Sitting of 5 June 1996

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

  Dementia
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
  9.34 am
  Ms Rachel Squire: I am pleased to have the opportunity today to debate long-stay care for people with dementia. This week is Dementia Awareness Week in Scotland, organised by Alzheimer Scotland—Action on Dementia and I wish to take the opportunity to pay tribute to that organisation and the work that it does throughout the year, and to its sister organisation, the Alzheimer's Disease Society.
  Alzheimer Scotland—Action on Dementia have published an excellent report this week entitled "Putting Quality First". I intend to speak briefly about some of the points raised in the report and the action that I and others believe needs to be taken to improve long-stay care for people with dementia. I firmly believe that such action would be of benefit to everyone who may or may not need long-stay care for whatever reason at some time in the future.
  The issues raised by debates such as this affect all of us and go to the heart of the values and principles of our society. A society such as ours has a moral obligation to provide quality personal long-stay care for all who need it, whether early in life through accident or disease or later through advancing age. I do not believe that the provision of long-stay care should be left to the individual and the marketplace, especially for those who have paid all their lives for the welfare state in the belief that long-stay care, if they ever required it, would be provided free at the point of need by the national health service.
  The start of the report from Alzheimer Scotland—Action on Dementia outlines the principles for long-stay care—choice, independence, dignity, privacy, fulfilment and rights. I hope that those principles will shape our discussion today.
  I am sure that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members are aware that dementia is a disease characterised by damage to the brain cells which leads to a decline in intellectual and physical functioning. It is the fourth killer disease in old age, after cancer, heart disease and strokes. It is a complicated, lengthy and distressing illness that has severe consequences for the sufferers, their families and friends. The provision of high-quality long-stay care is an essential part of the continuum of care for people with dementia. It is not an optional extra, but is inevitable in the progress of the disease.
  Currently, there are about 61,000 people with dementia in Scotland and 650,000 in the United Kingdom, of whom some 40 to 45 per cent. live in institutional care. It is
  524
  reckoned that the growth rate in the number of people with dementia will be the same for the next 15 years as for the past 15 years, so we are not talking about some demographic time bomb, but about a predictable steady increase that can be planned for. The key questions we need to address are whether there will be enough long-stay care, whether it will be of quality and whether it will be in the right place for families and carers. Increasingly, throughout the United Kingdom, families, carers and sufferers of dementia find that the provision of long-stay care depends on where they happen to live, not on their needs. The provision is becoming more and more of a lottery.
  I could not take part in a debate such as this without commenting on how the quantity and availability of NHS-provided long-stay care has been severely cut under the Government. Since 1992 alone, the number of NHS long-stay beds in Scotland has been cut by nearly 4,000, but the number of long-stay beds in private nursing homes has dramatically increased. Of course, the Government claim that long-stay institutional care is being replaced by community care, but, all too often, NHS long-stay beds have been replaced by private ones for which care is means tested. Some are in nursing homes of 120 beds or more, and such homes are not suitable for the care of people with dementia. The Government's own guidelines recommend that homes providing continuing care for people with dementia should have no more than 30 places.
  As I have said, NHS long-stay care free at the point of need has been replaced by means-tested care. I shall give a couple of case studies which clearly demonstrate the effect of that on families and carers. The first is that of Mr. and Mrs. T from Glasgow; obviously, they do not want to be named. Mr. T is 65 and has severe dementia. He had a professional career, but had to give up work early because of the illness, and his wife gave up her work three years before retirement age to care for him.
  Mr. T was admitted to Woodilee hospital last October for assessment, and was discharged to a nursing home after six months. The hospital is due for closure, and he has to pay for the whole of that nursing home care. Mrs. T says that, if her husband could express his views, he would say that he has been let down by the national health service, and that she should not suffer financially because of his illness.
  A second example is that of Mrs. S, a 64-year-old widow who has had Alzheimer's disease since 1986. In early 1994, the consultant psychiatrist decided that it was no longer possible for her to be cared for at home because of her increasingly complex needs. Her family were informed that it was possible for her to be cared for on the specialist hospital ward where she had received short respite care. However, some months later, the family were told that their mother's bed was no longer classified as long-stay, and that they would have to find a nursing home for her. That is the reality of what is happening throughout the country to people who require long-stay care for dementia.
  The Alzheimer Scotland report recommends that there should be an equitable system for admission to NHS-funded long-stay care throughout Scotland, and, I am sure it would argue, throughout Britain, that is not subject to variations in local criteria but is based on the administration of nationally approved clinical assessment procedures. The Scottish Office's recent circular on the care programme approach delegates that whole area to local level and allows for variations.

  525
  Alzheimer Scotland calls for the criteria for admission to NHS-funded long-stay care to include challenging behaviour that requires specialist care and seeks continuing nursing care for people with dementia who need 24-hour supervision. My third example clearly demonstrates what is currently happening in some parts of the country. Tony suffers from vascular dementia, including asthma, and he is cared for, yet again, by his wife. We should never forget the contribution of our nearly 7 million carers, many of whom care for many years for people with dementia.
  Tony was cared for by his wife at home, and regular planned respite care was provided for both of them. His condition deteriorated and he was admitted to a general hospital with a chest infection. He was unable to speak, had difficulty in swallowing and was immobile. He was fed by gastric pump through his stomach. The consultant geriatrician decided that his condition did not merit NHS continuing care, and that he should be admitted to a nursing home which should be paid for by the patient. His condition further deteriorated, and the health authority ignored the recommendations of the GP. NHS continuing care was finally provided only when it seemed that Tony's death was imminent.
  I shall now deal with the importance of not only the quantity but the quality of care. The Government should do all they can to provide a caring environment for people with dementia that promotes a sense of well-being and maximises a person's sense of independence and dignity. I am sure that all hon. Members want to see an end to the days when one walks into the living room of a residential or nursing home and sees people sitting on chairs with their backs against the wall, staring blankly into space, sitting half asleep or muttering or shouting, with no stimulation and no social care. The only care is for their physical needs.
  The Government can end such scenes by acting on the recommendations in the Alzheimer Scotland report. I shall mention a few of the key points.
  First, a full, well-recorded, multi-disciplinary assessment should take place when a person enters care, and should be repeated regularly thereafter. That is a rehabilitative rather than a negative approach. Kenny McKie, one of my constituents who is a qualified nurse and the manager of a high-quality dementia care establishment, told me, "Everyone has potential in them. On-going assessment of people with dementia is very important. With good care, you can reverse it in some areas and delay the process in others." I pay tribute to Mr. McKie and to his staff for their work.
  The second important issue is a national dementia care training initiative which ensures that staff are constantly trained and that staff levels allow for such training. That key concern was mentioned recently by carers in Lothian in a survey of their views on the quality of care. The third area needing action related to legislation for a unified system of registration and inspection of residential and nursing homes. There is a false division between health and social care, and current legislation is inadequate and out of date.
  The fourth essential for quality care is a unified care system, the aim of which is to ensure that people who need care throughout their lives should receive it in just
  526
  one setting, and should not be shoved from pillar to post as the dementia worsens. My final recommendation is the call in the report and elsewhere for a full review of the policy on paying for long-stay care. I support my party's call for the Government to set up a royal commission to examine the cost and funding of such care.
  The Government's proposals for private insurance are a disgrace. They would benefit only the insurance industry, and would be too expensive for the majority of people. They make no allowance for such matters as broken employment, ill health and small savings, and would do nothing for those who in future may be subject to genetic testing for forms of dementia.
  I know that many hon. Members wish to contribute, and I thank them for coming this morning to participate in the debate. Alzheimer Scotland's report is called "Putting Quality First", and quality personal long-stay care is in all our interests. We can never predict when we or a loved one may need it. Universal and equal access to quality long-term care should be part of the foundation of a caring and compassionate society. We never question the importance or cost of providing high-quality emergency services or high-quality intensive paediatric care, so why should we question the importance or cost of putting quality first for people with dementia and their carers?
  I hope that the Minister and his Government will act swiftly to implement the recommendations in the report.
  9.50 am
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) on a first-rate introduction to the report, and on initiating the debate. I am afraid that I have not seen the report, but her comprehensive speech covered the very important issues contained in it, and the organisation concerned will be pleased that she has been able to initiate the debate.
  I speak from personal experience on this issue. When I first entered this place, in 1987, two things happened: first, I shook hands with the Speaker—not the current Speaker—and secondly I promptly went down with chicken pox, which was extremely painful, and was off for a month, but I do not suggest that the two things are connected. A less amusing fact was that, at the time, my mother, unfortunately, was diagnosed as suffering from dementia. I have worked in social work for many years—all my working life, in fact—and the experience of having a member of one's family on the receiving end taught me some important lessons, many of which were touched on by my hon. Friend.
  Fortunately, my mother was in sheltered housing, in a very caring environment, in my local authority of Wakefield. She had reached the stage when she wandered during the night, but the problem was that there were no staff to ensure that she did not. The various elements of community care for someone in her circumstances were in distinct blocks, which never met. She was deemed to be a housing case, but there was no care provision. We had a very caring warden, to whom I shall be grateful for the rest of my life, but she could not get up during the night to stop my mother wandering. The health provision did not relate to the care provision.
  I do not in any way knock the people who were concerned with my mother's care, as we received, at the time, the very best possible care, and I am most grateful for that, but it taught me some important lessons.

  527
  We should not consider community care in terms of individual blocks of providers. When someone is suffering from dementia—certainly in my mother's case—and their needs cross the various boundaries, the current organisation of that care leaves much to be desired. Because there was no care provision during the night in that sheltered housing block, my mother ended up in just the environment described by my hon. Friend: a lock-up care home, sharing a bedroom with a complete stranger and wandering around the home with other demented people.
  The time that my mother spent in that home was the worst period of my life. If I am portrayed as anti-institution, it is because I saw what that experience did to a member of my family and do not want it to happen to others. My hon. Friend put her finger on the point when she said that we must examine the provision that is available now, particularly in the private sector, where long-stay geriatric units are being replaced by large private nursing homes without stimulation or individualised care.
  With current Government policy, I am concerned that we seem to have abandoned any element of organisational framework for community care. I make a specific plea in relation to the care of people suffering from dementia. We should think about our responsibility for planning care for people whose needs do not neatly slot into some organisational category of health or social care. In dementia—more, perhaps, than in any other area—people's needs stretch way across such organisational boundaries.
  I am sad to say that the organisation of community care has worsened rather than improved in recent years. We have seen the community care changes, but I regret to say that we have also seen the total abandonment of any form of national organisation of health and community care, which is now left to the market. The internal market in the NHS is totally fragmented, and community care is left to individual entrepreneurs to provide what they consider will make the most profit. That has left us with a range of problems that must be urgently addressed.
  I recognise that dementia takes many forms and that there are different levels of functioning. It is wrong to categorise people who suffer from dementia. In my mother's case, the illness was progressive and changed over a number of years. At different stages, different forms of provision were required. I am worried that the system is not flexible enough to respond to those changes as a person's circumstances change.
  Care provision should relate to individual functioning, but it does not necessarily have to be catered for only within institutional care. I regret that we have returned to the model of institutional care—that, if anybody has community care needs, those needs must be dealt with in an institutional framework. People have seen the explosion in private nursing homes and private care homes, which are growing throughout the country. I would argue against that, as I feel that my mother ended up with a bad deal, not through the fault of the local people who tried to help her but through the lack of thought that was given to the models of care we have.
  I shall give one example, from an adjacent constituency. The relatives of an elderly man who had been admitted to a care home with dementia came to me about the problems that he was causing through
  528
  wandering from his care home back to the council bungalow where he had previously lived. The elderly woman who lived in the bungalow was disturbed because he kept coming back. As a result, she was prepared to move elsewhere.
  The chap came out of the care home and moved back into the bungalow and was given a support package to remain there, because he saw it as his home. He could not understand why he had been moved to an alien environment. The council, in a caring way, adjusted his environment in the bungalow to reduce the risk, to ensure that he did not leave gas taps on and that he was not wandering during the night. His condition was monitored throughout the day, which can now be done through various means. He did not need to be in an institutional setting.
  I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend about a continuum of care. We need a continuum that can respond to a person's individual circumstances at any time, particularly in relation to dementia. We must move away from the overwhelming obsession with institutional care, particularly for people who have various forms of confusion and dementia.
  Not long ago, my hon. Friend and I were in Norway to study that country's models of care and housing. Denmark passed a law making it illegal to have institutional care. Its models are based on a housing approach. Our models are the workhouse modernised. I am ashamed that, at this point in the 20th century, the old public assistance institution still dominates in our view of what should be offered to people with a variety of needs. Let us normalise our view of care and of how we would like to be cared for. I do not want to end up in a wall-to-wall geriatric situation staring at people with similar problems. I want to live in a normalised housing environment as long as I can. We can increasingly make such provision.
  We must establish a proper organisational framework that reflects the new boundaries of community care. The social/nursing care divide went by the board years ago. It is nonsense to retain rigid organisational boundaries between the NHS, local authority, nursing and social care.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) knows well my view that our party should review its policy on the connection between local authority and NHS provision. There should be one body in charge of community care. As long as a divide remains, some people will fall between the two factions and not be helped. My hon. Friend knows where I am coming from, and I know where he is coming from, but I hope that we may meet in the middle and agree a just policy that satisfies our respective views. The new organisational framework must address the models of care I have described, increasingly to embrace the housing model and how it can offer people a far more civilised deal.
  I will conclude, as I am being looked at by my Whip. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) is a caring Whip, who concerns herself with community care and has a good track record on that issue.
  My final point reinforces what my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West said about the Government's recent announcements on private insurance. Their message is that any problem in old age is for the individual, who must ensure that he or she has the right insurance policy—that one must look after number one, because the state will not provide. That is

  529
  not good enough in relation to dementia. We must reinstate our belief since the introduction of the welfare state in the 1940s that we have a collective responsibility to care for people with needs of the kind that my hon. Friend described.
  10.2 am
  Mr. David Chidgey: I want to draw the Minister's attention to serious allegations that health and local authorities are misinterpreting their duties and powers in law, in the provision of long-stay care for dementia sufferers.
  I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), last November about the case of my constituent, Mrs. Valerie Richardson. In March 1995, Mrs. Richardson's mother-in-law was diagnosed as suffering from Alzheimer's disease. Her consultant advised that she should be discharged from hospital into a nursing home. Mrs. Richardson asked whether the NHS would be providing a bed, and was told—rightly in my view—that her mother-in-law's needs came first and that Mrs. Richardson should not worry about costs until her relative was settled.
  Without Mrs. Richardson's knowledge, or her consent as the person with power of attorney, social services became involved, and threatened court action to place a charge on her mother-in-law's property. Mrs. Richardson, as many people know, is not a woman to be bullied. Fourteen months later, her mother-in-law continues to be cared for in hospital by the NHS while she awaits a proper home care package. She has not joined the 40,000 pensioners who in the last year alone have been forced to sell their homes to pay for care. As a result of Mrs. Richardson's dogged stand, the health authority and social services face court proceedings challenging the legality of their actions.
  Two points are at issue. Health authorities and local authorities stand accused of exercising powers outside the law. Perhaps more serious, by those actions clinicians, health administrators and social workers are at risk of charges of criminal negligence for carrying out such instructions. That risk exists in the case of clinicians for abrogating their responsibilities; and in the case of administrators and social workers, for assuming responsibilities for medical care for which they are unqualified.
  The Under-Secretary wrote to me in January to inform me that, under section 22 of the National Health Service Act 1977, health and social service authorities have a statutory duty to work closely together. I replied in detail and at length in March, pointing out that the various Acts dealing with national assistance, welfare services and community care are open to contradiction.
  In particular, under the National Assistance Act 1948, local authorities are barred from providing services or accommodation to meet any medical requirements. Those are defined as the responsibility of the NHS, and include a duty
  "to provide the treatment of people with mental illness"
  and
  "to provide those services free of charge".
  530
  However, the Residential Accommodation Regulations 1992 allow health authorities to give consent for nursing care accommodation to be provided under the 1948 Act, but with the health authority purchasing the bed. The statutory instruments fail to recognise that the 1948 Act bars local authorities from providing accommodation for infirm patients, including those who suffer from mental disorder—a recipe for chaos and confusion. We are seeing as a result a programme of enforced residential care for pensioners with serious health problems. Health and local authorities are substituting social care needs for health care.
  Patients receiving care under health service Acts are reclassified as requiring the provisions of the 1948 Act, which are means-tested. The consequential forced realisation of patients' assets to pay for their care is open to strong challenge as being without legal foundation. Medical treatment for medically disordered patients must under statute be provided free of charge. Social services cannot give treatment, and have no statutory powers to do so.
  The misinterpretation of legislation places medical staff and social workers at risk to charges of negligence. The Under-Secretary's reply in January stated:
  "It will be appropriate in some cases for a health authority to decide, taking into account all relevant considerations including clinical advice and resources available, that it is no longer appropriate to provide a person with NHS care."
  The Minister was saying that hospital administrators with no medical qualifications will decide, on the basis of available resources, whether a patient needs continuing medical care, yet the statutory guidelines on hospital discharge arrangements state:
  "All consultants are responsible for the medical care of their patients. They are responsible for deciding when a patient no longer needs acute care … The consultant will decide whether the patient needs continuing care arranged and funded by the NHS."
  Clinicians who abdicate their responsibilities to administrators, and the social workers who implement their decisions, all stand exposed to charges of negligence for acting outside their statutory powers. That view is shared by the health service ombudsman, following complaints about the health commission that covers my constituency. He has only recently issued a stern warning to NHS managers that they should follow doctors' advice when discharging patients from hospital.
  I remind the Minister that the ombudsman was called in following complaints against North and Mid Hampshire health commission, which had discharged 24 elderly dementia patients from hospital to private nursing homes. Within two weeks of their discharge, eight had died. Five of the patients who died were discharged against the express wishes of medical staff, who advised that they were too ill to be moved. Doctors were overruled by managers, who went ahead as part of the health commission's plan to close wards for elderly dementia patients as a money-saving measure.
  The ombudsman's report makes it clear that the health authority paid scant regard to the statutory guidelines on hospital discharge and that it was "deplorable"—his word—that elderly patients were left without proper medical cover. As a result, the ombudsman has issued a grim warning to any other authorities that are planning to close long-stay hospitals.
  Will the Minister please accept, therefore, that there is clear evidence that health and local authorities are acting outside their powers in the provision of care for dementia

  531
  patients through ignorance, confusion, or, as the ombudsman has found, by deliberately flouting statutory guidelines? Will the Minister accept that those actions are placing health and social service staff at risk to charges of negligence? Will he review the legislation to confirm that it is the NHS that is obliged to provide medical care for dementia sufferers, or will he introduce statutory amendments making it clear to the House that the Government intend this to be the province of the social services, with all that that implies?
  10.11 am
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) on bringing this subject before us. Like other hon. Members, I speak from experience. I have a loved one who suffered from Alzheimer's: my late father-in-law Thomas McLay. Unfortunately, he recently died.
  He left school at 14 and never had a lazy bone in his body. He worked hard as a miner, and he could have been described as an employer's dream, because, when he had to start work at 6 in the morning, he was there half an hour before, ready to start his shift. He did that whatever time he started. He brought up a family of 13. When the war came, he did his work with the Royal Artillery. I am painting of picture of a someone who asked nothing of any one. He brought up his family along with his wife Margaret. The first time he needed help from the state was when he became an Alzheimer's sufferer.
  My mother-in-law, who has also recently died, was determined that Thomas, with whom she had been married for 60 years, would not go into a home, and that she would be the carer in the family. When we talk about carers, the word sometimes rolls off the tongue, but we forget that carers are sometimes aged 70 or 80 years of age, and that they are not always physically fit.
  As the Minister knows, I rarely criticise the local authority, but the behaviour of Strathclyde regional council, the biggest local authority in Scotland, if not in the United Kingdom, which is now the City of Glasgow council, in looking after my father-in-law and my mother-in-law, who was a carer, was deplorable. The one thing that we as Members are reluctant to do is fight on behalf of our relatives in case we are accused of putting our nose in, but one day I had absolutely had enough. This man had worked hard all his life. Why should he not get representation from his son-in-law?
  I spent half an hour talking to a social worker, and I discovered that she had not been in the family home for 18 months. Things had changed. Sufferers do not one day go along to the doctor, who tells them, "You have Alzheimer's disease." It does not work like that. People start to act irrationally and, often, relatives and the doctor do not know what is going on. It is a gradual process.
  Sometimes, as happened with the mother of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), sufferers wander away. In my father-in-law's case, it was a form of paranoia. He was worried about people looking into his home, and that someone was following him. He had a thing about his rent being behind, but there was nothing wrong: his rent had never been in arrears.
  For 18 months, a social worker had not turned up. I said to her, "Are you going to turn up?" She quoted the wrong telephone number, and I discovered that she was
  532
  reading from the file of a family who lived three miles from my mother-in-law and father-in-law. That was the support we received.
  I have another criticism. My wife and her sister rightly said that they were going to support their mother. When they turned up in the home and officials from the social work department were present, they deliberately turned their backs on the two daughters and addressed themselves only to the 80-year-old woman who was the carer.
  That is a bad example from an organisation that says that it wants to keep families together and to support them, yet any time that the daughters were showing support, it deliberately turned its back. There must be a policy in that social work department, because not only the social worker, but the occupational therapist and many others acted in that way.
  I have heard Ministers with responsibility for social security talk about the support we give to carers, but no one came to me and my mother-in-law to say, "This is what you are entitled to." She eventually received various grants and support from the Department of Social Security, but all that was in dribs and drabs. When we wondered whether my father-in-law would be entitled to death gratuities that ex-soldiers were receiving, he was so far into his illness that he could not remember his old Army number, and that delayed his receiving the very thing he was entitled to.
  If we are going to say to people, "Be good carers," as a society we must give support. My mother-in-law kept a bed free in the national health service because she wanted her loved one to stay at home, but she was not thinking in economic terms to save the Government money. By doing that, she saved the NHS and the social work department a fortune, and she received no thanks for doing so.
  The one organisation to which I give credit was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West: Alzheimer Scotland—Action on Dementia. A girl there called Isabel Marr was prepared to tell my mother-in-law, my wife and her sister, "This is what is happening to your father, to the man you love. Here are the changes that he will endure during his illness."
  As we all know, Alzheimer's and dementia patients tend to catch illnesses quickly. Flu can turn into pneumonia, and they are immediately admitted to hospital. There is a habit in our hospitals, which we all have a great regard for: they give a patient with dementia the strongest tranquilisers that they have in the ward. That is not only dangerous, but insulting to patients. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West rightly stated, although the patient can be suffering in terms of being unable to communicate in a certain way and it is hard to get a conversation going, in many ways they can still think clearly.
  Until his last day, my father-in-law could draw and paint beautiful pictures. We have them hanging framed in our home. Certain parts of his mind were still very active, and he needed stimulation, as we all do. However, in the ward for the elderly in the local hospital, there was not even one picture hanging on the walls. I argued about that with the hospital administrator. He asked why the hospital should put pictures on the wall. I said, "Because you've got pictures on your wall at home, so why shouldn't people living in the hospital, as their home, for a week or two have the same amenities?"

  533
  I am trying to get across to the Minister and anyone working in social services who might be listening the fact that carers must get 101 per cent. support. If we do not give them that, we will simply be sweeping the problem of dementia and Alzheimer's disease under the carpet. We will be letting other people deal with the problem behind their own doors.
  It is ridiculous that, when an elderly person needs, for example, a specially adapted bath in his home, which has been recommended by the occupational therapist, the local authority sometimes says that, although there is a clear case for it, it has run out of money in the budget and that elderly person will have to wait until the next financial year. That is a sorry state of affairs. In this day and age, it is ridiculous that we cannot provide much-needed facilities because of constraints on the budget in a particular financial year.
  10.21 am
  Mr. Barry Jones: It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). The human need in the case he instanced spoke volumes.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) for initiating this debate. I am sure that thousands of people will be grateful to her for doing so. It is telling that this is the first major House of Commons debate on dementia for 10 years. It shows that, as politicians and policy makers, we have failed to meet the challenge that dementia presents.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn, I acknowledge the carers in my constituency who have been so loyal to their parents, partners and friends. Every Member of Parliament who does his work conscientiously knows a small army of carers in his constituency. We know them to be very faithful and disciplined; their loyalty is outstanding. Without a shadow of doubt, they save the British state billions of pounds which otherwise would have to be expended in more formal caring environments.
  To its great credit, The Times last week devoted a whole page to Alzheimer's disease and carers. I draw to the attention of the House what Richard Eyre, the director of the National Theatre, said in his very moving remarks:
  "The personality starts to disappear and with it the humanity and the soul, leaving as if in mockery only the body to breathe and be fed."
  He summed up the scene devastatingly well.
  The disease is really a Cinderella disease, even though it is a common one, and even though it can strike as early as 30 years of age. I call it a Cinderella disease because only £10 per sufferer is spent on research, while £475 per cancer victim is spent on research. In that context, all credit must go to Alzheimer Scotland—Action for Dementia and the Alzheimer's Disease Society. I know the latter body reasonably well. It has a dedicated and lively staff. It has encouraged the discerning public to accept that the problem will not go away. The society is successful and respected, and it gets fine leadership from Mr. Harry Cayton and the devoted group around him.
  I regret that, in recent years, the number of continuing care beds in the national health service has been cut by 40 per cent. I also regret that many more highly dependent
  534
  people with dementia are paying for places in nursing or residential homes, whereas 10 years ago they would have been cared for by the NHS free at the point of delivery. I further regret that whether or not people get such care depends on where they live.
  I want the Government to end what is in effect a lottery by taking up the Health Select Committee's proposals—first, for national eligibility criteria; and secondly, for a long-term care charter. Unless we follow the recommendations of the Select Committee, the disparities will be such that we will become a nation made up of district health services, rather than a truly national health service. That is the direction in which we are going, and it concerns me greatly.
  In Wales, we believe that we invented the national health service. We certainly gave the great Aneurin Bevan to this House—and he, without a shadow of doubt, fashioned what was, and, indeed, may still be, the envy of the developed world by creating the great NHS. The problems faced by sufferers of Alzheimer's disease show that all is not well in our national health service.
  The Government have issued a consultation paper entitled "A New Partnership for Care in Old Age". Some people will benefit from what is proposed, but some will not. I am concerned about the heavy role that the Government intend to hand to the insurance industry. The blunt truth is that long-term care insurance is not an affordable option for those who cannot make regular payments into an insurance policy. Many of the less well-off people live in Wales, my country. They have ill health, they have been in and out of work, and they sometimes have caring responsibilities.
  Last Saturday, Ruth Davies came to see me in my constituency surgery. During a lengthy discussion, she told me about her mother's long illness—which may have been dementia or may have been Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. In my view, Ruth Davies has shown great filial loyalty to her mother. She cared for her in a very loving way, and that deserves to be recognised. Her letter, which I shall give the Minister, is quite harrowing. It is a summary of the problems of one person, on her own, who faced up to her responsibilities. I hope that, when the Minister reads that letter, he will endeavour to respond and to assist my constituent.
  I formally ask the Government to avoid falling into the trap of a short-term solution, which would be fatal for the great challenge of Alzheimer's disease. The Select Committee points the way forward. Above all, I want a system that is equitable, universal and free from age discrimination.
  10.29 am
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I shall be brief, because I realise that there are time pressures, and I am sure that the hon. Members who have sat through this debate will be interested to hear the Minister's response to the very eloquent requests that have been made. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) on the service she has performed for the House and for the community by initiating this debate, and on the sincerity, commitment and passion with which she opened it. These issues should be seriously examined by all hon. Members, and not solely in the course of an Adjournment debate.
  Hon. Members have made personal comments in the course of this debate. I also have a parent who suffers from dementia and is in permanent nursing care. People

  535
  do not appreciate the trauma that such a situation can cause, not only for the individual but for the family and for friends and relatives. Physically, the parent is still the same person we love, who brought us up, who cared for us and who has done everything possible for our lives. But mentally, they are not the same person. To find that one of our loved ones is suffering from some form of dementia is one of the most psychologically and emotionally draining experiences a person can ever have.
  It is good when families are supportive and when friends and relations are there to help one through such difficult times. Unfortunately, many people in our society do not have supportive families, and they are in the most distressing situation. I hope that we can find ways of building up care in the community services to help people who may not be as fortunate as I have been, with a supportive family to see me through particularly difficult times.
  Reference has been made to community care in general. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) said, hon. Members write off to our directors of social work and to Ministers on behalf of our constituents, but it is only when something happens to us personally that we begin to realise the complexities that are involved in ensuring that there are health visitors, home-help services and general practitioners—all the services involved in ensuring that there is community care.
  One of my current worries—I refer the Minister to the excellent series of articles in The Herald this week, which is a part of Dementia Awareness Week—is that, in the local government budget for Scotland for 1996–97, £53 million has been made available directly for community care funding, which
  "leaves the councils with an increase of only 0.9 per cent. over last year's base expenditure, from which they must fund any wage increases as well as restructuring costs over and above what the Government have provided for."
  How does 0.9 per cent. additional funding do anything for community care in our local authorities? That issue should be addressed.
  Reference has also been made to institutions. We hate the word "institution", because it conjures up images of a Victorian era institution. I think that the hon. Member for Springburn mentioned Woodilee. That is in my former constituency, and I know exactly what he meant.
  There is a stage at which residential, full-time nursing care becomes absolutely essential for many people. I was concerned about people in that situation when I read the Scottish Office's most recent "Statistical Bulletin", and saw that the private sector is growing while the state sector is shrinking. The bulletin deals with community care. I am sure that the Minister is aware of it, so I shall not rehearse all the arguments about the graph that it contains.
  I should like to make two very basic points. First, dementia is an illness. It is far too easy to be dismissive and say, "The old lady or the old man is losing their marbles." It is an illness that should be diagnosed. I want fundamental research by the Government into this issue to try to ensure that people do not needlessly suffer from any form of dementia, whether it is Alzheimer's disease or some other aspect of dementia.
  Secondly, means testing for people who need full-time nursing care should be abolished. Will the Minister tell us how much money is spent in the administration of means
  536
  testing while beds are being removed from our hospitals and nursing homes? It is very strange that people who are now in their 80s—who perhaps lived through the first world war, gave all their commitment, paid national insurance contributions all their lives, who never asked for anything and were led to believe that they would be cared for when they needed to be in their old age—are now being denied that care. They did not have the opportunity of private insurance or anything like that. They paid their contributions and expected to be cared for. The concept of means testing and requiring people to sell their homes to pay for their care is absolutely despicable
  10.35 am
  Mr. Alan Milburn: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) on securing this extremely timely and important debate. I also pay tribute to all hon. Members who have taken part. They have spoken with a depth of compassion and understanding that properly reflect their involvement in care issues. Finally, I pay tribute to the Alzheimer's Disease Society, which does such an important job in Scotland and across the United Kingdom in campaigning on dementia issues.
  As hon. Members are aware, Alzheimer's disease and dementia are chronic and degenerative diseases. In 25 years, it is estimated that approximately 1 million people in our country will suffer from dementia. As we have heard, the cost to individuals, their families and their carers is immense. The bill to society is also huge—an estimated £1 billion per annum in England. There is currently no known cause or cure for Alzheimer's disease, and it is one of the most serious medical challenges facing our society.
  We live in an aging society. Increased life expectancy is certainly one of the great achievements of this century, and brings with it the potential for a richer and more fulfilling existence for each of us. But age-related illness and disability, particularly dementia, pose a serious threat to the realisation of the potential for healthy aging.
  Yesterday I launched a new centre on aging, which will focus new research efforts on understanding and preventing the major causes of chronic ill health in older people. Created through a partnership between two of the north's great universities—Newcastle and Manchester—it will be a world leader in formulating new approaches to the treatment of diseases such as dementia. That such concentrated scientific and medical efforts are taking place in our public sector institutions to tackle an enormous social problem should be a great source of hope. I hope that the centre receives the support it deserves from Government.
  A part of the centre's focus will be on developing more effective care delivery systems for elderly people. People with dementia are likely to be the major users of long-term care services in this country. They are also on the front line of the debate that is now taking place on the future of long-term care. That debate is long overdue. In some ways, it is very odd that the debate has not happened before now. Britain's elderly population have, after all, been around for a very long time—long enough for any competent Government to have planned for the challenge of their care.
  The problem is that the Government have not done that planning. The elderly, their families and their carers are angry, and for very good reason. NHS disinvestment from

  537
  continuing care has produced a redefinition of responsibilities between health care and social care. Continuing care, free at the point of use, has been all but rationed out of our national health service. Indeed, a report on psycho-geriatric continuing care beds published by the Alzheimer's Disease Society in 1993 showed that some health authorities had disinvested to such an extent that they provided no NHS beds at all for people with dementia.
  Dr. Robert Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Milburn: I am sorry; I do not have time.
  Elderly people who now have to sell their homes—there are an estimated 40,000 such cases a year—are rightly furious because they had fondly believed that the taxes they paid covered care from the cradle to the grave. Instead, as we have heard this morning, all too often those people are shunted backwards and forwards between health authorities and local authorities which are desperately trying to divest themselves of the responsibility of care.
  Worse still, by passing the buck to individual health authorities to decide what services should be available to elderly people, the Government have created a lottery in long-term care provision. The ADS survey of draft health authority eligibility criteria for continuing care, which was published just a month or so ago, found incomprehensible criteria and unacceptable variations in access to services. Quite simply, under this Government, where a person lives determines the care he receives and the price he pays. Such a lottery should have no part to play in our national health service or in any civilised system of community care.
  Instead of tackling the mess they have created, the Government are in effect telling the public that we have a chaotic, perverse and unfair system of long-term care: "How can we, the Government, make you, the individual, pay for it?" The Government have got the starting point wrong—they are asking the wrong question to get the wrong answer. We believe that the debate has to begin with a much more fundamental question—what services will people need in their old age? Asking that different question is likely to lead to different answers.
  First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West rightly pointed out, we know when and where population change will occur. The so-called demographic time bomb is not going to explode tomorrow. Its impact is being felt incrementally over several decades, so it is a change for which we can all plan. With dementia, for example, we know that there will be a steady rather than a dramatic growth in the number of people who will suffer from Alzheimer's and related conditions.
  Secondly, the raw facts of change do not take into account the benefits—or the potential savings—that can flow from allowing elderly people to benefit to a much greater extent from preventive, rehabilitative and convalescent health programmes, so reducing the need for high levels of care, and delaying the onset of frailty.
  Finally, I deal with a recurring theme in this debate. Providing new national mechanisms to ensure a continuum of care services among health authorities and
  538
  local authorities could end the waste of time and money that currently bedevils the delivery of long-term care for elderly people. It is those people who suffer when health authorities and local authorities tussle over resources and responsibilities. That is why we are committed to new enforced national mechanisms to speed up co-operation among health services, social services and, crucially, housing services. The latter are all too often the forgotten partner in the family of community care services.
  We want a continuum of care made available for the individual. That is especially important for people with dementia. The onset of dementia is very different from its terminal stages, so care needs will change over time. It is vital that services on the ground are equal across the country, which is why we support the Health Committee's call for a national framework that specifies eligibility criteria for long-term care to define what the NHS, as a national service, is to provide.
  Our aim is straightforward. We want a national health service in which access to care is a matter of right, not chance. We want a national long-term care charter so that people know what they can expect from health services, housing services and social services. We want to end the market in the NHS, to remove the perverse incentive for hospitals to discharge patients too rapidly. We have called for a moratorium on the closure of hospital beds, because the closure programme has gone too far.
  The NHS has continuing bed responsibilities, but it has other responsibilities, too. That is why we will seek a new role for convalescence, where rehabilitation, recovery and respite services not only help ease the transition between hospital and community but provide more help for carers whose needs must also be met. The ADS's "Right from the Start" report identified almost half the carers looking after people with Alzheimer's as being more than 70 years old. That matter was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). We have made a good start with the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995, but it is only a start—we still need further changes.
  Quality is the key challenge facing all providers of care. We want all care to be of the highest standard. Standards must be subject to appropriate scrutiny, which is why we want to bring all community care services—public and private, residential and domiciliary—within an independent regulation net. Several of my hon. Friends have expressed concern about the disturbing trend towards larger institutions. We shall be looking to define new standards, and, in particular, we want to examine whether quality of life in care homes is being compromised by economies of scale.
  The reforms I have outlined will deal with the insecurity felt by elderly people about their future. The aim should be to allow people the security of knowing that a broad choice of services will be available when they grow old and to allow them to plan for old age by defining where the boundaries lie between provided and paid-for care. That certainty is what elderly people want; it is what their carers and their families want, and it is what they deserve.
  10.48 am
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) on having secured this

