Sir George Young: As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, the Government take tough action against sub-standard vessels. We published lists of vessels that had been detained following Lord Donaldson's report. Safety at sea is a matter that I take very seriously. I am anxious to make progress as fast as possible on the Donaldson report and related recommendations.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does not the Secretary of State realise the sense of horror and outrage felt by everyone, at the risk that we permit that billion-dollar industry—the richest, most profitable industry in the world—to run? We allow that industry to cut costs with ramshackle vessels at the expense of the British environment and wildlife. For too long, we have been permissive with the entire maritime industry. Why do we not follow what happened in America after the Exxon Valdez disaster? Action was taken to ensure that the polluter pays more, and that discourages vessels that are sub-standard from visiting America. Is not that the way forward? New standards must be introduced and they must be imposed first on areas such as Milford Haven, which are in special peril.
Sir George Young: It is the case that the polluter pays. The shipping industry pays the premiums for the insurance policies that are validated to pay for the damage caused.

39
With regard to the quality of vessels, the Sea Empress was built in 1993 and it is important not to prejudge the outcome of the MAIB report. I read the Donaldson report again at the weekend, and Lord Donaldson pointed out that 80 per cent. of accidents are due to human error.
Mr. Tony Banks: I found the Secretary of State's reply very complacent, and his attitude to the accident is thoroughly unsatisfactory, especially in view of what we should have learnt from the Braer incident. The accident involved a ramshackle ship, crewed by Russians and flagged out to Liberia, and we have to rely on a Chinese tug to assist us. What is going on in this country's maritime industry?
The area around Milford Haven is one of the most important sites of scientific interest in the entire world. We should not allow anything other than reinforced, double-hulled ships to go near that area. To allow an oil company to cut corners is absolutely appalling and the Government must take full measures to ensure that the polluter pays for every single expense that is incurred by those who are trying to clear up after the tragedy. Was the captain of the ship tested after it grounded? Will the RSPB and the RSPCA be given financial support for their clear-up? How many birds have been affected? Will the Secretary of State take some direct action instead of being stunningly complacent?
Sir George Young: According to the last figure that I saw, six birds have been killed, but, of course, we must do all that we can to minimise any damage. The insurance company acting for the Sea Empress will compensate for the costs borne by the Government, local authorities or others involved in the clearing-up operation. As for double hulls, the hon. Gentleman will have heard what I said in response to two earlier questions.
As for complacency, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that after the Braer incident, we set up the Donaldson inquiry. The subsequent report made 103 recommendations, 86 of which were accepted. Half were implemented, and the rest are being pursued. I hope that the fact that my Department gave the House a statement outlining the action that we were taking, and the responses
40
that I have outlined, will convince the hon. Gentleman that we are not complacent. We take the matter seriously, and we are determined to learn the lessons and then implement the recommendations.
Mr. Graham Allen: One of the lessons that the Secretary of State may wish to learn is that the arrangements are policed by the Coastguard and Marine Safety Agencies. Will he now undertake not to cut further the numbers in those agencies, so that the arrangements are patrolled and enforced effectively? Will he also undertake to ensure that the penalties for those who damage the environment—a maximum fine of £250,000, but no minimum—are enforced ruthlessly? At present, many shipowners are bearing the penalties as a cost of doing business. The right hon. Gentleman needs to get tough, so that we do not see any more such incidents.
Sir George Young: Safety is and will remain paramount in my Department. Efficiency savings in the two marine agencies and, indeed, in the MAIB, have not and will not be made at the expense of safety.

Oil Tanker (Milford Haven)

  Scott Report
  4.41 pm
  Mr. Jim Cousins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As one who was a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry at the time of the Iraqi supergun affair, I have written to you to seek your guidance on what I consider to be important issues for the House, arising from the Scott report and the evidence given to the inquiry. Are you in a position to give me that guidance?
  Madam Speaker: No, I am not. I received the hon. Gentleman's letter about an hour before I arrived in the Chair, so I am not in a position to reply. I shall, however, let the hon. Gentleman have a written reply as soon as I can. I am aware of the points that he has made in his letter. If he wishes to draw my attention to a possible breach of privilege, he must make specific complaints in writing, and I shall consider whether to give precedence to his complaints in the usual manner. However, I ask him to await the response to his letter, which I shall see that he receives as soon as possible.

Orders of the Day
  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
    New clause 5

      VIDEO RECORDING
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall—

      (a) make a code of practice in connection with the silent video recording of interviews to which this section applies; and

      (b) make an order requiring the silent video recording of interviews to which this section applies in accordance with the code as it has effect for the time being.

      (2) This section applies to interviews held by police officers of persons detained under section 14(1)(a) or (b) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (arrest and detention of suspected persons).
      (3) In this section "police officer" means a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve.'.—[Sir John Wheeler.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.42pm
      The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 6—Codes of practice: supplementary.
      Government amendments Nos. 21 and 22.
      Sir John Wheeler: The new clauses and amendments give effect to the announcement, made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in the House on 9 January, that he would introduce a system for the silent video recording of all interviews taking place in holding centres, and also, for consultation, a code of practice for the purpose.
      The case for introducing either video or audio recording of interviews with terrorist suspects in Northern Ireland has been mooted for some time. The Royal Ulster Constabulary has advised against the idea, because it fears that suspects would be unwilling to assist the police if they knew that their co-operation was being recorded. It had been hoped that a statutory provision could be introduced that would prevent disclosure of the tapes either by or to those who might have sinister motives for acquiring them; however, after extensive discussions with the police and the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, it became clear that it would not be possible to devise a satisfactory safeguard of that kind. For that reason, it was agreed that it would not be possible to introduce audio recording of interviews, but that silent video recording could be introduced without any statutory safeguards and with the RUC's agreement. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced his intention to do so on Second Reading.
      Audio recording would provide the same protection as silent video recording. A further benefit would be that it would quickly resolve problems relating to admissibility
      42
      of evidence. There are many problems, however. First, there are the concerns of the RUC. As Mr. Rowe said in his most recent review of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991:
      "the RUC objection to taping is that the suspect will not say anything, and will be worried that his organisation will learn what he has said".
      The main problem, however, is one of disclosure. There are significant problems in devising a satisfactory scheme that will protect the release or disclosure of tapes. For example, the accused's lawyers would have the right to listen to the whole tape, and, once a copy had passed out of police hands, it would be impossible to ensure that it did not fall into the wrong hands and put lives at risk. Editing a tape is not the answer, for reasons that were given in detail in Lord Colville's 1990 report. I will spare the House the detail of that report, as the facts are on record.
      I echo the sentiments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State when I say that the Government hope to see the end of holding centres soon. I wish that I could be sure that that would happen, in the current circumstances. The Government look forward to a time when all suspects will be interviewed under the normal criminal procedures. I say that despite the Provisional IRA's announcement of 9 February—although I acknowledge that, in the light of the announcement and the events that have followed, that time may not come quite as soon as we might have hoped.
      Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that anyone arrested in this country will be interviewed in the normal course of events?
      Sir John Wheeler: Yes, I can confirm that, but the hon. Gentleman and, I think, the House will know that—unfortunately—very different circumstances now prevail in Northern Ireland. Following the ending of the Provisional IRA's ceasefire, people's lives are once more seriously at risk.
      The holding centre regime has features that are stricter than the corresponding regime under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—a point that the hon. Gentleman may also wish to acknowledge. For the time being, however, in the prevailing circumstances in Northern Ireland, those features—including the additional measures—are very necessary. The move to introduce silent video recording will add to the range of safeguards that already exist in holding centres, and will increase public confidence in the regime.
      Let me now touch on the recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Murray case. Murray was arrested on 7 January 1990, and taken to a police holding centre. The police denied him access to his legal adviser for the first 48 hours of his detention, under powers in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987. He remained silent both before and after seeing his solicitor; he also declined to give evidence at his trial.
      In Murray's case, the European Court of Human Rights held that the European convention had been violated because Murray had been denied access to a solicitor at a point when inferences might have been drawn from his silence. The Government find that a disappointing conclusion, especially as the Court concluded, as we had argued strongly, that the proceedings against Murray were not unfair.

      43
      We are studying the Court's judgment in detail. Its full implications will take some time to assess. We need to consider carefully what changes in the law or practice may be necessary to ensure compliance with the convention. The House will also understand that we wish to avoid any change, especially in the present circumstances in Northern Ireland, that would risk impairing the operational effectiveness of the police in dealing with terrorism. We shall consider quickly what is the best way forward. That is obviously a matter of significance in the context of the present Bill. We aim to announce our conclusions as soon as possible and will try to do so when the Bill is in another place. I must make it clear to the House that it is a complex matter, which has a wide-ranging application within the United Kingdom.
      I should draw the attention of the House to a point of broader significance on the Court's decision: that the Court rejected any suggestion that the law on the right to silence had by itself prejudiced Murray's right under the convention. It endorsed the view of the European Commission of Human Rights, in its earlier decision, that the legislation on silence constituted
      "a formalised system which aims at allowing common-sense implications to play a formal part in the assessment of evidence".
      It concluded that the drawing of inferences had neither infringed the presumption of innocence nor shifted the burden of proof from prosecution to defence.
      The view of the Court and of the Commission, that the law on inferences from silence is a matter of common sense, is exactly right. The law does not harm the innocent. It is right in principle and it is an important weapon in the army of measures to deal with serious crime. The Court's confirmation that the legislation on the right of silence had not breached the convention is welcome. The Court decided, as the Government had argued, that there should be no award of compensation, and reduced costs against the Government from the £57,000 that the applicant had claimed to £15,000, recognising that only one part of the claim had succeeded.
      I commend to the House these new clauses, which will provide for the introduction of silent video recording. Any further adjustments necessary to the law on the treatment of persons in police custody under terrorism provisions as a result of further deliberation on the matters that I have described will be taken forward in another place.
      Mr. Tony Worthington: I shall deal briefly with the Murray case, to which the Minister referred, although, as the Minister knows, it is mentioned in one of our amendments.
      We welcome the fact that the Government are considering urgently what measures might be necessary to bring the law and practice into line with the requirements of the convention as set down by the European Court. I understand from that that they recognise that the European Court has said that there is a disparity between our present law and the practices of the European Court, and that there needs to be some movement on that matter. I shall come back to that later.
      We welcome the move, although it is too small, to silent video recording at holding centres. We believe that it is a valuable situation, in which human rights protection and effective prosecution can go together. They are not in
      44
      conflict. As the Minister knows, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights—his appointed body—in Northern Ireland has pressed for silent video recording since 1984, because there it is of huge value where the suspect is unable to deny the validity of a statement that has been recorded.
      In Committee, reference was made to the Ballymurphy case, which I think provided the most powerful case for audio recording. Of that case, Mr. Justice Kerr, who, as hon. Members will be aware, has been appointed with the noble Lord Lloyd to head the review into the workings of the anti-terrorist legislation, said:
      "The trial started in August 1993 and did not end until December 1994."
      He said that a huge amount of time on that case was taken up with what are referred to as voir dire proceedings, and that, if audio recording had been available, the trial
      "could have been completed comfortably within a few weeks instead of the sixteen months that it occupied."
      If that case had not been in court, and if he had been available, Mr. Justice Kerr could have heard it and many other cases in that period. That is the opinion not only of Mr. Justice Kerr but of many other members of the judiciary. It is the opinion not just of SACHR but of John Rowe, the Government's reviewer of the legislation, who in February 1995, with regard to audio recording—not silent video recording—said
      "That is the very least that should be provided. If there is a video recording as well, so much the better."
      That comes from a man who is the essence of caution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said earlier, all that we ask is that the Northern Irish experience is brought into line with what occurs in England and Wales.
      It is our belief that Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and others have examined very carefully disclosability, which is at the essence of the Royal Ulster Constabulary's concern. There are, obviously, security risks, but we must face the fact that, by definition, police stations are secure establishments. Their whole raison d'être is to be secure. The main threat to the security of police stations is always through human beings rather than machinery. If we were to proceed on the assumption that police stations are not secure, where would we go with regard to any prosecution of the law? Sir Louis Blom-Cooper came forward with what he described as
      "a closely prescribed procedure for the disclosure of tape recording only to those detainees who are charged with terrorist offences and who at trial challenge the admissibility of a statement."
      The suspect who has been recorded can decide the extent to which the interview is made more generally available. Clearly, if the suspect is concerned about the risk to himself, he will not take a step that makes that video or audio recording more generally available.
      I have a number of questions for the Minister about the new clauses. My first, simple question is whether it is his intention that all the holding centres should, as quickly as possible, install silent video recording. Secondly, what time scale is the Minister setting for the installation of silent video recording? My third question, which I raised in Committee, has not been taken account of in the drafting of the new clause; perhaps the Minister can help. Would it be possible for the new clause to be worded in such a way, if the holding centres unfortunately continue, as to allow the easy extension from silent video recording

      45
      to audio recording and full video recording without the need for primary legislation? As I read the new clause, it is strictly limited to silent video recording and it would not be possible to change that without primary legislation.
      5 pm
      My next questions concern the Minister's thoughts on the technical issues involved. Again, we referred to those issues in Committee. Silent video recording has its limits; how useful it is depends on how it is used. If a video camera is installed in the ceiling and simply looks down on the police officer and the suspect, it will reveal, for example—I put it gently—that the people do not get too close to each other. It will not reveal very much about body language and it will reveal little about gestures. It will not allow lip-reading, as ground-level cameras would. How useful the device is will very much depend on the technical issues.
      As the Minister knows, closed circuit television recording of interviews exists, but it has proved not to be valuable as it seems not to be taken note of by the police officers who watch the interviews taking place. How useful the extension to silent video recording will be very much depends on the way in which the technical issues about the deployment of video cameras are dealt with. I invite the Minister to reply to those points.
      Mr. Ken Maginnis: What a wonderful world it would be if everything was perfect. Unfortunately, the past few hours have shown us that we live in a far from perfect world. We live in a world where we are bound, at times, to travel along a route that we know, in our heart of hearts, is full of pitfalls. However, if we fail to travel along that route, we run the risk of being labelled dogs of war. That is what we have experienced in Northern Ireland and throughout the kingdom over the past 17 months.
      The Prime Minister and others were persuaded of a certain hypothesis—a hypothesis that IRA-Sinn Fein wished to move from a mode of violence to a mode of democracy. If the Prime Minister and the Government had not explored that hypothesis, there would have been cries that there on the Government Benches were the dogs of war.
      When we consider the Bill, we must bear in mind the reality and the lessons of the past 18 months. The facts are that IRA-Sinn Fein is an organisation that is well tutored in every aspect of guerilla warfare and in every aspect of terrorism. To introduce the video recording of interviews with terrorists at this time is to lessen the benefit that those interviews will have in terms of the police bringing people to justice and garnering high-grade intelligence which is necessary to protect our society.
      I assure the House that the IRA is not composed of hawks and doves. It is not composed of those who wish to pursue a course of violence and those who are against such a course. It is composed of those who carry out ruthless killings and those who are efficient as members of a propaganda corps in confusing international opinion and, I am sad to say, opinion at home about the extent and brutality of the horrors.
      Unfortunately, there are elements within the press and media who have believed for years that Gerry Adams will lead the IRA out of violence and into the democratic mode. That is not so. The same people have persuaded
      46
      the Government, through their advisers, that it will be a good thing to have video recordings in the holding centres. That will not be a good thing.
      The House needs to understand how terrorists behave when they are taken into the holding centres. They are not innocent people who are brought in off the streets for no good reason. The people who are brought to the holding centres are, by and large, those who are involved in terrorism. It is not always possible to get the evidence of that involvement so that they can be brought through the courts and convicted. However, I know of few people in recent times—I am talking about the past decade—who have been brought into holding centres who have been totally innocent of involvement in terrorist activity.
      When those people come into the holding centres, they are already conditioned about how they should behave when questioned by detectives. They indulge in the most bizarre activities. Those activities may be anything from concentrating on the cracks in the wall, counting them and double-checking again, again and again, to stripping off their clothes entirely and lying naked on the floor of the room in which they are being questioned. That is done to distract and embarrass those who have the responsibility for finding out what is happening among the terrorist gangs who have roamed not only Northern Ireland but Great Britain over the past 25 years.
      If we now introduce video cameras, they will be used in exactly the same way to embarrass and distract the officers who are responsible for ensuring that the people who threaten our society are removed from the streets.
      In the past 10 months, the Chief Constable of the RUC has decided that the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 should not be used in the arrest and holding of suspected terrorists and has required policemen to use the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. That has left us with a huge gap in the intelligence that is available to the police and, to a large extent, is responsible for the fact that there have now been two explosions and other attempted explosions for which no one has been made accountable.
      Two years ago, the level of intelligence was so high that we could have introduced internment—I would have had no qualms about that—to take out those who command and control the IRA throughout the whole of this kingdom. We can no longer do that, as there is a gap in the intelligence. We have been naive in believing that the terrorists were somehow sincere in their desire to move towards the democratic process.
      Mr. Seamus Mallon: The hon. Gentleman referred at one stage to video recording, the subject of the new clause. How will the video recording of interviews embarrass those who carry out the interviews if they have acted according to all regulations and procedures?
      Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman must not be as familiar as I thought with the part of the kingdom from which I come. As soon as such video recordings are made available, every sharp lawyer in the country will want to see them to discover not so much the attitude of the policeman who is behaving properly, but the terrorist suspect who has been brought in for questioning. Therein lies the meat of the matter.
      Mr. Mallon rose—
      Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman asked me a question, and I shall explain my reply. I would not wish him to leave here in ignorance. When a suspect is taken in for questioning, he will be conditioned, as I have explained—
      Mr. David Trimble: He or she.
      Mr. Maginnis: He or she will have been conditioned in the past to adopt a certain pose or mode of behaviour. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said that a camera could be mounted in the ceiling. If a camera were to be mounted there, I imagine that a suspect would be told to look at it in a fixed manner without speaking. Any evidence that he has given in response to police questions will be deemed to be an offence against the IRA code, and if he is released, he will be punished for so doing. If he is brought to court and acquitted, he will also be punished for so doing.
      5.15 pm
      The camera may motivate a person who is peripherally involved—let us leave the hardest of the hard men for the time being. A person who is peripherally involved and is brought in for questioning may, in the interests of his own future or that of his family, wish to co-operate with the police. But he will be prevented from doing so because he knows that his every move will be recorded and that the recording can be asked for. If he is never brought before court and is released from custody, he could be forced to make allegations of ill-treatment. Cases will then be brought against the authorities, and the recording will be sought to see whether he infringed the IRA code. That is the danger of introducing video recordings.
      Such a move would be the thin end of the wedge. The next question—as was articulated by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie—would be, "How quickly can we move to have audio recordings added to video recordings?"
      Rev. Ian Paisley: When accusations are made about what went on in an interview room, there is no real way for a police officer to refute them. If such recordings were available, would not they give the police an opportunity to say, "That man was never attacked or struck, and he did not have his head banged on the wall"? That argument has been put to me forcefully by police officers, who have said that they would rather have an opportunity to refute such allegations.
      Mr. Maginnis: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but he is harking back to a time some years ago, before the introduction of the regular medical checks that are available to suspects when they arrive at the police station and after every session of interview. A suspect could remove his clothes, rush blindly at the wall and injure himself. If that occurred, any interviewing officer should immediately bring the interviewing session to a close and should ensure that the matter is properly recorded not only by himself, but by those who were observing the—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Mallon: The video?
      Mr. Maginnis: Those who were observing the closed circuit television—not the video, I assure the
      48
      hon. Gentleman. The officer would have an opportunity to call in a doctor immediately to ensure that a proper record of the self-inflicted injury was made. We could deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) in that way.
      The difficulty for Special Branch is that it must do more than try to bring terrorists to justice. It must also try to build up a picture of the overall activity and involvement of individuals in terrorism to a level that gives us high-grade intelligence, and we will sacrifice that if we introduce video recordings.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I refer to the man who may strip off his clothes and bang his head against a wall while being interrogated. In such a case, the interviewing officer should stop the questioning, go to those looking on and say what has happened. When such a case is revealed to the public, the argument always is that the police made the final decision. Surely if one had it on video that the man stripped off his clothes and banged his head against the wall, one would have concrete evidence that it had nothing to do with the police. We are all aware that every time these things happen, the police are the scapegoat and people say, "That is just another policeman packing up his felon."
      Mr. Maginnis: I hear what the hon. Member for North Antrim says. The policemen whom I know have never been afraid to put themselves between the terrorists—and all the machinations of the terrorists—and the good of society. It should be left to the discretion of our police service. I know that the greater number of police would wish for the ability to glean high-grade intelligence rather than seek their own security. The argument exists, which is why we are having this debate today and why it has taken the Government so long to capitulate on the question of video recordings.
      This issue relates to the long-term good of society. Today we have seen our very efficient police service virtually neutered in the collection and collation of intelligence, because this is not a nice thing to do. Well, what the terrorists have done to society for the past 25 years is not very nice; and what they have done over the past few weeks is not very nice.
      Gerry Adams is telling us that he is "holding out his hand to John Major" and that he would like to be friendly. However, at the same time, he is telling us that he will not condemn the acts of terrorism that have occurred, and he is asking gullible people not to deliver the terrorists to the due process of law. With that sort of influence pervading part of our society, why on earth should we put restrictions on ourselves in relation to the video recording amendment?
      Rev. William McCrea: We are dealing with a serious matter. We are considering the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill at a time when the IRA has resumed its onslaught on the mainland. We have had a continuing threat to the people of Northern Ireland—the members of the security forces, the elected Members of this House and society in general. As was suggested in Committee, it would be folly to dismantle this legislation—it ought not to have been considered—when there is such a terrorist threat to the whole of the United Kingdom. I believe that we have been proved right: the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland need the legislation that we are debating at the moment.

      49
      The solemn responsibility of Her Majesty's Government—indeed, their primary duty—is to defend the citizens of the United Kingdom. This legislation is not a threat to innocent, decent and law-abiding citizens. However, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, we ought to have legislation that is a threat to those who endeavour to make our community a slaughterhouse—as we have seen in recent days on the mainland.
      On behalf of my colleagues, I express our sympathy to the innocent people who have lost their lives since the renewal of the IRA's campaign of murder and destruction. We should also think of those who are in hospital because, while they may still be alive, they will carry the scars of these dastardly deeds upon their bodies for the rest of their days. We should not forget the families of those who are left with the scars—no one but those who have been through such an ordeal will understand how they feel.
      We are not dealing with mindless villains; we are dealing with cold-blooded terrorists. We are in an emergency situation—this is emergency legislation. I think that every hon. Member would have been delighted if the Minister had been able to say with hand on heart that the United Kingdom and every part of it is at peace—that there is no more war, slaughter, threat or danger to the citizens of the United Kingdom. Unfortunately and sadly, that is not reality.
      The amendment relates to video recording. I understand some of the points that were raised by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). However, it is important that we do nothing that will damage gaining the high-grade intelligence that has been mentioned, because it is vital. It is essential that the best intelligence is gathered against this organisation, which is inflicting a reign of terror on our people.
      The Government have considered a number of views over the years that the legislation has been on the statute book. The Government believe that now is the time to step forward regarding video recording. My colleagues and I do not want to put any impediment in the path of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the security forces in bringing to justice those who have carried out these dastardly crimes, because they deserve to face justice and prison. In fact, I believe that those who are guilty of murder deserve more—I believe in capital punishment, and I believe that they deserve death. However, we are not debating that issue at the moment, so my comments must be restricted to the amendment.
      Having listened to the matters that were debated in Committee and having listened to the debate today, we feel that it is necessary to protect the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the members of the security forces against false charges. Unfortunately, it is not easy to gain high-level intelligence if impediments are put in the path of the security forces. However, knowing the border area as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone does, it hurts the community whenever known criminals and murderers are taken to court and they get off on a technicality. It grieves the loved ones and the families of those who have been bereaved. Therefore, it is important that we do not give an inch. We must provide the necessary means so that terrorists cannot get out of court, continue their dastardly deeds and terrorise the community.
      50
      The new clause aids the security forces and protects them against false charge. I genuinely believe that, after banging his head against a wall, the terrorist has only to claim in court how he got the injury. A doctor examines his head, sees the split and writes down what he sees. The doctor cannot ask, "How exactly did it happen?" And, therefore, the character and integrity of a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is taken from him when he goes to court. He is lambasted for causing the known terrorist that injury.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Maginnis: Is not the hon. Member exaggerating? Let us consider the number of people who have been involved in terrorism, the number who have been questioned and the number who have been involved in the questioning. Say a terrorist injures himself and a policeman takes the steps open to him immediately. One does not split one's head open unless one is hit. If one hits someone hard enough to open his head, more often than not one injures oneself. There are ways around that, without placing constraints on the police, which will inhibit the collection of high-grade intelligence. I would rather one guilty man walked away from court every now and again than the police being perpetually inhibited in the collection of information and intelligence.
      Rev. William McCrea: Surely the hon. Gentleman has to be very careful in going down that road. Why should we allow one guilty terrorist to walk out of court? What if that terrorist happened to murder the hon. Gentleman's loved ones after he walked out? How would he regard the fact that he had been able to get out? The measure is a protection for members of the security forces. We should not give terrorists any corner to crawl out of any judgment. If they are guilty, they should be found guilty. They should not be able to grasp at some straw and claim that they were unjustly treated in police custody.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure my hon. Friend has heard what has been said. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said that, if the person doing the interrogating attacked and injured the suspect, evidence could be found on the attacker. Surely, the man carrying out the interview could throw the prisoner against the wall and split his head. How does the hon. Gentleman answer that accusation? I do not know where he has been living, but I have been studying the court cases. Such charges are trotted out in nearly every case that comes to court. It is said that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is at it again—beating people up in Castlereagh.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but interventions should by their nature be short. He should contribute later rather than lengthen his intervention now.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I got carried away.
      Rev. William McCrea: I would rather my hon. Friend got carried away than the terrorist got carried away in his act of terrorism. Unfortunately, a great tragedy is happening in the United Kingdom. Terrorists are killing our people. We are talking about serious matters. In my

      51
      opinion, we are talking about the protection of the Royal Ulster Constabulary against false charge. If that means that we have to wear the videoing of such proceedings, it is important. The people of Northern Ireland want to ensure that the guilty are found guilty and that they do not get out of going to court.
      Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), first, for giving way to me and, secondly, for the clarity of his exposition of what may or may not happen in interrogation centres. As I listened to the stories about people taking off their clothes, banging their heads against the wall and cameras coming down from the ceiling, I thought of a remarkable short story by Franz Kafka, called "The Trial", and I began to wonder whether we had got to the stage of surreality and literally lost sight of the new clause.
      The new clause is simple. There is one difficulty about it—it is couched in terms of a code of practice. I am not in total ignorance of this type of legislation. Of course, I am not so learned and experienced as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone in these matters. I do not have his sources of intelligence or information, thanks be to heaven, but I have certain experiences. I have lived 60 years of my life in south Armagh and I am not altogether naive about what happens.
      When I see the term codes of practice in relation to any emergency legislation, I say to myself, "That is the long finger"—the euphemism for never doing something or for doing it so much later that the needs and requirements may well have overtaken it long ago. How often I have stood here, in debate after debate on new clauses about the making of codes of practice? How often, in Committee, both on the emergency provisions Acts and on the prevention of terrorism Acts, I have seen new clauses of this kind. In reality, making a code of practice is a euphemism for never doing anything.
      That is the reality and the surreality of the type of debate that we are having. We must add to that the situation that we are in, both politically and in terms of everyone's safety. We are talking about people throwing off their clothes and hitting their heads against a wall with a camera either above or below them. That puts the new clause into some perspective.
      I have spoken in Committee in favour of audio and video recording not once but five times, I believe, for very simple reasons—not least the reason given by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). When one considers the hundreds of thousands of pounds that have been paid out in claims for injuries alleged to have occurred in interrogation centres, it would make good sense in financial terms alone to ensure that there is a record against which allegations can be judged.
      One has also to consider the percentage of allegations settled out of court and not even tested in court. I am talking not about small amounts of money, but about hundreds of thousands of pounds. I do not know the exact figure. So far as I can remember, I believe that we are talking about well over £1 million, £2 million or perhaps even more. That is a substantial amount of money. However, that is not the main point.
      Like the hon. Member for North Antrim, I believe that video recording is a protection for the members of the police service who carry out the interviews. It is a
      52
      protection and a record which can prevent allegations of that kind from being made and, if interrogating officers have acted irregularly, a way in which they can be dealt with properly.
      Mr. Maginnis rose—
      Mr. Mallon: I will show the hon. Member the same courtesy as he showed me.
      Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman has to some extent revealed his hand. He talked about the officer who has behaved improperly, but at the same time poured scorn on the idea that a person being questioned might strip off his clothes—that he might have repeatedly resorted to that tactic—and lie down on the floor or seek to injure himself against the wall of the room in which he is being questioned. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot get away with the implication that the police behave improperly while terrorists, who are involved in the most ghastly crimes, behave properly.
      Mr. Mallon: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not want to have it both ways. If we had audio and video recordings and someone stripped off his or her clothes, took a mad dash at the wall, hit his or her head against it and fell to the floor, that would be on record and could not be used to make a false allegation. Similarly, if an interrogating officer did not work according to proper procedures, that would also be on record. In my view, that would protect both the person being interrogated and the interrogator.
      I am not making a case, as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone implied, against those who carry out the interrogations. However, a decision of the European Court of Human Rights stated that such incidents occurred and Lord Bennett's report, which was commissioned by the House, clearly stated that that happened. Have we or have we not a duty to protect both the interrogating officer and the person being interrogated, and to add to the evidence and material that can be brought to court? I believe that we have.
      The greater the security problems that we face—such as the horrendous attacks that have occurred in recent days because of the political uncertainty—the more we must seek to retain the integrity of the process of law and public confidence in justice. New clause 5 is one way to do that.
      Mr. Roger Stott: In the light of the speech made by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who seemed to be very worried about the existence of the videos and what might flow from them, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) can reassure me. As I understand it, video recordings of suspects' interrogations would be treated like any other information that is gathered by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and they would be secure.
      The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone seems to think that the videos would be shown at the local cinema or on the Bravo channel of Sky television. Who else would have access to videos made in Castlereagh apart from the RUC? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh and also—I suspect for the first time ever—with the hon. Member for

      53
      North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) that this is a very sensible provision. I am sure that the video recordings will not be readily available to the general public.
      Mr. Mallon: My hon. Friend gives me the onerous task of attempting to define the position taken by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I will give the hon. Gentleman a further opportunity to clarify his position if he would like to do so.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he is slightly embarrassed, as all hon. Members should be embarrassed, by the glibness of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) in referring to the Bravo channel. His experience of Northern Ireland should have led him to understand how lawyers for accused persons have the right of access to available information. I assume that that is at least a possibility. If it is not a possibility, I am sure that the Minister will greatly reassure me by telling me that that information will never be available to lawyers in court and will therefore not enter the public domain in that way. The carelessness and glibness of the hon. Member for Wigan is out of place when one considers the extent to which terrorism pervades our society.
      Mr. Mallon: I shall simply say that I hope that the position has been clarified for my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott). When he makes that assessment, perhaps he will clarify it for me and for the rest of the House. I have no doubt that the Minister will give the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone every assurance that he seeks because we are talking about a code of practice and it probably will never become a reality. There is almost a bounden duty to give such reassurances, and I have no doubt that the Minister will fall into line. I shall be awaiting those assurances with great interest. I see that the Minister is nodding already.
      The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone is right about one thing: we are in a very difficult, dangerous and tense period. There is no question or doubt about that. No one can underestimate the difficulties that we all face. However, we must all hang on to one thing: the integrity of the law, not only in its enforcement but in its ability to defend the individual. Ultimately, that is the only barrier between the type of anarchy that the terrorist groups want to create and the type of society that we wish to create. That is the acid test, and we should never forget it in this debate.
      This debate is very difficult from my perspective; it is not easy and it will not be easy. There will be gloating. There will be those who tell us, almost with a great sense of self-justification, "Didn't we tell you so?" What did they tell us—that it is wrong to try to work for peace? Is anyone telling me that it is wrong to try to work for a system of justice that will protect society and the individual? It is not as if the new clause is remarkably radical—the hon. Member for North Antrim and I agree about some of it—but it goes to the core of the entire debate, and it concerns more than the video recording of interrogations or the audio recording of investigations. It deals with the key question: how do an informed Government deal with terrorism and at the same time protect the highest standards of law? That is what the whole debate is about, and not the peripheral matters that we have been discussing.
      54
      In conclusion, it is seldom that the hon. Member for North Antrim gets carried away, but by coincidence I was watching a video recently and I saw him being carried away quite literally and not just metaphorically.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: I shall endeavour to be mercifully brief.
      The debate is essentially about two issues. First, how far are people to be protected, in a democratic society, by the laws that are necessary in an emergency? Secondly, in those circumstances, how far are the rights of the individual to be catered for? There is no doubt that if the protection, as a Government may regard it, of society at all costs is to be the only criterion, one could easily end up in a police state. On the other hand, if the protection of individual rights is to be ensured, regardless of the needs of society as a whole, we end up with anarchy. In a democratic society, the Government must strive, in dealing with an emergency such as that which we face, to achieve what Horace described as the golden mean—the balance between the competing interests. The use of video is an attempt by the Government to find, in microcosm, a balance.
      The ordinary rules of law for the protection of an individual in this society have been created to cater for normal circumstances: the right to silence, the right to have representation, the right to have a case heard properly and the right to be assisted by a legal representative when one may, through ignorance or inexperience, be unable to protect one's own rights. They were all created in circumstances in which many of the accused were illiterate or overwhelmed by the dignity, and sometimes the pomposity, of the legal process. They were frightened and needed to be protected. That is one end of the balance.
      The other end of the balance is frequently seen in Northern Ireland. We are faced with an organised, highly intelligent, well-trained, violent and criminal conspiracy. The people involved are not bumpkins who do not know what is going on. They have been briefed in the latest anti-interrogation techniques, some of which my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) has mentioned. There are well-established techniques for frustrating interrogations and inquiries which would be straightforward in a normal society. In such circumstances, the normal rules for an ordinary society have to be modified in some degree if society is to be protected.
      At the same time, emergency legislation and abnormal circumstances provide opportunities for various sorts of malpractice by over-zealous police officers and by people who are privy to information, which although it is not evidence acceptable in court nevertheless shows in the strongest possible terms that the people being interrogated are guilty of the most hideous crimes. Eye witnesses may have made statements that the person being interrogated is the perpetrator of a murder but have also said that in no circumstances will they give such evidence in court because of the need to protect not only their lives but those of their families and children.
      Such circumstances offer to an over-zealous police officer an enormous temptation to secure an admission or confession. However, a well-trained police officer knows that if he oversteps the bounds, he defeats the object that he seeks. It is for that reason that I endorse the midway

      55
      point—the balanced judgment—of the Government in this particular case. They suggest that there should be a silent video recording. That would undoubtedly provide evidence that there had been no overwhelming, oppressive behaviour and no resorting, if not to physical violence, to degrading conduct or behaviour towards the accused. That is a balance in favour of the accused.
      At the same time, I oppose the suggestion that such video recordings should be accompanied by audio recordings of statements. From my experience, I believe that that would cause a diminution in the quality and range of the admissions, confessions or statements that are likely to be made by the accused.
      We must face the real word. Many of the people who are picked up and interrogated by the police, and who agree to participate in a dialogue with them, are minor figures. However they can give evidence that may be helpful in tracing those who have been involved in shooting, murder or other serious crime.
      When people who make such statements go back to custody in the cells, they are debriefed by the senior IRA or terrorist commander in the prison. Often they then decide to go back on their confessions and suggest that they have been obtained by improper or violent means. Recorded video evidence would be of great assistance in refuting that. At least then a person who made such a statement could still suggest that the statement was not his own. If, however, it is audio recorded and he is heard to make it, he may well fear that it will be treated as evidence given by him in circumstances where he was not terrorised or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment but where he volunteered the evidence because he was a peripheral figure who was frightened and possibly even did not know the degree to which he had been involved in a violent terrorist crime.
      I believe that if audio evidence were admitted, it would be a serious brake on or obstacle to the police in obtaining information vital in the war against terrorism. I therefore endorse the view that the Government have taken a balanced and proper step in suggesting that silent video recording be used, but drawing the line at that point. It represents a balance between protecting the individual—which we should all seek to do in a democratic society—and not affording such protection to the individual in all circumstances as would cause this country to descend into uncontrolled anarchy.
      6 pm
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I put it on record in the House that people on both sides of the divide make complaints against the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I should not like hon. Members to think that only the nationalists and the republicans make complaints against the police—Unionists also make similar complaints.
      I hold surgeries throughout the country and I hear many complaints against the RUC. I refer people to the complaints board and I assist them in putting their complaints before it. On many occasions, the police are wrong in their attitudes and in their actions against my constituents who happen to be Unionists—and they are found to be wrong. Let the House not think that all the Unionists are silent and that they are quite happy, because
      56
      they are not. Hon. Members should know that people on both sides are not happy about the actions of some police officers.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the cases of great injustice in Northern Ireland—that of the Ulster Defence Regiment Four—has its roots in what occurred at Castlereagh holding centre?
      Rev. Ian Paisley: That is an absolute fact, which cannot be denied. I worry a great deal about the statement made by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who said that the police should not be inhibited in performing their duties. Is a police officer inhibited if he knows that his actions in an interview chamber are being recorded by silent video? I do not believe that he is.
      I agree fully with the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney): we must strike a balance. I do not support the introduction of audio videos. I understand that all sorts of matters are raised and all sorts of people are named during interviews. It would be unfair to place on record the names of people who were not in the interview chamber and do not have the right of reply. I am totally opposed to that concept.
      I know people who have been dragged before the police at Castlereagh and the first question they are asked is, "Do you attend Mr. Paisley's church?" I could detain the House for three or four hours repeating the things that are said in interviews. I have no right of reply to such comments, and it would be totally unfair if those remarks were to go on the record.
      It is reasonable to comply with the Government's suggestion today. We are striking a balance and the House should realise that, in so doing, it is not indicting the RUC entirely. I have always defended the RUC as a police force and a police service. I have also defended the Ulster Special Constabulary in this place. My first speech in its defence in the House caused the blood pressure of some hon. Members who sit on the Opposition Benches to rise.
      Individuals must be kept under control and no police officer is entitled to behave in a less than proper manner. That is all that I am saying. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) tried to give me the kiss of death in this debate. As I sit between my two hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), I shall survive that and live a little longer.
      I believe that the House is striking a balance tonight. In my day, I have picked up many newspapers and read how so and so was abused, kicked and compelled to make a statement while in Castlereagh. People were told that, if they did not make a statement, they would be the worse for it. We must strike a balance and do what is right—which is what we are doing tonight. We have a right to protect police officers and to protect the innocent until proven guilty. In doing that tonight, we are advancing the cause rather than putting it back.
      Mr. McNamara: When we last discussed renewing the legislation, I initiated a debate in this place on the Ulster Defence Regiment Four. We had a very interesting debate on that occasion, but that would not have been necessary if there had been, first, a video recording and, secondly,

      57
      an audio recording of the interrogations. The essence of the defence and the successful appeal in that case was that statements had been altered. The electro-static document analysis test was applied and it showed that the defendants had not made statements that they were alleged to have made. On that basis, three of the four defendants were eventually acquitted. That case would not have come before the courts if there had been audio recordings of the interrogations. Therefore, I have always argued in favour of such recordings.
      It seems to me that hon. Members are making a false distinction between physical violence inflicted upon the person being interrogated and the power of psychological violence and verbal threats. People may be told, "We will give your name to so and so. Your children will not be safe. We know where you work and what you do. We can pass on information about you." As the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) remarked, such things are said to people during interrogation—whether they are from the nationalist or the loyalist side; the threats are the same.
      By passing new clause 5 today—and I welcome it—we are eliminating only one sort of threat. Over time, we have sought to protect people in interrogation centres bit by bit. Before the Bennett inquiry, people from both communities made accusations about the treatment that they received at Castlereagh and at Gough. It was said that there was not one word of truth in those complaints; they could not possibly be true. However, the Bennett inquiry took place and new protections were suddenly introduced.
      Television screens were installed. However, interrogations could not be videotaped because that would cast aspersions on those who were watching the screens. Nothing could occur if someone was watching a video screen—even though that person was not independent. We again heard tales from both communities of coats being hung over cameras in the rooms and allegations about what occurred when supervisors were not watching a particular screen or were concentrating on a different interrogation. As a result, we have advanced to the position of introducing silent videos. I believe that the time will come when the position in Northern Ireland will be the same as in the United Kingdom.
      I hope that we capture the people who are responsible for the crimes that have taken place in London recently. If we get them and they are interrogated in the United Kingdom, their every word will be audio recorded. Suddenly, I am asked to believe that there is a world of difference between a terrorist who explodes a bomb in London and a person accused of a similar crime in Ireland. I do not accept that. What a person does is as bad in Ireland as in England, and people should be treated similarly.
      Recording protects members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and members of the police forces in this country. One of the easiest defences that a person accused of a terrorist offence has is to say that he was abused and that a confession was produced from him by threats, verbal or otherwise—and he will seek to defend his position before his operational commanders and so on on that basis.
      Some people argue, "But we want, not to convict people, but to obtain high-grade intelligence from them." Many people from both communities have been picked up, interrogated and released without charge because the
      58
      security forces had been on fishing expeditions. That is a dangerous thing to do because it alienates generations, especially of young men, in both communities, from the concept of supporting the police and the rule of law.
      Although I welcome the small, tentative step that has been taken, until we have full audio recording, sadly, the police in Northern Ireland will always be subject to questioning from both communities as to the nature and content of interrogations.
      Dr. Joe Hendron: I know that the House will accept that holding centres such as Castlereagh or Gough barracks in Armagh would be unnecessary if there were no paramilitary organisations.
      I am probably the only Member of the House—with the possible exception of the Secretary of State-who has been in Castlereagh many times over the years, although not recently. Since 1970, I have probably written hundreds of medical reports on people who have been to Castlereagh.
      Like all hon. Members, I support all measures taken within reason and within the law to get rid of terrorism, of the IRA and of loyalist paramilitaries. I accept most of the arguments of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) about protection for individuals, and definitely those about protection for the police.
      I shall discuss Castlereagh because it is the main holding centre in the north of Ireland. It is a fact that the vast majority of young people who have been brought there for questioning have not been charged. I do not say that therefore they should not have been brought in. In the early years of holding centres such as Castlereagh, many people received injuries that, to use the words of the Bennett report, were "not self-inflicted".
      I recall that report clearly because there had been great frustration for someone such as myself. As a medical practitioner, I went into Castlereagh and was in no doubt that some people had received injuries—people who were guilty of horrific crimes, whom one hoped would be found guilty. I believe that, as some hon. Members have said, many had received injuries, so their confessions or statements did not stand up in a court of law.
      One case stands out from the many hundreds of reports that I wrote over the years—the Fullerton case, which occurred before the official IRA called a ceasefire. It was an odd case. I do not say that the person who was injured was a member of the official IRA, but he was linked to that tradition; he was not a "provo". The "provos" had said that they had committed the crime, and with such things, what they say is usually fairly accurate, yet that man was accused of that crime. As I said, he was not a "provo"; he was an official. He got a terrible beating.
      The case went to court and the judge accepted that, unquestionably, the man had received a terrible beating. There were policemen A, B, C and D. Who was innocent? Who was guilty? As the judge said, we shall never know the truth. Policemen, who do a good job and whose work is difficult, are no different from people in various professions—one tends to support another.
      6.15 pm
      One thing must not happen in Castlereagh and similar places—the forces of law and order must not act as

      59
      recruiting sergeants for the Provisional IRA, the Ulster Defence Association, the Ulster Volunteer Force or similar organisations. I do not imply that any of those police officers have done that, but it has happened. I have often seen young people who definitely were not IRA—young people in west Belfast—who had been injured. One may call it ill-treatment or whatever one likes. Such measures are counter-productive.
      The new clause is about protection for police officers and for those who are interviewed. Above all, it is intended to ensure that interrogation methods do not drive young people into the arms of the paramilitaries. God only knows that there are enough people in communities such as the Falls road and Shankill road in my constituency who will try to influence young people and drive them into the arms of the godfathers.
      Proper video and audio recording would be the answer. It would protect the average policeman in Castlereagh and the person questioned.
      Sir John Wheeler: The debate has ping-ponged across the Chamber as hon. Members have exposed the Government's dilemma in their attempt to reach, as the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) said, the midway point-to do what is right in the interests of justice and in the interests of recognising the reality of the present position in Northern Ireland.
      I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for North Down for his intervention. The House would do well to listen to his wisdom and experience, and to that of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's arguments and why he makes them, and I pay a warm tribute to his steadfast stance in support of the security forces in Northern Ireland. He was right to make the arguments he did, to reflect on the recent security developments, and to probe the provision. If I had believed that the Royal Ulster Constabulary would be damaged by what the Government propose tonight, I should not have moved the new clause; I give the hon. Gentleman that sincere assurance.
      Introducing the debate, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) cited all the various vehicles that pray in aid an improvement in arrangements in the holding centres. Mr. Justice Kerr was once again exhibited for what he said in the case of Crown v. McLoughlin, Beck and Garland on 3 March 1995. It may help the House if I give the whole of Mr. Justice Kerr's view:
      "I feel constrained to say that the task of resolving the conflict would have been immeasurably easier, even at the prosaic level of reducing considerably the number of witnesses who require to be called, if audio equipment had been installed to record the exchanges at interview."
      But he went on to say:
      "I hasten to acknowledge that there may be strong practical arguments of which I am not fully aware and on which I am not in a position to make a sound judgment which militate against the introduction of audio equipment in a case such as this."
      That is the crux of the matter.
      I entirely agree with Mr. Justice Kerr, as do other speakers in this debate, about the merit of the desirability of both video and audio recording. It is a question of
      60
      judgment, and of taking into account all the other factors. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie cited the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, the learned John Rowe and the experience in England and Wales. All that is correct, but the balance that must be struck came out in debate—and the House should acknowledge the Government's dilemma in ensuring that justice is done, and that holding centres have the right facilities.
      Against the arguments of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone was the advice of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who said that such recordings would be a way of protecting the police. He was absolutely right. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that complaints are made about the way that the police conduct matters, and he was right about that. However, we boast in Northern Ireland the most stringent scrutiny of the Royal Ulster Constabulary through the independent complaints mechanism.
      The Government recently announced a review of that mechanism, to test whether it is meeting our objective of bringing confidence into the way that the RUC works. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured.
      Mr. Mallon: The Minister makes an important point about the police complaints procedure. In how many instances has a police officer been found guilty of a transgression? The House would be interested to have the Minister's guidance.
      Sir John Wheeler: Proceedings in Standing Committee were sustained by a natural quest for statistical information. Hon. Members who were privileged to serve on that Committee will know that I endeavoured on every conceivable occasion to give such information. Later, I will return to the hon. Gentleman's point, when I hope that the information I provide will assist him.
      The questions of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie were echoed by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who is concerned about the code of practice. The Government have established a joint working group with the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and work has begun on the code of practice, technical aspects and setting up the scheme.
      As the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie suggested, the siting of the camera or cameras and how or what they may record is a complicated issue, but I give him the assurance that a study will be made. The scheme would apply to all interviews in holding centres, and thus to all holding centres available for that exercise. It is not possible to say when the scheme will come into effect, because that will depend on how much work must be done on the technical aspects and on agreeing the code.
      I acknowledge that, in the circumstances of the Murray case, there was a disparity between the operation of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and the European convention on human rights. The deferral of access to a solicitor is not itself in breach of the convention, and we are looking at what must be done to avoid such a disparity recurring. I know that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that assurance.
      The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, in a wise and helpful speech, set out the case for not doing as the Government propose, but the police are in the

      61
      vanguard of the fight against terrorism. They have a variety of powers at their disposal under emergency legislation and ordinary criminal law. I have no reason to believe that the emergency legislation is not being fully used by the police to deal with the present violence.
      The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh cynically pondered whether the code of practice would come into being, but I assure him that it will. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, who is in his place, will be under a duty to make a code of practice and an order that will introduce the silent video recording in the way that the House has discussed. I hope that that assurance will give the hon. Gentleman the comfort he seeks.
      The hon. Gentleman asked about the number of compensation cases. One hundred and fifty-two cases resulted in payment in respect of persons in a holding centre. In only eight cases was unreasonable force one of the grounds on which payment was made—the remaining cases related to faulty procedure. The total payment was £34,600 in respect of unreasonable force, and the total payment in all other cases was just over £237,000.
      Why not go to full audio recording? The case for it was made by the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron). The Government, and the House this afternoon, must balance the genuine effort to protect the rights of interviewers and interviewees, and to increase the efficiency of the courts, against not rendering impossible the acquisition of information from interviews in holding centres.
      The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North perhaps disparaged the collection of intelligence. On this evening of all evenings, in light of what has occurred in London during the past few days and last night, any intelligence acquired as a result of a holding centre interview that preserved the life of one citizen would have been well worth it. The Government have an absolute duty to balance the interests of the preservation of life, and the safety and security of the citizens of this country, against the conduct of the police and of interviews.
      Mr. McNamara: The Minister has made an outrageous statement. Nobody is denying the right of the police to interview people and to gain information from them, provided that it is done properly and within the law, a record is made of it, and that record is available to both sides. However, the Minister endorsed the right to go on fishing expeditions.
      To use what happened last night or last week in London as an excuse for what the Minister is doing is absolutely disgusting, because no one in Britain will undergo the procedures that apply in Northern Ireland. The Minister should listen very carefully to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), who knows from experience that those expeditions have been a prime recruiting ground for extremists from both communities.
      6.30 pm
      Sir John Wheeler: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and I are too far apart. I did not endorse the concept of fishing expeditions. My point about the work of the holding centres is that if, in the course of an interview, intelligence information is collected which prevents outrage, the House should rejoice. The hon.
      62
      Member for Kingston upon Hull, North is correct to say that those centres should operate within the rule of law and against the criteria of codes of practice. No one in the debate, least of all myself, would suggest otherwise.
      Mr. Mallon: The Minister has kindly given us the figures relating to compensation. Will he clarify whether the settlements in relation to cases that were found in the European Court of Human Rights and any compensation paid in the case of the UDR Four were included in those figures? Before he finishes, will the Minister tell us how many police officers have been brought to court and found guilty under the procedure of the Police Complaints Commission? The House has the right to that information, because the Minister has made an important point in that regard.
      Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was just drawing the attention of the PPS to the Dispatch Box.
      Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh is seeking detailed information. I cannot provide him with that information as I stand at the Dispatch Box. It is not lodged in my mind, but I shall write to him with the information, and, of course, a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library so that Members may have access to it.
      The case for the Government's position is a midway point, as the hon. and learned Member for North Down said. It is a balance. It seeks to preserve the rights of an individual being interviewed, but it seeks to balance that with the reality in Northern Ireland as it sadly is today. It seeks to protect the Royal Ulster Constabulary, as the hon. Members for North Antrim and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) said so cogently. It is a fine line. The Government maintain that, in the present circumstances, the House should be invited to agree with the Government's position.
      Mr. Mallon: I again thank the Minister for giving way, and beg the indulgence of the House for pressing the matter, but he raises a crucial point when he says that individuals in interrogation centres can be protected by the police complaints procedure. Will the Minister confirm that, since that legislation was introduced, not one police officer has been brought to court and convicted in terms of what may or may not have happened within the interrogation centres? Will he compare the figures with those for England and Wales, give some reason for that disparity and explain how that protection is operating in the way he says it is?
      Sir John Wheeler: It could be said that, if there were no prosecutions of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, that is a tribute to them for following the procedures in the holding centres with such integrity and conviction. If I can give the hon. Gentleman any further information on that, I shall do so.
      I conclude by referring to the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster about the loss of life, the injuries and the outrages that have occurred in London. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will address the House later, but it is right in this early part of the debate to acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman said, and to tell the House that the

      63
      cruelty and outrages that have occurred have nothing to do with democracy, peace or resolving the conflicts of Northern Ireland. I am grateful to him for bringing his observation to the notice of the House.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I thank the Minister for giving way, as I know that he was concluding his speech. A question was raised about to whom the tapes would be available. Will he address that?
      Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point when he asks to whom the tapes would be available. Herein lies the difficulty that the Government and the Royal Ulster Constabulary may encounter. It is conceivable that the tapes would find their way into the hands of those who would then make a judgment about the life of the person who was being interviewed. I know that some Members share the Government's concern and understand the possible consequences of that.
      That is why the Government believe that silent video recording meets the interests of the moment and is as far as we can reasonably and honestly go in all the circumstances; and why, for the moment, we cannot go down the further road, as has been pressed by others, to include audio recording. Those are the reasons why I urge the House to support the Government new clause.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 6

      CODES OF PRACTICE:SUPPLEMENTARY
      '—(1) This section applies to a code of practice under section 52 or (video recording).
      (2) When the Secretary of State proposes to issue a code of practice he shall prepare and publish a draft of the code, shall consider any representations made to him about the draft and may modify the draft accordingly.
      (3) The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of any code of practice prepared by him; and when he has laid the draft of the code before both Houses he may by order bring the code into operation.
      (4) An order bringing a code of practice into operation may contain such transitional provisions or savings as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.
      (5) The Secretary of State may from time to time revise the whole or any part of a code of practice issued by him and issue the code as revised; and subsections (2) to (4) shall apply (with appropriate modifications) to such a revised code as they apply to the first issue of a code.
      (6) A failure on the part of a police officer to comply with any provision of a code shall not of itself render him liable to any criminal or civil proceedings.
      (7) In all criminal and civil proceedings any code shall be admissible in evidence; and if any provision of a code appears to the court or tribunal conducting the proceedings to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings it shall be taken into account in determining that question.
      (8) In this section—
      "criminal proceedings" includes proceedings in Northern Ireland before a court-martial constituted under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957 or a disciplinary court constituted
      64
      under section 50 of the 1957 Act and proceedings in Northern Ireland before the Courts-Martial Appeal Court;
      "police officer" means a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve.'.—[Sir John Wheeler.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 1

      EXTENSION OF ACT BEYOND 24TH AUGUST 1998
      '(1) Where, notwithstanding the provisions of section 60(10) of this Act, the Secretary of State is satisfied that in the interests of security in Northern Ireland this Act should continue in force after 24th August 1998, he may make an Order specifying that the Act shall continue in force after that date for a further period of no more than twelve months.
      (2) Before exercising his power under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall make an assessment of the desirability of making such an Order, having regard to the evidence available to him of the threat to security in the United Kingdom and of the prospects for achieving a peaceful settlement to the conflict in Northern Ireland.'.—[Mr. Wilshire.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. David Wilshire: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 1, in clause 58, page 37, line 30, after `60(3)', insert
      'or section (extension of Act beyond 24th August 1998)'.
      No. 2, in clause 60, page 39, line 28, at beginning insert
      'Subject to subsection (1) of section (extension of Act beyond 24th August 1998),'.
      No. 3, in page 39, line 29, leave out '1998' and insert '1999'.
      Mr. Wilshire: While speaking to new clause 1, I shall also speak to amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3, which stand in my name. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are consequential to the new clause and amendment No. 3 provides an alternative way of achieving the same as new clause 1.
      Perhaps it would make sense to begin by explaining what I am seeking to achieve. I want to find a positive response to a changed security position. I am also seeking to show the world that neither the House nor the British people will ever be bombed into submission. We can achieve that either by giving the Secretary of State powers to extend the duration of the Bill, or by extending it for one year ourselves. The new clause was prompted, it is fair to say, by the outrage at Canary wharf. Since then, there have been two further bombs, rendering the new clause doubly justified. Indeed, were I tabling it today, it would not be as mild as it is.
      It is important to understand that the Bill left Committee before the Canary wharf atrocity. The decisions that we took in Committee, and the debates that we held there, followed 17 months of peace. I want to make it crystal clear that it will be no part of my case to suggest that what people said in Committee, or how they voted, had any bearing on my speech tonight. I mean no criticism of anyone; that sort of tactic will play no part in my argument.

      65
      In Committee, I said that I viewed the Bill as a holding measure. On Second Reading and throughout the Committee stage, we had been given assurances that it was a holding measure pending the outcome of a comprehensive review, but Canary wharf has turned the Bill from a holding measure into a Bill for real. Since the Bill left Committee, there has been a fundamental change in the security situation in the United Kingdom. It would be irresponsible if the House did not, by means of a new clause such as this, consider what has happened since the Bill left Committee, and respond to the change in circumstances.
      First, I believe that we should remind ourselves of how the original Act which the Bill will extend came about. It was a response to a campaign of terror, and in the face of that campaign the House was in no doubt that the original Bill was necessary. Unfortunately, I judge it necessary again today. That, at any rate, is the message sent to us by Sinn Fein-IRA. Over the past day or so, it is they who have said that the ceasefire is over—not I, and not this House. Sinn Fein-IRA have proclaimed that the peace process is dead, and that this Bill is now for real, not just a holding measure.
      I contend that the powers are, regrettably, once again needed for as long as those evil men continue to use murder and mayhem in an attempt to destroy the freedom of the people of Northern Ireland, to destroy democracy, and to deny the consent of the people of the Province in determining their future through a democratic process. I know of no one in a free and democratic society who relishes taking powers of this sort, but in the light of the past few days, I believe that a firm response by the House is absolutely necessary. There are people who despise democracy and who would deny others their freedom. In so doing, they forfeit any claim that they might otherwise have to being treated like reasonable human beings. Those people are evil and ruthless, and they have not the slightest intention of working within the rule of law, once they work out the fact that that rule of law will not deliver to them what they believe is right.
      Two weeks ago, when 17 of us finished debating the Bill in Committee, the people of Northern Ireland had been enjoying 17 months of a partial ceasefire. We were moving—some would say slowly, others would say at a reasonable pace—towards all-party talks. We were moving towards elections—perhaps even towards a referendum. We were moving very slowly towards decommissioning of some sort. In Committee, we were adding to the long list of changes that have been made to help to restore normality to Northern Ireland. Two weeks later, the ceasefire that we had almost taken for granted in Committee has been consigned to history. We face not just a one-off terrorist incident but a campaign of terror.
      6.45 pm
      After the Canary wharf bomb, I could see that it made sense to wait and see; but after three bombs I no longer think that adequate. We have to respond. It is Sinn Fein-IRA who have pulled the plug on the ceasefire and ended the peace process as we knew it two weeks ago. The challenge facing us tonight is to decide how to respond and what changes we need to make to the Bill.
      Before deciding whether the new clause constitutes the right response, we ought to put the renewed bombing in its true context, to see whether it justifies a change of the
      66
      sort that I am proposing. The ceasefire was only partial in any case. It was only the bombing on the mainland and the sectarian killings in the Province that had stopped. Murder, torture, intimidation and extortion all continued while we discussed the Bill in Committee. I draw the attention of the House to a written answer that I received from the Minister of State on 14 February this year. In it, he confirmed that between 1 September 1994 and 7 February 1996, there were 12 murders in the Province ascribed to one or other of the terrorist organisations, and 287 people were injured in punishment beatings.
      Another relevant part of the context is the fact that the resumption of the bombings on the mainland was not, I believe, a spontaneous reaction to the Mitchell report or to the proposed elections. From my reading of Irish history I would say that Sinn Fein-IRA never act out of frustration. They only ever act because they have planned a way of achieving their objectives. What they do is calculated; what they have started in London these past few days was clearly decided some months ago.
      Despite the protestations of people such as Adams and McGuinness, and although they may not have known the place and the time, I cannot accept that they were not parties to the change of policy some months ago. Sinn Fein-IRA never, in my view, had any intention of allowing the majority in Northern Ireland to choose to remain in the United Kingdom. The resumption of the terrorist campaign in London signals to me the fact that they have now accepted that even all-party talks would not have delivered what they wanted: a united socialist republic on the island of Ireland.
      The resumption of the terror campaign in Great Britain makes it clear that we have now to respond to the challenge of the IRA. It has spelt out for us that it is not interested in compromise. It is not willing to make concessions or to sign up to the consent of the majority in Northern Ireland. The resumption of bombing in London spells out what Adams and others have always hinted—that Sinn Fein-IRA hold democratic debate and democratic agreement in total and utter contempt. That makes the Bill for real, not a holding measure, and it makes the new clause essential.
      I shall now deal with the details of my new clause and the amendments. New clause 1 would allow the Secretary of State to extend the application of the Bill for a further period if he judged that necessary in the security circumstances. Amendment No. 1 would require the Secretary of State to obtain the approval of both Houses for an extension. Amendment No. 3, alternatively, would extend the Bill for one year by action of the House rather than the Secretary of State.
      I shall listen very carefully to the response to the debate by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. I hope that he will accept that a firm and urgent response is now vital. I hope that he can tell us that steps will be taken to protect the innocent and to catch those evil terrorists. If my right hon. and learned Friend wishes to persuade me against the course that I am advocating, I ask him to tell the House what the Government intend to do as an alternative to new clause 1.
      I wish to ask my right hon. and learned Friend a series of specific questions. His answers, I believe, will decide what happens to the new clause. First, will the Government press ahead with the peace process despite what Sinn Fein-IRA say? Sinn Fein-IRA's actions make

      67
      the peace process more urgent and important than it was before. Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that he still accepts that all-party talks—between parties that subscribe wholly and exclusively to democratic means—are the only way to bring a permanent and lasting peace to the Province? Will he, if necessary, work for that with the other parties even if Sinn Fein-IRA refuse to do so?
      Secondly, will the Government continue to urge the loyalist terrorists to show restraint? If my right hon. and learned Friend does that, and I believe that he must, does he accept that firm action against those terrorists who have resumed their campaign is one way to encourage others to show that restraint?
      Thirdly, will the Government demand similar resolute action from the Dublin Government? Will my right hon. and learned. Friend insist that the Dublin Government redouble their efforts to search out terrorists? I hear from the rumour mill that the Canary wharf bombers started out from the Republic. Will we insist that the Dublin Government redouble their efforts to find the arms and explosives that are undoubtedly hidden south of the border? Will we press the Dublin Government even harder to hand over wanted people without delay and without equivocation?
      Mr. Maginnis: Will the hon. Gentleman take into account in his questions to the Government that, after sitting in the Dublin Forum for Peace and Reconciliation for about a year, all the nationalist parties in Ireland produced a report that acknowledged the right of consent of the people of Northern Ireland and that the only party dissenting from that was Sinn Fein-IRA? Rather than placing the onus on the Dublin Government, will the hon. Gentleman place the onus—as a matter of honour—on each individual nationalist party in Ireland not only to repudiate the violence of the IRA, but to work actively to purge the activities of the IRA from our midst?
      Mr. Mallon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), by implication, to suggest that my party and the other parties that were involved in the forum which spent 18 months trying to achieve what he suggests was not achieved—no one regrets that more than I do, because nobody put more effort in—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, hon. Members are responsible for their speeches.
      Mr. Wilshire: I heard the comments of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). We must try to avoid apportioning blame. It is perfectly reasonable for the House to say what it hopes that the Dublin Government will do.
      If by some chance this debate should finish at a reasonable hour, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and I are supposed to be meeting with members of the Dail before the night is out. That will be an admirable opportunity to reaffirm—as I believe to be the case—that all the democratic parties of whatever persuasion in the island of Ireland are opposed to terrorism and in favour of all-party talks. I have no doubt about that, but we may have the chance tonight to confirm that.
      Mr. Max Madden: The hon. Gentleman has asked whether the Government intend to
      68
      proceed with all-party talks. Is he suggesting that, if those talks proceed, Sinn Fein should be invited to participate unconditionally in any talks?
      Mr. Wilshire: No, I am not. I am suggesting that the parties in Northern Ireland that are committed exclusively to democratic solutions should set up the means to have all-party talks and then we can review the situation vis-à-vis those who will not denounce violence.
      Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your earlier direction to me.
      Does the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) agree, as someone who has some experience of visiting Ireland, that all the parties that are party to the forum have—without any ambiguity—condemned violence this week, last week and for the first 25 years and that there should be no doubt in the mind of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone that that is the case? He has a duty to the House to amend or withdraw the implication of what he said.
      Mr. Wilshire: The last thing that I wish to do is to get involved in an argument between two other people. I have not attended a meeting of the forum and I have not read the transcripts, so it would be quite unfair of me to try to adjudicate on what may have happened there.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that Sinn Fein was a member of the forum. How can the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) say that all members of the forum repudiate violence? Gerry Adams has blood fresh on his hands and he refuses to call what happened an outrage. He may be sorry because one of his IRA colleagues has died. We all regret any deaths, but I must say that I would rather a terrorist died than an innocent victim.
      Mr. Wilshire: I suspect that the House would rather move on from that issue, so I will not accept any more interventions on that subject. Perhaps we can make progress.
      The fourth question that I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will answer is whether the Government will ask the Government of the United States to withdraw Gerry Adams' visa. Will they be asking the United States Government to take steps to end Sinn Fein-IRA fund raising, and to ban the export of money back to the island of Ireland for the time being? The feting of Adams as a man of peace must stop. The blood of the victims of recent bombs is on his hands, and there can be no place for him in a process such as this until he condemns what has happened.
      My last question is: what new steps will the police and security services be taking to protect the public in the United Kingdom, and to arrest members of Sinn Fein-IRA who have been perpetrating these outrages? Some will say that all that we are now suggesting has been tried before and has not worked, but I believe that the present circumstances are very different. The people of Northern Ireland have had 17 months in which to learn what a normal existence is like; in particular, young people have learnt, for the first time in their lives, what it is like to live in a normal society. If we take firm enough measures,

      69
      that will give us a chance to isolate the men of violence from the ordinary, decent people of Northern Ireland-people from both communities.
      New clause 1 aims to do three things. It aims to spell out the fact that bombs will never succeed in the United Kingdom, to serve notice that resolute action is needed and must be taken and to offer the Government one way in which to respond to that need. I agree that there are other ways, and I am prepared to consider them. If they are forthcoming, so be it; if they are not, I commend the new clause to the House.
      7 pm
      Mr. Worthington: I thank the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) for tabling his new clause in such general terms, thus enabling Labour Members to record our horror at last night's events at the Aldwych and to convey our sympathy and support to victims and their families. We must pledge all our help to those who are recovering from the maiming inflicted by people who regard any member of the human race who is passing through the centre of London as a legitimate target. We also thank the emergency services for the work that they have done in harrowing circumstances.
      The Governments of both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland must proceed with determination on a united path to a political settlement by peaceful and democratic means. Overwhelmingly, that is what the people of both north and south want. Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) and I went to the Republic to meet the Taoiseach and the Foreign Minister, Mr. Spring, and the leaders of the other parties in both Government and Opposition. We were able to thank them for the strength of their condemnation of these appalling acts, and for the warmth of their support for the people of Britain in the face of such atrocities. We were made aware of the huge determination there, as here, to achieve the peace that can and must prevail.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Did the hon. Gentleman meet Mr. Reynolds, who is on record in the Dail as having said that our Prime Minister goaded the IRA to bomb London? Was that the message that the hon. Gentleman received when he visited the Republic?
      Mr. Worthington: As I said, we met the Taoiseach, the Foreign Minister and the leaders of the parties. At present, of course, that does not include Mr. Reynolds, but he is on our visiting list: we should like to talk to him, and to anyone who can help the peace process.
      I understand why the hon. Member for Spelthorne tabled the new clause, but we consider it unnecessary. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying that he did not say much about what was in it. In fact, it merely gives the Secretary of State power to extend the Act—if it becomes an Act—by a year in 1998. Whatever happens in 1998, the position will not be the same as it is today, whatever Government are in power: we can say that with complete confidence. What is significantly different is that—following our encouragement—the Lloyd review has been set up to examine all aspects of anti-terrorism legislation. The flaw in the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Spelthorne is that nothing that has happened in Great Britain over the past fortnight or so is affected by the Bill.
      Mr. Maginnis: I would not like the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand the significance of the legislation, or to
      70
      mislead the House inadvertently. A degree of co-operation is necessary between all police services in the United Kingdom, and between the United Kingdom and the Garda Siochona, the police service in the Irish Republic. The EPA is essential to the RUC's job of collating intelligence, and thus has an effect on the rest of the United Kingdom. That was well proven in the case of the Heysham bomb, which was intercepted just before the ceasefire.
      Mr. Worthington: I could not have inadvertently misled the House, because the hon. Gentleman did not give me time to do so. What I said was that the legislation did not apply to citizens of the United Kingdom. We recognise that the PTA and the EPA are linked, however, and we encouraged the establishment of the Lloyd review to introduce anti-terrorism law applying to the whole United Kingdom. I believe that members of the hon. Gentleman's party would welcome that endeavour, and I think that he will acknowledge that I have not inadvertently misled the House.
      Mr. Maginnis: I said that I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not do so.
      Mr. Worthington: I think that, if the hon. Gentleman could, he would go on to say that I did not do so. The new clause is inappropriate because the Lloyd review will consider the EPA and the PTA, and whatever Government are in power will have to take on the arguments advanced by that review.
      I do not think that the Government consider the present anti-terrorism legislation ideal; the Opposition certainly do not. It contains flaws. The Government have presented this measure as a two-year sticking plaster. We hope that the wound will heal in two years, but we also hope that the Government will not wish to extend such legislation for more than two years: both Government and Opposition recognise the flaws in it.
      Mr. Mallon: I shall be brief, as I do not wish to prolong the debate or pre-empt the Bill's Third Reading. I support the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on the legislation. I have made my position very clear. I do not want to see it in place for one minute longer than is necessary, and neither, I am quite sure, does any hon. Member. It is important that we do not allow—I certainly cannot allow it—something to stand on the record which by implication suggests that the constitutional parties—if I may use that term—that attended the forum have not denounced and rejected utterly and without any equivocation violence of any kind. That has been done, and if anyone has any doubt about that, that person is not looking at the reality of the situation.
      Reference was made to the report of the Forum for Pace and Reconciliation. The only point that I want to make about it is that there is a nationalist consensus on the island of Ireland. We can call it a pan-nationalist front or a nationalist consensus. We can put whatever name we want on it, but there was one, there is one and there will be one, and it is based on three things: first, that violence has no place whatever in our country, in our society or in solving any difficulties that we have on the island of Ireland. I stand by that nationalist consensus.