  539
  debate. People who suffer from dementia and those who tirelessly care for them deserve our understanding and support: I echo the words of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) who congratulated the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) on introducing the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 which substantially improved matters.
  This debate is a welcome opportunity to restate the Government's and our personal commitment to making certain that people suffering from dementia receive the highest quality health and social care, which they need and deserve. In a moving speech, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) described his personal experiences.
  Although this is Alzheimer's Week in Scotland, we must keep the needs of those suffering from Alzheimer's and dementia and our responses to them at the forefront of our minds all the time. I agree that large impersonal institutions are not the ideal surroundings for long-stay care, especially not in respect of the social aspects. The aim is to provide care in smaller, more homely settings, and to improve the opportunities for social stimulation.
  Of course, community care planning involves health boards, local authorities and others in joint planning and a joint response to a continuous assessment of need. The aim is to reflect local needs and circumstances and to replace outdated institutional care with care that meets existing needs and will continue to do so.
  The hon. Members for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) and for Wakefield highlighted the need for quality of care. Inspection teams should ensure that all homes have structured day activities for their residents. Teams can carry out unannounced visits to ensure that necessary stimulation takes place.
  The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) raised the case of the Richardson family. It would not be appropriate for me to go into the detailed circumstances, but I stress that we have set out very clearly in England and Scotland the procedures that should be followed in arranging the continuing care of any person who has been in hospital. I would have expected those arrangements and procedures to be followed in that instance. The Under-Secretaries of State for Health, my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Mr. Horam) and for Battersea will be responding to the hon. Gentleman, whose correspondence will be studied closely.
  The hon. Member for Springburn made certain criticisms of unsatisfactory activities in the social work department. Those matters should be taken up with the director of social work. We have of course introduced a formal complaints procedure to examine alleged unsatisfactory care, and have strengthened the procedures.
  The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) raised the important issue of research funding. I am happy to confirm that the Scottish Office chief scientist's office is always happy to consider and fund research proposals in that area. Similarly, the Department of Health will look sympathetically at any proposals. In Scotland, we provide significant funding to the dementia services development centre, which carries out research. That centre in Stirling was set up in 1989. We provide it with a core grant of £185,000. It provides information, development assistance, training and research to service planners and providers.
  540
  The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) mentioned funding. Funding of authorities reflects their lead role in planning and purchasing community care services. Councils in Scotland have received £662 million in community care resources this year—an increase of £41 million on the previous year. I say to the hon. Member for Darlington that expenditure on social care for older people has been increasing by an average of 9 per cent. in real terms for the past 15 years, from about £2 billion in 1980 to £7.3 billion last year.
  Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that, since the Government have made adequate funds available, the question is not so much one of funds as the use of them? Is he aware that Essex county council increased its funding from £89 million in 1992 to £192 million today, but continues to misuse those resources by sending young thugs on safari holidays instead of providing proper levels of care? Essex county council is Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad to hear that resources are being correctly applied with regard to community care in the area to which my hon. Friend referred. It is important that resources should follow the patient and that an agreed strategy is in place before any patient is moved. We are keen to make certain that that happens.
  Mr. Milburn rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I must move on to the points made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West, since she initiated the debate.
  She quite rightly wants the NHS and local authorities to attach priority to giving dementia a higher profile. We have commissioned work to develop a framework for mental health that will include consideration of the special needs of people with dementia, and, of course, their carers. We shall be consulting widely on the draft framework in the summer. Alzheimer Scotland—Action on Dementia will be fully involved in the process. I should mention in passing that, for the few weeks that I was responsible for the community charge, I exempted those suffering from Alzheimer's. That was my only act of consequence while I had that responsibility.
  I should like to refer to the report of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West and her recommendations. The report was a very useful and constructive contribution, and we have referred it to a working group on residential care in Scotland, which will be reporting in a few weeks. I should like to go through some of her excellent points.
  She called for better training for inspectors. We are examining that. The Scottish Office group will make recommendations in about three weeks, which are very likely to be to that effect. She called for better training of home staff. Inspectors check to ensure that staff are appropriately trained for the client group for which they care, especially dementia sufferers. Such provision has been in place for some time.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West called for a joint local authority and health board team. The Scottish Office group is considering that recommendation. It is encouraged by the good practice guidance, and is likely to support a mandatory position. She called for an

  541
  independent inspectorate, and the Scottish Office group is considering the need for it. She called for the encouragement of best practice. Consultation on nursing home national standards is being issued this week. The residential homes working group is examining the need for standards and, as I mentioned, will be reporting shortly.
  The hon. Member called for better funding for more inspectors. The fee charged should cover the need. There should be no bar to increasing the fee if required. That should make the operators self-funding. The fee is, of course, paid by home owners. She called for the publishing of inspectors' reports. There is no bar to that, and I would encourage such openness. She called for tougher guidance on staffing levels. Inspection teams must ensure the appropriate level of staff for the number and dependency of residents. She also called for tougher enforcement of standards, including quick closure where necessary because standards have not been implemented. The working group is examining simplifying and speeding up the procedures. The system must be fair to owners and clients alike.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West called for national standards and work is under way on it. She called for the registering of sheltered housing and domiciliary care. I understand that that is likely to be one of the group's recommendations. She called for an urgent review of the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938. The board is examining the need for that and we shall be happy to consider amending the law in the light of the review. All her points have either been implemented or are in the process of being dealt with. I assure the House that I shall act speedily as soon as I receive the working group's recommendations.
  Ms Rachel Squire: I want to make it clear to hon. Members that the Minister is referring not only to what I have said in this debate about the Alzheimer Scotland—Action on Dementia's report, "Putting Quality First", but to a report that I conducted last year on registration and inspection procedures for residential and nursing homes in Scotland.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad to confirm that we either have acted or are acting in relation to the hon. Lady's points, which have been helpful.
  542
  The number of beds has been referred to. Where NHS continuing care is required, it will be paid for in full by the NHS regardless of whether that care is provided in an NHS hospital or by another provider under contract with the NHS. An assessment of needs by local authorities and health boards aims to ensure that provision will match needs. From 1 April, there will be a new two-stage appeals system for patients who want a review of the clinical aspects of their care, including discharge decisions. The hon. Member for Darlington—
  Ms Squire rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should like to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point about eligibility criteria.
  A framework has been established in Scotland and England for eligibility for NHS continuing care based on clinical factors. It would not be possible to set very detailed criteria nationally, because it would stifle local flexibility to meet the needs, and, owing to the historic variation of provision, would cause immense disruption.
  To give an indication of the size of the problem, about 600,000 people suffer from dementia in the United Kingdom. That total is predicted to rise to 800,000 by 2000—one in 12 of the population aged over 65. We therefore have to make certain that we have in place a strategy and services that appropriately meet needs.
  I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to the sterling work of the Alzheimer's Disease Society, Alzheimer Scotland—Action on Dementia, and all the other groups working in the field. We want to ensure that the reforms involve making certain that local authorities should have responsibility to work closely with health and housing authorities in a co-ordinated way to develop joint community care plans and co-ordinate services at the strategic level.
  Local authorities now have greater flexibility in how resources for community care should be deployed to meet the needs of individual groups. We believe that local authorities throughout the country have used that greater flexibility to provide care that is better tailored to people's needs. In developing a full range of local services, the voluntary sector has and will continue to have a very important role in the provision of services—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We must now move on to the next debate.

  Primary Schools
  11 am
  Dr. Robert Spink: Education is our key political problem. If we get education right, we will create the means to resolve all our other difficulties. We shall generate the wealth to invest in the health service and the means to give pensioners a better deal. Better education gives more people a stake in society. If we get education right, there will be fewer disaffected people therefore there will be fewer law and order and environmental problems. If we do not get education right, however, we shall be firefighting on all other fronts.
  After national security and the defence of our sovereignty and democracy, education is our key political problem. Primary education is the key to success. If we get the foundation right, the rest will be easy. If we do not, whatever we do at the secondary level and however much money we throw at it, our efforts will be wasted and we will never overcome the problems.
  There are three essentials that children must have when they start school as rising fives. The first is discipline. Without a sound framework of discipline, they will not enjoy their time at school and they will not benefit from it. So discipline is an absolute prerequisite. Secondly, we must give them joy in and enthusiasm for learning. Teachers and parents are responsible for that. Thirdly, we must give them knowledge and the skills that they need to apply that knowledge, particularly the skill of reading, to which I shall return in a moment.
  I shall set out today that too many children are failing to reach standards appropriate to their ability and their age; that funding is a contributory factor in this failure, but it is a relatively minor one; that parents also have a part to play in that failure, but their part is anything but minor; and that teachers and schools also contribute to the failure.
  We should start by addressing the methods. The Government decided what should be taught when they fixed the national curriculum some years ago. It has settled down nicely although it still needs some fine tuning. We must now focus on how to teach. Teachers and the unions will resist us, but they resisted all our reforms when we introduced them, yet they now accept many of them.
  Mr. Mike Hall: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so soon in his speech. If he is so concerned about the quality of teaching and education, can he say why the teaching profession and academics accepted the recommendations of the James report in 1972?
  Dr. Spink: I shall come to that point later in my speech.
  I want to premise my remarks by praising teachers. The more we do that the better, as the majority of teachers are dedicated, professional and caring people. They are teachers because of the vocation, not because of the vacation. They deserve our praise and recognition for their efforts and their integrity. Head teachers such as John Poskitt of Montgomerie school are dedicated and achieve excellent results. Diane Conway of Hadleigh junior school was given an excellent Ofsted report which praised the enthusiasm, conscientiousness and caring attitude of the
  544
  staff. It was typical of Ofsted reports on schools in my constituency. I must premise all my remarks by saying that we should thank our teachers for their dedication.
  Having said that, let me establish that there is a problem with primary standards. Sadly, it is not difficult to support that assertion. The difficulty is in selecting which evidence to adduce, as there is so much available.
  I turn immediately to reading. Last month, my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) said that reading was the essential skill. He was so right. If education is the foundation of Britain's future success and primary education is the foundation of good overall education, reading is the foundation of primary education. This must therefore be the pivotal issue in the debate. Unless and until children acquire proper reading skills, they cannot progress in other subjects.
  I take no joy in reporting that many primary schools and primary teachers are failing to teach good reading skills. Regrettably, there is substantial evidence of that phenomenon. The Ofsted report on the teaching of reading includes in its main findings the following comments:
  "Good teaching was found in about a quarter of the lessons observed in each year group. Far too many children were found, however, not to be making the progress which they should. The main reason for this is weak teaching."
  That could not be a clearer statement. It needs no embroidery or explanation from me. The report related to 45 inner-London primary schools but its implications are far wider and apply generally throughout the country. The problem is national and widespread. Bad reading is now endemic within education.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend said that the problem was endemic. Happily, Lancaster has been exempt from that epidemic because we retained the 11-plus. We still have our grammar schools. Therefore, all the primary schools in my constituency have been obliged to aim for a certain standard. They never went mushy as did schools in the rest of the country. They all retained a high standard in reading and basic skills and they are now where others are seeking to be and they are getting excellent Ofsted reports.
  Dr. Spink: I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend make that point. Later in my remarks I shall be addressing the part that selection, streaming and setting have to play. In Lancashire, there is a model—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Not in Lancashire.
  Dr. Spink: I apologise to my hon. Friend. In Lancaster, there is a model that we should be looking to follow. The selective system also works in Southend and Dorset.
  Sadly, last year's national test results for 11-year-olds illustrated the failure of primary schools. They showed that 52 per cent. of children failed to achieve the expected standards at national curriculum level 4 in English. Of more concern, the Basic Skills Agency reported that one third of children who had not learnt to read properly by the age of 10 would never recover from that failure.
  The recent Ofsted report found that almost half the schools it covered were not meeting all the requirements that the national curriculum programme of study for reading sets out. That failure should not be tolerated, and

  545
  the fact that it has been is an indictment of local education authorities, schools, teachers and politicians. We should not put up with it; we must do something about it.
  The Ofsted report can be a positive mechanism for improving standards in primary education. It exposed poor teaching methods, poor leadership and poor monitoring of teachers' performance by head teachers, and provoked a defensive response from weak head teachers, teachers and self-seeking trade unions. But the report should not be treated negatively, as it could be the catalyst that we need to burst the politically correct cycle of acceptance and tolerance of inexcusably low standards.
  Those who are seeking a panacea from nursery education will be disappointed. If schools have children every day for 12 years and still cannot teach 20 or 30 per cent. of them to read and leave 20 or 30 per cent. of them functionally illiterate, then bolting an extra year on the front by nursery education will not solve the problem. It does not need much common sense to understand that.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I may be lacking in common sense, but I firmly believe that nursery education is crucial, particularly for children from deprived homes or remote areas. Nursery education is crucial to a child who lives in an isolated farmhouse and who may have no other child to talk to, and he will never lose that advantage.
  Dr. Spink: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend, who makes a sound point. But I think that she is missing the point that I am trying to make. If we simply bolt on an extra year of nursery education and continue for the following 12 years to pursue the current child-centred project methods that are failing to teach children to read, write and be numerate, we will not solve the problems. We must change the whole system, as we cannot simply inject quality by one year of nursery education and ignore the rest of the system's failings.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman indicated assent.
  Dr. Spink: I am glad to see that my hon. Friend now agrees.
  Having established that there is a problem, I shall address its causes. Funding has a part to play and, as society develops, we should direct a greater proportion of our national wealth towards education and training. However, increasing spending on education does not necessarily result in improved standards, and there is often an inversely proportional relationship between the amount of money spent per pupil and the standards provided. That is the case even in areas that appear to be socially comparable, such as areas within Essex—but I will not embarrass my colleagues by going into detail.
  I want to address the distribution of the total available education funding between the phases, as I believe that the primary phase does not get an appropriate share of the overall resources. I have long held that view, and fought on the issue in Dorset in the 1980s and in Essex in the 1990s, where I started a campaign to shift funding towards primary education in 1991. I carried out a Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accounting statistics analysis and revealed that Essex primary schools were among the worst-funded of the 106 LEAs. A report in the Yellow Advertiser on 29 January 1993 said:
  546
  "Spink launches new attack on primary school funding.
  MP Dr Bob Spink has returned to the attack about the underfunding of local primary schools which results in children of two different year groups being put in the same class … Rick Morgan, spokesman for Essex Primary Heads Association, said, 'We are fully behind Bob Spink in his stand to get better funding for Essex primary schools as they are the poor relations compared with other counties, and are also badly off when you see the gap with the funding Essex gives to its secondary schools."
  I was delighted to receive the support of Rick Morgan, who helped me in my fight and helped to change society in Essex for the better by forcing Essex to shift funding. His hard work will pay dividends, and he is to be congratulated. A letter on 13 May from Paul Lincoln, the director of education in Essex, illustrates the change that we forced upon the Essex LEA. The letter states:
  "the funding of primary schools is a priority for the County Council".
  It was not a priority until Rick Morgan, myself and other good people forced the council to make it a priority.
  The letter goes on to say:
  "the total primary school budget has increased in each year, between 1992/93 and 1996/97 … there has however been a significant increase in the number of pupils in primary schools and whilst the expenditure figures … indicate a 31 per cent. increase in funding, when compared on a per pupil basis this reduces to 23 per cent."
  I am proud to have initiated the move that brought about that change. The figures do not indicate that there has been any starvation of funding from the Government or Essex county council, and I congratulate both of them. However, I insist that they go further.
  Emboldened by my success in Essex, I took the matter to the Education Select Committee, of which I was a humble member. I initiated an inquiry by the Committee into the relative funding of the phases and, in July 1996, the Committee published a report entitled "The Disparity in Funding Between Primary and Secondary Schools". There is insufficient time to go into the details of that report, but it was excellent and I recommend it to all my colleagues.
  The Government response to the report was published in October, and its conclusion stated:
  "The witnesses with secondary school backgrounds regarded the disparity between the phases as being relatively small, but not so small that it could be adjusted without serious disadvantage to secondary schools. Those with primary school backgrounds and most of the neutral witnesses thought that the disparity was too large and should be reduced. We are persuaded that the latter are right."
  I was greatly gratified that the Government were persuaded, and the response went on to specify:
  "Any real terms increase in funding that becomes available, from either national or local government, for example to fund additional pupils in the system, should be distributed disproportionately (as compared with historic practice) in favour of primary schools. In addition, there should be a small annual shift between the sectors, especially with regard to administrative costs. All primary schools should be enabled to benefit from the latter changes."
  I quoted from the conclusion extensively because it is important that the Department for Education and Employment does not forget that commitment.
  Mr. David Nicholson: As a current member of the Education Select Committee, I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on gaining this debate—thereby raising the priority of the subject—but on what he has achieved in primary school funding. Will he tell us

  547
  whether the Government have carried out their intentions? Before he concludes, will he reiterate that there is no point in having vast resources unless one has the right teachers and the right teaching methods? In that respect, I draw the attention of the House to the amazingly interesting "Panorama" programme the other night.
  Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend makes a number of extremely important points, and I will deal with them in my speech. I also intend to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) in an intervention at the beginning of my speech. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) about the progress that the Government have made in shifting funding towards the foundation of primary education. If we get it right there, it will be cheaper to fund the latter stages.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: We must include nurseries.
  Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend continues to ride her own hobby-horse.
  It is important to keep changing the balance of funding between the phases of education. It is wrong that, in some instances, we spend double the amount on a 15-year-old that we spend on a six-year-old, because it is more difficult to change the attitude and improve performance of that 15-year-old, whereas it is easy to change the attitude of six-year-olds and to instil in them the discipline and skills that they need. It is essential to build that foundation.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is not just the discrepancy between the 11-year-old and the 15-year-old that is of concern but the discrepancy between the nearly 11-year-old and the just turned 11-year-old—that gap is enormous. My hon. Friend may be aware that that discrepancy is bad in Lancashire, but unfortunately discretion lies entirely with the county council. I do not believe that it is possible for the Government to lay down the law unless they can manage to influence dreadful councils such as Lancashire.
  Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend makes another good point. The report of the Select Committee on Education on disparity in funding considered the jump between year 6 and year 7 and made some recommendations about it. I recommend my hon. Friend to read those recommendations, because she will be gratified to find that her views are supported by the Committee. It is interesting to note that Japan does it the other way round and spends more per pupil on primary children than it does on secondary children. Perhaps that offers a message for us.
  It is important to get the foundations right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton said, funding is not the essential problem. I accept that we must address that issue, but it is not the key to resolving the problem of low standards in schools. My hon. Friend has already told us the key to that.
  Parents are much more important than funding. A child's outcome in education is critically dependent on his parents' attitude, involvement and motivation. That
  548
  correlates positively with success, whereas a parent's indifference correlates with failure. I am not aware of any formal research into that problem, which would be difficult to undertake, but I would be pleased to know of some. Common sense dictates that parental involvement is more important than almost anything else.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.
  Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend is agreeing with me again—I am grateful.
  It is difficult for me to see how politicians can encourage more self-reliance and understanding among parents. Often today's parents are the product of failed socialist progressive methods. They are victims of the politically correct systems and attitudes of the 1960s and 1970s that have hung around for far too long.
  Parents have the key responsibility for their children's education. Many do not understand that fact. They have the key responsibility for anything concerning their children. They bring their children into the world and they are responsible for their behaviour, education and even their diet—not us. They think that we are responsible, but we are not. Teachers do not have the key responsibility for children's education, nor do the schools, the LEAs, the Government, the Department for Education, and Employment, or I. Parents have that key responsibility. But it is the fashion to resist accepting responsibility. Today many people try to shift responsibility to the state; they blame it for everything. That does not wash. I do not know how to break that problem, but I know that break it we must. We must promote self-reliance and reject the nanny state. We must reject bigger government in all its forms and seek smaller government.
  I have no solution to the problem of promoting parental involvement and responsibility, but we have provided solutions to another key problem of maintaining standards in schools and of teaching. The Government have introduced excellent reforms. We gave control back to schools, governors, parents and took power away from the state and the LEAs. We devolved power to those directly concerned with their children's education. We performed the ultimate act of devolution and democracy, and it worked. The local management of schools gave financial control to every school but Labour resisted it.
  Ms Estelle Morris: That is not true.
  Dr. Spink: The hon. Lady must accept that it is true. The schools resisted it and LEAs resisted it, but not now; they now see that it was right. I remember well when LMS was introduced in Dorset when the Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors who sat opposite me resisted it fiercely.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Where are the Liberals?
  Dr. Spink: I must tell my hon. Friend that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), the Liberal spokesman on education, is upstairs in Committee. He courteously apologised to me for his absence before the debate, and I respect that. He has a job to do for education in Committee.

  549
  Going grant-maintained gave schools management control. We need many more such schools and we must find the means to increase their number dramatically. GM status means that schools are prised away from the dead hand of extensive bureaucratic—and, too often, politically motivated—LEA control. We imposed the national curriculum, which has set out a clear set of entitlements to skills and knowledge for every child at each key age. We have established a common national set of standards and we have tested and measured achievement against them. We have now ensured that no child need unnecessarily fall behind, because we can now monitor his progress and report it to his parents.
  We also set about measuring teaching quality through a system of inspections using registered inspectors. We have published the results so that education has become publicly accountable. We trust parents, employers and communities with the key information about their children's achievement, but Labour does not trust parents and the community with that information. We trust them and we have empowered them, but Labour would take away that power and hand it back to its band of local Labour activists. We know who I and my constituents would prefer to control our children's education.
  We have now begun, finally, to tackle the problem of teacher training. With hindsight, that should have been among our first reforms, not our last, which we should have tackled in 1980. The Teacher Training Agency has been established for 18 months. It is still developing its role and working on a clearer statement on teaching skills. It should move fast and it should be starting to flex its muscles to force change, where necessary, in teacher training colleges.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There again, my constituency is singularly fortunate because our local college, St. Martin's university college, has just been given four excellent ratings on its training. It is quite outstanding, and it makes a difference—that is why we have such a lot of good teachers around our way. Once they come to Lancashire, they do not want to leave. They go to St. Martin's and they are beautifully trained. Those student teachers are doing a wonderful job in the classroom; so, once again, we are singularly fortunate.
  Dr. Spink: I read about St. Martin's just last night, and I wondered whether to mention it as an example of good practice that should be repeated elsewhere. I am delighted that my hon. Friend has done that for me.
  The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has said that Labour wants 15,000 bad teachers to be sacked. He makes the time-honoured mistake of attacking the symptoms when he should be attacking the cause. Ineffective teacher training colleges should receive the bulk of our attention.
  Mr. Greg Pope: Mr. Woodhead said that 15,000 teachers should be sacked.
  Dr. Spink: I agree that the chief inspector said that, but I believe that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield agreed with him.
  550
  If certain teacher training colleges fail to improve and to drop their politically correct progressive ideology, the TTA should close them down and their accreditation should be withdrawn. We should start that progress quickly.
  It is not enough, however, to tackle the problem of teacher training colleges. Just 20,000 teachers qualify each year, but 400,000 teachers work in our classrooms every day. All of them need to train and improve constantly, as we all do. I welcome the fact that the Government have made available £400 million for in-service training, but we must ensure that that money is used wisely.
  I welcome the 13 literacy centres set up by the Government to improve standards. I also welcome the HEADLAMP scheme to support newly-appointed head teachers. The Government have introduced these and other improvements, which are needed because the task of reforming education is desperately difficult as well as important.
  It is fashionable to say that teachers suffer from innovation shock and that they should have no more change for a time. I reject that argument. There is some truth in it, but teachers, like the rest of us in the real world, must change. The world is changing fast and moving forward, and if we do not change we shall be left behind, and so will the teachers. They must change or fall behind.
  We cannot wait to do what is right. For every year we wait, a year of our children's time is wasted at school because they are not making the progress they should. Young Tommy and young Sophie cannot redo their year 6 at school because the teacher has got it wrong. If the teachers get it wrong, that opportunity is gone for the rest of little Tommy and little Sophie's life, so we cannot delay.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Talking about people being reluctant to change, it was interesting, in "Panorama" on Monday night, to hear a headmistress who had not been in favour of whole-class teaching who then started it and found it such a huge success that she and her staff now advocate it to other schools. It has made a startling difference in that school. That shows that teachers can change if they see the results.
  Dr. Spink: I agree with my hon. Friend. She, like me, does not advocate traditional methods only because it is fashionable. I did so in the 1980s, and was ridiculed. I did so in 1991, and was blasted in the local newspapers, before I became a Member of Parliament, as being out of control. I said that teachers used to be one of the top professions, rated alongside doctors, dentists and accountants, but that that was no longer the case because they were not acting as professionals—sitting in Levi jeans and baggy sweaters on the corner of the desk and not teaching the children, allowing the children to learn at their own speed and following child-centred progressive methods. I was ridiculed and laughed at for saying that.
  What I now find pretty hard to swallow is hearing Opposition Members, not laughing at me, but pretending to agree with me. But they really are still advocating the socialist ideology that has submerged education in an execrable process of levelling down. That is what socialism is about—levelling down. As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton said, Labour opposed selection, setting, streaming, testing and the publication of results.

  551
  Labour betrayed generations of children by its socialist Plowden project-based ideology. We need traditional methods; we need whole-class teaching; we need phonics, which contribute to the accuracy, fluency and confidence of children when they read.
  Mr. Nicholson: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the history of the Labour party's position on this matter. Perhaps I might be a little more charitable to Labour. Labour Members appreciate that the children of their supporters, who do not necessarily grow up in a family with a reading environment, are being let down by some of these progressive teaching methods and the absence of whole-class teaching. We should welcome the evidence on the "Panorama" programme that some elements of the Labour party, such as Dagenham, which is a Labour-controlled borough—perhaps new Labour—are beginning to see the sense of reform. I imagine—my hon. Friend might like to explore this—that this will open up new divisions in the Labour party between those who realise that modern methods are wrong and those who will resist to the end any attempt to replace them.
  Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend is wrong. There is no such thing as new Labour. It is a con trick. It is a complete and utter fraud on the electorate. I hope that the electorate never have to find it out.
  As my hon. Friend says, it is important for children to have books in their homes, so perhaps he would explain—I am sure that no Opposition Member will—why Labour-controlled Essex county council this year cut the library book fund by an unprecedented, massive, disastrous 25 per cent. That will not teach children to read. Labour sends kids down the video shop—that is what Labour is all about.
  We need more selection at school and class level. Mixed-ability teaching, which was a socialist levelling-down mechanism, has failed. We have now understood that we should be ruthless in driving it out. It betrays the weaker child as well as the stronger. Labour has not really understood that. It would return to its old ideology and would be the puppet of the unions and the teachers' producers' influence if it ever came to power. It will not, because the country is not so foolish.
  Labour tries to give the illusion that it accepts what I am saying, as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton suggested. It claims to have undergone a Damascene conversion on education, as in all sectors, but we should not believe it for a moment. Labour's instincts are still driven by the politics of envy and its education policy can be summed up by the expression "levelling down". That is what Labour is about. Its words are warm, but they are dangerous. Labour would damage your children's education.
  Labour claims that class size is very important. It is not. The Office for Standards in Education, with which I agree on this point, found that class size was
  "only important for infant pupils."
  Its research was based on the evaluation of 200,000 lessons. It was reliable and valid. Ofsted found that the effectiveness of teaching has greater influence on pupils' achievement than class size.
  Of course, some unions with vested producer interests do not agree. What is new? Labour wants to destroy choice and diversity. It would scrap our grant-maintained
  552
  schools and make them revert to the status of foundation schools. It would place them, again, under the dead bureaucratic hand of the local education authority and its political placemen. It would scrap selection—along with child benefit, student grants and so on, but I do not want to stray off the subject.
  Even Labour now knows that that would reduce standards. Labour Members show us that they know that because their party leader, their Front-Bench health spokesman and many other Labour Members have taken for themselves the benefits that we provided through choice and diversity. I congratulate them—they were absolutely right to do what they did—but I find their hypocrisy breathtaking. They seek to secure for their children the benefits that they seek to deny to everyone else. That is indefensible.
  Labour's policy was best summed up by the Secondary Heads Association, which stated that Labour's recent education policy was
  "simplistic … bland … will not raise standards … is poorly thought out … uncosted … short on ideas … lacking in detail … an uncomfortable combination of the naive and messianic".
  Those words all appear in a Secondary Heads Association publication. I get the feeling that the Secondary Heads Association does not like Labour's education policy. It is right to reject it, because it is a sham.
  We need to continue our reforms. We obviously need to improve teacher training, and to do so faster than we appear to be doing at the moment. We need to inform parents and educate them, and to focus them on their prime responsibility for their children's education.
  We need to drop the Plowden socialist-based child-centred methods that have devastated education in primary schools for 30 years, and adopt the so-called traditional methods. In doing so, we must bear it in mind that those methods were foist on us by socialist dogma. We need to test and publish all the results that we can, even though I know that the Labour party will resist it. We need to bring forward the concept of value added as soon as possible because, without measurement, we cannot even start to control standards. We must continue to increase the proportion of funding in primary education as opposed to secondary education. We need more discipline in schools to make them happier and more productive places for everyone.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that a test for youngsters soon after they entered primary school would give those in deprived areas a much better chance? I have a particular school in mind, which does an excellent job, but that it is not apparent from the results. If children were tested at five and then again at seven, we could see what the school had added. Often, it is extremely good. I believe that we need another examination.
  Dr. Spink: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us what progress has been made towards establishing value added measurements, because they are important. It should be possible for us to provide value added information to parents.

  553
  In my constituency, we need to provide pull as well as push for primary schools. By that I mean that the secondary sector must be enhanced in order to provide incentives for the primary sector. Thereby, for the next few moments, I intend to bring my remarks into order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in order throughout his speech and I hope that he will stay that way.
  Dr. Spink: I give formal notice to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that we must be granted a specialist technical school—other constituencies have them and Castle Point does not. We need at least one. We must have a sixth form facility for Canvey Island. I will seek to raise those subjects in the near future if I may.
  All schools owe a debt of gratitude to Chris Woodhead, the chief inspector of schools. He has done society a great service by exposing the problems in education and it is typical of the socialists that 50 Labour Members signed an early-day motion calling for his resignation because he blew the whistle. It is the sort of socialist antediluvian, shoot-the-messenger reaction that we have come to expect from Opposition Members.
  We need Mr. Woodhead to look at moral education and guidance in schools, particularly primary schools. A good start would be to include in every inspection report—I do not think that it happens now—a section on the school's achievement, in quality as well as quantity, in delivering the statutory acts of collective worship and religious education which must be broadly Christian-based and which many schools are not achieving.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I regret having to mention the hon. Member for Bath in his absence but, as he is unavoidably delayed, I have no alternative. He suggested in a pamphlet that we should abolish religious education in schools as well as the collective act of worship.
  Dr. Spink: That is another silly Liberal Democrat policy which ranks alongside legalising cannabis.
  I am sure that you will be appalled to learn, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, during a visit to a primary school in my constituency, when I asked why, during the service, they had sung only politically correct hymns about yellow buttercups and had made no reference to traditional hymns, to our saviour Jesus or to Christianity, I was told that they did not like to "indoctrinate" the children. I could not believe what I was hearing. We must ask Chris Woodhead to address that problem.
  I do not accept that there is no time for moral guidance in our schools. I accept that there are often practical difficulties getting all the children together in one place at one time. Those difficulties must be addressed within the national curriculum. However, we need to find time to give moral guidance as well as academic skills because an articulate young thug is just as objectionable as a stupid young thug. Time must be made to give meaningful moral guidance, both structured and unstructured, and I hope that teacher training colleges and the inspector will address that.
  It is worth listening to businesses and what they have to say because they have a valid stake in our primary schools. For example, the finance director of AssiDomän,
  554
  Mr. Simon Redman, believes that we need more linguists and engineers. He feels that we could greatly improve our export performance if we could speak foreign languages more fluently, and I agree with him. He believes that the best time to start learning foreign languages is at the age of six or seven, or even earlier, which is when they start on the continent. That is why they are so much better than we are.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am sure that my hon. Friend will rejoice with me at the fact that Ripley St. Thomas school in my constituency has just been made a specialist language centre—one of only two in Lancashire. That is an incentive to all the primary schools in the area to improve their languages.
  Dr. Spink: I am delighted to hear once again of progress in my hon. Friend's area. It does not surprise me. I agree that we should find more time for languages.
  Mr. Redman also said that we must improve the status of engineering, technology and science. The best place for that is in the primary school. We need to educate primary teachers to understand and value those key wealth-generating professions. Too often, they are put behind the doctors, dentists, accountants and solicitors, and they should not be so denigrated. They are equal, if not superior, professions. Teacher training colleges must address that as well.
  As part of their jubilee celebrations, pupils at Montgomerie county infants and junior schools in my constituency are planting a time capsule on Monday 1 July. The special plastic capsule was provided by the European Nature Conservation Council, which has set up a nationwide scheme. [Interruption.] I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) say, "Hear, hear," when I mention a European institution. I am surprised to hear him say that, because it made me raise an eyebrow.
  In 25 years, 200 buried time capsules throughout Britain, including that planted by the excellent children of Montgomerie county school, will be unearthed. I shall ask the head teacher, John Poskitt, whether a copy of this debate can be buried in the capsule.
  I wonder whether, in 25 years' time, when the capsule is dug up, we will have solved all our education problems and be making the right investment in education for the benefit of our children and our society. I truly hope so.
  11.47 am
  Mr. Ken Eastham: The hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) has been waffling on for 47 minutes about so-called standards and I must question the content of the end of his speech. He suggested putting a copy of his speech in the time capsule, but it would be better to put the hon. Member in and never mind his speech.
  We all desire high standards in education and on occasions we have to listen to Conservative Members attacking Opposition Members as though we do not care about education. That is an insult. In the early part of his speech, the hon. Gentleman said that we could not just throw money at education. That could never be said of the Conservative party, which has done anything but that.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow, but I must

  555
  put on the record again that, as he knows, expenditure per pupil since 1979 has gone up by some 50 per cent. in real terms—a record of which the Labour Government prior to 1979 would have been proud.
  Mr. Eastham: Later, when I have developed my remarks, I will take the Under-Secretary of State to task about the so-called big expenditure by the Conservative Government.
  Standards are not just about examination results. We need good standards for school buildings and to provide the right equipment for children's education. Month after month, we experience Conservative Members talking about standards and about examination results. They never talk about standards for children who are handicapped or children whose first language is not English. They talk about the top few. It is a fact of life that some schools will never get into the examination charts, but nevertheless a good job is being done in those schools by the teaching profession.
  Outrageous attacks have often been made on teachers, and we heard some more today. It is no wonder that teachers become demoralised when they have to suffer the sort of attacks that we heard in the previous speech. The teachers can do little about those attacks because they cannot stand up in the Chamber and take hon. Members to task. The teachers depend on some of us, who are not educationists but are interested in a fair deal for the teaching profession and for the kids in schools.
  If the hon. Member for Castle Point does not know, I can tell him that teaching is often seriously under-resourced. I remember the Education Reform Act 1988, because I was on the Committee that considered it. Months after the Act came into force, schools still did not have the books and materials that they needed to fulfil their obligations under the Act. That was not the teachers' or the children's fault: it was the fault of under-resourcing by the Government.
  When we talk about schools and achievement, we should consider every aspect of education provision, including learning conditions. Many schools, not just in my city of Manchester but in many other cities, are in such a poor state that if they had been in industry the Health and Safety Executive would probably have closed them down. Some of the schools should be condemned.
  The Under-Secretary would be disappointed if I did not take up the points that he made and I will give the House some examples of the situation in many schools in Manchester. Many other authorities have the same problems, but I have more details about Manchester. We have had 17 continuous years of a so-called caring Conservative Government who supposedly give education a high priority. When I went to see the Under-Secretary of State last year with the chief education officer and some politicians to present the case for some realistic funding, the hon. Gentleman claimed to have spent more money. But many cities have not smelled much of that money in their authorities. Expenditure has often been weighted towards well heeled and better-off authorities and the direction of funds has been jaundiced.
  Instead of waffling, I wish to comment on the situation as it really is. I do not want to make a pretty speech for 45 minutes but actually say nothing. I was so concerned about the schools in Manchester that I wrote to the Health
  556
  and Safety Executive last year. The Minister claimed that expenditure had increased, but the HSE's letter to me stated:
  "Inspectors in this Area have become involved on a number of occasions when parents, teachers or governors complaints have been received concerning structural, electrical and other safety aspects of school buildings. To date we have not found it necessary to take enforcement action since the Local Authority and governors have been aware of the problem and willing to take appropriate action, mindful of their duties under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act to ensure the safety of staff, pupils and visitors to school premises. In general structural safety matters are the clear responsibility of the Local Authority.
  In the event of our finding a dangerous situation and the Authority or governing body not being willing to take appropriate action, the use of enforcement notices would be considered. It is not possible to enforce remedial work to a dangerous part of a building as the employer has the option of taking other equally effective measures to ensure safety which may include preventing access to any unsafe part of a school. This has happened in a number of cases in Greater Manchester.
  The Director of Education has been made aware of our concern in correspondence following visits to several schools by inspectors."
  Rightly, safety is the responsibility of the local authority and if the authority does not take some action, the HSE will issue an enforcement notice to close the school. The action that local authorities have had to take is to put kids in buses for a 20-minute ride to other schools. The authorities have never had the money to deal with problems—for example, to make the school windows watertight—when the HSE drew problems to their attention.
  I have a report from last year, entitled "Expenditure on Education Premises and Equipment in Manchester—Some Facts and Figures", in which the Under-Secretary may be interested. If he wants to make a note of the figures, I will give him a chance to get his pencil out. The report states:
  "Estimated annual requirement to improve and maintain buildings: £50 million.
  DFE allocation 1994–95: £12.9 million".
  The authority needed £50 million, but the allocation was £12.9 million. The Department for Education and Employment also put a cap on spending so that the local authority could even not spend that amount. It spent only £5 million. The report continues:
  "Estimated expenditure needed over next 4–5 years to bring schools and other establishments up to a satisfactory standard: £500 million."
  We have a legacy of an accumulating need for spending. Year after year, there have been cuts in funding and allocations. After 17 years of continual cuts, a massive problem has built up. I worry about where the next Labour Government will get the hundreds of millions of pounds needed to cope with the neglect by the Conservative Government.
  I have another report, entitled "Manchester's Crumbling Schools", although I emphasise again that the problem does not affect only Manchester. It gives some basic facts about the standards in schools. It states:
  "The estimated value of Manchester's school buildings and associated furniture and equipment is £630 million. Over the last few years the Government has approved less than £1 million each year for general repairs and improvements … To bring schools up to a satisfactory standard £500 million needs to be spent".