      71
      Secondly, if people have the right to self-determination, as the Government stated in the framework document, they also have the right to decide how they exercise that self-determination, and the people of Ireland have exercised that right to self-determination. The exercise of it must not be done by violent means. I stand by that nationalist consensus. The third element, to which reference was made, is the principle of consent. That principle is held by all the parties, with the exception of Sinn Fein, on the island of Ireland. It was built into the Sunningdale agreement in 1973. It was in the Anglo-Irish Agreement and underpinned it in 1985. It underpins the joint framework document. It underpins the joint declaration. It is there by a very distinct implication in section 20(e) of the Mitchell report. There can be no doubt in anybody's mind that there is a nationalist consensus. It is based on those three things and none other.
      To the hon. Member for Spelthorne, who presented his case with great clarity, and to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who made the innuendo about the constitutional parties on the island of Ireland, I make this one point. Would hon. Members prefer that there was not a nationalist consensus based on those three principles, which are non-negotiable, cannot be deviated from and will not be diluted?
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the pan-nationalist front or the nationalist consensus, if that is the appropriate term, all had one thing in common: they were dedicated to a united Ireland, but not all of them were dedicated to a united Ireland by consent or by non-violent means, because that consensus, that pan-nationalist front, included Sinn Fein associated with the IRA, which did not and has not subscribed to the rest of the constitutional and nationalist view that consent and non-violence were part of that consensus?
      Mr. Mallon: I am rather confused by the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. I have identified the three principles on which nationalist consent or a pan-nationalist front—whatever one likes to call it—is based. They are not negotiable. They will not be diluted. They will not be changed, for whatever reason, because they are the very basis of democracy.
      Can the hon. and learned Gentleman imagine a set of circumstances in which the Irish Government—whatever party or parties formed it—the Social Democratic and Labour party, all the other parties, excluding Sinn Fein, in the island of Ireland, and the Government of the United States of America would ever resile from the three principles: that one can achieve one's objectives only by peaceful means; that one has the right to determine how to exercise one's right to self-determination; and the right to consent, because the opposite of consent is coercion? Yes, I am in favour of a united Ireland. Yes, I am entitled to the right to work for and create a united Ireland through peaceful, democratic and political means. I demand that right, because it is a democratic right, but no one has any right in the name of the Irish people or Irish unity to use violence at any time, in any place and in any way.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Maginnis: I admire with respect the passion with which the hon. Gentleman makes his point. I feel, however, that, in his reference to me, he is tilting at a
      72
      windmill, because I did not suggest in any way that he was ambivalent about violence. I asked whether the parties that sat in the forum and assented to its report would, as well as repudiating violence, work actively to expurgate the anarchists whom we know as the IRA. That was the question that I asked him, and I hope that it cast no aspersions on his integrity, as it was never my intention to do so.
      Mr. Mallon rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have deliberately been tolerant in allowing a wide-ranging debate, which has covered much more than the new clause before us. I appreciate the seriousness of the debate, but I hope that we can now come to the framework of the new clause.
      Mr. Mallon: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that ruling. I shall reply later to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, as it would be unfair to other hon. Members if we did not continue the debate on the new clause.
      Rev. William McCrea: We are dealing with a serious matter, and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members have exercised their minds, bearing in mind the serious nature of the problem, the great tragedies that have been experienced on the mainland and the threats that are currently being carried out in Northern Ireland.
      The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) is right that since the Bill was considered in Committee there has been a change in the circumstances. He sought to bring to the House a reason why the period should be extended further than two years because of the fundamental changes that have occurred. I believe that there has been a fundamental change and that we have heard a clear declaration from the IRA murderers. Sinn Fein's message has been clear: the ceasefire is over, the peace process is over and the carnage is now a reality on the mainland and on the streets of London.
      The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government would press ahead with the peace process. Whenever we look at the reality of the situation, we must ask ourselves whether in reality we had a peace process. In Committee, we were told a number of times by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) about the complete change in circumstances. During the ceasefire there were 597 attacks on the police; 60 churches and chapels were attacked; 44 Orange halls and six Gaelic Athletic Association halls were attacked. There have been 10 killings, all republican, and 176 republican punishment beatings. That happened during the time that we were told was peace and normality. I assure the House that that is not the peace that United Kingdom citizens have a right to expect, and they ought to be protected. We should ensure that the emergency is met by emergency measures that will bring to an end the onslaught of terror and murder.
      The hon. Member for Spelthorne asked about the peace process. I do not believe that, in reality, we had a peace process. One of the republican papers said 18 months ago that as the armed struggle was a tactic, so the peace process would be a tactic. The IRA, the activists and the army council, and Sinn Fein are one and the same. They realised that at that moment in the campaign it was

      73
      advantageous for them to stop the armed struggle because, through their contacts with Government sources, they were promised certain concessions. A dangerous promise was made by those in authority because one never makes concessions to terrorists and murderers. We now see the reality of the murderers and the murder gangs as they pay the people of the United Kingdom for all the concessions.
      The terrorists hold democracy in contempt, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne said. There is an attempt to distinguish between the IRA and Sinn Fein, but it is a disgraceful attempt because there is no distinction. People say that Sinn Fein can negotiate while the IRA can bomb. That is not a democratic process.
      I listened to the forum report given by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, who said that there was a nationalist consensus. That is an interesting phrase. I have here a position paper which came out after the ceasefire; it was given to the activists by the IRA, so it is actually an IRA document. It is interesting that the document talks about the consensus. It refers to a briefing paper of April, before the ceasefire, which deals with
      "Strategic Objectives and events to that date in more detail than this paper."
      It continues:
      "However a brief summary is helpful. Our goals have not changed. A United 32 County Democratic Socialist Republic. The main Strategic Objectives to move us towards that goal can be summarised thus

      (a) The strongest possible political consensus between the Dublin government, S.F. and the SDLP.

      (b) A common position on practical measures moving us towards our goal."

      It then goes on to state:
      "The strategic objectives"—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to intervene, but it is a while since the hon. Gentleman mentioned the new clause. It would be helpful if he would get back to the new clause that we are supposed to be debating.
      Rev. William McCrea: I thank you for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I am dealing with the new clause because I am suggesting why there should be an extension to the legislation. If we propose an extension, we must give reasons, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne did. He was permitted to ask the Government certain questions. I am giving important reasons why we are asking the House to extend the legislation.
      Lives are involved. That is an important issue, as is the strategic position of the IRA, because the legislation deals with terrorists and what they seek to do. An interesting statement by them is:
      "Republicans are not prepared to wait around for the Brits to change. but as always we are prepared to force their hand."
      That is exactly what has been happening over the past few days. The terrorists want to force the hand of the British people. That is stated in the document that was released way back in 1994 after the ceasefire.
      We are dealing with a deliberate and calculated terror campaign. Some people have the idea that the present situation has just evolved or has been decided on at the last moment. My colleagues and I believe that when Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness made their statements, they knew full well that the bomb attack would take place
      74
      in London. They are part of the cold-blooded group of people who use the face of respectability that has been given to them, whether by the President of the United States receiving a murderer, Gerry Adams, into his presence, or by their reception in other parts of the world. The people of Northern Ireland believe that we need extended legislation because the emergency is of great importance. Failure to approve the legislation would send the people of Northern Ireland as lambs to the slaughter.
      The hon. Member for Spelthorne asked whether the Government would continue to urge loyalist terrorists to show restraint. I wholeheartedly agree that there must be no action by loyalists which would provide an excuse for murderous attacks on innocent, law-abiding people. They must not, by their words or deeds, give an excuse for action by the terrorists of the Provisional IRA.
      The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the Government would demand resolute action by the Dublin Government in terms of searching out terrorists and handing over wanted people without delay or equivocation. My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned some of the speeches made by, for example, Albert Reynolds, who created the conditions for Sinn Fein to ignore the call for decommissioning in December 1994 when he said:
      "If all the weapons were decommissioned before a settlement was found … that would be a recipe for disaster."
      How could it be a recipe for disaster that the weapons should be handed over? No respectable politician will sit around a table with murderous thugs and try to reach some accommodation. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said in 1992:
      "There can be no guns on the table, under the table or outside the door."
      As a result of what has happened since we debated the Bill in Committee, the legislation needs to be extended. My hon. Friends wholeheartedly agree that it is important to listen to what the Minister says. In the light of that, we shall listen carefully to the reaction from the hon. Member for Spelthorne and we shall react accordingly.
      Sir John Wheeler: I take up at once the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) about secret undertakings. I make it clear to him and to the House that no secret undertakings were made by the Government in an attempt to win the prize of the Provisional IRA ceasefire. The British and Irish Governments are absolutely agreed on that. There are no secret undertakings: I make that clear to the hon. Gentleman.
      In a robust speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) gave his reasons for wanting to extend the measure beyond the life currently proposed for it. I agree that the levels of violence in Northern Ireland during what the Provisional IRA called the military ceasefire have been great. I shall not weary the House by reciting the statistics in support of that opinion, as the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster was good enough to provide a clear illustration of the seriousness of the situation.
      Since the Provisional IRA renounced its ceasefire some 10 days ago, the heart of London has been blasted by two major atrocities. Thanks to the police, a third was avoided when a bomb in a telephone kiosk in Shaftesbury avenue was defused. The House will agree that the police and the emergency services have responded with professionalism

      75
      and courage to the events of the past 10 days—during the horror of docklands, in particular—and will continue to do so as the need arises. The House has roundly and absolutely condemned those outrages, which are not a part of the peace process. They illustrate only too well what Adams said outside Belfast city hall last year:
      "They haven't gone away you know."
      7.30 pm
      I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne and other hon. Members that once the Provisional IRA ceasefire ended, the RUC was put on full alert, and all immediate steps were taken to increase the police presence on the streets and to ensure that police patrols were appropriately protected by flak jackets and were carrying the appropriate armaments. Equally, the RUC will be supported by the Army as necessary. All the measures taken during the ceasefire to lower security and ease the lives of the people of Northern Ireland will be reversed to protect the people as necessary.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne asked whether the search for peace would continue. I can give him a straight answer—yes, the search for a political settlement in Northern Ireland must go on. There is no question about that. What is in question is the role of Sinn Fein and the genuineness of its commitment to the peace process. I can assure him that the Government and the Government of the Republic will continue to work to secure a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. That is very important.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne asked whether the Government would be doing all that they could, through all the opportunities and contacts available to them, to persuade loyalist terrorists not to respond. Again, I can give a clear and positive answer. The Government are doing all that they can to prevent the awful slide into sectarian violence that none of us wishes to see recur in Northern Ireland.
      My hon. Friend asked whether the Government of the Republic will be encouraged to do all that they can to assist in the prevention of terrorist crime. I can assure him that the moment the Provisional IRA announced the ending of the ceasefire, the Government and security forces of the Republic responded immediately to assist the RUC without any hesitation. I am pursuing contacts with the Government of the Republic to ensure that all appropriate measures necessary to protect the lives of people in Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland are taken.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne asked whether Adams would again be granted a visa for the United States. As he must know, that is a matter for the United States Government. I believe that the renewal of any visa is under consideration in Washington, and I expect that the United States Administration will wish to take into account the renewal of violence. President Clinton has already condemned the bomb outrages in London and has expressed in robust terms his personal sadness at the betrayal of the hopes that he saw in Belfast when he visited in December. Department of Justice guidelines are in place to ensure that any money raised by fund raising in the United States can be used only for political purposes. Those guidelines have been in place since the summer of 1995.
      76
      The Government are reviewing very strenuously all the measures that they take to defeat terrorism, and are looking at intelligence and the way in which the police and other services are organised to respond to the threat. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne that the police will be seeking those responsible for the crimes. They want to make arrests and bring people before the courts of law, and I can assure him that every endeavour will be made by the services of the Crown and supported by the Government towards that end.
      The proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne to extend the life of the measure are well understood, but I ask him—and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster, who spoke in support of the new clause—to reflect on what I have said. I invite my hon. Friend to withdraw the new clause, and I give him and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster—ever a reasonable man, in my experience—the firm undertaking that their proposal will be considered by the Government when the Bill reaches another place, in the light of developments between now and then. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will seek the leave of the House to withdraw the new clause.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) for the gentle way in which he disagreed with me. I appreciate that he spared me some of the grief and pain that he could have inflicted, had he wished to, and I understand his points.
      I disagreed with only one thing that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said. He described his three points as forming a nationalist consensus, but I hope that he understands when I say that they do not: they form a democratic consensus. One does not have to be a nationalist or a Unionist to believe in what he said, and it goes without saying that I respect his right to use peaceful means to work for whatever he believes is in the best interests of his constituents.
      The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) will not be surprised to hear that I agree with what he said. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for clearly responding to all my questions. I hope that when the country at large hears what he has to say, people will be reassured that the Government are taking swift and resolute action in the face of a dangerous security situation. I also very much welcome the assurance that the need to extend the measure will be considered in another place.
      I understand the criticisms of my new clause and the amendments: a humble Back Bencher faces grave difficulties in trying to draft new clauses, as we do not command the panoply of the civil service and we do not share in the Short money that Opposition Front Benchers have to help them get things right. Despite the shortcomings of my drafting, however, I suspect that the Government, the Opposition and the House clearly got the message that I was trying to deliver. The new clause is not needed to prove that not only this House but the British people will never be bombed into surrender and that we shall do whatever is necessary to uphold democracy and defend the innocent.
      In that context, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 2

      CODES OF PRACTICE: EXERCISE OF POWERS BY HER MAJESTY'S FORCES
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State may make codes of practice in connection with the exercise by members of Her Majesty's forces of any of their powers under Part II of this Act.
      (2) Subsections (2) to (5) and (7) of section 52 above shall apply to a code under this section as they apply to a code under that section.
      (3) A failure on the part of a member of Her Majesty's forces to comply with any provision of a code under this section shall not of itself render him liable to any criminal proceedings other than—

      (a) proceedings under any provisions of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955, other than section 70; and

      (b) proceedings under any provision of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, other than section 42.

      (4) In this section "criminal proceedings" has the same meaning as in section 52 above.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Jim Dowd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Members of the Committee gave the Bill detailed consideration. This evening, the Opposition have tabled only two amendments; we approached Report with some circumspection, because we have closely examined many of the provisions in the Bill. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and other hon. Members apropos the debate on the previous clause. The Committee concluded its deliberations on Tuesday 6 February; the outrage at docklands took place on Friday 9 February; a device was discovered last week; and there was an horrific incident last night.
      Last night, a No. 171 bus—which had left Catford, in my constituency—was destroyed at the Aldwych. At 10.38 pm last night I was sitting in my office at the back of the house, some six miles from the Aldwych, and I heard the explosion quite clearly. It is a strange experience, which I am sure that many hon. Members from Northern Ireland will know from personal experience. There is no sound on earth quite like it—I could immediately identify what it was, and a few moments later my worst fears were confirmed on the television. Every civilised person must have been deeply shocked and saddened by the recent events, and nowhere have those feelings been more widespread and profound than in Ireland, particularly in Northern Ireland.
      The new clause is straightforward, so I shall not take up too much time discussing it. It seeks to place members of the armed forces and police officers exercising comparable powers in a similar position. As the hon. Member for Spelthorne and other hon. Members said earlier, when we were considering that issue in Committee, we hoped that the involvement of the Army in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary would be a diminishing responsibility and, in the fulness of time, would cease altogether.
      Sadly, events have taken a turn for the worse—to put it mildly—and additional troops have been ordered to Northern Ireland in readiness, but let us hope that they are not needed. Now that they are there, it underlines the point that I have tried to make with the new clause. Soldiers are not police officers—we accept that and we established it on numerous occasions in Committee—and it would be unreasonable to expect the same standards of training and
      78
      knowledge, particularly in the detailed points of law and responsibility, which police officers have. None the less, in Northern Ireland, soldiers and members of the armed forces are acting in support of the civil power. In those circumstances, the distinction between troops and police officers becomes somewhat blurred.
      Clause 52, to which the new clause alludes, refers only to police powers and the ability of the Secretary of State to devise codes of conduct for the police. When we were drafting the new clause, we were careful not to do anything to displace military discipline, which must always be the overriding consideration for members of the armed forces. Since the 1991 Act, there have been significant changes to the part of the Bill to which the new clause refers. Clause 52 as it stands refers only to the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. Our new clause seeks to restore the position that existed under the 1991 Act.
      Section 61 of the 1991 Act gave the Secretary of State the discretion to make codes of practice in connection with the exercise by the police of their powers under part II of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 and the seizure and retention of property under the same Act. That discretion was subsequently removed from the Act. Section 62 also gave the Secretary of State the discretion to make codes of practice in connection with the exercise by members of Her Majesty's forces of any of the powers under part II of the 1991 Act. That is the provision that we are seeking to restore.
      The tragic turn of events since the Committee completed its deliberations on the Bill is adequate justification for the caution that we would encourage in these circumstances. I accept that some hon. Members who served on the Committee will say that in other areas we were criticising the Government for not going far enough and for being too unadventurous on some of the proposals that they were suggesting, but we are now urging them to restore a provision that was in the 1991 Act.
      We believe that codes of practice—notwithstanding the serious reservations of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)—serve a dual purpose: they provide a framework within which public servants discharge their duties, and they provide a degree of public reassurance that duties are being carried out in a fair and even-handed fashion. Recommendation 66 on page 59 of the 1995 review by Rowe urged that such a code should be drafted and put into effect as soon as possible. Although the 1991 Act had that provision, it was not utilised. We should like that provision to be restored, and that is what the new clause does.
      Throughout the Committee, there was a general feeling that every hon. Member was hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst. Sadly, the worst seems to have come to pass, but we hope that that is not permanent and that progress can still be made. In the light of recent events, the new clause is both relevant and modest. I hope that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), will be able to offer a reassurance that the Government will move in that direction.
      7.45 pm
      Ms Judith Church: In supporting the new clause and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd)—who spoke in a reasoned way about

      79
      it—I confess that I came to the Committee on this Bill relatively inexperienced and uninformed on many of the issues affecting Northern Ireland today and in the past. I have learned much from my hon. Friends and from Government Members, but I am only too well aware of that which I still have to learn.
      Although the situation has changed tragically and significantly since the Committee met—as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West and other hon. Members have said tonight—we must ensure that our efforts today contribute to the continuing search for peace. Beyond the immediate carnage of the IRA's atrocities, the long-term casualty will be trust—trust between the communities, and trust between the communities and the authorities. We must not allow the fledgling understanding that was beginning to develop to be extinguished by the bombers and by their atrocities.
      Part of that process will be in reaffirming the rights of the citizens of Northern Ireland, and I believe that new clause 2 will play a significant role in that task. Citizens must have faith in the balance of justice if they are to trust the authorities. There must be confidence in the channels of redress if fear and sectarian polarisation are not to worsen. However, in the recent context of the troop dispatch—a necessary measure in the light of events—the Bill, as it stands, is flawed by the omission of a code of practice.
      If the Government omit that code of practice, which was present in the 1991 Act, they will be taking a retrograde step for the people of Northern Ireland. I cannot believe, having listened carefully to the Minister's words in Committee, that the Government intend that that should happen. If the Bill is passed unamended, the citizens of Northern Ireland will have even fewer rights than they had before the ceasefire. I do not think that there is any reason for the change.
      As in Committee, I shall listen carefully to the Minister of State's explanation and hope that he will understand the points that we are raising on this important issue. It is not as if the incorporation of the code of practice is an insidious move—the Government supported it in 1991—nor will it give succour to the terrorists, to the criminals, or place unnecessary restrictions on the armed forces.
      All the clause would do is give the ordinary people of the Province confidence that their rights are secure and will be secured. That confidence is even more precious today than when we met in Committee. The measure is not an optional extra, but a necessity. Only when the people of Northern Ireland have a more secure and unified outlook can we all have true hope for the future.
      I trust that the Minister can provide a more enlightened view, despite the difficult new circumstances in which we and the people of Northern Ireland find ourselves.
      Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) for the reasoned way in which he introduced the new clause. I share the sentiments underlying the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Ms Church) and am grateful to her for them.
      The proposed new clause would re-enact a provision that is contained in the present emergency provisions Act, but which has not been included in the Bill. It would give my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State
      80
      discretionary power to make codes of practice in connection with the exercise by the Army of its EPA powers of arrest, search, entry and seizure—in other words, the Army's part II powers. On Lord Colville's recommendation in 1990, provision was included in the Act for codes of practice covering the police and the Army's powers under the Act. No such codes of practice covering the part II powers were drawn up. Work had begun and some progress had been made, although Lord Colville had acknowledged that the compilation of a code that would govern the conduct of the armed forces as well as that of the police would not be easy. Therein lies some of the Government's difficulty.
      Part II of the EPA contained the following powers: to arrest, enter and search premises and vehicles, to search persons, to seize property found on persons or premises and to stop, search and question persons. The ceasefires of August and October 1994 resulted in those powers being used much less frequently. As a result, the decision was taken not to re-enact that provision in respect of either the police or the Army.
      As the hon. Member for Dagenham suggests, in the present security situation, the Government may want to review that decision. I suggest that, by the time the Bill reaches another place, we shall be in a position to make a judgment on the anticipated further use of the part II powers, not only by the Army but by the police. Under those circumstances, I invite the hon. Member for Lewisham, West to withdraw his proposed new clause on the understanding that, if the Government consider it necessary, they will table a similar amendment, possibly to cover the police powers as well, in another place.
      Mr. Dowd: That is a kind invitation. We greatly appreciated the manner in which the Minister responded to many of the points that we raised in Committee and the informative and courteous way in which he dealt with them. I am delighted to be able to tell him that it is an invitation that I shall accept. Obviously, we look forward to the results of the reconsideration in another place. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 46

      RIGHT TO HAVE SOMEONE INFORMED OF DETENTION UNDER TERRORISM PROVISIONS
      Mr. Dowd: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 30, line 17, leave out 'forty-eight' and insert 'six'.
      I am in something of a more embarrassing position than usual, although I am used to being in embarrassing positions, as my good and absent friend, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) was supposed to move this amendment. Given our earlier discussion on amendment No. 1, I think that we all know the essence of amendment No. 4. We know the background and the reasoning for the amendment and, in view of that, I shall say no more at this stage.
      Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) and, in the spirit of his remarks, I shall be as brief as I can.
      I want to give a practical example of how the power referred to in clause 46 would be used. It is entirely relevant to the situation that we are facing in London and

      81
      elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The example is this: a group of terrorists plan to leave Northern Ireland and to plant a bomb in London. They choose to travel separately to Great Britain using a variety of different air and sea ports. The police get intelligence of the operation and an examining officer at Belfast airport successfully arrests one of the members of the gang under the prevention of terrorism Act. In such a situation, the police could take the view that it was important to delay the right of notification for up to 48 hours so as not to alert the other terrorists, either directly or through a third party. Those 48 hours might be absolutely vital in enabling the police to foil the terrorists, where a period of six hours would not do.
      Terrorists are sophisticated and plan their operations over a period of time and with great care. Mr. John Rowe sets out in appendix N of his report the number of requests to delay the right. The figures show that the police use the power only rarely—when it is needed. I can advise the House that there were 22 delays in 1994 and none in 1995.
      I hope that the House will agree, particularly in the light of that example, that the reasons for delay set out in subsection (8) of the clause are reasonable. The Government fully believe that the right should not be delayed unnecessarily and the statistics confirm that the powers are used only when there is a genuine need.
      Furthermore, the Bill sets out—as does the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—the grounds on which a delay may be authorised. These are not, therefore, blanket provisions. The grounds are carefully and clearly set out in the clause and I urge the House to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Thomas McAvoy: Events have perhaps contrived to leave us a wee bit in the dark about developments that have taken place. The Minister made no mention of the Murray case in his contribution. Surely that leaves a lot to be desired. It was worthy of some comment, particularly about how the Government are going to handle that case. As a non-lawyer, I would say that it is a new legal situation.
      I shall briefly outline the reasons why I spoke in support of such an amendment in Committee. As I said there—I make no apology for repeating it—it is hard, or more probably impossible, for someone from the mainland of the United Kingdom to put himself into the position of the people of both communities in Northern Ireland. They have had to live with the situation as we have known it for the past 25 years, so I am always diffident about commenting on it. However, hon. Members are here to say how they see life and to lay their experiences before the House.
      In our part of the United Kingdom, if a young person goes missing—my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) mentioned this—and we have no word of him or her, we can go to the police. In fact, it is more likely that the police will contact us. People can vanish in Northern Ireland without their relatives being informed. Detainees are held, in effect, incommunicado and their relatives are left in a state. I know how I would feel if one of my sons were in that position. In such a situation, parents in Northern Ireland must experience aggravation, concern and anxiety.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson), relating how some of his constituents sometimes get into bother with the police, made the point
      82
      that, as many people in Govan say, "The police wouldn't have lifted you if you hadn't done anything." We must always bear in mind the fact that just because someone has been arrested does not mean that he is guilty. There is the due process of the law, and we certainly must go along with it.
      8 pm
      I believe that the police should have that power of arrest, but holding people incommunicado for 48 hours goes against the grain. In the debate, the Minister—it is probably the only issue on which I remonstrated with him in Committee—used current examples to justify Government policy. Surely the reverse of that practice is to say, if we did not have those three incidents we should just do away with the emergency provisions Acts. Of course we should not do that, because we must deal with life as it is.
      In the case that he outlined, the Minister implied—he can deny it if I have it wrong—that a solicitor would give information to one party that someone had been apprehended by the police, and thus warn that party. That is the implication of what he said, but I must remind him—I shall not go into too much detail in deference to all the people concerned—that careless accusations against legal professionals in Northern Ireland have already led to tragic and serious consequences. I hope that no accusations of that type will be made tonight.
      The Minister is surely aware of the Murray case and must realise that it represents some change. After the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, violent paramilitary suspects in Northern Ireland can now expect greater access to solicitors during interrogation. According to the judgment, the United Kingdom breached paragraph 3C of article 6 because Mr. Murray did not have access to a solicitor. That theme springs up again. One of the themes that I and other members of the Committee pursued was how these laws affect the United Kingdom's image, credibility and reputation for justice abroad. We now have a serious legal ruling that that practice was a breach of the European convention on human rights.
      The judgment surely merits a response from the Minister as to how the Government will react to it. It is very hard to believe that the Minister is stonewalling and saying that, despite that ruling from the European Court of Human Rights, there will be no change in the Government's position. In view of the genuine pleas of the public and of all members on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, that the United Kingdom should have a reputation as a place where justice is done and seen to be done and that we should not have lower standards of justice than elsewhere, which would only feed the paranoia of those who try to justify violence, I ask the Minister to respond to the new facts of the Murray case.
      Mr. Worthington: I entered the Chamber to hear the Minister utter the dreaded words, "We reject the amendment." I suggest that he has rejected the amendment as it is written rather than considering its intention.
      The amendment relates to the Murray case. The Minister threw us by discussing that case under a part of the Bill to which it is not relevant rather than at this point,

      83
      where it is directly relevant. I ask him to address that issue because I was quite encouraged by his words at the beginning of the debate.
      I thank the Minister for his letter to me in response to my query about how Her Majesty's Government would respond to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. The Minister is absolutely right to say that the Court's judgment was by no means a blanket condemnation of the British Government's case. By 12 votes to seven, the European Court decided
      "To deny access to a lawyer for the first 48 hours of police questioning in a situation where the rights of the defence may well be irretrievably"
      damaged
      "is—whatever the justification for such denial—incompatible with the rights of the accused under article 6."
      That is what causes the Government difficulty.
      I am sure that the Secretary of State and the Minister would agree that it is very important for a country with our position in the world—as a member of the Security Council of the United Nations, in particular, and as a backer of international organisations—to be seen to respond to such judgments. Our voice would otherwise be lessened when urging other Governments to behave in a judicially appropriate manner.
      I was encouraged by the Minister's earlier response and his letter to me about the Murray judgment, in which he said:
      "We are considering what measures might be necessary"—
      I tentatively suggest that the question is not what measures might be necessary but what measures are necessary—
      "to bring law and practice into line with the requirements of Convention as set out by the Court in this case."
      That is a problem for this, or any, Government, because we want to ensure compatibility between law, practice and the requirements of the convention.
      As the Murray judgment was delivered only in the period between the end of the Bill's Committee stage and Report, we shall not be unreasonable and expect the Government fully to declare their position. However, the Bill is primary legislation, into which the Government must inject a change. They will miss an opportunity if, during the Bill's passage—it will now have to be done in the Lords—they do not amend the Bill to bring this country's practice into line with the convention. I hope that the Minister will accept that statement.
      Such an amendment would not apply to an enormous number of cases, because one of the encouraging recent developments is that, of 180 requests in relation to scheduled offences between the period October to December 1994, only four suspects were denied immediate access, and I doubt whether any of them was denied access for 48 hours. It is therefore a relatively small problem to solve. One doubts whether law enforcement agencies would be at all inhibited were we to accept the judgment of the European Court. I hope that the Minister can say encouraging words to us about what is to happen to the Murray judgment during the Bill's remaining stages.
      Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington).
      84
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) implied that my earlier remarks may well reflect on the involvement of solicitors in such matters. I can give him the assurance in the House that I never make any such remarks about solicitors. I am surrounded in the House by learned Members, and I know better than to comment on their professional conduct or behaviour. The inference, if any, that could be taken from my illustration, was clear: terrorism is an evil activity. The means by which terrorists obtain information, intimidate, threaten and bully are many and varied. In those very few cases where the power is exercised, it is often exercised because life may be saved. I gave an illustration of that process that was entirely pertinent to the state of peace and tranquillity in London at this very moment. I know that the hon. Gentleman accepts that.
      I had earlier referred on the Floor of the House to the Murray case, and I say to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie that the only point against the Government in the decision concerned Murray in the sense that the drawing of inferences from the defendant's silence during interview could not be used before the defendant had seen his solicitor. It is a subtle judgment that requires careful analysis, and it raises implications. I have said that the Government intend to take it away and study it, to comply with its obligations and to do what is appropriate and necessary to bring our obligations into line with the judgment. That has always been the Government's position, and we shall do that.
      For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) will withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Dowd: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 52
      CODES OF PRACTICE: POLICE POWERS
      Amendment made: No. 21, in page 34, leave out from beginning of line 19 to end of line 5 on page 35.—[Sir John Wheeler.]
    Clause 58

      ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
      Amendment made: No. 22, in page 38, line 6, leave out `or 52' and insert
      '(Video recording) or (Codes of practice: supplementary)'.—[Sir John Wheeler.]

    Clause 61

      SAVINGS, AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS
      Amendment made: No. 23, in page 39, line 38, at end insert—
      '() Where this Act repeals and re-enacts provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, the repeal and re-enactment shall not, unless the contrary intention appears, affect the continuity of the law.
      () Any document made, served or issued after the commencement of this Act which contains a reference to an enactment repealed by this Act shall, so far as the context permits, be construed as referring to or (as the context may require) including a reference to the corresponding provision of this Act.
      () Any document made, served or issued after the commencement of this Act which contains a reference to a provision of this Act shall, so far as the context permits, be construed as referring to or (as the context may require) including a reference to the corresponding provision of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991.'.—[Sir John Wheeler.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      8.14 pm
      The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      Since the Bill received its Second Reading on 9 January, the Provisional IRA has announced its despicable decision to end its ceasefire. That decision it and its friends have tried to justify by means of what one commentator yesterday called an "Olympus of mendacity". In addition, we have experienced here in Great Britain terrorist attacks, achieved or attempted by the IRA, that are disgusting in their immoral character and horrifying in their scale.
      The Bill relates to Northern Ireland alone. Its purpose is to make special provision for the maintenance of order and for the rule of law there. But each of the recent events, taken alone, let alone in their totality, surely justifies the contents of the Bill in each and every one of its provisions. They wholly vindicate the Government's decision to introduce the Bill as and when we did.
      With the permission of the House, and within the rules of order, I should like to take a little more of its time than is usual in a Third Reading speech. Some things, in particular, I wish to make abundantly clear.
      First, the British Government in this democracy will not be shifted from their chosen and democratic course by bombs or by the threat of bombs, or by any variety of violence. We shall ensure that all practical measures within the law are taken to protect life and property from this evil. That means that all practical measures have to be available, which is what the Bill is about.
      The perpetrators of violence should realise that, in this democracy, they will make no political progress whatever by means of violence. On the contrary, violence will serve only to harden the minds of ordinary people against what the perpetrators of violence seek to achieve. Nor should the perpetrators conclude, if this is their hope, that they will succeed in escalating violence and promoting instability by provoking terrorists on the loyalist wing to retaliate in kind.
      The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) has suggested today, with his usual shrewdness, that that is indeed the IRA's aim. It may well be its aim, but I urge and trust that the wise restraint and the mature and responsible leadership shown by those who head the loyalist parties be maintained. I salute them, and, with all sincerity, I urge that they continue to be heeded. Retaliation would achieve nothing but regression and disaster. And incidentally, whom would the retaliation be against?
      Mr. Stott: I heard the Secretary of State on the radio this morning and again on television this evening. What he has said about the minority Unionist parties, particularly Mr. David Ervine and Garry McMichael, and the courageous stance that they have taken, should be recognised and put on record. I very much agreed with
      86
      what the Secretary of State said this evening, and I invite him once again to put it firmly on the record in Hansard in the House of Commons.
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that I need to repeat myself. It was put to me this morning on one programme that some price might be paid for not retaliating. I at once disabused the interviewer of any notion that a price is payable for somebody not breaking the law. I said what I have said about the restraint that is urged, and I earnestly hope that it will be maintained and heeded.
      Secondly, I wish to make it clear that the sort of violence from which the Bill will protect the public will not distract or deflect Her Majesty's Government from their mission to help the people of Northern Ireland to find in this democracy a true and lasting peace. That peace will need to be based upon a comprehensive political settlement of the conflicts—a settlement itself founded on consent.
      I will, with permission, quote the words of the Prime Minister in the House on 12 February, when he said:
      "we are not at the end of the road to peace. If we are pushed back, we will start again. If we are pushed back again, we will start again. If we are pushed back a third time, we will start again. There can be no end to the search for a permanent settlement in Northern Ireland until we have achieved a permanent settlement in Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 12 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 660.]
      I am glad to acknowledge once again in the House this evening that that is the objective of all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, of both the British and the Irish Governments and of all parties in the House. The objective is common ground.
      The means by which that objective is to be attained are common ground—by inclusive democratic negotiation. For years, the Government have laboured to attain that objective, and no one in the Government has laboured with greater dedication than my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Where disagreement exists, it is to be found only on the subordinate issue of how the start of those negotiations may be secured. Only there are we not as yet on common ground
      I think that each of those observations has the assent of everyone in the House. That assent itself gives the lie direct to Mr. Adams in his assertion in west Belfast last week that the British Government have reneged on and broken every commitment that they have made. We have reneged on no commitment, and broken no commitment. With sickening hypocrisy, Mr. Adams asserted that negotiations frighten the British Government.
      The British Government have done more to foster inclusive negotiations on a settlement in Northern Ireland than any Government in modern times. But the British Government know one thing that apparently eludes Mr. Adams—that in this democracy, people will not negotiate about the future of their country if they do not have confidence in a permanent end having been reached to the use of, or support for, paramilitary violence.
      That is why, in the Downing Street declaration, the British and Irish Governments confirmed that it is those who are democratically mandated parties which establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods, and have shown that they abide by the democratic process, who are free to participate fully in democratic politics and to join in dialogue between the Governments and the political parties on the way ahead.

      87
      As we discuss the need for the Bill, let us do so in the light of Mr. Adams' prevarications on the IRA's recent bombs, and of his attack upon the Government's good faith. It is we who have immediately accepted the recommended principles of the Mitchell report. Indeed, we accept the report itself. Sinn Fein-IRA have accepted none of them. Why not? Let them be asked.
      With the Irish Government, it is we who have put in place the twin-track approach, and we who are operating it intensively with the purpose of enabling all to enter into inclusive negotiations. Sinn Fein-IRA have dumped it by returning to violence. It is we who had withdrawn from Northern Ireland since the ceasefire three battalions of infantry—some 1,600 men—with all their weapons and munitions. Sinn Fein-IRA stood down not a man, nor decommissioned a single weapon.
      It is we who have restored a higher level of remission of sentence for terrorist prisoners, in reliance on the promised reduction of risk. Sinn Fein-IRA have not even heeded President Clinton's plea to release from their unmarked graves the bodies of their murdered victims so as to allow their families to give them a final and decent burial.
      Mr. Adams, placing a cap on this Olympus of mendacity, claims that our policy has been dictated so that we can remain in power. Let him explain then why it has had the support of the official Opposition, who are generally thought to have an interest in getting us out of power.
      We debate the Third Reading of the Bill tonight with the knowledge that there has, in truth, only ever been one obstacle to inclusive all-party negotiations, and that is the absence of the confidence that is needed to get all parties there—the confidence that the stipulations of the Downing Street declaration will be fulfilled by all participants. It has never been a question of decommissioning on the one hand or negotiations on the other, nor a question of either elections or negotiations. It has always been a question of negotiations or no negotiations.
      A start to decommissioning and an elective process have each in their turn been put forward as a doorway to those negotiations, because each would convey the confidence that, in a democracy, negotiators need. We wish to have an inclusive negotiation. Sinn Fein-IRA impose their own disqualification. We want to see it removed. Only Sinn Fein-IRA can remove it. They should do so.
      In Committee, I know that we have had serious and vigorous debates. I am most grateful, as is my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), to all hon. Members who served on the Committee and took part in its debates for the manner in which they made their contributions, and for their appreciation of the Government's position. I am also grateful for the graceful tribute paid to my right hon. Friend by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), which I know to be well deserved.
      Across the Floor, we share a common aim—to have in place balanced legislation that both protects the people of Northern Ireland against those who choose violence because the ballot box will not give them what they want, and also protects individuals from any unnecessary
      88
      incursion upon their rights. It has to be legislation that gives the necessary powers to protect the public and the security forces as well. The challenge is to find the correct balance in the light of the prevailing security situation and of what can reasonably be foreseen and must therefore be prudently guarded against.
      The Bill was drafted to reflect the ceasefires and the fragile peace that they had produced. Viewed against the current Act, a number of changes have been made. Most notable are the provisions for the silent video recording of interviews in the holding centres, which we debated earlier, and the separation of the police and Army powers so as to provide the flexibility to suspend Army powers at an appropriate time.
      The Bill keeps the power, which is in the current Act, to suspend many of its provisions. That power has been exercised already in respect of executive detention, and it would be exercisable for other provisions from the outset of the new Act if circumstances at that time warranted it.
      In drafting the Bill, we have followed very closely the recommendations of Mr. John Rowe QC, who conducted the last annual review of the current Act. His views and recommendations, and the clarity with which they are expressed in his report, informed much of our discussion in Committee. The House owes him a great debt for the contribution that he has made both to shaping the Bill and to the debates on its various provisions.
      We look forward next to the outcome of Lord Lloyd's review, which has now begun. We do so notwithstanding the grave blow dealt by recent outrages to the prospects of our present need for special protection under the law being reduced. Meanwhile, the public, for whose safety all of us in the House are responsible, need the Bill and all of its provisions. Accordingly, I commend it to the House.
      8.27 pm
      Ms Marjorie Mowlam: Last week, we shared our sympathies with the families of Ivan Bashir and John Jefferies. Now we have another death to add to the catalogue of murder. The IRA ended the ceasefire brutally and murderously, leaving London battered and sad. Last night's bombing was a shocking and callous act. There are no ifs and buts in the condemnation by all hon. Members of those who kill and maim innocent people.
      The terrorist's greatest weapon is fear. We welcome and support the determination of those in all communities who are working to restore peace, and acknowledge, as did the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), the courage of those in the loyalist community who are maintaining their resolve and standing by their ceasefire.
      We acknowledge above all, as politicians, that people in Northern Ireland especially and in these islands together, have broadcast widely their desire for peace. The Tanaiste, Dick Spring, has tried to encompass that with his white ribbon for peace campaign. We have only to look at the Irish Congress of Trade Unions rally last Friday, the keep-the-peace phone-in organised jointly by the Irish News, the Belfast Telegraph, the News Letter, Sunday Life and Sunday World, the numerous rallies, books for peace, and postcards for peace, to learn what people in Northern Ireland have learned: that we must stand together, because we cannot stand alone.
      We have got used to talking about a peace process. Even now, in the absence of peace, there is a determination that the process must continue. We support

      89
      and encourage the two Governments in maintaining that process. There must be urgent action. People desperately need the reassurance that momentum—and only politicians—can provide. We hope that the two Governments can reach an agreement between themselves in consultation with those parties which are committed to peace and to democracy.
      Elections and a referendum have been suggested as a way of bringing the parties into all-party talks together with the two Governments. We believe that those ideas could be combined: a referendum could be held both north and south of the border, and there could be a Northern Ireland elective process, or indexation, to let the people speak, both about the background to the talks and about whom they want to take part.
      There must be widespread agreement if that, or any other, idea is to work. To help reach agreement, the Irish Government have proposed proximity talks, and the Prime Minister has spoken of intensive talks. We believe that there should be a first stage of what we call intensive "design" talks, so that, in the design of the negotiations, there is ownership among the participating parties. Since any substantive negotiations must take place within a framework that looks at all relationships, both Governments must be involved from the outset.
      I listened to the Secretary of State this evening when he referred to the agreement on the general objective of all-party negotiations, although there is debate about how we shall reach that point. I shall put two options to him, and ask whether he has considered both of them.
      We could set in train a process of proximity intensive design talks, followed by a combination of an elective process and a referendum, leading to a set date for all-party negotiations, in which those who are committed to peaceful and democratic means could participate. Alternatively, we could set a date for all-party negotiations for those who are clearly committed to peaceful and democratic means and then move backwards, in a sense, to a process of proximity intensive talks and a combination of an elective indexation and a referendum. I would be interested to hear the Minister respond as to the merits of those two mechanisms in moving towards the desired objective which, as the Secretary of State said, all hon. Members share.
      Constitutional parties on both islands are prepared to work for a negotiated settlement. The Downing Street declaration set out crucial principles that we can work to implement. Agreement between the two Governments has been the bedrock of progress so far. That can, and must, be re-established. We cannot allow it to be lost. Labour is appalled by, and opposed to, all acts of terrorism. The people of Northern Ireland and Great Britain must be protected; their security is paramount.
      We welcome and support the prudent and proper steps that the security forces have taken since the ending of the IRA ceasefire. We welcome also the positive steps that the Government have taken in dealing with the legislation, such as transferring the anti-fraud and racketeering measures to the ordinary criminal law—which is surely their proper place. It is a trend that we welcome and encourage.
      We welcome also the introduction of silent video taping. We would have preferred audio taping to be included in that measure and we urge the Government to take that important step when they can. We welcome also
      90
      the Secretary of State's assurance that he will be alert to his powers under clause 60 of the Bill when circumstances allow. We welcome the Government's positive response to our call to see measures in the legislation to bring both law and practice into line with the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights, as set out in the recent case of John Murray.
      My hon. Friends who have served on the Standing Committee of this Bill have asked me to thank the Minister of State for the way in which he responded in Committee—especially with the provision of information. My hon. Friends have also spoken about the conduct of the Committee, which was mutually respectful. It is quite clear that no one in the House is soft on terrorism—everyone wants to deal with it as effectively as possible.
      Nine months ago, Labour offered the Government the opportunity to make common purpose in the fight against terrorism. We urged the Government to begin an immediate review of both the emergency legislation in Northern Ireland and the prevention of terrorism Act. That review would help to produce new counter-terrorist legislation in order to respond to the changing nature of terrorism in the United Kingdom and worldwide.
      However, the review—which could have been completed—did not begin until after the Second Reading of the Bill. We voiced then our concerns about the delay, and its consequences for all those who are affected by emergency legislation. Our arguments for opposing the emergency provisions Act in recent years have been stated clearly and concisely. We have argued that section 34—the internment provision—gives the state, the executive, an unacceptable power to imprison without either charge or trial, and that the Government have ignored the kinds of reforms proposed by their advisers on matters such as full electronic monitoring of interviews and access to legal advice for those in holding centres. Those important considerations formed the basis of our reasoned amendment on Second Reading.
      I said during that debate that we would not oppose the Bill on Third Reading. Accordingly, we will not divide the House tonight. We welcome the Minister's assurances regarding our amendments, and we have withdrawn them accordingly. We welcome the review by Lord Lloyd that the Government announced on Second Reading. We want a considered and effective approach to anti-terrorist legislation, and Lord Lloyd's review should help to provide that—as the Secretary of State implied. We shall submit our views, and we look forward to the conclusion of that review. We have made it clear that we will not vote to leave the people of Northern Ireland unprotected, without any anti-terrorist legislation.
      I had hoped that the background to tonight's debate would be positive and forward-looking. Sadly, it is not. The resumption of IRA bombing is a tragedy that should never have happened. It must stop. Democratic and peaceful politics requires agreement and consensual progress. It is a fact of life that all who are committed to the democratic path will recognise; it takes time to achieve.
      Progress in the peace process may at times have been slower than some preferred—but that is democracy. It is a fact that resorting to violence will impede progress, not speed it up. That is against the interests of every person living in Northern Ireland, who knows that at any second

      91
      he or she could be plunged back into carnage, just as it is against the interests of every person throughout these islands.
      A greater sense of urgency is needed on all sides, but the greatest threat to rapid progress is a continuation of the bombing. Today, the commander of the anti-terrorist branch, John Grieve, said:
      "We in the police are doing everything we can, but we need your assistance—communities cannot allow criminals to ruin our lives".
      Legislation can help, but terrorism will be defeated only by the courage, determination and flexibility on the part of those who wish for a lasting, just and peaceful future for Northern Ireland.
      8.37 pm
      Rev. William McCrea: I join the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) in expressing appreciation to the Minister of State for the effective manner in which he handled the details of the Standing Committee, the manner in which he answered the questions put to him and, perhaps most of all, for the courtesy which he showed to all members of the Committee. All Committee members are deeply indebted to the Minister for the way in which he carried out his office and for the courtesy that he showed to all who participated in the inquiry.
      I say that very genuinely, because the Minister took on board all of the issues that were raised and he sought to provide answers—if not at that time, then at a later stage—which were received and studied by hon. Members. I put on record our deep appreciation to the Minister.
      I think that it was a good inquiry and that Committee members—especially those from Her Majesty's Opposition—scrutinised all of the issues. All hon. Members who served on the Committee performed the tasks required of them. The inquiry was detailed, exciting on some occasions and, I trust, informative on others. It served a vital purpose in scrutinising the very important legislation which affects the lives of the people of Northern Ireland.
      Not one Member of the House, including my honourable colleagues, wants the legislation to last a day longer than necessary. The legislation is there, not because of the democrats of the Chamber, but because of those who hate democracy and fight against it—the terrorists. They are responsible for the legislation being placed on and remaining on the statute book. It is important, therefore, that we have emergency legislation for as long as the emergency lasts.
      I trust that effective security measures are being taken and that they will continue to be taken to ensure that the terrorists do not achieve their goal—to bomb, murder and destroy law-abiding citizens into submission to their terrorist mould.
      The debate gives the terrorists a clear message. We, the people of the United Kingdom, in Northern Ireland and here on the mainland, will not be moved one inch, one iota, from our desired democratic path by the bombs that they have let off against us or with which they seek to destroy us or by their campaign of terror.
      A message needs to be delivered loudly and clearly. For 25 years, the people of Northern Ireland withstood the carnage of the terrorists. I assure all those who believe
      92
      that they will achieve a united Ireland by the means of terrorism that they had better realise that after those 25 years of terror, the people of Northern Ireland are more determined than ever before to remain a part of the United Kingdom. That is not because, as some propagandists say, occupying forces are in Northern Ireland to try to force the people against their will, but because the people of Northern Ireland desire to remain a part of the United Kingdom—and that desire is freely expressed at the ballot box. We are delighted that the vast majority of the community, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, of the people of Northern Ireland, unitedly state that they believe that the best future for their children lies within the United Kingdom.
      Terrorism is nevertheless a reality and must be defeated. If there is to be genuine peace in Northern Ireland, there must be no guns on the table, under the table or outside the door. The guns must go. The Semtex must go. The suggestion that Gerry Adams was at any time a democrat sickened those who were democrats and have confronted the onslaught of terrorism in the past 25 years. I should like to know of an occasion when Gerry Adams condemned one IRA bomb or one murder carried out by the IRA. The answer is, he has never done so to this day.
      Mr. Adams may say that he will not walk down the path of condemnation just because someone asks. Common decency demands that he condemn acts of terrorism, as it is right that the House should. I hear that condemnation from colleagues on both sides of the House. We condemn murder as murder. There is no excuse for persons to take the law into their hands and destroy the lives of the innocent people of Northern Ireland or of this part of the United Kingdom on the mainland.
      Gerry Adams is not a democratic politician and it was revolting and sickening to see him paraded when he set aside the old jumper that he had worn for about 10 years and the image of having been in bed for about five years without having combed his hair, and adopted the slick image of a new coat—provided by someone—a new wardrobe and a well-trimmed beard. It is as well that he kept the beard on because this morning, whenever he answered questions by one of the media from the Irish Republic, he had the brass neck to tell the people who knew something about the murders on the mainland not to tell the police, that it would be wrong for them to tell the security forces, and that he would not condemn such acts of carnage. Then he had the audacity and the brass neck to suggest that he regretted it. People of the United Kingdom well know that to hear that from Gerry Adams is not only sickening but like driving the knife deeper into the stomach of the person who has already been hurt by the terrorist act of violence.
      As the House considers the emergency legislation, I must tell the Secretary of State and the Minister of State that we have a question in our mind. In Committee, it was drawn to our attention that there was a prosecution under legislation whereby a person might be convicted for directing terrorism. That prosecution was on the loyalist side of the community. I do not say that that should not have been done, but if it was right that a person was accused of such a crime, can anyone suggest why the likes of Gerry Adams, with blood on his hands, and Martin McGuinness, equally with blood on his hands, could not be prosecuted? The security forces know the credentials of both those persons. I am told that a recommendation

      93
      was forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions—although my informants tell me that it did not arrive because it somehow got lost on the way or was misplaced—regarding the credentials of Martin McGuinness.
      The people of Northern Ireland are waiting. They want to know exactly why those persons are not brought in under a charge of directing terrorism, because they are as guilty as those who planted the bomb on the mainland and no one in Northern Ireland believes that Gerry Adams did not know that the bomb was being planted at Canary wharf. Indeed, we believe that that was part of the dual scheme—Sinn Fein in its propaganda exercises and the IRA in its murdering enterprises.
      In connection with that, has the Secretary of State seen the article that was printed in the press concerning the IRA army council? What is the position concerning Gerard Kelly, Pat Doherty, Rita O'Hare, Kevin McKenna and Brian Keenan, who were mentioned in the document? Has the matter been fully investigated? Are those the people behind it? For example, how could a lady—if she is in terrorism she is far from a lady, but a woman—who should be protecting and participating in the giving of life be in any way associated with the dastardly deeds of taking innocent people's lives and the destruction of people, on the mainland or—
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I have given a fair amount of latitude to speakers, knowing what the situation is at the moment, but the hon. Gentleman is trying my patience a little because we are discussing the Third Reading of a Bill and, in normal circumstances, that is very strictly interpreted. If the hon. Gentleman would return his remarks to the merits or otherwise of the Bill, I should be grateful.
      Rev. William McCrea: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      The legislation is necessary because terrorists are on the loose in the United Kingdom. If those persons were not in an army council—if there were no such thing as an army council—there would be no need for emergency legislation and we would be glad for the legislation to be done away with. Other hon. Members have acknowledged that it is a wide-ranging issue, and certainly it is. Lives are at stake. We need legislation that deals with recruitment, targeting, regrouping, re-arming and the continuation of the threat to the peoples of Northern Ireland.
      When the Secretary of State introduced the Third Reading debate, he said that the IRA had not stood down one man or surrendered a weapon, and that is true. Those weapons are held not for democracy but for murder and destruction.
      In conclusion, I ask the Minister of State about a subject that we discussed in Committee. What is happening to special prisoners who were let out on licence because of the ceasefire? Will they be returned? I am speaking about those who have breached the so-called ceasefire, who have returned, not only to murderous intent, but to murderous activity.
      My constituents are in grave danger. Many isolated people along the border are living in fear. There are in the community a number of well-armed terrorists who are seeking to destroy the lives of people in the Province and
      94
      in the rest of the United Kingdom. There is an emergency, and it is important to know exactly where the Government stand. Many law-abiding people who want genuine peace are deeply concerned. We will never have the genuine peace that has been talked about in this Chamber until terrorism is defeated and destroyed. If the Bill can take us down that road and achieve that aim, it will be in the best interests of the whole of the United Kingdom.
      8.50 pm
      Mr. Trimble: Before I mention general points, I want to raise one matter of detail to which I referred on Second Reading, and which my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) pursued in Committee but which has not been answered and dealt with adequately. I refer to the provisions relating to terrorist fund raising and financing. The terrorist funding unit has been operating for a number of years and it has been most successful in restricting the flow of finance to terrorists. The effect may not be immediately apparent, but that activity is important in striking at the roots of the terrorists' ability to cause mayhem and disturbance. It is essential, particularly in view of the events of recent days, that the existing powers remain on the statute book in an effective form.
      Labour Front Benchers said that the anti-racketeering provisions are being moved from the Bill to ordinary legislation, and it is right for that to contain measures to enable the courts to confiscate the proceeds of crime and the ill-gotten gains of persons involved in organised crime. However, the provisions in the draft order dealing with the proceeds of crime are not effective in replacing section 57 and the associated schedule of the emergency provisions Act. The Minister referred to that matter in Committee and wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, saying that he would table an amendment to the proceeds of crime order. Unfortunately, I have not seen the text—I understand that it is not available—so I have to go by the Minister's letter to my hon. Friend, in which he stated:
      "The amendment would relate to the definition of criminal conduct in article 2(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Order. As at present defined that definition of criminal conduct refers to a number of offences but excludes the offences under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. We propose to remove that exception."
      Doing so will mean that the provisions of the order would apply to offences under the prevention of terrorism Act, and the provision for financial investigations under the order would then be available. However, that does not go far enough. The order enables the financial investigation provisions in article 49 to be available where there is an investigation into whether any person has benefited from any criminal conduct, which will be defined by reference to offences in the prevention of terrorism Act. I see two problems with that. When dealing with terrorist financing, there may not be a personal benefit. Also, we are still referring to the committing of an offence. I note in passing that offences under the Act are rarely brought successfully. If it is necessary to bring a conviction under that legislation, the provisions will rarely bite.
      Compare those restrictions with the width of provisions in the emergency provisions Act, which enable an authorised investigator to be appointed where there is any investigation by the Royal Ulster Constabulary into the existence of the resources of a proscribed organisation and of funds that may be applied or used for the commission

      95
      or furtherance of acts of terrorism or in connection with them. There is no requirement in existing legislation for an offence to be committed, or for a person to be convicted of an offence or to have benefited. The wide existing provision focuses on the resources of proscribed organisations and the funds that may be used in connection with the commission of terrorism.
      Although it seems from the Minister's words that an effort has been made to broaden the provisions in the proceeds of crime order, they are not as broad as the Act's existing provisions. If we are faced, as we appear to be, with the renewal of the terrorist campaign, it is extremely important—especially at present—to be able to attack terrorist financing. There is reason to believe that in recent months, terrorists—particularly the IRA—have been running short of funds. Although they have been able to keep going with the $1.5 million that they raised in the United States last year, that source of finance may cease to become available to the same extent, in view of the renewal of violence. It is extremely important that the power is broad and wide enough to cover terrorist financing.
      Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way that he explained that fairly technical matter. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) has received a letter from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. It is certainly not our intention that future legislation shall be in any respect less broad than at present. I give an undertaking that the matter will be examined, with a view to securing that at least that principle is implemented. We will examine the matter fully and carefully.
      Mr. Trimble: I thank the Secretary of State for his intervention and assurance. I remark in passing that that is another good reason for having the other place, even in its present form.
      No one can seriously contend that there is no need for the Bill. I wish that there were clearer, more forthright acknowledgement of that fact from Labour Front Benchers. They voted against the Second Reading, giving various reasons. The truth was evident from the conduct and body language of the Opposition spokesperson. It was a question of looking over one's shoulder, at certain elements among Labour Back Benchers who seem to exert inordinate influence over the mind of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), who leads for the Opposition.
      Over recent years, I thought that the Labour party was moving to a more honourable and forthright position on the need to combat terrorism and I was sorry to see that element of backsliding. I was also sorry that this evening there was not a more forthright acknowledgement of that need and a realisation of the change in circumstances. When one considers the ground that Labour advanced for voting against the Bill on Second Reading—the fact that the provision for internment remains in the legislation—it is clear that that provision would be resorted to only in the most extreme circumstances, but it is also clear that we might be faced with those circumstances.
      Those who have followed the Dublin press over recent weeks may have noticed the reference in a few interviews by journalists who were able to speak to the leadership of
      96
      Sinn Fein-IRA to the belief that exists among the leadership of Sinn Fein-IRA that a sharp, savage campaign—those were the adjectives used in the Dublin press—in England would break the Government's will. Perhaps we have seen only the first instalment of what may be about to come. There is a significant and serious risk of a savage campaign, given the language that was used in the Dublin newspapers.
      Against that background, it would be criminally irresponsible to foreswear the use of the power of internment. That power exists to be used on a pragmatic basis according to a judgment as to whether or not it will succeed. It has been used successfully many times over the past decades, but on one occasion it did not have the desired success. It is a matter of analysing the reasons for success in some cases and failures in others and the failure to judge when it is appropriate to resort to it. It may well be that, before too long, circumstances will arise when it will be necessary to resort to it. If those circumstances exist and there is the prospect of a successful exercise of that power, clearly, it should be used.
      There would, however, be a difficulty with an immediate recourse to that power. It is now fairly clear that the bomb that exploded in docklands close to Canary wharf was organised by a tightly knit group within the IRA, based almost exclusively in the Republic of Ireland and that, in all probability, the bomb was manufactured in the IRA's usual bomb-making factories in the Louth area. According to journalists' reports over the weekend, the operation was directed from Monaghan, the telephone warning came from just outside Drogheda and all the indications are that the persons who ran the operation were physically located in the Irish Republic. That is not to say that they were natives of the Republic; some of them are natives of Northern Ireland who are now domiciled in the Irish Republic.
      Another feature of the operation that ties in with what was happening before the ceasefire was the recruitment of "lilywhites"—persons from the Republic with no previous background or involvement in terrorism who are, therefore, unlikely to be picked up by the security services and the police in Northern Ireland, England or Wales.
      The fact that the roots of the operation lie in the Republic of Ireland shows that immediate recourse to internment would not be successful from the point of view of authorities in the United Kingdom. If the authorities in the Republic were to act, however, it would be an entirely different matter. Those authorities have a duty to take action and to ensure that their territory is not used as a base from which to launch attacks on another country. I am aware of no action by authorities in the Republic to discharge that duty. We have been told that they did not detect the operation and were as surprised as anyone else by the bomb in Canary wharf. That suggests that they had no adequate intelligence on it. I hope that they have taken steps to repair that and that they will take further steps to show that they are prepared to discharge their obligations to their neighbours under international law.
      Current events underline the need for a single uniform code covering the entire United Kingdom. The attempt to pretend that Northern Ireland is in some way distinct and distinguished from the problems that apply to the rest of the United Kingdom was exploded by recent events. We made that point a number of times in previous years,

      97
      we shall repeat it to Lord Lloyd when he undertakes his review and I very much hope that it will be reflected in his recommendations and in future legislation.
      There have been comments on what has been called the peace process and suggestions as to what should be done about it, how to keep it going, advance it and speed up the tempo. I listened to the comments by the hon. Member for Redcar, although I did not find any of her proposals attractive. Nearly all of them are far divorced from what we would find desirable in the present circumstances.
      Rather than looking at the detail of the peace process, it would be better to go back to first principles and to consider what has been happening during the past two years. What is called the peace process stemmed from propositions advanced in the autumn of 1993—propositions particularly associated with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). If I may summarise his hypothesis of the time, he said that peace was possible if only the Government made a reasonable response. Underlying his proposition was the suggestion that those involved in terrorism had realised the futility of their actions and wished to get out of the terrorist campaign. They wanted to make progress towards peace and democracy and would do so if only the two Governments gave them the opportunity.
      It was quite reasonable for the Government to respond to this hypothesis; no criticism should attach to them for so responding. It is reasonable to say that people should make the effort to achieve peace and should, for that reason, be prepared to take risks from time to time to achieve it.
      Over the course of the past two years, the hypothesis has been subjected to tests. The whole point of the Downing Street declaration, particularly paragraph 10, was to provide tests of the hypothesis, to see whether it was genuine, and as the Government said, to create the necessary confidence in it. Now we have seen what has happened. The events of the past fortnight show that even if the hypothesis had some validity two years ago, it no longer corresponds with reality.
      I do not say this with pleasure. Over these two years, to be sure, we have expressed a certain amount of scepticism about the hypothesis, and there is a temptation now to say that we have been proved right. But if we have been, I take no pleasure from it. It would have been better if the hypothesis had been right and we had been able to move towards peace and democracy. Events, however, have shown that it is not true.
      The fact is that what we had a couple of years ago was an agreement on a stratagem, or tactic. Sinn Fein-IRA embarked on what they called the ceasefire because they had been persuaded that it would be possible, in the event of a cessation of violence, to put together a coalition stretching through Sinn Fein, the SDLP, the Irish Government and Irish America—a coalition that would exert pressure on the British Government.
      I noticed in this connection a comment made by Garret Fitzgerald in The Irish Times a few weeks ago, to the effect that when it proved impossible for Mr. Albert Reynolds, the then Prime Minister of the Republic, to obtain a ceasefire on the terms of the Downing Street declaration, he jettisoned part of it and obtained a ceasefire on other terms, giving various undertakings to achieve it. I noticed also that an IRA representative, in an interview last week, used language consistent with this hypothesis. In any event, the real ceasefire was clearly different from the declared ceasefire.
      98
      Reality came home to Sinn Fein-IRA in the aftermath of the Clinton visit. Sinn Fein-IRA had been led to believe that Irish America, and its influence with the White house, was their trump card. When the President stood in Mackie's and told the terrorists that their day was over, I think they realised that this was not going to be their trump card. There is reason to believe that the strategic decision to resume violence was taken in December, weeks before the publication of the Mitchell report. Journalist sources certainly suggest that.
      So the basic proposition that underlay the peace process has been shown to be false. The bombs that went off in London destroyed the ceasefire, and must also have destroyed any future ceasefire based on the same hypothesis. A great deal has been said about the need to restore the peace process and resume the ceasefire, but it must be realised that there is no prospect of returning to the ceasefire that we thought or hoped existed before last week.
      The only ceasefire on offer was suggested by Mr. Adams last week. He talked of a ceasefire that would be offered only in exchange for a clear commitment to move immediately to all-party negotiations, without any preconditions whatever, and within a clearly defined time limit. That ceasefire is not worth having and is not one to which we could be party. We could be party only to a process that was genuinely based on a permanent end to violence, which was clearly intended to be permanent and if the parties' actions were entirely consistent with such an intention, with all that entails. That would mean returning to paragraph 10 of the Downing Street declaration and fulfilling what it said about peaceful intent, the democratic mandate and abiding by the democratic process.
      I appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you have been kind in allowing me to wander a little from the terms of the Bill. We will have to explore these matters in greater detail on other occasions. The events of the past few weeks must cause us to reassess what has happened over the past two years. A valiant effort was made to achieve peace, but we must realise that that effort has failed. We need, therefore, to reassess not just the hypothesis, but the motives and actions of those who presented that hypothesis. We need to consider how we can restore the political process and, at the same time, we need to ensure that effective legislation is in place to deal with the security problem that we may be about to face.
      We need not just legislation, but an effective strategy to defeat terrorism, because it is no longer possible to hope that terrorism will go away of its own accord. We must try to work out an effective strategy. I believe that that can be done. The parties could return to the suggestions that were made by the Chief Constable a year or two ago for the strengthening of terrorist legislation. All the Bill would do is to reproduce most of the provisions in the EPA. As I have said, I think that the Bill omits an important part of the old EPA, but it could be strengthened in the ways that were mentioned by the Chief Constable and others several years ago. It is pity if we have to wait for Lord Lloyd because there is still an opportunity in another place to strengthen this legislation.
      9.11 pm
      Mr. Mallon: I wish to associate myself with the remarks of those who were on the Standing Committee. I thank the Minister and all the other members of the

      99
      Committee. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and to his colleagues for a remarkably good presentation of the position, and to all the people on the Standing Committee, including the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis): when the day comes, as it inevitably will, that he and I are not on Committees dealing with emergency legislation there will be a massive gap, albeit one related more to our sizes than to our contributions.
      I am delighted to see the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) in his place. I went through the records in relation to previous legislation and I was struck by two comments made by the right hon. Member when he was the Minister dealing with the emergency provisions legislation for Northern Ireland. I think he will agree with me—if about nothing else—that that was some time ago. In Northern Ireland, we look upon the right hon. Member with affection and great respect. When he was a Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, dealing with emergency legislation right in the middle of the most awful violence that we have seen in the north of Ireland, he made a speech in Munich in advance of a previous Standing Committee. I shall quote two extracts, which are as relevant now as they were then. He said:
      "Democracy should seek to derogate as little as possible from the normal standards of justice and government which would normally apply."
      I agree with that statement. He also said in the same speech:
      "Progressive policies without regard to moderation, civilisation and restraint could actually feed terrorism."
      I agree with that, too. I believe that that thesis is equally valid now, and it was equally valid long ago when Thomas Jefferson said—in a different context—that if one sacrifices justice for security one ends up losing both. We must never lose sight of that principle—the principle enunciated by the right hon. Member for Chelsea—when we are dealing with legislation of this kind.
      I should like to deal with many elements of the legislation in detail, but I have had my chance over many years in a number of Committees, and I hope that this will be my last chance to speak about such legislation. I hope that nothing that I say on the Floor of the House will exacerbate a tense and difficult situation, and for that reason I do not intend to refer directly to the political dimension that we are discussing. It would be easy to provide not a reason but an excuse for avowed terrorists to use whatever is said here as a spurious justification.
      I know that it was not intended, but it has been suggested in today's debate that the suffering of those who were killed, maimed or bereaved in London was somehow less immediate for us in the north of Ireland than it would have been if the bomb had gone off in Belfast, Derry or anywhere else in the north of Ireland. I know that I speak for every other hon. Member representing the north of Ireland when I say that that is not true. The compassion and the sympathy are felt by everyone in the north of Ireland. They are tangible: they are there to be seen and touched. They are no less immediate because the Irish sea lies between the two islands.
      People here should realise that. At some stage during the debate, it has been implied that violence here is bad because it might start up violence in the north of Ireland
      100
      again. That is true, but let us not forget that everyone, no matter where they live, must be protected from violence of this kind. Send not to know for whom the bell tolls: it tolls wherever it may toll, and human nature and the human condition are lessened by it, no matter where.
      I wish to challenge two other theses. In this context, I turn to another British poet—Wilfred Owen—who in one of his poems challenged the great lie:
      "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"—
      "It is a good and noble thing to die for one's country". I also challenge that thesis. No one on the island of Ireland or outside it has any right or mandate from the Irish people to say that they are killing in the name of the Irish people. I give no one that right and I attribute it to no one. The wish of the Irish people, as determined—indeed, self-determined—by them is that violence cannot be exercised in their name. I call upon those within the so-called republican movement—I use that term because I regard myself as a republican in the true sense of the word, and I believe that they have besmirched it—to stop telling the great lie to young people in our country: stop propagating the awful untruth that somehow it is noble to kill other people for a spurious type of Irish unity which would not be worth the paper it was written on if it were obtained by the deaths of the two people of Canary wharf, and the thousands of other deaths.
      I also challenge the notion, and I do so at every opportunity, that there is not a nationalist consensus. I repeat that there is, there was, and there will be, and that it is based on three principles. First, no one has the right to use violence in the name of the Irish people to solve the problems in Ireland. I stand by that principle. Secondly, if we have the right to self-determination, as recognised in the joint framework document, the Irish people have the right to decide how it will be exercised, and they have self-determined that it shall not be exercised in that way. The third principle is that of consent. All political parties, outside Sinn Fein, on what is loosely called the nationalist side, have a consensus. It is not something for the mood of the moment. It is not something to be used just when it suits. It is a basic principle.
      In our debate earlier, the central point was missing. What has happened is that the IRA and Sinn Fein have seemed to be outside the nationalist consensus, to be outside the consensus that is based on those three principles, to be outside what is a positive and constructive dynamic within Irish life, and they will remain so. The people who stand outside it are Sinn Fein and the IRA. Is that new? They stood outside the Sunningdale agreement and blew it to smithereens. On the Anglo-Irish Agreement, there were three factors against it: the Unionists, the IRA and Conor Cruise O'Brien. Then there was the joint declaration. They stood outside consensus on that, and the framework document, and the report of the new Ireland forum, and the Mitchell report. The tragedy of the Mitchell report was that it was not tested on the Floor of the House the day it was brought out.
      We can surmise, but the basic thesis of the IRA position is this, and I challenge it. The most chilling part of the IRA's statement of last Thursday was its reference to "Irish national rights". That is its definition of the three principles. Its definition of the three principles is contained in those three words. I put this to the IRA and to everybody. Do they for one moment imagine that my

      101
      party, or the Irish Government, of whatever hue, or the number of parties that make it up, or all the parties that signed the forum report, or the United States Government, will ever resile from those three principles? If they do, their case is fatally and fundamentally flawed, because what they mean when they talk about a pan-nationalist front is changing and diluting those principles. The assumption, which is wrong, is that the SDLP will change its view on those three principles. It will not, and neither will any other party in Ireland. We stand by that nationalist consensus and on no other ground. That is the greatest strength in terms of argument in the entire equation.
      The British will, of course, always be wrong; no matter what they do, IRA-Sinn Fein will have a reason to say that. The British can be plausible, easy or populist, but they will be wrong. The Irish Government will be wrong, as they are at the moment. I take this opportunity to say again that I support the stance taken by the Irish Government. They are the sovereign Government of the Republic of Ireland and I totally support their stance of not speaking at ministerial or Government level with people who are connected with violence. However, they are wrong, too, and we are wrong. I remember when, not so long ago, we were Lundies and sell-outs, and I was a west Brit.
      In the mind of the IRA, everything has changed except the dogma—I refer to the great line by Wilfred Owen. IRA members believe that, somehow, they hold the holy grail and that all the rest of the people in Ireland, including nationalists and real republicans, are wrong. We can put the IRA to the test. My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) made a proposal for a referendum. He said that for the first time since 1918 we should let all the people of the island speak with one voice in opposition to the violence. That would remove the spurious claim by Sinn Fein and the IRA to be descended from that period of Irish history and to speak in the name of the Irish people. That is the way to do it.
      I know that I have strayed from the Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not want to negotiate or to try to negotiate across the Floor of the House, but I want to make one last remark, which I mean sincerely. There is a remarkable chemistry within the political process in the north of Ireland which is waiting to be tapped. It could be used like a bunsen burner and be lost for ever, or it could be used in a distinctly positive way. The catalyst of the Canary wharf violence and the other violence that we have seen has in many ways, at least in terms of that chemistry, brought us closer together. We must not spoil the potential of that by any form of dogma, whether it be Government dogma, Unionist dogma or, dare I say it, SDLP dogma.
      9.27 pm
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the whole House has been impressed by the remarks made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). He has spoken from the heart and his words have been pressed from his innermost being, and we accept that. It is always moving to be in the House when such a speech is made. I say that unreservedly and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that I say it sincerely.
      Having listened to what the hon. Gentleman has said, however, and having listened to what has been, from a republican and nationalist, such an indictment of the IRA
      102
      and of Sinn Fein, the people whom I represent and the broad spectrum of Unionists, both the Protestant majority and the many Roman Catholics who are Unionists, will want to know what—if that very solemn indictment from the hon. Gentleman is so—his leader and Gerry Adams signed up to. That is the big question. We, as representatives elected to the House of Commons of this United Kingdom, have never been a party to what was signed up to, and it has all been kept carefully under wraps. It affects the destiny of my people and of the constituents of other hon. Members who are Unionist, but we do not know—we have never been told. Having listened to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, I am sure that Gerry Adams signed up to something which proposed, if not all that the hon. Gentleman said, then a great deal of it. That is what worries the people whom I represent.
      The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh says that he stands by Mr. Bruton's statement that he will not hold talks with IRA-Sinn Fein until it says that it repudiates violence. I have been criticised—as has my party—for always taking that stance. Democrats cannot sit down with people who, if they do not agree with the end product of the negotiations, say, "We will take to the gun." That is exactly what lies at the heart of IRA-Sinn Fein. It says, "Yes, we want to sit at the table to discuss and negotiate, but if we do not agree with the agreement that is reached, we will go back to killing, mayhem and the bomb."
      Let us look at what has taken place in the lead-up to the present situation. First, there was the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Hon. Members wondered why the Unionist population were so stirred at the time of the agreement, and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) told the Government to "face them down". It is all very well to call for talks, but the majority population in Northern Ireland were not consulted about the agreement.
      I am glad that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at that time, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), is in the Chamber for this debate. The right hon. Gentleman was visited at the time by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux)—the then leader of the Ulster Unionists—and me. We asked why we, as the leaders of parties representing the majority Unionist population in the House of Commons, were not being briefed in the way in which the Dublin Government were briefing the SDLP on what was to come out of the talks. He said, "I take that on board, and I will come back to you." But he came back and said, "The answer is no—you are not going to be briefed," and we were not briefed.
      Later, the two Governments met in conference and started to deal with internal matters. We were always told that the internal matters of Northern Ireland were a matter for this Parliament and for the people of Northern Ireland. Suddenly, we saw representatives from the Irish Republic dealing with matters that were solely internal affairs for Northern Ireland. That did not work, even though the Unionists were faced down, because one cannot rule a country when the majority is against it, and one cannot rule a country when a sizeable minority is armed against it. We know that, but you have to take people with you if you can. We then had the Downing Street declaration—principles which spelled out that in some way the whole of the people of Ireland would have the final setting of the stage. However, the people of Northern Ireland could give their consent.