  557
  Another part of the report itemises some of the defects, because it is not always a case of putting a new roof on a building—although, God knows, we need plenty of those. The report states:
  "In many schools substantial items of engineering equipment and installations, such as heating systems (boilers), electrical wiring and fire alarms have exceeded their economic and/or serviceable life span of 15 to 20 years and need to be replaced as part of an on-going programme. The Department of Education and Science (DES) Building Bulletin No. 70 (1990) states that the economic life of commercial boilers is between 15 and 20 years."
  Some of the boilers are listed; the report states that 61 schools have boilers that are more than 25 years old and that some of them are more than 40 years old. They are in Victorian buildings. There are 40 schools with boilers aged between 20 and 25 years, and 291 boilers require to be replaced. In winter, when it is snowing or raining, everybody in the school may be freezing because the boiler is not working. Hon. Members smile, but that is hardly a good way to raise standards. Would it put kids in a good condition to improve their reading and writing? Would it be good for the teachers to be freezing in the corner? Do you think that standards should include such matters?
  Dr. Spink rose
  Mr. Eastham: If you want to intervene, I will gladly give way.
  Dr. Spink: Of course we must look after the fabric of our schools. Would the hon. Gentleman care to predict whether his Front-Bench spokesman will promise to spend extra money on education above the amount that we are spending?
  Mr. Eastham: I promise that we will make a better job than your Government.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the convention that all remarks are addressed through the Chair.
  Mr. Eastham: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, but sometimes hon. Members make such silly asides that one becomes outraged.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is why remarks are addressed through the Chair.
  Mr. Eastham: I do not think that the hon. Member for Castle Point intervened through you, Madam Deputy Speaker. He intervened directly on me. The convention should work for hon. Members in all parts of the House and not just for Opposition Members.
  If you want to improve standards—and you keep on professing that you do—you have to put your money where your mouth is and start spending on schools. You have to give them good working conditions. Some schools in Manchester are Portakabins with holes in the walls. They have no heating and are rat infested and you are doing nothing about it. It cannot be said that it is up to a Labour Government because Labour is in opposition. For God's sake, the Government have been in power for
  558
  17 years. [Interruption.] The Minister makes a seated intervention which, of course, was missed by the Deputy Speaker. It was directed to me
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not aware of missing any intervention.
  Mr. Eastham: In that case it looks as though you have condoned the Minister speaking to me. Perhaps it is all right to make such remarks, but on our side we cannot make them.
  The Minister's little aside was about LEAs, but where do the Government come into these matters? What is their part in the formula? Are they not responsible for spending taxpayers' money on education in the cities? What are you collecting taxes for if you do not disburse money in the interests of education? The hon. Member for Castle Point spoke about the high priority of education. We are paying a great deal of tax, and a fair proportion of that ought to be directed to education.
  When I met the Minister, he was very kind and he finally sent me a letter which stated that the Government had finally agreed that two schools would have some assistance. There was £233,000 to Manchester local education authority in recognition of its education capital expenditure needs in 1995–96. As I have said, we need £50 million a year and we have a growing problem that requires £500 million, but that is the sort of response that we got. We are grateful for it, because it will affect two schools, but we have 250 schools.
  No one should think that standards can be improved by demoralising teachers by saying that they are not up to it. I accept that one or two teachers may not be up to it, but one or two hon. Members are not up to it either. The teaching profession, like the House, covers a broad spectrum. There are some incompetent hon. Members and some have sleaze as part of their upbringing in this place; hon. Members are a cross-section of the population, and the same applies to teachers. I am not defending anybody who is not up to the job. Nevertheless, if we want to improve standards for schoolchildren, we must make provision for them. That means providing decent, warm, watertight schools with good teachers and support from the Government instead of constant attacks.
  12.6 pm
  Mr. David Amess: I apologise for not being here for the start of the debate. I hope that the Whip will note that I was listening to proceedings in the Select Committee on Defence. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) for not hearing his opening remarks, but I got the flavour of his speech and thoroughly enjoyed it.
  In the four minutes remaining to me, I should like to reflect on the two main Opposition parties. I became a Member of Parliament at precisely the same time as the leaders of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. I stand by exactly those matters on which I was elected in 1983, but those two party leaders seem to have changed their views on a range of issues.
  There is some irony in my personal circumstances in that my family's education was attacked by both the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. The attack was led by a former Labour Member, Mr. Arthur Latham, who for a time was the leader of Havering council, which is the

  559
  council that the Minister is under. I was criticised for sending our eldest child to a non-selective, non-grant-maintained, single-sex school. There are none in Basildon—the school was outside my constituency—and the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties behaved disgracefully. The House can imagine my disgust when some months later I learned precisely what the two leaders of the Opposition parties were up to. Last Thursday, the Labour and Liberal Democrat alliance lost control of Havering council.
  Last year I visited every primary school in my constituency and we ended with a meeting with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. I was proud of the way in which all my head teachers conducted their discussions with the Secretary of State. We shared views on many issues. There are many single parents in my constituency, and when we debate standards in education it is quite wrong for any hon. Member to expect schools to bring up our children for us. I take my hat off to those parents who, for various reasons, are on their own and struggling against all the odds.
  I suppose that all Members of Parliament draw on their own circumstances. My education started four decades ago, in the London borough of Newham, and I shall reflect on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham). All the classes were of 50 or more, in poor Victorian buildings. As an individual, I owe everything to my teachers, and salute them for their efforts, as we could spell properly, write clearly and could certainly command the rudiments of basic arithmetic. I am not sure what conclusions I would draw from that. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point mentioned languages. That is fine, but I hope that our children can master English first, as occasionally there is an over-emphasis on computers.
  I was a councillor in Redbridge, which has high standards in education. I aspire to stand as a candidate in the Southend, West constituency in the next election. I have visited every school in Southend, West over the past year, where the circumstances are rather different. In Southend, we have selective education and our young people take 11-plus examinations. In the time leading up to the general election, I shall want to know where the candidates who will stand against me stand on the important issues of selection in the borough of Southend. Southend, West has the largest primary school in Essex, Westborough, with 680 children. There is a real funding problem to be addressed, but I thank my hon. Friend for introducing the debate, which has been thoroughly worth while.
  12.11 pm
  Ms Estelle Morris: I congratulate the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on securing the debate, since when—I am sure that it is just a coincidence—the newspapers have been full of primary education matters.
  I agreed with the hon. Gentleman on one point, but my enthusiasm for his speech ran out thereafter. He said that we have not given primary education the priority that it deserves in recent decades. I whole-heartedly agree. The blame lies not only with the Tory Government but with past Labour Governments and councils. It is an error that everybody has made. We say that the years spent in primary education are important, and we know that unless
  560
  we get it right at five, six and seven, it will be much more difficult to get it right at 11, 12 and 13. Despite that, we consider it unacceptable for sixth-form classes to have more than 15 students, when children are well motivated, yet it is tolerable, apparently, to have classes of more than 30 at age five and six.
  Historically, the teachers with the best qualifications were always guided into secondary education. The Government must act on the recent work carried out by the Select Committee into the disparity in funding between secondary and primary education. As a former secondary school teacher, I know that everybody in education, no matter in what area their interest lies, accepts that primary education has been the Cinderella part of the service, and it is high time it secured the resources to which it is entitled.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Castle Point that there is much good going on in primary schools. For many children, it is the point in their lives when their love of learning is born, when anything that they achieve thereafter can be traced back to a good relationship or experience in a reception class. All of us know the precious enthusiasm that a child has when he or she starts school. Some of us are saddened and wonder where it has gone by the time they start secondary school, but to have the task of nurturing it and ensuring that it grows into a love of learning and to ambition and high aspiration is one of the joys for those who choose to spend their teaching career in primary education. To the teachers who get it right and thus give the children a good start in life as a result we owe a debt of gratitude as a nation.
  Having said that, it would be silly to have a debate on primary education and not express concern about some of the real problems in that sector. The evidence that we are falling behind is overwhelming, from reports from the Office of Standards in Education, from international studies and from the Basic Skills Agency, which reports that one third of inner-city children are starting secondary education with a reading age at least two years behind their chronological age. What worries me most is that the gap between those who do well and those who do not is wider in this country than anywhere else. It is growing. Even the Prime Minister made mention of it, as recently as two years ago. We must address that problem. The crusade and the challenge is to bridge the gap so that everybody can have a chance to do well.
  That is where I parted company with the hon. Gentleman for Castle Point, because the rest of his speech seemed to fall into the old Tory trap of saying that it was everybody else's fault except theirs. He said that it was the fault of parents for not taking responsibility, that it was the fault of socialists, labour councillors, the Teacher Training Agency, and information technology—all and sundry, but it was not the fault of his Government. I do not know why a party seeks power other than to try to achieve change and to do the things that it wants to do. The corollary is that, at the end of their period in power, the Government are judged by what happens.
  The Government must be judged by what has happened in primary education, because they have played their part in that process. The national curriculum was introduced, withdrawn, introduced again, withdrawn again and then reimposed. Testing was introduced, taken out, introduced again, then changed, then delayed, taken out and introduced again. It has been chaos and disaster. During the debate in the Tory party about what knowledge is

  561
  acceptable in the national curriculum—whether it should be testing this or testing that—teachers were trying to teach and pupils were trying to learn, with constant stops and changes to the curriculum and changes to the way in which they should be assessed. That is not the stability that everybody needs, particularly those in primary education, if they are to do well.
  Also under the Conservative Government, class sizes have risen. Figures announced last week show that 40 per cent. of our children at primary level are now in classes of more than 30, and more than 17,000 are in classes of more than 40.
  Mr. Robin Squire rose
  Ms Morris: The Minister will excuse me if I do not give way, as the opening speech went on for 48 minutes, which limits any interventions.
  There has been no systematic attempt at research into teaching strategies that will work. We have moved from shock report to shock report. At every stage, the Government have announced, in the words of Lord Henley last month, a number of additional measures. It is more than that. It is about sustained research and planned work into building on good practice, seeing what goes right, spreading that information to other schools and ensuring that they have an opportunity to do that as well.
  I can see the problem arising again with Conservative Members who have talked about the "Panorama" programme, which I saw, too. It was absolutely fascinating, and there is much that we can learn, but if Conservative Members think that what we saw in the programme, in Dagenham or abroad, is a return to something that existed pre-Plowden, they are badly wrong.
  In class teaching pre-Plowden, children were not engaged in conversation and answering questions. Teachers did not interact with children in that manner. They did not involve. They told children what to do and the children sat quietly. What we saw on "Panorama" was a very exciting strategy. It took the best of the whole-class approach, in which it is easier to monitor children, but involved children in the learning at every single stage. That is the excitement of it.
  If Conservative Members think that it was moving backwards, they will make a mess of it, as they have of so much in the past 17 years. It was new and it was exciting. The next Labour Government will build on that by making the research that exists in bucketloads in education institutions and local authorities available to all teachers, so they can develop improved teaching and learning systematically—not in a dogmatic way or to fight their own political corners.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) was right to stress the need for good school buildings. I was a pupil in a Manchester school when my hon. Friend was a member of Manchester city's education committee. The physical surroundings in which I was educated did credit to that Labour administration, working in conjunction with a Labour Government. I did not experience the surroundings that my hon. Friend described as existing in Manchester today.
  562
  I think sometimes that Conservative Governments seek power as a platform to criticise others. Labour seeks power as a platform to work with others, to raise educational standards for all our children. We will reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds to no more than 30 pupils. We will build on things that the Government got right—reading recovery and section 11 funding for ethnic minorities—but have chosen to withdraw. We will make good research evidence available, and we will ensure for the first time in 17 years that all the essential partners in the education service—central Government, local government, schools, teachers, parents and governors—are united on a common agenda and speak a common language, to make certain that children in primary education get the best possible start by learning the basics, mastering information technology and having a well ordered learning environment.
  That cannot be achieved in the fragmented and divisive way in which the Government have been behaving. The next Labour Government will at long last ensure the partnership that will accomplish the task that every parent in this country wants completed.
  12.21 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): Having given a little time to others, I hope that the House will understand if, unusually, I do not give way to interventions—as I normally do. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on securing this important debate, and I am grateful to him for providing the opportunity to discuss primary education.
  I am sure that it was a slip of the tongue on the part of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) when she said that above 40 per cent. of classes number more than 30 pupils. I dare say that she meant to say that the figure is 29 per cent. I believe that the hon. Lady was including classes of 30 pupils, which account for a significant proportion of all classes. The figure of 29 per cent. is less than that for 1979, and the number of classes of more than 35 pupils has halved by comparison with 1979.
  I completely challenge the assertion of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) that resources are at the heart of standards. The hon. Gentleman will have read, as I have, many independent reports on schools. Few of them highlight resources, but emphasise instead that good teaching delivers good education, while highlighting how resources are applied. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to be confused by resources. Overwhelmingly, attitudes and teaching style are at the heart of quality teaching.
  As to buildings, the figures show that the capital resources made available to schools this year of £700 million are 7 per cent. more than last year. The hon. Gentleman would struggle, as I would, to find another budget area that has increased by that amount year on year. Councils should regard schools as being as important as council offices, town halls and all the other public buildings in their ownership. It is no use councils saying that the condition of their schools is all the fault of Government—they have a responsibility in law and common sense to maintain in good order all the buildings in their ownership.
  Primary schools have increasingly come under the spotlight in recent years, and rightly so. There has been speculation about standards, how teachers are teaching

  563
  and how much children are learning. I welcome that attention. The effects of a child's first few years in school can stay with him or her their whole education and beyond. The child who leaves primary school reading with confidence, and with basic self-discipline and powers of concentration, is equipped to tackle the academic challenges of secondary school and the wider challenges of adolescence. The child who has only a hazy appreciation of numeracy and who cannot work without close supervision will find secondary school and life beyond the classroom that much harder.
  We have done much to ensure that primary education meets pupil needs. We introduced the national curriculum and associated assessment, so that for the first time—thanks to a Conservative Government—parents have a guarantee that their children will be taught the most important subjects and tested on what they have been taught. We have taken steps to find out exactly what is going on in schools. By the end of this term, Ofsted will have inspected nearly 7,000 of our 19,000 primary schools, which is no mean achievement. Primary inspections only started in September 1994. Before then, the average primary school could expect to wait 200 years for the inspectors to come calling.
  Ofsted inspections and national curriculum assessment are providing the first ever comprehensive audit of teaching and learning in primary schools, so the debate about standards can move from assertion and speculation to proper consideration of the facts. Inspection and assessment reveal a wide range of achievements. At one end of the spectrum are outstanding primary schools, including those identified in the annual report of Her Majesty's chief inspector. Those schools, some in extremely deprived areas, achieve high standards and provide their pupils with the best possible start to school life. At the other end of the spectrum, some 90 primary schools have been judged to be failing their pupils. The majority of schools fall between those extremes—they have some good features but also room for improvement.
  Last year's national curriculum assessment results for 11-year-olds were disappointing. The Government are taking action to tackle particular problems and to raise overall standards. Where schools fail, the special measures regime comes into play. Primary schools respond well. They generally improve more quickly and need less time on special measures than secondary schools. We will publish primary school performance tables reporting this year's assessment results for
  564
  11-year-olds. Parents want and are entitled to that information. The chief inspector has pointed out before that tests and the publication of performance tables are helping to raise standards.
  We are funding 23 local education authorities to run projects in primary school improvement. Performance measurement and target setting have been used to great effect in secondary schools, and we want to help primary schools the same way. We will extend the assisted places scheme so that gifted children of primary school age can benefit from the scheme's advantages.
  Each of those initiatives and more will help to raise standards, but what matters most is the quality of teaching that children receive each day. Good teachers—and there are many of them—use effective methods to get results. That is as true in the most deprived inner-city area as it is in the leafiest shire school. The Government are determined that all teachers should know what works in the classroom and what does not. We know that children need to be taught—that they do not learn simply by exploration and investigation. The same applies to student teachers, who deserve to be properly prepared to take charge of the classroom.
  We have tightened the requirements for teacher training to make courses more practical and relevant. From September, all primary teacher training courses will include at least 150 hours each of English, mathematics and science. At least 50 hours will concentrate on the teaching of reading and 50 on the teaching of arithmetic.
  We have given Her Majesty's inspectorate the right to inspect training courses. Those inspections will reveal whether the 68 colleges that train primary teachers are using their time well or whether they are using discredited teaching methods. Reports on colleges are being published so that schools and students will know whether a course is up to scratch.
  We are not neglecting teachers already in schools. We have started where it matters most—with the teaching of literacy and numeracy in primary schools. As the House knows, we have initiated 25 literacy and numeracy centres. We have, however, some way to go. I noted from The Daily Telegraph of Monday the comments—I know not whether they are accurate—of Mr. Colin Richards, formerly of the Office for Standards in Education. In criticising the chief inspector, he regretted that the chief inspector
  "sees primary education as essentially concerned with teaching children to read, to write, to calculate, to distinguish between right and wrong and behave in a sort of disciplined, responsible way".
  I should be delighted if all our schools were doing that.

  Architects (Insurance)
  12.30 pm
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am pleased to have secured parliamentary time to debate compulsory indemnity insurance for chartered architects and architects generally, which is of considerable importance. The unfortunate set of circumstances that befell my constituents Mr. Gareth Jones and Mrs. June Jones have repercussions for thousands of people throughout Great Britain. I wish to make it plain that I have nothing but the highest regard for architects as a profession, and I know that their professional standards are among the highest in the world. It is, however, the exception that frequently proves the rule.
  In 1989, Mr. and Mrs. Jones purchased a parcel of land for the purpose of erecting a dwelling house—their home. They had saved assiduously to build their dream home in the village of Penmachno near Betws-y-coed in my constituency. It was Gareth Jones's home village, and he had spent many a long year working throughout the United Kingdom and beyond to secure enough capital to purchase their dream home.
  In 1990, Mr. and Mrs. Jones began making plans in earnest, and, of course, they had to consider who was going to prepare the plans. Mr. Jones had offers from part-time building consultants and architectural drawers who would prepare all the plans, submit them for planning approval and allow for inspection at a cost of less than £500.
  Being mindful of the fact that this was probably the greatest financial commitment that he would enter into, Mr. Jones decided that he should instruct a chartered architect to have added security if "something should go wrong." So it was that my constituent reasonably opted for the services of a chartered architect, despite a fourfold increase in fees. Mr. Jones was happy to pay the extra in view of the transaction's importance to him and to his family.
  Mr. Jones consulted a chartered architect, Mr. D. J. Broomfield, RIBA, who practised at Colwyn Bay, Clwyd. Plans were drawn up, submitted to the borough council and approved. Mr. and Mrs. Jones paid Mr. Broomfield £2,000 to include the necessary inspection fees and supervision, which would lead to an architect's certificate. There were mistakes in the plans that were never communicated to Mr. and Mrs. Jones, but, in any event, the building work was commenced in earnest and my constituents were happy to see their dream home taking shape.
  Unbeknown to them, however, the local planning authority and building control officer served a rejection notice on Mr. Broomfield, referring to no fewer than 17 problems with the property. Among the problems were water ingress through the gable end, the porch, severe cracking in the plasterwork and inadequate drainage around the property—all substantial items. It transpired that Aberconwy council had written to Mr. Broomfield about all those items, but he must have concealed the letters, and never uttered a word to the builder or to my constituents.
  Mr. and Mrs. Jones then found that they were not able to communicate with the architect. Calls went unanswered and letters unacknowledged. Unbeknown to them, Mr. Broomfield was undergoing personal problems, culminating in his taking his own life in January 1993.
  566
  The following is a brief list of problems at the property. There was considerable rising and penetrating damp. There were problems on the chimney to the lounge involving the cavity tray. There was an absence of apron flashing. A chimney stack on an outer cavity wall was wrong. The outer leaf and the cavity were wrong. There was evidence of dampness at the reveals, again probably a damp course problem. Window openings had not been completed, and all were lacking a suitable cill to throw water away from the walls. The mastic pointing to the frames had not been carried out.
  The porch showed signs of extensive penetrating and rising damp. The damp-proof membrane did not tie into the damp course, which appeared to be below the floor level. The stepped flashing was cemented to the wall, and it was not possible to determine whether a cavity tray was incorporated. There was a lack of gutters. Hairline cracks had appeared in the render, and trussed rafters required additional bracing to conform to British standard 5268. Background ventilation was required to habitable rooms. Mechanical ventilation was required in the kitchen. The ground floor was not insulated, and storm water drainage had not been installed.
  Therefore, through no fault of their own, my constituents are in a ruinous position. They have an uninhabitable house with a substantial mortgage and a repair bill in excess of £30,000, which they do not have and which they have no prospect of obtaining. Initially, they wrote to the Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom, which said merely that the deceased Mr. Broomfield had been registered by it, under the Architects (Registration) Acts 1931 to 1969, until his death on 8 January 1993. It suggested that Mr. and Mrs. Jones consult a solicitor to find out inter alia whether Mr. Broomfield had professional indemnity insurance, and to consider taking proceedings against the deceased's estate—not a straightforward action. According to my constituents, in any event, the estate was almost insolvent.
  I was consulted, and I wrote to the Royal Institute of British Architects about professional indemnity insurance. I was told to contact the widow and ask whether any insurance existed. I then met RIBA's chief executive to register my view that compulsory PII should be introduced urgently. May I draw a comparison with the legal profession? No solicitor is entitled to practise without proof of PII having been paid. As a solicitor, I think that that is both right and proper—I have no hesitation about it. It is costly, but clients are protected and so are lawyers.
  With the best will in the world, however, things sometimes go wrong, especially under extreme pressure of work. By the very nature of their work, architects have a higher potential to inflict problems on clients. It is astonishing that a highly regarded body such as the RIBA does not insist on it. I always thought it did. The Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom does not insist on it and, since taking up this case, I have had numerous letters from architects, some RIBA members and others not. Nearly all support my contention, with the reservation that all people engaged in drawing plans for remuneration should be covered by insurance.

  567
  On 24 May, the chief executive of the British Institute of Architectural Technologists wrote to me saying:
  "In the front page article in Building Design of 26th April we were interested to read your comments on the question of compulsory professional indemnity insurance for Architects. As a professional institute in the construction industry we have already introduced mandatory PII for all members who provide services direct to clients. I enclose a copy of our Code of Conduct.
  We spent a long time discussing the introduction of mandatory PII but considered that the risk of losing some members who were not prepared to carry professional indemnity insurance was outweighed by the public's perception of Architectural Technologists and what our professional Institute was trying to achieve. We therefore support your view in pushing for compulsory PII for Architects."
  I have received another letter from the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland. It said:
  "Since May 1992 the Incorporation has placed obligations on its membership generally to carry PI insurance when they are responsible for businesses; although the wording of the obligation is flexible enough to permit those responsible for public sector businesses to provide appropriate indemnity by some other means.
  It is important to bear in mind that the provision of appropriate forms of insurance is an important factor in realising this obligation, and RIAS Insurance Services has for the past few years provided a range of PI policies to suit small part-time businesses up to major international practice requirements.
  We believe such obligations are a part of a professional approach, and could form a model for others.
  However, the provision of PI insurance is not a long-term solution since it runs on a claims-made basis—and the demise of the architectural business, or the death of the architect can therefore leave future clients vulnerable.
  The only solution to that sort of problem is to have a project based or building based insurance—a matter which the profession has supported since the publication of the BUILD (Building Users Insurance against Latent Defects)."
  Although I am aware of the Government's dogmatic objections to regulation, I am also keenly aware of the Government's duty to protect consumers. For most people, such a project is the single largest and most important contract of their entire lives, and they deserve security.
  The Minister will know that, in 1993, the Warne inquiry's terms of reference included the following: the need to ensure health and safety and the protection of the environment; the need to safeguard the interests of the consumer of architectural services; and the importance of maintaining professional standards. The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill, which is currently before the House, is just the vehicle for change to ensure that consumers' interests are protected. Of course, the architectural profession has agreed to lay members serving on its professional body. If we are to strengthen protection for the public, this matter is a core issue that needs to be examined.
  While looking at the format and purpose of the Architectural Registration Council for the United Kingdom, I discovered that it has not even touched upon the subject. I find that most disturbing. There is a need to ensure that all people engaged in drawing plans for remuneration should be insured. As I have said, I am not singling out the architectural profession. It has been suggested to me by one correspondent that a BUILD-type insurance protecting both the consumer and the provider should be introduced. I am certainly not averse to that.
  Another correspondent, a member of the RIBA, states in his letter:
  568
  "I am writing to you to lend my support, in principle, to your call for all architects to hold PII … I believe architects have a moral duty, if not a professional duty to be insured, but I am concerned that you appear to single out architects without addressing the problem of `plan drawers' of all descriptions.
  Thousands of Building Regulation and Planning Applications are processed every week, which do not bear the designer's signature, mostly from the Black Economy within the Construction Industry and related professions. They are a time-bomb waiting to go off! These individuals are not insured and they certainly do not declare their earnings to the Inland Revenue, which is why they don't sign their work, and when things go wrong they can't be sued.
  The way forward, in the interests of fairness, must surely be to insist that all applications placed before a Local Authority bear the name and qualifications of the designer and that all designers show proof of being insured, or, better still, why not promote the idea of single-project insurance cover which protects clients, contractors and designers alike—A LICENCE TO BUILD. Singling out architects for special treatment does not address the problem."
  I agree with that statement and, indeed, fully endorse all the comments of that professional gentleman.
  We now have at least two solutions—which I find attractive—that could deal with the problem and that would enable people to have security, so preventing a recurrence of the awful calamity that befell by my constituents. I call upon the Minister to give an undertaking that he will urgently consider those solutions and incorporate them in the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill.
  Mr. and Mrs. Gareth Jones are being sued for possession by their building society. They face ruination. I am sure that many other people throughout the United Kingdom are in a similar position. I sincerely believe that the Government owe them a duty as consumers, and I trust that the Government will not shrink from that responsibility.
  The House has heard the views of the profession and the public. The RIBA has begun to move in the right direction since this case has been highlighted. I understand that a professional indemnity insurance policy, tailored for small practices and sole practitioners, has recently been launched by the RIBA insurance agency. As I have said, the RIBA is moving in the right direction, and the Government must now be invited to move in a similar direction. The situation is a calamity for those people caught up in it. This debate may not assist my constituents, but they have been most helpful in the preparation of notes for the debate, because they do not want others to suffer what befell them and have little or no redress.
  I ask—indeed, plead with—the Government to move in the right direction. Failure to do so would be an abrogation of duty to our electors, many thousands of whom, through no fault of their own, have been caught in this awful trap.
  12.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) has eloquently told us of a tragic sequence of events, with a number of tragic aspects, involving his constituents Mr. and Mrs. Jones, who have been the losers. I am sure that hon. Members will wish to join me in expressing great sympathy to them in the predicament in which they find themselves.

  569
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that there may be some legal consequences of the case, so I do not want to go into too much of the detail. However, I shall certainly respond to the issues that he raised. I note what he said about compulsory professional indemnity insurance for architects. I hope that I can give him some reassurance, but I have to make it clear at the outset that I do not agree that compulsory professional indemnity insurance for architects is the answer.
  This case illustrates the sort of problems that can arise when things go wrong with what should be a straightforward project. Fortunately, that does not often happen, but when it does, the problems could be the result of actions, or lack of actions, by any one of a number of people involved in the building process. It is not limited to architects. Any argument in favour of compulsory professional indemnity insurance would apply equally to a number of other trades or professions—builders, for example—who design buildings or supervise building operations. Indeed, it applies to anyone who wishes to design a building on a commercial basis.
  The function of building design is not and cannot be protected by law, although the ability to use the title "architect" is so protected. I see no reason for architects alone to be singled out and compelled to have professional indemnity insurance. It would be unfair for architects to be forced to bear the cost of such insurance regardless of their circumstances—for example, they might not be currently practising—and not to impose the same conditions on other building designers. It would also be unfair to potential clients, who would not automatically have that additional protection if they chose someone other than an architect to design their building.
  The hon. Gentleman drew some comparisons. I accept that some professions—doctors and lawyers, for example—do have compulsory professional indemnity insurance. I do not consider that necessary or desirable in the construction industry. The Government are opposed to most compulsory insurance as a matter of principle, because of the way it affects the operation of the market.
  Perhaps the overwhelming flaw in any compulsory regime is that insurers cannot be compelled to provide cover. In extreme eases, that could even drive professionals out of business. It may also put insurance companies under strong moral pressure to provide insurance, even in cases where acceptance is not commercially sound. While there are some instances—for example, motor and employers liability insurance—where there are overwhelming reasons for a compulsory regime, I do not believe that the same considerations apply in this case.
  Compulsory insurance can also cause difficulty for policyholders and insurers. Requiring certain sectors to purchase insurance can weaken their power to negotiate acceptable policy conditions and premium rates. Furthermore, the costs of compulsory insurance could fall more heavily on new entrants and on those who lack a track record, and may therefore add to barriers to entry to the industry.
  In raising this issue, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy aims to protect the client in a building project from the results of bad workmanship and design. I certainly support that aim.
  570
  Regardless of the insurance position, all clients already have the additional protection of the building regulations. All builders are required by law to build in compliance with those regulations. They are designed to ensure the health and safety of people in and around buildings, and are enforced through regular inspections at all stages of the building process.
  Let us consider the issue of legal remedies. Generally speaking—without going into specific cases, for the reasons that I have mentioned—legal remedies are available if things go wrong, and failure to honour a contract can be pursued through the courts. Under statute law, the Defective Premises Act 1972 is particularly important because it requires that work is done in a workmanlike or professional manner and with proper materials, so that, as regards that work, the dwelling will be fit for habitation when completed.
  The main problem with legal remedies, of course, is the ability of the person who is found responsible to pay to put things right. That is not a new or uncommon issue. The Government have considered carefully possible ways of dealing with defects that come to light after a building has been completed.
  In his report "Constructing the Team", Sir Michael Latham considered options for reform of the law of liability for building defects. Among the options was a change in the law to amend the principle of joint and several liability, to liability in proportion to the amount of blame assigned to each offending party. That was considered specifically because of the way in which the cost of restitution of building defects tends to fall on architects.
  The Government have since referred the matter of liability to the Law Commission, which recently reported that there should be no change in the joint and several liability regime. The Government are now consulting on its recommendations.
  Sir Michael Latham's report also recommended the introduction of compulsory latent defects insurance. He applied that recommendation specifically to commercial, retail and industrial buildings and not to domestic work. However, his view was that, if compulsory insurance was not introduced, the construction industry has a ready method of introducing an insurance-backed warranty regime through the terms of construction contracts. The Government endorse that approach.
  The same view is reflected in our response to the Justice report on how to improve the legal rights and practical remedies available to an owner, tenant or occupier of residential premises on which building work has been carried out defectively. One of the report's recommendations was the establishment of insurance-backed warranty schemes, endorsed by lending bodies and backed by legislation.
  The Government would welcome such schemes if they were voluntary, but we would find it difficult to accept that particular proposal, because it is based on a statutory scheme. We would prefer trade associations and other organisations in the construction industry to extend existing schemes for improving the quality of building work and protecting the householder against defective building work. As I am sure the hon. Member will be aware, the most notable of those organisations is the excellent National House Building Council guarantee scheme, which now covers about 90 per cent. of new homes.

  571
  The Government regard the extension of voluntary schemes to insure buildings against defects and to provide professional indemnity cover as the best way forward.
  Most architects are currently covered by some form of professional indemnity insurance. Those in big practices are covered by their employers' insurance, and the same is true of the many architects who are employed by local authorities and elsewhere in the public sector. Academic or non-practising architects do not need to be covered, while those who undertake only the occasional job might take out ad hoc insurance for an individual project.
  Some architects practise without insurance. Although the vast majority encounter no problems, we encourage all architects to take out some form of professional indemnity insurance. That must, however, remain a matter for the individual and his professional organisation, and we certainly do not consider that such insurance should be compulsory. The matter should be dealt with in the contractual arrangements between the client and the architect or other building professional. If he wishes, the client may insist on employing someone with professional indemnity insurance.
  Since the events to which the hon. Member referred took place, I have been pleased to hear that the Royal Institute of British Architects has introduced a rule that anyone appearing on its professional practice register must have some form of professional indemnity insurance.
  Before saying more about that rule, I should explain that there are two main bodies concerned with the regulation of architects. The first is the Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom, which is known as ARCUK, to which the hon. Member referred. It is the statutory body that has responsibility for registering all architects. To practise under the title "architect", an individual must by law be registered with ARCUK. As I said, however, there is no protection of the function of an architect, and anyone—registered or not—is allowed to design buildings and to undertake that function.
  To be registered with ARCUK, a person must prove that he has the prescribed academic qualifications and practical training experience. There are also provisions for recognition of European Union qualifications and for assessment of overseas applicants. But admission to the register is entirely on the basis of ability to carry out the functions of an architect, and there are no provisions about professional indemnity insurance.
  Current legislation will reform the structure of ARCUK and make minor changes to admission criteria. However, the changes to the criteria remain firmly based on the ability of the individual to function as an architect, and do not extend any of the criteria to cover financial or insurance matters. We believe that that is as it should be. The reforms, which gained widespread support during
  572
  public consultation, are based firmly on the idea that ARCUK should be a minimalist body concentrating on the core functions of registration and discipline.
  The other main body—I say "main" because there are also bodies for Scotland and Northern Ireland—is the Royal Institute of British Architects, which the hon. Member also mentioned. It is the professional body to which about 70 per cent. of architects belong. It has a royal charter, but it is not a statutory body. Its members refer to themselves as "chartered architects". I am sure that the hon. Gentleman intended his proposals to cover not only chartered architects but also those who are registered.
  In the past, the RIBA has considered introducing compulsory professional indemnity insurance as a condition of membership. However, it decided against that for a number of practical reasons, not least because many of its members were not practising and it seemed unjust to require them to pay for an expensive insurance that they did not need.
  The RIBA instead maintains a register of practices, for which the entry requirements have recently been expanded to include the need for adequate professional indemnity insurance. Entry to the register is entirely voluntary, but a large majority of architectural practices are entered on it.
  The register is a major step forward, and means that a member of the public looking for an architect entered on it is guaranteed to get someone who is covered by some form of professional indemnity insurance. Having just heard an account from the hon. Member of the events affecting his constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Jones, I must say that, had this requirement been in force when they were first looking for an architect, it is quite possible that they might have chosen someone from this register with professional indemnity insurance.
  I understand the concerns raised by the hon. Member, and I hope that, in the course of this response, I have been able to set them in context. I certainly understand why he is so concerned about this issue, and I trust that I have been able to reassure him to some extent, particularly on some of the measures that have been introduced by the architectural profession, including those which have been introduced since the events in this case took place.
  I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are concerned to improve design and quality in building, and to remove defects and the need for litigation. We feel that that is best done by voluntary measures in co-operation with the industry rather than by compulsion. We also believe that the reforms contained in the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill, which is currently being debated in Committee, will be of great help to the architectural profession, and result in a streamlining of the system. I therefore hope that my remarks will have given the hon. Gentleman some reassurance in the light of the admittedly tragic experience of his constituents.

  Single Currency (Pension Liabilities)
  1 pm
  Mr. David Shaw: I am pleased to have secured this debate. The question of a single currency and Europe's unfunded pension liabilities is extremely important. I first started asking parliamentary questions on this subject in 1991, when very little was known about it or its possible impact on the United Kingdom. However, the single currency is now on Europe's agenda, and it is vital that any debate should be based on all relevant material and information.
  It seems less and less likely that an economic argument can be mounted in favour of a single currency. Indeed, it is worrying that it seems that it is becoming more and more a political venture with few economic facts to support the idea of a single currency. That contradicts the views of the Bundesbank and, I believe, those of the German Finance Minister; nevertheless, it can clearly be said that political arguments are being used to promote the single currency rather than the economic arguments that we were promised. That has serious consequences for the UK and we could have to bear enormous costs.
  I have estimated some of the costs and found that the current UK national debt of some £300 billion is equivalent to about £5,000 per person. We have our own unfunded pension liabilities, although, as I shall point out, they are considerably less than Europe's. Our unfunded pension liabilities are equivalent to about £4,000 per man, woman and child in the UK, so our total debt, including unfunded pension liabilities, is about £9,000 per man, woman and child.
  If Europe's unfunded pension liabilities were shared equally among all the countries and we had to take on a portion of them, we should have to accept something like £30,000 more debt per man, woman and child in the UK. That would be an enormous burden. I believe that the single currency would lead to our having to pay more taxes to service debts accumulated in Europe and to repay some or all of Europe's past debt.
  I was concerned to read in the Financial Times this week that there are signs that Europe is not being entirely honest in its accounting methods. This week France has been shown to have been manipulating the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's report so that certain expenditure cuts were included in the budgetary estimates that it gave to the OECD, although in fact those cuts have not yet been agreed by the French Parliament. Germany is also having difficulty meeting the Maastricht criteria relating to the extent to which Government borrowing and debt increase each year.
  The Maastricht criteria are indeed highly selective. They include requirements on debt, but exclude significant liabilities such as the unfunded pension liabilities in Europe. Pension fund debt is just as much a liability as a Government bond, but pension fund debt is often known as the invisible debt simply because it is not in the form of a bond and it has been quantified only in the past five years. It is nevertheless a real debt that eventually has to be paid.
  I sometimes wonder why pension fund debt has only recently been quantified. I have to put it down to the simple fact that the software programmes and personal computers were not available to enough people to enable
  574
  it to be quantified because it involves a complex and difficult calculation. Now, however, we can quantify previous politicians' promises that were not properly costed when they were made. I am talking about the politicians who made promises to young and middle-aged voters in the 1960s and 1970s. Those young and middle-aged voters did not realise that the promises they received were not capable of being met in the millennium, when the bills would start to come in.
  Europe's social security systems are in a terrible mess compared with ours. Demographic changes are against the principal European countries. In particular, France, Germany and Italy are greatly affected. Their politicians made great promises, the impact of which will become very significant from the year 2005 onwards. Already, the financial markets that often deal in currencies some eight or 10 years ahead are beginning to wake up to the implications, and the impact of such promises on the financial markets will become more serious as we approach 2005.
  There are few ways out of the problem for the countries of Europe, and the ways out that do exist are politically painful. Many of the countries affected have already shown, through strikes and other actions, that their peoples are not prepared to take on the responsibility of dealing with the problem.
  I now give details of unfunded pension liabilities as a percentage of gross domestic product for the three major countries in the European Union. In France, such liabilities are estimated to be at least 69 per cent. of GDP, in West Germany 122 per cent., and in Italy 107 per cent. When examining those figures, we have to bear it in mind that the Maastricht criteria state that the national debt should be no more than 60 per cent. of GDP. I have cited only one estimate of the liability as it was quantified in Europe in 1990. More recent reports suggest that that liability is an even greater proportion of GDP.
  In order to consider the issue properly, it might be helpful to put on record a few key terms. We have to get to grips with the implications of terms such as elderly dependency ratios, contribution rates and replacement rates. The replacement rate relates to someone's income when he retires compared with his income when he was in work. We also have to consider the implications of retirement ages and the indexing formula by which benefits are adjusted for inflation. We have to consider all those factors in all the countries of Europe when examining unfunded pension liabilities.
  The bottom line is that such calculations enable us to measure the contribution gap, which is the difference between the current contribution levels and the annual liabilities from past commitments, all brought together through discounting accounting techniques to a value at today's level. The International Monetary Fund defines the contribution gap as
  "the difference between sustainable contribution rate and projected overall contribution rate".
  To prepare this speech, I read a number of studies, many of which were not around when I first started asking questions in 1991. The first known study was carried out by the Dutch civil service pension organisation ABP in about 1991. It concluded that Europe's unfunded pension liabilities were about 7,500 becu, or probably some £10 trillion at today's levels. The study was not greeted warmly by European Governments. Indeed, they were so worried by its implications that many argued with its methodology.

  575
  In 1993, a study by the OECD examined pension liabilities in the seven major economies. It confirmed that there was a significant problem, but used a different basis of calculation from the ABP study. In November 1993, the Centre for European Policy Studies published the study "The Hidden Liabilities of Basic Pension Schemes in the European Community". Not only does that study confirm the problem, but it shows how civil servants in member states have secured better pensions than private sector workers will ever secure.
  Table 6 on page 16 of the study contrasts the pension privileges of Europe's civil servants with those of the private sector. It points out that, at 1990 prices, a French civil servant's pension is worth about £150,000 of capital, a West German civil servant's pension is worth about £230,000 of capital, and a Luxembourg civil servant's pension is worth about £250,000 of capital. No figures were given for United Kingdom civil servants in that table. Those figures show the level of commitments that have been given in Europe to public sector civil servants for their pensions and the impact of that cost on state pension schemes.
  The most recent study was conducted by the International Monetary Fund. It is quoted in the current six-monthly report, but I have been unable to get hold of the working paper SM/96/7 of 19 January 1996, entitled "Aging Populations and the Fiscal Consequences of Public Pension Schemes with Particular Reference to the Major Industrial Countries". I hope that that working paper will be published, because it is in the national interests not only of the UK, but of all people in Europe and the world that it should be openly discussed and its implications considered.
  I shall quote briefly from the IMF six-monthly report, which contains some information from the working paper, so that hon. Members can realise some of the implications involved. I shall start with good news in respect of the United Kingdom. The IMF says:
  "The United Kingdom should experience almost no contribution gap'.
  For the German pension plan, however, it says something different:
  "For the German pension plan's net asset position in 2050 to be the same as the initial net asset position in 1995, for instance, a sustainable contribution rate of 13.7 per cent. would be required each year. Assuming average contribution rates remain unchanged at just 10.3 per cent. of GDP over this period, Germany is likely to face a contribution gap of 3.4 per cent. of GDP.
  That gap will be faced each year. The Maastricht criteria state that Germany's annual increase in debt cannot exceed 3 per cent. of GDP, yet its unfunded pension liability cost alone is equivalent to 3.4 per cent. of GDP a year.
  The IMF goes on:
  "Countries such as Japan, Germany and France, however, face contribution gaps of nearly 3.5 per cent. of GDP a year. To avoid a further buildup of pension debt over the next fifty five years, these countries need either to permanently increase social security tax collections by roughly 3.5 per cent. of GDP, or scale back benefits by a similar amount, or implement a combination of tax increases and payout reductions of this magnitude."
  We already know that German industry is suffering as its indirect pension costs are too high. Europe has reached the limit of increasing social security taxes and other costs that are affecting labour costs. The UK is in a much better position in that area than those countries, and I would be extremely concerned if we took on their debt.
  576
  I should say that the United Kingdom is not perfect in that regard. We have made promises to 500,000 teachers, 1 million national health service employees, civil servants, policemen and firemen that are unfunded pension liabilities. Fortunately, because our overall financial structure is better than those countries on the continent, we can probably meet those promises—yet they are costing a considerable amount.
  At today's prices, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was recently told in a parliamentary answer, unfunded pension liabilities in the UK are worth about £230 billion of debt. Even we in the United Kingdom have a problem, although the IMF thinks that we are much better off than most. I understand from a parliamentary answer that I received some time ago that, when the Government took office in 1979, public sector pensions cost £2.5 billion a year. Today, they cost about £10 billion a year. Over the next 20 or 30 years, I understand that that could rise to about £40 billion a year.
  Why are unfunded pension liabilities a problem in relation to the single currency? Adopting a single currency means adopting a single European balance sheet. Ultimately, one cannot have a single currency without a single balance sheet. That means that we shall all share Europe's assets and liabilities. The liabilities of Germany, France and Italy would no longer relate solely to them, but would be shared in Europe.
  European countries could adopt a number of possible solutions. They could try to increase their social security contributions, but, as I said, it seems unlikely that German industry could pay more in indirect taxes. The problems of higher unemployment in Europe mean that fewer contributors are available to pay future pensions. Fewer people in Europe are contributing to their social security systems because so many of them are out of work.
  The Europeans could cut their pensions and raise retirement ages. Indeed, the IMF suggests in its six-monthly report that there will have to be
  "adjustments in benefits and retirement ages, the latter because of steady gains in average lifespans."
  It continues:
  "Modifications could include reductions in the replacement ratio in countries where it is high"—
  that means less income in retirement—
  "and some slowing in the inflation indexing formula. In addition, governments could aim at linking individual pension contributions more closely to benefits—for example, by diverting part of contributions to individual retirement accounts—and at fostering increased personal responsibility for retirement support".
  The IMF is recommending everything that the UK has already done. We have gone to the trouble of ensuring that those problems have been tackled, but it is very serious that such problems have not been tackled in Europe. There is a risk that, if we joined a single currency, we would have to take on part of those countries' problems.
  All the studies conducted to date show that past pension commitments by European politicians, especially in France, Germany and Italy, are incapable of being met. That means that if those countries had to draw up their accounts on the same basis as British public companies on the stock exchange, auditors would qualify those countries' audit reports and declare them insolvent. Auditors would say that those countries would be unable to meet their liabilities when they fell due.

  577
  I should point out that the liabilities are truly massive. They are measured not in tens of millions of pounds, but in hundreds and thousands of billions of pounds. Studies confirm that the UK is probably the best placed country in Europe, if not in the world, on unfunded pension liabilities. They also point out that entering a single currency would mean that the UK would have to give up its competitive advantage, which has been hard earned and is significant from 2005 onwards.
  We can also conclude from the studies that the Maastricht criteria are meaningless figures based on false accounting since they do not include the unfunded pension liabilities of Europe. If those liabilities were included, no country would meet the criteria that have been set down.
  1.19 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful to be able to contribute briefly to the debate. As he said in his speech, the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and I have crossed paths in parliamentary questions on the nature of the size of unfunded public sector pension rights in Britain. If I represented Dover rather than Birkenhead, perhaps my sights would have crossed to Europe, rather than crossing the Irish channel to Ireland.
  The hon. Gentleman raised two points of crucial importance, to which we all want replies. First, he spoke about the size of the national debt and unfunded pension debt in Britain. If it is spread out evenly, it represents £5,000 per person for the national debt and £4,000 per person for unfunded pension liabilities. If we have to share the European debt for unfunded pension liability, however, the figure increases to £30,000 per person. The hon. Gentleman properly raised this question: if we have a single currency, how will the Government prevent taxes from being imposed on people in Britain who have already provided for their own pension entitlements, to pay for people in Europe who have refused to do so?
  Secondly, the hon. Gentleman was too polite and gentle to suggest to the Treasury Bench the underlying theme of his debate. If the Government only had a grip on their nerve, a sense of humour and some real finesse on the issue, they would be totally committed to a single European currency, but would say that, before we could go down that path, we should have to address the problem of debt. The difficulties of calculation and getting the French, the Germans and the Italians to face up to the size of their debt will probably take us well into the millennium before we are in a position to decide on the terms of debt, let alone how we might proceed to a single currency.
  1.21 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): First, let me thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) for introducing such an important debate today. I am well aware of his long-term concern and his in-depth knowledge of these matters, which he demonstrated in his remarks.
  My hon. Friend was quite right to say that ignoring the issue will not make it go away, so it is of particular importance to note that there has been considerable work on it, including a number of studies, to which he referred.
  578
  No doubt some member countries of the European Community look at them with greater or less favour because of the message they send to those countries.
  The Government have consistently behaved in a fiscally responsible and prudent manner over pensions. We have long recognised the effects of demographic and other changes on the financing of future pensions. We have acted early and wisely to forestall pressures on future taxpayers and have encouraged individuals to take responsibility for providing for their future needs while at the same time safeguarding a minimal level of state provision.
  The same cannot be said of some of our European partners, although they have recognised the problems that they are facing and have started to take at least some action to deal with what is described quite rightly as the pensions time-bomb. We can help them and there are,some excellent opportunities for the United Kingdom to do so.
  Our system of funded pensions is a model of its kind. We have recognised the importance of having a sustainable pension system in place for future generations. The basic state pension is and will remain the cornerstone of pension provision in the United Kingdom. Most people want to look forward to incomes closer to what they have been used to earning when at work, and funded private pensions are the key to that.
  Recent work by the OECD and the IMF shows just how successful the United Kingdom has been. According to the OECD, pension payments are expected to cause the national debts of Germany and France to double as a proportion of GDP between 2000 and 2030, on current policies. My hon. Friend put those figures in a more human context, but whichever way one looks at them, it is a very large debt that has to be addressed right now.
  The problem is not limited to the European Union—Japan faces the same problems—but the United Kingdom and the European Union are examining problems that affect us all and are the subject of today's debate.
  If one looks at the figures in another way, the OECD expects our public expenditure on pensions to peak at around 5 per cent. of GDP, compared with between 15 and 20 per cent. in Germany, France and Italy.
  Some action has started to be taken in Italy, Germany and France. Italy approved plans to reform its pension system last year; Germany has set up a commission to review the current pension system; and the French Government plan to supplement the public scheme with private pension schemes. However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we are waiting to see whether those proposals manifest themselves in practice, as we have been told they will.
  My hon. Friend spoke about the single currency and its effect on unfunded pensions in other countries. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) also touched on that point. My hon. Friend was right to raise a proper concern relating to the national accounts. I, too, am concerned that in some European countries political arguments on a single currency seem to take over from hard-headed economic reasoning.
  My hon. Friend is well aware that the Government have said consistently that the United Kingdom will join a single currency only if it is in the national interests to do so. It is because the Prime Minister secured our right to

  579
  opt out that Parliament and Government can take that decision at the appropriate time in the light of all the circumstances. It also raises the question how Government debt is defined within the Maastricht convergence criteria for all countries and where unfunded pension liabilities fit in.
  Unfunded pension liabilities do not appear in the national accounts. The Maastricht measure of debt, which is the general Government gross debt, is a measure of gross financial liabilities outstanding—that is, liabilities to repay earlier borrowing. It does not include liabilities for other forms of future spending, such as unfunded pension liabilities. Including such liabilities within measures of debt would introduce a number of problems, the main one being that most member states would probably dispute the figures. However, the need to keep their budget deficits below 3 per cent. of GDP will constrain member states with very expensive unfunded pension systems. When those pensions come to be paid, their Governments will need either to raise taxes or to reduce other expenditure to remain within the 3 per cent. limit. Tough decisions need to be made, but they are sensible ones in any event.
  Under the Maastricht treaty, member states are responsible for their own fiscal policies and their own pension provision. Member states have the right to determine their own taxation and expenditure plans, but they are also duty bound to ensure that their own plans do not force others to bail them out.
  Article 104 of the treaty specifically rules out any prospect of one member state bailing out another. That provision extends not just to the purchase of the debt of other member states, but to offering overdraft facilities or any other credit facilities. That "no bail out" clause
  580
  safeguards one member state from the actions of another and ensures that member states act responsibly in keeping their finances in order.
  In addition, the excessive deficits procedure set out in the treaty keeps up the pressure on sound public finances. Member states' debt and deficit performance is monitored with a view to restraining excessive deficits. For those member states that participate in monetary union, the Council may also consider applying sanctions if participating member states persist in running excessive deficits. Those requirements are taken seriously by other member states, as they are by the United Kingdom. Many hon. Members will have heard of the stability pact that was proposed by the German Chancellor, and I know that my hon. Friend is well aware of what it involves. It aims to apply the excessive deficits procedure even more rigorously to member states that participate in monetary union.
  It is a long and complicated matter. We have touched upon it in today's debate perhaps only superficially, but the main issues that have been raised and that are related to unfunded pensions and the difficulties that all Governments must face are decisions and objectives that will not go away.
  The UK has done a good job in recognising the issue and deciding how to deal with it. Elsewhere in Europe, the decisions are being made rather late in the day. I hope that those Governments are aware that they must take action whether or not they intend to join a single currency, as it is in their interests to look at unfunded pension liabilities. If they do not, they will pass debt on to their heirs, rather than assets. The matter is the subject of on-going discussions, not just in the House, but elsewhere. One thing is clear: member states must recognise the importance of fiscal discipline and responsibility, including responsibility—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order.

  Health Care (Highlands)
  1.30 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am grateful for the timely opportunity to raise this issue, and I look forward to the Minister's response. The debate is occasioned by two issues on the immediate agenda of health provision. I wish to refer to the care of the elderly in the highlands in particular, but I will touch on a more deep-seated anxiety in a moment.
  Two specific issues have given rise to the debate. First, there has been huge controversy and complexity regarding the funding of long-term residential care for the elderly. Secondly, an apparent impasse has been reached in the contract negotiations between Highland health board and the respective health trusts. At the Raigmore Hospital NHS trust in particular, there is a £2 million gap between the board and the trust in the discussions that are taking place.
  I am not against the move towards the purchaser-provider split—nor was I when it was proposed—and I did not oppose the previous move towards general management within the health service; I thought that those were sensible reforms. Over the years, I have not always been a fan of Highland health board. It has been the subject of controversy, ranging from its ill-fated attempt to site a private pay bed at Broadford hospital on the Isle of Skye—a proposal vetoed by the then Minister with responsibility for health, now the Secretary of State for Scotland—to its abortive attempt at pre-emptive closure of Gesto hospital on the Isle of Skye. The health board and I have not always seen eye to eye, and I am not here to defend the status quo.
  I was opposed to the move towards trust status that built on the internal market in health care in the highlands. That was partly because of the well-rehearsed national arguments at the time and partly because of two specific local factors that struck me as making full trust status within an internal health market particularly inappropriate in the context of a vast rural area such as the highlands. The geography of the area and the pressure that that places on the delivery of health care inevitably make the practical grafting of an internal market on to the system extremely difficult, if not totally counter to the principles that are supposed underpin it.
  Mrs. Ray Michie rose—
  Mr. Kennedy: My hon. Friend, whom I am delighted to see in the Chamber, shares my concerns.
  Mrs. Michie: My hon. Friend referred to the geography of the area. Does he agree that there is also a problem facing remote, rural and inducement practices? Since 1985, those practices no longer receive expenses for postgraduate training. That puts those practices at a severe disadvantage in terms of keeping up to date with modern medical practices—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. This is a rather long intervention in a half-hour debate.
  Mrs. Michie: I am sure that my hon. Friend understands what I am talking about.
  Mr. Kennedy: I certainly do understand, and we live in hope that the Minister also understands. I see that some consultation is going on to that effect. My hon. Friend has offered a good specific example of the kind of practical difficulties that arise.
  The artificiality of competition in the health market within the highlands comes into most sharp focus when one looks at the position of the Highland health board as the purchaser and the Raigmore Hospital NHS trust as the provider. We know that the health board has nowhere else to go to place its contract each year, as it has no alternative regional acute facility providing the range of specialties offered by Raigmore. There is an artificiality to the debate, and if the system becomes bogged down—as it has done—it will create problems in the current financial year for the managers of the trust and the management of the health board.
  Last year, the Minister established an important principle—although perhaps he was not particularly anxious so to do. When the Highland communities trust and similar operations in Grampian ran into financial difficulties, he was obliged to step in and acknowledge that, to a certain extent, the public purse would have to bail out trusts with funding problems. That development was indicative of a wider anxiety. The trusts in Grampian and Highland were at the head of the queue in Scotland, and the fact that they are in some financial difficulty this early suggests that we are seeing the tip of a national iceberg. There is a further example in Ayrshire of the difficulties being encountered by trusts, a subject that will be hotly debated in the Scottish Grand Committee in Ayr next week.
  Last year, the crisis in the Highlands communities trust was overcome, but problems remain for it. The locum chief executive, Fiona Mackenzie, told me in anticipation of this debate that the first financial problem related to bridging finance for the on-going project closure of Craig Dunain hospital in Inverness. There have been meetings between the health board, the trust and the Scottish Office, and it would be timely if the Minister would tell us where the matter now stands.
  The second problem stems in the main from the logjam that has been reached on the Raigmore trust, but the fact that contracts have still not been agreed for the current year has also had an effect. There is a difference of £2 million between the trust's price, £46.8 million, and what the health board is willing to offer, £44.8 million. The difference relates to activity levels and the fact that, in the past year, the trust has been operating with a busier throughput than was expected and is incurring larger overheads as a result.
  If one looks at the range of options—perhaps I should say the range of dilemmas—facing the trust's management at the moment, one sees that, to a certain extent, the trust has been a victim of its own activities. It is considering a number of options. Given the rising number of out-patients, the trust is increasingly unable to meet its own target times, and a decrease in the extent of out-patient facilities provided is being considered. Another option concerns the vexed issue of ward closures.
  A third option—to which I wish to refer specifically, as it has in many ways been the most emotive locally—is to increase the rent levels for student nurses in Inverness. Indeed, it was revealed in March that it was intended to increase rent from £54.64 a month to £150. That is an

  583
  exorbitant increase and, despite the fact there has been some to-ing and fro-ing between the student nurses and the trust, the issue is far from resolved.
  The options are a range of dilemmas, which are far from satisfactory. They suggest that a number of questions remain outstanding. First, why is there such a gap in perception between the management of the health board and the management of the trust over what is the right price and the right level of activity that can be delivered on budget? Two sets of professionals are involved in the same service, so why are they £2 million apart this far into the financial year?
  Secondly, given the examples I have cited, the Minister would surely accept that to expect the trust to go on and on with its downward drive for on-going 3 per cent. efficiency savings is just not realistic in the context of the Highland health board area, not least given the kind of geographical overheads that accrue, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) referred. Thirdly, the Minister should not set his face against having to provide further cash for Raigmore, if need be, as he had to do last year with the Highland communities trust, to make possible an agreement on a reasonable level of contract which is not detrimental to the overall levels of patient care.
  Such is the problem as seen from the point of view of the trust, but what about the perspective of the Highland health board? Its general difficulty in funding is that it is one of only two health boards in Scotland to find themselves more than 1 per cent. below the SHARE—Scottish health authorities revenue equalisation—formula for annual allocation. That shortfall again relates to geography, because that formula, when applied to the Highland health board area, does not take adequate account of the sparsity factor. I know that the management executive of the health service in Scotland is to review the funding formula. I hope that the Minister can guarantee that the specific difficulties being experienced by the Highland health board will be carefully taken into account and that that review will be sensitive to its difficulties.
  I reiterate what I said about judging the issue in terms of what happened to the Highland communities trust. The health board is involved in the long-term closure of Craig Dunain and the transfer to community care, so I hope that the Minister can give us a more detailed update from its point of view on the additional bridging finance that it is seeking to give effect to that transfer.
  The final problem relating to funding difficulties refers to the social work budget of Highland council, which has a £350,000 shortfall. It is having to consider, as Perth and Kinross council was obliged to do recently, the transfer of its residential care of the elderly from council auspices to the private sector. When that suggestion was first mooted a few weeks ago, it caused sheer uproar throughout the length and breadth of the Highland council area. I went to visit one of the four homes on the initial hit list, Urray house at Muir of Ord in my constituency. The sense of horror among the elderly patients at what may happen to them was saddening and sickening.
  I have raised the issue with the Minister at a recent sitting of the Scottish Grand Committee. There appears to be a gulf between what the social work directorate tells me about funding and what the Minister is being advised about that by his Department. The Minister has agreed to
  584
  a meeting, and I would be grateful if he would get around the table with representatives of the Highland council, and if necessary the relevant sectors within the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, to see whether the shortfalls in the social work budget identified by the director, Mr. Jim Dick, match the account that the Minister put forward, I do not doubt with good intent, during our previous exchanges on the subject.
  I welcome the fact that, in providing the crucial service of residential care for the elderly, the Highland council has by no means shelved the option of opting wholesale for the private sector. It has, however, announced plans for a seminar later in the year to look at the subject in a slightly broader and more measured context than has been possible. That seminar, which would offer a broader review, accompanied by a detailed comparison of the figures at the Scottish Office level and those at the directorate level of the council, would be extremely helpful.
  Three broad issues must be considered. First, one must consider the transfers as a result of the closure of Craig Dunain hospital and the bridging finance that is important to the health board and the communities trust. Secondly, one must consider the on-going difficulties surrounding the contract discussion and the £2 million gap between the Raigmore trust and the health board. Thirdly, one must consider the health board's perception of its own on-going problem—persistent under-funding due to the inflexibility of the SHARE formula in terms of the sparsity factor.
  The Minister should note that there is a great feeling of unease and alarm across the highlands at the moment concerning specific provision for the elderly as well as health care in general. In his reply, I hope that he will make a significant contribution to allay the anxieties of those in most immediate care as well as to meet the perceptions of those who feel that they or their loved ones will be in need of care in times to come.
  1.45 pm
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): If Highland council disagrees with the distribution formula as operated by COSLA, the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) should advise it to make strong representations, to send in all the available evidence and to copy it for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who has responsibility for the highlands, and also for me. We will look at it.
  On 28 May, the health board submitted an application for bridging finance in 1996–97. A preliminary meeting involving the Scottish Office, the health board, the Highland communities trust and the social work department was held on 30 May. That meeting provided an opportunity for helpful and constructive exchange of views. It is essential to be clear, however, that bridging finance is not the principle means of enabling community development. Funding must continue to come from resources released from the hospital sector for reinvestment in community health services and transfers to local authorities for social care provision.
  The hon. Member is obviously interested in service developments at Raigmore. I am aware that the trust has developed proposals to open a new haematology-oncology facility at Raigmore. That will be dependent on the necessary resources being in place. It is one of the

  585
  issues being discussed within the current contract negotiations. As hon. Members will appreciate, it is simply not possible to fund all the developments that one might wish to see simultaneously introduced since, despite the billions of pounds of public funds devoted to the NHS, we still have to work within finite resources.
  I know that the hon. Member is interested in the proposals that the trust has in mind for increasing the number of clinical sessions for rheumatoid arthritis sufferers. The position on that initiative is similar in that much depends on the outcome of the contract negotiations.
  The hon. Member touched on rent increases for student nurses at Raigmore, as did the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) earlier. I understand that the previous rent levels were unrealistically low compared with market levels and levels paid by students in other areas. I understand that the increased rents are now being phased in over one year instead of six months as originally planned.
  The hon. Member may be interested to know that there is to be a primary care resource centre at Easter Ross. I congratulate the local Members of Parliament on taking the initiative in undertaking the feasibility study. We welcome the vision and concept behind the proposal and look to purchasers for a definite local commitment on how the proposal is to be developed. The ensuing business case will be considered on its merits.
  I welcome the opportunity for the debate. The principle to which the hon. Member alluded is extremely important: patient standards and patient care must not be allowed to suffer. It is, of course, the responsibility of the Minister with responsibility for health to ensure that that does not happen.
  I am well aware that the Highland health board has definite challenges because of its particular geographical circumstances, which mean that it is spread over such a large area. It has to strike a balance between delivering services in small local communities and more centrally at Inverness. It is working hard on the development of locality plans in partnership with the trust, the Highland council and other agencies. It is working with local health councils and taking the views of the local communities. I am sure that the board will take those views into account when drawing up its strategy for health care services in the highlands.
  The hon. Member mentioned the contract negotiation position affecting the Raigmore Hospital NHS trust. In the current contracting round, a gap remains between what is proposed and the price that the board is prepared to pay for an agreed and appropriate level of service. Several trusts in Scotland are still negotiating with their purchasers about contracts for this year, and Raigmore is no exception. That is not unusual at this stage in the process.
  These exchanges are designed to produce better outcomes for patients and better value for money locally. The provision of a high and continuing standard of patient care is of the utmost importance, and all concerned are working to resolve the outstanding contracting issues to maintain and improve the level of services to patients. My officials in the management executive are in close contact with the board and the trust about the current state of negotiations and will press for a resolution to be achieved as soon as possible.
  Mr. Kennedy: Will the Minister reflect on a phrase he used? He said that it was "not unusual" for contracts not
  586
  to be agreed by this stage in the financial year, and that it was most important to maintain standards of patient care. From the management point of view, the longer the uncertainty continues, the deeper the cuts they must make the further into the financial year one gets. How come, therefore, standards in patient delivery will not suffer because of the change that has been made? That does not make sense.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As I have said, we want to reach a settlement as soon as possible. The officials of the management executive stand ready to give guidance, should there be any impasse in the negotiations.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Is a deadline being set?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: All I can say is that we shall work extremely hard to ensure that the necessary agreements are reached, and at this stage it is not necessary for me to intervene. I believe that the negotiations are proceeding well, and we shall closely monitor the position and keep a close eye on it.
  In general, the Highland communities trust has introduced a range of innovative developments, including new facilities for the treatment of Parkinson's disease and a new drug and alcohol dependency centre. It has begun upgrading the Belford hospital in Fort William, as well as completing new community health centres in Gairloch and Dundonald.
  Specific issues confront the Highland health board. For example, I know that facilities for the patients of Craig Dunain are far from ideal at Inverness. I am pleased to hear, therefore, that the health board, the Highland communities trust and Highland council social work department, working together, have made significant progress in developing plans for the care of the mentally ill. There are already some excellent examples of well-resourced care facilities in the highland region for patients discharged from Craig Dunain.
  The Highland communities trust has developed proposals for a new acute facility. I also understand that plans for a long-stay unit are well developed. That is encouraging, and we look forward to reading, in the very near future, the finalised and locally agreed plans, which will deliver improved services to all who need them. We will monitor the position.
  I now turn to the issue of community care in the Highland health board area. The board is working with the local social work and housing authorities in continuing joint assessments of local care needs. They are working towards the organisation of best local care that matches local needs. In doing so, they are aware of my position that, for the NHS continuing care sector, no long-stay hospital will close before appropriate care facilities and services are well in place in the community, and no long-stay patient should be transferred to alternative models of care before that care and the necessary support and accommodation are in place and available.
  Working towards the aim of improving the daily lives of vulnerable people in the area who need support, last year alone the health board transferred about £3.4 million to the local authority towards the cost of care in the community.
  The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye may wish to know that the sum total of the resources transferred from health to local authorities throughout

  587
  Scotland last year was £45 million. Substantial additional resources have been allocated to local authorities to meet their community care responsibilities. In the current year, Highland council has £24.5 million compared with £23.9 million in 1995–96.
  The allocation to the former Highland regional council was generous. The council was one of two in Scotland that received additional resources in the form of transitional protection. That reflected the historically high level of Department of Social Security expenditure in the region. Transitional protection was provided for three years to give the council time to plan for the eventual position. The scheme was initiated by the Scottish Office, against initial opposition by COSLA representatives on the distribution committee.
  This year, the DSS transfer resources already in the baseline, and the new resources for 1996–97, have been made available to Highland on the same basis as to all other authorities—that is, on the basis of a distribution weighted by the proportion of elderly and disabled people in each area. That is the approach agreed with COSLA' s distribution committee, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye will agree that that is a fair and reasonable basis on which to distribute resources.
  It should be mentioned that the Highland health board area has low occupation levels in private and voluntary sector residential homes. Given the lower cost of homes in those sectors relative to the council's homes, there is obviously scope for the council to make more cost-effective use of its resources by making more placements in independent homes.
  I now turn to some specific issues relating to the trust in the highlands and to the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
  Mr. Kennedy: The Minister phrased that last part very neutrally. Does he support that approach?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Whether appropriate standards are maintained must be ascertained. A Scottish Office working group is considering residential care and is due to report in approximately three weeks' time. It has been considering the difficult issues that have occurred the length and breadth of Scotland. We intend to act on the group's recommendations. I have not seen the fine print yet, but we believe that they will in principle be soundly based and we intend to act on that report as soon as it comes to hand. This is essentially a matter for local decision, provided the necessary high standards are maintained.
  I shall now discuss in more detail the constituency problems of the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye. As he will recall, we had a helpful discussion on 17 October 1995 when, in an Adjournment debate, he raised the problems then affecting the Highland communities trust. At that stage, the trust faced a shortfall of about £1.4 million between its expenditure and its contract income. I hope that, during the debate, I made it clear that my main concern was the action being taken by the trust to resolve its financial difficulties and to ensure that patient care was not compromised.
  Following the resignation of the chief executive of the trust and the departure of the finance director, officials in the Scottish Office Department of Health and I moved swiftly to ensure that a sound management scheme was
  588
  in place. From a projected deficit of approximately £1.4 million, the new management team produced a financial strategy that balanced the books and put the trust on a sound financial footing for the future.
  A key component in the plan was the identification of a cost improvement programme to deliver reductions in recurring revenue expenditure and a revamping of the organisational structure. I was pleased to note the streamlining of the management structure to make it more appropriate to the tasks that lie ahead for the trust.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have been especially anxious to ensure that, throughout the health service, management costs are reduced to a minimum consistent with the effective and efficient running of the NHS, so that the maximum possible amount of resources can be devoted to direct patient care. The locum management team and the board at Highland communities trust are to be commended for the way in which they have brought the trust's finances back on track and shown what can be achieved with commitment and resolution.
  The Caithness and Sutherland trust, although one of the smallest in terms of operating income, has been especially successful in developing new services. Four new health centres were opened in 1995 at Durness, Tongue, Brora and Helmsdale, and two more are planned for completion in the current financial year at Dunbeath and Kinlochbervie. This is an impressive programme of work, designed to ensure that, even for communities in the more remote parts of the country, high-quality health care can and will still be delivered.
  Those developments are hardly signs of a trust being in financial trouble—quite the reverse. The reform of the health service and the creation of trusts have resulted in more patients than ever being treated more quickly by more clinical staff delivering better services.
  I now turn to primary care. Patients in the highlands receive a good level of screening and preventative services from GPs in the area, especially on immunisation, child health surveillance and cervical cytology. Primary care also provides chronic disease management for conditions such as asthma and diabetes. Patients also benefit from GP fundholding, which has brought physiotherapy into a practice setting and open access for endoscopy.
  There are eight standard fundholding practices and 12 primary care purchasing practices, covering 27 per cent. of the population. Two of these standard fundholding practices are taking part in a total purchasing pilot, which enables GPs to purchase all health care services for their patients. I am aware, as I mentioned earlier, of the feasibility study for a primary care resource centre. The GPs are to be warmly congratulated. We welcome their vision and the determination behind that proposal.
  In the past four years, Highland health board has secured funding of more than—
  It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Mearnskirk Hospital Site
    Mr. Stewart:: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for the future of the Mearnskirk hospital site, Newton Mearns; and if he will make a statement. [30071]
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The board has asked the Victoria Infirmary NHS trust to develop a new 60-bed elderly care facility on the site, resulting in much improved accommodation for frail elderly patients which matches the assessed future needs of local people in that sector.
    Mr. Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. I should also like to thank the Greater Glasgow health board and the Victoria trust for the recent constructive and useful meetings that they have had with me. Does my hon. Friend agree that the board has been sensible to abandon the European procurement process and contract with the trust? As I understand it—perhaps my hon. Friend will confirm this—the trust will need to put in a detailed application to the management executive. Can he assure my constituents that that application will be treated speedily and sympathetically in the light of the importance of the project for the frail elderly?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, that seems a sensible way to proceed. The trust will need to produce a business case explaining why public financing is necessary and I can assure my hon. Friend that we will look at this sympathetically and speedily.
    Mr. McAllion: The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) may qualify as a frail elderly patient when he hears the result of the next election in the Eastwood constituency.
    Can the Minister confirm that the Victoria trust is the same NHS trust that is currently privatising its cleaning, its catering, its portering and its estates services under pressure from underfunding from the Government? Can the Minister confirm that the development is taking place on the site where NHS land was recently sold off to private housing developers and which is currently being used for private profit on behalf of those private housing developers? Will he, for once, own up to the fact that, under the banner of the private finance initiative, the Government are privatising anything and everything that can be turned to a profit inside the national health service?
    If the Minister is looking for good news stories about health in the run-up to the general election, I can make a suggestion. Why does he not announce that the Government are abandoning the Tory privatisation of the health service, Tory GP fundholding and the Tory internal market in the NHS? That is the only good news that the voters in Scotland want to hear.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We cannot abandon something that we are not engaged in. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that NHS services will remain
    590
    free at the point of delivery. Tender specifications for hospital building, which will bring about much more speedy building, are to be welcomed. The leader of the hon. Gentleman's party has said that he believes in the use of private finance, so the hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to his own leader.

    Community Service Orders
    Mr. Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures are being taken to ensure that those serving community service orders are deterred from offending again. [30072]
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend has announced a series of measures to ensure that community service in Scotland is seen by both the offenders and the community as a rigorous and constructive penalty.
    Mr. Duncan: Does my hon. Friend agree that community service should not be a soft option but a fitting punishment for the crime? The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) has criticised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's proposals to toughen the regime and has said that they are humiliating. Does not that confirm once again that the Labour party is more concerned about the humiliation of the offender than the humiliation of the victim?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We certainly want to shift the emphasis away from the criminal towards the victim. We believe that community service orders should be rigorous and have considerable benefit to the community. For example, the refurbishment of the King George V playing fields, first phase, will be of immense benefit to the local communities. The programme contains other projects—for example, the removal of graffiti, the cleaning up of cycleways and waterways, the opening of footpaths and the renovation of buildings. Community service certainly should not be a soft option.
    Mr. Galbraith: The Minister must surely accept that crime in Scotland has doubled under this Government. Does he accept any responsibility for that, and will the Government do anything about it?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The overall crime figures have come down in the past three years and that is a sign of the effectiveness of the police, to whom we have given maximum support in the form of high-technology closed-circuit television and many other projects throughout Scotland. We will work on that success and we are determined to give the police the maximum resources available.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Secretary of State for Scotland's determination to be tougher on crime and to strengthen penalties is welcomed by most people, except those who are soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime? Does he agree that one of the causes of crime in Scotland is the dreary municipal estates built by Labour-controlled councils in the 1960s?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is one of the reasons why we support urban regeneration so strongly. We wish to remove that dreariness and to provide more opportunities for jobs. Under urban aid, we provide more than £80 million a year to ensure that those who live in such communities have much better chances. As part of the process, it is absolutely necessary to take a tough line on crime prevention.
    Mr. McFall: The Labour party agrees fully that those serving community service orders should be prevented from offending, but does the Minister realise that the main issue for the community today is Gavin McGuire, who murdered Mhairi Julyan? Why was he released only 20 days before he committed that murder? Why did the Crown Office say that there was insufficient evidence to proceed and yet, when the trial for murder happened, it brought in that evidence? Is not the action of the Secretary of State a knee-jerk reaction to stifle debate? Will the Minister join us in the call for an independent inquiry to get to the root of the problem and to prevent the Crown Office from sinking into disrepute as a result of the case?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Lord Advocate, as Law Officer, is responsible for the prosecution service. He is independent of the Government. I am the Minister with responsibility for home affairs, not Minister for the interior and it would be totally improper for me to try to direct the Law Officers on which prosecutions to undertake. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that, for repeat offenders in serious sex cases, the law should be toughened and they should face life sentences.