      103
      I have listened to all the debates. Albert Reynolds said, "I want to make it perfectly clear that we are saying this at this juncture, but this does not mean that the people of Northern Ireland will always be allowed to have this particular power of consent." How did the Unionists react to that? The stage was set towards a united Ireland and then they got the framework document, which set the structures. There were no two choices in the framework document: there was one choice, one option—we were to go down the road of a united Ireland.
      Perhaps hon. Members do not understand. They heard the emotional and moving speech of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh that on the other side, in the hearts and in the depths of the majority of people of Northern Ireland, there is a determination that, come what may, they will never enter into a united Ireland: they are part of this kingdom, and they intend to remain part of this kingdom, but even if this kingdom should drive them forth, they will not accept a united Ireland. That is as deep in the hearts of those people as the statement that the hon. Gentleman made of his political faith tonight. It is deep, it is real, and it is part of what makes the Unionists tick.
      Hon. Members should not say to the representatives of the majority, "You must sit down with men who have guns at the ready if they do not get what they want." Of course, we were accused of wanting the peace process to fail. No one would enjoy peace more than the majority representatives and the elected representatives from Northern Ireland. Do hon. Members think there is any pleasure to come through this stream, to be threatened, to see our children go off to school and not know whether they will be beaten, kicked or perhaps even killed? That is true of both sides of the divide. When I was in Stormont, Paddy Devlin spoke to me and said, "Yesterday, my boy was kicked and urinated on by IRA men on his way home from school." Hon. Members can understand how a father would feel about that. My wife, who served on the Belfast city council and who voted against the rise in the rents of houses, went to a housing estate and was stoned. Those things are an everyday occurrence with politicians and we all know it. We are all under threat, so it is no pleasure to us.
      I have grieved tonight about what has happened and I echo what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said. We and the people of Northern Ireland do not judge the ordinary people of this mainland. We are with them in their tragedy. We weep with those who weep, sorrow with those who sorrow and enter into their real fears. No one in Northern Ireland is saying, "Slap it into them—they need to get what we've got." We do not want anyone to have to go through the dark valley that Ulster has gone through—God forbid it—but there are evil men in the community in Northern Ireland and infiltrated into the community here and they are determined that they will have their pound of flesh. They think that they are going to teach this United Kingdom a lesson.
      After the ceasefire, the IRA published a very interesting document. It is private and was intended to be secret, but my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) seems to have a wonderful way of getting such documents. It reveals the IRA mind. It states that
      "Hume is the only SDLP person on the horizon strong enough to face the challenge."
      104
      That writes out the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. As for his companion, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), who is sitting beside him, he is not even mentioned, which is understandable as he was the man who defeated Gerry Adams and he could hardly expect any laurels for that.
      The document also states:
      "Dublin's coalition is the strongest government in 25 years or more. Reynolds has no historical baggage to hinder him and knows how popular such a consensus would be among grassroots.
      There is potentially a very powerful American lobby not in hock to any particular party in Ireland or Britain.
      Clinton is perhaps the first US president in decades to be substantially influenced by such a lobby.
      At this time the British government is the least popular in the EU with other EU members.
      It is the first time in 25 years that all the major Irish nationalist parties are rowing in roughly the same direction."
      It states that "these combined circumstances" are unlikely to come again in the foreseeable future, so the hour has come. The ceasefire and the so-called peace strategy—that is mentioned in the document, which states that the organisation of an "anti-British" peace strategy must be the priority—have all come to pass and the IRA thinks that this is an hour of weakness. It may be an hour of weakness in a political sense, but it is the hour of the people of Ulster's greatest strength: they have resolved within their hearts that they will not be bombed, bullied, bulleted or battered to a table to discuss their future with the men of violence—who will go back to that violence if they do not get their way.
      I am glad that my party will meet members of the Social Democratic and Labour party this week. I hope that as we sit down at that table we shall be able to see exactly where the parts of the community divide and where there may be some common ground. The only hope for Northern Ireland is in the principles of democracy. If those principles are put into action at this time, we can leave aside those who will not go the way of democracy but choose the way of violence: they will be taken care of by the rising tide in the community that the day has come to say goodbye to those who want violence and to welcome those who stand for a solution which can come about through democracy and the ballot box.
      I welcome the legislation because it is a signal to the men of violence that the Government will not weaken in their fight. I trust that it will be taken in that manner across the United Kingdom—as a signal that this Parliament, this Government and this people are determined to see the battle through so that real peace, based on the principles of democracy, can come about. I hope that that peace will soon be born.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. McNamara: In the first part of the speech of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), the House witnessed the intensity of feeling and sense of identity that belongs to both gentlemen and to the communities that they represent. Their words illustrated to the House the necessity of seeking to find an accommodation that is based on both communities and is acceptable to both communities.
      It must therefore be an agreement that does not talk in terms of majority and minority, but recognises the traditions, aspirations and hopes of each of those

      105
      communities. That, I trust, is what the Prime Ministers of both countries will talk about when they have their summit, whenever that may be. I hope that it will also form the content of what the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister will discuss when they talk to the leaders of the various parties in the House. That means that there must not be triumphalism on either side, but there must be compromise on each side. One side must regard and respect the Britishness of the other and the other side must regard and respect the Irishness of the other. That should be the aim of the policies that we are seeking to achieve.
      That is the important message that we must take from what my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh and the hon. Member for North Antrim—who has been my hon. Friend on occasions—have said. I think that the hon. Member for North Antrim and I are the only two Members of the House who took part in the first debate on the emergency powers Act and served on the Committee together.
      The leader of the Ulster Unionists referred to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), who now has the honour of leading for the Opposition on Northern Ireland. He was derogatory to both of us. Both of us have advanced the principles and policies of the British Labour party, laid down at Labour party conferences and enunciated by a great number of shadow Secretaries of State from the Front Bench long before I had a position there.
      The reason why we have, in the past, opposed the Act and measures in it was not that we did not think that there was a problem of dealing with terrorists in Northern Ireland—far from it. We opposed the Act because we felt that the mechanisms and measures contained in it were not necessarily the most productive means of dealing with the problem.
      Taking away someone's right to jury trial is a serious matter. We looked for a way of reinstating it in a more positive manner. The indefinite internment of people without trial is a serious matter. We sought to take that power away, because in the past it had been used only against one section of the community. Those are the reasons why the Labour party, over the years, has opposed those powers. They are not the selfish possessions of myself or of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar, but the principled reasons of the British Labour party.
      The Secretary of State made a number of interesting comments on the current situation. I should like to make one point very loud and very clear. Neither the Prime Minister, the British Government nor anyone else can be used as an excuse by anyone for what happened at Canary wharf last week or at the Aldwych last night. The only group responsible for the carnage, the deaths, the woundings and the terrible loss of property is the Provisional IRA. It is spurious to seek excuses in the way in which the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister handled the negotiations, and no justification whatever.
      The essence of democracy is that one has to deal with situations as one finds them. As the Secretary of State was keen to point out, he had the support of my Front-Bench colleagues for his policies—especially for decommissioning, which was one of the reasons why I parted company with my Front-Bench colleagues. I parted company with them because I thought that it was a foolish policy. I never thought that there would ever be any decommissioning. It was wrong to pursue it.
      106
      Equally, however, the Secretary of State, by a sleight of hand tonight, has tried to suggest that he accepted the Mitchell proposals. The Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and did not accept them. He foisted upon the House elections that came from one of the confidence-building measures and went on to say that he accepted the six principles, but the main thrust of Mitchell's first and main recommendation was for talks to start and then for there to be progress on decommissioning.
      The Prime Minister sought to pre-empt that recommendation and the report in precisely the same way that the Government sought to pre-empt the Scott report. Sadly, that is water under the bridge, but we cannot allow it to be said that the Government were pursuing a perfect set of negotiations, because they were not. Before the bomb, there had been a divergence of view between our Government and that of the Republic on the best way forward for the talks. It is important that that should be put on record.
      Mr. Maginnis: Even if it is untrue and inaccurate.
      Mr. McNamara: If I want untruths and inaccuracies, I shall always come to the hon. Gentleman, because he can put them forward far better than anyone else.
      My point is that a lot of that is now water under the bridge and we have a serious and difficult situation. I do not believe that our Government should in any way negotiate with IRA-Sinn Fein at ministerial level while it is engaged in any sort of campaign of violence. However, there is great urgency for the two Governments to get together as soon as possible, to iron out their differences and work together. Real progress in Northern Ireland has been made only when the two sovereign Governments have been marching forward together, not when there has been divergence between them.
      I do not wish to end on an antagonistic note, but I believe that another veto has been operating throughout the peace process—that of the Ulster Unionists. They were not prepared to accept the Anglo-Irish Agreement, they pick and choose the bits in the Downing Street declaration that they like—their position on that is typical—and they have not accepted the framework document. If we are to succeed in this endeavour, we must return to—
      Mr. Maginnis: We accepted the Mitchell report.
      Madam Speaker: Order. There are too many interventions from the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) from a sedentary position.
      Mr. McNamara: The problem with the hon. Gentleman is that his charm is exceeded only by his beauty. The same goes for the remarks that he makes from a sedentary position.
      The position of the Ulster Unionist party has caused some problems. It, too, has exercised a veto over the discussions and it has used its position very skilfully to extract concession after concession from the Government. That is where I believe that the Secretary of State has gone wrong.
      Mr. Maginnis: List them.
      Mr. McNamara: I shall list the concessions for the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. McNamara: I shall either list the concessions or give way. I think that I shall list them and, if there is time, I shall then give way—although the Secretary of State may wish to reply to the debate.
      A Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs has been established. Its formation was denied by all parties in this place—both Government and Opposition—until the Maastricht vote, and then it came about. The Ulster Unionists have been offered a Northern Ireland Grand Committee and they have achieved progress on their integration policies, as more and more legislation that we pass in the House covers Northern Ireland, when in the past there were separate Orders in Council or separate legislation.
      I believe that further concessions will be made to the Ulster Unionist party. For example, the Government gave way to its demands for elections—without consulting the Irish Government or other parties in this place—because they need the Unionist vote. The Secretary of State will receive the Opposition's support when he behaves correctly; that has been made very clear. However, the power of the Ulster Unionists comes into play on other issues, and that fact must be recognised. That takes me back to where I began.
      Mr. Maginnis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. McNamara: No. The hon. Gentleman has had his say and he has nattered away during my speech. I shall now finish my nattering.
      The deputy leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, and the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, the hon. Member for North Antrim, epitomise the nature of the problem. I believe that we have a duty to try to help the two communities to come together and reach an accommodation that will recognise the Irishness of the nationalists and the Britishness of the loyalists.
      9.57 pm
      Mr. Maginnis: I wish to comment on some of the fairly blatant inaccuracies that we have heard in the past few minutes. It is rather peculiar that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) does not recognise that the Ulster Unionist party accepted the Downing Street declaration and that Sinn Fein did not. The Ulster Unionist party accepted the Mitchell commission report in total, as a package, without picking and choosing various elements from it. I had the privilege of being the first to speak live to the cameras after Senator George Mitchell delivered his report. I remind the hon. Gentleman that I said, "I welcome, on behalf of the Ulster Unionist party, the Mitchell commission report. We
      108
      accept it, as a package; we believe that it should not be picked over, with parts chosen and parts discarded. If every party does that, it will lose its usefulness."
      Sinn Fein did not accept the Mitchell report.
      Mr. McNamara: Quite right.
      Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman agrees that it was quite right. He has just told me that it was quite right.
      Mr. McNamara: I was saying that the hon. Gentleman was quite right.
      Mr. Maginnis: I am usually quite right vis-à-vis what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
      More important, Sinn Fein-IRA sat for almost a year with every other nationalist party in Ireland. They sat in what was called the Dublin Forum for Peace and Reconciliation and at the end of that, the forum brought forth a report—about a fortnight ago. That report by and large picked up the elements of the Downing Street declaration—
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Streeter.]
      Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      Madam Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) wish to finish, or may we move on to the Northern Ireland order?
      Mr. Maginnis: You are very tolerant, Madam Speaker. I have literally one sentence.
      Madam Speaker: I hope so.
      Mr. Maginnis: It is to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the one dissenting voice in what was mainly a pan-nationalist forum was Sinn Fein-IRA. I do not use the word pan-nationalist in this case in any derogatory sense, but Sinn Fein was the one party that could not agree with the other nationalist parties in Ireland. That is the party for which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North wants to make excuse after excuse in the House.
      Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with accusing me of making excuses for a party that supports murder and violence.
      Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing parliamentarian in the House. He knows that that is not a point of order; it is a point of argument and a point of debate.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland)
Madam Speaker: It might be helpful if I make it clear at this stage that debate on this order may of course cover all matters for which Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. Of course, police and security are the principal excluded subjects.
10.2 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
The draft order has two purposes. The first is to authorise expenditure of £96 million in the 1995–96 spring supplementary estimates. That will bring total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departmental services to £6,238 million for this financial year. The second purpose is to authorise the vote-on-account of £2,821 million for 1996–97. That will enable the services of Northern Ireland Departments to continue until the 1996–97 main estimates are brought before the House later this year. I remind the House, as you have done, Madam Speaker, that the draft order does not cover expenditure by the Northern Ireland Office on law and order and other services.
Details of the sums sought are given in the estimates booklet and the "Statement of Sums Required on Account" which, as usual, are available in the Vote Office. I now turn to the estimates.
In the Department of Agriculture's vote 1, which covers expenditure on national agriculture and fisheries support measures, a net increase of £1.1 million is required. About £1.5 million is required for capital grant commitments, £1.3 million of which relates to the farm and conservation grant scheme. Those increases are partially offset by savings in other areas. In the Department's vote 2, covering local support measures, a net increase of £1.1 million is sought.
Turning to the Department of Economic Development, a token increase of £1,000 is sought in vote 1. Some £3.5 million is for the provision of land and buildings by the Industrial Development Board to meet additional expenditure on factories for recent inward investment projects. Some £6 million is for selective assistance to industry, mainly to meet claims made under existing offers to major inward investment projects. Those increases reflect the board's continuing success in attracting international competitive companies to Northern Ireland. The increases are offset by increased receipts and reduced requirements elsewhere in the vote.
In the Department of Economic Development vote 3, a net increase of some £1.6 million is sought by the Training and Employment Agency. The major requirement is £6 million to meet increasing claims under the company development programme. Partial offsetting savings have been declared elsewhere in the vote, to reduce the additional requirements to £1.6 million.
For the Department of the Environment, a net increase of some £6.5 million is sought in vote 1. Some £2.8 million is for compensation payments and capital grants to Northern Ireland railways. Those increases are partially offset by increased receipts.
110
In vote 2, covering housing, a net increase of some £3 million is sought, mainly to provide assistance to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, and some £6.8 million is to provide private sector housing renovation grants. That increase is partially offset by the reallocation of some £2.8 million in housing grant and by additional receipts from housing associations. Gross housing expenditure in Northern Ireland this year is now expected to be about £599 million, an increase of £25 million over 1994–95.
In vote 3, covering water and sewerage services, a net increase of some £2.1 million is sought. Additional expenditure of some £4 million, mainly required for operational, new construction and improvement work, has been offset by a reduction of some £2 million on water and sewerage administration. In vote 4, which covers environmental and other services, a net increase of some £0.2 million is sought. In vote 5, covering office and general accommodation, £8.2 million is for new public building works, alterations and purchases.
I now turn to the Department of Education, where a net increase of some £8.3 million is sought in vote 1. That includes some £7.1 million for grants to education and library boards, mainly for maintenance, minor works, frost damage and replacement buses. Some £1.4 million is for voluntary schools, mainly for health and safety works.
I turn next to the Department of Health and Social Services, where a net increase of £17.6 million is sought in vote 1. That includes £26.1 million for hospital, community health and personal social services and family health services revenue, and £1.9 million for capital expenditure. Those increases are offset by increased receipts and a reduction of £7.1 million in the centrally financed services.
In vote 3, additional net provision of £5.3 million is required, due to a decrease in receipts of £6.8 million, most of which relates to recoupments from the national insurance fund in respect of administration costs, and an increase in funding for the centrally financed miscellaneous health and personal social services of £2.8 million. Those increases are offset by reductions of £4.3 million elsewhere in the vote.
In vote 4, which covers social security, £29 million is sought. That is due mainly to a greater than anticipated demand for disability benefits—in particular attendance, invalid care and disability living allowances. That is offset by decreases in income support and family credit.
Finally, £5.3 million is sought in vote 5, due mainly to increased expenditure on rent allowance and rates rebates. Those increases are partially offset by reduced requirements elsewhere in the vote.
In addition to the aforementioned increases, provision has been included within individual votes under the European Union special support programme for peace and reconciliation. European funding has been provided initially for a three-year period, from 1995 to 1997, with further funding for two years up to 1999, subject to review. Northern Ireland has been allocated £200 million which, together with 25 per cent. matching funding, brings the total value of the programme in Northern Ireland to some £266 million. Both the European funding and the matching funding will be fully additional.
In my opening remarks, I drew attention to the main provisions of the order. In replying to the debate, the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for

111
Devizes (Mr. Ancram), will eagerly respond to the points raised by hon. Members. I commend the order to the House.
10.9 pm
Mr. Jim Dowd: I sympathise with the Minister. It has been a long day, but at least he knows that we are more than halfway through it. He rattled through a great range of numbers, and as the order is principally a financial measure, the House should examine a few of them. The debate provides an opportunity for Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies to raise issues, and as a significant number of them are present, I shall be brief.
The order is part of the Government's projections for expenditure from 1996–97 to 1998–99 arising from the Budget statement. We welcome several of its provisions. I hesitate to say it, but some sleight of hand is involved. I do not know whether there is less to the order than appears at first glance, or more, but I hope to tease out from the Minister which it is.
Although there is no reduction in the emphasis on targeting social needs and no offset of the additional funding expected from the peace and reconciliation initiative and the EU money that was mentioned, the figures, of which the measure represents the first tranche, suggest that there will be a reduction in real terms over the next two or three years. Most of the provisions are welcome, but they should be viewed against the need to consolidate the opportunities for economic development that have arisen in Northern Ireland recently—and the need to expand the economy by some 6 per cent. if a net 60,000 jobs are to be provided.
Although the recent developments that we discussed earlier are deeply troubling, it is the will of all Members to ensure that the work that has been done to bring normality to the lives of so many people in Northern Ireland continues, and that it is not another victim of the callous brutality of the Provisional IRA.
I would be grateful if, in his reply to the debate, the Minister would say whether the priorities established in the expenditure review in early December after the Chancellor's Budget statement have been changed by developments in the past 10 days or so since the South Quay outrage. I understand that he cannot say too much, but perhaps he can inform the House whether the welcome shift anticipated by the expenditure review is likely be reversed.
The overall increase in expenditure is some 2.5 per cent., but when the increased social security costs are taken into account, the figure drops to below 1 per cent., which, as all Members will know, represents a cut in real terms. When that is considered together with the switch from security spending to industrial development, it places greater pressure on the targeting of social needs expenditure, and the health, housing and education budgets. It is fundamentally wrong, therefore, for the Government to rely on more expenditure in that sector to create sufficient wealth and jobs to improve the lot of the socially deprived.
I should refer to one of the most alarming proposals in this year's order—the implied 20 to 30 per cent. cut in the action for community employment programme. There
112
is widespread concern in all parts of Northern Ireland about the possible effects—up to 3,000 jobs could be lost. I asked a parliamentary question to try to elicit further information about the ACE programme, to find out the expenditure on individual organisations for the years between 1994 and 1997, and to learn how many people are employed by each body.
I was disappointed to receive an answer telling me that such detailed information was not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I should have thought that such figures were first-line information for the Training and Employment Agency in its dealings with the ACE programme.
There has been a welcome decline in unemployment in Northern Ireland in recent years, but it remains the area of the United Kingdom with the highest unemployment, especially long-term unemployment; and unemployment there is well above the EU average. Anything that jeopardises progress on this front is a matter of justifiable concern to all involved.
Although it has been said that the community work programme will be given more emphasis, the evidence is that it is nothing like as successful as the ACE programme has been. There is anxiety about the quality of community work programme training and experience, for instance.
Another worrying aspect of this affair is that the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action has been deeply critical of the fact that it was not even consulted about the proposal to reduce the ACE programme.
The Minister mentioned EU special funds. Can he confirm that they remain, and will remain, additional beyond this year; and that the Government do not intend to make them "instead of" as opposed to "as well as"?
There is also widespread concern in Northern Ireland about the lack of speed and the method involved in the distribution of the special funds, and having them committed to the purposes for which they were intended.
I appreciate the Minister's comments on the support for local authorities, but he will know that some of the rate rises projected for Northern Ireland are severe, to put it mildly: 8.9 per cent. in Coleraine, 9.5 per cent. in Banbridge, 7.2 per cent. in Down, and 12.2 per cent. in Newry. The figure rises to 27 per cent. in Castlereagh—a staggering figure. Even though the Government have estimated that projected increases for the rest of the United Kingdom will be above inflation, some of the projected figures for Northern Ireland are extremely worrying, and, if realised, will impose a considerable burden on many householders.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman has been speaking strictly about local council rates. Is he aware that the Department has increased regional rates, without capping them, over the years?
Mr. Dowd: Indeed so. I am not certain whether the Government have yet announced the projected increases in regional rates—I suspect that they are due imminently—but they too will be well above the rate of inflation, partly owing to the disproportionate impact of the Government's landfill tax on local authorities in Northern Ireland, which are peculiarly dependent on this

113
method of refuse disposal. That localised impact has not been adequately considered by the Government.
The Government will be aware of their report showing that the major part of the road-building programme was undertaken in the 1960s, and that those roads are now reaching the end of their useful life. Nothing in the figures suggests adequate expenditure to cover that fact. Infrastructure is important—not just in Northern Ireland, but across the country—given what the Minister was able to say about attracting inward investment. The infrastructure and the roads are a key element of that, because it is difficult to see how one can achieve as much from inward investment without the infrastructure.
We welcome what progress has been made in housing recently, although that progress has taken place against the backdrop of increases in waiting lists, which now have more than 22,000 people on them. I urge the Department to put less effort into breaking the Housing Executive into housing associations and more into allowing it to build and rehabilitate homes in Northern Ireland. That would be to everyone's benefit, although I know that the Government are determined to decrease central Government control.
We recognise that the position in Northern Ireland is acutely difficult, because local authorities do not have the same rights and responsibilities as those in other parts of the United Kingdom. However, we do not necessarily believe that the best way to deal with that is to move power away to semi-selective quangos, whether housing associations or other organisations.
The Minister will be aware that a recent report showed that some £114 million needs to be spent to bring school buildings up to standard. Clearly, it would be wholly unreasonable to expect that amount to be committed in one year, but the report shows that a large programme of work needs to be done to the fabric of schools in Northern Ireland. I would appreciate any information about how the Government intend to deal with that.
I would also appreciate any information that the Minister might have about if, when, whether and how the Government's proposals for nursery vouchers might be extended to Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): The hon. Gentleman has given us quite a shopping list of what he would like to spend money on. Can he explain where, if he was in our position, the money would come from?
Mr. Dowd: We would run the Government more efficiently, and we could do a thousand and one things that the Government are not doing.
If the Minister wants me to give figures now, his question was a reasonable try, but he must try harder. He knows the position. My understanding of the matter, weak and flimsy as it may be, is that the Government are responsible for the order before the House tonight, and my questions are about the order. A simple trawl of replies, especially to oral questions, from Ministers, and of questions from Conservative Back Benchers, would show that they are more concerned about what the Labour party will do than about the responsibilities of the Government.
114
The Chamber was and remains established to call the Government to account for their proposals and what they will do about the information supplied by Departments.
Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Perhaps he did not understand my question, but I am sure that he realises that resources in Northern Ireland are allocated from a block, which is based on a formula. If more money were spent on one area of the block, it would have to come from another area. Can the hon. Gentleman explain, given his shopping list, from which areas of the block he would take money?
Mr. Dowd: The short answer is that I am not prepared to run around giving alternatives. Moreover, we are taking far too much time from Northern Ireland Members in engaging in a petty party political squabble, and I do not intend to devote much more time to it.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: That's okay, then.
Mr. Dowd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
I shall not go into the issues arising from the trusts and shadow trusts, many of which will come into existence in the next couple of weeks, but a specific problem has been brought to my attention, and, I am sure, to that of hon. Members representing rural parts of Northern Ireland. It concerns changes to GP dispensing arrangements, which—owing to various modifications to qualifications—now threaten the prospects of many small GPs in such areas.
For instance, the nearest overland station to a practice in Roselea, in Fermanagh, is some 30 miles away, and the GP there informs me that, unless GPs in such areas can use the funds they received under the previous formula, their future is threatened.
Rev. William McCrea: We have the same problem with the Coagh dispensary. It is vital for doctors in that surgery to be able to dispense medicines. May we join forces in asking the Minister to take the problem on board? What GPs, the people and elected representatives are saying must be heard.
Mr. Dowd: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that. I have heard from people in Fermanagh, Antrim, Down and elsewhere. It is a widespread problem, which also threatens the quality of care available to those furthest away from urban areas. GPs have approached me with detailed representations, demonstrating that the people involved are not given to complaining and have a genuine problem. It is not so great a problem in the short term, but, when GPs retire, it is highly likely that replacements will go by the board and local services will suffer.
The Minister mentioned costs to the water authority. Will he assure me that no money is being spent on preparations for privatisation—that the Government have seen the light after the debacle of electricity privatisation, and have noted the overwhelming opposition to water privatisation in Northern Ireland?
I have no time to ask the Minister about an extension to the dangerous wild animals legislation, but he will know of the ridiculous events in the recent past.

115
Huge amounts of police time have been taken up to no particular purpose; the matter really ought to be sorted out far more efficiently.
10.27 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: Wide-ranging debates such as this always give Northern Ireland Members an excellent opportunity to raise issues that our constituents regularly ask us to raise in the House.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I zigzag across the elements in the order. The first matter that I wish to raise relates to local government, and, in particular, to section 72 of the 1973 Northern Ireland local government measure: it concerns the provision of a loans pool. Local authorities in other parts of the United Kingdom are empowered to borrow money in advance at the most attractive rate, provided that they can identify a need for those funds, in future years, within their budgetary requirements.
I had hoped that the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) would be here to support me, because he is aware of the attempts that I and my council made to raise the matter with the Department and to seek permission to establish and operate a loans pool. Despite numerous approaches to the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department of the Environment, the matter still remains unresolved. Last year, Castlereagh borough council appointed consultants in the City of London to advise on the management of its capital borrowings. To operate its finances efficiently, it was advised that the establishment of a loans pool and the ability to borrow in advance of requirement was essential. Yet we do not appear to be able to get that matter sorted out from within the Northern Ireland Departments. The delays in obtaining the necessary approvals are hindering the council from obtaining finance at favourable interest rates, and as a result it is not achieving the savings that were expected.
The Under-Secretary of State who has responsibility for the Department of the Environment told the council that his Department was preparing a model loans fund scheme for adoption by district councils in Northern Ireland. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to ask his colleague why it is taking such a long time. It appears to us that there is considerable foot-dragging. I believe that councils in Northern Ireland should enjoy the same privileges as councils on the mainland.
I raise two issues that relate to the Department of Economic Development. The first, naturally, relates to the problems faced by Shorts, which is in my constituency and which had a major contract with Fokker, the Dutch aircraft manufacturer, to supply wings for the Fokker 100/70 jetliner programme. As hon. Members will be aware, the Daimler-Benz board has ceased to give financial support to Fokker, and that has thrown the company into crisis. If Shorts loses that customer, between 1,000 and 1,500 jobs could be lost. Economists have indicated that the knock-on effect could result in the loss of some 3,000 jobs in the Province as a whole. Shorts is not simply looking at Fokker as a customer; it has a special relationship with Shorts in that it has a partnership arrangement. Not only does it have what might be described as a profit-sharing arrangement, but it has a risk
116
partnership. Therefore, from Shorts' point of view, the potential exists for considerable loss if the contract with Fokker falls.
I believe that the Dutch Government have been proactive in the matter and have given time and space for Fokker to try to put together an arrangement whereby it can stay in business, at least in part. Happily, one proposition that I raised recently with my right hon. Friend the Minister and with the Prime Minister was the possibility of Bombardier buying out Fokker. That seems a sensible option not only for Fokker but especially for Shorts.
What investigation has been made by my right hon. Friend's colleague, who has been very active in the Department of Economic Development? The Minister has been in regular contact on this issue. It appears to me that there are many areas where it was recognised that Fokker was carrying out work at an unproductive level, and where the costs were much higher than they would have been if the work had been carried out in Northern Ireland by Shorts. What assistance can the Government give to Bombardier, provided, of course, that part of the contract work that is currently being carried out by Fokker is put into Shorts, where it can be done at lower cost, which benefits not only Shorts in terms of jobs but Fokker and Bombardier?
It would be a nice end to the story if the removal of the threat of 1,500 job losses at Shorts, and as many outside it, led to a gain in jobs as a result of more work coming to Shorts. I am eager to have a response from the Minister on that issue.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) referred to the substantial cut in funding for the action for community employment scheme. Although I do not despise today's announcement that £2 million is being put back into the scheme, it is small beer in terms of the loss that is expected. I have had a series of communications from groups within my constituency, such as community development groups, charities, including Action Cancer, victim support groups, citizens advice bureaux and many others, all expressing real concern about the impact of the cut. They believe that it will become impossible for them to maintain their present services for people within my constituency and that many of the services will have to be withdrawn entirely.
The ACE schemes have provided a worthwhile opportunity for people to gain skills; they have taken people out of the unemployment pool and they have given them a sense of belonging to society. It was remarkable for the Government to decide that they would cut the funding to the most vulnerable section of the employment pool. We see all the hype about the prospects of new jobs coming into Northern Ireland in a new atmosphere. How many investors are required to come to Northern Ireland to take up the slack that will result from the loss of jobs arising from the cut in funding for the ACE schemes? It will be difficult to fill that gap.
Rev. William McCrea: Does my hon. Friend accept that the feelings of his constituents concerning the cut in the ACE programme are shared by people in the rest of the Province? Having spoken to many other Northern Ireland Members, I feel that something urgent must be done and that the £2 million, although welcome, will not meet the concern felt throughout the Province.
Mr. Robinson: I accept that entirely. I know that in the unemployment black spot of Mid-Ulster—in Strabane and that general region—where there is high unemployment, the cut will be felt strongly.
I express criticism about the heavy cuts in the health service. I had the sad responsibility of meeting a family whose mother had required hospitalisation as the result of a heart condition. When the family contacted the hospital, a cardiac team rushed to the home and gave immediate assistance. The team determined quickly that it was essential that the lady be taken into hospital. They rang the Ulster hospital at Dundonald, to be told that there were no beds. They then tried desperately, for the next 90 minutes, to find any other hospital in the Belfast area that could provide a bed for this chronically ill patient. None of them could do so. It was only after ringing the Ulster hospital at Dundonald again that a bed was made available for the patient.
I accept immediately that the cardiac service was there and that it gave attention to the patient at all times. However, the House will recognise that a patient with a heart condition who is left for an hour and a half not knowing whether a bed will be found becomes very anxious—the very condition that is least required for somebody who has a heart problem. In my view, financial cuts are destroying what was a very good health service in Northern Ireland, and are driving the caring and professional doctors, nurses and staff almost to despair. I find more and more when I meet hospital staff that morale is very low and that they have great fears for the future.
I have had a number of difficulties in my constituency in recent years where people have been given the wrong advice on pensions over the telephone, and have taken decisions based on that advice. When it is later discovered that they have been given the wrong advice, everybody washes their hands and no one wants to do anything about it. In one such case, the official information given in writing to a constituent of mine never advised her of her rights and entitlements in relation to the matter that she raised. She is now getting 25 per cent. less per week as a result of receiving bad advice. The Government must face up to the issue. If someone gives incorrect advice in the name of the Government, they should make sure that the person involved is not penalised in the long run. I would ask the Government to introduce a system to ensure that those who suffer in that way do not do so permanently, and that any loss suffered is given back in compensation.
I was a little surprised to hear the positive remarks of the Minister and of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West on housing, because the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's house-building programme is almost non-existent. When I ask housing managers for essential work to be done in my constituency, I am always told that money is not available and that schemes are being put off and long-fingered.
One of the areas of greatest difficulty is home improvement grants. I know of people who have been waiting for three, four or five years for a decision from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. It seems that the Housing Executive pulls out of the air any excuse to put off making a decision—it is "looking for more details" or carrying out all sorts of "tests of resources". I had an unfortunate case in my constituency when a young couple purchased a house in 1993 because they intended to get married in September 1994. When it got close to that date, it was obvious that the Northern Ireland
118
Housing Executive would not be able to provide the grant that would allow the couple to have their home ready for their wedding, and they had to postpone it.
Some hon. Members might think that that poor man had been saved for at least a time, but—whatever his personal position may be—he is still waiting for his house to be properly refurbished. After all this time, it surely must be possible for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to decide on whether this person can get a grant. In many cases, by the time a grant is paid, the condition of the house is much worse and the original estimates are no longer realistic.
In relation to the assessments, there is considerable concern that the test of resources can change during the period of waiting. I had constituents who, in March 1994, had their contribution assessed at £3,076. By October 1995, the contribution was assessed at £6,664.22, more than double the original assessment. Their total income increased by £27, they ended up in a new band and they had to pay an additional £3,600—all for the privilege of a £27 increase in their income. If the matter had been dealt with properly and speedily, they would not have been faced with that problem.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) is bracing himself because he knows that my final point relates to the Department of Education—his Department—and to Belmont primary school. A delegation from the school—including the headmistress and the board of governors—and I visited the Minister, and he also visited the school. Approximately 250 pupils attend Belmont primary school, which was built in 1890—not 1690, but it is none the worse for that—and it requires urgent work and a major extension. The Department accepts the case for a new building, but there are serious delays.
The building is currently in a bad state of repair: no one is allowed to use the upper floor, and there are difficulties with the electricity, with wet rot and with leaking in the ceiling. The staff use the staff room at their own risk. The Presbyterian church has been used in the past because the school was closed as a result of the need for repair. The overall wiring of the school is of concern—for example, one cannot turn on all the computers at one time. There are three classrooms in a row, with the one in the centre not having a separate exit. If there is a fire, the children will have to make their way out through the other classrooms.
It is clear that there is a major need for new premises. The dining room and the toilets are in a different part of the site. The children have to go out of their current portable cabins or out of the old building, cross a playground and go into these facilities, which are small and inadequate. The headmistress has an office that is smaller than a prison cell—I would have been happy if my headmaster had had such a small office, because he would not have been able to swing a cane in it—and is not satisfactory. The Department of Education must provide finance for a new school for Belmont.
The Minister recently made an announcement concerning the new starts list for 1996–97. I was disappointed that Belmont was not included on the list, but I will not be so churlish as to fail to thank the Minister because Grosvenor high school was on the list—clearly, there was a need there. The Minister accepts that there is a real need for Belmont primary school.

119
The school was disturbed to receive a letter from the Belfast education and library board, which said that the Minister cannot take a decision on Belmont primary school because the necessary work has not been completed to the stage necessary for him to take such a decision. According to the Belfast education and library board, the delay appears to be within the Minister's Department. The communication says that the Belmont project is the Belfast board's second priority. If Belmont is its second priority, I would like the Minister to tell me what its first priority is, because I cannot think of any school in the Greater Belfast area that is in greater need of new accommodation than Belmont primary school.
The letter goes on to say that the initial economic appraisal has been submitted to the Department, that that has been expanded to meet the Department's requirement for additional options and a detailed design study cannot be commissioned until approval is given to the appraisal. Finally, it states that work cannot start on site until new-start approval is issued.
Belfast education and library board is being held back because approval has not been given to the appraisal that was submitted. I hope to have the opportunity to speak to the Minister about this case. I would be pleased if, by then, he could determine what stage the appraisal is at and whether it could go back to the board to be put on its list of priorities.
If there are designs floating around for Belmont primary school, would it not be a good idea for some information to be given to the school? It is most unhelpful when the headmistress and the board of governors do not have any idea what appraisal the Minister is having to look at. They do not know what the board's proposal is—whether it is for an extension, whether the existing school is being knocked down, or whether it is for a new building on the same site. Surely that information can be given to the primary school.
I hope that, in a year's time when the Minister announces the new starts for the following year, he will have Belmont primary school at the top of his list, if he does not find some slippage in the intervening period and feel able to give approval before that.
10.50 pm
Sir James Molyneaux: I have no means of knowing whether the Chair has arranged for Lord Nolan to sit in on the debate, and if so, whether he can blow a whistle so that anyone who appears to have an interest in the matters under discussion can be forewarned.
In a way, all of us are bound to have financial interests somewhere in the 11 pages of this order. I am distinctly nervous when it comes to the mention of retirement pensions. I am less anxious about the case for maternity benefits. Younger colleagues, who have served and are serving their apprenticeship in this House consumed with the burning ambition to progress to higher things, might be concerned over the mention of £163,000 for the Northern Ireland Assembly.
As time is pressing, I shall resist the temptation to deal with specific matters, but will consider the wider picture as it would affect any Government. I hope that that may appeal to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), who spoke for the Opposition.
120
Northern Ireland appropriation order debates should not be allowed to give the impression that Northern Ireland is an obscure colony. It is an integral part of the United Kingdom and this appropriation order confirms that. It merely authorises the allocation of funds made available by Her Majesty's Treasury, which, in turn, derives that money throughout the United Kingdom by unitary taxation, as it is applied to all four constituent parts of the kingdom.
The advantages of belonging impose matching responsibilities. While we represent Northern Ireland and have a right to suggest how the total sum should be spent, we do not have the right to demand reckless expenditure which, if it were repeated in England, Scotland and Wales, would jeopardise the nation's finances and devalue the currency, whatever the complexion of the Government in power. In that regard, our parliamentary party has been consistent since its inception in 1974.
In my modest contribution to the debate on the reply to the Gracious Speech in November last year, I reiterated our principles: no fixed exchange rates, which has incidentally become a very popular view in the interval since I made that speech in early November; resumed repayment of the national debt; maintaining the Government's excellent record on low inflation; a steady reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement; and, support for the Chancellor's carefully phased cuts in interest rates. The Chancellor was on the Front Bench that day and he seemed to approve. Although I am a modest man with much to be modest about, I like to think that perhaps I had some influence on his decisions when he was finalising the Budget that he presented the following week.
With regard to the broad sweep of funds granted by the Treasury, the Minister may find it useful to explain more fully the impact of the so-called peace dividend. Savings resulting from what has been called the temporary cessation of military operations will have been reflected to some extent in part I of the order. Part II will presumably reflect certain reductions in public expenditure in keeping with the Government's policy of sound money, with which we do not greatly disagree. That means a reduction in the budgets of various sectors such as housing and hospitals. The authorities in those sectors managed—but only just—to avoid swingeing reductions in plans for this year and next year.
However, with the rolling resumption of terrorism, the peace dividend will have disappeared. There will inevitably be an increase in security-related expenditure throughout the United Kingdom—bearing proportionately on Northern Ireland. I am not referring to the costs of security forces because they are not contained in the order.
I am asking for an assurance that as security-related expenditure rises, the Government will regard that as a regrettable extra and will not be tempted to raid from the Northern Ireland budget the already reduced funds allocated to the Departments for the year 1996–97. Will it be accepted that, although the Northern Ireland Departments will do their best to cope with cuts in the coming year, they simply could not function if further cuts were made in their budgets for 1997 and the remaining years of the decade?
Paragraph 4(2) makes the rigid requirement that any money borrowed, with interest due, must be repaid not later than 31 March 1997. I make that point because, on

121
1 November 1995, in a Committee debate on the financial provisions order, I referred to the flexibility that the order gave in the dates for the repayment of loans by various organisations in Northern Ireland. It was explained by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), who was acting for the Government on that day, that a rigid repayment date could sometimes impose an administrative burden on organisations such as the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. On that occasion, the Committee could see the sense in that proposal and it unanimously approved the order. The question arises in my mind: why is the Department of Finance and Personnel, in this appropriation order, denying itself the flexibility that it accorded to others in the financial provisions order?
I know that many other right hon. and hon. Members will no doubt wish to deal with the activities of some of the departmental votes, but I wish to concentrate on the financial aspects of the Department of Economic Development listed on page 8, in vote 3. I want to focus on the enterprise and investment scheme that was introduced by the Government in the 1993 Budget to provide for a new equity investment in unquoted trading companies by outside individuals, "outside" in that case meaning persons not connected with the company, such as employees and shareholders with more than 30 per cent. of the capital.
Despite the fact that various tax reliefs are available to investors, only about 200 companies have benefited in the two years of the scheme's existence throughout the entire United Kingdom. Potential small companies have not noticed that whereas various forms of support are restricted to manufacturing industry, which has always been a sore point, this scheme has benefited service industry companies, including retail and wholesale distribution companies, hotels and restaurants. That has always been a much-despised sector, but it has chalked up assets of £8 billion throughout the United Kingdom in the last full year.
I am baffled and disappointed by the lack of response to the scheme in Northern Ireland, which is noted for its diligence and business acumen. It is a part of United Kingdom that, despite all that the enemy could do over past years, is benefiting from a steady improvement in its natural economy. I know of numerous small potential investors on the one hand and small enterprising companies on the other. The challenge for us all is how to bring them together.
It is true that the enterprise investment scheme is based on the Department of Trade and Industry in London, with welcome Treasury support. It is also true that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North, who is responsible for finance, and his colleague, the Under-Secretary, Baroness Denton, are making determined efforts to project that scheme in Northern Ireland. However, the two Ministers would be the first to admit that they need the support of all of us. I think that I can assure them of the backing of all hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland because, throughout my 25 years in the House, my colleagues from Northern Ireland, whatever their party affiliations, have banded together to support initiatives that have improved the material well-being of all our people in Northern Ireland.
122
I recognise the difficulty. This topic is not the stuff of which soundbites are made. It is dull dog stuff that cannot compete in the news industry with name-calling and abuse, but that means that we have to work all the harder to assist the two Ministers and their colleagues, should they decide—as I hope that they will—to stage a major promotion of a scheme that could make a great contribution to employment and prosperity in Northern Ireland.
11.1 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: I do not share the understanding of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) of the cuts in Government expenditure that have been imposed on us over the past few months. I make no apology for again referring, as have other hon. Members, to the vicious cuts in the action for community employment programme, whereby the groups involved were unilaterally informed on 12 December 1995 of a 25 per cent. cut in their budget. There was no advance consultation.
It is interesting to note that the document issued by the Department in February 1993, "The Strategy for the Support of the Voluntary Sector and Community Development in Northern Ireland", promised that there would be consultation with that sector on key issues before decisions were made by the Government. Why was that promise not honoured on this occasion?
Another document was issued that related to training and employment. It stated:
"the Training and Employment Agency seeks an active partnership with voluntary organisations and local community interests in support of training and other initiatives which enhance employment programmes."
The providers embraced that whole-heartedly under the concept, advanced to them by the Government, of partnership. Once again, the Government acted unilaterally. The so-called partners in training were advised of the vicious cut by a press release. The Minister must answer to the voluntary organisations which provide such a dedicated service to the Northern Ireland community—they deserve much better treatment than that.
The Department failed to pursue through the system the consequences for our communities of that draconian cut. The most vulnerable—the aged, invalids, the young, pre-school children and the unemployed—have been hit directly. The Minister has made a vicious cut in that sector but, if services are to be maintained and not disappear entirely, another Department must pick up the tab. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the Government's intention? Will services to the most vulnerable members of our community be cut as a result of the Government's actions?
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) referred to the 2,000 to 3,000 jobs which may be affected—as will diverse organisations, such as Cancer Research, Age Concern, meals on wheels and play schools. There will be a fundamental withdrawal of services and the Minister must address that issue. Will he confirm whether the Government's ploy is simply to reduce spending on the Training and Employment Agency in the hope that the peace and reconciliation fund will meet the difference in the long term on the basis of its social inclusion philosophy?
I shall deal now with the Department of the Environment. My hon. Friend mentioned the roads infrastructure bonanza of the 1960s and he questioned whether the funds should be

123
renewed. Certain areas of Northern Ireland never enjoyed that bonanza in the 1960s—I refer to my constituency and to the neighbouring areas in south-eastern Northern Ireland. In the intervening three decades, there has been no meaningful capital expenditure on roads or communications infrastructure in those areas.
If we are to achieve any share of the job bonanza that is promised to Northern Ireland and any share in the forecast huge increase in tourism, we must have reasonably modern road access to that area, which is one of the legs of the tripod for tourism development in Northern Ireland: the lakes of Fermanagh, the north coast and the Mourne and St. Patrick's country. The latter does not have the accessibility to create meaningful infrastructure for tourism or inward investment. I shall not go into great detail, but the primary routes into that area—the A7, the B8 and A24, Belfast to Downpatrick, Belfast to Newcastle, and the coastal roads—will not be improved until 2001, except through the expenditure of a small part of the minor works budget. It is beyond me how that policy gets past the equal treatment qualification. It seems as though those areas which did not receive funding in times of plenty will certainly not receive it now.
I must refer to one aspect of the roads infrastructure in light of last month's debacle involving the ferry between Strangford and Portaferry, which is the major link between the Ards peninsula and south-east Ulster. The ferry service did not operate for several days—the main ferry, the back-up ferry and even the small passenger cruiser were out of action at the same time.
The Department of the Environment commissioned a firm of marine consultants to carry out an assessment of the ferry operation and make recommendations. The firm reported to the Department in April 1995, recommending that the motor vessel named Portaferry be replaced. The Department has sat on that report and, despite the endeavours of my party and others, we have failed to elicit a reasonable response to proposals made to the Department by the commission that it appointed. Will the ferry be replaced or not? It is a simple question.
Perhaps the Minister will take aboard an entirely different concept. Is it more meaningful in modern times, instead of replacing the ferry, to build a bridge between the Ards peninsula and the rest of the south-east? It would create much greater scope for increasing economic prosperity, based on the limited amount of industry that exists. It would connect the two areas of Down, which have the entire fishing industry of Northern Ireland, and facilitate commerce in agricultural produce. Does that proposition figure in the Minister's thinking?
I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, if we are to have a meaningful social housing programme to take us into the new millennium, increased funding will unfortunately be required. All the primary indicators of the way in which our housing stock is developing show an unhealthy trend. Unfitness is increasing and is now 8.8 per cent.—higher than the Great Britain average. In some substantial rural areas it is as high as 28 per cent.
In the past five years, waiting lists have increased considerably and the population forecast of household growth is 7,500 per annum, yet the total targeted of the Housing Executive and the housing associations is only 2,300 per annum. Added to that is the increasing need to
124
provide specialised housing for the care in the community concept, which will obviously increase as the population ages.
A comment was made about the fact that the demand to rehabilitate houses by way of grant—repair, renovation or restoration—has obviously greatly outstripped that anticipated by Government. Is there any meaningful anticipation that adequate funding will be provided for the Housing Executive or whatever the new set-up will be after the housing consultation that is taking place?
I shall now discuss the severe cuts throughout the health boards—3 per cent. this year. Those cuts were announced in a press release by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), on 12 February 1996. It is an unusual press release. It is five or six pages long and admits clearly—for the first time ever, in my experience—that the 3 per cent. cut cannot be provided for out of the boards' funding. The Minister anticipates that only 1.5 per cent of that cut can be provided for out of the boards' funding. The Minister continued:
"I will be asking Boards, GP Fundholders and Trusts to work together to minimise the impact of the remaining 1½% reduction on services to patients and clients."
That is the first time ever that, in a ministerial press release, a deliberate cut in services has been acknowledged.
In response to a letter concerning a constituent with an acute cardiac condition, the consultant cardiac surgeon at the Royal hospitals in Belfast wrote:
"We have been advised by our Directorate here in the hospital that we are over 'contract' on Eastern Board and Northern Board activity. We have been told to avoid operating on all but the most urgent patients for these purchasers. We have been told that there are no restrictions on elective work for Southern and Western Board patients or for any GP fundholding practices.
As you can see from the above, this poses great difficulty for us in our clinical practice and might explain why your patient is having his operation delayed."
That is clear, unequivocal evidence of the two-tier system that now applies in the health service. Is the Minister taking that situation into consideration? As we speak, cardiac patients in my constituency and throughout the eastern and northern board areas cannot have their operations performed. Does the Minister think that the most pressing of all the monetary requirements to which the votes should apply? I end on that sensitive note concerning the health, the welfare and probably the lives of our constituents.
11.16 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: My speech will mirror that of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), because I have the same problems in my constituency. A letter from a constituent of mine in Ballymoney stated:
"I write for an explanation on the different treatment of two very similar cases. Both parties reside in the Ballymoney area, the diagnosis for both cases a cartilage problem in the knee and the recommended treatment 'keyhole surgery'. The facts of the cases … are as follows:
Case A:
June 1994. Referred by GP to consultant in the Route Hospital, Ballymoney.

125
September 1994. Attended the Outpatients Department of the Route Hospital, Ballymoney, and was referred to a consultant in the Musgrave Park Hospital.
June 1995. Attended an Outpatients Clinic at Musgrave Park Hospital and was examined by a Mr. McCoy. Advised by Mr. McCoy that there was a waiting list for this operation and it was not anticipated that the operation would be performed before December 1995.
January 1996. A member of the clerical staff at the Ballymoney Health Centre (on the instructions of the GP) rang Musgrave Park Hospital and was informed that the operation would not be carried out 'until the beginning of the summer'."
That is, a wait of nearly two years. The letter continued:
"Case B.
22 March 1995. Referred to consultant by GP.
28 March 1995. Attended clinic in Belfast and examined by consultant.
31 March 1995. Operation carried out in Musgrave Park Hospital."
That is, the same month. My constituent continues:
"There would appear to be a startling anomaly in the treatment of the two cases. However, there are two facts previously omitted which clarify the situation.

1. Case A is a National Health patient.

2. Case B chose to go 'privately' and paid for the operation.

I have paid tax and Class I National Insurance Contributions for almost 25 years. Perhaps I am naive in believing that the contributions paid by me over the years entitle me to fair treatment…
It is an indisputable fact that there is a 'two-tier' health system. Those who are rich and pay receive virtually immediate attention whilst those who are poor wait and suffer. How many others have 'jumped the queue' since June 1995?"
That speaks for itself, and backs up what the hon. Member for South Down said about a two-tier system.
Mr. Robert McCartney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but his comparisons are not entirely apposite. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) was comparing the two-tier system of GPs who were fundholders and those who were not, while the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) is comparing national health patients with private patients who are paying for their own treatment. If I am wrong, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will clarify the issue.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I accept that, but it is a two-tier system in both cases. For the sake of time, I shall not go into the minutiae of what the hon. and learned Gentleman said.
The Housing Executive budget has been cut by £10 million. That has deprived Northern Ireland of new build and refurbishment work. In North Antrim, more than 400 people were driven out of their Northern Ireland Housing Executive homes during the bad weather because of burst pipes. The NIHE refused to acknowledge any responsibility. Two years ago, it cut out the direct labour scheme. This winter, when problems arose, the tenants could not find workmen to do the job. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive told me that it could find only two plumbers to repair 400 houses.
Will the Minister make the Northern Ireland Housing Executive acknowledge its responsibility? Its refusal to spend money on the upkeep of the houses caused an emergency in the very cold weather. The pipes were not lagged, and no proper action had been taken to protect
126
them from the very cold weather. After some 40 years, why is no work being carried out on any of the houses on Greystone crescent?
I welcome the fact that the Government have decided to spend £2.7 million on the next phase of the A26. That money is being spent because the Prime Minister visited Ballymena and everyone got at him. He heard only about the A26. He heard it from me as the local Member; he heard it from the mayor, from the deputy mayor and from every alderman and every councillor. He heard it out in the streets and under the Christmas tree, so he had to do something.
The sad thing is that the third phase of the A26 has been postponed for 13 years. I do not know who will be the Prime Minister then. It may even be the Minister. Perhaps the A26 will be finished off at the end of the day, but until then, the new shopping and retail developments in Ballymena will be bypassed as people go to other parts of North Antrim because the road system is inadequate. The Government must complete the A26 scheme as soon as possible. I welcome the second phase, and I am glad of the money, but there must be a more reasonable date for the third phase than 13 years ahead.
I have dealt briefly with health matters, but I remind the Minister that a promise was made that a small injuries clinic would be erected in Ballymena. What progress has been made on that scheme?
How much financial assistance for local businesses has gone into Ballycastle, Ballymena and Ballymoney in the past 12 months? Would the Minister agree that it is difficult for small businesses to avail themselves of financial help from organisations such as the Local Enterprise Development Unit? I do not know whether my colleagues have trouble with LEDU, but I certainly do.
Hubert Brown-Kerr, a young man in my constituency, is a goer. He started the Sunstart Bakery; he got very little financial help—about £6,000. He is now the biggest exporter of bakery products to the United States of America. But LEDU held him up for months when he wanted to build a huge bakery in Ballymena, and offered him only small sums of money. What he needed was very large sums, to get the factory built.
I pay a warm tribute to Baroness Denton for the help she gave us in this case. She told LEDU to get on with helping this young man. I am glad to tell the House that the factory is to be erected. I went to see Brown-Kerr the other day, and he told me that he has had so many orders for his commodities that he has had to close his order books. He is the type of young man we need in Northern Ireland, and he is the sort of entrepreneur who should be encouraged. LEDU should take note that a man it despised and rejected has successfully promoted Northern Ireland's bakery products in the United States.
There has been talk tonight about the ACE scheme. Every Northern Ireland Member is greatly concerned about the cuts. I want to know what alternative provision the Minister intends for these areas, to reduce their unemployment rates. If ACE is removed, more people will be on the unemployment list. It is all very well announcing a cut, but what is the alternative?
We all talked to Baroness Denton today in the airport lounge, because our planes were delayed. In our private meeting, she told us about the £2 million. We do not despise that money, but it is nothing compared with the cuts that have been made.

127
The Minister knew that I would raise the question of the Ballycraigah school tonight. I wonder what progress he is making. I hope he will be able to tell me tonight, or write to me about it.
11.27 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: Has the Minister had an opportunity to study my letter and come up with a suggested date for visiting Wellington college? It has been in existence for a long time, under its former guise of the Carolan and Annadale schools. They amalgamated as part of the reorganisation, but the promises made to them at the time have not been fulfilled.
The attitude here seems to be one of mariana. For some years, the project was high up the list of priorities, but the Department demoted it. Now, with the move to become part of the new Balmoral high school in September, it looks as if the school is being asked to use the premises without even the modifications promised at an earlier stage.
When will the Minister be in a position to visit and see for himself that the school cannot actually provide the full scope of the curriculum in the rooms it has? There is an increase in the numbers going to the school. Outside the city, the nearest grammar school is Down high school on the southern side and the other schools, including the Methodist college, Victoria and others, are all over-subscribed.
It is not fair to absolve oneself of responsibility by saying that it is not the conditions of the classrooms that matter, but the quality of the teaching. The results show that the teachers are performing well, but the conditions are impinging on the future of those young people, and they do not have the same facilities as others.
I hope that the Minister will be able, in the near future, to pay that visit, which has been postponed at least twice. I recognise the pressures on the Minister's time, but I know that there has been a cry from the hearts of the staff and governors of Wellington college.
I now turn to vote 4, and the link between income support and housing benefits. I am concerned, and I have been for some time, about the pressures on the Housing Executive to increase rents. Has a study been done on the impact on the public purse of increasing Housing Executive rents by amounts well above the rate of inflation?
How many people are paying a full rent, and therefore, how much public money is being spent on housing benefit for those who cannot afford to pay those rents? Will we soon have the sort of situation that happened in London some years past, when the rises in the price of house building ultimately caused the collapse of housing prices? The private sector in Northern Ireland claims that it cannot afford to build houses of the quality that the Housing Executive is building for the price. Is a problem being stored up, and is public money being wasted because the Department and the Housing Executive keep putting up the rents of Housing Executive properties?
I wish to raise a specific issue that links education and housing benefit with income support. A young woman student at Queen's university took ill and had to discontinue her studies. She does not qualify for income
128
support, because social services say that she is in full-time education. Therefore, she is now faced with the problem that, because she does not qualify for income support, she will not qualify for housing benefit.
How is a person in that situation expected to live? Is there a misunderstanding of the rules on the part of somebody in social services? Is that student getting the bad advice to which the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) alluded when he talked about pension advice?
Mr. Roy Beggs: The Minister might be able to clarify the point that education and library boards have some discretion in such matters, but they may not have been exercising it.
Rev. Martin Smyth: It occurs to me that the boards might have used their discretion in their own way, to the disadvantage of the student I have mentioned. That has put additional pressure on an ill person.
There are many important issues on which I could spend time, but I wish to consider the projected expenditure for 1996–97.
I was a little concerned that, in the Minister's answer to my question on 11 January, there might have been not a deliberate misleading, but certainly a misleading, of the House. When I pressed the question of the 3 per cent. up-front cut, the answer was that the same had happened in the past three years. The chairmen of the boards, and those in the trusts, were certainly not aware that the recommendation from the Department and the management executive was a repetition of what had happened for the past three years.
In my question, I suggested that there would be reductions in elective surgery. I welcome the fact that the Minister has listened and made some adjustments, but is there something wrong with the Department and the management executive? Are they out of touch with reality? What is the motivation for some of their decisions? They have been completely out of kilter in regard to the capitation charges that have been going on for some years; now, in trying to correct them, they have come up with another howler. There has been a postponement for another year to allow more consultation between the boards, the providers and the Department. Who is making the decisions, away from the reality of work?
Can the Minister tell us—especially those of us who are involved with the eastern health board—why, although it seems to have been possible for contracts to be finalised quite early in the year in the southern, western and northern boards, at least two of the eastern board's main providers, Belfast City hospital and the Royal Victoria hospital, are finding it difficult to get contracts finalised until after September? Is there something wrong with the bargaining process? Did it not start in time?
Reference has been made to the knock-on effect and the two-tier system. GP fundholders have regularly been blamed for that system. To what extent are the health commissioners here and the health boards in Northern Ireland playing the sysytem with the trusts providing the services?
I gave some statistics in Health questions recently, from which it seems that there is an undoubted pattern throughout the nation and certainly in Northern Ireland:

129
people come from GP fundholders to be treated three to six months earlier than those who come from the health boards and health commissioners.
I have seen figures for both Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I have discovered—perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the providers purchase the service that the GP fundholders are purchasing, knowing that, at the end of the year, extra money will be available through the boards to fulfil their contracts. In the meantime, the boards have had to deal mainly with emergency work.
Are the boards playing the system, while not providing patients with the care that they require and that their doctors are recommending? I do not believe that it is a fair system if that is what is going on. Is the system allowing that to happen, or is it human manipulation of the system?
I have looked at the impact that the cuts will have, and not only on elective surgery, because in Northern Ireland, as well as the boards and trusts, there are health and social services, provided, for example, by the South and East Belfast Community Trust. It is concerned about the impact that the cuts will have on the provision of social services. In that context, I pay tribute to the experimental and positive work that the South and East Belfast Community Trust has done.
Is there not something wrong with a system in which a perverse incentive allows people to go into residential and nursing homes when they could be better provided for in the community, in their own homes where they want to be? The figures show that, even at grade 3, which is the highest grade for a nursing home, the community trust can do it much more effectively and economically. The patients we visited in their homes were singing its praises. They had benefited when in hospitals and institutions, but now they are back in their community and are getting excellent service.
The state could do more and adjust the funds, which, in my judgment, are wrongly going into nursing homes and residential homes rather than into community trusts. It might mean that we would need some changes in legislation, for it was obvious that some of the people in their homes who were getting the service free were also in receipt of other benefits, such as attendance and mobility allowance. One wonders whether that could be used to extend the scope to others.
I should like to deal with the penalty clause. I was in one of our larger hospitals on Saturday, and discovered that, as it was getting near the end of the year, it was holding Saturday theatres, Sunday theatres and night theatres. Although there would be a penalty if it was over-productive, it would not be as great as if it was under-productive. The management is pressing it and saying, "We must fulfil these contracts; we must get these patients in," and so on. Is that part of the folly of the traditional Treasury attitude: "There is only so much money and if it is not spent by the end of the year, you will not get the same amount next year"? Can we look again at some way to improve our budgetary arrangements, so that they do not cause that last-minute splurge?
I look forward to the developments in hospital provision. Does the Minister agree that there was something wrong with the approach that allowed obstetricians in Belfast to say that what they needed was
130
a modern maternity provision on a green-field site—they were not terribly worried whether it was the City site or the Royal site?
In the examination, it was decided that the facilities that were available in the City tower block could be modified to give modern maternity provision, closing the Jubilee and the Royal maternity, with facilities that would be needed into the next century, catering for some 5,500 confinements and deliveries in a year. We now have the "Save the Royal" campaign, which denigrates the City. It claims that it has no neonatal services, and paediatricians are sending the message to mothers west of the Bann, in North Antrim, in South Down and other places: "It is not safe to have your babies in a modern provision in a city site." The site is only 15 minutes from the Royal Victoria hospital, but it is claimed that the paediatricians, especially the cardiac surgeons, will not be available. It is time that some involved in health provision began to be more responsible in terms of their job protection tactics and their attitude to the provision of modern services for our community.
11.44 pm
Mr. Robert McCartney: As the only independent Northern Ireland Member, I collect the crumbs, or perhaps it is an advantage to have all the salient features of the Northern Ireland apportionment of funds dealt with so comprehensively and so unanimously by Members representing the major parties.
I have discovered this evening that a Minister's lot is, indeed, not a happy one. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has properly, on behalf of Belmont primary school, given us a catalogue of disrepair and other afflictions from which that school suffers and has asked the Minister to make it one of his priorities. However, we all appreciate, despite the extent of our respective begging bowls, that what the Minister has to allot is finite. The hon. Member for Belfast, East was more than generous when he acknowledged that the Minister, in the allotment of funds, had given priority to a major grammar school, Grosvenor grammar, in his constituency. Many of my constituents send their children to that school and I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking the Minister for the priority given to Grosvenor. It has rendered me conscious of the fact that there are many other hon. Members and many other people who are assiduously seeking a slice of the goodies that the Minister from time to time has it in his power to allot.
I am equally conscious that the funds that any Minister in any Government has available to him are limited. It is a matter of fine judgment as to which of a number of competing priorities he allots some of the money at his disposal. However, one constant theme from every Northern Ireland Member who has spoken this evening has been a reference to the draconian cuts that have been administered in relation to the money allotted to the action for community employment schemes. There has been a 25 per cent. cut, capitalised at £12.5 million, in funds for a group of people who can least afford the cut, belonging as they do to one of the most economically and often socially disadvantaged strata of the community.
The schemes are designed to enable the long-term unemployed to re-enter employment society. They have given sterling service to Northern Ireland in an area where it was much needed. Northern Ireland generally,

131
compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, has always suffered a high level of unemployment, both male and female. In certain areas of Northern Ireland, male unemployment has been absurdly high. It was to address that particular area of chronic long-term unemployment that the action for community employment schemes were introduced. Not only did the schemes benefit those who had been out of work for a long period, but they gave hope and succour to young people emerging from school into the employment sphere in an area where the prospects of immediate employment—particularly for those without academic skills or those lacking any form of training—were particularly prejudiced.
The schemes have been enormously successful. Many of them have high success rates, with between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent. of those passing through the schemes ultimately finding long-term or permanent employment. The schemes not only provide and train people for permanent employment, but in many cases they have achieved rates of between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. of nationally recognised training qualifications. It is a matter not simply of training people, but of giving hope to those who have perhaps lost their self-respect through chronic unemployment or the absence of any prospect of employment.
As a peripheral benefit, the schemes have provided a great service to the community. That can be demonstrated by the wide nature of the groups that have written to me. These include Donaghadee Community Work Force Ltd., North Down local trust, Youthnet, YMCA Ireland, the Shankill road mission, the Northern Ireland Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and the Newtownards community work force. A wide range of charities and other community organisations have been mentioned by other hon. Members tonight in this regard.
While recognising that the resources at the disposal of the Minister have a finite quality, I also recognise that he is called upon to make judgments as to the allotment of resources to those who would lay claim to at least a small portion of the largesse that may be on offer. Every hon. Member in the Chamber this evening would make common cause in advancing the case for the restoration to the action for community employment schemes of something more than the £2 million that is currently on offer.
What has been demonstrated here this evening is the unanimous, cross-party, cross-community support from every hon. Member from Northern Ireland for the schemes, which enjoy that unanimous support because something about them touches a common chord in everyone. Every hon. Member from Northern Ireland is aware not only of the validity of the objective of the schemes, but of the success that they have enjoyed in delivering to deprived people—in every sense of the word—some prospect of hope. They have also managed to engender a sense of community. Not only do they offer training and the prospect of permanent employment or a qualification, but, in a peripheral sense, they provide services to other disadvantaged members of the community—the sick, the aged and those suffering chronic invalidity. A number of organisations benefit from the action for community employment schemes—from meals on wheels, to the St. Vincent de Paul Society, to Donaghadee Community Work Force Ltd., an organisation in my constituency.
132
In a letter addressed to me, Donaghadee Community Work Force Ltd. refers to the organisation of the local summer festival—which attracts huge crowds—and the entertainment of Prince Andrew, among others, who visited as part of the VE day celebrations. The planning, creation and maintenance of the town's floral displays resulted in its winning first place in the Ulster in Bloom competition and being selected to represent Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom in the finals.
The organisation offers a range of adult education courses designed to promote education as a constructive use of leisure time. I give these examples as an illustration of the filtering down of the work of these community organisations, not simply in the people whom they train but in the sense of community purpose that they afford to a much wider range of people. I am not in a position to calculate all the benefits in financial terms, including the knock-on benefits of schemes of this kind.
If the schemes engender the work ethic in young people and in the chronically unemployed, and if they prevent those people from finding other less practical and useful avenues for their energies and endeavours, they serve the whole community. They also prevent the drawing of unemployment and family support benefits. If the financial benefit were properly calculated, there would be great advantages to the community—both present and future—that would more than offset the £12.5 million that will be saved by the cuts.
I therefore ask the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—I am conscious of the demands from a variety of sources—to look at this issue with sensitivity and with understanding, which I am sure that he can bring to bear on the issue. All hon. Members feel that this is perhaps a miscalculation, that this is perhaps a failure to seize the right priority, that this is something which, if it is not restored, will literally and metaphorically knock the stuffing out of a section of the community that is least able to bear it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. In the 48 minutes available before the wind-up, four hon. Members wish to catch my eye. That should not be impossible with a bit of co-operation.
11.58 pm
Rev. William McCrea: I shall bear in mind the time, and not repeat much of what has already been said. I join with all hon. Members who have mentioned the action for community employment scheme. I have been lobbied by quite a number of community organisations which feel that it is of vital importance that finances are made available for the continuation of the original ACE scheme.
I am sure that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) realises that one of the biggest problems in Northern Ireland is the roads infrastructure. I had the privilege of hosting Baroness Denton of Wakefield in my constituency at the weekend. Her visit was most welcome, and I know that she understood the difficulties of getting there. Unfortunately, we are told that to solve part of the

133
problem we must attract industrialists. We have to compete with the other areas of the Province that are close to air and sea ports.
For the likes of Omagh district or Castlederg, the great difficulty is transporting people and products between their businesses and the air and sea ports. I ask the Minister, therefore, to implore his colleague to ensure the upgrading of the road from the end of the M1 at Dungannon right through to Ballygawley roundabout, Omagh and Strabane. That is a major section of the road. The Minister said that perhaps private finances should be considered. I ask the Department to take whatever actions are necessary to get us a road that will enhance the prospects of industrial development in an area of very high unemployment. We are sincere when we say to the Minister that that is one of the essential ingredients.
Another necessity is the conclusion of the Omagh and the Cookstown bypasses. If we are again faced with terrorist activity, God forbid that the business people should again have to suffer being held up by the security huts near the security base in Cookstown. We urgently need that bypass. The Magherafelt bypass is equally important to enable us to get industrialists into the area and products out as quickly as possible.
Grants have been mentioned. The staff of the grants office seem to be totally disillusioned. They do not know what to say. They simply have to give us the old, old story and spin the record again, saying that there is no money that they can hand out. Many of the applications are long term; yet the papers are still filled with encouragements from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for further applications. It would at least be something if the executive would stop giving the impression that if one makes an application one will get an answer. There is no money for the long-standing applications at the moment. We urgently need more money for Housing Executive grants and to pay for the long list that are still in the pipeline.
The health cuts will hurt the service for patients and clients in my constituency, which is to be condemned. We do not need further health cuts. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned the cuts of the past three years. One can only cut a service so far before one goes right to the bone. Unfortunately, the further cuts that are being forced on the boards are destroying an excellent health service and once again bringing disillusionment to the staff, who are trying to provide essential services without adequate finances.
My colleagues and many other hon. Members are concerned about the education boards, which are part of the Minister's brief. It is not right for there to be any change in the boards. They should not be juggled around. Time should not be wasted trying to get rid of some of them. It is the will of the people that they should remain as they are. Only if there were an Administration in Northern Ireland, in which the elected representatives could sit down together and discuss the whole problem of education, should that be considered. The Government should stop fooling around with that issue. It is about time that the Minister told us that the boards are not going to change and that they will remain.
The other problem that faces many of us is the proposition of the 16-year-olds-plus having to pay to continue in education. That has certainly sent a shiver up the spine of many firms. As usual, those who are caught
134
in the poverty trap and who have to pay so much because they are just over the line and cannot get the benefits will have to face great bills. That is totally unacceptable within the community.
I want to ask the Minister about Orlit houses. There was a report on the rules—do we have it? The report has been conducted for a long time—what is the answer? Homes that should be properly repaired are not being repaired because of a report that has been commissioned somewhere in England. We have not yet received an answer.
We have heard that 144 jobs in the Unipork bacon factory in Cookstown are to be lost. That has caused tremendous dismay among my constituents. Two weeks earlier we heard that a package of £11.5 million was to be invested; now we hear that 144 jobs are to be lost. That matter needs to be considered. It is important that the pig industry and the factories ensure that the farmers receive a proper return for their work. I am sad to say that for two solid years the farmers were working simply for the bank rather than for their families, and they were falling deeper and deeper into debt. It is important that factories should be willing to give a fair return to farmers and not take their labours for granted. We must resolve the problems: where farmers have gone to the wall there is now a lack of pigs for the factories in the Province.
I want to give other hon. Members the time that is due to them to mention their constituency problems, so I shall mention only briefly the Tyrone and Fermanagh hospital. It is an excellent site, and it would be an excellent university campus site if the Department were willing to take it up as such. It has been wasted, which is disgraceful. Its buildings are second to none, and the Minister should consider the site afresh to see whether it would be possible to use that excellent facility in a profitable way, for the betterment and education of our people.
Local representatives are certainly demanding that planning should be returned to their hands. Instead of officials saying that they have conducted some sort of consultation process—which is often merely an apology for such a process—and then dictating what is to happen, it should be the other way round: the officials should make the recommendations and the elected representatives from local government authorities throughout the Province should make the decisions.
I have tried to take a quick canter over the course so as to leave other hon. Members time to participate, but it is important that my constituents and those of other hon. Members should be given detailed responses to the matters that are causing them grave concern. Many of the problems cannot be answered in a few minutes at the end of a debate: detailed answers are needed to satisfy my constituents and those of other hon. Members that their problems are being seriously considered.
12.7 am
Mr. Roy Beggs: Like other hon. Members, I should like to refer to vote 3 in the Department of Economic Development. While I welcome the continuing decline in unemployment in Northern Ireland and the enthusiasm of the Minister with responsibility for the economy for attracting new investment to Northern Ireland, I do not think that there has been a sufficient drop in unemployment to justify the

135
drastic cuts that have been forced on the action for community employment schemes by the Training and Employment Agency's decision to institute a 25 per cent. cut across existing schemes.
My Northern Ireland parliamentary colleagues, of all parties represented in the House, agree that the schemes have benefited the long-term unemployed, who have obtained places on them. They have also been beneficial because the community service provided by ACE schemes met the local needs of the most disadvantaged groups in Northern Ireland. The great pity is that there was not a proper assessment of each ACE scheme prior to the announced cuts in order to ensure that the schemes, which included a significant training element and were raising the skill levels of previously unemployed participants, remained fully funded and protected. ACE schemes that provided work activity rather than raising the skills of individuals should have been given 12 months' notice to improve to a preset standard or forced to close down and those on the scheme assimilated into a more acceptably managed scheme that had a significant training element.
I recently attended an evening club meeting of the Physically Handicapped and Able-Bodied, PHAB, in Carrickfergus in my constituency. It was good to see young and older people of all religious groups mixing naturally in a friendly, caring, secure atmosphere with their local leaders.
PHAB Northern Ireland is based in north Belfast. The ACE scheme managed by PHAB has an excellent record. In the past year, it employed 34 persons, of whom 14 have gone into permanent employment and six into higher education. That is a good record, but no allowance has been made for quality schemes in areas with high unemployment and social deprivation. The 25 per cent. cut announced by the Training and Employment Agency targeted all schemes equally.
Nevertheless, I welcome the announcement today by the Minister responsible for the economy that £2 million will be released to soften the swingeing cuts. It would have made more sense for the TEA properly to evaluate each ACE scheme and secure those that met community needs while improving the skills and prospects of the long-term unemployed in their areas. The £2 million will ease only part of the pain that removal of £12.5 million from ACE expenditure will cause. Like other hon. Members, I appeal to the Minister to hold the Training and Employment Agency accountable for that disgraceful decision and endeavour to find further funds to minimise the damage to the schemes.
Vote 3, Department of the Environment, deals with sums granted for expenditure on water, sewerage and related services. A "Green Guide" is published in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), will pay attention because the "Green Guide" is for suppliers of goods and services to the Northern Ireland civil service. On page 15, regarding asbestos, it instructs readers:
"Do:
take every precaution when working on Government premises to avoid disturbing any asbestos remaining in the fabric of our buildings;
ensure that asbestos of any type is not used in the composition of products supplied to Departments."
136
That sound advice suggests that the view of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, that there is a health hazard from asbestos fibres associated with both inhalation and ingestion as routes of exposure, has been accepted and that there is sufficient concern to justify refusing to use asbestos cement pipes for carrying water supplies for human consumption anywhere in Northern Ireland. Was it necessary to commission yet another study by the Water Research Centre into the use of asbestos cement pipes, when research has already been done elsewhere? How much is the study costing? When will the results be published? Can the use of asbestos cement pipes in Northern Ireland be justified if there is the slightest risk to the health of one citizen, when alternative products are available?
Rev. Martin Smyth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Water Research Centre has already given that advice? Why do we need to go over it again?
Mr. Beggs: I am assuming that the enthusiasm for employing consultants in Northern Ireland has led to the expenditure that we are about to incur.
I also want to bring to the Under-Secretary's attention an excellent document published recently, called the "Rathcoole Leisure Plan". It was commissioned by Newtownabbey borough council, in my constituency, and others. I wish to place on record my thanks to the mayor, Alderman Beattie, and Councillors Langhammer, Boyd, Hollis, Snoddy and Robinson for the time that they have devoted in genuine consultation. I also thank the architects of the plan, Kennedy Fitzgerald and Associates.
Rathcoole is a severely disadvantaged area in my constituency, which has suffered throughout the 25 years of troubles. The vast majority of its residents are ordinary, decent people who want peace and a job. They want to see their children grow up in a decent environment, receive a decent education and become good, caring citizens. The implementation of the plan will provide hope for the future and it will help to promote speedy social and economic regeneration in that area. I appeal to the Minister to accept my invitation to visit the Rathcoole area, examine the "Rathcoole Leisure Plan" and fully support the efforts of Newtownabbey borough council and others to secure the necessary funding for the project.
I shall not refer at length to the A8. The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler)—who delivered the winding-up speech in a recent debate—said that the A8, Lame to Belfast road, was etched indelibly on his mind as a priority for upgrading. However, my constituents in the Carrickfergus area wish to see urgent expenditure on the A2 and B90 roads. I regret that agreement has not yet been reached with some of the owners of the property that is needed for the necessary road improvements.
I urge the Minister to vest the land required in order to avoid further delay, while encouraging his officials yet again to reach agreement with the individuals and families whose residences in the Carrickfergus area will be adversely affected by the improvements that road users require urgently. The future growth and development of Carrickfergus borough is being restricted by the inadequacy of the existing main road infrastructure in the borough. I hope that the starting date for work there will be announced soon.