    Employment Prospects
    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on employment prospects in the highlands and islands. [30073]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): They remain excellent.
    Mr. Macdonald: Is the Minister aware of the continuing damage being done to the economy and the employment prospects of the Western Isles and Skye by the high tolls on the Skye bridge? Is he aware that, on the new Severn bridge, which was opened today, the tolls will be 30 per cent. lower than the charges imposed on cars using the Skye bridge? How can the Minister justify that difference, especially when the Severn bridge was much more expensive to build? Is it not time that he listened to the weight of public opinion in the highlands, and indeed throughout Scotland, and scrapped the unpopular and damaging private toll regime?
    Mr. Kynoch: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman takes that line when a bridge has been provided, using private finance, for the people of Skye much sooner that it would have been provided if the project had had to wait in the queue for public expenditure. The tolls are set at the level of the old ferry fares, so the cost of getting to Skye is no greater using the bridge. If people buy discounted tickets, the price of a single crossing can be lowered to £2.44. That compares with a charge for motor cars and caravans to cross the new Severn bridge of £3.80. The hon. Gentleman did not
    592
    point out that the Severn bridge concession is for some 30 years, so the tolls will remain for that period, whereas tolls will be in existence on the Skye bridge for only some 14 to 17 years until the cost is paid back. The bridge is of great benefit to the people of Skye and it means that weather does not cut them off from the mainland. The people of Skye should welcome the improved transport to and from their island.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: In view of what the Minister said at the end of his reply, I hope that he will take the opportunity after Question Time to give a resume of those benefits to the local protesters who are visiting Westminster today to make clear the depth of not just local opposition but Scotland-wide and international opposition to what is being done. [Interruption.] Those who laugh do so in ignorance because they do not know what is being said in other countries about this matter.
    As the direct employment loss so far has come from the closure of the ferry, when will the Minister come clean about how much more the public purse in Scotland is having to subvent Caledonian MacBrayne's other ferry networks as a direct result of the loss of subsidy that was generated by the high charges on the original ferry? Why will he not tell us that, if he believes in the commercial case for this bridge?
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman fails to recognise the difference between the bridge and the ferry. Of course, the ferry was subject to weather conditions, and that was amply exemplified just before the bridge officially opened when, I understand, an ambulance, a police car and a lorry load of fresh fish from South Uist, which was bound for Paris, crossed the bridge when the ferry was not running because of bad weather. Rather than associating himself with people who seem to be intent on flaunting the law and trying to follow a policy of non-payment, which seems surprising for the hon. Gentleman, he should recognise the benefits that the project has brought to that part of Scotland.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Nicholls: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what incentives are currently available to attract inward investment to Scotland. [30074]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Among the incentives for inward investment to Scotland are a skilled and flexible work force, low taxes, low inflation and the absence of the social chapter or a tartan tax.
    Mr. Nicholls: Is not my right hon. Friend too modest to say that it is a remarkable tribute to his efforts at the Cabinet table that Scotland receives such a massive amount of inward investment and a good deal more for public expenditure than does England? Now that the west country has its own designated Minister, does my right hon. Friend look forward to a time when a similar achievement could be brought about there, perhaps by a modest transfer from the Scottish Office budget?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about the success of Scotland in attracting inward investment. I am sure that the west country will

    593
    strongly compete for that investment. However, I do not take the credit for Ministers but give it to Locate in Scotland and Scottish Enterprise.
    I see from today's newspapers in Scotland that the Labour party would abolish Scottish Enterprise as part of the recommendations of the McFadden Commission. The newspapers state that the distinguished Miss McFadden says that Scottish Enterprise will have part of its role taken over by a Scottish Parliament and another part taken over by local government, and that it will then cease to exist.
    Mr. Hood: The Secretary of State will appreciate that street crime is a disincentive to inward investment. Will he take this opportunity to reject the suggestion by the Scottish National party to commercialise prostitution and turn Scotland into the greatest whorehouse in Europe, and assure us that they will have none of that nonsense in Scotland?
    Mr. Forsyth: I know that the Scottish nationalists come up with some eccentric ideas but, as far as I am aware, they have not advocated prostitution as a matter that should be part of our inward investment campaign. The views that they have expressed on that matter are entirely consistent with the most left-wing and most radical party in Europe.
    Mrs. Ewing: On the issue of inward investment, would the Secretary of State care to comment on how many jobs originally pursued by Locate in Scotland went to the Republic of Ireland because of the local corporation tax that is levied there—at 10 per cent.? Will he also, instead of allowing his Minister to conduct an argument through the press with the Federation of Small Businesses, organise a meeting to discuss with it the importance of giving support to indigenous industries?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am surprised that a Member of the Scottish National party—of all parties—should try to argue that Ireland has an advantage because of the rate of corporation tax that it has to offer. If the hon. Lady would care to make an appointment with Locate in Scotland, it will explain to her why we can offer far more than Ireland in terms of financial incentives, and why the 10 per cent. corporation tax levied in Ireland is not a comparative advantage over Scotland. When she has had that meeting, perhaps she will join us in propounding the benefits of Scotland as opposed to Ireland.

    Beef Production
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the National Farmers Union for Scotland concerning Scottish beef production. [30075]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: My noble friend the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and the Environment and I have regular meetings with the Scottish NFU.
    Mr. Lidington: Will my right hon. Friend continue to make every effort to secure the complete lifting of the beef export ban, in the interests both of Scottish farmers and of meat exporting companies like Donald Russell of Aberdeenshire, the sales director of which is a constituent
    594
    of mine? Will my right hon. Friend join me in deploring the reported remarks this morning by the German Health Minister, who in effect said that, whatever is decided by the European Union, Germany will maintain a unilateral national ban on the import of British beef and beef products, in defiance of its treaty obligations and European law?
    Mr. Forsyth: Yes; and yes, I do.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: With regard to beef production, the Glasgow meat market in my constituency was advised by the Scottish Office, as late as 1992, to upgrade its facilities with fridges and stainless steel products to bring it into line with the European Community, and only a month ago received a fax from the Scottish Office to say that it should cease production forthwith. The people who work there have been put out of a job. They have had a great deal of investment and their mortgages and homes are being threatened. All I ask is that the Minister, the noble Lord Lindsay, meets them. I hope that the Secretary of State will pass on that request to him.
    Mr. Forsyth: I well understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. Many people in Scotland are affected by this completely unjustified ban on good, quality Scottish beef. Of course I understand the concerns of his constituents, and my noble Friend will, as always, be pleased to meet the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to bring a delegation from his constituency.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend accept that all farmers and those involved in the food chain very much appreciate his efforts and those of the noble Lord Lindsay in trying to resolve the problem? Will my right hon. Friend do two things: first, will he try to speed up the 30-month disposal of heifers, which has not yet started; and, secondly, will he produce a newsletter each week, giving explicit details of how the scheme is proceeding and what farmers should do to help their own interests?
    Mr. Forsyth: Officials in Scotland have been working with the industry. The 30-month scheme is now being administered by a group drawn from all the industry's interests, and we have made substantial progress. The task is enormous, and I fully understand the anxiety and concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend and others. His suggestion of a regular newsletter to farmers, some of whom may or may not be members of the National Farmers Union, is good, and I shall certainly ask officials to take that on board and get such a project under way.
    Mr. Wallace: Does the Secretary of State accept that, from the outset of the crisis, one potentially helpful step is the role of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce? Does he further accept that the low volume of meat that has gone into intervention from Scottish farms has been disappointing and that there has been considerable bureaucracy? What steps have he and his fellow Ministers taken to use their good offices with the intervention board to ensure that more meat is moved to try to reduce some of the backlog that is building up, particularly as another tranche is coming on stream?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know of one particularly astonishing case from his constituency, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when it was drawn to his attention. A report is being compiled and a number of changes are being brought about. I agree also with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of access to intervention. Some changes have been made and the matter will be kept under review. I well understand the frustration that has been felt, but it is now being addressed.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on Monday, when he and I were on the shores of Loch Lomond, the veterans in attendance were in support of the Government's actions in Europe to protect the interests of beef producers in Scotland as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom? My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that the Government's tactics have the full support of my constituents.
    Mr. Forsyth: I was delighted to see my hon. Friend on the bonnie banks of Loch Lomond, where he was joined by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell)—and it was a pleasant and non-political occasion. I am sure that most people in our country applaud my right hon. Friend's stance in standing up for the interests of British beef and British farmers. We take that stand with no relish but because we are determined to get justice in Europe for our farmers.
    Mr. George Robertson: We too strongly want the ban on beef exports lifted and convincing measures put in place to eliminate completely bovine spongiform encephalopathy from the British herd, to build confidence in our beef industry. Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that, if the Government's position starts to have more to do with keeping the splinters of an internal argument in the Tory party together, the Government will not only lose the support of hon. Members in other parts of the House but damage, perhaps permanently, relations between this country and our trading partners in Europe—which would endanger countless thousands more jobs?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman might reflect on the fact that the ban was imposed by qualified majority voting. If the decision had required unanimity, the ban would not have been imposed. The hon. Gentleman and his party want more Community measures determined by qualified majority voting, rather than by unanimity. He should acknowledge that he and his party, with their particular policy on Europe, would give more power to Brussels. It is not terribly credible for the hon. Gentleman to complain about the consequences of decisions reached in Europe that are out of line with our national interests when his party is so determined to hand more power to the bureaucrats in Brussels.
    Mr. Gallie: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a recent report from world veterinary surgeons meeting in Paris, stating that Europe has got it totally wrong in respect of BSE—and that, in going for a programme of culling, now Britain has got it wrong? Those experts were effectively saying that Britain took the correct steps in 1989–90 to correct the BSE situation. Does my right hon. Friend regret to some degree that we have been forced into a culling programme?
    Mr. Forsyth: We have not agreed to any culling programme but have entered into discussions with the Community to have the ban—which, as my hon. Friend said, is completely unjustified—lifted. The World Health Organisation and our own Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, which comprises a group of distinguished scientists, has spelt out the scientific position clearly. If the matter were driven by science and common sense, our farmers would be able to sell their beef to Europe, where they would find consumers willing to buy a quality product.

    Contaminated Land
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what resources the Scottish Office has received from European Union organisations to assist with the treatment of contaminated land in each of the last three years. [30076]
    Mr. Kynoch: The figure is £2.2 million since 1994.
    Mr. McAvoy: I do not know whether the complacent Minister realises how his answer betrays the way that he is doing his job. My constituency, uniquely in Scotland, has toxic waste sites that require Government assistance to make safe and improve that part of Lanarkshire. The Minister and the Government have done nothing, while the European Union is ready to assist with money. Does the Minister agree that the money that he and his Government have obtained from the EU is disgraceful and reflects on the hon. Gentleman's competence and ability?
    Mr. Kynoch: I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman has taken that tone because I answered the question simply by giving him the amount of money that has been spent. He will be well aware that he has raised this subject on previous occasions in Scottish questions and that we have given him the answer. That is that the local authorities and the Glasgow development agency have conducted studies into the position in Rutherglen, which have confirmed that there is a problem with hexavalent chromium on certain sites.
    Equally, however, the local authority has commissioned a study by the university of Glasgow and the local health board into the health aspects. He will be aware—as I remember telling him this the last time he raised this question—that it has been ascertained that there is no health hazard because the chromium is well underground.
    Scottish Enterprise is funding a research project, managed by the City of Glasgow council, to determine the most effective technical means to deal with contamination. If the hon. Gentleman believes that that is doing nothing to deal with the problem in this region, he is not looking at the facts. There is a problem, and it is being dealt with. Funding clearly involves a problem of priority and it is up to the local enterprise companies and local authorities to decide how to spend it.
    Mr. Congdon: While resources for contaminated land are welcome, does my hon. Friend agree that we should not delude ourselves into believing that it is European money? As this country is a net contributor to European funds, it is paid for and funded by the British taxpayer.
    Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is right. All too often, however, Opposition Members are ignorant of where funding comes from. They keep talking not just about European funding, but government funding and they forget that that funding comes from taxpayers and that the Government have a responsibility to them to ensure that they get value for money. Opposition parties advocate increased taxes and less efficient and increased spending. That is where we differ markedly from those parties.
    Mr. David Marshall: What percentage of contaminated land has been treated in Scotland in the past five years and when does the Minister expect all the contaminated land in Scotland to have been treated? At the present rate of progress, will it take five or 500 years?
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the contamination problem is dealt with by Government policy on the "polluter pays" principle and that it is not possible, therefore, to ascertain exactly what has been spent on contamination, but if a polluter pollutes, it is his responsibility to clean it up.

    Beef Industry
    Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on employment in the beef industry in Scotland. [30077]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Around 16,000 jobs in Scotland depend on the beef industry.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Since the Scottish Office has comprehensive devolved powers over agriculture and food, will the Secretary of State acknowledge that his predecessor, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), could have taken steps to prevent BSE's spread into Scotland 10 years ago? Is it not a fact that an elected Scottish Administration would have been far more likely to take effective steps to protect 21,000 jobs, or the lower number of jobs that the right hon. Gentleman has just quoted, in the Scottish beef industry? Even now, why is this little Englander from Stirling aggravating our European partners, instead of taking steps to restore confidence in Scottish beef and our export markets?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am sure that anyone would have taken whatever steps were possible to prevent BSE's spread, and the Government have always acted on the basis of scientific advice. I know that Opposition Members are in some disarray and feel desperation over their plans for a Scottish Parliament, but the hon. Gentleman's question must be the worst example of scratching around to try to find an argument for a Scottish Parliament that I have yet heard.
    On Scotland's interest, from his knowledge of the industry, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have consulted on exempting from the 30-month rule the specialist, slow-maturing breeds and grass-fed cattle from herds that have not been infected with BSE. We hope to be able to make progress with that as we continue our constructive discussions within the Community.
    598
    I am sorry that we do not have the hon. Gentleman's support in standing up for Britain and refusing to co-operate within the Community until such time as, under Community rules, the access to the single market that we are guaranteed by treaty is given to our farmers—many of whom are struggling to survive, unlike the hon. Gentleman, who no doubt has plenty of fat to keep him going through the present crisis.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the compensation arrangements for those who have lost business or their jobs because of the BSE crisis are falling very unevenly? Does he also acknowledge that the firm of Donald Russell, which has already been mentioned—it is an export-led company—has laid off 34 workers who have, as yet, no prospect of compensation or re-employment? This matter also affects those who have been involved in the processing of head meat.
    In those circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that compensation is made available equally and fairly to all who have suffered through no fault of their own?
    Mr. Forsyth: I have considerable sympathy for the people concerned, but the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. We have never introduced a compensation scheme. What we have done is spend almost £1 billion on keeping the infrastructure of the beef market operating. We made it absolutely clear that we were providing money not for compensation, but to allow the infrastructure of the beef market to continue to operate. A large amount of that money was spent on reducing the backlog that was clogging up the abattoirs.
    To compensate everyone for losses arising from the crisis would involve an enormous and quite unsustainable sum. People will suffer losses. The Government have tried to do everything possible to maintain the industry, which is important for employment, in operation in Scotland. I realise that that is an unpalatable message, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to commit his party to compensation, perhaps he should do his sums first.
    Mrs. Liddell: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the problem of BSE and the consequent difficulties with employment are not helped by intemperate remarks from the Treasury Bench? There is a need for a serious and considered programme of action. The Opposition welcome the fact that it will soon be illegal for anyone to hold bone-in animal feed. We also welcome the fact that the Government are now starting a collection programme for such feed from farm and feed mills.
    It would be of great value to the farming community to have information on the details of how collection is to operate. Farmers need that information rather more quickly than would be achieved under the interesting proposal, made by the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), for a newsletter. This is a critical issue that affects the industry.
    Will the Secretary of State reconsider his opposition to the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) and me for a serious inquiry into the circumstances in which 60 per cent. of beasts found to have BSE have come from beasts born after the ban was introduced? That is a helpful suggestion. It is

    599
    important to trace the origins of the meal so that there is a chance of identifying which feed mills have been distributing contaminated feed. That would provide us with an opportunity to isolate those areas that have had contaminated feed. I make those suggestions in a constructive manner.
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of there not being intemperate remarks from the Treasury Bench, especially the shadow Treasury Bench. I exempt her from that, but the behaviour of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) was absolutely disgraceful. Indeed, it contributed significantly to the problems that we now face.
    On the hon. Lady's point about communications, I can confirm that my officials are in regular contact with the industry. There is an all-industry group, uniquely in Scotland, advising and working in partnership with the Scottish Office and the lines of communication are good. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries made a good suggestion for a newsletter to go to all farmers telling them what is happening. However, there are also means of direct communication on such important matters as the use of animal feed.

    Education
    Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance is given to encourage children aged 16 years or over to stay on in full—time education. [30078]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): We are developing a new system of courses and assessment—"Higher Still"—to give all young people from age 16 the opportunity to stay on and gain relevant qualifications to the highest standard they can reach. Financial support is available in Scotland for this age group through child benefit of £40 million and, with bursaries and other allowances, to more than £91 million in total.
    Mr. Rowe: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the staying-on rate has risen to an amazing 43 per cent. since the Government took over? What does he think would be the effect on the staying-on rate if the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) were ever to have the opportunity to put into effect his proposal to remove child benefit from this group of people?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the teenage tax proposed by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East would hit Scotland hardest of all parts of the United Kingdom. Because of the Government's outstanding success, more 16-year-olds opt to stay on in school in Scotland than in any other part of the land. Therefore, Scottish families would be hardest hit by that learning levy—that tax on learning.
    Mr. Canavan: Did the Minister see the report in The Herald yesterday about the Scottish student who was forced to pay £20 a week to live in a broom cupboard under the stairs because he could not afford to pay a higher rent? Bearing it in mind that the maximum student grant is now only a fraction of what it was when Labour
    600
    was in power, will the Government take urgent action to eradicate student poverty and to help build better opportunities for all our young people?
    Mr. Robertson: Madam Speaker, it is for you to work out the procedures of the House, but, surely, during Question Time, we should now distinguish between new Labour and more traditional Labour, because what the hon. Gentleman has just said is not what the rest of his party is saying. He is talking about student grants, but Opposition Front Benchers want to abolish grants and ensure that students subsidise themselves and pay back grants over 20 years. He should know that, under our proposals and our system, grants and loans together now amount to more than they did when his party was last in government.
    Lady Olga Maitland: As more children than ever before are sitting highers this summer with a view to going to university, does my hon. Friend agree that their hopes would be entirely dashed if they were penalised in the support that they receive to stay on in full-time education? Does he agree that the teenage tax would kill opportunity, whereas the Conservative party provides opportunity?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The proposal by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, the shadow Chancellor, is probably one of the most odious and obnoxious proposals to come from any shadow Chancellor.
    Mr. George Robertson: May I tell the hon. Gentleman that Opposition Members passionately believe in encouraging children to stay on in full-time education? Does he realise that his half-baked—even sinister—plans for mandatory national testing will do nothing to keep young people in the education system? Does he realise that, by alienating parents and teachers with this hidden Thatcherite agenda for selection and for vouchers in schools, he offers no hope to young people who want to stay on in full-time education? Before the Government damage more irreparably the Scottish education system by trying to breathe some life into the Thatcherite corpse, will they think again and abandon their dangerous plans?
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) will take kindly to being called Thatcherite. He said:
    "It's absolutely vital that parents get as much information as possible. I certainly want that for my children; I want to know exactly how they're performing at school; I want to have a proper assessment of them."
    Why is it right for the Leader of the Opposition to have those rights and that information, but it is not right for the hundreds of thousands of Scottish parents?
    Sir Hector Monro: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of pupils remain at school over the age of 16 years in Scotland; and what is the United Kingdom average percentage. [30079]
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: In 1994–95, the age 16 staying-on rate in Scottish schools and equivalent course in further education colleges was 81 per cent. The closest comparison for the UK was 72 per cent.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that that major difference of between 9 and 10 percentage points shows that Scottish children would be disproportionately affected were there a teenage tax of £560 a head in lost child benefit? Would not that be devastating for teenage education in Scotland?
    Mr. Robertson: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. To abolish child benefit for pupils staying on for higher and further education would be equivalent to levying a tax increase of 5p in the pound on the average taxpayer with one child aged 16 to 18. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) says that Labour is only reviewing the proposal, but will he tell us whether he will be supporting or opposing it?
    Mr. Davidson: Is the Minister aware that one source of income for families whose children are staying on at school is the higher school bursary? Is he further aware that, since the abolition of Strathclyde regional council, many authorities in the west of Scotland are, for financial reasons, unable to give bursaries to children who go outwith their own boundaries? In such circumstances, will the Minister consider providing additional finance for all authorities so that they can provide bursaries for children going outwith their area, or will he introduce legislation to make it compulsory for all children from any education authority to be treated equally, no matter whether they go outwith their authority's boundaries?
    Mr. Robertson: We are now spending some £45 million on further education bursaries, which in real terms is 188 per cent. more than was spent in 1979. We spend some £6 million on school bursaries, which is 123 per cent. more than was spent under the previous Labour Government, so we will take no lectures on our support for bursaries.

    Health Service and Local Government Funding
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the effects on public finances of making per capita funding from the Treasury for the health service and local government in Scotland the same as the average for England. [30080]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Health and personal social services spending would fall by 20 per cent., and local government aggregate external finance grant by some 30 per cent., if funding was on the same per capita basis in Scotland as in England.
    Mr. Bruce: Has my right hon. Friend thought that it might well be a winning policy in the rest of the United Kingdom to introduce a tartan tax to allow Scotland to have its independent tax-raising Parliament which would then raise taxes to pay for that extra funding? Has he made any estimate of just how much the tartan tax would have to be to pay for that additional spending in Scotland?
    Mr. Forsyth: If I understand my hon. Friend's question correctly, he is asking how much we would have to raise through a tartan tax in order to make up for the additional expenditure that we enjoy in Scotland over and above what would be spent if we had the same level of spending in England. It would be about £3.5 billion. I think that
    602
    1p on income tax raises about £130 million, so my hon. Friend can work it out for himself. He began by asking whether I thought that it would be an election-winning strategy. From what I hear, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) considered the notion and decided that it certainly was not.
    Mr. Dalyell: The Secretary of State will have no problem whatsoever understanding my question; it is very simple. What is the Scottish Office's notional figure per capita for the cost of local government reform?
    Mr. Forsyth: I should be happy to give the hon. Gentleman an estimate, if not a notional figure, of the cost of local government reform, and I should be happy to write to him. There is one question that his colleagues seem to have difficulty understanding-it is the question that he used to ask repeatedly but which I understand he has now been prevented from asking; the famous West Lothian question.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a critical part of the spending differential between the health service and local government in Scotland are the funds that have been spent on care in the community? If the funds are not used properly, we end up with blocked-off beds in the health service and care in the community is starved of money. Does he agree that the inquiry currently being held on Tayside will help to unravel some of the ghastly aspects of this problem?
    Mr. Forsyth: I cannot anticipate the results of the inquiry. Suffice it to say that Scotland enjoys considerably higher expenditure per head on health than they do in England. If we had a tax-raising Parliament, or indeed a Parliament without tax-raising powers, there is no doubt that that funding would be called into question. Opposition Members who support that change are putting at risk the funding of vital services.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Secretary of State admit that the comparison between a nation of 48 million people and one of 5 million or 6 million people scattered over a large area is not adequate to address per capita spending? Should not the needs of a scattered community, rather than that false comparison, be borne constantly in mind?
    Mr. Forsyth: I certainly agree that it is important to take account of needs and the range of services. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for local government, the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), has undertaken a study to find out why local government in Scotland spends about 45 per cent. more per head than local government in England. It will be interesting to see where the resources are going.
    At present, our funding is determined by a formula, and not as a result of any needs assessment. The point that I was making to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) was that setting up a Scottish Parliament would undoubtedly result in pressure from this House for some proper needs-based assessment of expenditure in Scotland. My advice to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) is that we should leave things as they are and not risk the changes that would result from the setting up of such a wind machine in Edinburgh.

    Scottish Economic Council
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the Scottish Economic Council to discuss trends in the Scottish economy. [30081]
    Mr. Kynoch: On Friday 21 June.
    Mr. Salmond: Has the Minister responsible for industry taken account of the comments of the president of the Scottish National Farmers Union yesterday and of the CBI today about the economic damage that could be done if the Government's beef war gets out of hand? Has the Secretary of State succeeded in persuading the rest of the Cabinet to adopt the same infantile attitude to Europe as he adopts? He has hardly succeeded in persuading the Scottish people, who have dumped the Tory party back to 12 per cent., as an opinion poll will show tomorrow. How many of the 70,000 jobs in Scotland that depend on European markets, the 50,000 that depend on inward investment and the 20,000 that depend on European tourism is the Minister prepared to jeopardise in pursuit of the Secretary of State's insulting and aggressive attitude to our European customers?
    Mr. Kynoch: That is choice, coming from the hon. Gentleman, whose party seems intent on incorporating a European star even in its logo. He will be well aware of the significant impact that the unjustified and unscientific ban is having on north-east Scotland especially—on his constituents and mine. I have been in constant contact with my farming community, and my farmers are behind the Government's efforts to have the ban lifted. They want the market opened and confidence restored. They appreciate the moves that the Government have made. If the hon. Gentleman spent a little less time canoodling with his European partners and got his colleague, the Member of the European Parliament for Scotland North East, to fight on behalf of north-east Scotland's farmers, the farming community would be a lot better off.
    Mr. Stewart: When he meets the Scottish Economic Council, will my hon. Friend discuss the impact of removing the present controls on business rates, as proposed by the Labour party? Business rates are an overhead for every company in Scotland. Would not such a policy be disastrous for investment and jobs?
    Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is very experienced in such matters and knows perfectly well that business pleaded for many years for a level playing field on non-domestic rates. He will also be aware that the new chairman of the Glasgow chamber of commerce has said that it would be utter folly to return business rates to local government control. That would be a back-door increase in business taxation on top of a tartan tax, with its effects on Scottish business, and on top of the effect of the social chapter, the minimum wage, the teenage tax, the graduate tax and all the other proposals for increased taxation that would reduce the competitiveness of Scottish business if the Labour party ever took office.
    Dr. Reid: The Minister is an expert on lecturing people about tax. Will he confirm that the extra taxes that the Government have inflicted on the Scottish people in the
    604
    past two years have been equal to 7p in the pound? Working on the figures given only a few minutes ago by the Secretary of State showing that each penny of that represents £130 million in income, will he confirm that the Government now receive £910 million a year more from the Scottish people than they did two years ago? Why are services being cut and the fabric of society being destroyed if the Government are taking almost £1,000 million more from the Scottish people for that privilege?
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman and his party talk about tax increases. They credit the Government with a tax increase that has been applied largely by the Labour party—this year's increase in council tax. The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand that central Government have increased funding to local government by 3.6 per cent., which is well in excess of inflation. He also does not understand the fact that Labour councils have increased council tax by an average of 13 per cent. —and sometimes much higher—which has had a damaging effect on services.
    The Conservative party believes in trying to get value for money for the taxpayer, and so to increase competitiveness and attract more inward investment to areas such as his. Companies such as the Chunghwa Picture Tube Company, of which the hon. Gentleman is well aware, would not come to Scotland if they had to pay the increased taxation that is proposed by the Labour party.

    Social Work Services/(Borders)
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the financial constraints in the provision of social work services in the Scottish borders; and if he will make a statement. [30082]
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Scottish Borders council has been allocated substantial resources to meet the broad range of its social work responsibilities. In 1996–97, the council has £18.5 million in grant aided expenditure to social work—an increase of 2.5 per cent. on the previous year's allocation.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept, however, that the money allocated to the social work department of Scottish Borders council is inadequate to meet present need and demand? Is he aware that the externalisation of domestic care services, the reassessment of eligibility criteria and the increased charges for such services as Border care alarm are causing great heartache and concern and impacting badly on those most in need of help in south-east Scotland? Will he look again at the amount of money that is made available to the social work department of Scottish Borders council? Will he consider visiting my constituency to see just how difficult it is to make those savings in terms of the exercise that is now in hand and the potential damage that will occur unless the council can find more resources with which to do the job?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am happy to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Scottish Borders council has been allocated more than £14.5 million for its community care responsibilities in 1996–97—an increase of £0.5 million on the previous year. It is for local

    605
    authorities to choose their own priorities within the overall allocation. We believe that they should encourage the development of services appropriate to the particular needs of all the areas concerned.
    Mr. Donohoe: Does the Minister accept that, if more resources had been made available to the social services, Maguire would not have been in a position to commit his crime because there would have been sufficient resources to address the problem? Should not the Minister and the Secretary of State accept some responsibility for the actions of Maguire and the murder of that young girl in Kilmarnock?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer is no. What happened in that particular case has absolutely nothing to do with social work expenditure. It concerns the circumstances that were before the court. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it quite clear that repeat sex offenders who carry out extremely dangerous acts should expect a life sentence once our proposed legislation becomes law.

    Public Spending
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of public spending in Scotland is represented by taxation revenues for that country; and if he will make a statement. [30083]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Excluding the revenues from North sea oil, the proportion of public spending in Scotland represented by taxation revenue from Scotland is 72 per cent.
    Mr. Winterton: As an English Member of the United Kingdom Parliament, I am perfectly happy that the people of Scotland should receive from the United Kingdom Exchequer £8.1 billion more in spending than they contribute in taxation, because of the great benefits that the Union brings to all the people of the United Kingdom. If there were to be a separate Parliament in Scotland with tax-raising powers, is it not inevitable that the influence of Scottish Members of Parliament in this place would be devalued and reduced, and the benefit that Scotland and its people get from being a member of the United Kingdom would be undermined and dramatically reduced to their disadvantage?
    Mr. Forsyth: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He is quite right to say that expenditure in Scotland is £8.1 billion greater than revenues. Even if we include all the proceeds from North sea oil, the deficit is £7 billion. The Union is greater than the sum of its parts. We welcome the resources that Scotland receives from the United Kingdom, just as we welcome the partnership that we have with my hon. Friend and his constituents.
    It is incumbent upon the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to work out their position on the matter. They must decide whether they agree with their Liberal Democrat partners in the Constitutional Convention, who say that there would have to be a reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament. They must decide whether they agree with the Liberal Democrats' assertion that the office of Secretary of State and Scotland's place in Cabinet would go.
    606
    We need answers to those questions because, as my hon. Friend said, the ability to argue Scotland's case in Cabinet and in this Chamber is central to the provision of resources for vital services. That is what Parliament is about, and the hon. Member for Hamilton is putting those services at risk by his foolish proposal that is more to do with his party's advantage than his country's interests.
    Mr. Graham: The Secretary of State will be aware that people in Scotland pay taxes. Can I remind hon. Members that they are lounging on leather seats that were produced in my constituency by the Bridge of Weir leather tannery? The workers there make a tremendous contribution to this country through taxes, and they need support from the Government. They may lose their jobs because of the Government's mad, stupid and aggressive policies in Europe. It is time that the Government realised that some of the statements that they are now making could cost thousands of jobs throughout the country. It is time that they acted responsibly and did their business for the whole of Scotland.
    Mr. Forsyth: I think that I got the gist of the hon. Gentleman's question. The leather makers in his constituency are in a competitive business, as he knows. If they were ever unfortunate enough to get a Labour Government who set up a Parliament with tax-raising powers, their costs would increase, their marketing would be more difficult and jobs would be destroyed in that industry and many others in Scotland.

    Nursing and Residential Homes
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to modify the regulations governing the ownership and management of privately owned nursing and residential homes for elderly people. [30084]
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Legislation covering the registration and inspection of residential care and nursing homes is presently under review.
    Dr. Godman: Has the unseemly delay in the publication of the report of the working group into this deeply troubling matter been orchestrated by those members of the group who represent the owners of private residential and nursing homes? Following Glen Glova and other scandals, no GP, lawyer or accountant should be allowed to own and/or manage a private home for the elderly. That scandal must be put to rest, and the report ought to see the light of day sooner rather than later.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can happily assure the hon. Gentleman that the report should be available to Ministers in three weeks' time, and I will come forward with our final recommendations for action with all possible speed. In the debate this morning, I outlined our likely response to some of the points under consideration.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned Glen Glova. Quite properly, the working group has been considering the issue and the conflicts that arise from the registered person also being a resident's medical practitioner. It has also considered the assessment of persons with dementia by qualified persons who are independent of the proprietorship of the establishment. We will come forward with recommendations as soon as possible.

    Education Budgets
    Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives from school boards to discuss local government education budgets. [30085]
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: My right hon. Friend last met representatives of the Scottish School Board Association on 1 April, but local government education budgets were not among the topics they asked to be put on the agenda.
    Mrs. Michie: I think that the Minister should meet those representatives again soon, because school boards throughout Scotland, and particularly in my constituency, are struggling with budget cuts that mean that ordinary
    608
    things such as the cleaning of windows and taking children to swimming pools cannot be done. In particular, will he meet school boards in Argyll and Bute, and that of Oban high school, where the building project that was supported by the Scottish Office has come to a dead halt? If he does not address those cuts in education, I believe that, very soon, everyone will say that local government reform has been an unmitigated disaster.
    Mr. Robertson: The hon. Lady talks about cuts, but in setting its budget, Argyll and Bute council has been able to increase its expenditure on services this year by £5.1 million, or almost 5 per cent. above the level that the former regional and district councils budgeted to spend last year. Therefore, although the hon. Lady is quite right to ask certain questions, she is asking the wrong person. She should ask her council what it is doing with the increased resources that are available to it.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I refer you to the 21st edition of "Erskine May", page 291, and the responsibilities for questions? The basic issue is that it is the duty of Ministers to answer questions on matters of ministerial responsibility. It is not the duty of Ministers, if one reads from "Erskine May" aright, to bring in all sorts of extraneous, tendentious matters to the answering questions, which actually demeans the House of Commons.
It is also relevant to mention that yesterday there was a Scottish debate. There were points of order that may have been brought to your attention, which have resulted in a serious letter to Sir Russell Hillhouse asking about the role of the civil service in preparing matters of a tendentious nature when introducing a Bill. Could I ask you, as Speaker, to reflect on the various submissions that have been made, and possibly to make a statement in your good time?
Madam Speaker: I will certainly look at the latter point that the hon. Gentleman has raised with me as soon as I can.
On his first point, I recognise that, over many years, Question Time has developed into a lively occasion, on which political points are scored. Of course, the primary purpose of Question Time is to hold the Executive to account. "Erskine May" says:
"Questions …should relate to the public affairs with which they"—
Ministers—
"are officially connected, to proceedings pending in Parliament, or to matters of administration for which they are responsible."
That is on page 285 if hon. Members would like to study it further.
Elsewhere, "Erskine May" says—it for the benefit of those Members who put questions—
"The purpose of a question is to obtain information or press for action … it should not be in effect a short speech."
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Members on all sides of the House are guilty of that. That quote appears on page 287.
As to answers and supplementary questions, I quote from page 295:
"An answer should be confined to the points contained in the question, with such explanation only as renders the answer intelligible, though a certain latitude is permitted to Ministers".
I ask the House to take my words seriously and to look at those sections of "Erskine May", so that all Government Departments will know my feelings about this matter and all Back Benchers will know that I feel that their questions are becoming long speeches. They should ask pertinent, brisk questions.
Mr. David Harris: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In contrast to the last point of order, I wonder whether I might raise with you a point of order about something that has affected the fabric of the House rather than its procedures. Some of us, when we went through the No Lobby—I appreciate that you may be unfamiliar, in the normal course of your day's events, with voting—
Madam Speaker: I spent a lot of my life going through the No Lobby.
Mr. Harris: But not last night, Madam Speaker.
Many of us were surprised, and not a little dismayed, to find what can only be described as a memorial to Nancy Astor in the No Lobby—
Lady Olga Maitland: Hideous.
Mr. Harris: As my hon. Friend says, it is hideous. I think that is a fair description of that memorial in the No Lobby, which has appeared apparently during the recess. I do not know whether you were consulted about this, but I wonder whether you would make inquiries about who authorised the erection of that memorial to Nancy Astor.
In raising this point of order, you will understand, I in no way detract from her achievement in becoming the first lady Member of the House to take her seat in the House—not to be elected: to take her seat—and one acknowledges that achievement, but I would put it to you that the No Lobby is a very inappropriate place for such a memorial, on two grounds.
First, quite apart from the aesthetic taste of that memorial, it is in the wrong position. If a memorial is to be erected, surely it should be where visitors to the House usually see it, apart from conducted tours. Secondly, I really do not think that we want the Lobbies of the House turned into a pale imitation of some of the aisles of Westminster abbey across the road, which are mausoleums with all sorts of memorials sprouting to all sorts of people.
I wonder whether you would kindly look at the matter as perhaps our landlord—or, indeed, our landlady—in this place. Would you use your influence to move it to a more appropriate setting?
Madam Speaker: The responsibility no doubt rests with me. I will certainly look into the matter. As far as I can recall, the bust of Lady Astor was commissioned by her family. The Works of Art Committee of the House determined where it should be put—in the No Lobby. The hon. Gentleman is quite incorrect when he says that the visitors do not see it. It is the No Lobby that visitors go through each morning before the House is open.
However, I take seriously the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, who does not normally raise frivolous points of order, and this is not a frivolous one. I will speak with those who are concerned about these matters to see what we can do, since it obviously offends some Members of the House.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: Further to that point of order—
Madam Speaker: No; there can be no further points of order. I can only deal with it in the way that I have been asked to do by the hon. Gentleman. It is my responsibility; I will now deal with it.
Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier today, you made a statement on questions, and of course we shall all be able to read your remarks in Hansard tomorrow. Might it not be a good idea to have printed, along with your remarks, the sections in Erskine May to which you referred, so that Members would have them readily to hand?
Madam Speaker: I will look at the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I gave the page references, but if I can be more helpful, I will certainly do so.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Administration Committee gets the blame for moving Annie's Bar, and when some drunken journalists were a bit worried about that, they maligned hon. Members of the House. I would like to place it on record, as in a previous point of order, that that had nothing to do with the Admin Committee. I understand that the Arts Committee is an advisory committee.
Madam Speaker: That was not a genuine point of order. Of course the Administration Committee has nothing to do with it. I gave my word to the House that I am always finally responsible, and I will deal with the matter.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a different point of order. It concerns the principle behind decisions such as that to put up what I think is a very good plaque—and it must be put somewhere. How is the House to be consulted about such decisions? I do not think that the House was aware that it was going to happen.
Madam Speaker: The House should have been aware that it was going to happen, because various hon. Members on both sides of the House sit on the Committees of the House. That is how the responsibility filters through.

Choice of Schools
3.39 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish in England a system for administering school admissions similar to that for administering university admissions so as to provide an independent and coordinated method for parents and guardians to choose nursery, primary and secondary schools for their children, and to appeal against any refusal of admission to schools; and for connected purposes.
I hope that this is a slightly less controversial matter. My Bill would establish in England a system of dealing with school admissions which, put simply, would be similar to that currently used for university admissions. It would relate to applications for nursery, primary and secondary schools. It would also deal with one point relating to appeals against refusal of admission.
So that nobody thinks that this Bill has other matters hidden behind it, I can tell the House that it would not create more selective schools or fewer selective schools, and it would not abolish existing selective schools or change the status of grant-maintained schools or city technology colleges. The Bill would not reduce or increase choice, and would not reverse the Greenwich judgments. It would not even ensure that hon. Members followed party policy when choosing schools for their families. Those are all perfectly proper matters for consideration, and I have strong views about all of them, but they are matters for another occasion.
The Bill also would not take away the greatly valued power that each school has within the law of establishing the criteria for its own admissions. It also would deal with a severe problem that arises under the current system. I hope that it would produce a system that worked better and which would be more honest, as well as producing fairer, better and speedier results.
There are four interrelated problems. First, many parents and children often fix their sights on one school and believe that by applying, pushing, hoping and praying, they will get in. Sometimes, too late, they realise that they cannot gain admission to that school, and that any other school they might have wanted has filled its roll.
Secondly, the administration for dealing with school applications is something that many parents find difficult because it is so inconsistent. For example, when parents in my borough make an application to a school—it may be the school of which I am the chair of governors—they will be advised by the head teacher to make applications to other schools. They might not do so, or they might do so later. There will be different dates for applications to different schools, and there will be different forms in the different schools. There will be different criteria, and some may interview. It is a nightmare for parents to get round the circuit, even if they want to go round the circuit at all.
Thirdly—this is perhaps the most serious issue—many parents, head teachers and staff arrive at the end of the summer term with several children having nowhere to go. I have been to many school-leaving events at which the head teacher has said in formal remarks, "Mr. Hughes, please help us, because we still have three 11-year-olds without a place." Nothing is more depressing for those children or their parents as they are leaving their primary school than to be surrounded by others who all have somewhere to go. That is in addition to children who have had an offer with which they are not happy. I will also deal with that.

613
Fourthly, in some schools there is no guaranteed independent appeals system. I see the Under—Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on the Treasury Bench, and I am grateful to her for attending. In answer to a written question about the proportion of primary and secondary school children in England who gained admission to their school of first choice in 1994–95, she said—I accept the theory—
"This information is not collected centrally. Surveys commissioned by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities in 1992 and by The Times in 1993 suggested that some 90 per cent. of parents gained a place at their first choice school." — [Official Report, 20 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 221.]
I am not in a position to quibble with those figures, but if that is right, then 10 per cent. are unhappy and, if that is the national average, then in some parts of the country, the number of those who do not gain admission to their first choice school will be much greater.
From my experience—I have spoken to colleagues on both sides of the House—in London and other urban areas where people may live near local authority boundaries and where many cross-boundary issues may arise, considerably more than 10 per cent. do not get into the school of their first choice. That does not mean, of course, that that 10 per cent. obtain a place at the school of their second choice. They may not obtain a place at the school of their second, third or fourth choice, and that problem raises big questions.
At this time of the year, this issue is probably the second most common problem raised at my surgeries. This morning, I signed 10 letters to schools on behalf of parents in my constituency. Heads have raised the issue with me every year since I was elected. I checked last might with the head teacher of the school for which I am chair of the governors—St. James's Church of England primary school in Bermondsey. Mrs. Robinson, the head, said—I am using her words—that the current system is awful, far worse at the secondary stage, a nightmare and a system gone potty. That is the opinion of a senior primary school head who knows the system well.
Our school has a good system, and we interview all the parents, and also explain that they should apply to other schools. Even so, at the end of the final year in primary school, many children do not have a place. I accept that part of the problem may arise because parents fail to understand that they have to exercise a choice, but it is untrue to say—and we should be honest with people—that there is a freedom of choice of school. That is not true in this country. There is only a freedom of choice of a school if supply is greater than demand at that school, and the children meet its criteria. Parents can choose a school, but they may not get the school of their choice. We should be honest, as we are with people who apply to universities. Applicants make a list, and they may get their first, second or third choice, or they may not.
The present system does not serve children, parents or schools well. In collaboration with colleagues on both sides of the House, we should consider a system for all publicly funded nursery, primary and secondary schools, whatever their status and whether they are local authority schools or church schools, grant-maintained schools or CTCs. The system should have a standard form, with, say,
614
five choices, which parents must submit by a certain date, fixed in advance. The scheme would be administered centrally, or locally by local authorities—the location is not important—and parents would be allowed to hold only one place. Some children are not offered places because other parents hold places that they never intend their children to take.
The criteria for admission would be given to parents from the start, as for university admission, and a clearing system would operate at the end. That would allow the system to work across local authorities, because parents might want to apply to three schools in their borough and two in other boroughs, or to some local authority schools and some Church schools.
The system would establish a common starting time, and each of the choices could be dealt with in turn, so that the clearing system could start in July. Parents would also be offered counselling and support. We must deal with the differing standard of application forms, because some have adequate information and some do not—I have checked with heads and staff that that is so—and we must try for the best practice.
I stand to be corrected, but I believe that only city technology colleges have no independent right of appeal on admission decisions. I am trying to persuade the city technology college in my constituency—Bacon's Church of England CTC—to introduce an independent right of appeal. One of the Minister's predecessors nearly conceded that such a right should be enshrined in legislation. It is important for parents who do not get a place for their children at the school of their choice to know that somebody entirely independent adjudicates on the decision. One secondary school in my constituency has a waiting list of 180, and the competition for places in some schools is very fierce.
Little can be more sad, more unfair or more undermining for 11-year-old youngsters, their parents and the parents of five-year-olds than not to obtain a place at the school of their choice, to which their mates and their peer group are going. It is most oppressive if, at the end of the last year before school admission, children do not have a place at any school at all. I hope that the House finds the Bill acceptable, and that I may be given leave to introduce it.
3.49 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes rose—
Madam Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman seek to oppose the Bill?
Mr. Hughes: Yes, Madam Speaker.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has elucidated a serious problem, of which no hon. Member can be unaware because we encounter it in our lives and in those of our children—and, as the hon. Gentleman said, in our advice bureaux, where we encounter the enormous pressure and heartbreak of those who attend.
The hon. Gentleman's idea is a Liberal party one, which sounds better the less one examines it. How could it possibly be an advantage to nationalise the appeal system? What would be achieved by that? How could a national body lay down criteria that would help in his constituency or in mine?

615
One of the problems about first schools in my constituency is the priority roads scheme. It is difficult for the local authority to solve such problems, and I am not attacking it, but, if Harrow council cannot get the priority roads scheme right in Pinner, how could a national body do it? Getting that right is the solution to the problem of overcrowding in some of the schools in my constituency.
The hon. Member said that he did not mind whether the system was administered locally or nationally, but how could it possibly make rules that would be suitable for the very different areas that hon. Members represent? The hon. Gentleman's motion contains the word "independent". That sounds good, but increased independence for the appeals system can have real meaning only in the context of its effect on an individual over-subscribed school.
There is an independent appeals system, certainly in the borough of Harrow, and no doubt in the borough of Southwark. But the problems that the hon. Gentleman mentioned related to the inadequacies of the system that is run by Southwark. Southwark should put that right, and not a word he said about changing the framework of the structure would be solve any of those problems. It has to be done much more locally. The Bill is a curious policy move by a party that pays lip service to local autonomy. There is no doubt that the proposed legislation would be costly, bureaucratic and unworkable in practice.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey spoke about choice, so let us examine what the Liberal party means by that. Its education spokesman, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who is in his place, wants to remove the right of parents to choose religious grant-aided schools.
Mr. Don Foster: No.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman says no in the Chamber, but he says yes outside. As usual, the Liberals are trying to have it both ways.
They want to remove powers from schools and give them to councils, but I would prefer the powers to stay with the schools. They want to remove the right to choose grant-maintained schools, and they are firmly against city technology colleges. However, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey speaks with pride about the CTC in his constituency. Liberal Members must decide whether they are in favour of them or against them. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can take the same view locally as his party takes nationally.
Liberals want to destroy the choice that is provided to poorer families by the assisted places scheme. They have made a specific pledge to take that away, despite the effect that that would have on the 80 per cent. of recipient families on lower than average incomes.
Perhaps Labour Members support the Bill. We all know about Labour and choice. I have a list running to two pages of Labour spokesmen who know all about choice for their own children but do not seem to know much about choice for anybody else. I support those Labour spokesmen who have done the best for their children and have made choices—whether of public, independent, grant-maintained or grammar schools or schools on the other side of London or in any other conurbation.
I support what they are doing, because they are doing the right thing as parents, and they should be protected from the wrath of members of the real Labour party who
616
have ganged up on them and said the nastiest things possible. [Interruption.] Oh—they have not? Well I could, of course, if I had time, list the two pages of quotes from Labour Members and, indeed, councils run by the Labour party, against those Members.
My criticism is with the policy. Because Labour Members know all about choice for their own children, understand the value of choice and wish to exercise that right as parents, how can they possibly support policies that would take that choice away from their constituents? How can they do that when they know that it is something they want to exercise for themselves?
Perhaps the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), the Opposition spokesman on education, summed it up when he said:
"I am having no truck with middle class left-wing parents who preach one thing, and send their children to another school outside the area."
I know the effect that that has had on parents in west London, where I live, who wish to send their children to the London Oratory school—a linked school. Parents in west London are extremely angry that people from the other side of London have made it a popular school and managed to send their children there, denying the opportunity for local parents to do the same. That is a fact. It is also a fact that local Labour Members of Parliament have not lifted a finger to help those parents.
Perhaps it was also summed up by one of the Labour "luvvies" with whom I had the pleasure of having lunch a few years ago—a prominent supporter of the Labour party, who wanted all the choice, all the public schools, swept away. When I said, "But didn't you send your children to public school?" I was told, "We would have sent our children to school in Switzerland, so it would have been all right for us." That is the reality of Labour Members: choice for themselves but not for other people.
The Labour party, if it chose to support the Bill, would have to explain its record in power, a period when it had a very bad effect on education, supported as it was by the Liberals. When Labour and the Liberals were in power, spending on education fell by £1.6 billion. Spending as a percentage of gross domestic product fell by one percentage point. Spending on universities fell by 12.6 per cent. in real terms. The number of full-time students in higher education fell, and teachers' pay rose by only 6 per cent. in real terms—a fifth of the rise under my party in power.
That is Labour and the Liberals on education: not a candy-floss pretence that they want choice. What they mean is "choice for us, but none for other people." If hon. Members want choice, they will reject the Bill, and vote for the Conservatives to give them choice in education.
I oppose the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided:Ayes 34, Noes 40.

Division No. 136]

[3.58 pm

AYES

Alton, David

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Beggs, Roy

Chidgey, David

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Cohen, Harry

617

Dafis, Cynog

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Dalyell, Tam

Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

Davies, Chris Littleborough

Rendel, David

Flynn, Paul

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Skinner, Dennis

Harvey, Nick

Smyth, The Reverend Martin

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Tyler, Paul

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Wallace, James

Lewis, Terry

Llwyd, Elfyn

Tellers for the Ayes:

McCrea, The Reverend William

Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

Maddock, Diana

Ms Liz Lynne.

NOES

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Body, Sir Richard

Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

Booth, Hartley

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Leigh, Edward

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Carttiss, Michael

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Cash, William

Neubert, Sir Michael

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Duncan Smith, Iain

Pawsey, James

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Porter, David (Waveney)

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Riddick, Graham

Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Fry, Sir Peter

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Gallie, Phil

Stewart, Allan

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Sweeney, Walter

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Hampson, Dr Keith

Whittingdale, John

Harris, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Tellers for the Noes:

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Lady Olga Maitland and

Hunter, Andrew

Mr. Bob Dunn.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day

  Housing Benefit
  4.8 pm
  Mr. Keith Bradley: I beg to move,
  That the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 965), dated 28th March 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd April, be revoked.
  There are two main provisions in the regulations, both of which could have a devastating effect on young people's ability to live in safe, sound and affordable rented accommodation. They may be summarised as follows. First, the regulations laid before Parliament on 2 April 1996 restrict housing benefit payments for single people under the age of 25. To be specific, that involves restricting full housing benefits payable to single people under the age of 25 to the average cost of shared housing—known as the single room rent—in any given locality. Local authority and housing association accommodation is exempt from the restrictions.
  The proposals will severely affect all new and change of address claims made on or after 7 October 1996, and existing claims assessed under arrangements since 2 January 1996, from the first benefit review date on or after 7 October 1996. The single room rent will become the maximum limit for housing benefit payable to a young single person. It will be determined by rent officers as the average cost of shared accommodation in the local area. Local authorities will have the discretion to pay rents above the single room rent in cases of "exceptional hardship", but the subsidy available will be subject to an overall cash limit determined by central Government.
  Some groups of people will be exempt from the proposed restrictions. Following the consultation exercise after the original draft regulations were laid, two further groups of people have been included in the exempt list—first, some care leavers, but not including care leavers in Scotland, and in any case only young people subject to care orders, and even then only until their 22nd birthdays; secondly, all young people living in housing association properties.
  The second key component of the regulations is the changes in payment arrangements for housing benefit for all new claims from 7 October 1996. Those changes will mean, first, the shifting from payment of benefit in advance to payment in arrears; secondly, that direct payments to landlords will be paid four-weekly or monthly; thirdly, that local authorities will have discretion to make first payments of benefit payable directly to the landlord. We believe that all those changes will add considerably to the problems faced by young people seeking rented accommodation.
  Let us consider the two sets of proposals before us. First, there is the ceiling for single people under 25 years of age. The proposals in the regulations to restrict benefit rights have to be seen against the background of the severe restrictions on housing benefit entitlement in the private rented sector that have already been in effect from January 1996.
  Those draconian measures include a mandatory limit on benefit levels based on a comparison with average rents for the type of accommodation and known as the

  619
  local reference rents; a removal of the previously existing protection from benefit restrictions for vulnerable groups such as the disabled, the elderly and families with children; and a very narrow cash-limited discretionary power for local authorities to pay higher levels of benefit in cases of exceptional hardship.
  The result is that many people making claims since January 1996 have found that their housing benefit entitlement falls far short of the rents they have to pay. There is already evidence that that is causing severe hardship and leading to many people losing their homes.
  The further restrictions on housing benefits for single people under 25 must be seen and judged against the background of the changes that have already been introduced.
  How do the Government attempt to justify these further changes? From their statements, they seem to be making several arguments. First, they claim that the number of young people living independently has grown over the past 15 years and is projected to continue to grow. Secondly, they claim that young people who live independently expect to live in accommodation at the cheaper end of the market—usually in bed-sits, or in rooms in shared accommodation. Thirdly, they claim that most young people have comparatively low incomes, and that housing benefit should not assist young people to meet rents for larger accommodation, as that would act as a disincentive to find work and to come off benefit. Fourthly, they seem to argue that housing benefit should not act as an incentive for young people to leave the parental home.
  I think that it is worth considering each of those contentions. First, absolutely no evidence has been presented to support the Government's contention that most young people living independently are not in self-contained accommodation, or that young people on housing benefit are any more or less likely to take on unnecessarily large or expensive accommodation. Although the Government estimate that 144,000 out of the 177,000 young people on housing benefit in the private sector will suffer benefit cuts from these measures, no evidence has been presented to support the view that those young people are occupying overly large accommodation. I should be grateful if the Minister will today present the House with the evidence on which that contention is based.
  Secondly, the Government's case that young people have lower incomes is certainly true in respect of those who are claiming benefit. Since the introduction of income support in 1988, single people under the age of 25 have been paid at a lower rate of income support—amounting to a shortfall of about £10 a week—with a correspondingly lower level of housing benefit for those not on income support. So there is already a financial imperative for single people under 25 to occupy accommodation at the cheaper end of the market.
  Under these proposals, many young people will suffer the double disadvantage of a cut in their housing benefit, leaving potentially large rent payments to be made up out of an already reduced income support level. As the Government's Social Security Advisory Committee commented in its report on the draft regulations, that situation could lead to young people being
  "harassed by landlords because of rent arrears, leading to possible eviction and homelessness."
  The Social Security Advisory Committee also registered its concern at the lack of any evidence about the living situation of young people to back up these cuts, and about
  620
  the perceived use by young people of housing benefit to pay for unnecessarily expensive accommodation. The Government have not cited any such evidence, and I again call on the Minister to put before the House today the evidence on which that contention is based.
  Thirdly, the Government's concern that housing benefit should not act as an encouragement to young people to leave home, and that it should not enable them to take accommodation that their contemporaries not on benefit would not be able to afford, is of central importance in these changes. Again, however, no evidence has been presented to support either of those concerns. The regulations seem to be based on the view, first, that young people under 25 ought to live with their parents, and, secondly, that such young people should not live in self-contained accommodation.
  In response to those views, the Social Security Advisory Committee commented:
  "young adults have the same general preference for independent living and self-contained accommodation as the rest of the population."
  The Government have clearly encouraged that for owner-occupiers, 850,000 of whom are now young people under 25.
  The Social Security Advisory Committee also concluded:
  "We consider that the proposal is unlikely to have any significant impact on persuading young people to remain with their parents. If it does succeed to any extent it will make people less mobile 2026 Many have legitimate reasons for leaving the parental home, while many do not have the choice to return to one."
  We support those conclusions, and we further believe that the restrictions on benefit levels are likely to make it harder for young people who need or choose to live independently to find affordable accommodation, and to act as a disincentive for those who do not have accommodation to risk moving for work or for other reasons.
  The Government have said that they are concerned about incentives to take work, but the restrictions are likely to act as a strong disincentive for young people, especially those on benefit since January 1996 and so protected from these changes, to change their circumstances by taking work or moving to find work, for fear of not being able to afford the rent if they subsequently have to claim benefit again.
  Surely the Government should be encouraging young people to take jobs and look for job opportunities rather than establishing in the proposals a further barrier in the benefit system to their moving to seek the work they so desperately need. Will the Minister explain why the proposals have been set up so as to provide a further barrier to job opportunities?
  Imposing a new ceiling on housing benefit for young people is likely to force them into poorer accommodation, always assuming that the supply of shared accommodation increases to make it available. Once again, the Social Security Advisory Committee commented on that contention:
  "There appears to be no firm foundation for the Department's assessment that the market for private rented accommodation is sufficiently flexible to respond positively to the new ceiling by providing more, inexpensive, shared accommodation."
  Again, we share that view. We share the concern that the response of landlords is likely to be to withdraw from providing accommodation for young people.

  621
  In addition, the proposals seem to fly in the face of the tremendous efforts across the country by local authorities—I pay tribute to my own in Manchester in this respect—which have vigorously tackled the wide range of problems associated with houses in multiple occupation. Authorities have been working with landlords and often forcing them to convert accommodation into single units, thus providing a decent supply of affordable, safe and sound accommodation for single people.
  The policy tries to reverse that trend, a view supported by the National Association of Estate Agents, which, in its response to the draft regulations, said:
  "It is also, in the opinion of a number of our members, going to create an impossible position as the availability of shared accommodation is on the decline as many landlords have over the past few years been busy converting these type of HMOs into self-contained units. As such, these units will command higher rentals and, therefore, any assessment based on bedsit accommodation with shared facilities made by rent officers will make it nigh impossible for the under 25s to rent this type of accommodation if it is not there to he had."
  Surely the Government should recognise the problem and seek to ensure a supply of affordable and safe accommodation for young people.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does that not show how the housing benefit system has distorted the accommodation available on the marketplace in terms of over-emphasis on quality? It is not right that young people should expect the taxpayer automatically to fund self-contained accommodation for them, come what may. Most citizens expect young people to look for jobs before they enjoy such luxuries.
  Mr. Bradley: It is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman suggests that quality accommodation should not be the norm. Presumably he wants low-grade accommodation and little provision of basic facilities for our young people. That view is not shared by many organisations that represent housing groups, or even estate agents, who perhaps should want taxpayers' money to be involved. Clearly the hon. Gentleman does not understand the conditions to be found in many houses in multiple occupation. Forcing young people to live in such conditions is quite scandalous.
  It is important to make four further crucial points. First, the Government claim that the changes will save £65 million a year, but they do not seem to have costed spending to deal with the subsequent rise in homelessness, and the further cost of administering the new regulations coupled with the changes that were made to the regulations in January. Will the Minister provide the net cost of those proposals, taking into account the factors that I have just identified?
  Secondly, I turn to discretionary payments to vulnerable people. The discretion to pay above single-room rent will be cash-limited. Local authorities simply cannot exercise discretion properly when they are expected to do so within the confines of a cash-limited budget. For example, a single person under the age of 25 who applies for a discretionary payment in, say, December of this year may be successful, but someone in identical circumstances who applies in, say, February next year could be unsuccessful, on the sole ground that the cash-limited budget has already been spent.
  622
  We have ample experience of the way in which people are treated unfairly under the social fund. People in identical circumstances are not receiving help when it is desperately needed. Will the Minister comment on the cash-limited budget for discretionary payments?
  Thirdly, I turn to exemptions. The Opposition believe that the safeguards built into the regulations are wholly inadequate. I should like to return, as I said I would, to care leavers. As I understand the regulations, only care leavers who have been subject to care orders under the Children Act 1989 will receive exemption from the proposals—but, even then, only until their 22nd birthday. Young people who are looked after voluntarily or following agreement with parents are not to be exempt from the changes for any period.
  In March 1994, of the 45,200 young people looked after by local authorities, 53 per cent., or 24,400, were subject to care orders, whereas 20,800, or 47 per cent., were accommodated but not subject to such care orders. The source of that information is the Children Act 1994. The trend is that the number of people accommodated but not subject to care orders makes up an increasing proportion of all young people in the care system.
  Scottish care leavers will have no such exemptions, as the Children Act applies only to England and Wales, and the regulations exempt only care leavers who are subject to an order under the Act. The Government have so far given no explanation of why care leavers in Scotland and the other group I have identified should be treated more harshly. Will the Minister confirm my interpretation of the regulations, and if it is correct, explain why it does not apply in the way I have described?
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: To supplement my hon. Friend's point, we have received representations from Glasgow Women's Aid, which is absolutely desperate about the matter, especially since Strathclyde region, which was extremely helpful, has been dismantled. I shall give the documents to the Government for their comment.
  Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing the point, and look forward to the Minister's response to the problem.
  Time is short, so I shall make my fourth point briefly. It relates to the Government's policy on non-dependant deductions, which seems contradictory to the regulations. I obtained figures from the Library that showed—it is complicated because of the different income bands—that, on average, there has been a 50 per cent. increase in the non-dependant deduction, but, at the same time, only about a 9 to 11 per cent. increase in the income band s to which the deduction applies.
  That would seem to encourage young people to leave the parental home because there is an imposition through the benefits system on non-dependants who remain within the family home, but the Government's stated rationale is to stop young people leaving the parental home. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain the apparent contradiction between the two policies—between non-dependant deductions and the proposals before the House.
  I turn now, briefly, to the other key changes to the housing benefit system in respect of future payments. Although it could be argued that the proposed changes are

  623
  merely technical and will not have a substantial effect, we believe that many claimants will be seriously disadvantaged.
  The Government's reason for the changes is primarily to avoid overpayments. Although that may occur, it is important to stress that housing benefits payments are made only two weeks in advance, so there is only limited scope for overpayments as a result of payments in advance. However, the negative effects on claimants of a shift to payments in arrears may well be serious.
  Most landlords require rent to be paid in advance. Therefore, it is reasonable that housing benefit should be paid in advance. At the start of a tenancy, claimants are often faced with demands for a deposit and a month's rent in advance. There is no provision in the benefits system for deposits, and only limited provision for loans for rent in advance from the social fund. If claimants have to wait longer for their first housing benefit payment, it will be even more difficult for claimants to gain tenancies, and landlords will become more reluctant to grant tenancies to housing benefit claimants. I would welcome the Minister's comments on that point.
  Many organisations are concerned about the shift to payment in arrears, coupling it with the shortfalls in rent caused by the January 1996 benefit cuts and the proposals in the Housing Bill to reduce the period of rent arrears that justifies a possession order from 13 weeks to merely eight weeks. That may cause great hardship and insecurity for families and single claimants in private rented accommodation.
  We believe that the draconian regulations to restrict housing benefit to single people under 25 further constitutes a form of age discrimination within the means-tested benefits system, and is likely to force young people into unsuitable housing and lead to an increase in youth homelessness.
  The Government have refused to accept the main recommendation of the Social Security Advisory Committee that
  "the proposal should not be implemented in its present form."
  We agree with that, and with the SSAC's devastating conclusion that
  "the consequence of the proposals could well be that some people dependant on benefits will face a choice between homelessness and living in accommodation of an unacceptably poor standard."
  That is why we prayed against the regulations, and that is why we will vote against them tonight.
  4.32 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): We now know that Labour's considered position is that the regulations are draconian and age discriminatory. The Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), has invited his hon. Friends to vote them down. I am disappointed to hear that, as the Opposition have made no alternative suggestion as to what should be done to restrain the growth in housing benefit or as to what the alternative possibilities in their minds might be.
  I have in mind the observation in The Times on 18 May, when the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) was reported to have
  624
  "emphasised his message to Shadow Cabinet colleagues that they must make no spending commitments before finding savings."
  If the regulations do not take effect, there will be costs, to which I shall return later, but we are debating whether they are appropriate measures in their own terms. I appreciate that that is what primarily concerns the House, but the country will be interested in the political point as to exactly what Labour's spending proposals are.
  There is a pressing need to tackle the rising costs of housing benefit and the abuse of public funds which, unhappily, has been associated with it. The housing benefit bill stands at more than £11 billion a year, and a significant part of that is spent needlessly and wastefully.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: The Minister expresses concern about the abuse of public funds. Does the Department of Social Security ever talk to the Department of the Environment? While his Department is proposing these measures, which will increase poverty, homelessness and unemployment—as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) so eloquently explained—the DOE is proposing nearly to double the amount of financial work that is to be exposed to competition. How will farming out the administration of housing benefit to private agencies assist the DSS in what ought to be its crusade to root out fraud? How will that assist the DSS in its duty to ensure that housing benefit is properly paid on time?
  Mr. Evans: I am interested in all those points, most of which do not arise from the regulations. However, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Departments do talk to each other, as he well appreciates. The measures to which he referred, which deal with the administration of housing benefit, are designed to promote efficiency and to save money.
  The hon. Member for Withington made some detailed points on two parts of the regulations. First, he referred to young persons under 25 years of age who are single and have no children. The Government considered what should be done, and the basis of our argument is fundamentally this: that single people under 25 without children and in employment are not normally in a position to afford expensive self-contained accommodation. They have not yet reached the point in their earnings career where they have made enough to justify such expenditure. Undoubtedly, the odd yuppie might be in a different position, but the vast majority of young people who are in work do not expect to rent separate accommodation. They muck in with their friends and share accommodation, as that is the ordinary thing to do.
  Under the housing benefit arrangements that applied previously, there was a perceived unfairness that an unemployed person on housing benefit would be treated in exactly the same way as someone who was very much older and who had different expectations. Our principal argument is that the previous arrangements were a disincentive and were unfair.
  Mr. Bradley: How many young people under 25 are in shared accommodation and how many are in single-unit accommodation?
  Mr. Evans: There is statistical evidence of one sort or another that gives a general impression of such a factor,

  625
  but this is a point of principle. The arrangements were wrong in principle and we do not believe that they should continue and, accordingly, the statutory instrument was laid.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: If there are no young people on housing benefit in self-contained accommodation at excessive rent levels, this modest measure is not likely to have the detrimental effect that Opposition Front Benchers anticipate. But if there are, the measure is necessary.
  In his response to my intervention, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley)—on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition—implied that every young person had a right to self-contained accommodation, whatever his means and circumstances and, if necessary, at public expense. How much would that cost?
  Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct on that second point, and that is the ineluctable logic of what has been contended for by those on the Opposition Front Bench. We do not believe that to be right and we do not believe that the taxpayer believes it to be right. I should make it clear that there are a large number in the category of people who are single, under 25 and childless, who are in receipt of housing benefit-according to the 1994 figures, there were 177,000 of them and the cost was just under £500 million. We are talking about a large sum, which was growing and which should be diminished, as the instrument provides.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the Minister tell us how many under-25s have mortgages on which they get mortgage tax relief? Will the next proposal from his Government be to withdraw that mortgage tax relief?
  Mr. Evans: I am interested in that statement; I wonder whether those on the Labour Front Bench will adopt it. Those who are paying mortgages are working and earning and they are entitled to the fruits of their prosperity. We are debating whether welfare payments are properly targeted by providing for under-25s who are unemployed self-contained accommodation that such people would not expect to afford if they were in work. That is the point of principle, and that is why we have introduced the measure.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: The Scottish National party opposes the measure in principle. I fear that the Minister is about to add an unfairness to an unfairness as he applies exemptions to young persons leaving care, given the different scheme and arrangements in Scotland. What will he do to rectify that anomaly?
  Mr. Evans: I shall come to those exemptions in order, but I can anticipate my remarks and offer some reassurance. We shall be laying amended regulations before the instrument comes into force, to deal with the Scottish position. I shall explain why that was necessary and why it has been done in that fashion. The hon. Gentleman's concern, which was also expressed by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who intervened on the hon. Member for Withington, is valid. It is important to get the arrangements for Scotland right, and I shall explain the difficulties in a moment.
  626
  Before I refer to the specific exemptions, I should like to complete my analysis of the principles behind the regulations. We do not anticipate that the type of accommodation that we are talking about will not be available. There is a fundamental point, which I am sure my hon. Friends believe in as a matter of principle—demand creates its own supply in a free market. The number of households in the independent private rented sector, which for the first time since 1919 the Government have deregulated and in which they have created opportunity, has increased significantly, by about 350,000, in the past six years. That is an extremely important achievement, and that market will continue to grow as long as the Government's policies continue.
  Mr. Frank Field: When the Secretary of State appeared before the Select Committee on Social Security, he doubted whether we have a free market in housing in some areas because of the size of the housing benefit bill.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the housing benefit bill and the payment of that benefit prior to the regulations had perverse effects occasionally, which contradicted a free market. As a simple, directly relevant example, if one was young, under 25, single and without children, one might as well have got a seaside flat in one of our coastal resorts. Such was one of the incentives until we introduced the regulations.
  I accept that, for all sorts of reasons other than the subject of today's debate—for example, planning controls and other policies involving rent arrangements—the housing market is not a perfect free market. We accept as a matter of principle, however, that a free market of the nature that we have will produce the supply talked about.
  Mr. Field: The Minister has just said that demand creates its own supply, but only if one has a free market. Surely the Minister has a duty to establish that free market if he believes that that philosophy will work.
  Mr. Evans: We have been steadily and successfully achieving that objective in the past 18 years, and will continue to do so. I do not suggest for a moment that the objective has been entirely accomplished, but we intend that it shall be.
  I should like to deal with the specific, necessary exemptions. It is not true to say that no consideration was given to young people who might need extra help. We have made a number of specific exemptions to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected from the change. It is important for the record that they should be spelt out. Persons needing care, support or supervision are wholly exempted, provided that their landlord is either a housing association, a registered charity or a voluntary organisation.
  Mr. Field: If we are trying to protect those coming from care, why are just those particular groups exempted? Do we fear that private landlords would be exploitative?
  Mr. Evans: I have indulged the hon. Gentleman several times, and each time he has simply moved on to the subject of my next paragraph. I shall explain this point at length, because the issue of people leaving care is extremely important. I shall explain it in two parts.