137
My Ulster Unionist colleagues and I believe that every child in Northern Ireland has a right to expect to be treated fairly and to receive an equal opportunity in life. Sadly, many children and their parents do not believe that equality of opportunity exists for all children. There is a definite disadvantage in the transfer of selection procedure outcome for B-grade pupils who seek to enrol in state-controlled or voluntary grammar schools, which are attended mainly by pupils from controlled primary schools. However, in the majority of the Roman Catholic maintained sector grammar schools, grade B—and even grade C—pupils have found school places.
I urge the Minister to endeavour to remove that unintentional discrimination and to co-operate with headmasters and boards of governors who seek to increase their school admissions and enrolment numbers in order to meet local demand for places and, above all, to ensure that more children from controlled schools with a B grade obtain the grammar school places that their parents seek for them. When the Minister has examined closely what has been happening in Northern Ireland for several years, I shall do my own test and I hope that I shall be able to award a pass mark to the officials in the Department of Education.
The Department of Health and Social Services, in vote 5, page 10, makes provision for Christmas bonuses for pensioners. The value of the Christmas bonus has diminished steadily since it was introduced, and that issue should be examined. An early announcement when circumstances trigger entitlement to cold weather payments would give comfort and reassurance to those awaiting benefit from that source.
12.19 am
Mr. William Ross: I begin by expressing the thanks of all those connected with Limavady grammar school to the Minister of State for making available £6.4 million for long-needed improvements to that school. I declare an interest as my children attend the school. Although they will probably have left school by the time that the work is finished, the substantial improvements will benefit future generations and Northern Ireland as a whole.
A high-quality education is a vital building block if the capacity of Northern Ireland to attract investment in jobs is to improve. Right hon. and hon. Members on the Ulster Unionist Bench recognise that. During 1995, Northern Ireland's economy improved. We all want that improvement to continue so as to banish the misery of unemployment for ever.
Given the efforts being made by Government to provide employment, I should be grateful for a full explanation of the policy being pursued by the Government and the Industrial Development Board, in relation to the way in which they promote one area of Northern Ireland rather than another.
The Minister is aware of remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) on 7 February 1996 at column 274, to the effect that the Government's policy was to provide three quarters of all new jobs in specific areas of deprivation. That piece of information builds on the letter sent to me by the Under-Secretary, Baroness Denton, who is in charge of the Department of Economic Development:
"While IDB is specifically tasked to give priority targeting to areas of social need",
138
the letter, of course, repeats the mantra that
"the ultimate decision … rests … with the investor."
I have to tell the Minister of State that that statement is not good enough. We on this Bench want to know just how the "tasking" is worded and how it has worked out in practice, with regard to the amount of investment and jobs of all types going to areas dominated by one religious denomination. We also want to know what extra little sweeteners have been given to investors to go to selected areas that have not been given to other areas.
We want a list of the favoured areas, in relation to not only council districts, but locations within each council area, and we want to know how long that policy has been in play, the changes made to it, when they were made and what input there was from the Maryfield secretariat.
I hope that the House and those remaining in the Chamber, if not the Government, realise the enormity of what has gone on. It is simply that some parts of Northern Ireland and the citizens who live there have had consistent, assiduous discrimination in their favour by the application of "guidelines" laid down by the Government. Such guidelines no doubt have a very fuzzy line round them and are capable of a wide variety of constructive interpretations.
The Minister will be aware that in the Northern Ireland context, some people will say that the discriminatory nature of the policy means that some areas of Northern Ireland, such as Coleraine in my constituency and Ballymena in North Antrim, are expected to pull themselves up by the efforts of the local community alone. Given that other areas have very many millions of pounds of public funding poured in, my constituents are competing on very unequal terms.
I want a categoric assurance from the Minister that all areas will be on a level playing field in future, because what has been going on is unacceptable by any normal standard that one might care to apply.
I shall now discuss two or three small items. I shall be brief because two hon. Gentlemen from Great Britain have been sitting here, hoping to speak.
The Minister will be aware of the Arcadia building in Portrush. It occupies an honoured place in that holiday resort and it has been at the centre of several allegations in recent days. The answers that I was given to parliamentary questions on 15 February set out briefly many facts and say, among other things, that the ballroom was in a very poor state of repair.
The chamber of commerce in the town has been involved in efforts to repair the building, to make future use of it. I am given to understand that the chamber of commerce needs to see the development brief and the structural survey before it can make up its mind what can be done. Is there any good reason why the Minister should not allow it to do so, so that it will become clear whether that famous building can be brought back into use?
As to the salting of roads during the present winter and in future winters, a new primary school has been built at Cregg road in Claudy—it is a steep minor road, with the school about 100 yd from the main road. The school authorities and the children are most anxious that the short stretch between the main road and the school is salted during bad weather, because it is dangerous in the present conditions. In a letter dated 14 February, the

139
Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), simply said, "No, nothing doing," which is not an acceptable attitude. He wrote that
"it would not be possible to respond positively in all cases."
That implies that it is possible to respond positively in some cases. I suggest that salting should be undertaken in this case, to avoid the accident that parents feel is just around the corner. I ask the Minister seriously to reconsider my request.
12.25 am
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I want to express my appreciation of the gesture by all our colleagues from Northern Ireland to make time available for two other hon. Members. Northern Ireland Members do not get that much time on the Floor of the House, so I appreciate their courtesy in sharing it.
As to the Department of Economic Development's vote 1 in respect of the Industrial Development Board, I want to express my admiration for the board's centres world wide. Members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee visited South Korea and were most impressed by the IDB's representative, Mr. Kim. Using local people has certainly paid off, and I hope that the Minister will maintain that cost-effective policy.
I noted from the IDB's report that the board made visits throughout Northern Ireland, to try to ensure that each area feels that it is included in the board's activities. However, there are concerns in South Down and Fermanagh—in common with any area outside Belfast and other big centres—that they are not getting their fair share. I ask the Minister to remain vigilant, to ensure that all areas of Northern Ireland enjoy a fair share of the limited opportunities to attract industrial activity to the Province.
Earlier, the Minister made reference to block payments, saying that if one section benefited more, cuts would have to be made in another. Life is about comparisons. The Northern Ireland Office could certainly learn from the Scottish Office, and ensure that any new incumbent as Secretary of State does not spend a fortune on public relations activities, in hiring right-wing journalists all over the place purely and simply for publicity-seeking purposes. If the Northern Ireland Office does not go down that road, that will save a fair amount of money.
The Industrial Research and Technology Unit's report states that the promotion of engineering and science as a career for girls was given particular attention in 1994–95, which also merits praise. The IRTU is represented on the WISE committee—the Women in Science and Engineering committee—which aims at changing the attitude of young people, parents and teachers in respect of career opportunities for men and women in science and engineering. That excellent IRTU initiative is praiseworthy, as is the unit's inaugural Irish innovation lecture.
At the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference in July 1993, Ministers agreed that Northern Ireland and the Republic would collaborate in launching a series of Irish innovation lectures, aiming to publicise the importance of innovation in wealth creation. Without going into any border or constitutional issues, that was an example of
140
sensible co-operation between two neighbouring administrations to address the issue of wealth—the basis of providing all other services in the island of Ireland.
I now move on to the Department of the Environment and particularly the responsibility for planning. Recently, the Department of the Environment launched a consultation paper on the Belfast city region and invited comments on that document which dealt with planning for the entire region. Although it was a consultation paper, not one outside influence was involved in compiling it. Although the Department was prepared to listen to any point of view, the parameters and the agenda that were set did not encourage a whole range of submissions to the paper. That brings me to the specific spending commitment.
A number of organisations need to be fostered and encouraged in relation to planning in Northern Ireland to compensate for the well-known and well-expressed democratic deficit in the Province. Local councillors do not have as much say and influence as they should in planning matters. I understand that we need an internal settlement in Northern Ireland before we can address that democratic deficit, however, surely there is a need to ensure proper funding for organisations that can help community groups formulate submissions to planning documents such as that for the Belfast city region. I was certainly impressed by three organisations: Community Technical Aid, the Rural Development Council and the Rural Community Network. If those organisations are to help the community address the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland, they need financial support.
In Britain, the importance of community participation was highlighted in the 1994 Department of the Environment research department report entitled: "Community Involvement in Planning and Development Processes". It stated that
"rather than being an additional hurdle or barrier to development, involvement can be a way to speed processes and generate more acceptable proposals".
That is exactly right for England, Scotland and Wales; it is also exactly right for Northern Ireland, where there is also a democratic deficit. I hope that the Minister will be able to maintain and, if possible, increase support to those organisations that serve the community.
I now move on to the votes on the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, which cover one or two matters that are worthy of support. One is the relationship between ombudsmen. Informal meetings of public sector ombudsmen are held three times a year, when the ombudsman meets the local government ombudsmen for England, for Wales and for Scotland and Mr. Kevin Murphy, the Northern Ireland ombudsman. That illustrates that there is proper co-operation that can be only for the good of Northern Ireland.
Planning and DSS were the two most frequent sources of complaints to the ombudsman. One case involved the review of formal investigations regarding planning and concerned the Department of the Environment. The ombudsman's report stated:
"The Department's records of its investigation and pursuit of the breach of planning approval were completely inadequate. Rarely have I come across such a history of inefficiency and poor administrative practice. Time and again my investigation was hampered by the absence of documentary evidence of telephone calls, site inspections, internal instructions".

141
I maintain that that type of fault in the planning service is directly related to the lack of democratic oversight of the work of the Department in question. It is high time that the Department found a way of ensuring that local communities can monitor its work and have some input in to it. They should not just have the chance to complain; that just puts them on the back foot. There must be a specific place for electoral involvement in the planning service in Northern Ireland.
I shall close on that note. Once again, I express my appreciation to my Northern Ireland colleagues.
12.35 am
Mr. Harry Barnes: Why is the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire rising to speak at 12.35 am in an appropriation debate on Northern Ireland? He will get no coverage in his local media, but he does think it important.
Appropriation debates are probably the nearest we come to Northern Ireland Budget debates, when important matters relating to Northern Ireland's economy can be considered. This is our opportunity to talk about the economic and social regeneration of the Province, and the requisite approaches to that.
The economic and social regeneration of Northern Ireland helps perhaps more than anything else to undermine terrorism in the end. I know that blocking terrorism also helps regeneration, as has happened recently—although we currently face a considerable setback.
There are all sorts of headings under which these matters can be discussed. I want to pick up remarks made by other hon. Members today. It was noticeable that there was hardly a breath of sectarianism in the debate. Indeed, there was a great deal of common ground between the representatives of four political parties. Many of them were advancing constituency concerns and looking for more assistance, but there seemed to be a great deal of common ground when it came to expenditure and the means of obtaining it.
In several Northern Ireland debates that I have attended I have found great cross-party agreement about various items. I remember our debates on student loans. Throughout Northern Ireland there was opposition to the Government's proposals. In Committee, electricity privatisation was also the subject of common conclusions, although the arguments varied. A subject of a great deal of unity this evening has been the ACE schemes.
People often fail to understand, in short, how much unity there is in Northern Ireland politics. That is because of the key divisions about its constitutional future.
I should like to know more about the economic and social programmes of the various parties to these debates. I would like the SDLP, the DUP, the Ulster Unionists and the Independent Unionists to spell out their programmes a little more fully. Do those programmes tie in with the speeches that are being made? The only person this evening who seemed to tie in his analysis with a more general economic outlook was the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux). It turns out that his analysis was different from everyone else's.
The right hon. Member started by saying that his argument should be seen within the context of a unitary taxation system that existed throughout the United Kingdom, and that it could be extended only from ideas
142
that were being produced about what should be done in Northern Ireland constituencies. If extrapolated, that would lead to bankruptcy and, therefore, we must be careful about expenditure. The right hon. Member then elaborated his overall objectives, including no fixed exchange rates, the repayment of national debt and low inflation. Some of those objectives are shared by the Government. Other ideas that were raised had much more flavour of Labourism, even if that was good old Labourism rather than new Labourism.
The appropriation debates should be used as an opportunity to discuss what needs to be done about economic and social problems in Northern Ireland, because it has massive problems quite apart from the conflict. Those other problems include high unemployment. Northern Ireland has many of the difficulties that exist in British constituencies in the health service and other provision, but to the nth degree. We need to take an overall approach. I know that that is difficult because Northern Ireland politicians, in the end, are out-groups in the United Kingdom Parliament. They provide support for Government or opposition to Government, but they never share power, unless—as might rarely happen—they hold the balance of power. Therefore, it is easier in most circumstances to behave more like a Back Bencher who is not necessarily always in line with his Front Benchers and to argue for constituency concerns.
I welcomed much of the debate. It has been very different from appropriation debates that I have come across in the past. The Ministers who introduced past debates usually made free enterprise arguments about the Northern Ireland economy. On this occasion, we had a rather dry, accountant's speech that did not offer any reasons for the order. Perhaps the debate will be enlivened by the Minister's response. The Opposition Front Benchers often make collectivist proposals, but on this occasion my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) questioned and probed the Government's position.
One of the Labour party's problems in Northern Ireland is that we are not organised there. We have an overall economic and social programme for growth, jobs, partnership and the extension of training and education. That extends to Northern Ireland, but we do not have a movement there to influence what we do. When a debate in the House involves the central region of the Labour party, which might not be of immediate constituency concern to me, I feel obliged to be present because I am part of the central region. However, because we have no Members or even candidates from Northern Ireland, some of the detail about problems in Northern Ireland does not come to our attention except through informal links with bodies such as the Northern Ireland section of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
I wish us, including Front Benchers, to take a more ideological approach on economic and social matters, but it is essential that hon. Members from Northern Ireland do that themselves. In that way, people such as myself can learn how the views of the people of Northern Ireland fit into the overall perspective.
12.44 am
Mr. Dowd: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.

143
Like many other hon. Members, I was here just after 4.30 pm, when we began debating the earlier Northern Ireland business. Since then, we have covered a number of aspects of life for Northern Ireland citizens—from mega-political issues relating to emergency provisions and the tragic circumstances of the moment, to life as it is lived by real people in all corners of Northern Ireland.
I endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). What is transparently evident from the debate is the common experience of people from all backgrounds in all parts of Northern Ireland, and the fact that they are trying to get on with their lives in a way that is to the best advantage of themselves and their families.
Earlier, I took up a good deal of the time of the House, so I shall be brief now. I do not intend to go over all the points that other hon. Members have covered; suffice it to say that I was delighted that every Northern Ireland Member who wanted to speak was able to do so, as were my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) and for North-East Derbyshire.
If the Minister picks up one feature of the debate, it will be the overwhelming concern that is felt about the action for community employment programme, which was mentioned in detail by the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), for South Down (Mr. McGrady), for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) and for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), and by the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). Indeed, most other hon. Members mentioned ACE, if only in passing.
It is a salutary lesson for the Minister that, whatever else has happened to the programme, the way in which the reduction exercise has been carried out has merely antagonised many people, and undermined the agency's position. It clearly needs re-examination. The minor concessionary allowance announced earlier today is a promising start, but the Minister would be deluding himself if he thought that that was the end of the dispute.
I was struck by what the hon. Member for East Antrim said about an evaluation of the project, to take, at least, a scientific approach of some kind. As I said earlier, I have been trying to obtain information from the Training and Employment Agency about the schemes that it is supporting, where the schemes are and what the benefits are, but I have been unable to obtain it. I sincerely hope that it has that information, because without it the effects of the measure will be harsh and, indeed, extremely unfair.
Many hon. Members mentioned the health service. We were given clear signs of the growth of a two-tier service. The reforms in Northern Ireland have been somewhat behind those in the rest of the United Kingdom, but the experience is identical. One of the most infuriating aspects of the way in which many shadow trusts—trusts, as many of them will soon be—have gone about their business is their devaluation of the idea of consultation. They go through the formality of announcing a plan, and saying that there will be a period for responses; but I have yet to come across a single case in which their ultimate conclusion has been different from their original projection. That was just as true in the major London teaching hospitals as it has been in Northern Ireland.
144
There was a widespread feeling that the Housing Executive had, if not lost its way, lost a great deal of momentum in recent times. The story about grants recounted by the hon. Member for Belfast, East illustrated the problems experienced throughout Northern Ireland and, indeed, the rest of the United Kingdom.
On roads and infrastructure, most hon. Members gave detailed and experienced voice to many of the issues that I outlined some time ago from the Dispatch Box.
I am sure that hon. Members will be far more interested in what the Minister has to say in response to all of the matters that have been raised. I am deeply interested in the 27 volumes of paper that have come down from the other end of the Chamber, so I conclude my remarks and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
12.49 am
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): I apologise on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State who opened the debate. He had been in the Chamber since about 4.30 pm yesterday and he had other responsibilities, as I am sure that hon. Members will realise. He asked me to apologise that he could not be here for the wind-up.
An enormous number of topics have been covered, as usual, and a lot of paper has been moving around the Chamber. I am always fascinated when I start off with a brief that seems to cover everything, only to discover that ideas that hon. Members have come up with have not been covered in my briefing—it is always helpful to have a little assistance from time to time. I shall try to answer the main questions that have been asked. I cannot answer all the questions, as I do not have the time. I would not do the questions justice if I tried to answer them in the time available, so I shall write to hon. Members on matters that I have not covered.
As usual, the debate has been a voyage of enlightenment. I was once asked by someone who read the Official Report of one of these debates whether Northern Ireland really was such an unhappy place, because everything seemed to be wrong. I pointed out that it was not the total picture of Northern Ireland and that it was merely a lot of hon. Members doing their job and raising important issues on behalf of their constituents. When I wind up these debates, I always feel rather like the Pooh-Bah of the debate—expected to be able to deal with everything. As I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members realise, many of the issues that have been raised do not fall within my own ministerial responsibilities, but I shall endeavour to cover the issues that do.
The ACE scheme was touched on by many hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), for South Down (Mr. McGrady), for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) and for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), and the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). I understand the concerns that have been expressed about the reductions in the ACE programme, and have heard the heartfelt representations that have been made. I shall pass them on to my colleagues.
It is right to say, however, that ACE was introduced at a time when unemployment was rising rapidly. Although it is still a major problem, there are signs of improvement. Unemployment has fallen to its lowest level in 14 years.

145
During the 12 months to June, 11,000 new jobs were created in Northern Ireland. Output has risen 13.2 per cent. faster than in the rest of the United Kingdom, and there has been a steady stream of inward investment projects and expansions of existing firms. In response to the improving economic situation, there were pertinent reasons for refocusing the use of resources, with more emphasis placed on the schemes that more directly contribute to economic growth and that will in the longer term better address the needs of the unemployed, particularly the long-term unemployed, in finding sustainable employment.
I share the pleasure, which others have expressed tonight, at the announcement by my noble Friend Baroness Denton of a £2 million package of transitional measures to allow ACE schemes to manage the reduction of activities. These are designed to allow schemes, particularly those that provide support to the needy, the elderly, the disabled and the ill, time to plan alternative arrangements. Short-term funding is also being made available for schemes that are losing core posts, to phase them out over the year. I am sure that that will be helpful.
I can tell the hon. Member for South Down that there has been no reduction in the overall budget for the Training and Employment Agency. Additional resources have been made available, for example, to the company development scheme and the community work programme. The adjustments to ACE have facilitated the refocusing of resources.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir. J. Molyneaux) and the hon. Member for Lewisham, West asked what effect the security budget changes, which have resulted from the changing circumstances, might have on the Northern Ireland Departments' spending plans. Although the order under consideration this evening deals with the estimates only of Northern Ireland Departments, the public expenditure allocation underlying the separate Northern Ireland Office estimates is part of the total block provision for which the Secretary of State is responsible. Any increase in the Northern Ireland Office security budget as a result of the breakdown of the ceasefire will inevitably have repercussions for other important economic and social programmes.
It is right to make that point clear. I quote the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State when he announced this year's budget and the amount of money that was available as a result of what became known as the peace dividend. He said:
"Last year I explained that, if the violence resumed, these savings would have to be restored to the security budget. If violence resumes, then there will be losses in the key public services such as our schools and our hospitals, affecting the jobs of those who work in them as well as those who use them."
That was a stark warning and it was a correct warning because many of those areas of expenditure had come about because of the savings that we were able to make as a result of peace. It was made clear at that time that if the savings were to be restored to the security budget and removed from the areas where they were being applied, the blame would lie fairly and squarely with those who had returned to violence. I hope that the people of Northern Ireland, in all parts of the community, will be fully aware that that is the price of the decision by the IRA—so widely condemned by us all—to return to violence.
146
I now turn to another general subject, which was raised only by the hon. Member for Belfast, East—the Fokker crisis and the impact on Shorts. I appreciate the importance of the contracts under which Shorts supplies wings to the Fokker jetliner programme and the concern among the work force at Shorts about their future job security. Those matters were raised by my noble Friend Baroness Denton when she recently met representatives of the Dutch Government in Holland. The problems facing Fokker are commercial and need to be resolved on that basis. The Industrial Development Board is maintaining close contact with Shorts and Bombardier on developments.
A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Members for South Down, for North Antrim and for Belfast, East, talked about what they described as the deficiencies and the cuts in Housing Executive funding. The gross resources available to the Housing Executive remain substantial—£547 million in 1995–96—and it is proposed to increase the figure by a further £8 million in 1996–97. Whatever views hon. Members may take about the level of housing need, no one can deny that those are substantial figures.
The other general matter that was raised by a number of hon. Members, especially the hon. Members for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and for North Antrim, was what they referred to as the two-tier health service. The Government do not accept that GP fundholding has introduced a two-tier health service. Boards and trusts have considerable freedom to carry forward unspent funds from one year to another. Underspends do not reduce the budgets allocated to the boards for the next year.
I shall deal now with one or two specific issues raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West asked about the additionality of the EU peace programme. The programme, both the EU receipts and matching funds, is fully additional. The programme is novel in its delivery mechanisms, which are now in place. The rate of spend is expected to increase during the coming year and any money unspent this year can be carried forward to next year.
The hon. Members for Lewisham, West and for Mid-Ulster raised the question of dispensing guidelines for doctors. As a result of the implementation of the new departmental guidelines on dispensing, some doctors will lose dispensing income. The level of loss of income by individual GP practices cannot be gauged until the board's review of dispensing doctors' lists. However, to ensure that all existing medical practices in rural areas remain viable, the Health and Personal Social Services Executive is introducing an inducement scheme, from April 1996, which will guarantee their viability.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East invited me to meet him again to discuss Belmont primary school. These decisions are always difficult, but I would be delighted to have a meeting with him. I believe that my Department has been in touch to organise a meeting as soon as possible.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley asked about the enterprise investment scheme and referred to its low uptake in Northern Ireland. I note his comments. It is a national scheme that can provide valuable support for unquoted trading companies, and I should like businesses in Northern Ireland to make far greater use of its facilities. I certainly welcome the right hon. Gentleman's continuing

147
interest in the subject, and I will pass on to my noble Friend Baroness Denton his offer of help to promote the scheme. I am grateful to him for having raised that important subject tonight.
The hon. Member for South Down referred to the replacement of the Strangford ferry. In relation to the consultants' report, which concluded that the motor vessel Portaferry should be looked at, the Department of the Environment is about to appoint an economic consultant to assist in the preparation of the business case for the substantial investment involved. Such a proposal will have to compete with other priorities in the roads programme.
The hon. Member for North Antrim asked why stage 3 of the Antrim to Ballymena road had been delayed for so long. The Department of the Environment recognises the value of completing the dualling of the A26 between Antrim and Ballymena, and it is planned to achieve that in stages. The first stage was completed in August 1989, while stage 2 is programmed for the current year. Stages 3 and 4 have always been longer-term proposals, and are at present included in what is known as the six to 15 years major works programme.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South asked why rent increases were continually rising above the level of inflation. The rent increase coming into effect in April this year is held to the rate of inflation and is in line with the average percentage guideline increase announced for local authority housing for England. The average Housing Executive weekly rent is, at about £32, some £6 less than the average council house rent in England and Wales. Tenants on housing benefit will not be affected by the rise. I heard the hon. Gentleman's invitation to visit Wellington college, and while I regret that I have had to put off that visit on a number of occasions, I look forward to going to the college soon.
A number of other questions have been raised that I do not have time to deal with, and I shall write to the hon. Members concerned about them. We have had a comprehensive debate. Through all of the complaints that inevitably come up in these debates has come an enormous pride in Northern Ireland and a determination to work for the benefit of Northern Ireland. That is a determination that we all share. We all realise that we have an enormous role to play in achieving peace, and I am sure that that is a role which we will not shirk.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.

North Lincolnshire Unitary Authority
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
1.2 am
Mr. Elliot Morley: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise tonight some severe problems that are causing great concern to my constituents in the area that is to be covered by the new unitary authority of North Lincolnshire, which will take over from Humberside county council from 1 April. The new unitary authority is starting life crippled and with one hand behind its back, and I want to explore that with the Minister tonight.
The Minister will be well aware that the current spend that the new North Lincolnshire authority will inherit from 1 April for the services provided by all of the various councils amounts to something like £134 million. Humberside was spending at its capping level and 6.1 per cent. above its standard spending assessment. The indicative budget has put North Lincolnshire at 12.3 per cent. above its SSA.
Frankly, I have not seen a clear explanation why, out of the four new unitary authorities, North Lincolnshire is being treated so badly. My information is that, out of all the new unitary authorities, North Lincolnshire is being treated the worst, and it certainly is the most disadvantaged of any of the new authorities. The implications of this budget are severe: they imply a 30 per cent. increase in council tax. The inherited budget that the new council was taking over was supported by a £7 million reserve contribution from the former councils.
The background to this is that the Government have assessed the level of spending appropriate for the new North Lincolnshire council as £110 million. The new council will be able to raise £124 million, with the 25 per cent. increase in council tax, but there will still be a £10 million shortfall in the budget. There will have to be cuts in services of 8.5 per cent. and in education of 7.5 per cent., where the council has, understandably, tried to minimise the impact of cuts on such an important core service. There is very little prospect of the new council receiving any significant reserves from the successor councils.
The situation has been made worse because some councils have taken the opportunity to spend their reserves before the new councils take over. For example, Glanford council spent £1 million on what it terms "aid to parishioners". I do not criticise the parish councils and the town councils that have taken up the offer of this £1 million through the aid to parishioners scheme.
However, most of that money is going towards improvements to village halls—which is a worthwhile and important thing—but I suspect that many people, if faced with a choice between improvements to leisure facilities and to village halls, and improvements to village schools, not losing a teacher or not increasing class sizes, would prefer to see the schools protected.
The £1 million that Glanford borough council spent on the aid to parishioners scheme could have been handed over to the new North Lincolnshire authority and reduced the projected cuts in education from 7.5 per cent. to 5 per cent.—a significant saving. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon,

149
Central (Sir P. Beresford), is aware of this, because he received a delegation from North Lincolnshire council, made up of all parties. I thank him for receiving that delegation, and for listening to what it had to say. I emphasise the all-party nature of our concerns about the way that North Lincolnshire has been treated.
That delegation included my colleague, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown)—a Government Member, who sat alongside me and said the exact same things—the chief executive of the new authority, the leader of the Labour majority group, and the leader of the Conservative opposition. We were all there to say the same thing: that we felt that the North Lincolnshire authority was not being fairly treated in terms of the assessment of its spending, and of the grants it was receiving, and that it was very much at the mercy of the Department of the Environment in what it could do.
People are very confused about this. Humberside county council was foisted on people by the Government. Now the Government are upturning the situation, and many people do not believe that there would have been any support for this change if it had been made clear to them exactly what the implications of the abolition of Humberside were going to be: an increase in council tax of 25 per cent. and cuts across the board of 8 per cent.
Many of us who were concerned about the abolition of Humberside thought that the situation was going to be difficult, but I have to say that even people such as myself never thought that it was going to be as bad as this. Quite frankly, this situation is nothing less than a disaster in terms of maintaining services and the burden that people will have to pay in increased council tax.
The irony is that much of the pressure for change was orchestrated by the late Nicholas Ridley and the Tory-controlled Lincolnshire county council. There was also much misinformation put around at the time, not least about Hull and its alleged dominance and the fact that it was being subsidised from the south bank. It is now clear that the rural nature of North Lincolnshire and the way that rural areas are being discriminated against in terms of the standard spending assessment has told against it. Indeed, far from subsidising Hull, it is clear that a large element of subsidy is going from Hull to the south bank. That is partly why there have been such great difficulties.
For the sake of balance, I must point out that it is ironic that, although the council tax will be reduced in Hull under the calculations—with the abolition of Humberside—it is still expected to cut services, which seems bizarre to many of us watching from outside.
Hull, and to a lesser extent the north-east Lincolnshire councils, which have a greater urban content, have come out of the reorganisation far better than North Lincolnshire or the East Yorkshire borough. I am sure that the Minister will have seen a letter from his colleague, the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran), which emphasises how he feels about the fact that the new unitaries are being badly treated by the Government in the terms of the calculations.
The new council has certainly done its best to try to deal with the problem, and has already found savings of £3.5 million. It has one of the smallest and most efficient management structures of the new unitaries, and has been singled out for praise by the Audit Commission. It has little room for manoeuvre, however. In year one, it has to
150
take over staff and services, and carry those commitments. It has no option but to implement the present increases in council tax and the cuts.
Although the new authority has decided to protect education as far as it can, through a lower cut, it is still a devastating blow for a fine education service, of which many of us who live in the area are very proud.
The projected cuts have implications in the loss of 121 teaching jobs, increases in class sizes, and a 12.5 per cent increase in school meal charges, and no new discretionary awards will be granted. That seems incredibly unreasonable at a time when education standards are a matter of public concern, and, indeed, of concern for the Government, and class sizes have been criticised by the Government's inspectors.
People are deeply angered by the cuts. They are well aware that the setting of grants and settlements is entirely the responsibility of the Department for Education and Employment. I am deeply angered about the cuts, particularly those in education—not only as a local Member of Parliament trying to represent the interests of my constituents, but as a parent with two children at local schools.
Glanford and Scunthorpe constituency is a close-knit and stable community. I have received hundreds of letters and petitions from the town and village communities—not only from people I serve, but from friends and acquaintances, and from both parents and governors associated with all the schools concerned.
At this stage, perhaps I should declare an interest, as my wife is a part-time teacher in one of the village schools. She is so angry about the situation that she could not even bring herself to attend the debate to listen to the arguments. Given the mood she is in, that is probably good news for the Minister.
I have here just a selection of the letters that I have received from communities in the area, from every village and every town and parish council—there are petitions and letters from every part of the constituency, from people who are concerned about the effect of the cuts on their schools.
Last Friday, I attended a packed meeting organised in Kirton in Lindsey church hall. Parents asked sensible and perceptive questions, and were deeply anxious about the impact on their junior school and also on Huntciffe comprehensive, which is one of the most over-subscribed schools in the region. There were parents from all over the rural area and from the town—parents from Berkeley infant school, which was named an outstanding school in the recent Office for Standards in Education report, and from St. Bede's, Crosby and many other schools that I do not have time to name.
All the people at the meeting had one thing in common—deep concern over the effect that the cuts will have on the future education of their children.
Only the Minister can rectify the situation; only the Department of the Environment can rectify it in terms of the grants and the way that the authority has been treated. It is not just an education issue; it could also affect the other services—there could be charges for home helps, the closure of social services homes, no capital investment, and reduced road maintenance. All the various services that the new unitary authority will inherit will be involved. It will also have implications for the

151
private sector, which has many of the contracts and works alongside the local authority. It will also feel the impact of the cuts.
The Minister will probably say—and I have to acknowledge—that there has been transitional help from the Government. The Government have made £3.5 million capital borrowing available for the reorganisation costs. But that funding will all be taken up by the cost of the reorganisation, and there will be nothing in the budget to mitigate the problem in terms of maintaining service standards.
The Government are also providing some damping, which will put a ceiling of £3 a week on council tax rises. That in itself is a recognition of the problems that North Lincolnshire council faces, because I am not aware of any other unitary authority that has attracted that damping subsidy to try to keep down the enormous increase in council tax. That provides official confirmation of the problem facing the council.
There is a potential solution, which is what the council brought to the Minister. In a recent debate, I challenged his colleague, the Secretary of State for the Environment, to deal with the issue.
The council has suggested that it be allowed a supplementary credit approval to minimise the cuts over a three-year period, with tapered loans beginning with £6.5 million in the first year. I believe that that is a reasonable and sensible solution. It will not cost the Government anything; it will allow the council to start life on a stable basis rather than having one hand tied behind its back. It will allow the council time to find efficiency savings and to build up reserves—as a prudent and efficient council, North Lincolnshire gives every sign of doing so.
The new council deserves a chance to set up and operate in a proper way, so that it can maintain services at the correct standard. I strongly urge the Government and the Minister to consider the proposal. That is why tonight's debate is important, and that is the issue that I want the Minister to consider and to which I want him to respond. I know that the case has been put to him and his officials, and he will know that the suggestion has all-party support in the community. It has the backing of his party and his councillors.
In correspondence that I have received on the subject, the Government have tried to say that North Lincolnshire council is not a special case. I strongly refute that. North Lincolnshire council is being treated worst among the four new unitary authorities in Humberside, and, as far as I know, it has greater difficulty than any new unitary authority that has been set up. North Lincolnshire is a special case, and it requires special treatment.
It is unfair to blame the new councils for what the old Humberside council may or may not have done in the past. It is not just Humberside council's policies that the council is absorbing, but the policies of the district councils, which are under differing political control. It is a new council, and it is not responsible for what has happened in the past. It wants to do the best for the community it represents; it deserves the chance to do so.
The council suffers the worst effects from the abolition of Humberside; it deserves sympathetic consideration for that, and for the way in which the standard spending
152
assessment has worked against it. I know that the issue of the SSA is far larger than we can possibly deal with in an Adjournment debate. I also know that the local government organisations have made a series of recommendations to the Government, and that there is a continuing debate about the best way to calculate and operate the SSA. All that will not help North Lincolnshire unitary authority. It needs help now, because it starts life on 1 April and time is running short.
In a debate on the setting of the rate, I obtained a promise from the Secretary of State that he would consider some of the points that I had raised with him in an intervention. Straight after that debate, I sent him a personal letter, which was the nearest thing that I have ever written to a begging letter. I have yet to receive a reply. It would be nice if the Minister gave me a positive reply tonight. There is a solution. I ask the Minister please, please, to give this issue his most sympathetic consideration.
I am sure that the Minister does not want me to beg him to do something about this disastrous situation as we near 1 April, but surely he will recognise and consider the dilemma of the people affected—the people who wrote all the letters and who are concerned about the effect on their children. They want their children to get the best possible deal, the elderly looked after, good-quality services, and the council to be given a proper start in life. Local people in North Lincolnshire deserve a better deal than they are getting under the present arrangements, and the Minister is the only person who can do something about that.
1.20 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I congratulate the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on securing this Adjournment debate, in spite of the hour, and the fact that he has left me only a few minutes to reply. Of course, he has taken one side of the argument. The matter is not in our hands alone, and, in fact, we have reacted. He is correct to say that we met a deputation that included my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) on this matter, which we took extremely seriously.
As the hon. Gentleman said, we accepted the proposal to abolish Humberside county council and to set up four unitary authorities, of which North Lincolnshire is one. As well as inheriting county functions from Humberside, it will take over district functions from the boroughs of Scunthorpe, Glanford and, in the area of the Isle of Axholme, Boothferry. Reorganisation will take place on 1 April this year, but there has been a shadow authority since last May.
I accept that, inevitably, there will be difficulties in the transition from one system to another. That is true across the country where such steps have been taken. We have taken steps to help North Lincolnshire and the other reorganised authorities to deal with those problems.
When a county is abolished and its responsibilities transferred to successor authorities, we need to work out a base budget for each new authority that must reflect its share of the county's budget and the pattern of spending in the area. We have made a similar calculation if the area of a district is split. This disaggregated budget—known as the notional amount—provides a baseline for the new authority as it prepares to take over its new functions, and serves as the capping baseline for the year after reorganisation.

153
The budget disaggregation exercise proved straightforward in Humberside and was agreed locally. North Lincolnshire's inherited 1995–96 budget is about £118.6 million. That was confirmed when the House agreed the relevant notional amounts report on 31 January. We also worked out what each authority's standard spending assessment—SSA—would have been in 1995–96 on the reorganised boundaries. North Lincolnshire's indicative 1995–96 SSA was £105.7 million.
Those figures show that the county had been spending more in North Lincolnshire relative to our assessment of its need to spend. In effect, it had been cross-subsidising services in one area at the expense of taxpayers in another.
The figures allowed us to work out the direct council tax effect of reorganisation—essentially, the difference between what council taxes were in each borough and what they would have been in 1995–96 on reorganised boundaries. That shows significant increases in the three areas that make up North Lincolnshire: an increase of £136 at band D for taxpayers in Scunthorpe; £161 for Glanford; and £166 for the Isle of Axholme area of Boothferry.
We have decided to provide transitional assistance to council tax payers who face unacceptable tax increases directly attributable to reorganisation. We will damp increases that exceed a threshold of £104 at band D—£2 a week. I stress the words "directly attributable to reorganisation". We do not propose to damp the consequences of an authority's own spending decisions, which I think is understandable.
North Lincolnshire is the only authority to qualify for that transitional reduction scheme. It will receive an additional grant of £2.18 million in 1996–97 to benefit local taxpayers. Our 1996–97 grant settlement for North Lincolnshire gives it an SSA of about £110 million-an increase of 2.4 per cent. over the equivalent figure for 1995–96.
Like many authorities, North Lincolnshire has argued that its SSA is too low. It argues, in particular, that the SSA somehow fails to provide for the higher concentration of need in Scunthorpe compared with the more rural parts of its area. However, the position is that the SSA calculation takes account of the aggregate needs of the area as a whole, both rural and urban.
It is for North Lincolnshire to decide the level of its budget for 1996–97, and it is not required to budget at SSA. Indeed, our provisional capping rules would allow it to set a budget as high as £123.8 million. After allowing for care in the community changes, that would mean an increase of 2.8 per cent. over 1995–96. If it budgeted at our provisional cap, North Lincolnshire would be 12.5 per cent. above its SSA—the level which our capping rules consider "absolutely excessive". That is very high, and it offers considerable scope for the authority to make savings over time.
We anticipate that the reorganised authorities will use the opportunity to cut costs and to improve efficiency—and they accept that. However, we recognise that there may be some one-off, transitional costs associated with reorganisation. So we have put in place a scheme for authorities to bid for supplementary credit approvals, allowing them to defer the impact of those transitional costs until the associated savings are achieved. We made £50 million available under the scheme for 1995–96, and a further £100 million for 1996–97.
154
North Lincolnshire bid for £5.6 million for 1996–97, including just more than £1 million for redundancy costs. Before Christmas, we allocated it £3.5 million, which includes a ring-fenced £1 million for redundancy. That makes a cumulative allocation of £5.3 million. The authority submitted a bid for a further approval of £6.55 million. As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, North Lincolnshire has suggested looking at capitalising some of the spending, and that is being considered at this stage. However, the bid for £6.55 million is additional to the support already available.
I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that North Lincolnshire is a new authority, and as such, it has the chance to do things differently. It need not be constrained by the decisions and practices of its predecessors. I know from personal experience—in taking over from the Greater London council and then the Inner London education authority—that there is room for fast action to make considerable savings, rather than cuts, and that the reorganisation offers scope to make significant savings, which will not be as painful as the hon. Gentleman suggests. In light of that, I do not feel that there are exceptional local circumstances that would justify giving North Lincolnshire yet more by way of SSA.
Mr. Morley: I do not dispute the fact that the new authority may well be able to find efficiency savings—the authority itself does not dispute that fact. The issue at stake is that, from day one, year one, the authority must take over the staffing and the services from the predecessor authorities. Even according to the Department of the Environment's guidelines, 90 per cent. of staff must be taken over. The scope for finding savings in year one is very limited. Those savings may well be achieved in year two, year three and subsequently, but the real crisis will occur on 1 April.
Increased council borrowing would allow the authority to mitigate that problem, find the savings and repay the borrowed money to the Department of the Environment over time. That seems to be a perfectly reasonable and sensible policy, and I am sure that the Minister will agree that the authority cannot find savings from day one, year one.
Sir Paul Beresford: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman—and I speak from personal experience. There has been a shadow authority since May this year, which has done the planning to allow the new authority to move forward. It will inherit control from its predecessors, some of whose expenditure was quite excessive.
We have recognised its difficulty—that is why the authority has an SSA of £718 per head, and why the cap has been set at 12.5 per cent. above SSA. That is why it has damping of £2.2 million—it is the only authority which has it—and that is why the supplementary credit approvals have already been given for 1995–96 at £1.8 million and for 1996–97 at £3.5 million. We accept that there have been difficulties; they have been recognised. We are considering the argument made by North East Lincolnshire. If we accept that, it may be acceptable for North Lincolnshire.
Ultimately, however, we have considered the matter carefully and produced considerable funds. The opportunity exists to make savings from an early stage, and I am sure that they can be achieved. I say that having

155
been, as a council leader, through two such processes—admittedly in profligate authorities, but not quite in the same class as those of Humberside.
I am sure that, when it sets its mind to it, the new local authority will be extremely successful; it will produce the services, it will produce savings, it can do it efficiently, and it can start soon. Approximately 80 per cent. of the
156
staffing level will pass over as a standard order under TUPE-type conditions, but there is ample opportunity for the authority to make savings and reorganisations very early, especially—to leave the chalk face and the social services face—in administration behind the scenes. I am confident that the councillors will be able to do so, in spite of the scare tactics that have been displayed this morning.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past One o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Hunting Engineering
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what investments the Church Commissioners hold in Hunting Engineering. [15164]

  Mr. Alison
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 13 February,Official Report, column 528. Hunting Engineering is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hunting plc, in which we hold no shares.

ENVIRONMENT

  Trust Councils
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's policy in respect of trust councils. [15170]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We have no plans for a trust councils initiative.

  Secure Accommodation
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the standard spending assessment for each local authority social services department for placing young offenders in secure accommodation for each year since 1988. [15439]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  There has been no separate standard spending assessment, or grant-related expenditure assessment in the case of years prior to 1990–91, for the placement of young offenders in secure accommodation. The need to spend on this function has, however, been taken into account in the personal social services element of authorities' SSAs and GREs.

  Solent Shellfish Beds
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 13 February,Official Report, column 481, if he will list the dates, positions, and results of the National Rivers Authority monitoring of the Solent under the shellfish waters directive for each month and year for which the NRA holds records. [15553]

  Mr. Clappison
  The NRA has monitored all designated shellfish waters in the Solent at the intervals specified in the directive since 1989 and holds records prior to this date. The location of sampling points and results of the NRA's monitoring are contained in the public registers maintained by the NRA.
  2

  Rough Sleepers Initiative
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will extend the rough sleepers initiative outside London to make provision for night shelters for those who are prevented from using existing accommodation because they are drunk or drugged. [15911]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Housing White Paper, "Our Future Homes", published on 27 June 1995, said that the Government would continue the rough sleepers initiative in central London beyond March 1996, when it was due to end, and that we would consider assisting the development of the successful RSI model of co-operation between statutory and voluntary sector agencies in other towns and cities where rough sleeping could be demonstrated to be a major problem.

  Proposals for taking forward these plans were set out in an interdepartmental consultation paper "Rough Sleepers Initiative: Future Plans", issued on 3 October 1995. A strategy paper will be issued shortly.

  Potatoes
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what representations he has received in connection with the proposal by Nickerson Biocem to release genetically modified potatoes; [15301]

  (2) which sites are currently being reviewed by his Department as potential areas for the release of genetically modified potatoes; [15302]

  (3) if he will list the sites from which genetically modified potatoes have been released indicating the date of release; [15303]

  (4) what monitoring his Department carried out during the growth and release of genetically modified potatoes; [15304]

  (5) what funding has been allocated by his Department to research relating to the release of genetically modified organisms in each of the past five years. [15305]

  Mr. Clappison
  Two representations have been received from the public on the application from Nickerson Biocem for consent to release genetically modified potatoes. The first representation consisted of a petition signed by 17 people registering their concern over the proposed release and the time allowed for access to public information prior to the issuance of a consent. The second representation requested further details on the proposed release.

  Currently one application for consent to release genetically modified potatoes is being reviewed by my Department. The proposed release site for this application is Pitgaveny estate, Elgin in Morayshire.

  Since the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992 came into force on 1 February 1993, genetically modified potatoes have been released at the following sites during the periods indicated:

  3

  Sites

  Dates

  Year

  Trumpington, Cambridge

  May—October

  1993

  Trumpington, Cambridge

  April—October

  1994 and 1995

  Contrannie, Perthshire

  April—October

  1995

  Trumpington, Cambridge

  April—October

  1995

  Maplebeck, Nottinghamshire

  April—October

  1993

  Maplebeck, Nottinghamshire

  April—October

  1993

  Bilsthorpe, Nottinghamshire

  April—October

  1994 and 1995

  Bilsthorpe, Nottinghamshire

  April—October

  1994 and 1995

  Bilsthorpe, Nottinghamshire

  April—October

  1994 and 1995

  Oathlaw, Angus

  June—August

  1993

  Oathlaw, Angus

  May—August

  1994 and 1995

  Rothamstead, Herts

  Spring—Autumn

  1994 and 1995

  Rothamstead, Herts

  April—September

  1995

  Dundee and West Linton

  May—September

  1995

  All consents to release genetically modified organisms, including genetically modified potatoes, contain a number of specified and general conditions. These include a requirement on the consent holder for monitoring the release and to report to the Secretary of State on the outcome of the release. The consent holder is also required to keep himself, and the Secretary of State, informed of any conditions which may lead to changes in the risk assessment of the release. Compliance with the conditions of a consent is enforced by specialist inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive.

  Funding allocated for research relating to the release of genetically modified organisms under my Department's research programme for each of the past five years is as follows:

  1995–96: £862,457

  1994–95: £615,765

  1993–94: £988.221

  1992–93: £1,174,794

  1991–92: £984,215.

  Right-to-buy Legislation
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes have been purchased each year under the right-to-buy legislation. [15584]

  Mr. Clappison
  The available information is in the table.

  Right-to-buy sates in England, 1980–81 to 1994–95

  Year

  Number

  1980–81

  2,332

  1981–82

  107,588

  1982–83

  170,600

  1983–84

  109,903

  1984–85

  80,192

  1985–86

  74,814

  1986–87

  79,592

  1987–88

  96,784

  1988–89

  140,617

  1989–90

  138,476

  1990–91

  79,665

  4

  Right-to-buy sales in England, 1980–81 to 1994–95

  Year

  Number

  1991–92

  49,918

  1992–93

  38,587

  1993–94

  45,374

  1994–951

  43,229

  1 Provisional.

  These figures include sales by local authorities, new towns and housing associations.

  Local Government, London
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to instruct the local government boundary commission to review the local government boundaries of London boroughs. [15634]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We have no plans at present to direct the Local Government Commission to review the boundaries of London boroughs.

  Supplementary Credit Approval (Bristol)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when Bristol city council will receive its supplementary credit approval for 1996–97; and what factors have led to the delay in its issue. [15472]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 16 February 1996]: Bristol city council was asked to reconsider whether the reorganisation in its area could be implemented more economically and was asked to submit a revised bid by the end of January. An allocation was made on 15 February.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  HMSO
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what(a) plans and (b) facilities Her Majesty's Stationery Office has to provide (i) Acts of Parliament, (ii) codes of practice and (iii) other documentation in (1) European Community languages, (2) Braille, (3) large print and (4) audio tape. [14483]

  Mr. Willetts
  As this is a purely operational matter, I have asked the chief executive of HMSO to reply directly to the hon. Member.

  Letter front Mike Lynn to Mr. John Heppell, dated 9 February 1996:
  I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question (No 166) to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about provision of HMSO publication in other languages and formats.
  We have no firm plans in any of the specific areas you list, but we certainly have the capability to produce publications in these forms if there is sufficient market demand to make it a viable proposition.
  We have previously examined the prospects for Braille publications in consultation with the Royal National Institute for the Blind, but reached the conclusion that the costs we unlikely to be recovered from the predicted level of sales. We have, however, recently agreed a new copyright licence with RNIB, which covers all Crown and Parliamentary copyright texts for which we are responsible for reproduction in Braille, Moon, Audio tape and Braille-coded floppy disk formats. This licence is issued free of charge.
  5

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress is being made towards(a) establishing lead inspectors and (b) merging different enforcement regimes as part of the Government's deregulation policy. [15589]

  Mr. Freeman
  The deregulation task force and the local government enforcement review recommended piloting the concept of the lead inspector approach and, where different regulatory and enforcement regimes overlap, recommended merger or alignment. The Government accepted these recommendations and we have made progress in implementation.

  Under the joint working programme, Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency announced plans for joint audits for some large employers, and single audit visits for all other employers, to cover both PAYE and national insurance contributions. Guidance was issued to Inland Revenue and Contributions Agency staff in December 1995 on single audit, and the new arrangements have now been implemented. Work is continuing to develop a programme of joint auditing for larger employers.

  The lead inspector approach is existing practice in Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. This will become part of the Environment Agency, which comes into being on 1 April 1996, bringing together a number of regulatory regimes under one umbrella. The agency will be setting up first stop shops in its local offices.

  As part of a wider review of regulation and inspection, the Department of Health is addressing the need for certain residential care and nursing homes to register with two public authorities. This review also puts forward for discussion alternative regulatory structures.

  In the food hygiene area, statutory codes of practice have clarified demarcation lines to achieve single body enforcement.

  In the case of community premises, we are promoting a single licensing process for a number of activities. Guidance encourages local authorities, wherever possible, to arrange for a combined inspection covering the entertainment application and any other inspections required by the premises, covering for example, food hygiene and health and safety.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Carl Bridgewater
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out all the new evidence he is considering in deciding whether to refer the Carl Bridgewater case back to the Court of Appeal. [15395]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  All new material weighted by my right hon. and learned Friend in reaching his provisional conclusions in this case has been made available to the applicants' solicitor; details of the main points in the case were set out in a Home Office news release dated 7 December 1995.
  6
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his letter to the Bridgewater defendants' lawyer, what is the nature of the information which allegedly implicates Vincent Hickey and Pat Molloy in the murder. [15396]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The specific information referred to in my right hon. and learned Friend's letter is confidential. The letter makes it clear that, in reaching his provisional conclusions, my right hon. and learned Friend has placed no reliance on that information.

  Licensed Restaurants
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to allow licensed restaurants to be able to sell alcohol to customers who do not take food; and if he will make a statement. [15393]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We are currently considering the scope for relaxing restrictions on the sale of alcohol in restaurants. Any proposals for change would be the subject of public consultation.

  Voluntary Sector
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the voluntary sector in relation to statutory funding difficulties and delays in payments. [15387]

  Mr. Sackville
  Home Office Ministers regularly meet voluntary sector representatives to discuss a wide range of issues, including funding.

  Criminal Justice and Public Order Act
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library all research conducted by his Department concerning the effectiveness of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1944; and if he will make a statement. [15232]

  Mr. Maclean
  Work concerned with evaluating the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is in progress, and all publications arising from this work will be placed in the Library.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the publication of the study commissioned by his Department into relations between the Home Office and the Prison Service; and if he will make a statement. [15233]

  Miss Widdecombe
  As my right hon. and learned Friend informed the House on 16 October 1995, the work is under way and he will report on it to the House when it is complete.

  Ponies (Research)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the injection of equine flu and herpes viruses into mountain ponies bred for research purposes and the extraction of antibodies from carcases following slaughter of such ponies at different time intervals after injection; and if he will make a statement. [14242]
  7
  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 8 February 1996]: The Home Office has obtained the recent report by the organisation Animal Aid on the use of ponies in this area of research.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he reached a decision on the designation of(a) India and (b) Pakistan in respect of his determination of countries from which asylum cases are likely to prove unfounded; and what considerations underlay his decision. [15349]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 15 February 1996]: My right hon. and learned Friend indicated to the House during Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Bill on 11 December 1995, Official Report, column 703, those countries which the Government currently regard as candidates for designation. No actual designations will be possible until clause 1 of the Bill has come into force and an order has been made under it. The considerations we will take into account have been outlined it the relevant background note on the Bill, copies of which are available in the Library.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Mortgages
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Eduction and Employment how many heads of household below retirement age and available for work have mortgages. [14300]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have been asked to reply.

  The latest estimate for England is that 7,540,000 heads of household who are below retirement age, and were either in employment or seeking and available for work, have mortgages. This estimate is from the 1994–95 survey of English housing and is subject to sampling error.

  Pupil Testing
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what account her Department has taken when issuing the results of national tests of those children who were re-assessed for national tests at 11 years old, having initially failed them; if these children were counted more than once in the results released to date; and what estimate she has made of the number of pupils who have been doubled counted. [15372]

  Mr. Paice
  The aim of statutory assessment is to assess pupils' achievement against national curriculum levels. The standards at level 4 have been set to challenge typical 11-years-olds, but it is incorrect to suggest that pupils either pass or fail the tests.

  The collection procedures in 1995 were designed to give accurate national results while minimising schools' compliance costs. Schools were asked to indicate whether pupils were to be entered for tasks as well as tests in maths and science, but not all did so. Any double counting in the national results for those subjects is estimated to be small, at around 1 per cent.
  8

  Employment Service Dispute
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 18 January,Official Report, column 699 on the Employment Service dispute, if she will list the percentage of employees in grades represented by the Civil and Public Services Association who received a pay award for 1995–96 of (a) less than 3.7 per cent. and (b) between 2.7 and 2.9 per cent. [15837]

  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 Ms Liz Lynne, dated 19 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the current trade dispute within the Employment Service; responsibility for pay bargaining was delegated to the Agency in January 1994.
  Further to my letter to Frank Field MP, a more detailed breakdown of the percentage increases received by people in grades represented by the Civil and Public Services Association is as follows:
  Based on the salary levels in payment at the time the awards were paid: a) 38% received an award of less than 3.7%; b) 35% received an award of between 2.7 and 2.9%.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Campbell's Soups
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions have taken place between representatives of Campbell's Soups. Stratford-on-Avon operations and the Department of Employment on matters relating to redundancy at that plant in the last two years. [15365]

  Mr. Forth
  No discussions have taken place between the Department and representatives of Campbell's Soups relating to redundancy at the Stratford-on-Avon plant.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on how many occasions in the past two years redundancies announced by Campbell's Soups have been required to be notified to her Department. [15366]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information given to the Department under the statutory redundancy handling provisions is provided in confidence.

  Vice-Chancellors and Principals
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the salaries of the vice-chancellors and principals of United Kingdom universities according to the salary bands published in the institutional annual. [15422]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to publish this information. The higher education funding councils require universities to disclose these details. They are already in the public domain.
  9

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the surplus or loss on trading account of each training and enterprise council in 1994–95. [15569]

  Mr. Paice
  The following table lists the surpluses or losses incurred by training and enterprise councils in 1994–95. The figures are those shown in the audited statutory accounts lodged at Companies House.

  Post tax operating surplus

  TECS by region

  1994–95 £

  Northern

  County Durham

  (785,231)

  Northumberland

  884,973

  Teesside

  (3,941,000)

  Tyneside

  (1,191,000)

  Sunderland City

  250,264

  (4,781,994)

  Merseyside

  CEWTEC

  359,849

  Merseyside

  2,683,672

  QUALITEC

  (130,746)

  2,912,775

  North West

  Bolton/Bury

  (527,728)

  Manchester

  (215,299)

  METRO

  379,973

  Oldham

  (127,476)

  Rochdale

  129,225

  South and East Cheshire

  263,853

  Stockport and High Peak

  (63,548)

  Cumbria

  (101,023)

  ELTEC

  (268,183)

  LAWTEC

  1,866,300

  NORMID

  587,422

  1,923,516

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  232,000

  Bradford

  (387,183)

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  225,868

  Humberside

  760,616

  Leeds

  (1,816,448)

  North Yorkshire

  397,000

  Rotheram

  (122,704)

  Sheffield

  (372,000)

  Wakefield

  126,742

  (956,109)

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  (143,547)

  CAMBS

  (55,355)

  Essex

  363,953

  Greater Peterborough

  21,450

  Hertfordshire

  852,000

  Norfolk and Waverney

  (91,000)

  Suffolk

  (396,331)

  551,170

  East Midlands

  Greater Nottingham

  319,000

  Leicester

  (271,766)

  Lincolnshire

  (2,135,126)

  Northamptonshire

  192,807

  North Derbyshire

  92,217

  North Nottinghamshire

  701,783

  10

  Post tax operating surplus

  1994–95

  TECS by region

  £

  South Derbyshire

  (356,000)

  (1,457,085)

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  2,043,000

  Central England

  283,485

  Coventry/Warwick

  118,851

  Dudley

  (61,500)

  HAWTEC

  (170,417)

  Sandwell

  (331,901)

  Shropshire

  150,285

  Staffordshire

  (1,842,000)

  Walsall

  (612,779)

  Wolverhampton

  640,000

  217,024

  South West

  Westec

  (399,000)

  Devon/Cornwall

  (1,366,000)

  Dorset

  318,838

  Gloucester

  769,047

  Somerset

  (140,890)

  Wiltshire

  (632,032)

  (1,450,037)

  London

  AZTEC

  748,520

  CENTEC

  287,415

  CILNTEC

  (36,989)

  LETEC

  2,765,046

  North London

  3,519,426

  North West London

  118,023

  SOLOTEC

  (1,396,023)

  South Thames

  0

  West London

  (286,586)

  5,718,832

  South East

  Hampshire

  343,021

  Isle of Wight

  (232,391)

  Kent

  (133,463)

  Milton Keynes/North Buckinghamshire

  32,654

  Heart of England

  196,567

  Surrey

  (727,521)

  Susex

  240,000

  Thames Valley Ent.

  (145,906)

  427,039

  Grand Total

  2,251,053

  Access to Work Scheme
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Education and Employment how many people in each county and region have received assistance under access to work; and in each case if she will give the number who were(a) employed and (b) unemployed at the time of their application. [15590]

  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.
  11
  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. David Blunkett, dated 19 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of people in each region who have received assistance under Access to Work; and whether they were employed or unemployed.
  Access to Work began in June 1994. The number of people who received help in 1994–95 (including those helped under the previous special schemes) was 10,394. Of those, 7,669 were new applicants under Access to Work. In 1995–96 up to the end of December, 12,267 people received help, of whom 8,206 were new applicants.
  The annex gives the number of new applicants by region and whether they were employed or unemployed. We do not keep records by county.
  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 the help of Access to Work.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Supplementary Credit Approvals
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will list those applications for supplementary credit approval that have been approved by her Department during the current financial year together with financial amounts involved, the number of applications received and the total cost of these projects; [15592]

  (2) when she intends announcing further supplementary credit approvals with specific reference to the Liskeard junior school application; and if she will make a statement. [15591]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Copies of press notices listing supplementary credit approvals so far issued in 1995–96, which total over £40 million, have been placed in the Library. This figures includes some cover for Liskeard junior school. Applications so far made total around £110 million—year 1 costs—and there have been approximately 270 bids. I hope to be able to announce further SCAs for 1995–96 shortly.

  Teachers
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what assessment she has made of the impact on the job prospects of newly qualified teachers of teachers who have taken early retirement returning to work; [15586]

  (2) if she will make it her policy that teachers who have taken early retirement are not re-employed as teachers on a (a) full-time (b) part-time or (c) supply basis. [15585]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department does not believe that the re-employment of retired teachers is having an adverse effect on the job prospects of newly qualified teachers. In 1986–87, 12,600 newly qualified teachers entered full-time teaching, 42 per cent. of all entrants. In 1993–94, the latest year for which we have information, the figures were 17,700 and 58 per cent. respectively. My right hon. Friend has no plans to make it her policy to ban re-employment of teachers who have been granted premature retirement. Teachers whose re-employment brings the total of salary and pension they receive above the rate of their previous salary are subject to abatement of pension.
  12

  Employment Service
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what remuneration the chief executive of the Employment Service received in(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and what is planned for 1996–97. [15672]

  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. Paddy Tipping, dated 19 February 1996.
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about my remuneration as Chief Executive of the Employment service.
  The information about my total remuneration for 1994/95. including a non-consolidated performance bonus and taxable benefits, is published in the Employment Service Annual Report & Accounts which was presented to Parliament in July 1995. A copy is available in the House of Commons Library.
  The comparable figure for 1995/96 will not be available until any bonus payable has been agreed after the end of the financial year.
  Similarly, it is not possible to calculate in advance what my remuneration will be in 1996/97.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the number and costs of payments made erroneously to claimants as a result of industrial action in jobcentres between 30 November 1995 and 19 February 1996. [15674]

  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. Paddy Tipping, dated 19 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the number and costs of payments made erroneously to claimants as a result of industrial action in Jobcentres between 30 November 1995 and 19 February 1996.
  Details of overpayments made are collected quarterly. The figures for the quarter ended December 1995 are being collated. To date there is no upward trend. The next set of figures will relate to the period ending 31 March. Therefore, no current information is available about changes in levels of overpayments during the period since the industrial action started.
  Overpayments can, and do, arise for a variety of reasons and it would be very difficult to identify separately overpayments which are directly attributable to the industrial action. To do this would require complex analysis and reporting arrangements additional to those presently in place. These would add to the burden of those continuing to work in the affected offices and further hinder the ability of the Employment Service to maintain a customer service in such times.
  I hope this helps explain the situation.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will provide a breakdown of the extra costs contracted by the Employment Service as a result of industrial action in jobcentres between 30 November 1995 and 19 February 1996. [15673]
  13
  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. Paddy Tipping, dated 19 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about
  the extra
  cost to the Employment Service of the industrial action organised by the Civil and Public Services Association in jobcentres between 30 November 1995 and 19 February 1996.
  The information you request is not kept centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. However, it is more likely that any additional costs incurred, for example by employing temporary workers or additional security guards, will be more than offset by savings made as a result of withholding pay from those who have chosen to strike.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Workstart
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) of 5 February,Official Report, column 68, what financial evaluation has been made of the workstart pilot scheme in (a) east Kent, (b) south London, (c) the north-east and (d) Devon and Cornwall. [15841]

  Mr. Forth
  The evaluation reports of the initial pilots were published on 12 December 1994 and copies are available from the Library.

  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury of 5 February,Official Report, column 69, what was (a) the saving in benefits of all kinds and (b) her Department's estimate of income from income tax and national insurance contributions, which resulted from the workstart pilot scheme in (i) east Kent, (ii) south London, (iii) the north-east and (iv) Devon and Cornwall; and what was the net saving or cost of the scheme. [15842]

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not available. Savings to the Exchequer from any employment programme arise from long-term improvements in the functioning of the labour market and cannot be calculated in the terms requested.

  South Thames Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what changes in policy and procedures have been introduced following South Thames training and enterprise council going into receivership. [15559]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 16 February 1996]: The relationship between Government and training and enterprise councils is under continual review. TECs are private companies operating under a contract. Since 1994, when South Thames TEC was placed in receivership the contract has required TECs to pay due regard to the code of practice on the financial aspects of corporate governance—the Cadbury code—and to the "Framework for Local Accountability" published by the TEC National
  14
  Council. TECs are also required to remain within the financial low risk band category as determined by the Department.

  Further guidance to Government offices in the regions now ensures the prompt recovery of any overpayments. Licensing arrangements require TECs to meet and maintain published standards set by the Department. All TECs must be licensed by 1997.

  Hard-to-fill Vacancies
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the percentage of hard-to-fill vacancies in(a) the south-east, (b) London, (c) the south-west, (d) the west midlands, (e) the east midlands, (f) eastern, (g) Yorkshire and Humberside, (h) the north-west, (i) the north-west (Greater Manchester) and (j) northern areas over the previous 12 months in 1994 and 1995. [15561]

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 16 February 1996]: 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. Stephen Byers, dated 19 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the percentage of hard to fill vacancies in the English regions over the previous 12 months in 1994 and 1995.
  We do not collect the information you have requested. However, during July to September 1994 a trial was undertaken to assess the feasibility of using hard to fill vacancies more widely to test clients' commitment to returning to employment and their availability for work.
  The trial revealed that the types of vacancy which are hard to fill vary widely between localities and it is difficult to he prescriptive about which particular vacancies fall into the hard to fill category. We do not, therefore, collect statistics on hard to fill vacancies.
  I hope this is helpful.

TREASURY

  Tax Regime
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the change in taxation relative to an indexed 1978–79 tax regime for a married couple with two children with one adult earning(a) 25 per cent. of average earnings, (b) 50 per cent. of average earnings, (c) 75 per cent. of average earnings, (d) 100 per cent. of average earnings, (e) 200 per cent. of average earnings, (f) 300 per cent. of average earnings, (g) 400 per cent. of average earnings and (h) 500 per cent. of average earnings. [13929]

  Mr. Jack
  The weekly reduction in income tax liability for 1996–97 compared with the 1978–79 indexed regime
  15
  and the weekly reduction as a percentage of earnings in 1996–97 is given in the table.

  One earner married couple with two children under 11

  Multiple of average earnings1 1996–97

  Reduction in income tax2 in 1996–97 compared with the 1978–79 indexed regime £

  Reduction in income tax2 as a percentage of weekly earnings in 1996–97

  ¼

  -3.18

  3

  ½

  -8.30

  4

  ¾

  17.24

  6

  1

  -26.18

  7

  2

  -50.91

  6

  3

  -143.54

  12

  4

  -281.82

  18

  5

  -452.66

  23

  1 Full time males on adult rates, all occupations.

  2 Net of child benefit.

  Property Valuations (Reading)
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average percentage increase in property valuations for business rate purposes by the Inland Revenue for(a) Reading town centre and (b) the Oxford road, Reading, and the number of appeals received and the number of appeals completed. [13823]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Broad street is the main street in Reading town centre, and comprises mostly shops, where rateable values have increased by about 27 per cent. on average in the 1995 rating list above their previous 1990 list levels.

  In Oxford road, Reading, rateable values of shops have generally remained unchanged.

  To date, the valuation officer at Reading has received 50 appeals for Broad street shops and 46 appeals for Oxford street shops. No appeals have been settled so far but discussions with ratepayers are expected to begin soon.

  Outside London, rate increases, in 1996–97 are limited to 5 per cent. for small businesses, 7.5 per cent. for legal businesses and 2.5 per cent. for composite properties after inflation.

  Advance Corporation Tax
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the amount of advance corporation tax reclaimed by tax exempt institutions each month over the past five years. [13928]

  Mr. Jack
  Advance corporation tax paid by companies is not repayable to shareholders. Exempt institutions, such as pension funds, insurance companies' exempt funds and charities are, however, entitled to payment of the tax credit issued with the dividends and other qualifying distributions they receive. This recognises that the dividends have already borne tax at the company level. Tax credits to exempt institutions are not separately accounted for and precise statistics are, therefore, not available. It is estimated, however, that exempt institutions will receive around £3.5 billion in payments of tax credits from qualifying distributions in 1995–96.
  16

  Exchange and Trading Schemes
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how participation in a local exchange and trading scheme affects the assessment of taxable income. [15430]

  Mr. Jack
  Participation in a local exchange and trading scheme does not itself affect what is and is not taxable income. It is the participant's activities that mater. Thus, anyone who provides either goods or services for reward, either inside or outside a local exchange and trading scheme, is likely to be liable to income tax.

  However, the form of these organisations can differ and as members, activities can vary from individual to individual, it is important that the scheme's organisers contact their local tax office with the full details of their particular scheme to check whether there are any tax implications. Similarly, any scheme member who has doubts about his own tax liability should check with his own tax office.

  Taxpayers
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 6 February,Official Report, columns 117–18, what was the number of (a) basic rate and (b) higher rate taxpayers in 1993–94 in each constituency in the west midlands county area. [15464]

  Mr. Jack
  I regret that estimates below county level are not available.