  627
  As the hon. Member for Withington pointed out, the instrument before us states at regulation 2(b):
  "who has ceased to be the subject of a care order pursuant to section 31(1)(a) of the Children Act 1989".
  Two points arise from that. The first and major point is that it does not apply in Scotland. Secondly, as the hon. Member for Withington said, it does not cover all those who have had contact with local authorities under the broader provisions of the Children Act 1989. The hon. Gentleman quoted figures, with which I respectfully agree. There is a wider category.
  I shall first discuss Scotland and then return to care orders. The problem in Scotland is that the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 introduced a very different regime from that appertaining in England for dealing with local authority powers over children, one of its aspects being that people who have been subject to courts and arrangements of that sort are dealt with similarly to those who have been taken into care in England for social reasons. There is no obvious easy way of drawing the line, and I am afraid that we were unable to achieve a happy resolution of the matter at the time when the regulations were laid, but work is continuing and I assure the House that we shall make provision for Scotland similar to that which is made for England, in time for the coming into effect of the regulations in the autumn.
  Unhappily, the matter is made more complicated by the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, passed by the present Parliament, which sweeps away the older arrangements of the 1968 Act in Scotland. Some parts of the 1995 Act are already in force, but as far as this instrument is concerned, the relevant parts are not yet in force, and I understand that they are not expected to come into force until April 1997. That is a matter of importance. We shall sort it out.
  Mr. Dalyell: Briefly, all I ask is that, in this consideration, specific reference be made to the concerns of Glasgow Women's Aid and Women's Aid throughout Scotland about legislation being amended, so that they can continue to be paid weekly. I shall give the Minister the papers. If he gives me the assurance, I shall not interrupt again.
  Mr. Evans: I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I shall carefully look into that matter. We propose to make provision specifically for Scotland as soon as we can, and in any event before 7 October.
  Mr. Welsh: I welcome the Minister's assurance and hope that he can deliver the goods when the time comes, but I am concerned that this situation arose in the first place. Why was it not noticed that Scotland was in a different position? Scottish Members of Parliament have a right to ask that, because we have specific legislation. Was it simply an oversight? Why did that situation arise?
  Mr. Evans: It was not an oversight—we do not overlook Scotland, but it is difficult to fit the pattern of the English and Scottish legislation together so that a convenient dividing line can be drawn, which achieves what we wish to achieve. We shall do what we can to sort that out, and we intend to lay regulations to amend the position for Scotland.
  A second issue, connected with the Scottish issue, is whether, in England, we have drawn the legislation too narrowly in respect of specific care orders. I have listened
  628
  to the representations made to the House this afternoon. Other representations have been made to us. I give an assurance that we shall go away and reconsider that aspect as well.
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe rose—
  Mr. Evans: I shall give way to deal with Northern Ireland as well, if I am asked to.
  Mr. Forsythe: What consultation has the Minister had with the social security people in Northern Ireland about this matter? As he knows, it is handled differently in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Evans: Northern Ireland is not directly comparable because it is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I shall convey the concerns expressed to him.
  I was dealing with the exemptions to the under-25 principle, which I have illustrated. The third one is that we have exempted registered housing association tenants. Persons who are living in a household where a death has occurred are exempt for 52 weeks, and persons who could afford their rent prior to claiming benefit are exempt for 13 weeks. By drawing the exemptions in that fashion, we are targeting those in need and making arrangements which, coupled with the subsidy to local authorities to make discretionary payments in exceptional hardship, will provide a satisfactory outcome. I do not accept the point made by the hon. Member for Withington about discretionary budgeting in the course of the year. It is for local authorities to operate that scheme.
  To summarise the first part of my speech, the changes for the under-25s will affect only single childless people who, basically, are seeking while on benefit to live beyond their means.
  Before dealing with the second topic, I should make it clear that we shall monitor the change carefully to see what impact it has upon the market as a whole, as well as looking at the effectiveness of the change in respect of young people's choice of accommodation.
  Mr. Frank Field: If it is shown during the monitoring that an increasing number of young people become homeless, what will the Minister do?
  Mr. Evans: That is the most hypothetical of hypothetical questions. I shall monitor the change carefully and we shall see what happens. Obviously, it would be of concern to everybody in the House if the adverse consequences mentioned by the hon. Gentleman were to occur, but let us see.
  I am conscious of the fact that, because I have given way, I have been speaking for longer than I had intended. I shall deal with the periodicity changes. Housing benefit is currently paid wholly or partly in advance at one, two or four-weekly intervals. It is normally sent to the claimant, who is then responsible for using it to pay his rent. In some circumstances, in order to protect the tenancy, the benefit is paid directly to the landlord, again normally in advance.
  In practice, what happens now—before the instrument has come into effect—is that rent tends to be paid two weeks in advance and two weeks in arrears because of the

  629
  timing of the administration. However, payment in advance is inherently unsafe. It allows changes in circumstances that affect benefit entitlement, such as earnings from employment, to be taken into account at a later stage than they should be. Sometimes that leads to underpayment of benefit, thereby temporarily disadvantaging the claimant until the correct entitlement is restored. I am sure that we do not want that.
  The serious concern for the Government in the context of the debate is that payment in advance sometimes leads to overpayment of benefit. Unfortunately, there are far too many overpayments—nearly £2 million in the private rented sector during 1994–95. Many of them are incurred quite innocently, but innocent or otherwise, I am sorry to say that it does not mean that recovery is not difficult.
  We estimate that overpayments total about £400 million a year, including a staggering £165 million due to claimant error in the private rented sector alone.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: The hon. Gentleman expressed concern that payment in advance is inherently unsafe. Has he considered that his policy could have been calculated to generate a culture of fraud? In future, paying housing benefit in arrears—four weeks later—will put young people particularly under great pressure to fail to conform to their contractual obligations, because landlords invariably seek payment in advance. Has the Minister considered that? Will he also consider for whom it is inherently unsafe? Has he considered the position of tenants on very low incomes, who will be placed in immense personal difficulty as a result of having somehow to find the money not only for the first four weeks' rent but for a deposit?
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman raised a variety of points. Perhaps the most striking is the statement that landlords always expect their rent in advance. That is a result of market distortion arising out of rent restriction controls. Until 1919, the invariable practice was for rent to be paid in arrears. In the old days, the rent collector came round at the end of the week, not at the beginning of the week before the tenant had even lived there for a day. The long history of rent restriction this century has diminished the number of properties in the private rented sector, and landlords left in the market have been able to take advantage of the circumstances—partly created by the payment of housing benefit—and to demand rent in advance. In that situation, a form of bidding by the landlords takes place, based on the fact that the state will always pay.
  We believe that there is a more appropriate way to help those faced with that situation, apart from removing the distortion in the market. Various rent deposit and guarantee schemes, run by local authorities and voluntary organisations, are springing up in different areas, and they are extremely successful. I have visited the scheme in Bristol and I was especially impressed that the guarantees are not usually called on, because all sides have played fair.
  There is a real fraud problem, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who chairs the Select Committee on Social Security, will be aware as a result of his report, to which the Government replied today. The purpose of payment in arrears is to remove one possibility for fraud.
  630
  The hon. Member for Withington quoted the Social Security Advisory Committee repeatedly: and that committee has said that it is legitimate for the Department, to aim to reduce overpayments of housing benefit, and that some overpayments would be avoided or reduced by the proposal to pay in arrears.
  The regulations will deal with another, smaller, fraud—the abuse of the first payment. Under the advance payment scheme, in some cases the claimant took the cheque, vanished, and never turned up at the landlord's property or paid the money over. Under the regulations, the cheque will be given to the claimant, because it is his benefit, but it will be made out in the name of the landlord, so that it can be used only for the purpose that Parliament intended. That was described by the SSAC as a sensible precaution, and I respectfully adopt it.
  I invite my hon. Friends to reject the motion. Considerable savings will result from the regulations. For payments to under-25s, in the first year, the saving will be £15 million; it will be £60 million in the second year; £65 million in the third year; and £65 million a year thereafter. The periodicity changes will save £105 million in the first year; £120 million in the second; £75 million in the third; and £25 million a year thereafter. That totals £120 million in the first year; £180 million in the second; £140 million in the third; and £90 million a year thereafter. The interesting political question to which the country and the House will want to know the answer is whether, if the hon. Member for Withington were to invite his hon. Friends to vote against the regulations, we would see another Labour spending commitment on top of some £470 million made at Question Time on 21 May.
  4.57
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Groups ranging from the Young Homelessness Group to the Government's Social Security Advisory Committee, the Small Landlord's Association and the National Association of Estate Agents oppose the regulations. The Minister said that the regulations are designed to deal with abuses, yet he cannot give any real explanation of those abuses and how they will be dealt with. In its report "Housing in England, 1994–95", which was published in April, the Central Statistical Office found no evidence of such abuse by young people under 25.
  The Government seem to think that housing benefit encourages young people to leave the family home and set up in luxurious apartments. There is no evidence for that. On the contrary, most young people who are forced into leaving home are not in a position to provide for themselves and they do not live in accommodation much different from that of others in their age group. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) said, thousands of under-25s buy their homes, and they have been encouraged to do so by the Government and by a system under which it is better to get mortgage interest tax relief than no benefit. They are to be penalised.
  There is no evidence of the kind of abuse that the Government say the regulations are designed to tackle. The real issue, which was admitted by the Minister, is tackling the rising cost of housing benefit. Who is responsible for that rise? The blame must be laid fairly and squarely at the door of the Government and Conservative Members. When the Government repealed the Rent Acts that regulated private rents, they knew that people would not be able to afford market rents.

  631
  In 1988, the then Secretary of State for the Environment, Nicholas Ridley, said that housing benefit would be available to help tenants who could not afford the full market rent. He said that that was the key component of the Government's policy, and that it would ensure that deregulation did not price lower-income households out of the market.
  As a result of the regulations, the housing benefit bill for the private rented sector will be about £4 billion a year and will accommodate a small fraction of the population. However, the bill for council housing will be £5.5 billion for a sector that is occupied by nearly a third of the population. The reason for the rise in housing benefit is clearly that private rents are high and because private landlords are able to demand them, but the public sector can produce housing at much lower cost.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The question seems simple. To hold down rents, we either have artificial rent controls and controls on what landlords can charge, or we set limits on what people should pay. The hon. Lady advocates state control of rents, but we simply say that we should limit what people should be expected to pay. If we do not do that, rents will continue to be forced up by the unlimited availability of housing benefit to pay the reference rent in particular areas. Reference levels have drifted up and up because they are underwritten by the state. Surely that must stop.
  Dr. Jones: That is correct, but the people who rely on housing benefit are not in a bargaining position. There is a shortage, despite what the Government say about the increase in houses available in the private rented sector. The number has increased, but largely as a result of the collapse in the home ownership market because of falling prices. There is still a shortage in relation to demand, and I predict that, if the home ownership market picks up, which the Government hope will happen, there will be a further collapse in the availability of rented houses, particularly for students. I could give much evidence of that in my constituency.
  Rents have been deregulated and gone up, councils are not able to build new homes, and vulnerable people are forced into the private sector. They have little bargaining power and they have to pay the rents that are demanded of them. Responsible local authorities have attempted to intervene in the market and to develop good relationships with the private sector. That has happened in Birmingham. In a debate last year, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said:
  "In particular, we are keen to expand the role played by the private rented sector in offering accommodation to people in housing need. It is a mistake to assume that private rented accommodation will, by definition, be inadequate …
  Local authorities themselves have also done a great deal. A number have introduced imaginative schemes to encourage local landlords to co-operate with them in housing families and others in need."
  Private landlords are reluctant in normal circumstances to house people who are poor and in need, and that is why local authority interventions have been necessary. The Minister continued:
  "One approach that is achieving impressive results is the introduction of rent and deposit guarantee schemes. They give landlords the reassurances that they may require to house low-income tenants and can dramatically increase the chances of such households gaining access to rented accommodation."— [Official Report, 8 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 315.]
  632
  That was a recognition by a Minister last year, which was recognised again by the Minister today, that people in housing need and on benefit need a leg up in getting private landlords to take them on, but while commending such schemes, the Government are undermining them.
  I am the chair of the Birmingham bond scheme. We have arrangements with landlords on our approved lists, and we give rent deposits only to landlords who offer reasonable accommodation. That includes bed-sits. They are happy to co-operate with us because they know that the rent deposit will be guaranteed and because we have a good relationship with housing benefit agencies and can help to iron out any problems with bureaucracy. The effect of the regulations on rent, and the demand for payment of rent in advance, would undermine that scheme at a stroke.
  These proposals follow those that were implemented in January and which limit rents to local reference rents. For those under the age of 25, there is no top-up allowance for the difference between the average rent in an area and that which the rent officer deems reasonable. Rents are being held down and will have to be paid in advance. I shall give an example of what that will mean to our scheme.
  At the moment, our market-based rents are about £45 to £50 a week for a bed-sit and £65 to £80 a week for a one-bedroomed, self-contained flat. The rent officer has now restricted the rent for such properties to £32 and £45 a week. That means that landlords will no longer be willing to take on tenants. I have given the rents for reasonable accommodation that can be let, but people on low incomes will increasingly be forced into poor standard accommodation. At a stroke, the Government will undermine the good work that we have been doing and which has been commended by them.
  The proposals are a crude device and do not offer adequate protection to vulnerable young people who cannot live with their families. I do not know why we think it so desirable that young people should continue to live with their families for as long as possible. I left home at the age of 18 when I went to university; I suspect that most Conservative Members also left home at an early age and were probably able to afford reasonable accommodation and may have been able to buy houses. When I was 22, like many of my colleagues, I was able to buy a house. Many people under the age of 25 want to live in reasonable accommodation. It is a good idea that, at the age of about 18, they should start to live in some kind of furnished accommodation, perhaps even in bed-sits if good quality ones are available.
  I checked today on the rents for student accommodation that is offered in halls of residence in Birmingham. The rent for accommodation in a four-unit bed-sit is £30 to £50 a week. That is the kind of supportive environment in which we might want under-25s to live. However, quality bed-sit accommodation is not available. The Department of the Environment's consultation document on houses in multiple occupation states that 44 per cent. of HMOs were unfit.
  Mr. Jenkin: It is always risky to talk in this place about our own experiences, but I shall join the hon. Lady in taking that risk. When I came back from university and started my first job, I lived at home for more than a year and then rented a room in a house. It was furnished

  633
  accommodation at modest cost. Is not that what we would expect young people to do? I was in my early 20s, but I did not become a home owner until my late 20s. The hon. Lady was a better capitalist than me. Young people are in a better position to make do, and we should expect them to take that course rather than to expect self-contained accommodation as of right at public expense.
  Dr. Jones: It is reasonable for young people to progress from some kind of supported accommodation when they first leave home—that might not necessarily be the case—but I would expect it to be of reasonable quality. Rents for bed-sits of reasonable quality in Birmingham are between £45 and £50 a week, but much of the stock is inadequate and nobody wants to move into it; 44 per cent. of it is unfit and much of it is a fire risk. The Government, through these regulations, are encouraging the supply of substandard accommodation.
  The combination of the one-room principle, the local reference rent and the demand for rents in advance has undermined the efforts to provide reasonable accommodation for young people. Most young people stay at home and, perhaps, do not want to leave, but many of the people we are talking about do not have a choice. They are forced out of their homes for reasons beyond their control.
  I was fortunate in that I went to university, but if I had not I would not have been able to stay in the family home. Indeed, I was not able to do so during the vacation. I did not have the luxury of going back to what I would imagine in the case of the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) was a pleasant, large family home. I lived in a two-bedroomed council flat, which I shared with my sister, and had a mentally ill father. Those are the circumstances in which many young people live today.
  In Birmingham, it is estimated that 4,000 to 5,000 people will be affected by these cuts. Young people who move into average accommodation today, where the full rent will be met, are likely to experience a cut of £15 to £20 per week in their benefit when it is reviewed in October. Let us also consider the young people who are currently working and, perhaps, renting a one-bedroomed flat. If they lose their job and fall on hard times, or if their income is cut and they are forced to rely on housing benefit, they will be given 13 weeks in which to find somewhere else to live. They will be forced to move out of their accommodation by these regulations. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Colchester, North thinks that that is a good thing.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Withington said, there is also a disincentive for people who are currently in receipt of housing benefit, and who live in reasonable accommodation, to get work because they are worried that, if they fall on hard times, they will be forced out of their accommodation. They have little bargaining power. If they are on income support or are in work, they are expected to live on £37.90. That is what the benefits system assumes they need if they are on a low income and need housing benefit to top up their wages. That is £10 less than the figure for the over-25s. As a result of the regulations, young people will be under pressure to go down market into unsafe, unsuitable accommodation, and they will boost the market for cheap and poorly maintained properties.
  634
  Whether young people are in self-contained accommodation prior to January, or in supported schemes which are exempt, it will become impossible for them to move on while still on benefit without accepting a lower standard of accommodation. Places in supported schemes will then become blocked, making it impossible to provide appropriate accommodation for newly homeless youngsters escaping abuse or overcrowding.
  If the Government are concerned about containing the housing benefit bill and about giving a reasonable chance in life to young people—nobody expects them to be able to live in luxury—they should reconsider their policies on housing and social security. They should encourage, for example, the provision of foyer-type schemes and support responsible local authorities that are setting up schemes with private landlords. In Birmingham, we have a landlords' charter. We have responsible lodging schemes, which January's regulations have affected. Schemes that were supported by social services now have to take a cut of some £60 a week. The unscrupulous who are providing accommodation for vulnerable people will continue to do so and charge the highest rent possible while providing appalling conditions for the young and vulnerable and mentally ill people.
  The proposed regulations are an absolute disgrace and have been introduced as a result of the Government's disastrous housing policies. It is the Government who have forced up the cost of housing benefit.
  5.14 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I enjoyed listening to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), but she rather spoilt her speech at the end because she failed to offer any solution other than the old failed solutions. We can only assume that that is what she was offering, because she did not offer anything.
  I shall use this opportunity to step back a little and look at this conceptually. There is a growing consensus across the House—I regret that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is not in his place—that there is too much means-testing in our benefits system. The more the benefits system grows, the more people are drawn into means-testing and the more people are subject to the perverse effects of means tests. The more generous housing benefit provision has become—even if only by virtue of the fact that rising rents have led to rising housing benefit, and increased unemployment has led to rising benefit levels—the more people have adapted to qualify for it. There is a consensus in the Social Security Select Committee that people adjust their circumstances to qualify for means-tested benefits. More people end up on benefit, and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation will say that they are poor because they are on means-tested benefits.
  How do we stop that trend? The Opposition complain about means testing, but they want to maintain the excessive generosity of such benefits and end up supporting the mechanism that creates the very problem that we need to deal with. Public expenditure grows as means-tested benefits generate their own demand.
  Means tests generate a perverse moral climate. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead increasingly tells us in the Select Committee, what message does that send to people who are trapped in adverse circumstances? What a message to send to young people starting out in life: they

  635
  can afford better accommodation if they take housing benefit and remain unemployed. Naturally, the Government are absolutely right to do everything possible to make a contract between the unemployed receiving benefit and the Benefits Agency. One must be actively seeking work. That is certainly an improvement, but we can do more to remove the disincentives.
  Are we happy with a system that effectively proclaims to every young person, "If you leave home without a job, the state will provide you with self-contained accommodation as a right"? Are we happy that the benefits system should in effect proclaim to parents, "Throw your teenagers out with impunity; the state will provide; you needn't be responsible for the people whom you have brought into the world"? The Labour party seems to be saying, "Your son and daughter will be given self-contained accommodation as a right."
  Most working people who pay taxes, including a great many poor people, are aghast at the way in which the benefits system seems to subsidise life styles that people, particularly older people, never dreamed they would enjoy, even in their later years. Many young people on benefits are not just claiming benefits. Part of the perversity of means-tested benefits is that we encourage people to hide their entrepreneurialism, their natural affinity to work and to earn. Very often, people are taking a bit more on the side than they are letting the Benefits Agency know about.
  Mr. David Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that all too often the state appears to be taking over from human parents, to become an individual's parent in terms of financial and other support, which does not encourage personal responsibility among young people?
  Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Concepts that are popular among Opposition parties include social exclusion and social cohesion. The worst way to create social cohesion is to atomise society by making the state more and more responsible for the individual's circumstances, instead of allowing the natural institutions of society—the family and community— to take their share of responsibility.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: What evidence does the hon. Gentleman have of the abuse that he claims? The Social Security Advisory Committee recommended that the Government should collate evidence to justify views of the sort that the hon. Gentleman is espousing—and only then introduce the regulations.
  Mr. Jenkin: The Social Security Select Committee has just completed an extensive investigation into housing benefit fraud. It is argued that we have only scratched the surface and that Government figures grossly underestimate the scale of the problem. I do not fully accept that evidence, but that is erring on the side of caution. Labour Members have used the fraud issue to suggest that the Government are not exercising enough control.
  Dr. Jones: I was referring not to abuse but to evidence to support the allegation that young people deliberately leave home to be mollycoddled by the state, and that it pays housing benefit to allow youngsters to live in luxurious accommodation.
  Mr. Jenkin: I do not intend to produce such evidence now because the hon. Lady is using language that I did
  636
  not use. The more generous housing benefit is and the greater its availability to young people, the more they are likely to avail themselves of it. The only way to restore society's natural values is to make people more responsible for the consequences of their actions and to ensure that families take more responsibility for their young adult offspring.
  These regulations are conceptually adjusting the priorities. It is just at the margin. We are not creating a revolution. We are only questioning the hierarchy of priorities. Is it that young people should take jobs and that families ought to take responsibility for them—or is it that young people should as of right occupy self-contained accommodation funded by the state? Obviously all young people have a right to dignified accommodation, but as its quality increases, who should be responsible for its provision? Should it not be more the responsibility of the individual and his or her family and less the responsibility of the state?
  I look forward to the time when the values and expectations of people in this country have radically altered. New Labour is interested in the so-called stakeholding society of Singapore. When the Select Committee visited that country, it was interested to find that Singapore's equivalent of our Department of Social Security is determined to avoid the mistakes that western societies have made in creating state dependency and poverty traps. It is difficult to imagine how that determination is manifested without observing it at first hand. It is ironic that new Labour is so enamoured of the stakeholder model of Singapore but shies away when that country's social policies are implemented in the United Kingdom. Labour wants to cherry-pick one or two aspects of the Singapore model but leave the rest behind.
  The key challenge to those of us who take an interest in the future of the UK social security system is in devising ways of restoring individual and family responsibility, by gradually removing from the state as humanely as possible the excessive responsibilities that it has taken on. The regulations do exactly that. They chip away at the expectation that young people should receive so much from the state so early in their lives.
  The Labour party offers not a policy that tends towards responsibility, self-determination and individual empowerment but opposition that is very much old Labour. We heard in the speech of the hon. Member for Selly Oak a call for a return to rent controls, large public housing schemes and an ever-rising bill for housing benefit. That is not the recipe that has brought success to housing or social security policy in this country or any other in Europe or elsewhere in the world that has tried using large-scale public expenditure to solve social problems. We should aim at eventually achieving alternative models that give people social security in the fullest sense—not just satisfy our consciences by doling out large sums of public money.
  5.26 pm
  Ms Liz Lynne: We cannot consider the regulations in isolation but must view them together with all the other Government measures that have affected under-25s. Since 1988, that age group has received lower income support. I have never understood why younger people are supposed to manage on less money than any others. Their food, clothing and other costs are exactly the same.

  637
  From October, the unemployment benefit element of the jobseeker's allowance for the under-25s will be reduced to income support level, yet again penalising that age group. That double action will mean that £10 a week will be lost to those young people.
  We want facts, figures and other evidence from the Government to back their claims. The Government say that young people expect to live in bed-sits or shared accommodation, that housing benefit is an incentive for young people to leave home and that the current level of housing benefit encourages them to do so. Have any surveys been undertaken? If the Minister has time to reply, can he cite evidence to show how many of the 870,000 young people in question live in self-contained accommodation? We must have that figure before we can judge how the regulations will work.
  Where is the evidence that young people are more likely to request or occupy more expensive accommodation than their contemporaries who are in employment? The Government have produced none. The Government talk about young people milking the system, but where is the proof? How many people go into shared accommodation?
  The Government are attempting to change young people's life styles without giving us the facts behind their proposal. Even the Social Security Advisory Committee said that young unemployed people aged under 25 had the same general preference for accommodation as those in employment, and that no evidence suggests that young people are encouraged to leave home because they could get a flat on their own.
  I fear that the regulations will make young people less mobile. The Government must deal with the fact that there are many legitimate reasons why young people leave home. They do so because, in some cases, they have been sexually or physically abused. They do not talk about it and they do not want to involve social services, but that is a good reason for their leaving home. It is not, therefore, that they are encouraged to leave because they are going to get a good housing benefit level. Some of those young people have genuine reasons.
  Young people in self-contained accommodation are not going to move to find work. Surely the Government want young people to move around the country to find work, but, if they are in self-contained accommodation in one region, they will find that, if they move to find work but do not do so, they will end up in a bed-sit.
  These changes could cause severe hardship for youngsters under 25 because the shortfalls between the rent and housing benefit must be met from somewhere. If those young people cannot find rented accommodation at the rent levels that will be set, because of the jobseekers' provisions and all the other debts that they will get into, they could face poverty. In the long term, quite a few of them could face homelessness.
  Many of those people will be forced into potentially dangerous accommodation. Some of the standards in multiple-occupancy accommodation are not good. I do not know whether the Minister has been around such accommodation, but I have. Some of it is a fire risk and some a death trap.
  Even the Children's Society was coming out against all young people being forced into multi-occupancy accommodation. It was talking about vulnerable young
  638
  people, who find it difficult to communicate with each other and who would have a problem sharing a bathroom, a kitchen, a stove or washing-up facilities. The problem is that, if they could not cope with that shared accommodation, they could find themselves out on the streets.
  The Minister has talked about giving concessions for young people coming out of care, and I am glad that he is considering taking that further. I am also pleased that he is considering Scotland as well, because that was an oversight. I am glad that he will deal with that problem. I am also concerned about young people in bed-sit accommodation. They could be subjected to drugs, harassment and abuse. I am not saying that that would happen in all multi-occupancy accommodation, but the Minister should be considering that point.
  In relation to the change from paying rent in advance to paying rent in arrears and not paying any deposits, many of those young people will not be able to find accommodation because multi-occupancy houses will not be available and, if they are, landlords will probably not take them in.
  The problem is that, once landlords know that under-25s are allowed to go into only bed-sit or multi-occupancy accommodation, standards will fall. Many more investigators will have to check the standards of those properties, because some landlords will be good and will meet their responsibility but some will not. I hope that the Minister is aware of the Government's responsibility in that.
  Certain young people face a harsh future with these regulations, which come in next October. As I have said, some will face homelessness and some will face living in poor accommodation. I hope that the Government will think again before it is too late. I will vote to revoke the regulations.
  5.33 pm
  Mr. David Shaw: My big concern in the debate is that I have not heard anything from Opposition Members that shows concern for taxpayers in all this. It is taxpayers who must find the money to pay for housing benefit. Often, they pay for many people to have housing benefit to live in accommodation that is better than that in which the taxpayers themselves live.
  Housing benefit is a £10 billion a year benefit. It costs every working man and woman in this country about £400 a year, so it is up to the House of Commons to ensure that the benefit is paid to people in genuine need and that it is not open to abuse; one of the concerns of the Social Security Select Committee has been that, in our investigations, we have found considerable housing benefit abuse.
  Many stories are around. I am sure that many Members of Parliament have been told the wide-ranging stories of abuse, some of which one may not be able to prove, but which are worrying. The fact that the Government are proposing to tighten housing benefit is to be welcomed by taxpayers and by hon. Members. We must encourage young people not to become adept at claiming housing benefit but to use their skills and abilities to obtain work.
  What I have found is that no young person will suffer as a result of these changes. The evidence is that they will still be able to afford reasonable accommodation of

  639
  a reasonable quality at a reasonable price. If, however, they conspire with landlords to receive a larger amount of money out of the taxpayer, as a result of the changes, that will not work.
  The Opposition have been calling for evidence. I will tell them of some staggering evidence in my constituency surgery. A young person recently came in and demanded that I get him housing benefit of £100 a week for a self-contained unit of accommodation in the Dover region. I happen to know that, in that region, it is possible for many people to find accommodation costing between £60 and £80 a week.
  There are many properties of below £100 a week, but that young person decided that that was the accommodation that he wanted and that he expected the taxpayer to pay for, despite the fact that many middle-aged and elderly people in my constituency are claiming housing benefit at only £40 to £60 a week, and are living in much more modest, but reasonable and acceptable, accommodation. The state should not be providing £100 a week when it is possible to live reasonably in reasonable accommodation at much less than that.
  This measure is fair because it contains safeguards. Local authorities will still have the discretion to pay benefit above the average cost of shared accommodation, especially where there are examples of exceptional hardship. The other reasonable point here is that the new limit for housing benefit is to be introduced only at the average cost of non-self-contained accommodation in the region. By having regard to the average cost, the Government have been reasonable.
  There are plenty of statistics around. District valuers and others are competent at assembling valuation statistics. I do not see why councils, using similar techniques, are not capable of establishing good figures on the average accommodation cost, or, therefore, why we cannot operate a housing benefit system that is much more related to real cost that can be measured and recorded.
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the question, pursuant to Order [21 May].
  The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 273.

  Division No. 137]

  [5.38 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Ainger, Nick

  Boateng, Paul

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bradley, Keith

  Alton, David

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Brown, N(N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ashton, Joe

  Burden, Richard

  Austin-Walker, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Caborn, Richard

  Barnes, Harry

  Callaghan, Jim

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Battle, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Beggs, Roy

  Canavan, Dennis

  Bell, Stuart

  Cann, Jamie

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Chidgey, David

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Berry, Roger

  Church, Judith

  640

  Clapham, Michael

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hutton, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Ingram, Adam

  Clelland, David

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Coffey, Ann

  Janner, Greville

  Cohen, Harry

  Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Corston, Jean

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cousins, Jim

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Khabra, Piara S

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dafis, Cynog

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Darling, Alistair

  Lewis, Terry

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Denham, John

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dewar, Donald

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dixon, Don

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dobson, Frank

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Donohoe, Brian H

  McAllion, John

  Dowd, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McCartney, Ian

  Eastham, Ken

  McCartney, Robert

  Etherington, Bill

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McFall, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  McKelvey, William

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McLeish, Henry

  Flynn, Paul

  Maclennan, Robert

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  McWilliam, John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Madden, Max

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Maddock, Diana

  Fraser, John

  Mandelson, Peter

  Fyfe, Maria

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Galloway, George

  Martlew, Eric

  Gapes, Mike

  Maxton, John

  George, Bruce

  Meacher, Michael

  Gerrard, Neil

  Meale, Alan

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Michael, Alun

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Milburn, Alan

  Graham, Thomas

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morley, Elliot

  Gunnell, John

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Hain, Peter

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hall, Mike

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hanson, David

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Mudie, George

  Harvey, Nick

  Mullin, Chris

  Henderson, Doug

  Murphy, Paul

  Heppell, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Olner, Bill

  Horne Robertson, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pearson, Ian

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pendry, Tom

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Pike, Peter L

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Pope, Greg

  Hoyle, Doug

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  641

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Stevenson, George

  Purchase, Ken

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Radice, Giles

  Straw, Jack

  Raynsford, Nick

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Reid, Dr John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Rendel, David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Timms, Stephen

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Trickett, Jon

  Rooker, Jeff

  Turner, Dennis

  Rooney, Terry

  Tyler, Paul

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Walley, Joan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Salmond, Alex

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Welsh, Andrew

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Short, Clare

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Simpson, Alan

  Winnick, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wise, Audrey

  Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Snape, Peter

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Soley, Clive

  Spearing, Nigel

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spellar, John

  Mr. Joe Benton and

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Clappison, James

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Amess, David

  Coe, Sebastian

  Arbuthnot, James

  Colvin, Michael

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Congdon, David

  Ashby, David

  Conway, Derek

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Baldry, Tony

  Couchman, James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Cran, James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bates, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Day, Stephen

  Bendall, Vivian

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dicks, Terry

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Body, Sir Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dover, Den

  Booth, Hartley

  Duncan, Alan

  Boswell, Tim

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dunn, Bob

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Bowis, John

  Elletson, Harold

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Evennett, David

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Burt, Alistair

  Forman, Nigel

  Butler, Peter

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Butterfill, John

  Forth, Eric

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Cash, William

  French, Douglas

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Gale, Roger

  Churchill, Mr

  Gallie, Phil

  642

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Malone, Gerald

  Garnier, Edward

  Mans, Keith

  Gill, Christopher

  Marland, Paul

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mills, Iain

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hannam, Sir John

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Harris, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Norris, Steve

  Heald, Oliver

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Page, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Paice, James

  Hicks, Robert

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Pawsey, James

  Horam, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunter, Andrew

  Riddick, Graham

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jack, Michael

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jessel, Toby

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Sackville, Tom

  Key, Robert

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Sims, Roger

  Knox, Sir David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Legg, Barry

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Leigh, Edward

  Spring, Richard

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Sproat, Iain

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lidington, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Stephen, Michael

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Stern, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Stewart, Allan

  Luff, Peter

  Streeter, Gary

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sweeney, Walter

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sykes, John

  MacKay, Andrew

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Madel, Sir David

  Thomason, Roy

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  643

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wells, Bowen

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Whitney, Ray

  Tracey, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Trend, Michael

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Trotter, Neville

  Wilkinson, John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Willetts, David

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wilshire, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Walden, George

  Wolfson, Mark

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Wood, Timothy

  Waller, Gary

  Yeo, Tim

  Ward, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mr. Richard Ottaway and Mr. Roger Knapman.

  Watts, John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before we embark on the next debate and start to use up the time allowed for it, I should like to raise a point of order on that time limit. The Order Paper states that the debate will last only one and a half hours, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14B(1).
  You will be aware that, on the last page of the statutory instrument, five European Community documents are cited as the base legislation on which it has come before us. I was minded to table amendments in relation to those documents, which—if selected—would have dealt with the need for the documents, their integrity and their merits. I have refrained from doing so because of the time limit on the debate.
  Could you confirm that the debate would not be confined to an hour and a half if this statutory instrument had been debated before 2 November last year and that it could have gone on until as late as 11.30 pm, which would have allowed a wide-ranging debate had I tabled those amendments and had they been selected? Could you confirm that that is the fact that now confronts the House in debating these important matters?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): That may all be true, but the current rules of the House allow only one and a half hours for the next debate. Those are the rules under which the House operates.

  Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on all Back Benchers' speeches for the duration of this debate.
  5.56 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): I beg to move,
  That the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 1242), dated 7th May 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th May, be approved.
  I appreciate that many hon. Members want to speak in this debate, and I shall try to keep my comments as brief as possible. I hope that hon. Members will show some forbearance with interventions as I expect to cover most concerns in what I shall say.
  I suspect that it will be helpful to the House if I put this order in context with what the European Commission said last week about decommissioning. Last Wednesday, the European Commissioner with responsibility for fisheries, Mrs. Bonino, held a press conference—of which we were given no notice—to outline her proposals for the next round of decommissioning, which is intended to take the European Community from now until the year 2002.
  It is difficult for me to help the House in any detail on those proposals as they have not yet been tabled by the Commission, but judging from the reports of the press conference, the impact of Mrs. Bonino's proposals, if adopted, would be cuts of up to 40 per cent. in parts of the United Kingdom fishing fleet. That is wholly unacceptable.
  Mrs. Bonino went on to describe the UK fishing industry as being among the "bad boys" in Europe for not having met existing decommissioning targets. Such a description is somewhat galling for the UK fishing industry, particularly as Mrs. Bonino described countries such as Spain as being among the good guys. What she failed to connect, of course, was the ability of Spanish fishing interest to move into the UK fleet. It is easier for Spain to meet her decommissioning targets when a significant number of Spanish-skippered, Spanish-owned and Spanish-crewed vessels are masquerading as UK boats and catching fish against the UK national quota. That is a crazy situation which cannot be allowed to continue. The European Commission cannot be surprised that the UK fishing industry is not and will not be prepared to contemplate any further substantial reductions in the UK fishing fleet until the Commission tackles and deals with the whole issue of quota hoppers.
  When Mrs. Bonino was in the UK recently, she gave the impression that there might be some simple way within the existing rules which, if only the UK Government were to take it, would enable us to eliminate quota hoppers within a short time. No one is keener than I am to see the quota hoppers dealt with without delay and for UK fish to be available for UK fishermen. I therefore immediately instructed officials to explore in detail with Commission officials what it was that Mrs. Bonino was suggesting that we might do to tackle quota hoppers.
  I am bound to tell the House that, on further detailed investigation, it became clear that there was no immediate solution that the Commission could offer. I am sorry that

  645
  responsible newspapers such as The Independent, presumably on the basis of Commission briefing, have suggested that there is such a remedy available. There is not, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that we shall be seeking to deal with the whole problem of quota hoppers at the intergovernmental conference.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Baldry: I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow).
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Given the nonsense coming out of Brussels and especially that uttered by Mrs. Bonino, given the nonsense of the common fisheries policy and especially the discard policy, and given that the Government are raising the issue of quota hoppers at the IGC, may I suggest that we go one stage further and seek a fundamental renegotiation of the common fisheries policy, not least so that we could control our own waters, no doubt with the same pattern—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is about decommissioning only.
  Mr. Baldry: We should at all times show leadership in the European Union and in the fundamental reforms of the common fisheries policy that we seek.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Baldry: I must make progress; this is only a short debate.
  The straightforward fact is that upwards of 150 UK-registered vessels are now owned, or part owned, by foreign interests, mainly from Spain and the Netherlands. They represent some 20 per cent. of our offshore fleet and take a significant proportion of UK quotas of fish such as hake, plaice, megrim, sole and monkfish. Such a situation cannot be allowed to continue. The Commission and the European Community must take action to deal with quota hoppers.
  Mr. Paul Tyler rose—
  Mr. John Sykes rose—
  Mr. Baldry: I give way first to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes).
  Mr. Tyler: Does the Minister recall that the issue of decommissioning and quota hopping was mentioned when I brought a delegation to see him on 27 November? He told us that it was not possible to deal with the matter in the context of the IGC. Will he consider specifically quota-hopping flag boats which have not, as I understand it, been involved in the decommissioning scheme at all, except for perhaps one boat? If the scheme continues as it is, 50 per cent. of certain species, notably hake and plaice, could be taken from our quota by quota-hopping, flag of convenience foreign boats.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very short debate. Many hon. Members have put their names down to speak, but the hon. Gentleman was not one of them. Long interventions are not helpful.
  Mr. Baldry: Let me make it absolutely clear that, as I have just said, at the IGC we intend to deal fully with the issue of quota hoppers. The Community has to take action to deal with quota hoppers. The current crazy situation cannot continue.
  I now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough, but I think that this must be the last intervention that I accept.
  Mr. Sykes: I represent Scarborough and Whitby. Is the Minister aware of the tidal wave of anger and frustration that has swept my constituency over the question of decommissioning? Is it not time that this country decided for itself what constitutes its own waters? Should not Britannia show Mrs. Bonino the way and declare a 200-mile limit around our shores?
  Mr. Baldry: I regularly meet representatives of the fishing industry. I met representatives of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation the day before yesterday, and I am glad that they very much support the line that I am taking. I work very closely with the UK fishing industry. Indeed, I see my role as doing what is in its best interests. If there is to be fishing in the European Union against national quotas, it makes sense that the quotas benefit the fishing communities of individual nations rather than the vessels of other European Union member states which rarely, if ever, visit the countries concerned—let alone bring any economic benefit—but simply catch their fish against those countries' fishing quotas.
  We have told the IGC, the Commission and other member states that we shall be tabling changes to the treaty which should enable individual member states to adopt appropriate measures to ensure that their fishing communities and related industries are able to benefit fully from the national quotas allocated under Community fishing policy.
  There will be an initial discussion, but no decision, on the Commission's latest proposals on fleet structure and fishing effort at the Fisheries Council in Luxembourg next week. In any event, the full proposals have not yet been issued. I shall be making it clear that, until real and substantial progress is made on tackling quota hoppers, the Commission cannot be surprised that we shall not be ready to agree how to reduce further the UK fishing fleet. I shall, however, be making a number of other points.
  I do not want there to be any scintilla of a suggestion that, when progress is made on quota hoppers, we shall simply accept any restructuring or decommissioning targets that the Commission wishes to set—far from it. First, the Commission's proposals for the next round are apparently based on a report by scientists known as the Lassen report, which makes recommendations as to where fishing effort should be reduced in Community waters but, bizarrely, makes no recommendation for reducing industrial fishing. It appears that the proposals, which currently look as though they might reduce UK fishing effort by up to 40 per cent., would have absolutely no impact on industrial fishing—a form of fishing which is