  Compliance Costs
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made towards completing the joint research project to establish the current compliance costs of tax/national insurance contributions legislation and systems referred to in his White Paper, "The Way Forward". [15588]

  Mr. Jack
  The contract to carry out the study was awarded to the Centre for Fiscal Studies at Bath university in October 1995. The work is expected to take around 18 months to complete and should give an up-to-date picture of those aspects of the system which give rise to the largest compliance costs for business. The research team has been asked to identify options for simplification of current operational procedures which could reduce those costs.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were in each year from 1979 to 1994, in real terms,(a) the running costs of his Ministers' private offices, separately identifying expenditure on staff and (b) the running costs of the Department. [15356]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 15 February 1996]: The costs of the ministerial offices and the running costs of the Department are included in the running costs published in the departmental report.
  17

PRIME MINISTER

  Advertising
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the annual cost of the Government's advertising budget for each of the last five years. [15468]

  The Prime Minister
  There is no central advertising budget. This is a matter for individual Departments.

  Out-of-school Activities
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy that every Government Department should produce proposals to ensure that the public and private sectors are able to encourage and, where necessary, provide a wide range of out-of-school activities for 10 to 16-year-olds; and if he will make a statement. [15482]

  The Prime Minister
  The public and private sectors are already free to encourage or provide out-of-school activities and schools are free to use them, or not, as they wish.

  Public Records
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to review the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967 in regard to the selection of material for retention and release. [15981]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have no such plans as their policy on the release or withholding of records under the provision of the Public Records Acts was reviewed in 1992–93. The results of that review were published as chapter 9 of the White Paper on open government, July 1993 (Cm 2290).

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy towards the correction of answers given to Parliament where civil servants responsible for drafting or Ministers or former Ministers told the Scott inquiry that they were inaccurate. [14904]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 February 1996]: If the answers to any parliamentary questions require correction, they are corrected.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Officials (Vested Interests)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange to keep a central register of his Department's officials' vested interests. [15179]

  Mr. Hanley
  Yes. I have arranged for interests declared by members of the diplomatic service to be recorded centrally with immediate effect.

  British Council
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the reduction in services offered by the British Council; and if he will list the countries affected. [14588]
  18
  Mr. Hanley
  The British Council is still considering how best to make the necessary adjustments to its programmes and activities following the latest public expenditure round. No decisions have been taken.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what international initiatives are being made to resolve(a) the war and (b) other problems in Sudan. [15412]

  Mr. Hanley
  The main international initiative to settle the war in Sudan was launched in 1994 by the Inter-Governmental Authority for Drought and Development—comprising Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya and Uganda—which we have fully supported. At the UN, the UK has been active in securing the passage of resolutions critical of Sudan's human rights record and appointing a special rapporteur. The UN Security Council passed a resolution on 31 January calling on Sudan to hand over to Ethiopia three men suspected of involvement in the assassination attempt of President Mubarak of Egypt last year.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Sudan about the sponsorship of terrorism outside Sudan. [15414]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have repeatedly raised with Sudan the matter of it harbouring extremist organisation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary expressed our concern to the Sudanese ambassador in September last year. The UN Security Council, under UK chairmanship, unanimously passed a resolution on 31 January calling on the Sudanese Government to desist from engaging in activities of assisting, supporting and facilitating terrorist activities. It also called on them to give up to the Ethiopian authorities three suspects implicated in the assassination attempt on President Mubarak of Egypt.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on(a) the presence of Rwandan war criminals in Kenya and (b) progress in persuading the Government of Kenya to co-operate with the international war crimes tribunal. [15417]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda has issued four indictments against eight people. It has requested the transfer of three people detained in Belgium and it is due to make a similar request for an unspecified number detained in Zambia. None of these people is believed to be in Kenya.

  All countries are required to comply with the tribunal, which was established by Security Council resolution 955 under chapter VII. Judge Goldstone has confirmed that Kenya is co-operating with the tribunal.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about progress in the return of refugees to Rwanda. [15416]

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Nation's High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that about 230,000 Rwandan refugees returned to Rwanda during 1995, leaving
  19
  1.7 million Rwandan refugees in neighbouring countries at 1 January 1996. The UNCHR hopes that up to 820,000 of these will return voluntarily to Rwanda during 1996.

  East Timor
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions on the issue of human rights in East Timor took place during recent meetings between Ministers of his Department and the Indonesian Foreign Minister. [15730]

  Mr. Hanley
  Ministers raised our concerns about human rights and East Timor with the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Ali Alatas, during his visit to the UK in January.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Nigeria
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the return of the British ambassador to Nigeria. [15564]

  Mr. Hanley
  After close consultations, European Union heads of mission returned to Lagos during January, including our high commissioner. He was sent back to reinforce our concerns about human rights and the transition timetable at the highest level.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of potential instability within Nigeria on neighbouring countries. [15565]

  Mr. Hanley
  We continue to monitor developments closely in Nigeria, including their possible impact on neighbouring countries.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is currently provided by Her Majesty's Government to west African countries bordering Nigeria. [15566]

  Mr. Hanley
  Cameroon benefits from a bilateral aid programme, focused on conservation of forestry and biodiversity and totalling some £2.3 million in 1995–96.

  Niger, Chad, and Benin also receive UK aid, most notably through the joint funding scheme-£0.41 million in 1994–95.

  The UK provides substantial assistance to all four countries through its contributions to multilateral aid, particularly EU aid, of which our share in 1994 was about £22 million.

  30DA mine clearance actions since April 1993 (as at 15 February 1996)

  £

  Country

  Project

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Afghanistan

  Halo: Mine clearance and mine awareness in the Shomali Valley

  416,131

  223,087

  275,000

  Afghanistan

  UNOCHA: Minefield surveying, planning and management; mine awareness; clearance and clearance training

  500,000

  1,000,000

  750,000

  Angola

  MAG: Minefield survey and marking (4 months) Luena, Moxico province. Phase I (£223,243) and Phase II (£498,825)

  —

  722,068

  300,000

  20

  Burundi
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what involvement(a) he and (b) British-based non-governmental organisations have in Burundi; and if he will make a statement about the political situation and any international initiatives to improve matters there. [15415]

  Mr. Hanley
  Britain supports efforts led by the UN, the Organisation of African Unity and regional leaders to promote political dialogue and reduce violence in Burundi. We supported UN Security Council resolution 1040 of 29 January, which requested the UN Secretary-General to consider options for further action. He is due to report by 20 February. We also supported the appointment by the Foreign Affairs Council on 29 January of an EU special envoy for the Great Lakes region, who will work closely with the UN Security-General's special representatives and the facilitators appointed by the Cairo Conference. An EU troika visited Burundi on 12 February, delivering a firm message to leaders there on the need for dialogue and action to prevent further violence.

  British NGOs play an important role in ensuring humanitarian aid reaches those in need. Although the level of violence has calmed in recent weeks, we remain concerned about extremist pressures on the power-sharing Government.

  Kenya
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Kenya about human rights and good governance issues. [15413]

  Mr. Hanley
  We maintain a regular dialogue with the Kenyan Government on a wide range of issues including those of good governance and human rights.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) of 31 January 1994,Official Report, column 496 on land mines. [15628]

  Mr. Hanley
  Since April 1993, the ODA has funded the following humanitarian mine clearing operations totalling some £12.713 million. Details are set out in the table. In addition, the UK share of European funded projects from 1 January 1993 to 31 December 1995 is over £1.936 million.
  21

  30DA mine clearance actions since April 1993 (as at 15 February 1996)

  £

  Country

  Project

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Angola

  Halo: Recce, surveying and demining (5 months) Benguela/Kuito corridor Phase I (£259,243) and Phase II (£640,430 +£103,570)

  —

  899,430

  303,570

  Angola

  Central Mines Action Office within UCAH: two staff posts for one year + equipment and office support costs

  —

  226,029

  —

  Cambodia

  Halo: Mine clearance in Banteay Meanchey and Siem Reap

  277,142

  376,549

  198,350

  Cambodia

  MAG: Mine clearance in Battambang

  50,625

  316,876

  271,388

  Cambodia

  Support of Cambodian Mine Action Centre (through UNDP)

  1,133,333

  1,000,000

  —

  N. Iraq

  MAG: Training and mine clearance in Halabja

  200,439

  —

  444,750

  Laos

  MAG: Mine eradication and community education programme in Xieng Khouang Province

  —

  —

  454,386

  Laos

  UNDP: 6 months x Programme Management Adviser (PMA) to support Lao national mine clearance programme +12 months x UN Volunteer to support PMA

  —

  —

  89,000

  Mozambique

  Halo: Demining of roads in Zambezia Province (Phases I and II)

  574,586

  414,832

  561,000

  Rwanda

  Support to UN training and equipment of Rwanda mine clearance teams: 20 x Schiebel 19/2 detectors

  —

  30,000

  —

  Somalia NW

  Rimfire: Mine clearance training; clearance management; mine awareness in and around Hargeisa

  —

  —

  —

  Yemen

  Support to UN appeal

  —

  100,000

  —

  Global

  Defence Research Agency: 6 months research into mine detection

  —

  104,928

  —

  Global

  Contribution to UNDHA's Voluntary Trust Fund for Mine Clearance

  —

  500,000

  —

  Total

  3,152,256

  5,913,799

  3,647,444

  Total of ODA's Bilateral mine clearance/awareness actions since April 1993

  12,713,499

HEALTH

  Road Traffic Act 1988
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration he has given to repealing section 157 of the Road Traffic Act 1988(a) in total and (b) for pensioners only. [14306]

  Mr. Horam
  None. Charges under the Road Traffic Act 1988 provide valuable income to the national health service.

  GP's Fees
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about general medical practitioners claiming fees from their local health authorities for services to individual patients which they do not provide; what assessment he has made of the costs to his Department of this practice; and what safeguards exist to prevent it. [15074]

  Mr. Malone
  Management controls within individual health authorities should ensure that fees are paid only to general medical practitioners for services which they have provided. Payments are subject to scrutiny by both internal and external auditors. Any false fee claims will affect only the distribution of incomes to general medical practitioners but will not increase the overall cost of general medical services.
  22

  Health Care Trusts
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if health care trusts are required to seek competitive tenders for purchases of equipment for hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [16034]

  Mr. Horam
  There is a statutory requirement to invite competitive tenders where the aggregate value of the national health service contracting authority's purchase, hire or lease of specified goods or equipment over a 12-month period exceeds £108,667. The only permitted exceptions are on grounds of:

  national security;

  another international procedure takes preference;

  only one supplier is available for technical or artistic reasons, or because of exclusive rights;

  extreme urgency has arisen that was unforeseeable and not due to the purchaser;

  the procurement is of a research and development nature;

  additional deliveries by the original supplier are justified within the current contract;

  following no response, or unacceptable or irregular tenders, from a competitive tender exercise.

  Below the statutory threshold, competitive tenders for purchase of equipment would normally be required under a health authority's or NHS trust's standing financial instructions. Any decision to waive such a requirement,

  23
  except on de minimis grounds, would require the explicit approval of the board, and reasons would be recorded for audit scrutiny.

  Ombudsman
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend the powers of the health service ombudsman. [15568]

  Mr. Horam
  The Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) Bill is currently being considered in another place. The Bill proposes to extend the powers of the commissioner to allow him to investigate complaints involving clinical judgment and family health services. The intention, subject to Royal Assent, is to implement this change from 1 April this year.

  Campbells Soups
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many inspections on matters relating to hygiene have been carried out on the Campbells Soups plant in King's Lynn in each of the last five years; [15362]

  (2) how many inspections on matters relating to hygiene have been carried out on the Campbells Soups plant in Stratford on Avon in each of the last five years. [15363]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not held centrally. Enforcement of food hygiene law at local level, including hygiene inspection visits, is a matter for individual food authorities.

  Medical Insurance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations he has had with the Association of British Insurers concerning guidance given by individual insurers to insured accident patients in respect of disclosure of insurance cover when presenting at NHS hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [15989]

  Mr. Malone
  None. It is departmental policy that treatment in national health service accident and emergency departments is free. If, however, patients subsequently require emergency in-patient admission, they can choose either NHS treatment or private treatment at an NHS hospital or independent hospital. Many private medical insurance policies cover emergency as well as elective in-patient admissions.

  Retired Ambulance Trust Employees (Insurance)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been agreed with the Association of British Insurers concerning the use of former ambulance trust employees on early retirement schemes to use their own cars to drive ambulant patients to out-patient clinics; and if he will make a statement. [15993]

  Mr. Horam
  No such guidance has been agreed. It is for local ambulance services to decide what use to make of volunteer car drivers. Ambulance services will ensure that any use of a private car is within the terms of the volunteer's motor insurance policy.
  24

  Prescription Costs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 13 February,Official Report, column 562, if he will specify the total cost of prescriptions issued per practice divided by the number of patients on the list for (a) the totality of general practice fundholders and (b) non-fundholders for each year. [15983]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 13 February, column 562. Information split between fundholding general practitioners and non-fundholding general practitioners is readily available only nationally. Analysis below the national level would involve special computer programming and substantial cost.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of prescriptions issued in the latest year for which figures are available; what was the total revenue from prescription charges in connection with those prescriptions; and what was the average charge per prescription in that year. [15873]

  Mr. Malone
  Some 456 million prescription items were dispensed in England in 1994. We estimate that for over 80 per cent. of these items, the recipients were exempt, charges were remitted, or were not payable. The time at which income is brought to account means that items dispensed in 1994 correspond most closely to receipts for the financial year 1994–95. Charge income in 1994–95, including income from prescription prepayment certificates, was £287 million. The charge for each prescription item was £4.25 from April 1993 and £4.75 from April 1994.

  Cancer Patients (Prescription Charges)
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what considerations led him not to exempt life-saving drugs for long-term cancer patients from prescription charge. [15774]

  Mr. Malone
  Exemption from prescription charges on medical grounds was introduced in 1968. A limited list of qualifying medical conditions, which require life-long medication, has applied since then.

  When these arrangements were established, general exemption and charge remission arrangements were not as extensive as they are today. In 1996–97, we expect about 85 per cent. of prescription items to be dispensed free, whereas in 1968 the comparable figure was about 42 per cent.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Sir Julian Critchley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account is taken of population in setting social services standard spending assessments; and if he will make a statement. [15729]

  Mr. Bowis
  Population size is one of the factors taken into account in calculating standard spending assessments for social services. In addition, a variety of indicators are used to reflect the relative need for social services in each local authority.

  Asthma
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the "The Health of the Nation" sub-group on asthma reported to the chief medical officer; when he
  25
  expects to reach a conclusion on the recommendation of the chief medical officer; and if he will make a statement. [14297]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 12 February 1996]: The ad hoc advisory group reported to the chief medical officer in April 1995. The report is being considered in the light of that of the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants "Asthma and Outdoor Air Pollution", published in October 1995. We shall announce out conclusions in due course.

  Deaths
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths occurred in each of the past five years as a result of(a) peanut allergic reaction, (b) Ecstasy use and (c) excessive water intake. [14344]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 12 February 1996]: During the years 1990–94, one death occurred, in 1993, resulting from a peanut allergic reaction.

  One other death occurred in 1993 from food-induced anaphylaxis, where a peanut was the probable cause.

  The number of deaths registered in 1990–94 with a mention of Ecstasy were as follows:

  Year

  Number of deaths

  1990

  1

  1991

  6

  1992

  6

  1993

  17

  1994

  19

  During the years 1990–1994, the number of deaths from excessive water intake' were as follows:

  Year

  Number of deaths

  1990

  6

  1991

  2

  1992

  3

  19932

  7

  19942

  5

  1 International Classification of Diseases (9th Revision) code 276.6—fluid overload.

  2 Provisional. (Deaths for 1992 and earlier years represent the number of deaths registered in each year, while deaths from 1993 onwards are deaths occurred in each year).

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Administration Costs (Benefits)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the administration costs are of each benefit in percentage terms for(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995. [12832]

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the table. The administration costs of each benefit are expressed as a percentage of benefit expenditure, for the financial years 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95.
  26

  Percentage

  Benefit

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Retirement pension

  1.2

  1.2

  1.1

  Widow's benefit

  3.1

  3.1

  2.5

  Unemployment benefit

  15.3

  17.5

  11.8

  Sickness and invalidity benefit

  4.9

  4.8

  3.9

  Maternity allowance

  20.3

  17.5

  12.9

  Non-contributory retirement pension

  1.1

  0.4

  0.8

  War pension

  4.9

  4.2

  4.7

  Attendance allowance

  4.8

  3.7

  3.7

  Invalid care allowance

  3.7

  4.1

  3.7

  Severe disablement allowance

  6.1

  5.0

  4.9

  Mobility allowance1

  6.8

  —

  —

  Disability living allowance

  7.1

  5.2

  5.1

  Disability working allowance

  256.6

  65.7

  43.9

  Industrial injuries disablement benefits

  9.0

  8.4

  7.3

  Income support

  10.4

  10.2

  10.3

  Child benefit and one parent benefit

  2.3

  2.1

  2.3

  Guardian's allowance

  3.9

  7.2

  14.2

  Family credit

  4.6

  4.4

  3.7

  Social fund

  51.7

  61.1

  46.1

  Housing benefit

  3.4

  3.0

  5.8

  Council tax benefit

  12.4

  10.3

  9.4

  1 1994–95 benefit expenditure figures source: Departmental Report 1995.

  1. Disability living allowance replaced mobility allowance and attendance allowance for under 65s from April 1992.

  2.Benefit and administration expenditure is subject to different influences, with the latter particularly affected by factors such as staff costs and capital investment. The estimates of administration costs are based on the Government case accounting convention and therefore include any investment spend incurred in the current year.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many new claims for disability living allowance were received in 1994–95; and how many of those claims were rejected by the Benefits Agency. [15201]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is not available in the format requested. Figures are collected for claims processed in a year and also for disallowances. However, a claim received in one year, for example in March 1995, may not be decided until the following statistical year, for example in April 1995. Information available is set out in the table.

  Disability Living AllowanceAwards and disallowances on new claims between 1 April 1994 and 31 March 19951 2 3

  Number

  Claims received

  504,000

  Claims disallowed3

  256,000

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division.

  Notes:

  1Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2100 per cent. data.

  3Also includes disallowances made by disability appeal tribunals.
  27

  Funeral Costs
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will meet funeral directors' representatives to discuss the average size of funeral bills, with particular reference to cremation dues and other items excluded from DSS grants. [15377]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Meetings were held with representatives of the three main funeral directors' associations prior to the changes to the social fund funeral payment scheme implemented in June 1995. It was agreed that future liaison meetings would be held with officials. There are no plans to change these arrangements.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research he has carried out to establish the costs charged by funeral directors. [15379]

  Mr. Evans
  The amounts charged and awarded for funeral directors' fees under the previous funeral payment scheme were reviewed before changes were made. A specification was prepared following discussions with the three main national funeral directors associations. The specification now restricts the type of coffin and number of cars allowed. It is the Government's view that an amount of up to £500 is a reasonable amount to pay for the funeral director's fees, included within the specification.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish guidelines on the items to be included in or excluded from DSS assistance with funeral bills. [15376]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is contained in:Regulation 3(4) of the Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Amendment Regulations 1995 (SI. 1229 1995), a copy of which is in the Library; and
  Social Security leaflets: D49—What to do after a death in England and Wales; D49s—What to do after a death in Scotland: Social Security Supplement; SB 16—A guide to the Social Fund; and SF200—Social Fund Funeral Payment claim pack.

  Leaflets D49 and D49S may be obtained from the office of the local registrar of births, deaths and marriages. All social security leaflets are available from social security offices and may also be obtained from the citizen's advice bureau and other advice centres.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to safeguard income support claimants who are unable to pay the difference between the cost of a funeral and the DSS funeral grant. [15378]

  Mr. Evans
  Income support claimants who are responsible for meeting the expenses of a funeral may be entitled to a social fund funeral payment.

  The social fund payment includes the reasonable cost of the funeral directors' fees, up to £500, and the necessary cost of disbursements for either a burial or cremation.

  Where funds are available from the deceased estate or the claimant has capital over £500—£1,000 if over 60—this will be taken into account when making an award.
  28
  It is the Government's view that an amount up to the capped level of £500 is a reasonable amount to pay for the funeral directors' fees in respect of a dignified funeral. Where a claimant is unable to obtain the services of a funeral director within the reasonable amount, or chooses to spend more on the funeral than provided from the social fund, they may consider using any available capital, seek help from other family members, or come to mutually agreeable terms with the funeral director to pay the balance.

  Pensions
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the public expenditure cost per head of total population in each European Union country of state-provided pensions in 1995; and what it is estimated to be under present policies in the years (i) 2000, (ii) 2005, (iii) 2010, (iv) 2015 and (v) 2020, respectively. [15570]

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

  The 1988 EU figures are contained in "Digest of Statistics on Social Protection in Europe Volume 1: Old Age" published by Eurostat in 1992, a copy of which is in the Library.

  The table contains Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development forecasts of per capita spending on public pension systems in the four EU countries listed:

  Local currency values—1994 prices

  Germany

  France

  Italy

  United Kingdom

  1995

  4,518

  13,752

  3,259,156

  531

  2000

  5,446

  13,974

  2,951,341

  600

  2005

  6,084

  14,298

  3,203,566

  679

  2010

  6,644

  15,898

  3,621,503

  794

  2015

  7,322

  18,416

  4,309,383

  881

  2020

  8,012

  20,943

  5,043,293

  924

  2025

  9,316

  23,785

  5,975,440

  1,002

  2030

  11,153

  26,597

  7,079,009

  1,094

  Figures for UK are based on current average pension receipt and World bank population projections, figures take into account equalisation of state pension age but do not take into account changes to SERPS.

  The following table contains the Government Actuary's Department's projections for Great Britain, which take into account all the changes to date and are based on more recent population data:

  Per capita spending in 1994 prices on (including SERPS) Retirement Pension (including SERPS)

  Great Britain

  (£)

  1994–95

  506

  2000–01

  587

  2010–01

  707

  2020–01

  764

  2030–01

  892

  29

  Appeals
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many social security appeals are currently adjourned pending a decision by the House of Lords. [15359]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [holding answer 15 February 1996]: The information is set out in the table.

  Cases on which action has been suspended

  Number

  Social security appeals

  2,011

  Commissioners

  14,278

  Court of appeal

  nil

  1 This figure represents both cases upon which appeals have been accepted and cases upon which applications for leave to appeal are still to be considered.

  Disability (Access Committee for England)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 13 February 1996,Official Report, column 550, what representations he has received on the achievements of the Access Committee for England; what replies he has sent; and if he will make a statement. [15772]

  Mr. Burt
  We have received a number of letters about the Access Committee for England which have been brought to the attention of the working group set up to consider the committee's future role and functions.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further measures he is assessing to combat benefit fraudulent claims. [14864]

  Mr. Heald
  [holding answer 12 February 1996]: The Benefits Agency's comprehensive security strategy includes a five-year plan for improving security and control of the benefits system.

  The further measures include the continuing benefit review programme to establish the scale and patterns of fraud and incorrectness in all the major benefits; increasing the numbers of visits to, and other checks of, claimants to benefit; expanding data matching to compare information on DS S computers; investigation of employers who collude with employees who make fraudulent claims; the gradual replacement of order books and girocheques with a benefit payment card; improving the integrity and control of national insurance numbers; and the introduction in targeted areas of mobile electronic stop notice scanners in post office to stop the fraudulent encashment of order books.

  Local authorities administer housing benefit. New measures being introduced include the development of a central computer register to cross-check claims, ear marking of £8 million for challenging funding to encourage innovation in fighting fraud, and a strengthening of the financial incentives for local authorities to pursue fraud.
  30

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Gas Supply (Failure)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the inquiry by Ofgas into the failure of the gas supply in Prestonpans, Lockenzie and Port Seton on 29 December 1995. [15647]

  Mr. Eggar
  I fully sympathise with the hon. Member's constituents who suffered during the supply failure. The Director General of Gas Supply is rightly looking into the incident and we must await her conclusions. I understand that she hopes to report at the end of February.

  Electricity Import
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the effect upon the balance of payments of the import of electricity from France in(a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92, (c) 1992–93, (d) 1993–94 and (e) 1994–95. [15650]

  Mr. Page
  The following information from the DTI's "Digest of UK Energy Statistics 1995", in practice relates to net imports from France:

  Net imports of electricity, Overseas Trade Statistics basis

  £ million

  1990

  200

  1991

  343

  1992

  369

  1993

  426

  1994

  388

  Source

  "Digest of UK Energy Statistics 1995", Table 64.

  Environmental Technology Companies
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the level of Government financial support in each year since 1990 to companies involved in environmental technology. [15533]

  Mr. Page
  Companies involved in environmental technology may apply for support under a range of general regional, export promotion and innovation programmes funded by the Government. The Office of Science and Technology's funding of the research councils is also relevant to the needs of these companies. Spending under these general arrangements on projects relevant to environmental technology companies cannot be readily identified.

  Government funding under programmes directed specifically at environmental technology totalled £176 million in the period 1 April 1990 to 31 December 1995. Figures for individual years are not readily available.

  In addition, the environmental technology best practice programme, run jointly by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, aims to benefit both suppliers and users of environmental technologies and techniques through encouraging United Kingdom firms to take up measures that will improve both

  31
  their competitiveness and their environmental performance. The programme budget is £16 million, for the five years to 1998–99. Spending under the programme was £1.99 million in its launch year 1994–95, and &£2.36 million between 1 April and 31 December 1995.

  Sellafield (Safety)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many incidents have been reported at the British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. plant at Sellafield since 1 January; what discussions have taken place with the directorate of British Nuclear Fuels plc concerning these; and what action will be taken to prevent similar incidents occurring. [15711]

  Mr. Eggar
  The arrangements for reporting nuclear incidents at civil nuclear installations to my Department and its precursor were revised in 1987. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) to a question from the then hon. Member for Sherwood,Official Report 30 April 1987, columns 203–04.

  Since 1 January 1996, no incidents at British Nuclear Fuel plc's plant at Sellafield have been reported to my Department under the above arrangements. Two minor events which were not of such safety or radiological significance as to be formally reportable were brought to the attention of my Department because of public interest. Details of these two incidents are contained in the 13 February Sellafield site newsletter, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  All incidents at Sellafield are investigated by BNF plc management to determine their cause and to put in place such measures as may be necessary to prevent a recurrence. Inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate carry out separate investigations as necessary, in order to determine what further regulatory response, if any, is appropriate.

  Nuclear Electric (Privatisation)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future ownership of Lambeeth farm, Hundleton, Pembrokeshire following his announcement of the privatisation of Nuclear Electric. [15773]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government are considering which land and property currently held by Nuclear Electric plc should be allocated to British Energy, and which should stay in the public sector with Magnox Electric. The final decision on Lambeeth farm has not yet been made.

  Leukaemia (Electromagnetic Fields)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what assessment he has made of the research undertaken by Professor Denis Henshaw, a copy of which has been sent to him, on child leukaemia and electromagnetic fields; and if he will make a statement; [15632]

  (2) what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the link between electromagnetic
  32
  fields and child leukaemia; if he will place copies of that research into the Library; and if he will make a statement. [15631]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 16 February 1996]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade receives advice from the National Radiological Protection Board on the issue of electromagnetic fields and any effects on human health, including the possibility of a link with childhood leukaemia.

  Both the NRPB and other independent bodies conduct research into possible causes of leukaemia and other cancers, supported by funding from Government. An important five-year study into possible causes of childhood leukaemia is at present being conducted by the UK Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research, due to be completed in about two years' time. The Government are funding this research together with various bodies and, when complete, it will be evaluated by NRPB and its advisory group on non-ionising radiation and the findings will be published.

  The NRPB acknowledges the link between randon deposition and electromagnetic fields but advise that the theory in recently published research, suggesting an increased risk of cancer due to the effects of fields on radon and its decay products, is speculative. There is still no convincing evidence that electromagnetic fields from power lines or domestic appliances are harmful to health and no biological mechanism has been established to change this view.

  Energy Council
  Ms Quin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the informal Energy Council held on 3 and 4 February in Bologna. [15092]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 16 February 1996]: I represented the United Kingdom at the informal Council in Bologna. It is a rule of procedure within the European Union that informal councils cannot reach decisions or adopt text. The main matters discussed at the meeting were as follows:

  The Council considered the latest position on the proposed electricity liberalisation directive and the Italian presidency compromise proposal. This involves fixing a percentage of electricity markets to be opened to competition with member states deciding how this is to be achieved. I called for the maximum possible opening, as in the United Kingdom, to ensure full economic benefit for consumers and for European competitiveness. There was no consensus on the appropriate percentage or whether such opening should be achieved in a single step or over a period of time. The presidency concluded that further work was required at official level.

  The Council considered the Commission's energy policy White Paper in the light of possible future trends and rising energy consumption. The presidency called for new policies and common objectives, including completion of the single market in energy. I welcomed

  33
  the White Paper's emphasis on the single market but expressed my frustration that there was a call for new instruments when there was so little progress on electricity liberalisation. Member states welcomed the White Paper but views differed in emphasis. Further work will be required at official level and each proposal in the annexed work programme will be subject to the usual procedures.
  34
  The presidency presented its views on the need for increased energy co-operation with southern Mediterranean countries in the light of growing demographic pressures in the region. In particular, the president saw a need to improve investor protection and enhance development of energy networks. The presidency also announced meetings with the southern Mediterranean countries at official ministerial level.
  35

TRANSPORT

  2182KHz Distress Watch
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement as to the resources available to monitor 2182KHz transmissions; [15010]

  (2) how he will monitor the new arrangements for response to transmissions on the 2182KHz medium wave frequency. [15009]

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

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Ms Joan Walley dated 19 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the 2182KHz Distress Watch.
  In addition to the normal 24 hour watchkeeping complements at each Rescue Centre an additional Operations Room Assistant has been made available to assist in maintaining the Distress Watch at the designated 2182 stations.
  In accordance with standard practice, all incidents, including those involving Distress calls, are analysed by Coastguard management to confirm that procedures are timely and correct. Additionally a Medium Frequency log is maintained at each Rescue Centre containing details of Distress, Urgency and Safety Traffic.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he intends to take against the officials who were involved in preparation of documents marked "not for National Audit Office eyes" in relation to the sale of British Rail Maintenance Ltd. [15724]

  Sir George Young
  None. They acted properly and in accordance with long-standing guidelines agreed with the National Audit Office and the Treasury.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of(a) the Price Waterhouse report and (b) the Ernst and Young report on the sale of the British Rail Maintenance Ltd. depot at Eastleigh. [15725]

  Sir George Young
  The Price Waterhouse report, which covered only the sale of the Eastleigh depot, was commissioned by the British Railways Board. I understand that it cost about £30,000. The separate Ernst and Young study commissioned by the Department of Transport embraces the sale of all six depots. The price is not expected to exceed £45,000.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the documents prepared by his officials in relation to the rail privatisation programme in the past 12 months, which are marked "not for National Audit Office eyes" or subject to similar restrictions. [15726]

  Sir George Young
  No. Documents designated "not for NAO eyes" are held on files with that privacy marking. In accordance with Treasury guidance of 15 July 1988, such files retain their privacy marking until one year after the publication of the relevant Treasury Minute. All such files are subject to regular scrutiny by Department of Transport Internal Audit and copies of their reports are sent to the National Audit Office.
  36
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he first received reports of criticisms of the Eastleigh sale contained in the Price Waterhouse report; and what action he took. [15727]

  Sir George Young
  Officials first became aware of BR concern about the sale of the Eastleigh depot in September 1995. An early draft of the Price Waterhouse report on the sale of the Eastleigh depot was shown to my Department in October 1995. Officials urged the British Railways Board to widen the study remit to cover the sales of all the six depots and to establish explicitly whether the agreed sale procedures had been properly followed. A further report was received in my Department on 13 December. It gave comfort on the value BR obtained for the Eastleigh sale, but pointed to shortcomings in sales procedures; and dealt only with the Eastleigh sale. Following discussion with the Treasury and with the National Audit Office, whose own examination of the BRML sales had started in June 1995, my Department commissioned Ernst and Young to examine the sale of all six depots. The National Audit Office, at the request of my Department, accompanied the Ernst and Young investigating team. Ernst and Young's emerging findings—which will be placed in the Library—show that the BRML sales were competitive and fair, but confirm that BR procedures needed some improvement. The BR board has strengthened its procedures and will ensure that they are properly implemented. Ernst and Young expects to complete its work shortly.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which it was decided to replace Price Waterhouse with Ernst and Young, as consultants on the Eastleigh British Rail Maintenance Ltd. sale review. [15728]

  Sir George Young
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 14 February, column 574. The Price Waterhouse study was commissioned by the BR board. The Ernst and Young review has been separately commissioned by the Department of Transport.

  Royal Train
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) who will be responsible for the royal train after privatisation of the railways; [15900]

  (2) what provision will be made for costs of the royal train in the event of privatisation of the railways. [15913]

  Sir George Young
  Following the sale by the British Railways Board of Rail Express Systems Ltd., which manages and operates the royal train, my Department continues to be responsible for the costs of operating the royal train.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the estates owned by the Scottish
  37
  Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department where the previous landowner still holds rights of pre-emption in respect of future transfer of ownership. [15072]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  My right hon. Friend owns 52 estates which are subject to a limited statutory right of pre-emption under land settlement legislation. This states that:"Before selling any land which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, is not required for the purposes of the Act, the Secretary of State shall offer the land to the person from whom it was purchased or his successor in title at a price to be determined, failing agreement, by the Scottish Land Court."

  Similar rights may be contained in the title deeds of individual estates. This can be determined only by carrying out a full title search which, at this stage, would involve disproportionate costs.

  The consultation paper on the disposal of my right hon. Friend's crofting estates, "Crofting Trusts", acknowledges that legislation may need to take account of the possibility that, in some cases, the successors in title to the original owners may have pre-emptive rights.

  Housing Expenditure
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of identifiable public expenditure in Scotland was spent on housing in(a) 1980–81, (b) 1990–91 and (c) the latest year for which figures are available. [12342]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: Identifiable general Government expenditure in Scotland is published annually in the statistical supplement to the "Financial Statement and Budget Report". The most recent supplement was published in February 1995. Total Government expenditure on housing in Scotland includes expenditure by the Department of Social Security on housing benefits, and is now published in The Scottish Office department report "Serving Scotland's Needs". They are not, however, available for 1980–81. In 1983–84—the first year for which it has been possible to obtain the information—1990–91 and 1993–94—the latest year for which figures are available-total expenditure on housing in Scotland was 9.6, 7.4 and 6.6 per cent. respectively of identified general Government expenditure. That reduction has to be seen against a reduction of 276,082 public sector houses from 30 September 1982 to 31 March 1994, reducing the associated requirement for public expenditure. The figures exclude capital receipts available for investment of £238 million, £411 million and £389 million respectively.

  Hard-to-fill Vacancies
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the percentage of hard-to-fill vacancies over the previous 12 months in 1994 and 1995. [15562]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 16 February 1996]: The percentage of establishments in Scotland reporting hard-to-fill vacancies in 1994 was 15 per cent.; no comparable figure for 1995 is available. The data are based on a survey of establishments with 25 or more employees conducted on behalf of the Department for Education and Employment
  38

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Unduly Lenient Sentences
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will seek powers to refer all unduly lenient sentences passed in the Crown court. [14190]

  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will seek powers to allow him to refer all unduly lenient sentences passed in the Crown court. [14192]

  The Solicitor-General
  All the most serious offences tried in the Crown court, which are those giving rise to the greatest public concern, are already within the scope of the Attorney-General's power of review. He sees no need at present to seek any further extension to his powers.

  Crown Prosecution Service (Queen's Counsel)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Attorney-General how many Queen's counsel are employed by the Crown Prosecution Service; at what average annual salary; and if he will make a statement. [14191]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service instructs Queen's counsel, who are self-employed, to prosecute the more serious cases before the courts. There are currently only two Queen's counsel employed by the Crown Prosecution Service, namely the Director of Public Prosecutions and a senior Crown prosecutor, whose salaries are within the scales appropriate to their respective grades.

  Discontinued Cases
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases were discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service in(a) 1994 and (b) 1995. [14194]

  The Attorney-General
  Proceedings were discontinued in respect of 159,803 defendants during 1994, and 156,628 defendants during 1995. Between 1992 and 1995, the rate of discontinuance has fallen from 13.3 per cent. to 12 per cent. of completed cases.

  Prosecution Papers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Attorney-General what are his Department's guidelines for the retention by police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service of prosecution papers after the conclusion of cases; and if he will make a statement. [14195]

  The Solicitor-General
  Area offices of the Crown Prosecution Service retain files relating to cases dealt with by the magistrates courts for a minimum of 12 months after the final court date. Those finalised in the Crown court are kept for a minimum of three years. Cases handled in CPS headquarters are retained for a minimum of five years. Where there is a conviction, all case files are retained until the expiry of the sentence, if it exceeds the usual retention period. Prosecution files considered worthy of permanent preservation are sent to the Public Record Office.
  39

  Scott Report
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the report by Sir Richard Scott as it relates to the work of his Department. [14193]

  The Attorney-General
  The Government have said that the recommendations in the Scott report will be given careful and detailed consideration.

WALES

  Soups Production Industry
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what regional assistance he has given to the soups production industry in the last 12 months. [14161]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

  Health Authority Budgets
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the effects of the budgets allocated to Welsh health authorities in 1996–97. [14174]

  Mr. Hague
  I have increased resources for the NHS in Wales by 3.9 per cent. in 1996–97. This represents growth of 1.1 per cent. in real terms. Together with 3 per cent. efficiency savings I have asked for from health authorities and trusts, this will allow the NHS to meet the pressures facing it next year and to continue to increase investment in patient care.

  Road Transport Safety
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to improve road transport safety in Wales. [14175]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office is continually seeking ways to improve the safety of road users throughout Wales. A contract will shortly be let for a detailed study of the trunk road network in Wales, to identify priorities for casualty reduction over the next five years; and a number of road safety publicity campaigns and initiatives are planned.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the latest available figures for inward investment in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [14176]

  Mr. Hague
  Since 1983, almost 1,400 projects have been recorded involving over 82,000 new and almost 50,000 safeguarded jobs, and investment of over £7 billion. Wales continues to be very successful in attracting inward investment.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the level of inward investment (i) into Wales and (ii) into the rest of the United Kingdom over the past(a) five and (b)10-year period on a per capita basis. [14180]

  Mr. Hague
  Based on figures notified by companies to the Invest in Britain Bureau at the time of investment decisions, inward investment per capita in the last five 40
  years was £1,018.62 for Wales and £382.51 for the United Kingdom; in the last 10 years the figures were £1,095.29 and £620.44 respectively.

  Companies are under no obligation to notify their investment decisions, and the figures take no account of subsequent developments.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of(a) the progress of and (b) incentives for (i) inward investment and (ii) expansion of existing plants in Wales. [14182]

  Mr. Hague
  We have a range of measures at our disposal—land, site and factory deals; training support; Source Wales; financial support and a loyal and industrious work force, a good record on industrial disputes and stable economic conditions which put Wales at the forefront of our inward investment success.

  Public Expenditure and Taxation Receipts
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent estimate he has made of(a) total public expenditure and (b) total taxation receipts in Wales in 1996–97. [14177]

  Mr. Hague
  No such estimates have been made for 1996–97. In 1993–94, it is estimated that total Government expenditure on behalf of Wales was £14.7 billion, while total revenue raised from Wales was £9.3 billion.

  National Health Service Administration
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the amount spent on NHS administration in Wales in(a) 1991–92 and (b) 1994–95. [14178]

  Mr. Richards
  The amount spent on NHS administration in Wales in 1991–92 and 1994–95 was around £107 million and £147 million respectively.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received about the systems for electing a Welsh Assembly. [14179]

  Mr. Hague
  I have received two representations, one from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and one from the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many requests have been received for a pilot scheme for the Government's nursery voucher proposals for Wales. [14181]

  Mr. Richards
  There have been some suggestions that there should be a pilot scheme in Wales, but no offers or requests by local education authorities to participate in such a scheme.
  41

  Rhondda Cynon Taff Unitary Authority
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to meet representatives of the Rhondda Cynon Taff unitary authority to discuss the future provision of public services. [14183]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is for local authorities to consider how they carry out their functions in the light of local circumstances and priorities.

  Defence Procurement
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has made to secure a greater share of defence procurement work for Wales. [14184]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Government procurement policy rests on the principle of securing value for money, primarily through competition. The capabilities of UK industry—including, where appropriate, companies in Wales—are fully considered in all defence procurement decisions.

  Schools (Selection)
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received about selection in schools in Wales. [14185]

  Mr. Richards
  We have received four representations to date in response to a consultation exercise we are undertaking on allowing schools greater flexibility with regard to selection on the basic of aptitude or ability. Consultation closes on 23 February.

  Local Authority Tenants
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number and percentage of local authority tenants who are paying the current rents in full(a) in Wales and (b) in Mid-Glamorgan. [13373]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of local authority tenants paying rents in full

  Percentage of local authority tenants paying rents in full

  Wales

  55,198

  26.7

  Mid Glamorgan

  7,758

  20.4

  Source:

  Local authorities' 1995–96 housing revenue account subsidy claim forms.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many written parliamentary questions were passed for answer to executive agencies and non-governmental departments in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [14989]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is a matter of public record but it could be extracted in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.
  42

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from the Welsh Language Board concerning the Council of Europe's charter for minority languages. [15627]

  Mr. Hague
  The Welsh Language Board's views on the matter have been made available to me in the course of discussions between my officials and those of the board.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he has taken to improve access to business advice for small firms in Wales. [14162]

  Mr. Richards
  The formation, last year, of the eight business development consortia in Wales and my recent launch of the associated business connect service have all been designed to improve access to business advice and other enterprise support schemes by firms in Wales.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the surgeons employed by NHS trusts whose total waiting times exceed 104 weeks in the latest waiting times information bulletin of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, giving data for 31 December 1995; what is the number of weeks total waiting time for each such surgeon; and if each such surgeon has agreed a job plan with the employing trust. [15985]

  Mr. Hague
  The latest information on waiting times for first out-patient appointments and for in-patient or day case treatment, by consultant, for certain procedures is given in the January 1996 edition of the "Hospital Waiting Times Bulletin". I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Information on job plans agreed by consultants with their employing NHS trusts is not held centrally.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has obtained from Welsh ambulance trusts regarding the number of ex-ambulance trust employees on early retirement using their own cars to drive ambulant patients to out-patient clinics; what guidance he has given with respect to(a) remuneration, (b) clawback, (c) insurance and (d) future policy; and if he will make a statement. [15994]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the South East Wales ambulance trust concerning issues of regularity and propriety in the conduct of the trust's affairs; what notice he has been given of the reason for the extraordinary board meeting scheduled for 15 February; and if he will make a statement. [15984]

  Mr. Hague
  I have had no such consultations. My Department expressed concern to the trust about its business position in 1994–95 and required that specific action be taken to resolve its financial problems. By
  43
  December 1995, it had become clear that there had been an inadequate response. The Department insisted that the trust review urgently its managerial and financial controls. This review has revealed serious weaknesses in these areas and inadequate supervision of trust affairs by the board. It is for the board to decide on the timing and purpose of its meetings.

  Hospital Waiting List Initiative
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 12 February,Official Report, column 478, what guarantees he has received from family health services authorities making funds available to general practitioner fundholders for treatment or diagnosis of long-wait patients in orthopaedics, with respect to the regularity and propriety of the expenditure in (a) the private sector and (b) NHS surgical firms on out-of-session terms. [15992]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 16 February,Official Report, columns 732–33.

  Orthopaedic Surgery
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of orthopaedic consultants employed in each Welsh hospital trust per 10,000 people living in the corresponding health authority. [15986]

  Mr. Hague
  The information, which relates to the provisional whole-time equivalent number of consultants in the specialty of traumatic and orthopaedic surgery employed at 30 September 1995, is given in the following table.

  Rate per 10,000 health authority population 1

  Clwyd

  Glan Clwyd Hospital NHS Trust

  0.10

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital NHS Trust

  0.06

  Dyfed

  Carmarthen and District NHS Trust

  0.11

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales NHS Trust

  0.05

  Llanelli Dinefwr NHS Trust

  0.06

  Pembrokeshire NHS Trust

  0.06

  Gwent

  Glan Hafren NHS Trust

  0.15

  Nevill Hall and District NHS Trust

  0.07

  Gwynedd

  Gwynedd Hospitals NHS Trust

  0.13

  Mid Glamorgan

  Bridgend and District NHS Trust

  0.04

  East Glamorgan NHS Trust

  0.03

  Merthyr Cynon Health Unit

  0.05

  Rhymney Valley Health Unit

  0.03

  Powys

  Powys Health Care NHS Trust

  0.04

  South Glamorgan

  Llandough Hospital NHS Trust

  0.01

  University Hospital of Wales Healthcare NHS Trust

  0.14

  44

  Rate per 10,000 health authority population 1

  West Glamorgan

  East Health Unit (Glan-y-Mor shadow NHS Trust)

  0.04

  Morriston Hospital NHS Trust

  0.20

  Swansea NHS Trust

  0.02

  1 Figures are expressed as the rate per 10,000 population (mid 1994 estimates) living in the health authority in which the trust is situated. Where there is more than one trust situated in a health authority, the same population, relating to all residents of the health authority, is used to calculate the rate for each trust.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 12 February,Official Report, column 478, what representations he has received from general practitioners in South Glamorgan concerning the use of waiting list initiative money to purchase orthopaedic surgical treatment from NHS orthopaedic surgeons in NHS hospitals on piecework terms on weekends for long-wait patients; and if he will make a statement. [15988]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 13 February,Official Report, column 497, if he will give the total numbers of patients on the list of (a) fundholders and (b) non-fundholders in each health authority area; and what weighting he has (i) made and (ii) proposes to make for different age distribution in the population of each health authority using the patient unit formula. [15990]

  Mr. Hague
  The total number of patients on the lists of fundholders and non-fundholders in each family health services authority area in 1994–95 were:

  Number of patients (000)

  PHSA

  Fundholders

  Non-fundholders

  Clwyd

  188

  238

  Dyfed

  157

  206

  Gwent

  178

  284

  Gwynedd

  54

  196

  Mid Glamorgan

  120

  446

  Powys

  92

  38

  South Glamorgan

  154

  283

  West Glamorgan

  209

  178

  These figures are not weighted for age. Figures expressed as prescribing units are not readily available.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 12 February,Official Report, column 478, and to the letter of guidance to South Glamorgan family health services authority on purchasing probity by general practitioner fundholders, what guidance he has issued to the chairman of the University Hospital of Wales NHS trust regarding the need to ensure that consultants employed by it behave with probity and avoid allowing their private activity to interfere with their NHS practice. [15991]
  45
  Mr. Hague
  None. Guidance on all aspects of the management of private practice in the NHS is contained in the document known as the "Green Book" which was issued in 1986.

  Welsh Economic Forum
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions and on what dates the Welsh Economic Forum has met; what were the principal matters discussed; and what was the membership at the latest effective date. [15982]

  Mr. Hague
  The Welsh Economic Council met on 30 March 1994; 25 July 1994; 7 December 1994; and 26 April 1995. The topics for discussion were respectively: training and enterprise; communications; urban renewal; and the rural economy.

  Until 31 January 1996, of the original appointments, membership was as follows:
  Professor J. Andrews; Ms N. Bray OBE; Mr. R. Cuthbertson MBE; Professor T. Congdon; Mr. C. Hadley OBE; Mr. D. Jenkins MBE; Councillor J. Pembridge; Mr. T. Lewis; Mr. D. Rowe-Beddoe; Councillor T. Williams; Mr. J. Troth OBE.

  I am currently considering the future of the council, and am awaiting the local authorities proposals on a reconstituted council for the future.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Sport Councils
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many times the Great Britain Sports Council met in its last year of operation; and if she will list those who attended each meeting. [12899]

  Mr. Sproat
  The GB Sports Council met 12 times last year. Mr. R. M. Walker, GB chairman attended all 12 meetings; Mr. G. Dennis, vice-chair, Mr. M. Parker and Mr. G. Simmers attended 11; Mr. T. Brooking, vice-chair, and Mr. O. Wheatley, 10; Mr. T. Marshall, Mr. K. Oates and Dr. S. Springman, nine; Ms J. Bracewell and Mr. J. F. Elms, seven—Mr. Elms' term of office expired on 30 September 1995; Mr. G. Thompson, five; and Sir David Simon, four; Sir David's term ended on 30 September 1995. Officials of the Sports Council were present as necessary. An assessor from the Department of National Heritage, and observers from the home country sports councils and the Central Council for Physical Recreation, also attended.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many times the new United Kingdom Sports Council has met; and if she will list those who have attended each meeting. [12900]

  Mr. Sproat
  The formal establishment of the UK Sports Council is subject to the granting of a royal charter. A UK sub-committee of the Sports Council has met formally five times. Sir Ian MacLaurin (chairman), Mr. C. Reedie and Mr. O. Wheatley have attended all five

  meetings;

  Mr. D. Allen, Mr. G. Simmers and Dr. S. Springman, four; Mr. R Walker, three; and Mr. C. Lloyd one. Officials of the Sports Council were present as necessary. An
  46
  assessor from the Department of National Heritage and observers from the home country sports councils and the British Olympic Association have also attended.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many times the new English Sports Council has met; and if she will list those who have attended each meeting. [12898]

  Mr. Sproat
  The formal establishment of the English Sports Council is subject to the granting of a royal charter. An English sub-committee of the Sports Council has met once, informally, in January 1996. Those attending were Mr. Rodney Walker, Mr. Trevor Brooking, Mr. Peter Blake, Ms Julia Bracewell, Mr. Jim Munn, Mr. Keith Oates, Mr. David Oxley, Mr. Jeff Probyn, Mr. Sam Stoker. Officials from the Sports Council and the Department of National Heritage were also present.

  Listed Industrial Buildings
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what research her Department has carried out into the impact on private property values of the listing of industrial premises; and what compensation is offered to the owners of a property that is listed; [14980]

  (2) what research her Department has carried out into the extra costs placed upon businesses by the listing of industrial properties. [14979]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department, English Heritage and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors have jointly commissioned three research studies into economic aspects of the listing of historic buildings. The performance of listed buildings in the investment property market was considered by the investment property databank—"The Investment Performance of Listed Buildings, November 1993"; a pilot study by Cambridge university's property research unit examined the effect of listing on the value of buildings—"The Listings of Buildings: The Effect on Value, May 1994"—and a recent study by Reading university's department of economics and DTZ Debenham Thorpe has investigated ways in which the wider benefits of listing and conservation might be valued and measured.

  The first two studies provided evidence that while commercial buildings can experience a one-off drop in value at the time of listing, thereafter they perform as investments as well as, or better than, similar buildings which are not listed, even when extra costs of upkeep are taken into account. There is no provision for compensating owners of buildings that are listed—through in certain circumstances repairs grants may be available. Planning policy guidance note 15:"Planning and the Historic Environment" exhorts local planning authorities and applicants for listed building consent to adopt a flexible approach wherever possible to proposed changes to listed commercial buildings. In the forthcoming heritage Green Paper, we shall be consulting on a range of possible changes to listing and listed building control procedures.

  National Lottery
  Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which projects in the Lancaster and Morecambe travel-to-work area have benefited from lottery funding; and what sums they have received. [15094]
  47
  Mr. Sproat
  Figures for national lottery projects in the Lancaster and Morecambe travel-to-work area are not available. However, 12 grants to projects totalling £2.7 million have been awarded to various projects in Lancaster and Morecambe.

  Date

  Project

  Area(s)

  £

  Sports

  6 September 1995

  Quernmore Recreation Club

  Lancaster

  2,314,259.00

  NHMF

  19 September 1995

  King's Own Royal Lancaster Regiment Museum

  Lancaster

  94,414.00

  NHMF

  19 September 1995

  Ruskin Library/University of Lancaster

  Lancaster

  62,502.00

  Arts

  21 September 1995

  The Folly Trust

  Lancaster

  61,210.00

  Sports

  3 October 1995

  Lancaster, John O'Gaunt Rowing Club

  Lancaster

  57,318.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Lancaster, Morecombe and District Spastics

  Morecambe and Heysham

  48,000.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Lancaster Boys Club

  Morecambe

  47,566.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Lancaster and District Women's Aid

  Lancaster

  22,100.00

  Sports

  10 January 1996

  Lancaster YMCA

  Lancaster, Morecombe and District

  17,500.00

  Arts

  30 March 1995

  Morecombe Youth Band

  Lancaster, Lancashire

  15,000.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Arthritis Care— Morecambe

  Lancaster, Lancashire

  6,790.00

  NLCB

  23 October 1995

  Morecambe and Heysham Citizens Advice Bureau

  Morecambe, Lancashire

  6,545.00

  Total

  12 projects

  2,753,204.00

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what guidance is given to boards of trustees about the declaration of interest when fulfilling their duties of distributing national lottery funds. [15098]

  Mr. Sproat
  The second financial direction issued to all lottery distributors under section 26 (3) and (4) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 states that each distributor shall devise and abide by a procedure for handling potential conflicts of interest which may arise in the evaluation of applications by the body or individual members of that body. This should be provided to the Secretary of State before the distribution of any funds under section 25 of the Act, and thereafter at the beginning of each financial year.

  It is the responsibility of the individual body concerned to ensure that trustees are aware of the respective requirements and comply with them.

  Millennium Awards
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) when she plans to announce the headline themes for millennium awards as set out in her consultation document; [11988]
  48
  (2) what measures she intends to take to ensure that the millennium awards will benefit those areas of the country most in need of extra funding; [11969]

  (3) how much matching funding she expects to achieve for the millennium awards; [11986]

  (4) what measures she has taken to ensure that (a) all sections of society and (b) those areas of the country most in need benefit from the millennium awards; [11970]

  (5) for which schemes funded by the millennium awards applicants will have to provide matching funding. [11987]

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

  Torbay Picture House
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will take steps to protect the Torbay picture house from being removed from the English Heritage list of protected buildings. [15064]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Torbay picture house is included as a grade II building in the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to change its protected status. Any application for listed building consent in respect of works to the building would be a matter for the local planning authority in the first instance.

  Byland Abbey (Floor Tiles)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action her Department has taken to preserve the medieval floor tiles at Byland abbey, North Yorkshire; and if she will make a statement. [15008]

  Mr. Sproat
  These medieval tiles are currently the subject of a two-year study under English Heritage's conservation research programme. This includes the completion of a photographic record of all the tiles and a survey of their condition. Environmental conditions are being monitored to give a full picture of the effects of temperature and humidity. English Heritage's report will be published in August 1996, and is expected to recommend improvements to the current maintenance regime to enable the medieval tiles to be preserved on site.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many written parliamentary questions were passed for answer to executive agencies and non-governmental departments in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [14986]

  Mr. Sproat
  The information requested is a matter of public record, but it could be extracted in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

  Tourism
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list(a) the per capita grant

  49
  in aid and (b) the grant in aid awarded to (i) the British Tourist Authority, (ii) the English tourist board, (iii) the Wales tourist board, (iv) the Scottish tourist board and (v) the Northern Ireland tourist board in each year since 1979. [15314]

  British tourist authority

  English tourist board

  Scottish tourist board

  Wales tourist board

  Northern Ireland tourist board

  GIA £ million

  £ per head population

  GIA £ million

  £ per head population

  GIA £ million

  £ per head population

  GIA £ million

  £ per head population

  GIA £ million

  £ per head population

  1979–80

  12.8

  0.23

  10.3

  0.22

  4.3

  0.83

  3.7

  1.32

  3.9

  2.55

  1980–81

  14.2

  0.26

  11.5

  0.25

  5.2

  1.00

  4.3

  1.54

  4.8

  3.14

  1981–82

  16.2

  0.30

  12.7

  0.27

  6.1

  1.18

  5.1

  1.82

  5.3

  3.46

  1982–83

  18.1

  0.33

  14.9

  0.32

  7.2

  1.40

  5.6

  2.00

  5.2

  3.38

  1983–84

  16.9

  0.31

  14.9

  0.32

  8.1

  1.57

  5.0

  1.79

  4.5

  2.92

  1984–85

  17.3

  0.31

  17.7

  0.38

  10.0

  1.94

  6.4

  2.29

  5.1

  3.29

  1985–86

  17.1

  0.31

  16.7

  0.35

  8.7

  1.69

  7.7

  2.75

  5.4

  3.46

  1986–87

  20.6

  0.37

  20.3

  0.43

  9.1

  1.78

  7.9

  2.82

  5.6

  3.57

  1987–88

  22.0

  0.40

  23.3

  0.49

  9.1

  1.78

  8.8

  3.14

  5.0

  3.16

  1988–89

  23.7

  0.43

  25.8

  0.54

  9.9

  1.94

  9.3

  3.26

  5.4

  3.42

  1989–90

  25.6

  0.46

  21.8

  0.46

  11.9

  2.34

  10.0

  3.48

  5.7

  3.61

  1990–91

  27.5

  0.49

  17.2

  0.36

  12.3

  2.41

  10.6

  3.68

  7.5

  4.72

  1991–92

  29.2

  0.52

  20.0

  0.42

  12.8

  2.51

  11.4

  3.94

  7.1

  4.44

  1992–93

  30.9

  0.55

  18

  0.37

  13.6

  2.66

  13.7

  4.72

  11.6

  7.16

  1993–94

  32.2

  0.57

  14.9

  0.31

  13.8

  2.70

  13.8

  4.76

  12.1

  7.42

  1994–95

  33.2

  0.59

  11.3

  0.23

  17.4

  3.39

  14.4

  4.95

  12.5

  7.62

  1995–96

  34.5

  0.61

  10.0

  0.20

  16.9

  3.29

  14.7

  5.03

  13.7

  8.38

  Sources:

  Population Estimates Unit (OPCS) 1979–1994.

  Government Actuaries Department 1995.

  (1992—based projections).

  The British Tourist Authority is responsible for marketing Great Britain overseas. The grant per capita for BTA has therefore been calculated using the total population of England, Wales and Scotland.

  Geese (Royal Parks)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 251, what method is used to kill geese in the royal parks; and at what time of the day the geese are killed. [14865]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 12 February 1996]: Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency under its chief executive, Mr. David Welch. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from David Welch to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 19 February 1996:
  Rt Hon lain Sproat, Minister of State for National Heritage, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the method used to kill geese in the Royal Parks and the time of day when they are killed.
  The geese are shot by the Agency's marksmen, in daylight, during the early hours of the morning.

  Military Knights
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her answer of 30 January 1996,Official Report, column 693, what are the criteria which must be fulfilled for officers wishing to become military knights in Windsor. [14968]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 13 February 1996] The main criteria are:
  He must have held a commission in the Regular Army.
  He must be appointed by the age of 65 years.
  50
  Mr. Sproat
  The total Government grant awarded to each of the statutory tourist boards for each year from 1979 to the current year in cash figures, and expressed per head of population for the countries covered by the boards was as follows:

  He must be physically and mentally fit and have a medical certificate to this effect.
  His gross income must not exceed a certain level, set from time to time by the keeper of the Privy Purse.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many environmental appraisals were produced by her Department using the guidance contained in the Department of the Environment's "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" in 1995; and if she will place copies in the Library. [15112]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 14 February 1996]: No specific environmental appraisals were produced in 1995.

  Football Players (Transfers)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment her Department has made of the impact of the Bosman case in the European Court of Appeal on professional football players in the United Kingdom; what assessment she has made of the extent to which out-of-contract players will be free to move to new clubs without(a) reference and (b) payment to their previous club; and what plans her Department has to issue guidelines to players on this subject. [15388]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 15 February 1996]: The European Court of Justice ruling in the Bosman case established that article 48 of the EC treaty prevents clubs from demanding a payment to release an out-of-contract player to a club in another member state, and also prohibits rules limiting the number of players from other member

  51
  states which may be fielded. The court did not rule on domestic transfers. My Department is keeping in close contact with the European Commission on these issues. I understand that the English football governing bodies have acted to comply with the judgment.

  Foreign Flags
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what guidance has been issued as to when the flag of a foreign nation may be flown along with the national flag on Government or public buildings. [14330]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 15 February 1996]: There is no Government guidance on when a flag of a foreign nation may be flown along with the Union flag on Government or public buildings.

  Public Service Broadcasters
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will summarise the public service conditions which attach to each of the existing public service broadcasters, including the holders of the teletext licences; and if she will indicate in the case of any such broadcaster not being allocated guaranteed increased capacity in the digital environment the considerations underlying the decision not to allocate such capacity. [15474]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 16 February 1996]: The BBC's services are governed by the terms of its charter and agreement. Channel 3 licensees are required to provide a diverse programme service calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests, including high-quality national and international news and current affairs, religious programmes and educational programmes. The regional Channel 3 licensees also have to show regional programming. Channel 4 is required to show a suitable proportion of programmes which are calculated to appeal to tastes and interests not generally catered for by Channel 3; programmes of an educational nature; and news programmes and current affairs programmes of high quality.

  S4C is required to broadcast a substantial proportion of its programmes in Welsh and these are to be of a high-quality. The public teletext licensee has to include in his service a sufficient amount of high-quality national and international news; information of a regional nature and a range of information calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests.

  Teletext has been offered capacity on the multiplex to be shared between Channel 3, Channel 4 and S4C. The Secretary of State recently met Teletext to discuss its digital service and is considering further its request for increased guaranteed capacity. No decision has yet been made on that request.

  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the existing public service broadcasters, indicating in each case the extent to which they are to be allocated guaranteed increased capacity within the digital environment for the provision of new services. [15473]
  52
  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 16 February 1996]: The existing public service broadcasters are the BBC, Channel 3, Channel 4 and S4C. Teletext holds the public service teletext licence. The BBC has been offered a whole multiplex in respect of BBC1 and BBC2. Channel 3 has been offered half a multiplex—equivalent to approximately 9 megabits per second. Channel 4 has been offered half a multiplex throughout the UK except in Wales, where it has been offered a quarter of a multiplex. S4C has been offered a quarter of a multiplex in Wales.

  The Government judge that a quarter of a multiplex should be more than sufficient for a broadcaster to reproduce an existing programme service to an acceptable level of picture quality in digital form. It is a matter for the broadcasters whether any extra capacity available to them is used to enhance the technical quality of the simulcast service or to provide new services. Teletext has been offered sufficient capacity on the multiplex carrying Channel 3/Channel 4/S4C to provide its existing service in digital form to a technical standard equivalent to its analogue service.

DEFENCE

  Departmental Publications
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of his Department's administrative manuals and internal guidance are now made public; and which remain private. [14035]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department does not maintain a central list of all internal administrative manuals and guidance documents, and this could be compiled only at disproportionate cost. Any requests for information about such documents are dealt with in accordance with the code of practice on access to Government information, and non-disclosure will result only where the exemptions in part II of the code apply.

  Competing for Quality
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to introduce new standard intellectual property rights arrangements to allow fair competition for Ministry of Defence contracts under the competing for quality policy. [15466]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Negotiations with industry on a new intellectual property rights protocol to encourage fair competition for contracts under the Department's competing for quality programme have been concluded satisfactorily. The new arrangements will begin to be put in place over the coming months.

  RAF Aircraft
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the causes and consequences of the shortage of spare parts(a) for Tornado fighter aircraft and (b) other RAF aircraft. [15446]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 4 December 1995,Official Report, column 4.

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

Sir Leon Brittan: The Times Article
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of an article by Sir Leon Brittan, a European Commissioner, in The Times of 7th February, headed "Rifkind should beware", in which demands are made for them to behave in a specific manner within the ambit of British political controversy, they propose to make any rejoinder.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood):The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, no.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in that article Sir Leon Brittan is presuming to criticise a Minister of the Government and to tell him what line he ought or ought not to take in a matter which is subject to British political controversy? Does the Minister believe that that is appropriate or does he wish to minimise his sense of solidarity with his colleague in the Foreign Office?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, if Sir Leon Brittan criticised my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, the criticism is not to be found in the article of 7th February this year, which succinctly lays out a case close to the British Government's approach to these matters and is very much supportive of it.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that the supplementary which came from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, was of extremely liberal construction, even in these days when such things are popular?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. It was so liberal that it appears to have no basis in the document from which it is alleged to be derived.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the article to which I referred, under the authorship of Sir Leon Brittan, says,
"Don't pander to the sceptics".?
It continues,
"This Government must show that such fears are unfounded, and must highlight the benefits of EU membership. It has chosen to do so in its reaction to the new era in Euro-American relations, and wisely so. It must apply the same approach elsewhere".
Since when has any government in the United Kingdom been responsible to a Eurocrat for the line they take in regard to their policies? Would it not be better
856
if the Eurocrats kept themselves within their own business and for once criticised the Government of Germany for being well behind in their legislation dealing with the single market?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the remarks by Sir Leon Brittan quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, from the article in The Times underscore precisely the Government's policy in this respect. In speaking of the attitude to the European Union, Sir Leon Brittan says,
"It must apply the same approach elsewhere, weighing up every issue in the balance of British interests".
That is the Government's policy. We believe it to be the right policy for this country and intend to continue in that respect.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that on this exceptional occasion the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has gone right over the top? Anybody is free to criticise or support this Government as they wish.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Whether or not the Government would normally use the words "over the top" to describe the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, they are appropriate in these circumstances.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may squeeze in a word on this occasion. Is the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, aware that many of us believe that freedom of speech should be applied even in the case of Sir Leon Brittan?
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most reassured.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I believe I heard the noble Lord refer to this matter as one of government policy. Can he say whether there are any guidelines in connection with it?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, this is long-established policy. In respect of the European Union, this Government approach issues on their merits, putting in the balance whether or not the policies, whichever way they go, are in the best interests of the people.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the Minister please note that we on these Benches object to the use of the word "liberal" in connection with the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, particularly bearing in mind that our stand in relation to the European Union is rather different from his?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I find the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, most helpful. However, I am reluctant to enter into an inter-Opposition dispute on the matter.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House how a member of the European Commission who is also a Privy Counsellor reconciles his oath as a Privy Counsellor and that which he takes

857
as a European Commissioner when the subject under consideration is in conflict with one of the two positions?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, there is no conflict, as was clear from the extracts I read out to your Lordships.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, far from going over the top as was suggested by his noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, my noble friend was entirely reasonable? Indeed, I think he was uncharacteristically mild. Does he not agree that there is an increasing tendency for members of the European Commission to act, behave and speak as if they were the European Government? Perhaps it is about time that the British Government, who consist of elected people, told the European Commission to keep in its place.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the European Commission is not now, never has been, and never will be, if this party has anything to do with it, a European Government. With regard to the other part of the noble Lord's question, I suspect that the noble Lord was being as reasonable as he was previously liberal.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington is always uncharacteristically mild—thank heavens? Is he further aware that my noble friend has a very basic view, which is that British Commissioners should not criticise British politics but that British Commissioners should criticise the politics of every other member of the EU?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the position so succinctly.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that is not my position at all? Is he further aware that on the question of free speech, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hams of Greenwich, when I ventured to criticise M. Jacques Delors for criticising the British Prime Minister at that time, he retorted to me, "Well, it's a free country, isn't it?"?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is not for me to come between the Leader of the Opposition and one of his battalions.

Secure Training Centres
2.46 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the present state of the programme for providing five secure training centres under the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch):My Lords, tender proposals for the first two secure training centres were received on 12th June 1995. Contracts will be signed as soon as the terms of the
858
contractual agreement have been settled. An invitation to negotiate in respect of a third site will be issued shortly, and for the other two sites once outline planning permission is obtained.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am much obliged for the information given in that reply. However, since I remain opposed to the concept of these penal-type institutions for 12 to 14 year-olds, I feel that it does not fall to me to express disappointment at what seems to be a rather slow and patchy progress. But some important issues are raised. If just one centre is working or a second centre starts working a little later, as appears to be the case, what will the catchment area be? Will some of these children find themselves detained hundreds of miles away from their families, with all the difficulties of visiting, and hundreds of miles away from the professionals who will be concerned with that part of the sentence which is to be served under supervision in the community? Are there not real difficulties ahead?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that there are two issues here. One is the policy, to which, as we all know, the noble Lord is opposed; the second is the progress that is being made. As to the specific answer to the question posed about implementation of the policy, that will be a matter for the terms of the secure training order when it is put into place. Therefore, I cannot give an answer except to say that there will be 12 to 14 year-olds who are persistent offenders for whom this sentence will be appropriate.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is fully aware of the position with regard to local authorities' secure training units, which are of course near to the children's homes. There are already 257 such places, which is obviously not enough. The Department of Health's capital programme is designed to increase the number of places by 170. I understand from the local authorities that many are already under construction, have planning permission and will be open by the end of the year and that another 62 will be open next year. Is this not of concern to us all? Are the two departments working against one another or with one another? How is it that £30 million a year will be spent on the secure training units run by the Home Office under private control which will be far from the children's homes while at the same time the local authorities are increasing the number of their places? Are we not wasting money?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the policies are certainly not in conflict. It is true that there are to be 170 new places in local authority secure accommodation, most of which will be in place by the end of this year. These places are not always appropriate because they are very scattered. The young people falling into the specific category of persistent juvenile offenders aged between 12 and 14 years will be very scattered and in very small numbers. There are also economies of scale in the new units. The needs of this particular category will be met by putting them into units of 40 in five institutions, with a very concentrated

859
and highly disciplined programme of education and training. I believe that they are different from the provision made by local authorities.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister tell me when the Home Office is going to pay local authorities for the children who are sent to local authority secure units by the courts? I understand that there was some agreement between the Home Office and the local authorities that it would pay for those children, but so far no payments have been made.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is money in the system for sending young people to secure training units. That is already taking place. No one is saying that there is not always tension about what can be provided. Therefore, I do not know what specific question the noble Baroness is asking.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not make it clear. I understood that when the courts send children to local authority secure units the Home Office had agreed to pay the necessary fees.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, when the courts send a person to a secure training unit that will be the arrangement.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there has been speculation that the contracts for the secure training centres are for 15 years? Can the Minister give any information about that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot enter into detail about the particular negotiations for the contracts because we are in the throes of doing that at the moment. What is very important is that the contract should cover a reasonable length of time because the private sector is putting up the money to provide them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in her first reply the Minister said that tenders had been received on 12th June 1995. As I understand it, she is now saying that the negotiations are continuing. Does that mean that the contractors have been asked to submit revised tenders and, if so, does that mean that the planned opening dates of autumn 1996 for Gringley and March 1997 for Cookham Wood will no longer apply and will have to be delayed?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is an appropriate question because the tenders that were received were non-compliant with the specific terms of the specifications. What is being negotiated at this moment is a contract which is agreeable to the Government and the contractors.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what provision for secure training centres is to be made for Wales?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, none of these five units will be located in Wales. They will all be located in England.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the local authority increase in the
860
number of places is matched by an increase in the number of staff training under the auspices of Caldecott College? What plans do the Government have to ensure that they will have found trained staff for the new Home Office secure units when they open?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, when the secure training units are opened they will be properly staffed. That is in the terms of the contract.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, can the Minister say what will happen if Parliament subsequently decides to end the practice of having secure training centres? Do I understand that the agreement between the contractor and the Home Office is for 15 years? If that is so, what will happen if, during that period, Parliament decides to remove itself from this very unsatisfactory arrangement?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it will be a matter for any subsequent government to look at the terms of any contract arranged by a previous government. It will be for that government to consider whether there are penalties for reneging on any previous contract or bringing the terms of the contract to an end. Perhaps I may also say to the noble Lord and all noble Lords opposite who opposed this particular policy, that we have in this country a small, hard-core of young and very persistent offenders. We should not wring our hands and say, "What shall we do about them?". The Government have taken courage to do something about them. I wish them well in finding a successful policy to rid ourselves of this daily menace.

Armed Forces Pension Scheme
2.55 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have yet reached any decisions on the changes to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme recommended by the committee chaired by Sir Michael Bett on the pay and conditions of the Armed Forces.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, the recommendations made by Sir Michael Bett on pensions were among a large number that he made in his report on personnel issues in the Armed Forces. We are studying his proposals carefully but have not yet reached any decisions on possible changes to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he at least give us some assurance or comfort that when the Bett proposals come to be considered, if there are, as seems likely, substantial savings to be made in the pensions budget in the Ministry of Defence, some of the savings will be kept within the pension regime and put to good purpose such as, for example, extending the provision of war widows' pensions to recognised service before 1978?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Lord makes. It chimes in with our debates on this

861
issue last month in response to a question from my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. There is one point that I can make at this stage. As I have said, we have yet to reach conclusions about the final shape of the pension scheme. The difficulty with the idea that the noble Lord puts forward is that any new scheme will apply only to future service personnel. Therefore any savings would not start to accrue until about 20 years from the start. In other words, there would be no new money to fund retrospective improvements to the existing scheme. The Government are not treating this exercise as a way of creating savings, but at the end of the day there is unlikely to be a lot of spare money looking for a home.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, is it not a fact that the overall military pension system today is grossly unfair? The way that length of service, time of service and similar rank are treated is most inequitable. Whatever the Bett report decides, is it not time that the overall system of military pensions was completely revamped and modernised? Whether that can be done in retrospect is another matter. But does the noble Earl not agree that the present arrangements are probably the most old-fashioned of any that we have in this country and indeed when compared to any other country?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount that there are elements of the current scheme which could usefully be improved. We are looking at a number of recommendations, as he is aware, in the light of Sir Michael Bett's report. But I believe that the special nature of the commitment of service personnel is fully recognised by the Government and is reflected in their pension arrangements at the moment. Taken overall, the value of the benefits of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme is considerably greater than in most other public service schemes. In addition to that scheme, generous benefits are paid under the Department of Social Security war pensions scheme in cases of death or injury as a result of military service.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, although it is easy to see the force of the noble Earl's argument that it is difficult to add to the new scheme the duty of removing injustices from the old scheme, would it not be equally unjust to start the new scheme while leaving the old injustices in the air and doing nothing to overcome them? Can the Minister say when the Government will be ready to make a decision on this matter and what consultations they are having with the forces?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we hope to make a definitive announcement in the summer. We aim to give a detailed account of our proposals and decisions on all Sir Michael's recommendations at that stage. We are consulting widely as we consider these matters. It is important to look at Sir Michael Bett's
862
proposals in the round rather than to single out one or other aspect for special treatment. At the end of the day it is the package which will matter to servicemen.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, Armed Forces pensions are of course a matter of infinite complexity, but can the noble Earl give the House some assurance that if a new, modern, contributory pension scheme is introduced—I agree that there would be advantages and although I do not agree with my noble friend that the present scheme is as bad as all that, there are certain anomalies in its application—it will be properly funded and independently administered in accordance with the best civilian practice, as well as using this opportunity, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, suggested, to correct some of the anomalies of uneven application which have for so long brought the present scheme into disrepute?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I fully understand the points raised by the noble and gallant Lord and shall ensure that his remarks are brought to the attention of my right honourable friend. As I have said, we have reached no conclusions as yet, but it is important that we look at Sir Michael's proposals in the round. It is also important that at the end of the day we have a pension scheme which bears comparison with similar schemes in the public and private sectors.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend with respect whether Parliament will be in a position to consider the announcement to which he referred before any definitive decision is taken?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am sure that if your Lordships would like a debate on the issue that is a matter for the usual channels. At present the Government are considering the proposals. We have no specific plans for a parliamentary debate.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, although I agree that the Bett proposals should be taken as a totality and should not be considered as a series of single items, does the noble Earl agree that in the light of the timetable that has been announced for implementing the proposals, this matter will stretch into next year and possibly beyond? Therefore, in order to keep the Armed Forces out of any party political debate, would it not be sensible to consult the Opposition parties before the Government arrive at any final decision on the proposals?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am always ready to listen to the opinions of noble Lords opposite. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestion.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the noble Earl recall—he may be too young to do so—that in May 1980 the right honourable Member for Huntingdonshire said in another place on the subject of pensions:
"Service men, by virtue of their profession, are in a special position and should be treated accordingly".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/5/80; col. 1846.]?

863
Will the Government take that into account when they implement the Bett Report?
Earl Howe Earl Howe: My Lords, yes.

Prison Service: Director General
3.2 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to replace the Director General of the Prison Service.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is an important and sensitive appointment which needs the most careful consideration. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will make an announcement as soon as possible. In the meantime, Mr. Richard Tilt is doing an excellent job as acting director general.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Baroness on evading the issue with her usual charm and skill? Is she aware that The Times tells us today that the job has been touted around all over the place without success? In view of the disgraceful treatment of Mr. Derek Lewis and the low esteem in which government policies are held throughout the Prison Service, is the noble Baroness surprised that no one will touch that post with a barge pole?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is not the first Question from the noble Earl which I have answered when he has accused me of avoiding the Question and not responding to his points. I have given the noble Earl an honest Answer, which is the only Answer that I can give. I must advise the noble Earl that I do not take my guide from The Times or from any newspaper. The post has not been touted around. We have not yet advertised the post.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend see this moment as an opportunity to give the administration of prisons a United Kingdom dimension? May I thank my noble friend for the most interesting information (which she gave me in Written Answers on 29th January) about the computerisation of the records of those in prison in the United Kingdom? I was astonished to find that the police forces in England have no direct access to prison computer records; that the same situation prevails in Scotland; and that there is no link between Scotland and England and Wales on this? The Minister wrote that a centralised computer register of all persons detained in Her Majesty's penal establishments in Northern Ireland does not exist. Has not the time come to give a UK dimension to the administration of prisons?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very important point. It is certainly true that a great deal of work needs to be done to make sure that one part of the criminal justice system communicates with
864
another, using state of the art technology. I can give my noble friend the assurance that there is at present a great deal of activity on that front.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, without dissenting from what the Minister says about Mr. Richard Tilt, are not her earlier replies rather strange? The post became vacant last year, but the Minister now says that the post has not touted around—I assume that that means that nobody has been asked either directly or indirectly whether they are interested in applying for or taking the post—and that it has not yet been advertised. Why the delay?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there are people who are interested in the post. I know personally that people are interested in the post. That is a fact. As the noble Lord knows, there is currently a review within the department about the relationship between the agency, the Government and the Home Office. As I have already mentioned, it is a sensitive post which needs thinking about carefully. In the meantime, Mr. Richard Tilt is doing an excellent job, which means that the urgency is not quite as strong as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, does that mean that the Government are relaxed about allowing this "sensitive" position, as the noble Baroness described it, to remain open for several more months? When are we going to get a replacement for Mr. Lewis? Is the Minister aware that the reason that it is such a sensitive position is the deplorable way in which Mr. Lewis was sacked by the Home Secretary? Can the Minister say what stage has been reached in the action that is being taken by Mr. Lewis against the Home Secretary over the circumstances in which he was dismissed from his post?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I said that the Home Secretary will announce further progress as soon as possible. I also said that Mr. Richard Tilt, who is the acting director general at the moment, is doing an excellent job, so there is not the vacuum which the noble Lord suggests. It would be inappropriate for me to say anything at all about the progress that is being made with Mr. Derek Lewis. It is probably not correct to say that the matter is sub judice, but negotiations are continuing and it would be quite wrong of me to use this moment to say anything other than that the matter is in hand.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the Minister kindly indicate to the House what applicants will be told about the ministerial responsibility of the Home Office in regard to the post holder's activities?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is absolutely essential that any appointment is made on the basis of understanding the proper role of the director general and the post's relationship to the Home Office, recognising the responsibility and accountability to Parliament of the Home Secretary of the day.

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [General interpretation]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) References to material which might undermine the case for the prosecution are to material which may cast doubt upon the prosecution case.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will be aware that throughout our consideration of this Bill one of our most important concerns has been the adequacy of the definition of the primary disclosure by the prosecutor to the defence which will in turn trigger disclosure by the defence, both of which were recommendations of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice.
We have been very dissatisfied with the definition used in Clause 3(1)(a), which states:
"The prosecutor must—
(a) disclose to the accused any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed to the accused and which in the prosecutor's opinion might undermine the case for the prosecution against the accused".
We have attempted by arguments in Committee and on Report to suggest an alternative wording to that subsection. We have not succeeded in getting the support of the Government (and therefore of the Government's troops) for any changes of that kind. So we are adopting a different tack today. In Amendment No. 1 we propose to add a definition of "undermine" to the subsection in Clause 2 which deals with definitions. The definition we propose is that "undermine" should be a reference to:
"material which may cast doubt upon the prosecution case".
I believe that it will be agreed that in the English language "to cast doubt" on something is rather less demanding than "to undermine the case".
"Undermine" is a curious metaphor in any case to find in legislation. It is a metaphor from mining engineering, which one might say has no particular place in legislation in the first place. We are encouraged to include it because the Home Office itself, in discussions with the Law Society, has said that by "undermine" it means cast doubt upon. It is important that we should have a rather less rigid and prescriptive definition of the basis upon which the prosecution should disclose information to the defence, because we are worried, and have been worried throughout consideration of the Bill, that too much of a burden is being placed on the prosecutor in selecting what material should go to the defence.
The Government, throughout the Bill, from Second Reading onwards, have argued that one of the principle justifications for the Bill, and for the departure from the recommendations of the Royal Commission and from
866
judge-made law—practical judgments made in courts since the Royal Commission's report—is that at present there is too much of a burden on the prosecution.
Those who have been seeking to persuade me of their case in this matter have been the Criminal Bar Association and the Law Society. They are both convinced—and their views should be listened to—that it is the selection rather than the supply of a bundle of unused material which is in fact the real burden on the prosecution, and that if the prosecution were not to assume the role of deciding on behalf of the defence what may be relevant, we might achieve a better balance between defence and prosecution, and we might in fact reduce the burden on the prosecution.
As I have said, we have taken the wording of the amendment from the indications which have already been given by the Home Office in discussion with the Law Society. The slight difference in emphasis provided by the phrase "cast doubt upon" rather than "to undermine" will go a small but significant and useful way towards reducing the burden on the prosecution and improving the balance between the powers of the prosecution and those of the defence. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister says in answer to the amendment. It deserves careful consideration because, speaking from my own recollection which noble Lords may think is now becoming rather rusty, I do not recollect the word "undermine" being used in the law of evidence or in relation to the burden of proof in criminal cases. It may be that that does not matter greatly; it may be that when the matters dealt with in the early clauses of the Bill come before the courts, the courts will have no difficulty in understanding what is meant by the word "undermine". Having said that, it is necessary that we should get as near as possible to the terms of art already in use rather than introduce a new one.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord explained his concern that the test for primary prosecution disclosure may be too restrictive. I hope to be able to convince him, and my noble friend Lord Renton, and to be able to allay their concerns.
The Government have given considerable thought to the test for primary prosecution disclosure. We want to ensure that the prosecutor discloses at the first stage material which, generally speaking, has an adverse effect on the strength of the prosecution case.
Let me give two examples of the kind of material we have in mind. The first is a witness statement containing a description of the alleged offender which is different from the description of the accused. The second is a psychiatric report showing that the main prosecution witness has a history of psychiatric disorder with a tendency to fantasize. In both cases the material should as a matter of principle and of law be disclosed to the accused.
The test of "undermine the prosecution case" is wide enough to require the disclosure of material such as I have described. It is the test which we used in the

867
consultation paper on disclosure which we issued last May. A wide range of organisations responded to the consultation paper and none of them suggested replacing "undermine" with an alternative such as "cast doubt upon".
The noble Lord is concerned that the test of "undermine the prosecution case" could be interpreted in a restrictive way so that all that had to be disclosed was material which removed the foundations of the prosecution case. But the test extends to any material which might undermine the prosecution case. It is not confined to material raising a fundamental question about the prosecution. In that event, it surely is unlikely that the prosecutor would proceed with the case. Guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and, as the Code for Crown Prosecutors makes clear, the prosecutor may not bring proceedings unless there is a realistic prospect of conviction. The disclosure scheme is aimed at undisclosed material which might help the accused, notwithstanding that there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.
I turn now to the alternative formulation suggested by the noble Lord. It, too, would require the disclosure of the kind of material I have described. But it would go further than that. It could, for example, cover material which slightly weakened a peripheral aspect of the prosecution case without having any real effect on it. Such a test would be rather closer to the existing test for prosecution disclosure, which, as I have explained in previous proceedings on the Bill, does not focus on the real issues in dispute in the case; and which, as has been widely recognised, creates great difficulties in practice. In the light of my response, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether I have understood her properly. I understand her argument to be that when the word "undermine" is used, it in no way interferes with the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can give my noble friend an absolute assurance on that point.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am relieved that, having undergone the scrutiny of officials in the Home Office, my amendment means what I intended it to mean, which is, indeed, to widen the basis upon which material should be released to the defence. I am so often told by lawyers that because of my ignorance of the details of these matters the things I suggest would not in fact have the effect that I intended. I still find it strange—and I am glad to have the noble Lord, Lord Renton, with me—that we should use such a term as "undermine", which is an engineering term—to be precise, it is a military engineering term, is it not?—in legislation of this kind.
We are talking about casting doubt on the prosecution case. My wording avoids the trap of metaphor and the trap into which the Government have fallen by their desire to select more rigidly the information which has to be disclosed. But I recognise that we are in danger of arguing about how many angels could dance on the head
868
of a pin. I am afraid that unless the wording in the Bill is changed, it will lead to some of the miscarriages of justice which the setting up of the Royal Commission was intended to avoid. I believe that the balance of the Bill as drafted is tilted in the wrong direction. However, I do not believe that the difference between us is so great that I would be justified in seeking the opinion of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Primary disclosure by prosecutor]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 27, after ("prosecutor's") insert ("reasonable").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when this minor amendment was tabled on the previous occasion there was a significant amount of discussion. Clause 3 lays upon the prosecutor the duty and the burden of disclosing to the accused any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed and which, in the prosecutor's opinion, might undermine the case for the prosecution.
When the matter was before the House on the previous occasion a number of your Lordships supported our case that this was an improvement. The context in which we discussed the matter was that many recent miscarriages of justice have arisen, as the Government well recognise in the scheme of their Bill, by virtue of non-disclosure. The criticism mounted against the present draft was that the prosecutor's opinion is left as being subjective and not subject to the objective test as to whether the prosecutor's opinion was reasonable.
On the previous occasion I was fortified by support from the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Campbell of Alloway, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and, not least, from the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, whose commission did such sterling work in dealing with the problems. On that occasion I heard nothing convincing, or reasonably convincing, as to why the amendment was not properly seen as an improvement. I ask the Government, they having reflected in the meantime, to accept the amendment as an improvement to the present draft form. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I support the amendment. I am surprised that two words have been used which are, or should be, unnecessary. The sentence should read:
"which might undermine the case".
The phrase "prosecutor's opinion" is surplusage because the test, if it is sound, is bound to be objective. Therefore, it needs no reference to the prosecutor.
However, since the draftsman has sought to include "prosecutor" his opinion must be characterised by "reasonable", otherwise it is subjective and one will have the answer made for non-disclosure, "I honestly believed that this would not undermine", even though it is apparent to any reasonable person that it would. If the draftsman insists that "prosecutor" should be included, the opinion of the prosecutor must be characterised by the word "reasonable".
Lord Renton: My Lords, with respect to the noble and learned Lord, whose case I well understand because

869
he put it so clearly, I should have thought that the view he expressed would be better met if the words "in the prosecutor's opinion" were left out rather than adding the word "reasonable".
Lord AcknerLords, I believe that it is my fault for not being as clear as my noble friend suggested. I wanted those words left out but if they are included the qualification "reasonable" must accompany "the prosecutor's opinion".
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I support those who criticise the clause as it stands. Although other amendments might be better, given that we are at Third Reading I offer my support of the amendment now in front of us. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be prepared to accept it.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, although I have not taken part in or been present during earlier stages of the Bill, perhaps I may support what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams. Clearly, if one is to have a test it should be objective rather than subjective. While I totally agree that the number of papers now being required to be disclosed by the prosecution have become totally unreasonable, we must be careful that in bringing in this legislation we do not tilt the balance too far the other way.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as the noble Lord explained, the House debated similar amendments in Committee and on Report. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter suggested, this is not the stage to be considering on the Floor of the House alternatives to the present amendment.
I have reflected on the points which were made in those debates. I have to say that I still take the view that Clause 3 should remain as it is. As I have previously explained, the Bill clearly places the prosecutor under certain duties of disclosure. In discharging those duties the prosecutor will have to bear in mind his duty to secure a fair trial. Prosecuting counsel, for example, are bound by the Bar's code of conduct which sets out that:
"Prosecuting counsel should not attempt to obtain a conviction by all means at his command. He should not regard himself as appearing for a party. He should lay before the court fairly and impartially the whole of the facts which comprise the case for the prosecution and should assist the court on all matters of law applicable to the case."
The code for Crown prosecutors provides that:
"Fair and effective prosecution is essential to the maintenance of law and order".
And also:
"The duty of the CPS is to make sure … that all relevant facts are given to the court … Court Prosecutors must be fair."
In considering what material is required to be disclosed to the accused the prosecutor will bring his best judgment to bear and, as I said, he will have to keep in mind these duties.
The amendment would require him to consider what a prosecutor's reasonable opinion might be and not just, as the Bill does now, what is his opinion. But, again as
870
I have explained, the prosecutor will surely assume that his opinion is a reasonable opinion. I do not see how he could think otherwise, particularly since he is acting in a professional capacity and discharging duties prescribed by statute. I do not think that in practice, therefore, the amendments would achieve any improvement in the way the disclosure regime operates.
Lord Ackner:My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, does she accept that under the clause as drafted the prosecutor will have performed his duty if he honestly but unreasonably fails to produce the material?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, certainly the prosecutor would have to be honest. If he were not honest he would have other problems; certainly he would be in breach of his own codes and could be contributing to an unsafe conviction. I am not sure that the point raised by the noble and learned Lord is appropriate in this case. If the prosecutor were inadvertently unreasonable—I believe that the noble and learned Lord is suggesting that he may be acting incompetently—that could be a contributory factor and could be challenged later on conviction.
Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend finally sits down, in the circumstances is not a "reasonable" opinion exactly what is wanted? What harm could possibly be done by inserting the word at this stage?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the difference between us is that the prosecutor must act reasonably. He is not free to act unreasonably. During the course of his work he must, under a number of codes, act fairly, justly and reasonably. It seems unreasonable even to suggest the notion that one must put in statute that the prosecutor must act reasonably.
I remain of the view personally—as well as having been advised to advocate the view—that this is an unacceptable amendment. I invite the noble Lord not to press the amendment but, in view of the debate that we have had, I should like to reflect on the other points that have been made about the drafting. If the noble Lord is prepared to withdraw the amendment, then we shall reflect on the debate as a whole before the Bill goes to another place.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we have reflected for quite a long time. The Minister has valiantly, if I may say so, put forward a non-sustainable brief. I do not believe that she convinces any of us even on the balance of probabilities, let alone beyond reasonable doubt.
This is not a party point but is a determined effort to try to make legislation better than it is presently drafted. It is noteworthy that no one in the massed ranks which sometimes charge forward to support Home Office legislation has been able to do so. It is noteworthy also that either all or the overwhelming majority of noble Lords who have spoken are well familiar with Bar Council duties, having been subject to them, one way or another, for longer than most of us would care to reflect about.

871
In answer specifically to the discriminating intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that these were duties laid upon the Bar and that the prosecutor would be expected to behave reasonably, in a voice that was not so sotto voce, the noble Lord said, "Exactly". That is exactly what I reasonably suggest. Therefore, I intend to test the feeling of the House.
3.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 114.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Acton, L.

Jeger, B.

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Attlee, E.

Lawrence, L.

Bancroft, L.

Longford, E.

Barnett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Berkeley, L.

McNair, L.

Borrie, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mayhew, L.

Brain, L.

Mishcon, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monkswell, L.

Chester, Bp.

Morris of Castle Morris, L,

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nelson, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L

Palmer, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

David, B.

Redesdale, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B,[Teller]

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Sewel, L.

Donoughue, L

Shannon, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Shaughnessy, L

Dubs, L.

Shepherd, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sherfield, L,

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Simon, V.

Gerard, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Stedman, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L

Graham of Edmonton, L [Teller.].

Strabolgi, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Taverne, L

Grey, E

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Halsbury, E

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Haskel, L.

Tordoff, L

Hayman, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

White, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Howie of Troon, L

Winston, L

NOT CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ashbourne, L

Addison, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Ailsa, M.

Blaker, L.

Aldington, L.

Blatch, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Boardman, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ampthill, L.

Bradford, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Arran, E

Cadman, L.

872

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lucas, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McConnell, L

Carnock, L

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Chesham, L. [Teller]

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Courtown, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Mersey, V.

Cuckney, L

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Milverton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Munster, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elles, B.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Norfolk, D.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Norrie, L.

Faithfull, B.

Northesk, E

Ferrers, E.

Onslow, E.

Finsberg, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L

Oxfuird, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gainford, L

Pender, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Gisborough, L.

Pym, L.

Goold, L

Quinton, L.

Goschen, V.

Renwick, L.

Gray of Contin, L

Rippon of Hexham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hayhoe, L.

Seccombe, B.

Henley, L

Shaw of Northstead, L

Hertford, M.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hogg, B.

Strange, B.

Holderness, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Howe, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sudeley, L.

Inglewood, L.

Terrington, L

Ironside, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Trumpington, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Killearn, L.

Westbury, L.

Kimball, L

Whitelaw, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Wilcox, B.

Layton, L.

Wolfson, L.

Leigh, L.

Wynford, L.

Long, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.40 p.m.
Clause 4 [Primary disclosure: further provisions]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) and, except where an issue of national security arises, the prosecutor has satisfied himself that the document includes all material except sensitive material.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to the issue of sensitive material. Noble Lords who took part in the earlier consideration upon the Bill will remember that we were worried about a number of aspects of the definition and use of sensitive material in the disclosure process.
Our first concern was that it was the prerogative of the police, the investigator, alone to decide which material was or was not sensitive. We had some minor

873
worries about the definition of "sensitive material". But the principal concern was that the prosecutor who has to hand over all non-sensitive material in the primary disclosure process does not have any way of satisfying himself as to which material is and is not sensitive.
The code of practice which the Government helpfully published, and which is now, of course, to be subject to statutory instrument, sets out the definition of "sensitive material". That is due to the fact that we tabled it as an amendment so that everyone could see it, apart from it being available in the Library. Noble Lords will recall that the definition is very wide indeed. It starts with matters of national security and includes such things as foreign intelligence, but it goes on to include material, for example, which is given or gathered in confidence. Indeed, there is an extremely long list of types of material which may be considered sensitive.
When we proposed that the prosecutor should have the responsibility for satisfying himself as to whether or not material was sensitive, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, (who we are sorry not have with us this afternoon), objected to our amendment on the grounds that, in cases of national security, prosecuting counsel might not be cleared in security terms. I did not think very much of that argument, as the noble Lord realised at the time. However, in our usual reasonable way, we have attempted to meet the objection which might be raised and to be as modest and as helpful as we possibly can in drafting our amendment.
Under the amendment, the prosecutor would still have the responsibility of judging what is and what is not sensitive, except in cases of national security. I do not believe that we can go much further than that if we are to continue to express our serious concern at the imbalance of responsibility between the police—the investigator—and the prosecution in deciding what evidence shall be disclosed at the primary disclosure stage. Therefore, we very much hope that the Government will find it possible to accept the amendment, which has been drafted not in an adversarial spirit but in a genuine effort to seek the agreement of government. We hope that it will be acceptable also to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if I may say so, the amendment—moved with the best possible motives—contains, from the drafting point of view, something which causes me a little uncertainty. I say that because the word "except" is used twice. Not having been able to be here during the Committee stage or, indeed, on the first day of the Report stage, it is possible that I have not understood the matter as well as I should have.
However, could it be that the reference to "sensitive material" in the amendment relates to national security? I think that must be so. Therefore, in effect, by the use of the word "except" twice, the amendment gives rise to a double negative. Even though the substance of the point made by the noble Lord is sound, I must confess that I am a little worried about the drafting of the amendment.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon): My Lords, since a similar—indeed,
874
identical—amendment was before the House, the Government have given further consideration to what they perceive to be the purpose which lies behind the proposal. Undoubtedly the point raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway about national security has been addressed to some extent. However, the Government remain of the view that, despite the amendment not being extensive in terms, it would have a dramatic effect upon the balance which has been struck in the Bill between the duties placed upon the police as investigators and the duty on the prosecutor.
On one construction, the effect of the amendment would be that the prosecutor would be under a duty to satisfy himself that the schedule setting out the non-sensitive material contained all such material which had been held by the police in connection with the investigation, whether or not it was on the schedule of sensitive material. In other words, it would require the prosecutor to go right through the material available and carry out, again, the work which had been done by the police in the discharge of their duties under the scheme which the Bill proposes. The structure of the proposal is that the police are responsible for investigating, collecting material and making it available to the prosecutors with the relevant schedules. The prosecutor is then under a duty to consider what falls to be disclosed to the accused, whether initially under primary disclosure or in the continuing duty set out very clearly under Clause 9(2) of the Bill. Those duties are separate but complementary.
I repeat what I said on the last occasion when we considered the matter. Were it to be the case that the police knew in every instance that the work they carried out to categorise material as sensitive or non-sensitive would be reviewed on that approach by the prosecutor, there is a risk that they would not accept its importance and, therefore, would not fully implement the important duty which lies upon them.
I hear the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, saying that that is a dreadful thing to say. In response, although I accept that that comment may have had an element of jocularity about it, I must point out that anyone who has practised as part of a team, who knows that he is the junior member of it and that a senior member of the team will review the work, cannot and will not—and indeed, never does—put that thought out of his mind. Certainly, any junior counsel who knows that senior counsel is the person who will be reviewing the pleadings and ultimately defending the position in court, knows that there is that failsafe mechanism, if I may put it in those terms, lying ahead. One cannot put that out of one's mind.
I suggest to your Lordships that if the police felt that their initial assessment was merely an initial assessment which the prosecutor would have to reconsider de nouveau, they would have a similar view to the one which I described. It is important that one considers these matters as two separate but complementary responsibilities.

875
Having reflected fully on the issues which were raised on the previous occasion, and which have been raised again today, I hope that the noble Lord will feel it possible not to press the amendment.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I hope I may ask him a question which may be an elementary one. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who prefaced his remarks by saying he had not been present at the earlier stages of the Bill, I confess that I was here and therefore I probably have no excuse for my ignorance. The question arises from the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Who decides what is and is not an issue of national security? Recent experience has made plain that it is easy for those who wish to preserve secrets, or to deny the availability of documents, to argue that national security justifies that denial. It would be helpful to know who will decide and what safeguards there are as regards documents being withheld on grounds of national security which could have been made available.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, on one view that question should be asked of those who tabled the amendment because it is not the Government who are suggesting that an issue of national security should be addressed at this stage. The point raised by the noble Lord is valid because were this amendment to be implemented as framed, on one view it would be the police who would take the view that a box of documents gave rise to an issue of national security. It would be for the police to say whether documents are sensitive and involve an issue of national security, and therefore the prosecutor does not have the duty which is proposed in this amendment. Whether or not that is a desirable approach is obviously another matter altogether. In the context of the Third Reading of this Bill I do not think that we wish to become embroiled in the important issues which may lie ahead. However, I suggest that one implication of accepting this amendment is that one would run into difficult territory as regards who would have the responsibility of indicating that in a particular case an issue of national security arises, and therefore whether the provisions of this amendment apply in that case.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wish to respond first to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who queried whether the amendment contained a double negative in that the word "except" is used twice. The word is first used in the phrase,
"except where an issue of national security arises",
and that phrase is contained within commas. I do not think therefore that, syntactically, it can be said that the two words cancel each other out in creating a double negative. If I had used the words "other than" on one occasion rather than the word "except" that might have been more elegant. However, I do not think that would have affected the meaning. Indeed the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in his response did not follow up that point.
I apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in that he heard what I said to my neighbour on the Front Bench. I would not have wished to make
876
that remark directly to him from a seated position. However, as he repeated my remark, I shall repeat it too. What the noble and learned Lord said was a dreadful thing to say. It was also a dreadful thing to say on the previous occasion we discussed this Bill. On the previous occasion the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said, as regards the work of the police in this area being reviewed, that that may,
"have the effect of lessening the importance which the police officer attaches to the obligation that is placed upon him".—[Official Report, 1/2/96; col. 1582.]
I still adhere to the response that I made at Report stage. I hope the House will permit me to read out my response. I said,
"I think more highly of the police. I believe that they will do their job properly because it must be done properly and because the code of practice provides for that. They will do it no less properly because someone else will look at their work afterwards. In the end, the court will look at all of the work that the police have done. That does not mean that the police have any less a sense of importance about adhering to proper standards".—[Official Report, 1/2/96; col. 1583.]
I feel as strongly about this issue now as I did on that occasion. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate now says that the provision would have a dramatic effect on the way in which the Bill operates. I do not believe for a moment that it would have a dramatic effect. I believe that it would place the responsibility for passing material in primary disclosure to the defence where it should lie; namely, with the prosecutor, and not with the police. The whole structure of the Bill concerns primary disclosure by the prosecutor. Unless the prosecutor sees what material has been classified as sensitive and is able to make his own judgment, he is not able to fulfil his obligations under the Bill. I believe in that principle as strongly now as I did at Report stage.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate also said that the provision would put a burden on the police who would have to decide whether or not a matter was one of national security, and whether therefore it should be passed to the prosecutor. That, of course, is true, but how much less of a burden would it be than the present provision in the Bill which provides that all matters which may fall under any of the categories of sensitive material have to be adjudged as sensitive or not by the police and not in any way by the prosecutor? The argument that the police will not do their job properly because someone else is looking at their work, and, also, the argument that the provision is a burden on the police seem to me utterly unfounded. I believe that the Government are wrong on this matter and that they have misunderstood the responsibility of the prosecutor in deciding what the primary disclosure should consist of. The Government will regret that and I believe they will discover, when this Bill goes to another place, that there will be disagreement as regards the formulation in the Bill not just on the part of the Opposition but also on the part of legally qualified Members of their own party. However, we should not continue to divide on these matters at Third Reading. I shall withdraw the amendment but only because we are at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Compulsory disclosure by accused]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 33, leave out ("condition in subsection (2) is") and insert ("conditions in subsections (2) and (2A) are").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 5. This, again, is an issue on which we have sought to persuade the Government, rather than outvote the Government—fat chance of that!—that they are making a mistake in the terms of their own intention in devising this Bill. In serious fraud cases the defence is given, in return for the disclosure which is required from it, a clear statement of the Crown case in proper form before anything is demanded of the defence. In this Bill the situation is far from clear. One has to read across from Part I of the Bill to Part II of the Bill, and to the terms of the code of practice which are not included in the Bill.
It is possible that the prosecution could serve on the defence only material which meets the narrow definition—I insist that it is a narrow definition—of undermining the prosecution's case. It is possible that the schedule of material which is to be handed over will not be explicit enough and detailed enough for the defence to be able to identify the items in the schedule, or identify—this is more important—the importance of the items in the schedule. It is only too possible that the defence, with the best will in the world, may be unable to make a proper defence disclosure unless the prosecution has made a proper case statement in the first place.
I believe that the requirement for a case statement was supported by the Royal Commission. I believe that it is in accordance with the various judgments which have taken place since then that there should be a proper case statement; and I believe that it accords with the structure of the Bill—which is admittedly somewhat elaborate and clumsy, involving toing and froing—which will only be made to work if there is a proper case statement in the first place.
The arguments for having a case statement should not arouse the kind of antagonism which they have aroused in the past. Inevitably, if the prosecution is in a position to require a defence disclosure and therefore to make its primary disclosure, it will have made serious progress towards a case statement. The only difference here is not that the case statement should be prepared but that it should be disclosed before the disclosure process starts. I cannot see how it can possibly be argued that that will result in a longer or more difficult process of disclosure, any delay to the trial or any further burden on the prosecution. We say not that the prosecution should have to do more but that it should have to act earlier in the process and openly. I am convinced that that is in the interests of justice. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if the words of Amendment No. 5 are to be included in the Bill Clause 5 is not the place to put them. I invite the attention of noble Lords
878
to the fact that primary disclosure by the prosecution is covered by Clause 3. Clause 4 relates to "Primary disclosure: further provisions", and Clause 5 deals with "Compulsory disclosure by accused". That clause elaborates on the obligations of the prosecution in Clause 3. I find it very strange that Amendment No. 5 should be tacked on as an afterthought when we are dealing with compulsory disclosure by the accused.
In any event, the amendment requires careful consideration. The matters which the prosecution has to deal with under subsection (2B) (d) include,
"any proposition of law on which the prosecution proposes to rely".
That is fair enough, but when that has been stated in other legislation an exception has been made for any reply which the prosecution makes to a point of law raised by the defence. I believe that the proposal needs qualification of that kind.
Paragraph (e) of the amendment refers to:
"the consequences in relation to any of the counts in the indictment that appear to the prosecutor to flow from the matters falling within paragraphs (a) to (d)".
The only consequence can be the prosecution's intention to aim at a conviction. I do not see the point of having paragraph (e) at all.
However, as I said, I believe that the amendment is flawed by being in the wrong place in the Bill, whatever its merits.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Renton in relation to his point concerning paragraph (e) of Amendment No. 5. The words,
"the consequences in relation to any of the counts in the indictment that appear to the prosecutor to flow from the matters falling within paragraphs (a) to (d)"
seem to me to put forward a most extraordinary proposition. I do not know whether it is intended to be an argument at considerable length in favour of the proposition that the accused is guilty or whether it should be simply an analysis of the possible effects of paragraphs (a) to (d). I believe that it would cause a great deal of difficulty and misunderstanding. As at present advised, I should certainly be against including it in the Bill.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, as I have in the past, I support the principle that if one expects the defence to provide more than a mere label to its defence such as "mistake", "provocation" or whatever it may be, and to provide the material which the Bill obliges it to provide, then the Government are ill-advised not to provide the defence with a clear statement of the prosecution case. It is just like civil litigation: unless there is a detailed statement of claim one cannot expect to require the defendant to put in a detailed defence.
The amendment is in error in that it goes too far. One does not want to make this situation analogous to the complex types of case for which there are special provisions. One wants to be stated what is set out in subsection (2B) (a); namely,
"the principal facts of the case for the prosecution",

879
so that a story is told which the defence has to deal with. The defence should be entitled to know any inferences which the prosecution seeks to draw from those facts. That is all. That should impose on the prosecution a very light burden. The prosecution must know what its case is; it has been the subject matter of some report before the prosecution was launched. It must therefore be in a position to tell the story to the accused so that he may put in his answer.
I hope that the Government, perhaps at a later stage in another place, will consider the wisdom, which will redound to the advantage of the prosecution, of providing the defence with a detailed account of what the defence has to meet so as to be able to see how the defence proposes so to do.
Viscount Runciman of Doxford: My Lords, not for the first time in discussions in this House on this Bill, I should like heartily to support the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, which, I am pleased to say, I arrived just in time to hear. I echo his hope that the matter may be considered further by the Government in another place.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, in rising to oppose the amendment I shall deal first with the contributions made by my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter. They serve to illustrate the point that I sought to make on the previous occasion that the proposal is nothing like as straightforward or lacking in consequences in terms of the burden that it would place on the prosecution as those who support it suggest.
I have carefully considered the issue since the matter was last before your Lordships, not least because of my own experience of prosecution, which does not require giving notice to the accused in advance of the case in anything like the detail and volume of information which applies in this jurisdiction. I am in a position to assure the House that the matter has been considered carefully, not only by those who advise me but also by myself. Having said that, I remain of the view that it is unnecessary to proceed with the amendment in the limited form which may appeal to those who contributed to the debate.
It is important to bear in mind what is done when a case is transferred to the Crown Court for trial. As noble Lords know, the prosecutor is required to serve a great deal of specified information about a case, including a set of documents containing the evidence on which the charges are framed. In two special kinds of case (serious or complex fraud, and certain cases involving violent or sexual offences), the information will be a copy of the documents containing the evidence to which a notice of transfer has been given.
It cannot be denied that that information provides a full account of the evidential material on which the prosecution intends to rely. I venture to suggest that, when that information is read, the story which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, wishes to have told is there to be read. A person who is charged with the defence of a man and provided with all that evidential material would not look at the summary of the story as set out in the prosecution case statement under the terms
880
of subsection (2)(a), (b) or (c). He would look at all the available case papers before seeking to explain the accused's position under the later parts of Clause 5.
Some information was placed before your Lordships' House at an earlier stage as to the likely consequences for the Crown Prosecution Service were an amendment to be accepted. As I recollect, the figure mentioned was some £4.5 million per annum. Further information has been considered as regards how that sum was estimated. In the last full year available, the costs were calculated in relation to the number of defendants who had been sent to the Crown Court for trial. I am in a position to assure noble Lords that considerable sums of money would be involved. However, more importantly, it would involve the prosecutors preparing a document at a comparatively early stage in the case when, on one view, their efforts would be better geared to discharging the responsibilities with regard to disclosure.
The more one considers the provisions of the amendment relating to propositions of law or consequences, the more premature it seems for the prosecutor to be setting out at that stage what his position will be once the case is ready to go for trial.
I assure the House that the matter has been given consideration. However, having regard to the fact that material benefit would be gained in few cases, and bearing in mind the other procedures available for dealing with complex cases where greater consideration is appropriate, I invite the noble Lord not to press the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, first, let me address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about where such an amendment should be placed. He suggests that it should be in Clause 3 rather than Clause 5. I remind the noble Lord that, although Clause 3 is headed Primary disclosure by prosecutor, it is entirely devoted to the definition of material which should be disclosed. The provision applies to all cases, whether before magistrates' courts or Crown Courts. On the other hand, Clause 5 relates only to cases before the Crown Court, and not the vast majority of cases which come before the magistrates' courts only. Subsection (1) contains the preconditions for compulsory disclosure by the accused.
In this amendment we do not say that there should be a change in the evidential material but that there should be a change in the words produced by the prosecutor himself before the trigger of the compulsory disclosure by the accused. Therefore I believe that this is the right place for the amendment. It is right that the provision should apply only in Crown Court cases. It is right that the case statement should not be confused with external evidential material with which the previous clause is concerned.
Noble Lords criticised the wording of Amendment No. 5. I suppose that means that they have not read far enough into the Bill to see that the wording we have used is taken directly, and without amendment, from subsection (5) of Clause 24. I do not wish to misrepresent the thoughts of the noble and learned Lord

881
the Lord Advocate on Clause 24. However, he argued that the production of a case statement was inappropriate until the case was completely ready to go for trial. But Clause 24 applies to a preparatory hearing. Subsection (5) refers to the matters which, before a preparatory hearing, the judge may order the prosecutor to produce. Therefore the prosecutor has to prepare exactly that sort of case statement, in exactly the wording that I use in the amendment, before or at the preparatory hearing. Therefore the argument about the time when the case statement has to be prepared does not seem to me to have any real validity.
It is possible to make a balance in one of two ways. One was the way adopted by the Royal Commission, which said that the demands of primary disclosure by the prosecution should be reasonably limited. However, it also said that the defence disclosure should be very much more limited than is proposed in the Bill. The Royal Commission proposes, if you like, the low level of equilibrium. However, the Bill proposes a very much more detailed defence disclosure.
These amendments provide that, if the defence disclosure is to be as detailed as is stated in Clause 5, then the primary disclosure by the prosecution has to be that much more explicit for two reasons: first, at that high level of equilibrium the balance has to be maintained; and, secondly—and more practically—unless there is a defence statement in advance, the quality of the defence disclosure demanded by Clause 5 will be that much poorer and the process will not work.
The Government have chosen one way of addressing the problem. It was not the way chosen by the Royal Commission, but it could have been made to work if there had been equality between prosecution and defence. The Government have chosen not to provide equal opportunity between prosecution and defence. I predict that, unless it is altered at a later stage, the effect of this part of the Bill will be to encourage miscarriages of justice.
I have exactly the same desire to avoid miscarriages of justice and to convict the guilty as do the Government. Our intention is exactly the same. But we do not believe that the Government have the balance right. Again, because we are now on Third Reading and for no other reason—not at all because I am convinced of the quality of the arguments against the amendment—I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 4, at end insert ("unless in the opinion of the court it is not in the interests of justice for him to do so").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the principle for which I contend as underlying the amendment is that for the efficient conduct of criminal trials it is essential that a discretion should be vested in the presiding judge to control the conduct of the trial. As noble Lords have seen, the amendment allows a presiding judge in a criminal case to dispense with the service of a defence
882
statement if the court comes to the conclusion that it is not in the interests of justice for the defendant to be obliged to serve such a statement.
Clause 5 has the rubric: "Compulsory disclosure by accused". Subsection 5(3) provides that:
"The accused must give a defence statement to the prosecutor".
He is obliged to do so. There is no discretion vested in the trial judge to waive that requirement. I suggest that that is a nonsense. It is far too strict a regime. It is inflexible and inefficient for the sensible conduct of many criminal cases.
What is proposed as a consequence of the amendment, if it were accepted, is that a waiver may be given in some circumstances. One can think of them quite easily from normal practice and I suggest that those who have been in practice will recognise them. First, there is the problem of the non-represented defendant, the illiterate defendant, the defendant who is barely competent. Then there is the question of intimidation of witnesses because the defence statement involves not simply a statement setting out the nature of the accused's defence, the matters on which he takes issue with the prosecution and the reason he takes issue with the prosecution, but also includes an alibi defence which must give particulars of witnesses.
There are often cases when prosecutor and defence counsel agree that a defence statement adds nothing to the efficiency and sense of criminal proceedings. In many cases, a prosecutor might be disposed to agree with defence counsel: "We don't wish to have a statement in this case, it adds nothing. What is the point of that absurd inflexibility?" In those circumstances, we put the question: why does one need prescriptive rules without the discretion which ought to remain vested in the trial judge who presides? After all, at present he has a wide discretion. He can, and frequently does, waive the requirement on alibi. Under Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 he is specifically empowered to exclude evidence which would otherwise be inadmissible if it had a disproportionately unfair effect on the conduct of the trial.
Therefore, the principle for which we contend is not new. It is the principle of utility in the conduct of criminal trials. There must be many cases which one can understand and envisage where one does not need the statement in that rigid form. The amendment simply gives authority to the court to waive the requirement. I can see no argument in principle against it or any intellectual basis for objecting to it. I beg to move.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I confess that I rise probably in ignorance. Do I understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, that there will be a requirement in every case before a Crown Court for such a statement to be given?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes, my Lords, because Clause 5(1) provides that the requirement clause applies by virtue of Clause 1(2), which relates to indictable offences that have been transferred for trial to the Crown

883
Court and summary offences where they are tagged on. I need not trouble with that because it is a detail. Many cases are so simple that the statement is not required.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I am grateful for that explanation. If that is so, I wish to ask the Minister whether we are in danger of imposing in every case an additional stage which often may not be necessary? I reflect that, sitting as a recorder, many cases come before me where the issues are clear from the committal papers and statements made by the defendant.
It is true, as the noble Lord said, that from time to time a defendant appears who is unrepresented. However, even in cases where defendants are represented, I should be concerned if a blanket requirement to give a defence statement led to a matter having to be adjourned because such a statement had not been given when in the normal circumstances the case could take place immediately. If that is the effect of the clause, then some form of flexibility should be included.
What worries me more than anything else, when one sits as a recorder, is the number of cases which have to be adjourned for particular reasons. That greatly increases the expenditure and time taken on the cases. I hope that we shall not unintentionally be adding an extra stage when in many cases of a simpler nature it would be unnecessary.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, I believe that the issue between us concerns the means to an end rather than the end itself. I say to my noble and learned friend—is he learned?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Fairly learned!
Baroness Blatch: I shall address the point which my noble friend made about the additional stage.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I am probably riot "learned" after my intervention, although I might have been before I rose.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as I said at Report stage, there are good reasons for requiring defence disclosure and secondary prosecution disclosure, as well as primary prosecution disclosure in Crown Court cases. It is meant to ensure so far as possible that the issues in dispute are narrowed and identified before the trial starts, so that the trial itself may be conducted more efficiently. Also, if the accused does not disclose his defence in a defence statement it will not be possible for the prosecutor to assess whether he has any additional undisclosed material which might assist that defence. 'The advantages of formalising the defence in a defence statement apply across the range of Crown Court cases, as the noble Lord said.
I appreciate the point that was expressed in respect of the small number of defendants that may be disadvantaged by the Government's proposals.
884
Although the amendment is intended for a small number of cases, it is of general application and, as such, it would be open to abuse by defendants generally.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for her courtesy in giving me notice that she intended to raise the matter again. Her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was speaking for her as she is unable to be present today. In correspondence she suggested that a preliminary hearing would be the occasion on which the judge would be able to exercise a discretion to dispense with the requirement on the accused to provide a defence statement. In that way, it has been said that the amendment would not add an additional stage to the proceedings. However, I submit that the amendment removes one set of procedural requirements only to create another. It would still be necessary to devise a procedure for applications to a court for an exemption and for the consideration of the application by the court to take place at some point after primary prosecution disclosure. To enable the court to form a view on whether it was in the interests of justice to require a defence statement, the accused would need to set out the circumstances of the case in sufficient detail, and the prosecutor would have to be able to make representations about the application. Disputes would need to be resolved at that hearing.
I assume that the preliminary hearing to which the noble Baroness referred in correspondence would be the plea and directions hearing. The effect would be to move the plea and directions hearing away from its primary purpose of case management and into the realm of issue resolution: a function for which such hearings are not well suited. In that way, the amendment would add to court business as a whole and slow down the delivery of justice. In cases where the judge decided that the accused should provide a defence statement, the process of defence disclosure will have been delayed until after the plea and directions hearing, with the possibility of a further hearing being needed if disputes about the extent of disclosure arose subsequently.
In the cases where the noble Lord thinks an exemption might be justified, it would be simpler—and here I refer back to my statement about "means to an end"—for the accused simply not to make a defence statement at all. The only direct sanction for such failure is that it would be open to the prosecutor to seek leave to comment on this trial under Clause 10. But Clause 10(3) provides that,
"the court or jury may draw such inferences as appear proper in deciding whether the accused is guilty".
If there is a good reason for the failure to provide a defence statement, the court will decide that the only proper inference to be drawn is that the accused was justified in not providing a defence statement. It will depend on the circumstances of the case.
In respect of unrepresented defendants, I strongly agree that the accused must not be put in the position of not producing a defence statement simply because no-one told him he had to produce one. I can assure the House that we are considering the options for giving information to the accused in advance of the disclosure regime so that he is aware of its requirements. This is a matter which we are committed to resolving before the

885
implementation of the scheme, although it is not, I submit, necessary to resolve it through the Bill itself. In a similar vein, we shall need to ensure that practitioners who will need to operate the new scheme are offered the necessary training.
Finally, if I may turn to one further point made on Report, it was suggested that the unnecessary additional costs would be incurred by the Legal Aid Fund should defence statements be required in relatively straightforward cases where the issues are clear. The waiving of the requirement for a defence case statement in such cases is unlikely to have any effect on legal aid costs. These cases, whether in the magistrates' court or the Crown Court, are likely to fall into the arrangements for standard fees and as such no savings would result. The issues would still have to be considered and the task of putting them into a defence statement is likely to be fairly simple. As I have said, I fear that the procedure for dispensing with a defence statement would add to court business as a whole and slow down the delivery of justice.
For the reasons I have given today and at earlier stages of the Bill, I remain of the view that the advantages of formalising the defence in a defence statement apply across the range of Crown Court cases, and that the drawbacks of creating an exemption outweigh any benefits that might accrue.
Finally, the prosecutor may only comment at trial on the failure to give a defence statement with the leave of the court. If he does, it will be for the jury to decide what inference may properly be drawn. In so doing they will have the benefit of the summing-up by the trial judge in which he or she can direct them as to what inference it is proper to draw. If it really is not in the interests of justice for the accused to have given a defence statement, that is bound to affect whether the judge allows inferences to be drawn.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think the Minister has elided a number of different questions. Case management cannot sensibly be seen as wholly distinct from issue resolution. I suggest that it is not helpful to speak of the whole range of Crown Court cases. They range, after all, from shoplifting a jelly at Tesco to murder. But many murders are infinitely simpler in trial than shoplifting bananas or jellies from Tesco.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, and I have both practised in the Crown Courts. We have prosecuted and defended serious cases. Let me take murder as an example. In many a case, if the noble Lord said to me (he prosecuting and I defending): "What's the issue?", I should simply tell him self-defence or diminished responsibility. The judge might well ask him: "Lord Carlisle, do you really want a full defence statement in these circumstances?". He would say, "No, of course not. We need no adjournment; we need no extra costs".
Our contention is that there is a significant number, perhaps a minority, of cases where flexibility is the friend of the saving of time and expense, and
886
inflexibility is the ally of delay and waste of money. The Government seem intent at present—unless they rethink before the matter goes to another place, or while it is in the other place—on imposing a wholly rigid structure on a range of criminal cases that is infinitely diverse.
It is not an answer to say that the sanction on the non-provision of a defence statement is the comment under Clause 10(3). That is a sanction. We seek to attend not to sanctions, but to whether the defence statement is required in every case. At the moment, the words in Clause 5(3) of the Bill are that,
"The accused must give a defence statement to the prosecutor",
and the particulars are fully set out. It is a recipe for inflexibility, expense and delay, and therefore one that is best torn up and thrown away.
I hope that the Government will think again on this matter. I am bound to say that when I have put propositions of this sort either to the Minister or to the Lord Advocate, they have been more than willing to deal fully with them in correspondence. I suggest that the amendment would improve this piece of legislation and make the conduct of criminal cases much easier. However, this matter has been traversed for a little while now and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Drtnnadoon Lord Mackay of Drtnnadoon moved Amendment No. 7:
Before Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
PUBLIC INTEREST: REVIEW FOR SUMMARY TRIALS
(".—(1) This section applies where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(1).
(2) At any time—

(a) after a court makes an order under section 3(6), 7(5), 8(5) or 9(8), and

(b) before the accused is acquitted or convicted or the prosecutor decides not to proceed with the case concerned,

the accused may apply to the court for a review of the question whether it is still not in the public interest to disclose material affected by its order.
(3) In such a case the court must review that question, and if it concludes that it is in the public interest to disclose material to any extent—

(a) it shall so order, and

(b) it shall take such steps as are reasonable to inform the prosecutor of its order.

(4) Where the prosecutor is informed of an order made under subsection (3) he mdust act accordingly having regard to the provisions of this Part (unless he decides not to proceed with the case concerned).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10, which are related to it.
The House will recall that we debated similar amendments on Report. The main purpose of those amendments, which in turn had been brought forward following a debate in Committee, was to exempt a magistrates' court from the duty to keep under review an order that it was not in the public interest to disclose certain material to the accused. On Report, the Government withdrew the amendments for further consideration of comments made during the debate by

887
the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and my noble friend Lord Renton. Since that debate those points have been given full consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, made three points. His first concern was that, in placing the onus on the accused to apply for a review of a non-disclosure ruling, an unrepresented defendant might be disadvantaged. The question arose as to whether legal representation should be made available in such circumstances. As was explained to the noble Lord, the number of applications made to magistrates' courts to withhold material on public interest grounds is fairly low. The existence of a claim for public interest immunity may well be a reason for a magistrates' court to consider committal for trial to the Crown Court. In fact, an informal count over the past two years revealed only six applications. In all cases the defendants were legally represented.
Most defendants tried in a magistrates' court have legal representation, either privately or under the legal aid scheme. Nevertheless, I accept that very occasionally the situation could arise where an application is sought in respect of proceedings against an unrepresented defendant. I also accept that such applications can pose particular difficulties for the layman. While, therefore, the discretion whether or not to grant a legal aid order must remain with the court, the Lord Chancellor's Department accepts that it should issue guidance to magistrates' courts advising them of the new provisions and the opportunities to invite unrepresented defendants to apply or re-apply for legal aid. So the court will be able to review the entitlement to legal aid in the light of the new circumstances.
I should also point out that courts will normally draw an unrepresented defendant's attention to the benefits of representation whenever complex issues arise during the course of the trial. It seems likely that a possible application to the court for a review of an order by the court that disclosure is not in the public interest would fall into that category. It should, of course, be recognised that very little, if anything, can be done for those defendants who choose not to be represented notwithstanding their eligibility for legal aid or that they have the means to pay for private representation. When such cases arise and the defendant declines the advice of representation, the courts have to deal with the situation as best they can. Courts operate a duty solicitor scheme so that advice is available immediately if a defendant who has chosen to be unrepresented changes his mind.
The noble Lord also asked whether the review should be carried out by a judge rather than a magistrate. While I understand the argument that these difficult matters should be reserved for members of the professional judiciary, it is important to bear in mind that we are concerned here with the summary trial of cases. These will either be less serious matters, which Parliament has in the past taken the view are best dealt with summarily, or cases where the accused and the court have both agreed that the trial should proceed summarily. Other either-way cases would of course be tried in the Crown Court. In those circumstances it seems to me to be wrong to seek to remove to another forum decisions on matters which are undoubtedly important but are not
888
matters which, I think, anyone is suggesting are automatically in all cases outside the competence or ability of properly advised lay magistrates. Granted, they may give rise to delicate questions of balance, but such cases will be rare in magistrates' courts and it is prudent therefore to provide an appropriate mechanism to avoid having to resort to disproportionately complex procedures.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, commented that, should such decisions have to be made by magistrates in the first instance, there ought to be an avenue of appeal to the Crown Court. I do not think that it is necessary to provide specifically for an appeal in such matters. It is of course open to an aggrieved person to question the proceedings in the High Court by way of judicial review or case stated, and that right would be unaffected by our proposals. In the event of a conviction, the decision would effectively be reviewed by the Crown Court if there was an appeal against conviction. An additional appeal to the Crown Court adds an element of duplication and, unless carefully circumscribed, could become almost automatic if the magistrates decided against the accused.
I fully accept that the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, merit consideration, and consideration has been given to them. They are matters of balance. But I invite your Lordships to take the view that Amendment No. 7 avoids any risk of injustice in the magistrates' courts without requiring us to depart from the essential nature of a simple summary procedure.
In the debate at Report, my noble friend Lord Renton drew attention to a double negative in subsection (3) of the new clause before Clause 11. As tabled, that required a court to make an order,
"if it no longer believes that it is not in the public interest to disclose material".
Parliamentary Counsel has taken the opportunity to improve the drafting of the new clause, and he has removed the double negative. The court must now make an order,
"if it concludes that it is in the public interest to disclose material".
That has the same effect as the previous formulation: it either is or is not in the public interest to disclose material, and if it is not in the public interest not to disclose it, then it must be in the public interest to disclose it. I hope that the removal of that double negative finds favour with my noble friend. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, on the last occasion we had an extensive, wide-ranging discussion on the question of non-disclosure rulings. The Minister and the Lord Advocate undertook to consider those difficult questions with care. I am bound to say that they did so because the Minister was good enough to write, on 14th February, setting out a full, reasoned scheme of explanations why my proposals could not be accepted.
Public interest immunity is not always an easy matter, even for Attorneys-General.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, or even for Lords Justices.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, or Lords Justices, but Lords Justices sometimes say that they may be wrong, which is not a necessary qualification for the post of Attorney-General. We are looking at a difficult situation but, as the Lord Advocate said, in practice quite small—six cases in two years. That puts the matter into a helpful context.
It is an enormous advantage, and I am grateful that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate repeated it in your Lordships' House, that the Lord Chancellor's Department will give guidance—obviously subject to the discretion of the magistrates' courts—in regard to the necessity or the desirability of having representation available. I leave that on one side, grateful as I am for that indication.
I still suggest that these matters are better dealt with by judges than by magistrates. I do not in any way disparage the magistrates; I have the greatest admiration for their work. But with such a small body of experience—six cases in two years—no magistrates' court will be able to build up a body of judicial experience which is useful in dealing with such tricky questions. I simply suggest again that, if these questions arise so rarely, would it not be better to have the liaison presiding Crown Court judge to deal with them?
The question of appeal goes hand-in-hand with my last suggestion. If magistrates are to deal with those matters, a quick, simple, local appeal ought to be available to the Crown Court. On page 3 of the letter dated 14th February to which I referred, it was suggested, and the Lord Advocate repeated to your Lordships this afternoon, that,
"It is of course open to an aggrieved person to question the proceedings in the High Court by way of judicial review or case stated".
Then, almost within the next breath, he spoke of avoiding delay and expense. An expedited hearing for judicial review in the Crown Office list is lucky to get on in nine months at the moment. I am suggesting a quick, cheap appeal to the local Crown Court which would be much more effective in practice.
Those are matters which I hope to coax the Minister to reflect on a little further. The problem is small numerically and can be dealt with on the basis of the scheme I proposed. I repeat how grateful I am for the approach adopted by the Minister and the Lord Advocate.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the Government should be congratulated on what they have done. I do not go along with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in saying that when a case is before a court which happens to be a magistrates' court—most likely a stipendiary—the public interest immunity point should nevertheless not be decided by that court but should go necessarily to a High Court judge.
890
Our judicial procedures are elaborate, time-consuming and costly. We should avoid adding to them. The Government have got this right. Also, I thank my noble friends for getting rid of the double negative to which I referred earlier.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord a question. In referring to the circumstances where the defendant is not represented in a magistrates' court—I fully understand that those are rare occasions—the Lord Advocate said that it should be recognised that very little if anything can be done for a defendant who chooses not to be represented. He then referred to eligibility for legal aid and to the question of whether a defendant has the means to pay. There will be those defendants who are not eligible for legal aid in any circumstances but do not judge that they have the means to pay. It is a subjective matter and they may decide that they cannot afford to pay.
The noble and learned Lord went on to say that,
"the courts have to deal with the situation as best they can".
He continued by referring to the duty solicitor scheme. When he says that the courts will deal with the situation as best they can, can he explain to the House how indeed they can deal with it and what the options open to them will be?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, perhaps I may reply to the point that has just been raised. Where an accused person or defendant is determined to represent himself, the court, to use the words I adopted, will have to deal with the situation in the best way it can. The first tack is normally to seek to persuade the defendant to change his mind, and if he is eligible for legal aid, to grant such an order. However, from time to time there come before the courts people who for whatever reason are determined to represent themselves. Experience suggests that in that situation the court—whether it be a member of the professional judiciary or the magistracy—does a good deal more than it would normally do to ensure that the argument that falls to be made on behalf of the unrepresented person is brought into the discussion.
This can be done in a variety of ways. It can be done by leading the defendant to put forward an argument which one feels ought to be made on his behalf; or it can be done by saying to the prosecutor, "Well, the defendant's answer to the point you make is this way". The court tends to adopt a more interventionist role than it would normally do if both sides were professionally represented. That is what I had in mind in saying that the court would deal with the situation in the best way it could. It is a commendable practice which courts are required to adopt from time to time when they are faced with an unrepresented accused who is determined to decline whatever offer of legal assistance is made in his direction.
On this occasion I am in the fortunate position of having my noble friend Lord Renton entirely on my side. Although I have not been in your Lordships' House for long, I am well aware of what a great pleasure and a great benefit that is. It is a balance to be struck whether

891
to leave the matter with the magistracy or to introduce the Crown Court into the situation. In all questions of balance a professional judgment has to be taken. In this instance my noble friend Lord Renton and I share the same professional judgment. Having listened to the helpful comments made by those on the Benches opposite, I intend to sit down, having invited your Lordships to agree to the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Public interest: court to review orders]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendments Nos. 8 and 9:
Page 8, line 2, at beginning insert—
("( ) This section applies where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2).").
Page 8, line 13, leave out ("no longer believes that it is not") and insert ("concludes that it is").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 12 [Rules of court]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 8, line 26, leave out from ("provision") to end of line 29 and insert ("mentioned in subsection (1A).
(1A) The provision is provision as to the practice and procedure to be followed in relation to—

(a) an application under section 3(6), 7(5), 8(2) or (5), 9(8), (Public interest: review for summary trials)(2) or 11(3);

(b) an order under section (Public interest: review for summary trials)(3);

(c) an order under section 11(4) (whether or not an application is made under section 11(3)).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Effect of code]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 12, line 32, after ("conducting") insert ("or participating in").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to Clause 19 which seeks to apply to a very limited extent—to investigators other than the police—the code of practice which has been described in the preceding clauses. Although I recognise that Clause 19 is based on Section 67 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 it is nevertheless a very feeble clause. It provides:
"A person other than a police officer who is charged with the duty of conducting an investigation … shall … have regard to any relevant provision of a code which would apply if the investigation were conducted by police officers".
We had a number of debates on this point at Second Reading and in Committee. The first argument put forward, which wisely was withdrawn, was that it would be impossible for a code to apply to other than police officers because the other investigating agencies were under the control of different Secretaries of State. The Minister recognised that that was not a sound argument. We then went on to consider the status of the phrase
892
"have regard to". A number of noble Lords in all parts of the House pointed out the weakness of the phrase "have regard to a code of practice". One can have regard to a code of practice, then go away and do something different, and get away with it.
The distinction between having to "have regard to" and "comply with", which is what we proposed at Report stage should be the wording in the Bill, is of great importance in legislation. The phrase is used very frequently. When I have wanted to weaken, for example, the control by central government of local authorities I have always argued that local authorities should "have regard to" the directions of central government. Conversely, when Ministers want to assert strong central control, they use the words "comply with". I suggested at Report stage that the words "comply with" were the only way of ensuring that an investigation, which could be carried out, and very often is carried out, by investigative agencies other than the police, should be in accordance with the code—in other words, that the words "comply with" were more appropriate. However, on a Division, the House took a different view.
So we are stuck with the words "have regard to". We cannot raise that issue again but we now seek to do something more modest which is appropriate to our deliberations after Third Reading but is still worth doing. The duty of conducting an investigation under Clause 19(1) refers to all kinds of other agencies. It refers to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, to the inspectors of the Serious Fraud Office, to local authority trading standards officers and to the Health and Safety Executive, which, as the Minister pointed out last time, has the duty of prosecuting as well as investigating. It is certainly true that Clause 19 covers those investigating authorities. But it does not cover people on behalf of whom we expressed a great deal of concern at earlier stages—people like expert witnesses, particularly forensic scientists.
It is true to say that forensic scientists and other expert witnesses need not be covered by the whole of the code of practice. But the code of practice has been—and if it has not been, it certainly can be—drafted in such a way that it only applies, as appropriate, to those people. However, it is surely of great importance that those who are participating in an inquiry, like forensic scientists, should be covered, as appropriate, by the code of practice. For exactly the same reasons as we gave last time it is important that the code of practice should cover the investigation in a criminal case. If there are any defects in the drafting of Clause 19 then the investigation will be broken backed. The code of practice will only apply fully to police officers; it will apply in the "have regard to" sense to other investigating authorities; it will not apply at all, even in so far as they are concerned, to those who are participating in an inquiry, like forensic scientists.
When one looks at the code of practice, surely it is important that all the rules about the proper copying of material, its retention, and the reporting and recording of material, are all in the hands of people like forensic scientists who are participating in the investigation as well as in the hands of those who are conducting the investigation. I am grateful to my noble friend

893
Lord Williams for pointing out that my original word "assisting" could have led to misunderstanding since I believe the phrase "assisting the police in their inquiries" has a specific meaning, at least in the tabloids. I am grateful to him for suggesting that "participating" is the right word. I believe that it is and that this amendment is constructive and helpful. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I fully accept that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, puts forward this amendment in a constructive frame of mind. But, on closer scrutiny, I suggest that it is not a necessity to the structure of the scheme and it might go beyond that to create practical difficulties to at least some of the people to whom it might apply.
It is important to bear in mind that the code of practice, as provided for in the scheme, is directed to those charged with conducting investigations. Inevitably, from time to time, they are required to seek "assistance" from others, whatever construction one puts on that word. That assistance can come from people such as forensic scientists and police surgeons. It is right that your Lordships should be satisfied that outside experts instructed to assist in investigation have proper regard to their professional responsibilities.
But, when one looks at the steps that the Forensic Science Service takes to impose a proper level of professional standards and discipline upon its work, it is quite clear that in its case there is no necessity for what this amendment provides. As you Lordships may know, the Forensic Science Service has been an agency since 1991. It exists to provide a service not only to the police but to defendants and indeed to anyone who supplies material to it requesting that it be scientifically examined. It is therefore independent of the police and that has become much clearer since it changed to agency status.
Its established practice is to retain all documentation dealing with the material submitted to it for examination, whether or not the prosecution relies upon the results and they are disclosed to the accused. This documentation is retained for several years after the proceedings have been concluded.
Material which is submitted to the Forensic Science Service for examination is either retained by the service or returned to the police or whoever gave it the material in the first place. If the material is kept by the Forensic Science Service, it is kept with the documentation to which I have referred. If it is returned to the police, then obviously it will fall within the provisions of the code of practice. As many of your Lordships will know, witness statements which members of this service provide for court purposes are much fuller in detail than they used to be. They explain in detail how the witness has gone about dealing with the material received from the police, what hypothesis the police asked the witness to test for, and what results, if any, were found.
An independent check on the service's procedures is afforded by the fact that it is accredited by the National Measurement Accreditation Service and its
894
administrative procedures are accredited by the British Standards Institute. On the basis of that information there can be little doubt that the public have every right to be confident that the Forensic Science Service will do its work in this field to the highest possible professional standards.
In moving the amendment the noble Lord concentrated particularly on the forensic scientist but in the course of his remarks he said that it can apply to other experts. That takes us into the field of such experts as medical experts, which was a subject discussed during Report stage in the context of an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. He was concerned that a requirement to abide by a clause amended in these terms would cause difficulties for doctors in view of their existing duty of medical confidentiality. On that occasion, my noble friend Lady Blatch gave an assurance to the House that Clause 19 as currently drafted does not apply to doctors acting as police surgeons and indeed that, if it did so apply, the Government were required to bring forward an amendment to remove that difficulty.
Unfortunately, one consequence of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would be that the House would be going in the opposite direction to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. It would be going in the opposite direction to the assurance given to the House by my noble friend Lady Blatch.
Similar difficulties might well arise in other fields where professional experts were called in to assist. In those circumstances, with the assurance that experts are members of professional bodies who strive to adhere to the highest possible standards, it is in my view correct for the Government to take the view that the code of practice is directed to those conducting the investigation and not to those who may be instructed to assist in one small part of it. For those various and several reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will feel it possible to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it goes without saying that I am in no way impugning the professional integrity of the Forensic Science Service, nor indeed of anybody else involved as a forensic scientist in investigations, because, as the Lord Advocate will recognise, not all forensic science investigations are carried out by the Forensic Science Service. There is, for example, still the Metropolitan Police forensic science laboratory and there are also independent accredited forensic science laboratories which also work to full professional standards. I acknowledge the validity of the point about police surgeons, but that can be very easily remedied by an amendment to the Bill, as the Lord Advocate said, as it goes to another place.
However, the fundamental point has not been addressed. The Government have recognised and considered it right that the investigation should be held under a code of practice by providing one in accordance with the wishes of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee and by providing that the code of practice shall be laid before Parliament and subject to its

895
approval. If it is considered right for the investigation to be covered by a code of practice, then that must be right for all parts of the investigation, including those parts which are subcontracted to experts. As the Lord Advocate is now claiming that professional codes of conduct are sufficient for the purpose, then there is no reason to have the code of practice which is before us and which Parliament will be invited to approve.
I do not believe that the Government can have it both ways. We are arguing for a code of practice which gives the only assurance that matters; namely, that the investigation was carried out according to common standards. There will need to be variations for experts and for different types of investigator and investigation, and nobody denies that. But the principle that they should all be covered and be responsible ultimately to parliamentary approval is what I am sure the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee intended and what the Government now intend. I am sad that they do not recognise the validity of the point of providing for the inclusiveness of the code of practice, which is what is really needed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 [Power to order preparatory hearing]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 14, line 20, leave out ("person").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 12, I should like to refer also to Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 24 and 25 and to Clauses 40, 41, 42, 54, 59 and Schedules 2 and 3.
I can give an explanation of the detailed effects of the amendments if the House would find that helpful, but they are all either technical or designed simply to tidy up the drafting of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [Indemnification of justices and justices' clerks]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 13:
Leave out Clause 37.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that on Report the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, successfully moved an amendment to Section 53 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979. The intention underlying the amendment was to strengthen the indemnity which Section 53 provides to justices and justices' clerks against orders for costs and other sums in respect of matters arising from criminal jurisdiction. Perhaps I should just remind your Lordships at this point what the terms "indemnity" and "immunity" mean in this context. Indemnity here means the payment by the magistrates' courts committee of any sums which have been ordered to be paid by a justice or justice's clerk, whereas immunity means protection against a costs order being made against them. As your Lordships will recall, the effect of the amendment was to bring the test of whether indemnity should be given to justices in criminal matters in line with the test for immunity in respect of actions arising from matters outside a magistrate's jurisdiction.
The amendment which your Lordships have before you today does not seek in any way to challenge the substance of that amendment. Far from it: the aim is simply to improve the drafting and to clarify that amendment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will, I hope, welcome the spirit of that response.
As your Lordships will see, the proposed new clause would insert a new subsection, to be numbered 1A, into Section 53 of the Justices of the Peace Act. This new subjection sets out the provisions which apply to matters arising from criminal jurisdiction and provides that indemnity shall be given unless it is proved that the justice or justice's clerk acted in bad faith. That is the new provision which the noble and learned Lord introduced by his amendment. The existing subsection (1) will cover all other cases. In those such cases, there is an entitlement to indemnity if the justice or justice's clerk acted reasonably and in good faith.
There will thus be an important distinction between the provisions which will now apply to criminal matters and those which apply to cases arising from civil jurisdiction. In civil matters, the magistrates' courts committee has a general power to provide indemnity and is obliged to provide indemnity if the justice or justice's clerk acted reasonably and in good faith. In criminal cases, indemnity will have to be given unless bad faith is proved: in civil cases, indemnity has to be given if good faith and reasonableness are demonstrated. The Government believe that it would aid clarity and avoid confusion to set out the different criteria which, reflecting the will of the House as expressed at Report stage, will now arise under the two jurisdictions in separate subsections in the way which is proposed.
Your Lordships will also remember that when I spoke on this matter previously I explained that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was aware of the concerns which justices have about their potential liability for costs and, in particular, their view that, as a matter of principle, they should be given immunity against such orders. The amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and approved by your Lordships, does not address the question of immunity. In addition, it is restricted to criminal cases because to have included civil cases would have taken it outside the scope of the Bill. Although it therefore does not cover many of the cases which have given rise to the anxieties which justices feel, it is very much in keeping with the Lord Chancellor's approach to look for ways of giving protection provided there has not been bad faith. The Lord Chancellor still believes that it would be right to consult before bringing forward legislation to address this and intends to issue a paper in the summer.
While this work on immunity is under way, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has also said that he will look at ways of improving the arrangements for providing indemnity so that, in the interim, justices and justices' clerks can have confidence that the current statutory provisions will work.
Finally, commencement provisions have been included. The amendment, while improving the position of justices and justices' clerks, does, in theory at least,

897
have financial implications for magistrates' courts committees. For that reason, it follows established principles in providing for commencement to be on a date as soon as possible after Royal Assent. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 13, the noble Baroness spoke also to Amendments Nos. 20 and 23, which appear with it on the groupings list. That tells the whole story which she has recounted.
I accept the amendments proposed since they are designed to put in the form which is considered most appropriate the amendment which I moved, and succeeded in, on Report. Your Lordships will appreciate that my amendment removed from justices the potential liability to pay costs in criminal cases where it was considered that they had acted unreasonably, and restricted it in future to cases where they had acted in bad faith. It was limited to criminal cases, not through any lack of ambition to safeguard them from the unusual and surprising liability with regard to civil cases, but because I was restricted to criminal matters as a result of the nature of the Bill. I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, with whom the noble Baroness has so successfully interceded, will deal with that anomaly as soon as possible.
The noble Baroness will no doubt be pleased to know that the amendment has given great comfort to some 30,000 magistrates, although they appreciate that it is hoped that there will be more to follow. In particular, the noble Baroness has made very contented a Somerset magistrate on the Western circuit, my old circuit, who has been looking forward to what we have partially achieved since, he says, 1989, when my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor made a promise of indemnity for magistrates in a speech in which he undertook to,
"introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity".
I hope that "the earliest opportunity" will not involve a wait of another seven years.
Perhaps I may add this for the benefit of the noble Baroness: since that amendment was moved, my post has revealed that two class members of the judiciary are left out in the cold. My heart yearns for the first, the general commissioners of income tax; while the second class, to which I refer with some anxiety, comprises coroners. Again, I express my gratitude to the noble Baroness.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, these amendments reveal the wisdom of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, not only in arguing the case but in pressing the matter to a Division on an evening when the Conservative winter ball was being held outside the Palace of Westminster while the Labour Peers' party was being held inside the Palace of Westminster. I think we deserve a little credit for providing his troops, even if not for helping with his arguments. I accept that the Government are acting reasonably and in good faith,
898
otherwise I should be worried about removing Clause 37 without being certain that they were going to put in the new clause after Clause 53.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the noble Lord may wish to know that I concede that it is not my powers of advocacy but chance that brings forth the occasional victory. The last one occurred, I think, when it was Ladies' Day at Ascot.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I would say only that not everyone was enjoying a party downstairs with the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. There were others who were not being so entertained, and we were much persuaded by what the noble and learned Lord said. Although I had looked at the papers which had been circulated in advance of our debate on Report, it was only the noble and learned Lord's speech which brought me to my feet in support of his amendment.
Perhaps I may admit also that I was slightly equivocal on that occasion, not about the virtues of the amendment, but about the possibility of a Division being held and carried. So perhaps I was a little remiss in suggesting that, if the amendment were not pressed, the Government would bring forward their own amendment. That was an optimistic position to have adopted. I am delighted that the amendment was pressed to a Division and that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor accepted it. However, I cannot help but say that, when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor expressed the view in your Lordships' House on 15th January that considerable examination in depth of the problem was required before Parliament brought forward a solution, he was either ill advised or had a different timescale from the rest of your Lordships. Considerable examination in depth has been accomplished in a remarkably short time, and your Lordships are grateful.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, in case he feels that he is the victim of social exclusion, as a member of the Hornsey and Wood Green Labour Party perhaps I may assure him that any application from him to rejoin would be treated with all seriousness.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 40 [Non-appearance of accused: issue of warrant]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 23, line 22, leave out ("above").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41 [Either way offences: accused's intention as to plea]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 26, line 1, leave out ("above").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 [Enforcement of payment of fines]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 26, line 12, leave out ("above").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49 [Orders in respect of certain assertions]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 29, line 36, at end insert (", or may permit the person about whom the assertion is made to make a statement in open court in refutation of the assertion, after determination of sentence.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 18. Let me say at once that these are probing amendments, partly because I have only been able to bring them forward on Third Reading and it would clearly inappropriate to press them and partly because they contain an error in English usage which I detest profoundly and for which I apologise. They use the words:
"a statement in open court in refutation of the assertion".
The word "refutation" means to prove falsity or error. It is misused frequently to mean the weaker words "rebuttal" and "response". So if the amendment were to be pressed, it would have to be in terms of response rather than refutation.
I, like the Minister, have been in correspondence with the Guild of Editors, which has expressed its concern about the reporting restrictions introduced in Clause 49 and succeeding clauses about derogatory assertions made in open court, normally in a plea in mitigation. In these clauses the Government have imposed reporting restrictions, alternatively temporary or permanent, in case someone should be defamed and not have an opportunity to reply.
The Guild of Editors has urged me to put forward amendments which would remove the Government's provisions on reporting restrictions and replace them with an opportunity for what it calls refutation, and what I would call response. I do not feel that that is the right course of action. Although I am of course in principle opposed to reporting restrictions whenever any question of freedom of speech is in issue, nevertheless, I was persuaded by the Government's argument on this matter that reporting restrictions might well be necessary to avoid damage to innocent people and possible damage to subsequent trials.
I thought that it was worth raising the issue by putting forward the possibility of a response as a option available to the court in considering whether to impose a reporting restriction. The court might feel that there are circumstances in which reporting restrictions would not be appropriate but that an opportunity for response might meet the case.
As Clause 49 and the subsequent clauses are all couched in the term "may"—in other words, they are permissive for the court to take action—I thought that it would not do any harm to raise the issue to see whether
900
the Government felt there was any mileage in the alternative suggestion which in no way damages the Government's proposals in these clauses. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the measured and frank way in which he raised this issue. The matter has been given consideration, and the Government remain of the view that the best way to prevent harm to victims, something which Clause 49 is designed to achieve, is to prevent reporting altogether.
Allowing a right of rebuttal to a victim or any other witness who might be attacked in the manner set out in Clause 49(4) might to some extent serve to increase the distress which such a witness had already suffered. The person might already have been a victim, as proved by the jury's verdict, of a serious crime. If that person's character has been attacked in a false and improper way, he may have suffered stress. To raise the possibility that such a person might have to have the full issue revisited by statements being taken from him, or made on his behalf, would give rise to a serious risk of further distress being caused. What is perhaps much more important, is that there could be no guarantee that any rebuttal made in court along the lines which the amendments are designed to achieve would be reported, let alone reported in the full manner in which the allegations were made.
We are all familiar with reading stories in the newspapers on one day alleging some story about a named individual, and reading a few days later, tucked on the inside pages in small print at the bottom of a column, what is said to be a full apology on behalf of the editor for the fact that an error was made, whether by the editor or those who made the comments which the editor has published subsequently. There could be no guarantee that members of the Guild of Editors would give anything like the prominence to the rebuttal statements that they had to the original allegations.
It is for that reason—on the limited basis which Clause 49 provides—that the Government are persuaded that preventing reporting altogether is the correct attitude to adopt. The noble Lord acknowledged that there was a justification for the Government to have Clause 49 on that basis. He brings forward these probing amendments, as he describes . them, to test the Government's attitude.
The Government remain committed to the principle that proceedings in open court should be reported as fully as possible except in strictly limited and exceptional circumstances. When one is dealing with the sort of behaviour set out in Clause 49(4), one has such exceptional circumstances which are strictly limited. Although the amendment was put forward in a responsible manner, I regret that it is not one that the Government can accept.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that response. He was unfair only in one small respect. He described the pain that might be imposed on the victim in having to make a statement and of it being repeated in court. The amendments provide only that the person about

901
whom the statement has been made will be permitted to adopt the procedure. Nothing would ever be forced upon him. However, in the light of the noble and learned Lord's response, with which I largely agree, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 19:
Before Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
USE OF WITNESS STATEMENTS
(".—(1) If the prosecutor reasonably believes that the accused may use a written statement made by, or photograph of, a person who is named in the charge for a purpose other than the preparation of his defence or appeal, he may apply to a court for an order restricting access by the accused to such statement or photograph.
(2) An order made by a court under this section may prohibit the accused's legal representative from—

(a) making or permitting any person to make a copy of the statement or photograph;

(b) releasing the statement or photograph to the accused; or

(c) making or permitting any disclosure of the statement or photograph or its contents to any person except when in the opinion of the accused's legal representative it is necessary in the course of preparing the defence or appeal.

(3) An order made by a court under this section may require the accused's legal representative—

(a) to ensure that the statement or photograph is always kept in a locked, secure container when it is not being used; and

(b) to return the statement or photograph to the prosecutor when the legal representative is no longer instructed in the matter.

(4) An order made by a court under this section shall not prevent the accused from inspecting all material which should be disclosed by the prosecutor to the accused.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment proposes the introduction of a new clause which will offer a safeguard to a significant class of people who have no such safeguard. The burden of the new clause is to entitle and empower a court to prohibit the publication of material which has come into the hands of an accused which may do damage to a victim. I declare an interest as a trustee of the NSPCC and chairman of a commission of inquiry into the prevention of child abuse.
If a small child is killed, sexually abused or raped, photographs come into existence. Furthermore, statements come into existence which go into a good deal of detail about family circumstances and often the circumstances of other children in the family group and of the children of neighbours in a small community. It is a significant poison in our system that defendants who by definition are perverted, if they are properly convicted, can lay their hands upon material such as photographs and statements. It is well known that they circulate them in prison, but the matter does not end there. In my professional experience, defendants claim as of right to be entitled to retain the documents and the photographs while claiming to appeal, sometimes legitimately and sometimes not. That process of appeal can go on for years.
The poisonous material, which is capable of doing great harm to the victims of such categories of crime, is often circulated in prison. When the offender leaves prison it is further circulated among rings of men, usually, who enjoy sado-masochistic photographs, statements and so forth. The amendment proposes that where the prosecutor has reasonable grounds for believing that that may happen he may apply to the court for an order of prohibition—I put it shortly—so that the legal representatives, solicitors or counsel are not to hand over the photographs or the statements to the defendant. They are, of course, to take instructions on them but they are not to allow the defendant to take copies and the material must be kept under lock and key.
I do not suggest that the wording of the amendment is necessarily perfect but there is a real vice and a real problem to be dealt with. It is wrong, cruel, unfeeling and unthinking for a woman who, for instance, has been subject to gross sexual assault to think that the photographs and statements in the case and the evidence of her wound is to be circulated at the whim of the person who has done her the original offence. Of course, sensible police officers will remove the address but that is of little solace to the woman. It is wrong that children growing up and hoping to escape the memories of the crime should live in fear of paedophile and pornographic rings gaining access to material generated by bad, harsh and cruel treatment.
I repeat that the amendment is not necessarily perfect in its wording, but I ask the Minister to recognise that the problem is serious. I hardly need to ask that and of course I did not put it offensively. But can the Minister say whether there is a mechanism available to this House or to another place to put it right. At the moment defendants have access to the material as of right, keep it for their own ignoble purposes and circulate it. I propose that they have no legitimate right or interest to retain the material, which is the fruit of their crime. I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, as a practising member of the criminal Bar, I support the amendment. It is a situation I have encountered in practice on a number of occasions. I am faced with material which the accused is entitled to see and I have no means of stopping him. Indeed, I represent him and I may well have to discuss the material with him. I am concerned about his having access to the material and keeping it because I anticipate that it may be used as suggested by my noble friend Lord Williams.
Apart from the most important aspect, which is the protection of the victims, I am anxious that as there is an opportunity to deal with disclosure this is a way in which one of the current difficulties can be dealt with. It is not unusual for material to be disclosed on a counsel to counsel basis. That can lead to great difficulties and embarrassment when a client requires to see material which his counsel has been given on that basis. However, the amendment provides not merely a degree of protection and comfort for victims but has the additional benefit of ensuring that the procedure in relation to occasions when such a difficulty arises is formalised by an application to the court and a court order.

903
I hope that the Minister will feel that the reasoning behind the amendment is worthy of consideration and that it is a matter the Government can take up at a later stage.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I support what has been said by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. One knows from one's own experience and practice that from time to time such horrible situations occur. Whether the amendment is the right way of dealing with it I am not sure but I hope that my noble friend will accept that there is a genuine problem. When it arises, which is not that often, it causes great anxiety and we should try to deal with it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I say at the outset without reservation that in anyone's language this practice is evil and I agree that there is a very real issue to be addressed.
The amendment seeks to tackle a problem which raises fundamental issues about open justice, the rights of persons accused of serious crime to know the case against them, and the rights of victims that statements and photographs should not be used for pornographic or other improper purposes. We do not have any reliable data about the extent to which statements or photographs are misused in that way, but we know that it does happen. It is most likely to happen in sexual offence cases, as has been said, where the potential for misuse is obvious and the distress to victims is the greatest.
It is not a new problem. In 1991 the Home Office issued a consultation paper inviting views on a range of measures, statutory and non-statutory, for preventing misuse of witness statements in sexual offence cases. There was no agreement on how best to proceed. Some favoured adopting all the measures while others doubted that any effective and enforceable solution could be found which reconciled all the conflicting interests. The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice subsequently recommended that in sexual offence cases defendants should be required to return victims' statements to the instructing solicitor at the conclusion of the case. While this would go some way towards addressing the problem the Government believe we should continue to search for a more effective solution.
At a meeting with the Law Society last summer a number of options were discussed and it was agreed that further work was needed. There was another meeting only last week at which the Law Society indicated that it favoured legislation on the lines of this amendment, albeit restricted to sexual offence cases. I mention this background in order to highlight the great complexity of the mischief which is the target of this amendment.
The principle of open justice is fundamental to our system. We have international obligations to ensure that those accused of crimes receive of a fair trial. We must be satisfied that any restriction imposed on access by defendants to prosecution material would be compatible with those obligations and would not lead to miscarriages of justice. That is not a simple matter and requires further careful study
904
We must also avoid imposing unnecessary burdens on the criminal justice system. Procedures which require the prosecution to apply in each case to the court for an order restricting access would be very cumbersome for both the prosecution and the court. What test is the prosecutor to use in deciding whether to apply to the court? More importantly, what test is the court to use in deciding whether to grant an order? The practicality of such a system needs careful consideration, together with any options which might simplify the procedures and avoid unnecessary bureaucracy.
The amendment also makes no provision for unrepresented defendants. That is an important aspect of this issue. If one accepted the principle, with which I have a good deal of sympathy, that access by defendants should be restricted in some circumstances, how are unrepresented defendants to gain access to material on terms which it is proposed should apply to defendants who are legally represented? What arrangements are to be made for access depending on whether the defendant is in custody or at liberty? These are important practical considerations if we are to ensure that any measures which are put in place operate effectively.
Finally, the amendment does not specify what penalty is to be imposed for breaching the requirements of an order. That is an important point on which we need to be clear. One possibility is that a breach could be dealt with as a contempt of court. The other would be to create a specific new penalty. We must also be clear about who would be caught. Would it be the legal representative alone, or could penalties be imposed on those proved to be misusing material which was the subject of an order?
The Government are sympathetic to the principle of this amendment. Indeed, they have been working on proposals to create a duty of confidentiality that would protect unused prosecution material disclosed to the defence under Part I of this Bill. As in this amendment, the issues are complex. Again, any such duty would have to be compatible with the general principles of open justice. It must not restrict the accused's ability to prepare his defence, or mount an appeal or apply for anything read out in open court. Yet it must also curtail the scope for abuse. The Government hope to be in a position to introduce in another place amendments to provide for such a duty of confidentiality. To a limited degree, they might assist in protecting from misuse the sort of material covered by this amendment: but only where it constitutes unused material disclosed under the provisions of the Bill.
Much further work would be needed to develop a scheme embracing other material, especially given that in some cases it may have entered the public domain, if it has been used in open court, and given the practical questions I have outlined. Nevertheless, we do intend to continue our work with the aim of producing a workable scheme as soon as possible. There is no difference whatever between us as regards the principle of the amendment nor about the very serious practice that it seeks to address. But more work needs to be done and, in the light of that, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed on this occasion.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is disappointing that the Government have no present alternative provision to put forward. The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice reported many, many years ago. The Minister referred to open justice. Subsection (4) of the proposed new clause provides:
"An order made by a court under this section shall not prevent the accused from inspecting all material which should be disclosed".
Therefore, the defendant has an opportunity to know exactly what is put against him.
There is no difficulty about punishment. Courts frequently make prohibition orders against the publication of material, either specifically or the statute prohibits them generally. The penalty is for contempt and may be an unlimited fine or imprisonment.
There is no difficulty about the unrepresented defendant. If he is in custody, he can see the material in a controlled environment, and if he is not he may view the material by appointment in a police station, which frequently happens at present. I give one example to demonstrate the vice. The late Frederick West killed himself before he was convicted. But had he not done so and had he retained access to photographs of people—often young children and women—that he had killed and retained the statements which were part of the prosecution case, would it be right that he could retain and feast on them and distribute them over the years to his friends and acquaintances with the same tastes? I cannot believe that to be right.
I am grateful that the Minister was able to say that the Government will produce something in another place. I am grateful for that mercy. That is not a mercy to me; it is a mercy to many others who suffer not the actuality but the fear and not knowing what has happened as regards such documents and photographs. But on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
INDEMNIFICATION OF JUSTICES AND JUSTICES' CLERKS
(".—(1) In section 53 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 (indemnification of justices and justices' clerks) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1)—
"(1A) So far as the duty mentioned in subsection (1) above relates to criminal matters, that subsection shall have effect as if—

(a) for the word "may" there were substituted "shall", and

(b) for the words following paragraph (c) there were substituted "unless it is proved, in respect of the matters giving rise to the proceedings or claim, that he acted in bad faith".

(2) This section applies in relation to things done or omitted on or after the appointed day.
(3) The reference in subsection (2) to the appointed day is to such day as is appointed for the purposes of this section by the Secretary of State.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [Meaning of preliminary stage of criminal proceedings]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 33, line 21, leave out ("below").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 59 [Extent]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments No. 22 and 23:
Page 35, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert—
("(b) paragraphs 6 and 6A of Schedule 2, and paragraph 7 of that Schedule so far as it relates to paragraphs 6 and 6A;").
Page 35, line 24, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections (Indemnification of justices and justices' clerks) and").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Fraud]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 44, line 12, at end insert—
("6A. In the list in section 17(2) (provisions extending to Scotland) after the entry relating to section 11 there shall be inserted "section 11A;".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Modifications for Northern Ireland]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 46, line 9, leave out ("and") and insert ("to").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. It would not be an under-statement to record that this is a most complex and technical Bill. As such, it is only right that I should begin by paying tribute to the skill with which your Lordships have embraced its detail. This is all the more impressive given that we did not, I fear, get off to the smoothest of starts in our consideration of the Bill. As a lay person myself, I appreciate only too well that our task would have been lightened had the code of practice been available at Second Reading. Nevertheless, our collective effort has, I believe, served yet again to demonstrate the value of this House as a revising Chamber.
Although the Bill makes a number of improvements to criminal procedures, its main purpose is to reform the law on prosecution and defence disclosure. These reforms are underpinned by the need for our system of criminal justice to be fair, efficient and effective. Accordingly, noble Lords on all sides have given much thought to ensuring that the provisions are even handed. That is an aim which undoubtedly commands support throughout the Chamber. But that is not to say that we have not had our differences. In that respect, I wholly concur with the sentiments expressed at Report stage by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that these are procedural and political, rather than personal.
I believe that the ground that now separates us is considerably narrower than it once was. Your Lordships' detailed deliberation of these important matters has thrown new light on a variety of issues. Much has been achieved in recent months through correspondence, meetings and, of course, constructive debate, for which I am most grateful.
The Bill has been amended to require the Secretary of State to publish a draft code of practice and to consider

907
representations made to him about it, after which he may modify the draft accordingly. He may then bring it into operation by order, but only when the order has been approved by a resolution of both Houses. In that way, ultimate control over the code will rest with Parliament.
We have sought to ensure that the Bill achieves a proper balance by setting out the essential elements of the code of practice and leaving the detail to the code itself. That said, we have, wherever possible, given assurances to modify the draft of the code to take account of points made in debate. A further, revised draft of the code will be available before Second Reading when the Bill is considered in another place.
On Second Reading I signalled that it was our intention to table amendments while the Bill was before this House on three subjects: first, the arrangements for children to give evidence; secondly, improvements to the transfer for trial provisions contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1984; and, finally, the difficult subject of the disclosure of material held by third parties.
In respect of the first of these, the House has made amendments to provide for binding rulings in respect of applications for children to given evidence by live television link or by means of a video recording. If such decisions can be taken at an early stage in the proceedings and if those decisions can be made to hold, there will be significant benefits for the children concerned. In addition, the Government are pursuing a range of further practical measures to improve the present arrangements for child witnesses to give evidence. Our debates have helped to identify the priorities and we shall be consulting widely with all interested groups in taking the work forward. I believe that that approach reflects the importance which this House and, in particular, my noble friend Lady Faithfull and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, attach to such issues.
Some amendments have been made to improve the transfer for trial provisions. We are currently engaged in renewed consultation with practitioners who have suggested some further technical refinements, which require careful consideration. I hope that noble Lords will agree that it is preferable for the Government to take the views of those practitioners fully into account so as to ensure that we have an effective and workable system. I am afraid that it means that some detailed, technical amendments will be needed when the Bill reaches another place.
We also had hoped to bring forward amendments on the disclosure of material held by third parties. We have consulted widely to establish what it would be possible and desirable to achieve in the Bill. But we have not yet been able to devise a scheme of third-party disclosure which covers all aspects of the problem, which ensures that the accused is afforded proper assistance to present his defence and which avoids adding to delay and complexity in the system. We have, however, identified some modest procedural changes that should have practical benefits for third parties.
Your Lordships will appreciate that this is a difficult and very complex area. Indeed, the Lord Chief Justice, having responded to our proposals for procedural
908
change, has suggested that further consultation with the judiciary would be desirable. In practical terms, the need for further consultation will, I am afraid, mean that any necessary amendments cannot now be tabled until the Bill passes to another place.
Finally, I wish to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to our deliberations on the Bill, especially the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. As ever, the noble Lord has been assiduous in prosecuting his case with, of course, the assistance at the Dispatch Box of his noble friends Lord Williams and Lady Mallalieu. I also wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for representing his Front Bench; and, indeed, I thank my colleagues and noble friends on these Benches. I should like to express my particular thanks to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate who has found the time, in what I know to be an extremely busy schedule, to assist me on the Bill.
I am confident that this House, as is customary, has responded positively as a revising Chamber and, as a result, will despatch to another place what I believe is a much improved Bill.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this has been something of a roller-coaster of a Bill. It started in a very friendly sense in that I hope it was clear—indeed, we tried to make it so—that we support the principle behind the Bill. Our amendments and our deliberations were intended to make the legislation work better rather than to oppose it. I do not believe that the Minister or anyone else would say that our attitude towards the Bill has been what the Deputy Prime Minister called being on the side of the villains.
We then had a certain number of little local difficulties in the sense that, as the Minister rightly said, the code of practice was produced very close to the Committee stage rather than soon after Second Reading. In addition, the Government tabled virtually 100 amendments in Committee, a very considerable number of them on Report and, indeed, quite a few on Third Reading. The result is that the Bill which started out with 35 pages now has 55. Therefore, I believe it could be argued that we are not now dealing with entirely the same Bill as we were at an earlier stage of the proceedings.
The difficulty that we had in Committee was, first, the fact that the code of practice which is an integral part of the Bill—indeed, Part II of the Bill is wholly concerned with it—was not available in time. Secondly, we had not really worked out between us ways of debating that code of practice adequately; and, thirdly, there was no provision, despite the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, for the code of practice to be subject to parliamentary approval.
I am not sure whether we have yet worked out a way to debate codes of practice which are not included in legislation. I have now tried two ways of doing so—first, by writing it into the Bill as a schedule and then amending it myself as, indeed, I did on this and earlier occasions; and, secondly, by attempting to put, on the

909
face of the Bill, as it were, the amendments which we would seek to make to the code of practice. Perhaps a future solution would be for the Government to table a code of practice as a schedule, thereby making it open for debate and amendment, with a view to taking it out at the end so that it would be subject to parliamentary debate, although it would not be subject to the rigid procedure of primary legislation. I do not know the answer. Perhaps the Procedure Committee would like to consider the issue.
However, I do know that such Bills which rely on codes of practice—and many do—ought not to be introduced without the code of practice being available. Further, they ought not to be published without amendments—which, as in this case, were clearly in preparation before the Bill was printed—being included on the face of the Bill. Such amendments should not have to be made in Committee, on Report or even, as the Minister just acknowledged, later when the Bill goes to another place.
Nevertheless, there have been some improvements during the course of the debates, although not all of them appear on the face of the Bill. First, and most important, the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee about parliamentary approval and consultation were accepted. Secondly, there were considerable improvements promised in the draft code—such as, reconsideration of the role of disclosure and investigation officers, the retention of draft witness statements and the recording of information as soon as practicable. Thirdly, there were also improvements in the way that the retention of material, such as samples, should be legislated for, and, as the Minister just said, there will be further amendments on transfer for trial.
We still believe that there are great problems with the relatively clumsy and rigid procedures proposed in the Bill. The high level of disclosure, both from prosecution and defence, will cause difficulties and extra work, even though we acknowledge that it is intended to reduce the burden which is perceived by the Government. We still think—and this is extremely important—that the procedures involved in the Bill will provoke unnecessary "not guilty" pleas in order to get sight of primary disclosure. That, in turn, will clog up the magistrates' courts.
In our view, the application of the code of practice to other investigating authorities and to those assisting them is still unclear and inadequate. We are not satisfied with the power given to the prosecuting authorities to make adequate decisions about sensitive material. Indeed, we are certainly not satisfied that the Bill goes forward without the Government having achieved agreement between police forces as to the length of time for which material shall be retained.
However, that is life. That is what these Bills are like. Some of the measures we argued for have been accepted with relatively good grace; some of the measures we argued for have been rejected with a measure of understanding; some appear to me to have been rejected without any real understanding at all. Nevertheless it is a pleasure once again to see the noble Baroness, Lady
910
Blatch, at the Dispatch Box as we did when she was the Minister in other departments in the past. After our initial difficulties, I pay tribute to her hard work, to her understanding of the issues although she is not a lawyer, and to her courtesy throughout in supplying us with information and explanations.
I welcome the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to the Dispatch Box where he has proved himself a natural from the beginning. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Williams of Mostyn and Lady Mallalieu for their assistance at all stages of the Bill. I am grateful, too, to our research assistant, Claire Cozens, to Roger Ede of the Law Society, to Anne Owers and Razia Karim of Justice, and to others who have taken the trouble to inform us of their anxieties with the Bill. We have had the pleasure of listening to many lawyers—too many to name—from all sides of the House, and also to the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, who chaired the Royal Commission. We are grateful for his incisive contributions at all stages of the Bill. There is still plenty of work for the House of Commons to do. I wish it well with the Bill and I hope that it will produce, in the end, a Bill which maintains the essential balance in our adversarial system between prosecution and defence so that the guilty are convicted and the innocent go free.
6 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that we did not get off to the smoothest of starts. However, we got off to a good start at Second Reading. Noble Lords on all sides of the House made clear their wish to make progress with the Bill. However, as the noble Baroness later implied—and as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh said—there were some rather fractious and unhappy events on 19th December. We were all relieved when we were able to put that behind us.
There are lessons to be drawn from the progress of the Bill. I still take the view—although I do not hold the noble Baroness responsible—that the Bill should never have been introduced into your Lordships' House given the early stage of preparation at which it proved to be. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, there were over 100 Government amendments at Committee, and I believe there were over 60 at Report stage. The Bill goes forward not in its final form so far as the Government can make it so but in the clear knowledge that there will be a need for further amendments in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the code of practice. Our main argument on 19th December was whether the code then represented the policy of Her Majesty's Government or whether Her Majesty's Government were somehow neutral about it. The impression was then given—I think this gave rise to the problem which we sought to overcome—that Her Majesty's Government were indeed neutral about it at that stage. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, later made clear, it was at that time the Government's best view of the proposal that should be included in the code of practice notwithstanding, as we all understood, that further consultation would have to

911
take place. My own conclusion, both from the state the Bill was in when it started, and the state it is in now, is that your Lordships would have been able to scrutinise it much more completely and much more satisfactorily, and we would have avoided some of the fraught discussion which occurred, if the Bill had been delayed before presenting it to your Lordships until it had been more fully prepared.
I see no remedy for my next point within the immediate future. I conclude that although there were important differences of opinion on the Bill, and although it was the duty of the Opposition parties to seek to represent the views of those outside the Chamber 'with important points to make, it was never a Bill which divided both sides of the House strictly on narrow party lines. For that reason I wish we had a means by which a Bill of this kind, although controversial, could be dealt with in a less adversarial way. Unfortunately, circumstances oblige us to deal with it in that way. It would have been far better if we had been able to prepare ourselves on a different timescale for some of the problems with which we were confronted at a later stage.
However, that having been said, I am most grateful for the considerable efforts made by the Minister, and all those who advised her, to try to meet the needs of the House on many extremely detailed matters. In a slip of the tongue she attributed to me a learning which I do not possess. However, there were times when I thought that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, might indeed have been referred to as a noble and learned Lord. I pay tribute to the skill with which he, as a non-lawyer, dealt with many of the detailed matters which came before the House. It is a better Bill than it would have been and that is reassuring.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I briefly say this—
Noble Lords: Good heavens!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Yes, my Lords, good heavens! I have been involved with this Bill at certain times and I wish to say a few words about it. It is an important Bill and an interesting Bill because we did not really discuss it on party lines. That is interesting. However, the greater importance of the Bill is that it has established temporarily a form of procedure which we never had before; that is, how we are to deal with codes of practice in this House. This is of general application. The importance of the Bill is that across party lines an agreement was reached that we had to do something. We have done something and now someone has to devise an accepted way of dealing with such matters on all future Bills.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I wish to pay tribute to the painstaking care with which the noble Baroness has approached this complex Bill, and for the understanding which she showed to the difficult problem raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful], about the evidence of children on which there is a not totally consistent judicial view. I also wish to add my congratulations in regard to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate
912
in two matters: first of all, his confession that he has a cardiac region and, secondly, that in regard to an irresistible but microscopic amendment of mine, it was operating in my favour.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should like to endorse the tributes paid to my noble friend Lady Blatch and, indeed, to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. It is interesting that the Bill in a sense is a lawyers' paradise but the three leading Front Bench spokesmen are not lawyers, although hearing the discussion one would never have realised that. This is about the twelfth Bill in the past 50 years dealing with the procedures of our criminal courts and of those who have to work in them. All those Bills have really been experimental and necessarily so. I am using hindsight when I say that because it was not generally acknowledged at the time. I think it realistic to say that this Bill is, to some extent, experimental too.
These Bills have to be judged, I think, by a number of criteria. I shall quickly mention them and say to what extent this Bill meets them. Does it enhance the public interest? Yes, this Bill does, and it clarifies the rather delicate question of the public interest immunity certificates. It does that well. Does it make it more likely that guilty people will be convicted? Yes, it does. Does it make it more likely that innocent people will be acquitted? Yes. Will it reduce the length of court proceedings? That is very doubtful. Will it reduce their cost? We have to wait and see.
On Question, Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Education (Student Loans) Bill
6.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Before addressing the Bill itself it may be helpful to the House if I say a few words about a Statement that was made in another place this afternoon by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. It is not strictly speaking relevant to the Bill itself, but it may put into context some of the comments that I imagine we may hear from noble Lords this afternoon which may not relate directly to the contents of the Bill.
This afternoon my right honourable friend spoke about the Robbins Committee, which set out a vision for expanding higher education in the United Kingdom. Since then, as we all know, higher education has been transformed beyond the expectations even of Robbins. It no longer caters only for a privileged elite but provides opportunities for a significant proportion of our young people. In Robbins' day just one young person in 17 went on to higher education; now the number is approaching one in three. The number of newly qualified graduates gaining first degrees in Britain each year has doubled since 1979. Over one-third of those are science, maths and engineering graduates. Our graduation rate is now one of the highest in Europe, second only to Denmark in the European Union, and

913
the United Kingdom produces more science graduates relative to the young workforce than any other OECD country. By the year 2001 the number of graduates in the workforce is likely to be well over 3 million—twice as high as in 1981.
Impressive though those achievements are, future success requires universities and colleges to continue to develop while preserving their best traditions. After such fast growth it is time to take stock and consider the future of higher education. The Robbins Report provided a landmark for higher education policy which has stood the test of time well, but it is time to take a fresh and comprehensive look at the challenges facing higher education in the United Kingdom as we approach the 21st century.
Therefore, with the agreement of the Prime Minister, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the appropriate territorial Ministers, we intend to appoint a committee of inquiry into higher education. We are delighted that Sir Ron Dearing has agreed to chair it.
We propose to invite the committee to make recommendations on how the shape, structure, size and funding of higher education should develop to meet the needs of the United Kingdom over the next 20 years. We shall supply the committee with the preparatory work that has already been undertaken in the education departments as part of the Secretary of State's review. We shall consult widely on the committee's precise terms of reference and composition. In due course my right honourable friend will make a further announcement on the committee's remit and membership in the light of those consultations. We hope that the committee of inquiry will be able to start work some time after Easter and will be able to report by the summer of 1997.
With those remarks I now turn to the Bill itself.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene before my noble friend moves on to the Bill. I understand that he quoted from a Statement made in another place. Can he explain why that Statement was not repeated in this House in view of its obvious importance? It appears that this House was excluded.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I did not quote the Statement but paraphrased it. In the usual way, we offered the Statement to the opposition parties. As I understand it, it is a matter for them as to whether a Statement is repeated in this House. I followed the normal convention, and as they did not wish the Statement to be repeated I did not insist on it, because I thought that there would be a suitable opportunity to give some idea of what was in the Statement when we debated the Bill.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sure that the House is obliged to my noble friend for referring to the Statement. However, I was a little disturbed to hear him indicate that because the Opposition did not ask for the Statement to be repeated in this House it was not to be repeated here. There are parties other than the
914
Opposition. The matter is very important and it is a great pity if a Statement which is sufficiently important to be made in another place is to be excluded from this House simply because the Opposition do not want it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I may try to help the House and, in the light of his last remark, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It has been the convention for as long as I can remember—although that may not be as long as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—that a Statement which is made in the other place is offered to the opposition party. It is in the Opposition's gift as to whether the Statement is taken in this House.
If the noble Lord wishes to raise this matter with the Procedure Committee or the Government Chief Whip or to have it discussed, that is perfectly fair.
We decided not to take the Statement in this House today because we knew that there was to be the Third Reading of a major Bill and that some 20 Peers were to speak in this Second Reading debate. There was not only this Statement on education but also another Statement. With due regard to the fact that there would be the opportunity to touch upon the contents of the Statement in this debate, as the Minister has done, we thought that on balance we did not wish to ask for the Statement to be repeated. I see nothing wrong with that. You make a judgment and a choice. Noble Lords can rest assured that if we had decided to take the Statement there would have been grumbles about this debate starting perhaps an hour later. You cannot win them all.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, with great respect, this is an important Statement. I am very disturbed to know that this House, including all the remaining parties other than the Opposition, is to be denied the opportunity to have Statements made in another place repeated here simply because the Opposition, for reasons good or bad—and I make no comment on the reasons that we have been given—do not want it.
I wish to register a protest. I also ask my noble friend the Minister to make sure that the leadership and appropriate committees of this House are informed that some of us want this House to be treated properly when Statements are important enough to be made in another place.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I note my noble friend's protest, and I shall certainly make sure that it is brought to the attention of my noble friend the Chief Whip as well as the usual channels. However, I have to say to my noble friend that what the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip said accords exactly with my own understanding of the convention. That is that these matters are offered to the Opposition, and if the Opposition do not wish to take it, that is a matter for them.
I thought that it was worth making some reference to the Statement at the beginning of my speech, partly because we have approximately 25 speakers in the debate, which is on a pretty narrow point, and I had a sneaking suspicion that some of them might want to

915
expand their speeches to the more general aspects of higher education. Therefore, I felt that making some reference to that Statement and the fact that most of these matters will be a matter for that committee of inquiry might just possibly—I am an optimist—concentrate the minds of noble Lords and they might confine their remarks to the Bill itself. I certainly intend to confine my remarks to the Bill. I also intend to confine my winding up remarks to the Bill, and do not intend to have a general debate on higher education.
Baroness White: My Lords, some of us have been properly informed of the general tone and range of the Statement made in another place. We have not been left in complete ignorance, and I suppose that the Government have made arrangements for their own members.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sure that many noble Lords will have taken the opportunity to go down to another place and listen to the Statement made there. Certainly they will be able to obtain copies of that Statement. I can assure noble Lords that copies of the terms of reference, which are out for consultation, will be made available in the Library. We shall be more than willing to consider comments made by noble Lords.
After that rather delayed start, I intend to confine my remarks to the Bill itself. I trust that other noble Lords will do the same.
The Bill is short and straightforward with a clear and simple objective. That objective is to build further on the current student loan scheme by improving the deal for the student consumer and for the taxpayer. The Bill will do so by enabling students for the first time to take out a subsidised loan from a bank or building society. In place of the Student Loans Company monopoly there will be choice, diversity and competition. Not only that, but the student consumers will also have the benefit of private sector skills and expertise.
For the taxpayer, the private sector will be lending and risking its own rather than public money.
We have consistently given priority to extending choice at all levels of the education system. This was once thought controversial. I suspect that it is even accepted by some noble Lords opposite now. It is easy to see why. It works.
Only choice supported by competition and diversity can raise and maintain standards effectively. This Bill will mean in the short term a better, quicker, convenient, more varied and comprehensive service for student borrowers. In the longer term, as the market develops, it will mean a better loan product tailored to individual needs.
The involvement of the private sector is important for reasons other than choice and competition. The capital investment required in student loans is immense. We estimate that it will be £5 billion by the end of the decade. We want the private sector to be responsible for raising and lending much of that and for bearing most of the risk.
This is sensible in its own right. But it has another advantage. Reducing the size of the public sector and building up the private encourages individual freedom
916
while also boosting the economy. Further, personal lending at this level is not a natural activity of Government. We do not have the experience or the expertise. The banks and building societies do. It is their business. It makes sense to make student loans their business as well.
We shall shortly invite those banks and building societies which have expressed an interest to bid for the right to offer subsidised loans. This will be for a period of five years. We envisage selecting up to four private lenders in each of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Students would then be able to choose between the successful bidders for a private loan; or—and I must stress this—they could still choose a public loan from the Student Loans Company.
This is a short Bill. Despite criticism in another place there is nothing sinister in this. The Bill will give us a power to pay subsidy to the private lenders. That subsidy is largely needed so that they can continue to offer loans at preferential terms.
The detailed arrangements will be set out in commercial contracts. We shall ensure that they protect the taxpayers' interest and the normal audit arrangements will apply. The invitation to tender documents will be placed in the Library.
It is striking how closely debate on the Bill in another place—and outside comment—has paralleled debate on the 1990 Act which introduced student loans. Then, as now, opponents focused on the same arguments: the Bill lacked detail; participation would be affected; hardship would be created; and other loans schemes would be better. But paradoxically underpinning all was a complete rejection of the principle of loans.
No doubt some of those arguments will shortly be put forward. Let me make two points now. First, those arguments were misplaced then. There is no hard evidence to support them. They are misplaced now. Secondly, we were right then about the principle of student loans. We are right now about the principle of this Bill. Opponents, I hope, will again come round to see that we are right.
This should not be a controversial Bill. It has no downsides for anyone—student or taxpayer. It enables us to test the market for a realistic development of our successful loans scheme. There are valuable opportunities here for the private sector and for students. I trust that they will take them up.
I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Henley.)
6.26 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the House should be grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill. I wish to congratulate him on the very professional way in which he has done what seemed to me a rather tricky job.
We have heard with a sense of enormous relief and release, (as my honourable friend emphasised in another place) from the Secretary of State this afternoon of the setting up of a committee under Sir Ron Dearing to

917
examine the whole of higher education, and all our thinking on this Bill—to which I shall confine myself—has been transmogrified by the new gleam of hope that it may quite possibly never reach the statute book. But even when asked by my honourable friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside, the Secretary of State did not offer to withdraw the Bill, or give any prognostications of its future. So we must perforce proceed to consider it, even though the debate now, and perhaps later, will resemble nothing more than the morbid anatomy of a dead duck.
There are three questions that we must ask. Where did the Bill come from? Do we need it? Will it work? To begin at the beginning: where does it come from? Did students call for this Bill? No. Did vice-chancellors rise up and demand this Bill? No. Did the banks and building societies cry out for it? Certainly not. Did even the gurus, spin doctors and think-tank warriors of the Conservative Party recommend it? Quite the contrary, as I shall demonstrate. Whence came it, then, and where was it conceived? It was begotten by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon the Treasury, and it was brought forth in panic.
This Bill was inspired by the Chancellor's pre-Budget scurrying to find room for tax cuts. Ministers were attracted to the proposal because they believed it would remove some £.1.8 billion from the PSBR, including £100 million in the first year of the scheme's operation. Those sums have already gone out of the window. The Government's eagerness to have the scheme in place for the autumn, and therefore to rush this Bill through Parliament, was based on a false premise: they naively believed that the banks would jump at it. Will they never learn? When the banks were consulted before the Student Loans Bill 1990, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness said:
"We saw some advantage in making the expertise and the branch network of banks available to help with administration of the scheme, but the banks decided that there was no commercial benefit for them".
They said it in 1990; and they have said it again. The chief executive of the Midland Bank, in a letter to the President of the NUS made it absolutely clear. He said:
"We were unable to resolve a number of concerns on such issues as administrative complexity, risk identification, profitability and customer reaction. We therefore advised the government that we did not wish to be invited to join the current formal bidding process".
He spoke for many others when he said that. I hope that Sir Ron Dearing will not be impenetrable to the trumpet blast of truth from the banks and building societies. And yet the Bill ground its way through the procedures of the House of Commons until on 14th December the Minister of State had to announce, only two days after rejecting an amendment to delay implementation by a year, that it would be best all round if he delayed implementation by 12 months—and after today, probably by another 12 months. He told the Standing Committee that that was because the financial institutions needed time to adjust their information technology and because there was merger activity in the building society sector. My Lords, if you will believe that, you will believe anything.
918
Since then it has all gone horribly quiet. When he announced the delay, the Minister promised a new timetable for the tendering process "probably in the next few weeks". On 9th January, he said:
"We expect expressions of interest by the end of January and bids by Easter".
At Report stage, on 17th January, he told the Commons:
"I believe it proper that we should now aim at the period of tendering, invitation and finalisation of contracts ending at the mid-point of 1996".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/1/96; col. 811.]
Yet there is still no sign of a revised tender document. This does not suggest that the Minister's life is being made a misery by the constant interruptions of bankers knocking on his door.
However, the Government must have felt that Pelion was being piled upon Ossa when, earlier this very month, the Conservative Political Centre published the report of the CPC National Policy Group on Higher Education, entitled The Future of Britain's Universities. It is a serious and deeply researched report. It takes a wide view and it proposes many sensible developments in matters like diversity and easier access, and university funding. We in the Labour Party have read it carefully, with interest and profit. I commend it to any of your Lordships who may not have secured a copy as a powerful contribution to the debate, from the Conservative side.
We were particularly interested in its proposals for funding students which are to be found on pages 15 to 19. We read:
"Increased student hardship, combined with the current loan scheme, is proving a deterrent to entering university".
Not my words, but the words of the Conservative report.
"The Policy Group believes that the present loan scheme should be replaced, as soon as possible, by a more effective system".
The report offers what it regards as a superior model to the "mortgage repayment system":
"an income contingent loan repayment scheme—is not based on fixed equal payments, but on varying amounts, based on a given percentage of income above an agreed minimum level. Repayments can, therefore, be spread over a much longer period of time, say 20 years, requiring smaller repayments in the early years, thus lessening any deterrent to going on to higher education. Such schemes are best 'piggy-backed' on national income tax or national insurance schemes, as this minimises both the cost of administration, and the default rates. It is relevant to note that both the US and Canada are beginning to use income tax in attempts to recover defaulted loans".
Not my words, but the words of a Conservative Party think-tank report. It bears remarkable similarities to the scheme preferred by the CVCP, approved by the NUS and proved to be successful in the schemes introduced in New Zealand and Australia so long ago as 1989. It is precisely the sort of scheme we in the Labour Party have been urging the Government to adopt. The letter attacking the ICL system from the Department for Education and Employment to the CVCP, dated 15th February, came my way. I read it and it is, at the very best, a feeble attempt at a miserable rejoinder and I believe that it has left the vice-chancellors profoundly unimpressed by the case it tries to make. At all events, it is clear that the Bill comes from nowhere but the Treasury and that all responsible bodies, right across the

919
political spectrum, regard it as unnecessary because a better alternative, tested in the Antipodes, is staring us in the face.
My second question—"Do we need this Bill?"—is answered by the same evidence. We do not need it because we can do better. But we do need to be clear about the principles on which any fair scheme for student funding should be judged. I hope that the Dearing committee will be encouraged to think long and hard about the principles underlying student funding so as to avoid the specious seduction of a Treasury-inspired scheme.
The Labour Party has been engaged for some time on a consultative exercise on the subject and I commend the four clear principles on which we have worked to the Government, to Sir Ron and to your Lordships' House. They are these. First, the student funding system should encourage access to higher education for people from all social backgrounds. Secondly, it should protect and enhance the quality of higher education. Thirdly, it should not discriminate between different types of student. Those studying part-time and students over the age of 50 have needs as great as and sometimes greater than younger or full-time students—to say nothing of students in further education. Fourthly, it must be fair both to students and to the taxpayer. It must therefore be an efficient and progressive system and one which eliminates the present blight of student hardship.
On that fourth principle, may I point out that subsidising private lenders to the tune of £1,500 per loan—an estimate which Ministers have pointedly failed to deny—is clearly neither fair to taxpayers, nor efficient. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, made the point during a debate in 1989 in words that have rung down the decade. He said:
"A fishmonger sells fish; that is his business. A banker lends money, that is his business. One does not have to bribe a fishmonger to sell fish but apparently the government have to bribe the banks to lend money. Could we get further into absurdity?"
His words are as true now as they were then.
The Bill, as we have it before us, unimproved by any of the amendments so clearly put and so cogently argued at the Standing Committee of another place, is unnecessary and irrelevant to the needs of students. It has been so overtaken by the flood of events consequent upon the Budget as to make it outdated and bypassed by this afternoon's events and the Statement by the Secretary of State which makes it quite clear that responsibility for the present crisis in higher education rests firmly with the Government.
My third question was: "Will it work?" The answer is equally clear and I shall list only a few of its deficiencies and leave the expounding of others to my noble friends. First, the Bill, Ministers tell us, is designed to increase the choice available to students. It will not suddenly provide them with more money for food or books and it will not relieve the problems caused by the student loans system's repayment mechanism. But it will provide students with a choice between having the logo of the Student Loans Company or the logo of a bank or building society on their loan
920
application forms. It is nothing more. Ministers will have to forgive students if they receive news of that liberation with only modified rapture.
The real choice the Bill would provide is the right of financial institutions to choose those students who seem most likely to be profitable customers later in life, leaving those rejected to be dealt with by the Student Loans Company. The SLC would have no choice but to see its unit costs pushed up and its ability to forecast demand—already identified as a problem by the National Audit Office—diminished even further.
The Bill will not work unless it offers students a higher degree of security. Students taking out private loans would fall outside the protection of the independent loans assessor. The Minster of State tried to assure the Standing Committee in another place that they could turn to the banking ombudsman for help. Unfortunately, he had failed to read the ombudsman's terms of reference, which preclude him from such involvement. This House will therefore need to examine further the need for a proper appeals mechanism, and how we might give some protection to the privacy of loan applicants.
Vice-chancellors have also pointed out that the Bill perpetuates the anomaly which means that their institutions are paid less for certifying students' eligibility for loans than the system costs them to administer. They have been unhappy enough about subsidising the Student Loans Company: they will be even more unhappy if, while being forced to charge new students £300 each, they are made to subsidise profit-making concerns. Without their co-operation the Bill might prove difficult to administer. But, above all, it will not work without the willing co-operation of the banks. And, despite all inducements, there is no sign of this yet.
It will be difficult, at Committee stage, for us to put forward amendments to improve this Bill to any great extent. It is ideologically and implacably based on the wrong premise. The income contingent loan repayment scheme is simply better than this mortage repayment model. Every serious commentator agrees about that. The Government should have realised, after rushing the 1990 Bill through and watching the disastrous start of the Student Loans Company, which Sir Eric Ash had to rescue, that they were backing the wrong horse. But no. In the panic to reduce the PSBR they forced this miserable measure on us. If it goes through, it will be a failure. My advice to the Government, in the light of the announcement by the Secretary of State this afternoon, is, even at this late stage, withdraw it. Scrap it. Take the advice of the good old English proverb: if at first you don't succeed—give up!
6.40 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, it is always a daunting prospect to follow the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. On this occasion it is even more so, since the noble Lord made, so much more eloquently than I could, many of the points that I intended to make. Like the noble Lord, I congratulate the Minister on his deft handling of the opening reference to the Statement in

921
another place this afternoon. He had anticipated that much of our debate would perhaps be based around that Statement. Noble Lords may see it as some incentive if, by putting 20 or more names on the list of speakers, we can provoke the Government into setting up a long overdue committee of inquiry. The Opposition at least may wish to consider that tactic further. I do not intend to fall too far into that trap.
We welcome the committee of inquiry, not least because it is at last a recognition by the Government that something needs to be done about higher education and the funding crisis that it faces. Our concern is that the proposed committee of inquiry is not due to report until the summer of 1997 when there is a crisis that needs urgent and immediate action. Frankly, it cannot wait until the summer of 1997 (or in reality some time after that) when the inquiry report has been properly considered. For all those reasons, while welcoming the inquiry and the light that is now to be shone onto this major and important area, we regret that it may well mean the cancellation or postponement of much-needed action.
I agree with the CVCP that the Bill is "an irrelevant distraction". The comment was made on the basis that the measure does nothing to address the funding crisis in higher education or the problems of student poverty. The committee pointed out that with increasing numbers of students and a reducing amount of funding in real terms there has been an actual reduction of 28 per cent. per student in recent years. That problem needs addressing urgently; the Bill does nothing whatever to address it.
There is already a one-year postponement, for reasons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, in the implementation of these proposals should the Bill be enacted. And the committee of inquiry will take a further 15 months to report. If the Bill was an irrelevant distraction before today, it is even more so now.
I had a faint hope that this afternoon, given the announcement in another place, the Minister might stand up and withdraw the Bill. I certainly believe that he should have done so. There is still time for that to be done in the closing speech after what I still believe will be a very useful and interesting debate. I hope that in that speech the Minister will address the much wider and extremely important issues of the funding crisis in higher education and student poverty.
Student poverty is well documented. Many Members present will be able to speak of it with greater knowledge and experience than I. Certainly, the increasing stresses on students are well known, as is the drop-out rate among students. Sadly, even the suicide rate among students is increasing. When they are asked about the reasons for stress, financial concerns are overwhelmingly the most quoted single reason. It is not the only reason but overwhelmingly the most quoted. Those reasons are greatest among mature students, yet the Bill does nothing to address the difficulty. Students increasingly have to spend time earning, not learning. The Bill will do nothing to help prevent that.
922
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, asked who wanted this Bill. Certainly there was no prior consultation before the announcement of the Bill—a point made by the CVCP. As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, it is not wanted by the universities; it is certainly not wanted by students; and, it appears, it is not even wanted by the financial institutions. I am forced to the conclusion that the only people who may have wanted the Bill are those better-off parents who can afford to invest a low-interest student loan to attract a much higher rate of interest. That is not the business we should be in.
If the measure is to go ahead, a number of important questions need to be answered. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, raised many of them. I echo those points and look forward to hearing the answers later this evening. The Minister said that a number of financial institutions had expressed interest in these measures, and that four will eventually be chosen. Will he tell us which are the institutions that have expressed interest? We have certainly heard quite a lot from all the institutions that have not expressed interest, and they have been very clear as to why. I should like to hear about those that are allegedly interested. I want to know whether arrangements to be reached with them will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It appears from debates in another place that that is not to be the case. But, surely, any arrangements to be made for dealing with public money should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that point.
Is there to be a publicly stated limit to the subsidy that will be paid to the institutions? Or, as the National Union of Students suggested, will they receive a blank cheque? Reference was made to the fact that postponement of the implementation of the scheme has left a deficit of 100 million in the education budget for this year. How is that deficit to be funded? There is understandable concern in the education sector that it will be funded still within the education budget by making further cuts somewhere else. Will the Minister tell us how the apparent £100 million gap is to be funded? Will he confirm that it will not be funded by cuts elsewhere in the education budget?
Will the Minister tell the House what measures, if any, are to be taken to help with the very real, recognised problems that part-time students, graduate students and the over-50s have in funding? These are all important issues. Yet they are not addressed at all in the Bill and the scheme before us. I hope that in replying the Minister will comment.
I accept, as does my party, that it is reasonable for government at least to consider transferring some debt, and the associated risk, from the PSBR to commercial lending organisations. But it is important that any such a scheme must be equitable for students, and reasonably secure for lenders to be able to offer funding on that basis. The scheme before us today is neither. The present loans system is flawed. Its flaws are well known and well described. It is ludicrous to be transferring that flawed scheme to the private sector. For those reasons, we oppose the Bill.
The criticisms of the Bill are well known. I referred to its limited eligibility. Postgraduates, over-50s and part-time students, who now comprise 28 per cent. of

923
the student body, are ignored in the proposals. The arbitrary time limits proposed for repayments will undoubtedly cause hardship. There are inadequate arrangements for repayment.
The scheme is not an equitable or efficient basis for funding student living. It is more costly and less efficient than if done through national insurance or the tax system. There has been mention of experience in New Zealand and Australia. We should certainly examine that scheme. I hope that Sir Ron Dearing's inquiry will do just that. This sort of partial privatisation does nothing to address all the serious shortcomings. As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, it simply represents a dogmatic approach and will do nothing to solve the problem.
The Liberal Democrats will tomorrow be announcing the party's proposals for further and higher education. I could not possibly anticipate tonight what is embargoed for 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Go on!
Lord Tope: I simply offer a few personal views. Far be it from me to break an embargo. There are some principles to be mentioned. We need to see a system developed that addresses the current problems of student poverty and the inadequacy of support for part-time and mature students. We need such a scheme. The scheme should meet the criteria suggested by the CVCP, which say that,
"it must be simple; it must provide students with adequate support while they study; students must be able to be certain of receiving this support and the scheme must satisfy the requirements of social justice".
The Bill before us fails on all those counts. We need a new learning investment partnership where the key stakeholders (we are not afraid to use the expression; indeed, we think we thought of it first) in education—the Government, the employers and the individual learners—contribute fairly and equitably to the cost. The Bill achieves none of those objectives. In view of the Statement made in another place today the Bill should be withdrawn tonight and certainly does not deserve a Second Reading.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, when I put down my name for this Second Reading debate, I did so on the basis that it would be an opportunity—possibly the only opportunity in the near future—to draw attention to the crisis in the state funding of higher education in this country. That is something which your Lordships' House, with its abundance of Members well qualified to speak with knowledge and authority, should debate.
We now know that there is to be a committee of inquiry to begin at Easter and finish by the Summer of 1997. I understand also that there is to be a debate, on the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, on 6th March. If that is a possibility, it should go ahead for the simple reason that it would be to the advantage of the committee's deliberations to have some of the views of this House and some of the points emphasised as they have been this evening, not only about the student loans
924
Bill, but about the wider issues. No committee can afford to neglect any opinion at its beginning, as it should not during its proceedings.
In those circumstances, I shall confine myself narrowly to the student loans Bill in front of us today. If enacted, it would empower the Secretary of State to make financial grants to private sector financial institutions which, in turn, would make loans to students and presumably recover them.
I am in no way opposed to student loans; indeed, if I had not received one 62 years ago from my local authority to augment my college awards I would have had to withdraw from Oxford. Moreover, I have always taken the view that higher education confers a "private good" on the individual who enjoys it no less than a public good on the society to which he or she belongs. The private good comes in the form of the enhanced life chances which a graduate has compared with contemporaries who miss a university education. It is also a "public good" because well-educated citizens make greater contributions to the common weal.
When I was chairman of the University Grants Committee, I foresaw that the legislation introduced as a result of the recommendations of the Anderson Committee—now nearly 40 years ago and which most people in this House have probably forgotten—which provided that all students accepted by UK universities who had a residence qualification in this country, not less than two A-levels and who had been accepted by a university would be entitled to a means tested maintenance grant, while being a tolerable arrangement when the age participation rate was small, could well prove to be financially insupportable when the age participation rate reached 20 per cent. or more, as it is now. Therefore some form of loan scheme would be inevitable. For that reason I raised no objection at the passage of the original arrangements for making loans to students, but I was disappointed—as were other noble Lords—with the performance of the body initially set up. As we heard, Eric Ash had to rescue it from its poor if not maladministration.
The noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Tope, made many of the points I intended to make and I shall therefore restrict myself solely to practical matters on whether or not the Bill is passed. Whatever is the case, it will merely mean either that there is one body, the Government, or two bodies—the group of financial institutions who enter into the scheme—administering it. For both of them it is essential that the loan scheme should be inexpensive to administer and should encourage, not deter, good but poor students from entering universities. The Bill before us sheds no light on those matters, though I hope that the Minister will do so in his reply.
We all know that the major disincentives to students entering higher education relate, first, to the combined level of grant plus loan which is set, and the terms of repayment of the loan. We know the terms of repayment of the existing scheme; but we know nothing at all about the new one. Therefore, what the financial houses will arrange and agree with government as to their terms is something of a pig in a poke; unless it is the intention

925
of government—we do not know this—not to scrutinise those terms in any degree but to give a blank cheque to the financial houses regardless of how they administer it. I hope that that is not the case.
If the grant plus loan is not big enough, the student will be discouraged and give less time to his studies by seeking and engaging in part-time work. That is a new development in our universities to which I do not entirely object. However, I fear that it may have excessive and deleterious effects on the progress of students. If the terms under which the loan is granted include a requirement to repay shortly after graduation, as does the existing scheme or the one that I had to endure did, similarly, good students will be deterred.
As was mentioned, it is ominous that, though the size of the 18 year-old group was larger in 1995 than the year before, applications to the universities in that year decreased by 1.5 per cent. I do not know whether that is the beginning of a trend or just a blip. I suspect that it may affect the older students entering our universities who have had their older student allowance withdrawn and therefore find themselves even more strapped for money.
I am very much in agreement with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals that some applicants will be deterred by the prospect of an additional financial responsibility which they would have to face early in the first years of employment. I expect that that will remain the situation even with private financing. That is a situation which is particularly acute with doctors who are dealt a "double whammy". Their much longer courses—five-and-a-half years, sometimes six—and their inability to earn in the last three of those years means that they find themselves entering the medical profession with a debt in the order of £5,000 plus. That is a considerable amount.
It has already been mentioned that the income contingent debt collection through tax or the national insurance scheme avoids many difficulties for the students. Because it removes the disincentive it ought to be seriously considered. If that can be accommodated with a private scheme, so be it. However, it seems to me that it has not been given the consideration that it deserves. I urge the Government to think again at least to see whether it can be incorporated into what one may call the residual scheme, which is a continuation of the exiting scheme.
I promised to be brief and I shall be. I turn now to the students' point of view. Students will not be particularly concerned where the money comes from—the source is of little importance to them—but they will be intensely interested in the conditions of the loan and how the debt is to be repaid. I can find nothing in the Bill or indeed in the previous Act, apart from the condition of beginning to repay as soon as one has graduated, apart from certain exceptions which relate to the practicalities of the loan and recovery.
I shall be interested to know whether the Minister can at the end of the debate—I apologise to him publicly as I have done privately for the fact that for illness reasons in my family I have to leave early and will certainly not
926
be able to hear his response—assure us that, although the financial houses will of course be seeking a profit from any scheme—otherwise they would not go in for it—the administrative costs of private sector student loans will be no higher than public sector student loans are at present.
I heard the Minister say that the arrangements will be audited. I hope that he can give us the assurance I have asked for and say in particular that for every £1 million which the Government spend in this way at least as many, and preferably more, students will benefit from financial house arrangements than is the case at present. Otherwise, I cannot see any possible justification for this new system.
I also ask for consideration to be given to the burdensome and expensive nature of the work which the universities have to do now in responding to the existing scheme, which I do not see will be diminished in any way by going into the private sector. Can he assure the House that the Government's mind is not closed to income contingent schemes—that is of vital importance to students—and that some special consideration will be given to the plight of medical students.
Finally, can a place be found in the Bill or in the schedule relating to the administration of the scheme which meets this point and makes sure that this House fully understands what it is the Government intend to do in practical terms? The lack of information within the Bill makes it very difficult indeed to make an assessment as to its desirability or otherwise, though I have indicated what my own preference is. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some assurance on these points.
I conclude as I began by simply saying that I found some of the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Tope, very moving and very convincing indeed.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I declare an interest. I am pro-chancellor of the University of Wales. My immediate predecessor was my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and until quite recently the president of the university council of the University College of Wales, Swansea, was my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff. My noble friend Lord Cledwyn authorises me to say that I speak for both of them as well as for a much larger constituency in the University of Wales.
It is a peculiar institution in the life of Wales since it was Prifysgol y Werin, the People's University, started on small donations of modest people, colliers, slate workers, school teachers and ministers of religion. It has a strange focus of affection therefore within the land of our country. I have never known morale to be so low among the vice-chancellors, those who teach, those who research, and those who study in the university. There is a deep, bitter, corrosive sense of anger. They are weary of no consultation. They are tired of delay and dissembling.
The Minister urged us to attend only to the Bill. Well, it would it not take long, would it? What was it that Senator Mondale said? Where's the beef? I cannot even

927
see the crust in this Bill, let alone the beef. All it says is that the Secretary of State may make financial arrangements about student loans. What arrangements? On what basis of public scrutiny? To what effective policy or practical purpose? What are the four institutions in Wales that are thrusting themselves forward to offer these loans? What is the sensible purpose, in the conduct of academic life, to have this dual occasion—a consultation paper put out this afternoon elsewhere and in effect a two-and-a-half line Bill here? Is it simply coincidence that when the Government have no leg to stand on they look for a crutch called "consultation paper"? It seems to happen rather often now, does it not? Would any proprietor of a self-respecting though small chip shop run his affairs in this way?
These are too important matters to be dealt with in this cavalier fashion. If the funding of further and higher education is to be dealt with on a rational basis, by all means have a committee of inquiry but let it be a committee that is to report and whose findings and conclusions will be attended to as part of an overall project, and a committee which takes an overall philosophical view of how we pay for further and higher education, what it is for, and what we hope to offer those who work and study in it.
I said, accurately I believe, that I had never known morale so poor. I have never known such bitterness of feeling among people who are normally very slow to express bitterness. The vice-chancellors and others have borne a very heavy load in the heat of the day for a long time. In the end, if you treat people with no consideration, no consultation and no decency of respect, what you end up with is resentment. Resentment is no useful basis upon which to run a university system.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he referred to a Statement in another place. Does he appreciate that his own party refused to take the Statement here? That is why we did not discuss it. He wanted the Statement to be on a big enough subject. Does he appreciate that the Statement says:
"We propose to invite the committee to make recommendations on how the shape, structure, size and funding of higher education, including support for students, should develop".
Does that not meet his requirements?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am happy to deal with both of those points. I was present when my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, precisely what had occurred this afternoon. If the noble Baroness was not then present, I regret it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I was.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The question therefore answers itself. In response to the second question, of course it ultimately meets my suggestion. What I complain of on behalf of many people in university life is that there is no coherent strategy and that one has a penny packet here and a half crown packet there. I repeat, without hyperbole or exaggeration, that there is deep resentment at the present time in university circles.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, your Lordships may remember that it is almost exactly three years since this House, on 17th February 1993 to be exact, debated a Motion set down by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to call attention to the financial difficulties of students, and the matter of student loans was then extensively debated. I made the observation then that the matter needed to be reviewed. More than five years ago, at the Second Reading of the Further and Higher Education Bill in November 1991, when supporting the Government's plans for expansion in the higher education sector, I went so far as to invite Ministers,
"to be wary of the several pitfalls which lie ahead",
and referred to the need to ensure
"that the existing universities are not suffering: that this is a case of levelling up rather than levelling down".—[Official Report, 21/11/91; col. 1068.]
Today they are suffering, and it should have been obvious to anyone that they would suffer if student numbers were increased without a commensurate increase in funding. The per capita funding has been reduced very significantly in real terms over the past four or five years by something of the order of 28 per cent.
The present crisis in the universities is in fact a double crisis which may soon become a catastrophe, perhaps even before the summer 1997. The first horn of the dilemma is the unsatisfactory nature of the student loan scheme itself, aspects of which we are debating today—that is to say, the manner in which student maintenance is funded. The second horn of the dilemma is the funding of the universities, in particular the failure of the tuition fees, which are payable at a level in effect set by the Government, to keep pace with inflation. As your Lordships may well know, that means that several universities are now reported to be on the brink of bankruptcy and the CVCP is contemplating the imposition of a £300 so-called "entry fee" on new students. That is unwelcome and undesirable, but it is difficult to see what alternative the Government have left the universities with. But from the student point of view it is potentially catastrophic. The issue of maintenance—that is to say, student loans and all that—now collides with university funding; namely, tuition, through the whole issue of top-up fees. That is why the issue of university funding is very pertinent to the discussion of student loans today.
The present Bill regrettably does nothing to address these problems. It simply seeks a means to transfer the administration of debt and debt recovery from the public to the private sector. One is reminded of the dictum of President Calvin Coolidge on war loans, "They hired the money didn't they?" We shall now be able to say of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, when she transfers these dubious assets to the private sector, "She rented the debts, didn't she?"
Underlying it is a very serious problem; that we risk denying access to higher education to whole sections of the population who do not have ready access to private

929
means, and that is the nub of my remarks this evening. At present many students who are in receipt of maximum maintenance grant from their local authority must make up their finances in a number of ways; first, by the student loan; secondly, by access funds to the extent that these are available to them; thirdly, by a grant from hardship funds in college, if they are lucky enough to be in a college with hardship funds; fourthly, by a bank loan—it is estimated that already a high proportion of students take out a bank loan in addition to the official student loan before they leave university—and finally, by whatever they may be able to pick up from their parents. All this is in addition to vacation work and increasingly to work undertaken during term, generally to the detriment of their studies.
Some of these anxieties are felt in Cambridge as elsewhere. Perhaps I may speak for a moment about student difficulties in my own college and university. Here I should declare an interest as a professor of that university. Cambridge colleges are under just the same pressures as the universities since college fees have failed to keep up with inflation in just the same way, and once again there is talk of top-up fees.
Those of us who believe with commitment in what has hitherto been an excellent system of higher education, believe also that it must be open to all those with the relevant ability. We are trying hard in Cambridge to increase the number of applications from the maintained sector. There is an admirable scheme entitled "Target Schools" organised by the Cambridge University Students' Union, to encourage applications from those groups of school leavers under-represented at Cambridge University. Many students go out from many colleges to schools to try to persuade students in those schools that they would do well to apply to Oxford or Cambridge—in this case to Cambridge—because they will have a good chance of entry. We all feel that it is important to the future of the University of Cambridge that there should be wide access.
We are trying hard also to increase the number of applications from members of ethnic minorities. The GEEMA scheme, that is, the Group to Encourage Ethnic Minority Applicants, is trying very hard to encourage more applications because it is perfectly clear that if we do not have more applications we shall not have more admissions.
It is clear to us that the current student loan scheme is having a deterrent effect upon many potential applicants, especially from the maintained sector, and unfortunately from those of lower income backgrounds. It is not really surprising that the prospect of a loan, which for entrants in October 1996, by the time they graduate, will be of the order of £4,200; of the order of £5,600 for scientists; of the order of £7,000 for medics and of the order of £8,400 for architects and vets, without allowing for further inflationary increase, may have a deterrent effect.
For more than three years, and probably much more than that, Members of your Lordships' House have been urging that the alternative income contingent graduate tax approach should be explored. I believe that is what we have heard from every speaker this evening so far.
930
It has worked well in a number of ways in Australia and other places. It pains me to quote this observation, but I am afraid that I have to do so. It was said in today's Guardian that the Government are reluctant to contemplate any kind of new tax before the next election. Perhaps that unworthy assertion was belied somewhat by the Government's evident reluctance to consider it either before or after the previous election. But there is something wrong somewhere in the Department for Education if it takes more than three years for a proposal of that kind even to be considered seriously when it has been urged on it from all sides of your Lordships' House. Moreover, there is something wrong when successive Secretaries of State have failed to address the problems of higher education or to take seriously the problems of students in higher education in the manner which I have been describing. I am not saying that the student loan scheme lacks merit. It has many merits, but the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has already indicated some of the constraints. Many of these difficulties would be alleviated if there were an appropriate income contingent scheme.
Three years ago, in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I agreed, as most would agree, that self-financing is here to stay, and I called then for a government review. I said:
"However it must be a self-financing system that does not introduce the deterrent element, for I fear that there is a real danger that our fine record in developing and maintaining a higher education system open in practice to all—that is, to all students suitably qualified—may not be sustained. It would be a sad day if university education in this country were felt to be available once again only to those with the means to afford it".—[Official Report. 17/2/93; col. 1156.]
That was three years ago. For the Secretary of State to announce today a review is in my view simply not good enough. To have allowed these problems to build up when they were as plain as a pikestaff three years ago to anyone who has any experience of higher education, cannot be described as far-sighted government.
I am sorry that it falls to my noble friend Lord Henley to answer these observations this evening, although he has already been good enough to say that he does not intend to answer them. It is true that I have gone a little beyond the mechanisms of funding, but since he was good enough to introduce the matter of the ministerial statement in another place, I hope that he will not object to my alluding to it even if I am not certain that I shall hear more of it in his winding-up remarks.
He is relatively new to his present ministerial position and I do not wish to be in any way critical of him. But changes of government minister or indeed changes of Secretary of State, cannot mask a deep-seated and enduring failure in the Department for Education to think coherently about problems which were as obvious three years ago as they are now. Inactivity and, I have to say, failure to see the obvious, does not become any less reprehensible with a change of Minister.
I wrote these remarks this morning before today's announcement. Nonetheless I shall read them because I fear that they have a bearing underlined by the Statement made in another place. To announce an inquiry after years of neglect is simply to compound the

931
problem. To tinker about with the financial infrastructure of the student loan scheme, as the present Bill does, is simply fiddling while Rome burns.
I have to say to your Lordships and in particular to my noble friend on the Front Bench—I prepared these remarks this morning—that to announce an inquiry that will defer any solution to the problems until after the next election will be an abdication of responsibilities. It is clear to us that the student loan scheme is having serious deterrent effects. Although we welcome the thorough-going review which will be conducted by Sir Ron Dearing, we are told that the report will not be published until the summer of 1997. So what happens meanwhile? Eighteen more months of what one might describe as "planning blight"? In my view, that is not good enough. Damage is being done now to the higher education system and the Bill does nothing to rectify it.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as Vice-Principal of the University of Aberdeen. The debate this evening must be coloured by the Statement made today in another place. That Statement allows me to be somewhat kinder in my remarks than would otherwise have been the case. It is right that the Government, if somewhat late in the day, have recognised the case for a thorough review of higher education. However, I am inclined to observe that the only consistent theme of government education policy that I can detect is first to create a mess and then to send for Sir Ron Dearing to clear it up.
The question that remains is: why do we need the Bill at this stage? If it goes through and the Government implement it, it will set up arrangements, contracts will be put in place, and very likely they will be put aside virtually as soon as they have been entered into. What a mess. What penalties will fall on the public purse if those contracts are put to one side? Why tinker with a loans system when the Government acknowledge that something far more comprehensive and far more systematic is needed? The Bill has been overtaken by events, and the Government should recognise that.
It is difficult sometimes to realise how radically higher education has changed in recent years. Since I was an undergraduate 30 years ago, higher education has been transformed from basically an elite system (where about 7 per cent. of the age group attended university) to a mass system, with about 30 per cent. now benefiting from higher education. But it has been done on the cheap. Many noble Lords have already referred to the way in which the unit of resource for teaching has been cut by 27 per cent. since 1988. That is the fundamental problem. It stems from the fact that a system of funding which could support an elite system is incapable of supporting a mass system of higher education. We have to confront that problem, and I hope that the Government will confront it via the review.
We have reached a stage where British higher education, which for so long has enjoyed a reputation for academic excellence, is in danger of falling apart—not of fraying at the edges, but of actually falling apart. Perhaps I may illustrate that point by reference to my
932
own university. A recent survey of students at Aberdeen reported that 17 per cent. of all students, including those who have just come through the door, had debts in excess of £4,000; that 19 per cent. had considered withdrawing from their courses for financial reasons—what a waste of public investment that would have been—and that 39 per cent. had part-time term-time employment. That reliance on part-time employment has seriously degraded the student experience. All too often, late-night employment in pubs and clubs—those are often the only places in which such employment is available—leads to lack of concentration in class, and work suffers.
However, it is more than that. I am perhaps old-fashioned enough to think that many of the advantages of a university education are gained through participation in activities beyond the formal teaching experience. We are now getting to a position where many students find it impossible to become members of clubs and student societies. It is often difficult to get an audience of undergraduates for distinguished visiting speakers because they are packing shelves in supermarkets late at night. I do not think that that is the way forward.
At my university one of my responsibilities is in the area of staff recruitment. It is becoming more evident by the day that we are simply not paying our staff enough to recruit the best. Since 1988 academic staff salaries have fallen in real terms. I think that that is the only professional group for which that is the case. Given that, it is becoming increasingly difficult to attract and retain high quality staff, especially in areas such as accountancy, the law and economics where we are in direct competition with the professional salaries in the private sector.
Like other universities, Aberdeen responded to the Government's call to expand student numbers. Since 1988 we have expanded from 5,966 to 9,300 (full-time-equivalent) students. In 1988 we received £5,887 per student for teaching. If that had kept pace in real terms, it would now be £8,595; but it is in fact £5,127—an actual cash reduction. For my university the total funding gap that has opened up as a result of those policies since 1988 is that we now receive £11.5 million less per year.
Of course, with the expansion of student numbers, economies of scale are available. Nobody would deny that. It is also reasonable to look for efficiency savings. However, the scale of the reduction in funding has gone way beyond anything that could be considered reasonable. It is directly impinging on the way we teach our students—and impinging adversely. At Aberdeen, the staff:student ratio, excluding medicine, has moved from 13:1 in 1988 to 17:1 today. In my own faculty many of the departments for which I am responsible are facing staff:student ratios of 20:1. That is taking place at a time when teaching quality assessments are urging upon us the advantages of, the need for, and the benefits of small group teaching. How can we do that? How can we square that circle?
If we are to maintain a higher education system of which we can be proud, and if we are to avoid short-changing our staff, our students and ultimately the

933
employers of our graduates, we need a thorough review of the funding of higher education. Unfortunately, when measured against that task, the present Bill is a distraction and an irrelevance.
7.29 p.m.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, I should first declare that I am Chancellor of the University of Manchester, that I am still closely connected with higher education in London, and that I am President of the Association for (Further Education) Colleges. Although I do not speak for any of them this evening, no doubt that experience will colour what I have to say. I was deeply moved by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, but I shall not follow him.
The Bill is intended to provide alternative sources of funds for hard-pressed students in higher education. To that extent I support it. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, I do not object to loans in principle. Whether the Bill can succeed where the Government's previous attempt failed remains to be seen. More to the point, however, it provides a partial privatisation of a scheme of student loans which has already been seen to be seriously flawed, and it does so in the context of financial arrangements for higher education as a whole that have become dangerously inadequate.
The present loans scheme is deficient because it does not provide an adequate basis for funding realistic living costs. It is deficient because it is limited to students under the age of 50 who meet the standard residence rules, so that, for example, part-time students (almost 30 per cent. of those nowadays attending higher education courses) are excluded. The lack of attention to part-time students, in further as well as higher education, is increasingly difficult to understand, and I would like to invite the Minister to ask his department specifically to re-examine the funding of part-time students.
The present scheme is deficient because it requires repayment from students over a short five-year period at the beginning of their careers (if they are lucky enough to find jobs), which means they have to bear a disproportionate burden early in their working lives. Indeed, the prospect of a persistent debt of many thousands of pounds, we have heard more exact figures than that, is already beginning to deter students from entering courses of higher education. And the scheme is costly for universities to administer, because they are not fully reimbursed for processing loan certificates.
The universities have pointed out many times that those deficiencies could be overcome if the Government would only adopt an income-contingent loan scheme which would link repayments directly to an individual's ability to pay. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, referred to that, and I am happy to be able to leave the details to him. As the Australians have shown, it could be done through income tax or national insurance. That would avoid a predetermined repayment period, it would provide the borrower with a good measure of protection, and unlike the present scheme it would not act as a barrier to wider participation in higher education, something we all want to see happen.
934
And it could apply to further as well as to higher education. I simply cannot understand why the Government refuse to adopt such a scheme.
Moreover, such a scheme would in itself be a fair and inconspicuous way of handling student hardship, something which cannot be said of the present access funds which help only the small proportion of students who are in the most acute difficulty, and leave unassisted the majority of those who nowadays suffer genuine hardship, who can be helped only to the extent that universities can afford to help them out of increasingly meagre central resources.
The chief importance of the Bill is that it has brought to a head the dissatisfaction of universities with the manner of their funding. As the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has said clearly, it has become impossible to discuss the funding of students separately from the funding of the institutions they attend. It is high time that the matter is looked at independently. I am of course delighted by this afternoon's belated announcement in another place that that is to be done by Sir Ron Dearing, a man whom we can all trust. It need not be another Robbins Report. The extent of higher education is no longer the burning issue; it is the manner of its funding. However I hope that Sir Ron will be able to examine the consequences for further education of his proposals for higher education.
I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I say just a few relevant words about the present funding system. Most people in universities nowadays accept that it is impossible for the taxpayer to shoulder the whole cost of higher education; but they also say that it is impossible for universities to cater for the present load of students, and provide education of the standard quite rightly expected of them under the present system of funding. It is true that relatively large additional sums are raised by a small number of universities for outstanding research, most of it involving postgraduate students, but that does not pay for undergraduate education.
The private finance initiative can and is being used for new buildings wherever possible, but the Government have made a gross mistake in thinking that the capital grants provided to universities are only for new buildings. On the contrary, they have to be used for equipment such as computers, and for minor adaptations to buildings, none of which could possibly attract private finance. Cutting those grants so savagely this year has merely increased the strain on the recurrent budgets intolerably, and by implication on undergraduate education.
The only other source of funding is the student himself, or herself or the student's hapless parents. There will have to be a system of student fees in addition to student maintenance grants. Despite today's announcement, I believe that if there were not an election pending the Government in power, of whatever party, would be trying to introduce them. That is why it is impossible to separate student support from support of the university itself. To a student, money is simply money, whether it is grant or fees.

935
Of course, nobody would wish to discriminate against those students or their parents unable to pay. The admission system would have to be blind to such considerations. If the normal annual fee were £1,000, say—I take a figure out of the air—probably half would have to go towards bursaries for those who could not pay. Some universities would charge higher fees, some perhaps lower. Some would charge higher fees because the research-intensive universities are simply more expensive to run, not least in terms of the cost of their teaching staff, who are the backbone of their research.
All that would be greatly facilitated, and cheaper to run, if there were already in place an income-contingent loan scheme, because loans could be made available for fees as well as for maintenance. Money is just money. The pressure on university budgets is now so great that universities are considering introducing some form of fee as a matter of urgency. It is in the interests of the taxpayers that they should. It is, of course, possible that the Government will claw back any earnings from such an independent move by the universities by way of retribution in order to show the electorate that this was not their wish so close to an election. Even if they did, I would still advise the universities to go ahead; at any rate, the research-intensive universities. The point must be forcefully made that the present system of funding has broken down.
I said at the beginning that I support this Bill as far as it goes. The trouble is that it goes nowhere near far enough. I hope that Sir Ron Dearing can still make good the deficiency.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, having listened to the debate for the past hour-and-a-half I am beginning to feel sorry for Members on the Government Benches, at least on the Front Bench. After all, this appears to be a useful Bill. As the Minister said, it opens up competition, diversity and choice. Those are concepts which I spent many years promoting in one way or another. Who would object to them? But, as my noble friend Lord Morris indicated, the choice and the competition does not amount to anything very real, except the choice of a logo on an application form for a grant.
The modesty of the Bill has subjected the Government to criticism during the course of the debate because it does not deal with the real problem. It does not change the student loan scheme which has been so widely condemned and criticised not only in this House but elsewhere. The Bill proposes no substantial change and many statements have been made in the House as to why that is so unsatisfactory. Recently the Director of the London School of Economics said that the present loan scheme is:
"about the worst that could be devised".
I feel sorry for the Government on another count. The Bill appears to be unlucky and unfortunate for them because it has provided the occasion and the opportunity to students and to vice-chancellors to level real and substantial criticisms against the Government as a result of the Bill's irrelevance to their problems. I should have thought that that was most foreseeable to the
936
Government because they know that many students are suffering difficulties in surviving their courses and many have dropped out, as my noble friend Lord Sewel indicated.
Moreover, the vice-chancellors have naturally seized the opportunity of the Bill to make the point that they are concerned about cuts, in particular the 30 per cent. capital cuts next year. Those cuts are being made despite the fact that the vice-chancellors have done everything that the Government could have wanted as regards delivering a mass higher education system. Having done everything that the Government have asked them to do, that is what they get in return.
Since I took an interest in these matters in the 1950s as a member of the executive of the National Union of Students and through my days as a professor at the University of Birmingham, I have believed that higher education should be available to all who are capable of benefiting from it. Like many others on these Benches and elsewhere, I believe in equality of opportunity, fairness and social justice. It also makes economic good sense for this country and its competitiveness in the world if all the talents of all our people are developed to the very best.
However, whereas I used to believe that the way to achieve that was only through a generous system of non-returnable grants, I now believe for a number of reasons that I will mention that we need to be more sophisticated. If in order to obtain a more sophisticated system of supporting students and financing the universities we need a committee of inquiry such as has been announced by the Government today, that is certainly welcome. I would have preferred it some years ago, but it is better now than not at all.
The factors that I mention are well known. First, 30 per cent. of our young people go to universities compared with only 5 per cent. 35 years ago. If we are to have a proportion of our young people in higher education as compared with such countries as France and Japan, where the number is in excess of ours, we shall need a considerable expansion involving a great deal of money in terms of extra places arid vast improvements in facilities.
Of course, there are many other demands on the public purse, including demands in the world of education. Others have their own choices but I would pick out nursery education. In view of that, one needs to take into account other factors. My second consideration is that graduates can—I suppose that they always have but it is more appreciated now—expect to earn a good deal more than a non-graduate during the years that they work in the general community. The whole nation benefits from that but the whole nation—that is, all taxpayers—should not pay such a high proportion when only a particular group of taxpayers especially benefits from the education.
Thirdly, the public attitude towards having the benefits of goods and services today—and I stress this point as compared with 30 or 40 years ago—and paying for them over a period has vastly changed. If people are prepared, as most of us are, to borrow against a depreciating asset, such as a motor car, surely there is

937
nothing strange in having the benefit of an education at a university and paying for it over a period when one is earning rather more than others. Whatever financing system we adopt, we must ensure that there are no disincentives to those coming from poorer families. Therefore, there must be a removal of the fear that exists in respect of the present system of student loans; that in the years of low earning on becoming a graduate the burden is so great that some people do not wish to embark on the journey at all.
I suggest that we need a more sensitive loan scheme and I hope that Sir Ron Dearing will look into that. We need a scheme that will involve both maintenance and a proportion of fees, that will give an adequate income to the student during his years at university, and no repayment until the contingency of income is adequate, sufficient, and earnings are above average.
I also agree with noble Lords who suggested that any new scheme that is to last for a period of time should be available to young students, mature students, full-time students and part-time students. There are various schemes in operation at present. Australia has been mentioned. I merely make the point that I believe that over the years that the scheme in Australia has been operating—an income contingent repayment scheme—the socio-economic mix of students has improved; that is, there has been a 30 per cent. rise in the number of students from poor backgrounds in the past five years.
I am not the only one who has, in effect, said that this Bill is not really worthy of a full debate. I am glad that there has been a full debate and, with the information that Sir Ron Dearing's committee of inquiry is being formed, it may well be a worthwhile debate. As this is my second speech in this House, I suppose that I am entitled to be controversial. I do not wish to be rude but I do not believe that the Bill as it stands justifies the full attention of the House or a Second Reading.
7.50 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my particular interest in the Bill arises from involvement in two higher education institutions. I am a member of the Court of St. Andrews University and I am vice-chairman of the Council of the Open University.
I could follow other noble Lords and make a heart-felt speech about the current problems of those two institutions. At St. Andrews, which, although not a very large university, is extremely popular with students, there are undoubtedly pressures which could in time damage its unique tradition. At the Open University, despite the Government's request that part-time places should be supported, the funding council for England has done precisely the opposite and planning is being made extremely difficult at present. I am sure that both institutions will welcome the committee of inquiry announced in another place this afternoon and will have plenty of ideas for Sir Ron Dearing when the time comes.
Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, who, as one would expect, made an able, indeed brilliant, speech and hearing what one or two other
938
noble Lords on the Labour Benches had to say, I wonder whether Mr. Tony Blair means what he says about his desire, should he come to power, not only to avoid increasing the tax burden on individuals but also to create partnerships between the public and private sectors. After all, this Bill would meet both those stated objectives. It would enable the introduction of just such a partnership in higher education funding, an area crying out for more private sector involvement. And we all know that if a growing proportion of our young people are to have the benefit of higher education, the cost will not be supportable by the taxpayer of the future.
At present, with some 30 per cent. of young people studying, the cost is £4.7 billion per year with a further £1.5 billion available for student support. Those are the figures I have. However, this afternoon in another place, I heard the Secretary of State say that the cost of higher education is now £7 billion, 21 per cent. of the total education budget. I am not sure how those two figures fit together.
As they struggle to contain their costs, the universities, we know, are deeply worried about maintaining quality. In the future, as social security and health service provision eats further into our national budget because more of us are living longer, and as international competitiveness demands more, new ways for funding higher education simply have to be found. Others have said that, and it is patently true. That being the case, what is wrong with making it possible for a private sector firm, bank or building society to offer subsidised loans to students to pay for some of their costs alongside the existing agency? What is wrong with beginning where we are, with the sort of pay-back system that we have now, and seeing what the private sector makes of it? That is all that the Bill makes possible. It seems to me not only a realistic and sensible move but one which is five years overdue.
It is still early days but having got over the agency's initial problems the current loan and pay-back scheme, contrary to what a number of noble Lords have indicated, seems to be working reasonably well. The value of the main grant and loan together is worth 50 per cent. more in cash terms than was the loan in 1989. That means that students may be less dependent on their families. Since the system was introduced, overall numbers of students entering higher education have not fallen but have increased. What is more, results of the department's survey have shown a rise in the proportion of younger students from social grades C1, C2, D and E. Indeed, by 1992–93, I understand that they formed the majority.
The Government's figures show also that the number of students taking out an agency loan has grown extremely quickly. In 1994–95 it had reached 55 per cent. of all eligible students. The forecast is that it will have reached 80 per cent. by 1997–98. The average pay-back—my noble friend Lord Renfrew quoted much higher figures but I am referring to an average—is currently running at £18 per month; that is, £216 per year. That is not an unreasonable figure when one remembers that payment may be deferred if one is earning less than £15,204 per year. I understand that

939
over 92 per cent. of those due to make their repayments have been doing so, with defaulters amounting to no more than 7.7 per cent.
The vice-chancellors and principals have told us that they do not mind who owns the debt but they consider the pay-back system to be fundamentally flawed. In their view, and in the view, I think, of some noble Lords, who have put it somewhat differently, pay-back should be spread over as long as it takes. I am not sure whether the vice-chancellors are referring to the Australian scheme but from Australian friends I understand that the scheme has many problems. I do not believe that it is ideal although it looks very good on paper. I suspect that any government in power would find it difficult to have repayment lasting as long as it takes. That has considerable implications whether it is public money or private money.
Whatever the outcome of the committee of inquiry, the enabling of the private sector to play a part in the present system of subsidised student loans seems merely a small step but very much a step in the right direction. I had hoped that this House, unlike the other place, would see that and would give the Bill unanimously a fair wind. I hope perhaps that that may still be the case.
7.59 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness is going to be very disappointed. It is very interesting that at long last, after some 10 speakers, we have heard the first attempt to justify the Bill at all. Of course, knowing the noble Baroness's stance, I am not altogether surprised; I rather expected it from her. But I would like to say that, although I have not consulted Tony Blair, I would be fairly certain that he would not, in fact, go along with this Bill.
It is really a very pointless Bill causing a ridiculous waste of parliamentary time, even more so now, I think, that we have had the Statement which was made in another place this afternoon. It will do nothing to help students who, sadly, nearly all leave their universities in debt. It will not make repayment of their debt any easier. Many of them—9,000 at the end of July last year—were in arrears and 35,000, 8 per cent., were in default; that is, over two months late in repaying. Why did the Government not take the opportunity, as they were legislating, to make repayment less difficult and off-putting to the student?
Students face a heavier burden in the earlier years of their careers, as the scheme now is, because they have to make fixed payments over a relatively short period of five years. As loan amounts increase under present government plans, the level of repayments will rise significantly. These are likely to rise to an unsustainable level and may well act as a disincentive to potential students. We do not want to discourage young people from entering higher education. At least, I do not think that the Government do, though one sometimes wonders.
Would it not be easier to encourage repayment if the graduate is earning at least the average full-time wage before he starts to pay, and that the level of repayment should not exceed a certain proportion of the excess of
940
his income over the average wage? That would avoid the poverty trap. I believe that that point was made by my noble friend Lord Borrie. The numbers of graduates in arrears and in default suggest that the present rules are unnecessarily stringent
It would be encouraging to think that the repayments would go into a special fund for the support of higher education, but it is difficult to imagine the Treasury agreeing to such a proposition. But that is what happens in Australia. I am sure that we can all agree that the funding of higher education and of students needs a complete overhaul. I wrote that yesterday; today, apparently, we are going to have it. We all know that this is a very difficult problem, but it has to be faced by everyone. Now at last we are apparently going to have the matter inquired into. But, of course, we shall not have the results until after the next election. Therefore, the whole problem, which, as has been said by a number of speakers, is urgent, is really being postponed. That simply is not good enough.
I think it is inevitable that the students will have to pay more towards the cost of their higher education than they did in the happy and very different days of 15 or 20 years ago. The choice would seem to be between a pay-up-front scheme and a pay-back-once-you-are-earning scheme. The CVCP scheme, with its proposal to get each student to pay £300 towards the fees at the beginning of their course, was a pay-up-front scheme, because that is the only kind it could implement. But the committee would certainly prefer a pay-back-once-one-is-earning scheme. The example of Australia which is quoted so often shows that a scheme of that kind, a graduate tax, can be put into practice and that it does not discourage potential students. The CVCP was forced to take its vigorous action because of the massive cut that was made to its capital grant.
Whatever the terms of reference of the new committee, I trust that the plight of part-time students will be carefully considered. That is something that I have often said before; and, indeed, what a number of other speakers have already said this afternoon. In 1994–95, 28 per cent. of higher education students were part-time. It is grossly unfair that they should have no help. I also think that the position of postgraduates should be looked at, as should the cut-off point of 50 years of age for mature students. I understand that overall applications of mature students show a decrease of 1.6 per cent over the numbers received in 1994 for entry in 1995. The fall is due to a drop in the number of applications from mature students. Of course, last year the Government abolished the older students' allowance. No doubt that accounts for a good many mature students deciding that they cannot afford to proceed. The quite recent CVCP survey of January 1996 also showed that the number of mature students leaving their courses prematurely for non-academic reasons is rising.
I should like to say a few words about disabled students. I know that a number of people would like some reassurance from the Minister that disabled students will be treated in a generous way. I hope that the Minister will, perhaps, respond to that in his reply.

941
I should also like to say a word about further education students as the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, mentioned them. I am sorry to say that the noble Lord has gone, but I know that he has an interest in the matter. I know that the proposed committee of inquiry is to look into higher education, but it has been hard for some time for further education students, perhaps of the same age as those in higher education, who receive very little help. Indeed, the discretionary grants which some of them used to receive have now pretty well vanished from the scene.
When he replies to the debate, I hope that the Minister will tell us rather more than he did in his opening speech about the present financial expectations. In 1988, the Government estimated that the scheme would break even by the year 2000, provided that savings in maintenance grant and social security benefits were included in the cost calculations. But there are no published figures showing the effect of the accelerated switch from grants to loans that happened as a result of the 1993 Budget. Is the student debt, which has been mounting annually—in 1994–95 it was £31.279 million—and which now has administrative costs of £19.7 million, expected to go on rising steadily? Are the universities to go on bearing the administrative costs as they now do?
I hope that the Minister will have something to say as a result of the very strong feelings which have been expressed here today on all sides of the House. The Bill is a very poor thing and, as many other speakers have said, I hope the Government will have the sense to withdraw it and not waste more parliamentary time.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Kirkwood: My Lords, the Government claim—and the Minister reiterated it—that the need for the Bill is to provide choice, diversity and competition for student loans by introducing the private sector into the situation and, simultaneously, to allow for reduction in public borrowing. As that was the original intention of the previous student loan scheme which had to be abandoned because the banks withdrew at the last moment, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Morris, am not clear as to what has now changed for the Government to believe that the private sector should be any keener this time round.
That having been said, there is almost unanimous agreement between different political parties and the educational institutions involved that student maintenance funding must be put on a more secure and permanent basis, in order that students should know in advance exactly what financial commitments they have entered into before they start their university course.
It is accepted by most people that, with the growth of the student population which is a desirable state of affairs that we all wish to see continued, the old grant system funded by the public purse is proving inadequate and unfair—unfair in the sense that the immediate tax burden falls on the present taxpayers, and the benefits in part accrue to the graduate whose future earning power has been increased by a subsidised education. I
942
fully believe that if more public money is to be put into education—and, like the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I think that it should be—it should be put into primary and secondary education where the benefits are obtained by all our children, rather than into higher education for the more privileged minority.
The main problem with the present loan system as I understand it, is with the collection of debt. That will not be lessened by being shared with the private sector; it may, in fact, be a further factor in discouraging them from joining such a scheme. In spite of the claims of the Student Loan Company, the facts are that in 1994–95 only 48 per cent. of borrowers were up to date with their payments or had fully repaid their debt. Most had been granted deferment and some 10 per cent. were in default. This situation is almost certain to be exacerbated with increasing numbers of students, and as more funds come from loans rather than from grants. Are we to expect, then, that graduates who are finding it more and more difficult to pay off the debt at the beginning of their careers will find themselves in court? Surely not even the present Home Secretary would relish the prospect of establishing debtors' prisons, filled to overflowing with unfortunate university graduates!
The simple, straightforward way of avoiding that scenario—this has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords and I make no apology for mentioning it once again, but it is something upon which I know the Government do not look favourably—is through the introduction of a graduate tax, or to provide repayment through national insurance contributions. Almost every Member of your Lordships' House has supported such a scheme in principle. The administrative system is already set up. As we have heard, the arrangement has been proved to work well in Australia. It is an efficient means of collecting, and it is difficult to avoid. Most importantly, it permits the debt to be repaid at a rate that the graduate can afford—for instance, over a period of 10 years or perhaps longer. That means that repayment would not impinge unfairly on those entering the less well paid public services, such as the teaching professions; otherwise, I fear that a loan system as envisaged in this Bill will further encourage graduates away from the relatively poorly paid professions such as in manufacturing industry into the City and service industries.
Why is it that the Government are so unwilling to consider such an obviously sensible scheme? I am aware that the Treasury dislikes hypothecated taxes: they remove from the Exchequer its power to negotiate spending as between different departments. However, the national insurance contribution is in fact an hypothecated tax to provide future pensions in exactly the same way as this proposal seeks to provide for future higher education. The provision of funding for universities on a long-term, stable basis is an urgent problem requiring bold solutions, not tinkering with loan schemes as envisaged in this Bill.
I make a further proposal to the Minister. A possible extension to such a scheme might be to establish a private loans company which would be jointly owned by the banks and the universities, and perhaps also by the building societies, but where the collection of debt

943
is carried out through the agency of the taxation system. That would reduce the risk of bad debts and the banks and building societies might then be encouraged to get involved with such a scheme. This Bill, as it stands, will not solve the increasingly difficult problem of student maintenance funding. Much more drastic measures are needed.
8.13 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, during the past couple of decades my two noble friends who are not able to he here tonight, the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, together with myself and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who is not in the Chamber at the moment, have been closely concerned with the affairs of the Federal University of Wales. We are delighted that my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn has joined us and—as far as I am concerned, at any rate—he will take a much more up-to-date interest in that university.
I would not have ventured to intervene in this debate at all had I not received a personal letter from the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Wales urging me in the strongest terms to oppose the line on student loans being taken by the present Government. He emphasised the general agreement reached by himself and his fellow academic colleagues in England and Wales that they would emphatically wish to accept change on the basis of something similar to the scheme which has been adopted in Australia and which has been discussed in a detailed manner by the previous speaker. It seems that Australia can provide us with good advice in matters other than the Olympic Games!
I am much indebted to the CVCP—old friends of mine—and to the Dean of Students in Cardiff and his staff for spelling out for me the official proposals and the disadvantages that they foresaw if they were adopted. As the matter has been dealt with in another place, I embarked on an exercise which I trust has been followed by at least some of the previous speakers in this debate. I have read every word of the debates held in the House of Commons, both in full House and in Standing Committee B. It was not quite a Scott Report, but it was not far from it! At the fourth sitting of Standing Committee B, Members in another place seemed to me to become rather long-winded in their speeches and I skipped a little of the debate. The result of that study is that I can see no merit whatever in our spending any more time in discussing this Bill which, as we have all said, is not due to come into force until, I believe, the autumn of 1997. Normally I do not have a suspicious mind but one cannot resist asking oneself what other legislation is being prepared which is not to come into effect until after the next general election, whenever that may be.
I must emphasise that I do not nowadays often indulge in reading the full proceedings of another place on a Bill which comes to this House. It is also quite a while since I was a Minister myself. However, I was startled to find that any Minister could present a Bill which is so inadequately prepared and expect it to be accepted by this House. I have been watching the clock. I believe there are still eight speakers in this debate. I
944
shall not continue with what I might have said as it has been better said by others who have even greater experience than myself.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, it is clearly considered by many, both in this House and in the universities, and by administrators, faculty and students that the problems of student loans and the student loans Bill are merely symptomatic of a wider and deeper malaise regarding the funding of higher education in this country and what should be done about it. Being an emeritus academic administrator in the University of Cambridge, I can assure your Lordships that I am familiar with that malaise.
We should therefore welcome the committee of inquiry that has been announced by the Minister. That committee will have to take many matters into consideration, and I am sure there will be much input from those representing all aspects of the university system. The inexorable decline in central funding to universities brings into focus the questions of who pays and who benefits from university education. Of course both society and the individual benefit. It is logical and equitable that the costs should also be shared, but the manner of this should also be logical and equitable.
However, unlike the situation of a decade ago, the majority of students now graduate in a state of indebtedness. Sometimes those who follow professional courses are indebted to the order of teens of thousands of pounds. My noble friend Lord Renfrew mentioned a scale of indebtedness. He mentioned graduates entering my profession—the veterinary profession—who had on average an indebtedness of £8,500.
More individuals now go on to higher education: the present figure is 30 per cent. of school leavers. There is now much more demand for loans, the repayment of which to the Exchequer in the present scheme is slow. It will be well into the 21st century before repayments make any significant financial impact on the present scheme. That must be a major worry to the general public and the payer of income tax.
Nevertheless, there are some major problems with the present student loan scheme. One hopes that, when we have the answers to some of the points that have been raised in this debate by other noble Lords, they will be alleviated.
One of the problems is that the present scheme does not provide an adequate maximum for some students. That is particularly so for professional students, as the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, mentioned; examples are medical students, veterinary students, dentists and those in other professions where the length of the course is five years, or even six years in some cases.
In the case of both veterinary and medical students, the final year is one of 46 weeks, so there is little time left. It is necessary for those students to undertake studies during their vacations to gain extra-mural experience. In my own profession that is 26 weeks, plus another 12 weeks of farm experience. In other words, 38 weeks have to be spent in a mandated manner as part of the course. That greatly reduces the ability of students

945
to undertake work to assist with their fees and living costs. It also greatly reduces the ability of the students to finance themselves with respect to expensive equipment, protective clothing, travel and accommodation while they are undertaking those extra-mural assignments. Even though there are grants to cover such costs partially, they are not adequate to cover the whole cost.
The fixed payback scheme of five years also causes great hardship to young graduates, who frequently must capitalise to set up in their professions in terms of equipment, premises and so on. These matters cause great concern to students at present.
In the present Bill Her Majesty's Government propose to promote private sector loans as an alternative to, but alongside, the student loan scheme. The Minister said that that will give a better-tailored product and will allow greater choice. However, a number of questions need to be raised on this issue.
For example, will the same conditions of repayment apply to the loans from the private sector? Will the same ceiling on loans apply? Will it be possible to take loans from more than one company, or will it be restricted to one lending organisation? If the answer to those questions is that matters will remain the same except that a student can go to a private sector lender rather than the present scheme, all the Bill will do is decant the failings of the present scheme into the private sector.
Considerable attention has been paid to the possibility of income-contingent repayment. It has been said that we could glean much from the schemes that operate in Australia and New Zealand. I suggest that we could also glean a great deal from the scheme that has been operating for 25 years in the United States, where, it is well known, student loans have been used very effectively to increase the population of students in the higher education system. That is now running at 65 per cent. of high-school leavers.
I am grateful to Dr. Finney of New York University and Dr. Hart, who is director of scholarships and finances for the universities in Indiana, for details of some of the schemes they run at present. It is probably well known to some Members of this House that the present federal loans are provided by the banks but secured by the federal government in terms of interest during the time of study. The federal government may also cover the default of loans in certain circumstances. It is a standard loan, but for professional courses it is possible greatly to increase the loan to cover the extra costs of professional education. Repayment is on an income-contingent basis, usually at one point below the standard interest rate. Supplementary loans to the parents of students who find themselves in financial difficulties are also under consideration. Those will be secured against the capital of the parent. A parent will pay interest at the normal rate. The third area of interest is a direct loan to universities, administered by the colleges or universities, with payback being on an income-contingent basis up to a period of almost 20 years.
To my mind, the major source of loans must be the private sector, either the high street banks or some other similar institution, although I am aware that hitherto the
946
high street banks have not been enthusiastic about that approach. The ideal would be for Her Majesty's Government to secure the loan and the interest payable during the period of study and for repayment, carrying interest, to be made on an income-contingent basis, as mentioned by a number of other speakers in the debate.
Students do not fear loans. There is every indication that they would wish to have greater access to them. There is every evidence that an equitable loan system will encourage a wider social span of students to undertake higher education in this country, as it does in Australia and New Zealand and most certainly in the United States.
In the formula of who benefits from and who pays for higher education, students do indeed wish to play a role. However, they see that role being played within an equitable system. I hope that that will be forthcoming by means of this Bill or as a result of the committee of inquiry.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, one of the advantages of speaking towards the end of the list of speakers is that many of the points that I wished to raised have been made far more ably than I could have made them. I am most pleased by the fact that my old Alma Mater, the University of Wales, has been better represented than any other university.
This morning I wrote the following:
"I regret that we are not having a fundamental debate about the levels of funding, we as a country should invest in our student population and the benefits we all get, graduates and non-graduates alike, through that investment".
It now seems that to some extent we have had that fundamental debate tonight. Indeed, in this afternoon's Statement the Government have recognised the need for a far more wide-ranging review of the fundamental flaws within our university and student loan structures.
The Bill itself is very narrowly drawn. It is solely concerned with the administration and ownership of debt. We have heard that it does nothing for the students; it does nothing for the universities; and, if one believes what one reads in the newspapers, the banks do not believe that it will do anything for them either.
My noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris quoted from a recently published document on higher education by the Conservative Political Centre. I, too, wish briefly to quote from it. It states:
"With [the loan scheme's] high early repayments over a short period of 5 years, [the loan scheme] is a deterrent to entering university, particularly to potential students from less affluent families. As the maintenance grant is reduced and the loan increases, the levels of default are likely to rise to the high rates common in the US, and the cost of administration will escalate. It is widely felt that the present scheme will be inadequate to cope with the future demand".
The Bill meets the CPC's concern about that so-called burden on the public sector. It simply privatises the debt. That is straightforward. But it goes nowhere near addressing the issue of linking repayments to the ability to pay. That is the issue that we have heard raised time and again by speakers tonight.

947
Many employment sectors are traditionally poor payers. I think in particular of the voluntary and charitable sectors where graduates are offered good and flexible careers. Such careers are popular and in my experience attract the highest quality graduates. However, such graduates have to think long and hard about embarking on such careers when they have the additional burden of student loan repayments, particularly when those repayments are not linked to their level of earnings. All of us, in particular the Government, rely on these low paid sectors attracting high quality graduates. I suggest that one practical method of helping those sectors is to link loan repayments to earnings.
In addressing the provisions of the Bill, I am somewhat at a loss. Surely it should be possible to quantify in cash terms the benefit of this measure to the public purse. I am not talking just about the transfer of figures from one column in the PSBR into the private sector. The Government constantly talk about efficiency savings through privatisation. Surely it would be possible to quantify those savings in such a limited area as debt administration.
I may be told that such figures are commercially sensitive, particularly when the Government are embarking on negotiations with the banks. If that be the case, it should be possible to produce indicative figures. To be asked to decide on the principle without knowing the cash benefit is a strange way to proceed. Deciding on the principle in advance of the Government's negotiations can hardly help the Government's negotiating position. Just imagine a young executive going to the main board of a high street bank and saying that it should accept student loans without any quantification of the likely benefit to the bank. The idea is laughable; and that young executive would soon find new career paths opening up to him such as a secondment to the DFEE.
Clearly the Bill has been overtaken by events. It seems to me that the criteria set out by the CVCP, and already quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, are as good as any in judging a system of student support. I briefly restate them. The system should be simple, adequate, certain and just. Those criteria would, I believe, be a good guide to the committee of inquiry. They should provide the final nail in the coffin of this Bill.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I find it quite remarkable that the CVCP was not consulted upon this short, narrow Bill. Does that omission reveal the disregard of this Government for the CVCP? I hope that the department will reflect upon what has been said by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and the noble Lord, Lord Flowers.
Given the widespread opposition to the Bill, I am surprised that it has got as far as this—a Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House. The Bill—if we are to have this Bill—makes no effort to fill in some of the areas of need which urgently need filling and cannot wait for two or three years. At this late hour I shall
948
obviously abstain from repeating at any length the arguments powerfully developed by so many distinguished speakers this evening. I shall merely focus on two or three of the omissions already mentioned.
It seems to me that concern over those omissions has run through almost all the speeches this evening, and, if I may say so, many of the speeches in another place. I am not sure that the Minister acknowledged that those concerns are wider in a sense and are narrower in a sense than those addressed in the 1990 Act. Can the Minister explain why the Bill does not bring part-time students of higher education within the scope of the existing loan scheme? That question has been repeatedly asked. I believe that we are entitled to an answer. It strikes many of us that to exclude part-time students from the scheme cannot be the proper basis for a modern approach to higher education.
I recall that last year I was involved in trying to find financial help to enable a part-time Welsh student of high merit to pay the university fee. Although the case seemed extremely strong, I found it difficult, and embarrassing, to shop around for help from charity to charity. Eventually we obtained help but there seems something wrong with a system of part-time education which compels the student to rely on charity for part of her fees. When the Minister replies, will he please give the department's estimate of the cost of extending the scheme to cover part-time students?
I turn briefly to another important issue which is not addressed by the Bill—the repayment formula. The existing scheme has the merit of simplicity. It may work quite well for some students. But plainly it does not achieve fairness to expect every student to repay the loan within the same period of time irrespective of his or her circumstances. Indeed, many students would be exposed to considerable difficulties if they had to repay the loan by fixed instalments over a period of five years as soon as their salary equated to 85 per cent. of the average salary. After all, students would be faced with other substantial expenditure: rent, mortgage instalments, car and furniture, and hire purchase instalments. There could be such items as house and car insurance, car and TV licences. Those are not exceptional items but common features of a young person's budget.
There are genuine concerns among students and potential students that they will be unable to see their way clear to repay the loan within five years, as required under the scheme. They are therefore reluctant to borrow. The result, as we have heard from many speakers, is that some potential students are not entering higher education. It seems a curious anomaly that that should be the case at a time when the Government claim in the current consultation document that lifetime learning is crucial to the community.
Sadly, we hear that a substantial number of students do not complete their course of higher education. The Government state that the drop-out rate is 17 per cent. or 18 per cent. and that it has been around that figure for many years. Can the Minister tell the House what is the drop-out rate for reasons of poverty? The CVCP has advised that the inordinate amount of paid work

949
undertaken by students in order to supplement their income is disadvantageous to them. Does the department accept that conclusion? Is it examining the evidence? Alternatively, is the extent of the problem of drop-outs or failures which can be related to poverty not an issue of great concern to the Government? I plead that the issue needs to be absolutely clarified.
8.42 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I welcome the review which the Minister has announced. For the past five years, other impending reviews have been regularly cited to me as a reason for doing nothing about whatever I happen to be urging on the Secretary of State of the day. However, I look forward to a different outcome on this occasion since the present Secretary of State is a mover and a shaker in whom I have considerable faith.
We cannot discuss the Bill—opaque and slight as it is—without considering the background. First, there is the well-documented poverty and stress which can no longer be fobbed off as anecdotal. They have increasingly manifested themselves among poor students; that is, among at least 20 per cent. of the student body. I wish to emphasise yet again that I speak about the poor students, not all students.
Secondly, there is the disastrous impact of that poverty on the quality of academic life, and therefore students' ultimate achievement and contribution to the country as graduates, and of the underfunding of universities which, as so many have said, hits libraries, scientific equipment, funding for field work and, above all, the ratio of teacher to student. The Government's pride—and it is justified—in increasing student numbers over the past decade must be tempered by the fact that funding for students has declined by 28 per cent. over the past six years, with the prospect of further reductions. Those are deeply alarming figures.
Let me say at once that the principle of requiring students to make some, and even a substantial contribution to their university education is now widely accepted by most students as well as by many in this House. The Student Loans Company, after a disastrous performance in 1994–95, is now functioning effectively, thanks to Sir Eric Ash. That is not least because there is now regular consultation with both institutions and students which was signally lacking before.
The trouble is, first, that the maintenance grant and the maximum loan together, even with the safety net of the Access funds for a few, is not enough. Secondly, the debt incurred is now 10 times the original maximum loan (£333 in 1991, £3,201 in 1996). By the year 2000 it will be 17 times as great (£5,788). The prospect of a debt of that magnitude can only act as a deterrent to poor prospective students so long as the present mandatory system of repayment over five years remains the policy of the Government. They must consider urgently the merits of a fee contribution scheme, to recover the loan on an income-contingent basis, whether through the Inland Revenue or national insurance. Incidentally, there would be considerable advantages for
950
the Government, as well as the students, especially if the present initiative for seeking private funding fails, as it seems not unlikely to do. A scheme which was rejected by the banks in the original consortium in 1989 because they decided, despite being offered £12 per student loan transaction, that there was no commercial benefit for them, seems utterly unlikely to attract them now. We do not know what the arrangements mentioned in the Bill are to be. Indeed, it presumably has not attracted them, since the whole exercise is now to be deferred for a year.
The Government are naturally concerned—and if they are not, they should be—at the prospect of heavy continuing investment which is not recovered. We know from the National Audit Office report on the Student Loans Company that despite a good rate of repayment (94 per cent.) so far, as at March 1995, 7.7 per cent. of repayers were in default, owing arrears of £1.8 million with a further £8.2 million due in future. The Student Loans Company estimates that by March 1998 there will be 27,800 accounts in default. Moreover, as at 31st March 1995, 45 per cent. of accounts in repayment status had had deferment of repayment approved.
Thus far, we are talking about relatively small sums because at this stage the Government are still dealing with those students who borrowed in 1990–94. The maintenance grant was far larger then and the loan far smaller. It is not surprising that the Government can speak of an average loan outstanding at present of £1,400 and an average loan repayment of £18 per month. Those are the students for whom the first loan in 1991 was £333. The total debt after three years was, in 1994, £2,015. But the Government should be thinking—students, certainly are (and it is and will be a powerful deterrent to entering higher education under the present arrangements)—about the students going down in 1998. Their debt will be £4,943, and those going down in the year 2000 will be repaying £5,788. That is an increase of over 100 per cent. in the debt which students going down this year will incur. They will incur £2,503.
All those figures relate only to three-year courses. For the four-year course, which is becoming more frequent, the debt to be repaid in the year 2000 (only five years away) will be £7,811. The CVCP calculation is that those going down in 1999–2000 will be paying over £96 per month.
I have spent so much time on the issue of the great increase in the size of the repayment, not only because of the increasing deterrent that it represents to poor students who fear debts of nearly £6,000, or nearly £8,000 for four-year courses, to be repaid so early and so fast, but also because I strongly believe that under the present system the Government will have to wait a long time for their money and may never recover much of it. It would, I submit, be a far more certain method of recovery, quite apart from removing student fears, to move to some form of income-contingent repayment scheme on the lines of the fee contribution scheme. In that way, the money would come in, as students would regard the system as fair and not frightening.

951
Many noble Lords have referred to the poverty which is having such a serious effect on the academic work and thus the future prospects of students. That is due directly to the fact, many times emphasised in earlier debates, that the maintenance grant and maximum loan together do not equal the former value of the maintenance grant and housing benefit. In Edinburgh rents have increased by 44.7 per cent. over the past five years. Rent alone now frequently exceeds the full maintenance grant and that obtains all over the country.
How much does that leave, even on a full loan, for books (the libraries have been cut back heavily), and field work, during which no work to earn money can be done—let alone the simple business of eating, keeping warm, travelling and staying alive. It is deeply disturbing that of 2,000 students who replied to a questionnaire in Edinburgh in 1995, 26 per cent. worked to earn money during term and 44 per cent. worked through the whole 30 weeks of the academic year for an average of 12 hours a week, but in some cases for much more. Since the work they do is often in bars or stocking shelves, the pay is very poor; 55.4 per cent. of the students had an average debt of £743 at the end of the academic year in addition to their student loan. Few could clear that non-student-loan debt by working during the summer—either because no work was available or because it was, again, very poorly paid. As one student wrote, "This year I shall have to work double my hours in paid employment to pay off my debt and, to be honest, my course is no longer my first concern". I find that a very frightening statement.
Other noble Lords referred to the growing evidence of drop-outs, especially among mature students, because of poverty rather than for academic reasons. The Minister will refer such students to the Access Funds. But we all know that they, frozen this year at £22 million, are wholly unable to meet the present level of student needs.
It is a tragedy that the Government, who have done so much to bring more students into higher education and have effectively changed the culture of complete state subsidy to one of enabling graduates to repay to the public purse a substantial part of the cost of their higher education, still fail to recognise that roughly one-fifth of the student body is insufficiently funded, so that poverty is, in its turn, impoverishing the quality of the academic experience.
It will be a culpable waste of money and human investment to create a generation of graduates who have simply not had the time or the tools to learn. They will go out into the world inadequately taught and imperfectly prepared for the intellectual challenges they ought to be fitted to meet.
It is not the least of our general regrets that this Bill still provides only for undergraduates. Nothing is available for postgraduates, nor for the large numbers in part-time education. I hope very much, with the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and many others, that my noble friend the Minister will tell us that some account might be taken of the possibility of extending the availability of loans to them. The extra cost could well be compensated for by greater certainty of recovery of the
952
money if the Government were to consider the income-contingent formula of repayment. I hope that they will.
8.52 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, first, I congratulate the Minister. He introduced a Bill on a constitutional innovation. He managed to make a Statement to this House without having to mention it as such. He gave a very deft summary of the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. I admired the way in which he managed to take it in his stride. Having made the Statement before introducing the Bill, he then gave us an injunction to stick to the Bill itself. If only he had done so himself, we should have followed. However, since he did not, we do not have to do so either. We, too, can speak on other matters, and not confine our remarks to the Bill. Being the last-but-one speaker, I use that ruse in order to be able to mention the matter.
I never fail to be astonished that, in the 17th year of a Government who say they believe in the free market, again and again they push legislation before us which shows either that they are ignorant of the market or that they do not have the guts to follow their own philosophy.
When I first arrived, 31 years ago, I was astonished that one could borrow three or perhaps four times one's income to buy a house, but not to buy a race-horse. That is an imperfection in the capital market that should have been removed. What difference does it make whether I buy a house or a race-horse. A race-horse might be the better winner. It was always thought that it was good to borrow money for certain things but not for others. Therefore governments of many hues have established distortions in the capital market and have even given them support in legislation. That idea still exists. This Bill perpetuates the notion that only full-time undergraduate education is such a great good that the Government will provide precious taxpayers' money to support it under an inefficient scheme, while a variety of other demands for higher education are not thought good enough.
We do not trust the consumer to know his or her own interests, to go to the bank and ask for a loan. There is obviously a case of market failure here. Banks have no incentive to provide this money. The Government, recognising market failure, have now decided that they will perpetuate the distortion by giving support to one part of the market but not to other parts. That is anomalous, to say the least.
As this Bill stands, it perpetuates certain restrictions. For example, in the schedule (lines 23 to 26) if a loan is taken out with a private company, another cannot be taken out with a public company. I do not see why not. If someone wants to take out two loans let him take out two loans. Provided he is not cheating, what does it matter to anybody how many loans are taken out? Why should the Government say how many loans I should take out? Do they believe in the free market, or not?
Secondly, and somewhat more seriously, as the noble Lord said, quite rightly there has been an expansion in higher education. That is a very good thing. There has

953
been practically a revolution in the context in this country. But the erosion of resources has done quite a bit of damage. I declare an interest. I have two children at university now. I teach at university and have students who tell me about their problems, and so on. The higher education system of this country, which is extraordinarily efficient and one of the most competitive on a global scale, is losing its advantage because it is under-financed. It is under-financed because, once we moved away from the system of the full grant and full fee support, the Government did not have the courage to bite the bullet and move to a fully loan-financed higher education system. Because we have been cut by bits and pieces, it has been, almost literally, death by a thousand cuts. The unit resource of education has gone down. I have 35 tutees today, when I used to have 15. I hardly know their names. In a sense, the British higher education system, which had a very small drop-out rate that was negligible in relation to the continental system, was for a time elitist. When it expanded, either the resources should have been provided publicly to maintain that efficiency or, if not provided publicly—I grant that, politically, that is a difficult task—the Government should have had the courage of their convictions to implement a shift to a fully loan-based system. Having shifted to a fully loan-based system, they should have had the courage to introduce a rational system of loans. If the housing market had been based on a five-year mortgage, it would have died before it was born.
In having a degree, I buy a piece of human capital and enhance my lifetime earnings. As anybody knows, my life-time earnings do not grow immediately because I am a graduate, but they grow over my life-time. All my life I can pay for the very precious asset I have bought. To have to repay it over five years is folly. I should be in negative equity throughout the five years, and nobody can convince me otherwise.
From any point of view a five-year loan system is irrational. I do not need to tell the Minister what Gordon Brown called the "neo-classical indigenous growth model". It shows that acquiring an education is the best guarantee of economic growth for a country. By encouraging people to acquire higher education we are improving the competitiveness of the economy in the future, and it is perfectly valid to help that along.
The subsidy need not be as large as the one the Government are about to give. That is another problem. As many noble Lords have said, an income contingent loan scheme would overcome the hump of extra payments within a short period of time. The only question is how to get the Treasury to come up with an imaginative idea in order to shift that burden in such a way that it does not appear in the PSBR to be awkward.
I suspect that there is a mole in the Government who makes them choose the electorally most unpopular loan system that could possibly be devised by a human being. By helping the Government I may be hurting my own party. I may be helping them to win the next election and so I hesitate to say anything about it.
954
In a sense, over a lifetime students are not poor. They will be better off than many of those who do not obtain a higher education. The kind of debt burden about which the noble Baroness, Lady Park, spoke, should be negligible within a lifetime's income, but it weighs heavily because the scheme devised makes no economic sense. We are burdening a potentially high income earning group early in life with sums of £3,000 to £5,000 which, over a lifetime, would be negligible.
Not all that long ago, 18 year-olds used to leave school and buy houses costing more than that and paid for them over their lifetime. Now we have people who cannot afford loans of that size. That is due to the term of the repayment of the loan. Having arranged an uneconomic five-year repayment term, we than have to give an uneconomic subsidy to the private sector to arrange the loan. The existing subsidy is not enough to persuade lenders to lend, so we have to increase the subsidy. It would be cheaper to give the students the money directly.
We must be clear that a student impoverishment problem is a self-created problem. It arises because of the restrictions on students borrowing against future income. It is a kind of market failure. We do not have specialised institutions to provide educational loans in the same way that we have specialised institutions to provide loans for property. It is a shortsightedness of the economy that we value bricks and mortar more than we value knowledge. Anybody can show that buying an education is a much better investment than buying bricks and mortar. Bricks and mortar are consumption goods and education is an investment. We should therefore be encouraging the buying of an education.
I see little hope that the Bill will be improved, even if we try to amend it. The Government have already scuttled it by announcing the inquiry. I see that as another sign of a lack of will to tackle the problems which could be tackled overnight if the Government wanted to do that. The income contingent loan solution has been known since 1988 when my colleagues, Dr. Nicholas Barr and John Barnes, published a paper on that topic. We have shown it to every successive Minister in the Department of Education and the Treasury. We have explained its logic. It was invented here before the Australians took it. But we have had to wait eight years while the Government continue to reject it.
It is astonishing that a low-cost, efficient solution will be rejected in favour of the present solution. "Choice" I am afraid, it is not, unless it is a choice between being hanged or being drawn and quartered. The borrower is no better off. The lender may be better off, but the borrower is not and the borrower does not have much choice. All we are doing is offering the cherry pickers an extra bonus for cherry picking. I hate to say this, but the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, with his desire to study archaeology, would have had no chance whatever of studying that subject; he would have been rejected out of hand by the cherry pickers because clearly archaeology is not a commercial proposition. As an economist, I would have had all the cream. Perhaps lawyers would be better off, followed by the

955
accountants, then perhaps the scientists, then the economists and last of all the humanists. There is no fun in that.
I urge the Minister to say that it is all a mistake; to say that we would be better following my suggestion. I urge him to say, "We want to win the election after all. We will try our best, despite what happens on the Back Benches in another place." Good sense may then prevail, after 17 years, and we may yet see a proper free market solution to the financing of higher education. I live in hope. But I am an optimist.
9.7 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long tonight as it has been a long debate with a virtual unanimity of views on the Bill. I declare an interest as a member of the council of the University of Canterbury. I am probably one of the few speakers tonight appointed as an amateur in the academic world. I am appointed from the business community to help the university meet the needs of the community; to support its management, its efficiency and quality.
I asked my vice-chancellor for his views and he urged me strongly to speak. I have seen at first hand the frustration at all levels in the university; the lack of policy coming from the Government; the stop-go on growth—enormous growth when it levels out—and the changes and reductions in funding. We cannot separate student funding from university funding; they are inextricably linked.
While universities have been rightly introducing efficiency gains, they are lumbered with more and more government paperwork which uses up thousands of hours of staff time—assessments, benchmarking, auditing, grant applications (we all have to do that) and reporting. There is more and more of it. This is not work that clerical assistants can do. It is paperwork which requires careful judgment and non-routine responses. It is academic staff time that is absorbed in completing it; academic staff time filling in forms and not teaching or researching. Now we have further form filling exercises in the shape of the new student loan proposal.
We are told that the universities will have to certify that students are eligible for private sector loans. Who will do that? We await details with great interest but, on the basis of past experience, very considerable foreboding. There will be yet more administrative work for universities. Will the noble Lord the Minister commit the Government to reimbursing all the costs involved? Perhaps we should be told. We have heard that most students are struggling financially or are just plain broke. Perhaps the Government will say "Tough, get on your bike and look for a job", and earn £1 an hour at a burger restaurant or work 16 to 20 hours a week doing something else. We have heard all that. Now that students have one more financial juggling exercise to contend with, it is almost as if they will need financial advisers as well as the university.
To what end are the Government proposing these changes? Are they really committed to free higher education? They say that they are, but by their actions to date they make it virtually impossible for those with
956
no outside support to receive the best quality education they can. I sometimes wonder whether the Government understand further education. Have Ministers experienced it? I hope we will hear that they have, that they enjoyed it and that they learnt from it. And now, coincidence of coincidence, on the day 20 noble Lords speak largely against the Bill, we have a new committee of inquiry. If in doubt, set up an inquiry, which will mean that nothing can happen for three years, and put off the day when a decision has to be made. In the meantime, muddle through. And, of course, there is an election coming.
Am I the only person in this Chamber to suspect that the objective of the Bill is to make next year's budget look more favourable, with no thought about what will happen thereafter? I do not know. In the meantime, I hope the Minister will be able to tell us how the Government expect the universities to fund themselves in the next three years. Do they expect the principals of universities to start charging students? Is that what they want, or do they not care?
Lastly, given all the problems now facing further education over all, as an amateur among some of the most eminent professionals in the business, I join others in calling for the Minister to withdraw the Bill.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, when discussing the student loans regulations I feel roughly the same way as I do about an old rugby injury. It comes back and it hurts, no matter how long ago it was first acquired. I cut my teeth or was blooded parliamentary-wise on the Education (Student Loans) Bill in 1990. I said then that as I was in the position of having graduated two years previously I knew more about the financial system. In a debate on a Motion which I tabled two or three years ago—the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, mentioned it—I said that I no longer knew anything about the system because it had changed a great deal.
I caught the end of what was a golden era for students when there was a guaranteed level of income. Initially that was done by the grants system. By the time I was finishing at university it was done by the grant plus social security benefits covering up the cracks. The present scheme was first brought in by top-up loans. In the first year students received £300 or so. The system of a top-up loan plus a few hundred pounds was acceptable. It papered over the cracks. It does not work with £5,000 of debt, which is what we are getting now.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, ran through his favourite flower patch and pulled out some of the choicest buds for us all to admire. The scheme just does not work in logical terms. The Bill itself is a small thing. It says that we should transfer some level of debt from the public sector to the private sector. The banks may be interested because the scheme may attract students to them. When a student opens a bank account he tends to stay with that bank until he becomes an economic asset. That was tried with the initial scheme but the banks said that they did not want to know. What will happen next time round, if it happens next time round—we have heard

957
that it will not happen quickly—should the banks say no again? Will we just shrug our shoulders and bring the matter back in a few years?
There is very little one can say about the Bill except to refer to a quote from the late, great Peter Sellers, that it is interesting but stupid. It does not really make sense. We are simply shifting around the level of debt. It would look better on a balance sheet. There is no real benefit to anyone.
If the Bill addresses anything it is individual student finance. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and almost every other noble Lord who has spoken this evening said, it should be sufficient to allow them to graduate. We have a degree structure system, particularly in England and Wales, of intensive preparation for three years. That means that students get through the course quickly. I am a graduate of a Scottish university, and it was nice to hear one other speaker who has a more recent connection with that university. I am slightly prejudiced. There should perhaps be a more flexible road into the course with students able to decide later what subject to take on at a higher level of education.
In England and Wales the period of study is intensified. It ensures that the student goes through the system quickly. In this kind of funding one is not allowing students to subsidise their income without working. We have a system where one is borrowing and paying back over a very short period of time and at the same time we are consistently leaving students, if they cannot find work during the long vacation, worse off than they would be on social security. On numerous occasions this Chamber has pointed that out to the Government. Talk of extra funding being available was rubbish. When the system was brought in many people lost in cash terms in the first year. There has never been any real argument or dispute about that.
I feel somewhat guilty because one should not shoot the messenger. However, the noble Lord is the only one in range tonight. If the Government intend to bring in this scheme—and there are many "ifs" and "buts" about it—will the Minister consider expanding the level of funding available to students because they need extra money? Will he consider ensuring that the private sector has the opportunity of providing a longer term for repayment? If the Minister gave us that assurance there would be some point to this debate; if not, we have really wasted our time.
9.17 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, at the beginning of this Second Reading debate my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris raised and identified the crucial issues underlying this Bill and the flaws in the scheme, the lack of parliamentary accountability in the detail, the failing loans policy, the F&HE funding crisis and the Government's mishandling and mistiming of the matter. All these points have been amply justified during the debate.
I for one was grateful to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for giving us a précis of the Statement read in the other place. I listened carefully and I shall read Hansard carefully. In his précis he read:
958
"We propose to invite the Committee to make recommendations on [how] the shape, structure and size and funding of higher education",
and then left out, "including support for students" before continuing with the rest of the sentence,
"should develop to meet the needs of the UK over the next 20 years".
The background to this debate is that the Government have accepted that a committee of inquiry is needed to look at all aspects of higher education, including student support. What is the sense in asking the taxpayer to fund costly proposals—the degree of subsidy in these proposals must be so severe that the Government will not even lay them before Parliament at this stage—for a scheme which is not intended by the Government now, as a result in the changes in timing, to be implemented until after the committee of inquiry has reported?
In presenting the proposals at this Second Reading, the Minister said that the taxpayer, private sector lending and risking its own money, were the issues before Parliament. The Government's favourite slogan is "choice, competition and diversity" and they believe that personal lending is not a natural activity for government. However, since Burke, governments have accepted that education provision is a function of government.
The Bill before us lacks details. The Minister asserted that it has no downside for anyone. How can we know when we know not the cost? The private sector, the banks and the building societies, have not come forward with bids. The Government tell us that they are considering how to bring them in.
My noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris referred to the important issues which the Dearing Committee will have to consider. Speaker after speaker referred to the need to protect and enhance the quality of further and higher education and to encourage access from students of all backgrounds while not discriminating between full-time and part-time students or against students on the grounds of age. Will the Minister assure us that the figure of £1,500 per student subsidy is not one that the Government intend to match by way of subsidy to the private sector to encourage it to take part?
The Minister concluded by referring to providing choice. The Bill does not provide choice for students. We are talking about a choice of students by banks, not about students choosing the system or company with which they would like to deal.
Many noble Lords have referred to unit costs per student and to the problems facing students. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, referred to a "seriously flawed scheme of student loans to be partially privatised". He said that he could not understand why the Government were proceeding with it. Noble Lords have raised a number of anxieties which the Government have so far failed to address. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals says that the Bill does nothing to address the problems of HE funding.
My noble friend Lord Sewel asked a crucial question: why do we need the Bill at this stage? As he said, it is evident that the Bill has been overtaken by events. He

959
said that 17 per cent. of students have debts of more than £4,000 and that 19 per cent. of students consider withdrawing from their course. I echo his words, "What a waste". This is the European "Year of Life-Long Learning". Why should we extend and develop a scheme which has been proved to discourage students from learning and from taking a degree course?
My noble friend Lord Borne referred to the fact that the Government could have foreseen the problems. Universities and students knew about the problems. My noble friend also referred to the fact that getting this right is an economic necessity for the country. No scheme should be a disincentive to students, especially those from the least well-off backgrounds. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, the scheme will not solve the problems facing the sector.
Every noble Lord bar none has welcomed the committee of inquiry. What is the sense in throwing away that degree of partnership proposal and that degree of unanimity by wasting time on a Bill that has been overtaken by events?
There has been a drop in the number of student applications although there has been an increase in the age cohort. That bodes ill for the future. Mature students are dropping out of higher education.
The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, referred to private good and public good. The loans scheme does not encourage students from all backgrounds. Also, why are there no practical details on the subject of recovery?
My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, one of many noble Lords who spoke with a knowledge of education in Wales, referred to the low morale in universities. Why can we not have adequate consultation on proposals as important as those contained in the Bill, albeit in only minimal form? Cavalier treatment of those with detailed knowledge—universities and students—will do little to improve that low morale.
My noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris referred to the fact that it is important that we work together, through consultation, to get this right. It is my understanding that my honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State has welcomed in another place the proposed bipartisan approach of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. That is the time to give detailed evidence and to have it evaluated carefully and properly, rather than proceeding by assertion in a Bill lacking detail that flies in the face of the knowledge of all those who have spoken in the debate, bar one and the Minister.
My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, asked why the CVCP was not consulted. He referred to poverty as a cause of drop-out. We are entitled to answers to all the detailed questions that have been asked in the debate. To offer less would be not to recognise the almost uniform failure to see any merit in the proposals before us.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, gave graphic illustrations of the problems facing less well-off students, the impact on their desire to go into higher
960
education and the quality of their academic life if they do. Their serious concerns must be addressed. The Bill will not do that.
Recently I spoke to a 17 year-old student who was embarking on the first year of sixth form. He is Welsh. He had three A*s in sciences, three As, two Bs and a C. He is seriously considering not going to university, because he comes from a single-parent household and he is terrified of debt. We need to find a scheme which will recognise the problems facing the Government but which will also ensure that such young people are not put off.
Student hardship is personally and nationally important. Parliament has a right to know what subsidies are proposed to underpin the legislation. The financial implications of any system need to be spelled out. The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, referred to the problems facing those students undertaking courses to become vets. A serious problem exists.
The Minister must take back to government the message that, if the Government are right, that will be confirmed by the committee of inquiry. The Government must surely have faith in the policies they are putting forward in the Bill. If that is the case, the Government should take pride in taking back the Bill, putting their views to their own committee of inquiry, and having them stand the test of detailed scrutiny rather than considering them at this stage.
As my noble friend Lady David said, student support needs a complete overhaul, She referred to the issue of students with disabilities. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, hoped for support for the Bill. I am sorry, but there is no support for the Bill in this House; there is no support for the Bill in the university sector; there is no support for the Bill from the students who are experiencing hardship. Yet speaker after speaker has talked realistically about the need to face the problems. The problem facing us in this House with the Bill is that the Government solution provides too little, at the wrong time, of the wrong thing.
Knowledgable comments have been made by those with an interest in high-quality education about the importance of good access. Only one in 20 speakers has spoken in support of the Government's proposals. From my noble friend Lady White to my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, speakers from Wales have referred to the anxiety that exists there.
For once the Government are proposing a proper evaluation of public policy. We have the opportunity for consultation and evaluation followed by good legislation with a consensual approach underpinning a good policy reached through the right processes. The Bill should be withdrawn until the committee of inquiry has reported. Many problems face this country and our system. I hope that the Minister will take away all the serious worries that have been raised and answer them in writing if he is not able to do so tonight. I hope that he will take away the message from all the speakers in the debate that the Government have come up with a good proposal with the committee of inquiry and that we can have co-operation. The answer lies with the Government.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, of course I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, that I shall write in answer to the more detailed points as appropriate in order to keep my speech within suitable limits at this hour of the night. I welcome the noble Baroness to what I understand is the first Second Reading debate that she has wound up from the Front Bench. She will appreciate that I did not agree with absolutely everything she said, but it was a welcome relief to hear a lay voice in this House. On occasions tonight I felt that I had strayed into a branch meeting of the House of Lords chapter of the CVCP. I believe that mere mortals should be allowed to speak from time to time.
As I said in opening, I intend to focus my remarks on the Bill. I accept that certain noble Lords tried to focus on the Bill to a greater extent than my initial pessimism seemed to imply. Obviously, there will be other opportunities to debate the committee of inquiry and the future of higher education. I do not know whether a debate is being initiated by noble Lords on the Cross-Benches on 6th March, as was suggested, but I am sure that noble Lords will find ways and means of ensuring that these important matters are debated in due course. I am sure, that, as always, the usual channels will consider these matters. I noted all the comments made about the committee of inquiry and I am sure that they are matters which Sir Ron Dearing will want to examine in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, in his theatrical speech, if I can put it that way, quoted from the Conservative Political Centre. I am pleased that he found such good reading emanating from such a source. However, it is not a government body and it is not producing government policy. It is important that the noble Lord should remember that. Perhaps in order to make the point that two can play the same tune I invite the noble Lord to look at the words of his colleague, Mr. Frank Field. Only last week at what I understand was called the "Attlee Lecture for '96", he said:
"It will also be necessary to link in one further reform. Student grants should be converted into universal loans run by the private sector".
I hope that the noble Lord will accept that there is support on his side of the House. Admittedly not in this House but among the more radical thinkers in another place.
I do not intend to focus on the wider issues that are being put before me, but I believe that two points are worth addressing before I turn to some of the detailed issues of the Bill. We have seen a massive expansion in higher education over the years. I was grateful for the welcome for that from Peers such as the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who pointed out that it has grown since my day, 20 years ago, from approximately one in 12 to one in three. That is a record of which we can be proud because the number doubled, and doubled again since 1979.
From the doom and gloom that we heard from noble Lords, one would think that there were no students left and that it was impossible for any to survive. There were allegations that since 1990 the
962
student loan system had deterred students, and particularly students from less well-off backgrounds, from entering university. I assure noble Lords that students from less well-off backgrounds, classified as the occupational groups Cl and C2, D and E, are not being deterred in any way from entering higher education.
The latest figures that we have are from the 1992 student income and expenditure survey. I assure the House that we are not complacent on these matters and a new survey will be starting some time in the autumn which may paint a new picture. However, that survey found that while those students were in a minority in 1988, by 1992 they were in a majority. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy made absolutely clear, the number of students from social classes 4 and 5 accepted for undergraduate courses rose by over 50 per cent. between 1991 and 1994. Those figures are just as good as the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, when he talked about the Australian scheme.
Further, there has been much concern—and I appreciate that it is something about which one should be concerned—about drop-out rates. Departmental data for 1992–93 shows the overall drop-out rate to be 17 per cent. That was the same as that for the previous year. Noble Lords should remember that where students abandon their courses there is no reason to believe that finance is the primary cause. I ask noble Lords to bear in mind what happens in that regard for our partners in Europe. There we see much higher drop-out rates. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, mentioned the much higher numbers in higher education in France. But he failed to mention that we have a much higher graduate rate. The implication of that is that many more students in France are dropping out and many more here are completing their courses. We should be proud of that. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, may not like our student support system, but in terms of that support system, which is a mixture of grants and the loan, we probably still have one of the most generous schemes in the world available for undergraduate students.
I now move on to some of the specific points that have been put to me in relation to the Bill. The first and most important point was the allegation made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, and other noble Lords that the banks simply do not want the scheme. I assure the noble Lord that at present we are encouraged by the amount of interest shown by the banks and building societies and the numbers which have asked to receive the invitation to tender documents. I assure the House that copies of those documents will be made available in the Library.
This is a market test. We should wait to see how those establishments respond to the opportunities offered to them. All noble Lords would have to accept that at this

963
stage I cannot begin to say which banks are interested because such matters must be conducted in confidence and they will remain in confidence until a later stage.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, obviously we should not expect the Minister to name names, but could he give a number?
Lord Henley: My Lords, at this stage all I say is that there are a reasonable number, but I am not prepared to give that number. I am referring to establishments which have expressed an interest in receiving the invitation to tender. I am glad that the noble Lord does not expect me to name names, but at this stage I believe it would be unwise of me to give numbers.
The noble Lord referred to the role of the banking ombudsman and the fact that he is not able to look at rejections of loan applications because such decisions are based on commercial judgments. We have discussed that with the banking ombudsman after the noble Lord's colleague, Mr. Boyes, made those allegations in another place. It is quite clear that he may look into a complaint as regards rejection if there is evidence that the decision was based on maladministration. He said also that the latter would cover apparent discrimination against an applicant on broad grounds including a rejection on the basis simply of the student's background or the course that he was following. All students would fall within the ombudsman's scheme and could complain on the grounds of unfair treatment by a bank.
A number of points were made, I believe by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, about how we would set out our negotiating position and the cost to the Government. Noble Lords will have to accept that it is quite wrong at this stage for me to say what the subsidy will be, although I certainly reject the figure being bandied about by the Opposition of some £1,500. I am not prepared to speculate. Similarly, I am sure that everyone accepts that it would be naive and unbusinesslike to set out in public our negotiating position. However, I can assure noble Lords that we shall look at what steps will be necessary in the light of all the spending plans for 1996–97. We shall certainly examine most carefully just how far we can go. The same will apply to the deficit to which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, referred when he complained about the loss as a result of the delay in the Bill.
I turn now to the question of the exclusions of post-graduates, part-timers, mature students and so on. Again, that point was addressed by many speakers. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, was the first speaker to raise it, but my noble friend Lady Park and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady David, also mentioned it. The Bill itself is not about extending eligibility. There are powers already available under the 1990 Act to extend eligibility should we wish so to do. But those pressing the case for other constituencies—for example, for including part-timers, mature students and post-graduates—need to explain most carefully where the money is to be found to pay for such an extension. In the case of the party of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, we may hear an answer at 10 o'clock tomorrow when its fascinating document will be released. I look forward
964
to reading it. The same applies to those who would seek longer repayment periods. Again there is power within the Act to extend that by five or seven years in the case, I believe, of medical students or those who receive—
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government intend to exercise the powers in the 1990 Act?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, the powers are there; but, in answer to the noble Lord, we have no immediate plans so to do. However, I can tell the noble Lord that, obviously, considerable concern has been expressed by a number of speakers that at present the debt burden is not an excessive one. I believe that that was the general gist of the comments. But that debt burden will increase in due course as the full take-up builds in. That might be an occasion when the Government would have to consider extending those powers. But merely to criticise the Government because there is no such provision in the Bill when we already have it in the 1990 Act is slightly unfair. Such powers could be exercised. As I said, we also have to address the question of where the money is to come from and who is to pay for it.
Perhaps I may take the matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies; namely, the extension to part-timers. We calculate that if all part-timers took out part-loans the cost would be something in the region of £200 million to £220 million. If they all took out full loans the cost, according to the figure I have, would be £637 million. Those are very considerable sums of money in the light of our total educational spend within the United Kingdom of some £35 billion of which £7 billion to £7.5 billion goes on higher education. If the noble Lord is looking to leave that much extra money in, he really should address the point as to where it will come from.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked what we were doing about disabled students. That was a very fair point to make and it is one which I, with my responsibilities within the department for disability matters—responsibilities which come both from the old employment side and the old DFE side—take most seriously. I shall consider it with great care. I can assure the noble Baroness that with private loans, as with the current scheme, the disabled students allowance will still provide financial help for equipment and expenses. Disabled borrowers will still be able to defer payment for longer and repay over a longer period, and disability related benefits will not be taken into account in calculating income for deferment purposes.
I come now to the question as to whether the conditions that apply will be the same. That point was put by my noble friend Lord Soulsby. I can assure him that the same loan ceiling will apply. The key elements, that is the nominal RPI interest rate and deferment, will stay, although obviously if banks wish to bring it below that they would be so entitled to do and students would be at least as well off. I stress for all those who seek the income contingency plan—no doubt this can be looked at in due course and no doubt it can be looked at by Sir Ron Dearing and his committee—that there is a degree

965
of income contingency within the scheme as it is at the moment. I think the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, ought to remember that, as it is, the repayment only starts when income reaches a certain level—85 per cent. of average earnings—and that is an income contingency element. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, seemed to grasp that particular fact. The debt is deferred when one's income is below, currently, £15,204 a year. It only starts to bite above that figure.
Finally, I should like to address the crucially important question as to whether there is a case for delay whilst the inquiry proceeds, which I do not think to be the case. The Bill will enable us to establish arrangements characterised—as I put it—by choice, competition and diversity. It will enable us to bring in private sector capital and expertise and I believe, as I said in my opening remarks, there are real, tangible benefits here for student borrowers and for the taxpayer. We remain determined to get them as soon as possible. If we wait for the committee of inquiry to finish its work, private loans would not be available until 1998, 1999 or even later. I do not think that that delay could be justified given the benefits to be had. I do not see any difficulties in implementing our proposals while the committee does its work. We have made clear that it will need to take account of our intention to enable private financial institutions to make loans to students. This, and the extent to which the introduction of private capital for loans will reduce the burden on public spending, will be issues that the inquiry will no doubt want to consider, but that is obviously entirely a matter for the inquiry itself. The fact that we have made clear
966
that private loans will go ahead does not mean that we have made up our minds in advance of the inquiry's recommendations. All we have said is that the inquiry does not start with a blank piece of paper; it starts from where we are, but the ground to be covered is a matter for the committee itself.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister explain to the House what happens if the committee of inquiry suggests a completely different or a very modified scheme immediately after the Government have signed an agreement with a particular range of private banks and building societies committing everyone for five years?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we already have a scheme in operation; it is called the student loans Act of 1990. As I said, we do not start with a blank piece of paper, and that is the point I am making. It will be a matter for the Government then to consider the recommendations as appropriate. I do not think that the announcement of the inquiry will affect the responses of the banks and the building societies to our proposals. We are testing the market for a sensible and realistic development of our existing and successful loans scheme—a scheme that has been in existence since 1990 and a scheme that is now working very well. I hope and believe that the banks and building societies will take advantage of those opportunities, but obviously that is a matter for their judgment. Let us see how they respond.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at eleven minutes before ten o'clock.

  Tourism: Allocation of Funding
  Tourism: Allocation of Funding
  Abortion Statistics
  Abortion Statistics
  Bulk Carriers: Viability
  Bulk Carriers: Viability
  Mr. Gerard Knight: Release from Custody
  Mr. Gerard Knight: Release from Custody
  Voluntary Sector: Home Office Support
  Voluntary Sector: Home Office Support
  Mr. Cedric Brown: Retirement Package
  Mr. Cedric Brown: Retirement Package
  Agricultural Spraying: Investigation of Complaints
  Agricultural Spraying: Investigation of Complaints
  Gulf War: French Forces
  Gulf War: French Forces
  Gulf War Service and Mycoplasma Infections
  Gulf War Service and Mycoplasma Infections
  NATO Nuclear Forces: Mr. Robert Bell's Remarks
  NATO Nuclear Forces: Mr. Robert Bell's Remarks