  647
  carried out on a huge scale and has implications for much of the marine ecosystem. It is very difficult to agree fisheries conservation measures which seek to cut pretty well every other aspect of the fishing fleet if they leave industrial fishing untouched. It is quite bizarre.
  We are all aware, and the UK fishing industry recognises, that fishing is a hunting activity and that it is important that there are sustainable levels of fish left in the sea. As the recent report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology made clear, the world's fish stocks are in a state of crisis. That report concluded by saying:
  "in their heart of hearts, scientists, fishermen, managers and politicians must all know that action must be taken now"
  if we are to prevent a repeat of episodes like the collapse of the Grand Bank stocks. Indeed, the scientists tell us that almost 60 per cent. of the main stocks in the waters that we fish have now been reduced to a level where there is a real risk of biological collapse. Even allowing for all the uncertainties and variables which characterise fisheries management, the stark warning in such messages is clear.
  With improved technology, modern vessels are simply more efficient machines for killing fish, and fishing effort has to be matched to what the stocks will bear. Clearly there is a need to reduce fish mortality, but the Commission's proposals on decommissioning simply translate killing capacity into tonnage. Fishing vessels vary enormously, however, and it is again somewhat strange to believe that 1 tonne of an older fishing trawler has the same killing capacity as 1 tonne of a modern, large, well-equipped fishing vessel, with radar and other technology which is able with a good degree of accuracy to target, catch and kill large quantities of fish.
  Mr. Alex Salmond rose—
  Mr. Baldry: Many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate. I am sure that I shall cover any issue that the hon. Gentleman intends to raise.
  Britain has, on average, a somewhat older fishing fleet than many other member states. We need to ensure that any future structural scheme takes adequate account of the age and killing capacity of the vessels involved and does not simply assume that every tonne of every fishing vessel has an equivalent killing capacity.
  I shall also be making it clear next week, when these matters are raised, that countries such as Britain, which spends some £25 million on fisheries protection and enforcement-through the Royal Navy, among other means—should be given credit for that in relation to member states in which, the Commission has acknowledged, enforcement seems to be somewhat less effective.
  Clearly, any fishing reduction or effort-control targets must be properly policed. There is a need to match fishing effort to available fish in the sea. Much more work and much more study is required on any proposals that the Commission might bring forward to ensure that they meet the needs adequately and fairly. While that work is going on, we shall expect real progress in considering and taking forward the tackling of quota hoppers.
  It is also somewhat galling to be described as being among the "bad boys" of Europe when the European Commission persists in using figures that we have
  648
  repeatedly told it are incorrect and which give the impression that the UK fishing fleet has increased in recent years. That is not so, and the facts are straightforward. In the past three years, 436 boats have been decommissioned and £26.2 million has been spent on decommissioning. That is a sizeable number of boats—and a substantial amount of money—and represents 6.6 per cent. of the original UK fishing fleet.
  There has been wider confusion in the Commission about the UK's past performance and, sadly, a tendency not to compare like with like in publishing tonnage figures. We have been discussing a range of technical points with the Commission and have requested that it make a number of necessary adjustments to our multi-annual guidance programme figure. Once those corrections have been agreed, I believe that we shall be within a handful of percentage points of our target. This scheme will take us closer still.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman rose—
  Mr. Baldry: As I have said, everyone recognises the need to match fishing effort properly to available fish in the sea. This statutory instrument is designed to deal with our commitments to reduce fishing capacity and to meet targets that are due to expire at the end of this year.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Before my hon. Friend concludes, will he give an assurance that the motion is being introduced purely and simply to help the conservation of fish and has no other ramifications?
  Mr. Baldry: The motion completes our obligations under the decommissioning programme. The programme's only objective is to try to match fishing effort to available fish in the sea. It is a continuation of the scheme that was already in place last year.
  During the debate last year, a number of suggestions were made about possible improvements to the scheme. I and my hon. Friends who have responsibility for fishing in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland promised to listen carefully to what was said. We have listened. I gave a commitment to seek industry views on what could be done and to reconsider the position in relation to the specific queries that were raised about the scheme last year.
  Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Baldry: If the hon. Gentleman allows me, I might tell him some good news.
  I gave a commitment, for example, to consider the position on the eligibility of nephrops vessels in the light of subsequent developments. I am glad to be able to tell the House that we have been able to meet almost all the concerns raised in the consultation exercise and significantly to expand the 1996 scheme to make it more attractive and better value for money. It might be helpful if I outline briefly those changes and the principle features of the proposed scheme.
  In essence, the changes relate to the eligibility criteria, which we have widened considerably. In particular, we have reduced the number of qualifying days spent fishing from 100 to 75. We have removed the restrictions on

  649
  licence type to allow any licensed vessel over 10 m in registered length to apply. That will, of course, allow applications from shell fishermen and from vessels in the Nephrops and distant water segments. I know that that is very much welcomed by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishing Federation. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), has had a number of very useful discussions with the SFF on that very point.
  In the consultation exercise, I suggested the possibility of allowing vessel owners to retain or dispose separately of their decommissioned vessel's track record. The response demonstrated no support for such arrangements. Again, we listened to the industry and have decided not to proceed with that suggestion. In response to a number of understandable concerns, I have introduced a greater degree of flexibility to permit historic vessels to be preserved afloat. That can be done while safeguarding public funds by allowing such vessels to be placed with registered museums. I very much hope that that will enable what is clearly a valuable part of our maritime heritage to be retained for future generations.
  Mr. GillWill my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Baldry: I have already given way to my hon. Friend.
  The scheme was launched on 9 May and applications must be submitted before 25 June. Application forms and details of the scheme have been available in local port offices for some time, and it is clearly in the interests of anyone who wishes to apply to do so as soon as possible.
  Before concluding, I should like to make one further announcement concerning the Seafish Industry Authority's application for a grant towards its promotional campaign to encourage greater consumption of fish and hence provide better market conditions in future. I am pleased to say that a grant of just over £2.5 million has been approved and will be paid over the next three years.
  As the UK Fishing Minister, I have only one interest: to promote the best interests of the UK fishing industry. I think that everyone in the industry recognises that there must be sustainable levels of fishing if the industry is to have a secure future well into the next century. With improved technology, modern vessels are more efficient machines for killing fish. Fishing effort has to be matched to what stocks will bear. The 1996 decommissioning scheme is part of our strategy to ensure that the UK fleet can remain viable, better match available fishing opportunities, and continue to contribute to the renewal of the very fishing resources on which so many livelihoods depend and which I am determined will have a strong future well into the next century. I commend the motion to the House.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Elliot Morley: I welcome the Minister's recognition of some of concerns of the industry and Opposition Members in the new regulations and the multi-annual guidance programme—especially the more flexible approach and the inclusion of nephrops boats in the decommissioning scheme.
  650
  Opposition Members also welcome the fact that, after lengthy correspondence, the Minister has made provision for some historically interesting boats to be bought by trusts and museums so that they can be preserved. I only hope that that policy does not lead to too many fishing boats ending up in museums.
  Now that the Minister has recognised that historically interesting boats can be preserved and need not be destroyed, will he extend the policy to the sale of boats to waters outside the European Union, and, indeed, to overseas aid schemes, on which I know he has received representations from myself and groups?
  This debate has been overshadowed by Mrs. Bonino's recent announcement about the 40 per cent. cut in fleet capacity. The Minister was quite right to stress that. There is a serious problem with fish stocks, which the industry recognises, and progress must be made to ensure that the capacity is matched to the available fish stocks. Opposition Members think that the 40 per cent. cut on top of what has already been agreed is just not acceptable. I am quite sure that the Minister agrees that the figure is open to negotiation. We certainly look to the Government to ensure that negotiations result in a more realistic figure.
  Opposition Members also want to ensure that the figure is based on sound science. The Minister referred to the Lassen report that brought about the proposal. Although there is a need for effort control, I hope that the Government not only succeed in reducing the 40 per cent. cut but try to get the Commission to accept that effort control need not just be fleet reduction. It can also concern technical conservation gear. I know that the industry—the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishing Federation—has submitted detailed proposals to the Ministry on how technical conservation gear can reduce effort, and I very much hope that they are taken seriously.
  I also endorse what the Minister said about the disgraceful omission of industrial fishing. It is remarkable that a serious study on fish stocks has not taken into account the impact of overfishing in industrial fishing, and the effect it has on the overall ecology of the sea.
  I welcome the Minister's strong comments about industrial fishing. I regret, however, that the Government gave financial aid to a fish meal plant in the United Kingdom based on industrial fishing. I only wish that they had thought about the impact of industrial fishing in the way the Minister did tonight when they were considering that particular grant.
  The report concentrates on weaker stocks. That is understandable, but it does not take into account the impact of the figures. The fact that the United Kingdom fleet is older than many of the more modern fleets that have taken advantage of grants needs to be worked into the equation.
  As the Minister said, the report does not take into account the impact of flag vessels on the United Kingdom register that represent 20 per cent. of the fleet fishing some stocks. That is an amazing figure. He said that action needed to be taken, and that Mrs. Bonino was considering what should be done. However, he could have produced some firm proposals to put to the Commission on how the problem of flag vessels should be tackled.
  Mr. Sykes: My hon. Friends need no lectures whatsoever from Labour, as their leader says that he will

  651
  never be isolated in Europe. If he had his way, we would be sold lock, stock and barrel to the European Commission, with all that that entails.
  Mr. Morley: I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. We are having a serious debate on serious matters, not the rubbish put out by Tory central office. I have been concentrating on the central issues; however, I should stress that the Labour party argued for decommissioning and other measures, for years before the Government implemented them. We have also argued for technical conservation measures and working with the European Union to address some of the problems.
  One of the main reasons why we have an aging fleet and why we are have these problems is that we were the last country in Europe to introduce the decommissioning scheme, and that should be taken into account.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not the truth of the matter that, for the past 17 years, the Tory Government have been responsible for running down the fishing fleet around the coast of Britain? As there will be a general election in the next 12 months, they are now singing a different tune. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather odd that the Government, who are vetoing everything blanket fashion in the Common Market, are not voting against tonight's proposal?
  Mr. Morley: The tone of the Minister's speech has subtly changed in recent debates. He seems to have moved towards a more Eurosceptic point of view. That demonstrates the weakness of the Government and the fact that the tail is wagging the dog.
  I return to the serious problems and issues that must be addressed. There has been a history of mismanagement of the fisheries industry in Britain, and it does not all involve the European Union. There has been a great deal of mismanagement of Government policy, and the delay in decommissioning is only one aspect of it.
  Will the Minister consider how we should deal with the flag ships? Does he have any firm proposals? Both the Minister and the Prime Minister have said that they intend to deal with flag vessels. That is fine, and we agree, but what are the Government's proposals? How do they intend to address the issue?
  Some minor issues that Opposition Members have repeatedly raised have been ignored. They include the national insurance contributions from the crews of flag vessels, the requirement for British officers to captain those ships, and the proportionate use of United Kingdom port facilities. I do not dispute that there are difficulties, but the Government ought to consider them and draw up proposals.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): We are.
  Mr. Morley: The Minister says, "We are." I hope that he will spell out some of those proposals tonight. He might like to consider raising with the Commission an extension of the decommissioning scheme in order to buy out some of the flag vessels that are currently on our register. I agree that the way in which foreign vessels have flagged out on our register to fish on our fish stocks is certainly an abuse of national quotas and fish stocks.
  Mr. Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm to the House that he agrees with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), who said on 19 December:
  652
  "It is unacceptable that we should be decommissioning vessels to facilitate additional fishing opportunities in waters around the UK for the fishing industry of one of our European partners-4n this case Spain."?— [Official Report, 19 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 1358.]
  Does he agree with that?
  Mr. Morley: It is totally unacceptable that we should be asking UK fishermen to decommission to make way for vessels from other member states. That is not acceptable to the Labour party. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East was quite right about that.
  To return to the reduction of effort and the abuse of the flag vessels, there is a lesson of regulation for the Government to learn. We need to make progress in dealing with that and addressing our own reduction figure.
  When we were termed the bad boys of Europe by Mrs. Bonino, she was referring not to the fishing industry but to the Government. We have made very little progress towards our target set by the MAGP. The Minister said that he intends to announce how near we are to that target, but hon. Members may have noticed that there was no such announcement tonight. It would be helpful if the Minister would tell the House what progress has been made and how near we are to meeting those targets.
  I know that the Minister is having discussions, but some of those discussions on how the targets are met and the way in which the figures are calculated depend on the good will of the European Commission and whether it will accept the Government's interpretation of them. We are all aware that the present atmosphere is somewhat strained.
  Mr. Keith Mans: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should make rather faster progress towards those targets? Would that not mean further cuts in the amount of fish that British fishermen can fish?
  Mr. Morley: I shall come to that point in a moment, but, as the Minister said, the industry recognises there has to be some reduction, in order to match our fishing capacity to available fish stocks. There is no argument about that, but we can certainly argue about the level of the reduction, the basis of the calculation and the science being used. There is a great deal of debate on those issues.
  As for meeting the reduction, Labour has long argued that, if there has to be some reduction within the present targets—not the 40 per cent. that I consider is not sustainable and will not be imposed in the United Kingdom, but the scheme that has been agreed as part of the four-year programme—it should have been front-loaded in the first place. If we agree that there should be a reduction in the fleet, surely it would be better that it should happen as quickly as possible to help those who want to get out of the industry to do so, and to make more fish available for those who want to remain in the industry. In that respect, the Minister still has an option of bringing forward the £13 million that is earmarked for next year.
  Dr. Godman: Both the Minister and my hon. Friend have referred to our aging fleets. In essence, we are talking about the reduction of an aging national fleet. At the same time, we must talk about the renewal of the remaining smaller fleet. Particularly on the west coast of Scotland, we need new vessels to replace our drastically aging fleet.
  Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about a real problem within the industry. If we made some

  653
  progress with decommissioning, the Government would be eligible for the rebuilding grants that have benefited other countries for some years, and have enabled them to modernise their fleets. Even under the present system, a scrap and build policy that takes into account the aggregation would attract some grants. The Government might like to discuss that with the Commission.
  It is clear that the common fisheries policy has failed in respect of sustainable fisheries management. It does not have the confidence of the industry, and in that respect needs a radical reform. The Opposition certainly emphasise that. The Minister said that the Government will raise the issues of reform of the CFP and of flag ships at the IGC, and we very much welcome that. I hope that they make some progress, and that they get some co-operation. But the present policy has been too little, too late, to deal with the problems of the fishing industry, and it does not provide the industry with an option. It is vital that the Government make firm proposals to ensure that we have a sustainable future for our fleet, so that many of our boats do not end up in maritime museums.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. David Harris: In my opinion, it would be nonsense if the House voted against the motion tonight. The industry is in favour of the scheme, and, in a brief circulated to most hon. Members with fishing interests, the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations described the terms of the statutory instrument as "uncontroversial fine-tuning". I am sure that that is right.
  I speak as a member of the all-party Back-Bench alliance that fought hard and long to have a second decommissioning scheme introduced. If we stop the decommissioning scheme as it is constituted at present, there would rightly be howls of anguish from the industry. However, I have some reservations about the impact of the decommissioning scheme.
  During the last round, for example, there was a concentration of activity regarding the number of boats in certain ports to be decommissioned. In Newlyn, the decommissioning scheme reduced almost at a stroke the catching capacity of the boats there, although other boats were introduced to the area.
  The background to the debate tonight is perhaps not so much the details of the scheme included in the statutory instrument, as the remarks by Commissioner Bonino, who called for a 40 per cent. reduction in certain sections of the fleet—albeit across the European Community as a whole for certain sections. Her comments provoked yet more howls of anguish from our fishermen, who were right to protest about the proposal.
  The hon.Member for Glanford and Scunthoipe (Mr. Morley) referred to the Lassen report, upon which Commissioner Bonino apparently based her remarks. That report is quite clearly flawed, and all the informed comment, particularly from the NFFO and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, shows its defects. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely correct to focus on the fact that we have an aging fleet, whereas some of the boats in the Spanish fleet in particular are modern vessels.
  The report therefore did not compare like with like. We must dismiss some aspects of the report, and the rather crude and unrealistic call by Commissioner Bonino. If her
  654
  proposal was ever implemented—I do not think it ever will be—it would spell devastation for many of our fishing communities, and for the industry as a whole.
  My complaint about Mrs. Bonino's rather superficial remarks is that, in putting forward this "solution", she ignores the basic defects of the CFP. There is a consensus in this House—irrespective of one's attitude towards Europe—that the CFP is, not working, and is in fact anti-conservationist. It is not good enough for the Commission to say that we should somehow cut our fleet, as if that were the answer to the problem. It is not, although it may be a part of the answer.
  Like the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, I accept that there will have to be some scaling down of the fleet, and the industry agrees. I regret that, but I do not believe in kidding people. However, if we do not radically reform the CFP, we shall gain nothing by reducing the size of the fleet. We must carry out a root-and-branch reform of the CFP—that is the imperative.
  We must also deal with the vexed question of quota hoppers. I have been fighting this wretched business of quota hoppers—or flag of convenience vessels as we called them in the old days—for more than 15 years. I have been spelling out the dangers and what they would lead to long before Spain came into the Community, and that is when action should have been taken. I deplore the fact that the effective action proposed in the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and overruled by the High Court was not taken before Spain came into the Community. If action had been taken, we would not have the problems we face today.
  I am indebted to the NFFO for spelling out the present position in stark statistical terms. Do people not realise that, at the moment, much of our quota is not in British hands and does not belong to British fishermen or our industry? Some 46 per cent. of our hake quota and 44 per cent. of our plaice quota is owned by foreign interests, mainly Spanish. For megrim, the figure is 35 per cent., for monkfish it is 29 per cent., and for sole it is 18 per cent. It is well documented that 20 per cent. of the tonnage of our fleet is owned by foreign interests, mainly Spanish and Dutch. That is intolerable and totally unacceptable. No wonder our fishermen are seething with anger, and we were daft to allow this situation to develop. We must put a stop to it.
  Having said that, I very much welcome the robust remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister in his immediate response to Commissioner Bonino's irresponsible statement a week ago. I also welcome the pledge by the Prime Minister that, if necessary, we will look for treaty changes to deal with the central issue of quota hopping.
  I must say that I am sceptical about the outcome. I was in Spain two weeks ago with other members of a Committee, and we met the Spanish Foreign Minister. The reaction of the Spanish Government to our promise to pursue the matter if necessary at the IGC was to beg Britain not to do so, and they made it clear that they would use the veto if we did. What incensed me was that the Spanish said that there is no problem, despite the figures that I have quoted to the House. It is a huge problem.
  We have just as much of a fight on our hands on quota hopping as we have with beef, and it will be a test of the determination of the Government and the Prime Minister to force a solution to the problem. I hope that we will succeed—and we must succeed, in the interests of our

  655
  fishing industry and our fishermen. They must be our prime concern in this House, irrespective of party position. There is a huge consensus in the House, especially among those of us who have the honour to represent fishing constituencies. We need results. This is not just a game—I say that with the greatest respect to some of my hon. Friends who comment on these issues.
  An industry is at stake here. We must ensure that we defend its rights and those of the United Kingdom. We must pass the statutory instrument, but we must not lose sight of the tremendous battle ahead of us on quota hopping and reform of the common fisheries policy, because the industry's future depends on it.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: I realise that time is short for the debate, and that several hon. Members wish to take part, so I shall try to be as brief as I can. I will put four questions to the Minister, in the hope that he will be able to respond to them.
  The first question, which has already been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and by the Minister, relates to the importance of technical conservation. I should like the Minister to say what stage he has reached in discussions with his European partners and the Commission in pursuing measures on technical conservation. In particular, my constituency fishermen are interested in square mesh panels, which they consider a sensible way forward. Those panels are cheap and effective, and their use is supported by the fishermen. I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether he has taken up such measures with the Commission, and what progress he made.
  My second question echoes the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about the restructuring and modernising of older parts of the fleet. Have the Government any plans in that respect, and if so, exactly what are they? Are they working on measures to help to renew the older parts of the fleet?
  My third question, which has already been raised, is what proposals the Minister has for solving the quota hopper problem. It is important that he should begin to share with the House some of his ideas on that issue, which is at the heart of the crisis we face in the industry at the moment.
  In the light of the debacle over the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, it is important that the Minister shares his ideas with us at the earliest possible moment, so that we can discuss them and perhaps probe whether they offer our best solution. I remember the debates in Committee on the Merchant Shipping Act, when the Government's suggestions were criticised. The Government were told that their proposals simply would not work, and those criticisms have turned out to be absolutely valid. It is therefore important that the Minister does not charge ahead with his own ideas. He should share them with the House and the industry, which would then be better served.
  My final question considers a group of people who have not been touched upon in the debate—those ordinary members of crews of fishing vessels that are decommissioned. The owners of those vessels get
  656
  reasonably large sums of money from decommissioning, but those who have worked on those vessels for 10 or 20 years end up with nothing and just become unemployed.
  When we consider the decommissioning package, we should also think about those ordinary crew members. We should think of measures to compensate those who are taken out of the industry through no fault of their own but simply because of its overall needs. I should be grateful if the Minister turned his mind to what can be done to help those ordinary crew members, who end up with nothing.
  6.43 pm
  Sir Richard Body: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his robust speech, which will be applauded by my constituents. I do not see, however, how anyone of us can have any enthusiasm for the statutory instrument, because it will not achieve the objective we all desire.
  We could double the size of the fishing fleet going out to sea, and there would be no danger to our fishing stocks if our fishermen were able to go back to the fishing methods of an earlier generation. Equally, we could more than halve our existing fishing fleet and the fleets of other Community countries, and our fishing stocks would be so depleted that we would cease to have a fishing industry of any consequence if we all went along with high-tech industrial fishing methods.
  Industrial fishing methods are being rapidly adopted not just in Community waters but around the world, and they have become a curse on conservation. I repeat that it is a worldwide problem, but I wish that this country would take the lead, as it is uniquely qualified to do, not just in Europe but internationally, to alert the fishing industries to the fact that, unless we tackle industrial fishing methods and the evils it is bringing, we will have a grave ecological problem in our seas in quite a short time.
  The problem of quota hopping has been mentioned forcibly by several hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), who said that he had been arguing against it for 15 years. Surely the problem goes back to 1970, and the genesis of the common fisheries policy.
  On the eve of our application to join the European Community, the Council of Ministers passed the regulation that enshrined the principle of equal access. It was therefore immaterial what country one came from, because one had equal access to all the waters. That principle was reaffirmed in 1976. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not in his place, because I intended to remind him that he was in the House then and supported his Government, which he did loyally in those days, on that issue. Given his absence, I had better say no more about it.
  We should remember that the problem goes back a long time. We conceded the principle when we joined the Community in 1973. If we are to make any progress on quota hopping, that regulation of 1976 must be expunged. I hope that the Minister will confirm that; that he will keep it in mind; and that he will do his utmost to achieve that objective. If he fails to do so, perhaps even he will consider the necessity for not just a root-and-branch reform of the common fisheries policy but something even more radical.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I do not wish to follow the point made by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), because he misunderstands the issue to the extent that the common fisheries policy is built on the concept of relative stability. It is the contradiction between quota hopping and relative stability that must be addressed as a matter of urgency.
  This is an item for the intergovernmental conference, so we must know what exactly the Government propose to do. Some suggestions have been made, but no specific attempts have been made to identify the necessary approach. The Government will have my full support and that of my hon. Friends to achieve that end. The IGC has been going on for some weeks. I know that it is a lengthy process and that there is still time to discuss the issue. I understand that nothing will be decided in the discussions on Monday. I am not asking the Minister to show his negotiating hand, but he needs to reassure the industry that he is taking the issue seriously. He needs to put some flesh on the bones.
  I support the statutory instrument for the reasons that everyone has explained. The relaxation of the eligibility criteria is welcome, and the prawner question, which was vexed and hard fought last year, has been dealt with. The industry is a lot happier. We would obviously be a lot happier if more decommissioning schemes were introduced, backed up with proper funding, for which we have argued for many years, at least since the late 1980s. I hope that the Government will continue to do what they can to increase the access to and eligibility for decommissioning schemes in the future.
  I should like to refer to the Minister's comments on the multi-annual guidance programme. I was encouraged by the tone that he adopted on some issues. The Government are entitled to be robust about the relative position of the United Kingdom and the Commission on the MAGP. However, there is still much confusion about the exact targets and shortfall, about whether the deficit will be carried over and, if it is to be carried over, the consequences that that will have for MAGP3 and up to 2002.
  I hope that, if the Minister has time, he will consider that matter. I was encouraged that he took such a robust attitude to the Lassen report and the Commission's announcement on that. A 40 per cent. reduction, even if it is over five or six years, is unacceptable, and hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed great anger about that. I add my weight to the frustration expressed by other hon. Members. We support the Government's opposition, and I hope that that will be continued robustly.
  The two specific objections to Lassen have both been mentioned, but I mention them in passing. It is unacceptable to proceed with these issues without taking account of the effect of industrial fishing and the fact that this is a biologist's report; ridiculously, there is no socio-economic analysis and perspective. The Commission must understand that, if fishermen are not committed to the schemes, mechanisms and processes, if they do not accept their value in their innermost hearts, they will not work. We must work with the grain of the industry.
  Sadly, there is no basis for equating a 40 per cent. reduction in catch with a 40 per cent. reduction in capacity.
  658
  I know that the Minister received no notice of the announcement by the Commissioner, but can we get together to try to create better consultation procedures for setting total allowable catch limits? This scheme has been better than most, but it needs to be improved more in future.
  The issue of quota hopping is bound up with the concept of relative stability, and we shall support efforts to change the treaty to get the common fisheries policy and quota hopping better sorted out, but it is an IGC matter and the Government need to say more about what they will do about that.
  I sound a note of warning about the potential difficulty of not agreeing to consider anything to do with the Lassen report until quota hoppers are dealt with; some people would be encouraged by that, because they have a vested interest in procrastinating on both those issues. The Government must be careful how they play that tactically. A treaty change on quota hopping is necessary, but even a treaty change—the Minister might confirm this—were it to be successful, and were the Government to win that argument, could be, as far as I can read from a legal point of view, only a prospective suggestion. What can we do about those who are already in the system, and why cannot the Government use some of the money available from the CFP in connection with third-country waters, to buy people out of quota hopping? That appears a simple, straightforward way in which to proceed.
  I am very worried about the continuing aging process, which has dramatically increased in the past 10 years. Ridiculously, the average age of our vessels is now 25 years. The Government are putting their head in the sand and are not making use of some of the socio-economic funds that are available through the CFP, for scrap and build and for some pension provision for those who leave the system. There is much to be done. If the Government are robust in dealing with Lassen and quota hopping, they will receive my support and that of my hon. Friends.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. Michael Brown: This is one of those debates that happens all too rarely in the House, in which there is a virtual unanimity of view across the House from all parties, whatever view we have taken individually about our membership of the European Community in the past. Speeches such as those by my hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) show the outrage that exists throughout the House. The passion that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives brought to bear in his speech shows that the patience of fishermen throughout the United Kingdom is very thin.
  Mr. Harris: It has gone.
  Mr. Brown: Indeed, it has gone.
  The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and I had the privilege of welcoming the Fisheries Minister to Great Grimsby a few weeks ago. There, despite the devastation that we have witnessed in the fishing industry in the past two decades, there was a buoyancy with the opening of the new fish market—yet suddenly Commissioner Bonino knocks that confidence. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister has responded so robustly, and I hope that he will pass on the

  659
  message from the House, from all the political parties, that there is outrage about the manner and tone in which she made those announcements.
  I fear that, if we fail to sort out this issue, fishermen's patience with the common fisheries policy, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives said, has gone, will never return. Our patience on both sides of the House with the common fisheries policy will then go, the public's confidence in the common fisheries policy will go—if it has not gone already—and there will be a massive upwelling of public feeling, as we look at beef and as we look at fish, which will cause the public to ask the purpose of our membership of the European Community.
  In the referendum in 1975, I voted against our entry into the European Community. In the past two decades, however, I bought the view that the issue was resolved once and for all—that that was it, we had had our say, the people of Britain had had their say and it was time to acknowledge that, for better or for worse, we were in the European Community and had to make the best of its institutions.
  I have gone along with that view pretty well for the past 20 years. In 1986, I did vote against the Single European Act, but I bought the general view that, for better or for worse, we have been in the European Community and we must make those institutions work with regard to fish, the common agricultural policy and so on.
  I do not want the House ever to have to come to consider our withdrawal from the European Community, but it will, I suspect, be an issue such as fish that will be the straw that breaks the camel's back with regard to the patience of the people out there and of the fishermen out there.
  The hon. Member for Great Grimsby and I constantly attend meetings with the shadow Fisheries Minister, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). The fishermen we meet ask us what the benefit is of being in the common fisheries policy. We say to them that, unfortunately, for better or for worse, that is the structure under which we must operate at present; that is where the negotiations must take place. The fishermen's response shows that they are starting to wonder what is in the common fisheries policy for them. The concept may have been a good idea, but currently it impinges very unfairly on our British fishermen.
  I am delighted with the robust view that my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues in the Government have taken. I am sure that they are not countenancing failure, but if they are unable to deliver what I know that they will negotiate for, our continued membership of the European Community will be called into question. I therefore wish my hon. Friend every success, because much more hangs on a successful outcome of the negotiations than our ability to deal with this problem. I believe that, as we reach the end of this century, whatever Government are in power, the issue of fish will determine the national attitude to whether our continued membership of the European Community is a good thing.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I regret that I have not tabled an amendment, because it would be nice to have a longer debate, as we should now ask questions, and call in question the basis of the decommissioning
  660
  policy. I am aware that Labour Members supported it for a long time before the Government did anything, but that delay has created a whole new ball game. It is a ball game in which the British industry is now being asked to decommission on what will be a massive scale if we cut 19 per cent. over the effort targets by the end of this year, then 40 per cent. by 2002, effectively to make room for Spanish vessels in our waters, to make more space for large, modernised, efficient European fleets, and to make more room for quota hoppers on our register.
  The other European countries have reached their multi-annual guidance programme targets by flagging their vessels under the British flag. Under the MAGP targets up to the end of 1991, Spain had to reduce its effort by 2.2 per cent. It registered 3 per cent. of its fleet as British to catch our fish. The Dutch had to reduce their effort by 16 per cent., so they put 6 per cent. of the fleet under the British flag. We now carry the burden and have to reduce our effort because of that reflagging. Jim Porteous of the south-west fisheries producers organisation has calculated that the flag of convenience vessels are now catching £82 million-worth of our fish in our waters and landing it in European ports. That is why we now face this huge reduction of effort and it is one of the reasons why we should call into question the decommissioning process.
  There are other reasons for calling that process into question. I have seen the Grimsby fleet drastically reduced. It is heart-rending, because it is one of the most conservation-conscious and efficient fleets in the country. It uses a larger mesh size than most other fleets and the vessels are older. They are seine netters, which is not an efficient method of fishing. It is not the vacuum cleaner method, scooping up everything. It is conservation-effective. We need more inefficient fishing, so that the fishermen catch larger fish, leaving the smaller fish to be caught later. We are taking the most conservation-effective vessels out through the decommissioning scheme, and that is wrong.
  Another reason why we should question the decommissioning scheme was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald). The decommissioning proposals do nothing for the share fishermen. They are losing their jobs as the vessel is being laid up, but nothing is being done for them. I asked the Minister why the Government did not accept the European proposal—I am not advocating accepting European proposals en masse—to part-fund an early retirement scheme and a compensation scheme for fishermen on decommissioned boats. The Government said that they preferred that to be taken care of by national social security measures.
  However, because we are talking about share fishermen who work on a self-employed basis, there is nothing for them when their vessel is decommissioned. They are losing their livelihood, but there is no redundancy pay and no help or support for them. If we are to have effective decommissioning, it is essential that something should be done for the fishermen—the poor bloody infantry of the industry. It is time that something was done.
  We are asked to make cuts in our effort to the end of this year, as a prelude to what the Commissioner told us might be a cut of 40 per cent. in the British effort. That is ludicrous and totally unacceptable. I am delighted that the Minister is committed to working against it. I want to tell him that the only way in which it can be resisted is

  661
  by calling into question the basis of equal access to a common resource on which the common fisheries policy rests. If we accept that principle, it follows as night follows day that there will be cuts pan passu across the board.
  It is ludicrous that we who bring the most fish into the so-called Common Market pool—about 75 per cent. of the stock—should be asked to take the biggest cuts in our fishing effort. We are being asked to make a cut of over half. The only way to resist it is to say that the cuts should be in inverse ratio to the contribution made to the stocks. If we contribute the most stocks, we should take the lowest cuts. Spain, which has a massive fleet and no fishing waters, should take the biggest cuts. That is the only logical and acceptable way to do it.
  We are reaching the end of the line. The Government have come to us bleating about the benefits of the CFP, but have done nothing for the industry except watch it be restructured by liquidation. They must stop the quota hoppers, which means an assault on that principle. They must get greater powers for the territorial states, so that we can protect our stocks and not see them stolen by other vessels. They must end the equal access. That is the only way to defend British fishing and to see some improvement. I offer the Government the principles contained in my Bill—the Fishery Limits (Amendment) Bill—which does all those things. I hope that they will look at it.
  7.4 pm
  Mr. Phil Gallie: I agree almost entirely with what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I go along with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). I agree particularly with the feeling of resentment about the stocks caught by the quota hoppers. That must be addressed.
  I want to make one specific point that has not been covered in the debate so far. Rather unusually, my point involves the banking system in Scotland. The banks play a major part in the fishing industry because they lend finance to the fishermen so that they can obtain the boats that they take to sea. We recognise that the fleets are aging and that in the future there will be a need for the banks to provide support if we are to increase the potential of our vessels and improve safety factors, with fishermen going to sea in modern vessels.
  The problem is the way in which the decommissioning scheme will be implemented. Fishermen will have to have their documents handed in and the vessels scrapped by the end of October. Thereafter, there is a 30-day gap to the time when cheques will be handed over. I am advised that at that time, the banks lose security on that element of cash. That is not acceptable to them. It would add costs to the industry in the future if it were to be permitted and if people defaulted on their bank loans.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I am sorry that that technicality has arisen so late, but I shall ask my officials to discuss it with the banks concerned as a matter of urgency.
  Mr. Gallie: I thank my hon. Friend. That is the assurance I sought, and I shall now sit down.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I welcome the co-operation that is allowing all hon. Members with fishing interests to participate in the debate. Every fishing debate is controversial, and an hour and a half is not sufficient time for such a debate.
  I want to make three points. We all agree that the common fisheries policy is a busted flush and should be changed fundamentally. There are three areas that destabilise the CFP. The first is the flag of convenience vessels, and that point has been mentioned many times. I remember the Merchant Shipping Bill back in 1988, when the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and I proposed amendments to toughen the conditions placed on flag of convenience vessels. At that time, despite the fact that that legislation was their fourth attempt to deal with the issue, the Government told us that everything was in order and that they had the matter in hand. They told us that our amendments were no good. Whether the amendments were good or bad, they could not have been any worse than the Government's attempts in that Bill.
  The issue is now to go before the intergovernmental conference. There is a point that I want the Minister to think about. As I understand the policy of non-co-operation, everything is to be vetoed regardless of whether it is good or bad. Even if treaty changes on flags of convenience vessels were achievable, am I correct in believing that they would be vetoed by the United Kingdom? The Minister seems to be shaking his head, but as I understand the policy, everything is to be vetoed regardless of whether the United Kingdom supports it. The Minister should address that.
  The second issue that destabilised the CFP was Spanish access to western waters six years before it was provided for in Spain's treaty of accession. This morning, The Times said:
  "Spain's unexpected decision to vote in favour of lifting the embargo on British bovine by-products may have been taken in the hope of a future quid pro quo with Britain on fishing rights."
  We have been here before. There have been Council meetings at which Spain suddenly decided to vote for the United Kingdom's position on qualified majority voting. We then found out that the fishing industry had been sold down the river as part of that bargain. Would the Minister care to deny the report in The Times this morning that Spain's decision to side with the United Kingdom might have something to do with its interest in fishing matters?
  Mr. Baldry: I have absolutely no idea where that story came from, and it bears no relation to the truth. Spain changed its view because it saw our eradication document, and it was able to support us on that basis.
  Mr. Salmond: I look forward to the Minister's letter to The Times, in which he will doubtless give us the details of the dirty deal that was done with Spain three years ago, which gave it accelerated access. The Minister shakes his head, but I have heard the same point made by Conservative Members.
  The third factor that has destabilised the common fisheries policy is the quota allocation. The Minister, rightly, in his short term of office has been directed to technical conservation, square-mesh panels and industrial fishing as alternative methods of conservation. We all accept that quota allocation is fine at times of abundant

  663
  fishery, but when the fishery becomes tight, the quota allocation becomes perverse as a conservation policy. Many Opposition Members have put the arguments for square-mesh panels and industrial fishing to many of the Minister's predecessors for many years, but we have yet to see effective action pursued and taken.
  I know that the Minister has been engaged in the dramatic consultation process in the past few months. I wish him well, but I hope that his declarations on and interest in questions of technical conservation are carried through into serious argument in the Council of Ministers.
  I, too, welcome the Minister's tough talk on fishing this evening, but I have seen his predecessors come and go. They all, including the UK Fisheries Minister—as the Minister described himself—said that they would act tough and change their ways on the common fisheries policy. Yet they all went to the Council of Ministers and did not talk tough there. If they did, that did not have any effect because they acted like lambs.
  The consistent feature of United Kingdom fishing policy has been to subordinate fishing to other interests in the European Union. That is why Spain, which is in the CFP, secured a good deal and Norway, from outside the CFP, secured a good deal. Fishing is an absolute priority of policy for both countries. Only when a Minister can come to the Dispatch Box and promise the House that fishing will be an absolute priority will he have any chance of success in European negotiations.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. William Ross: The statutory instrument covers the period up to the end of this year, but the decommissioning will not stop there and further proposals are in the pipeline. The debate has revolved not around the instrument but around those further proposals.
  The social and economic structure of the areas affected by fleet reductions has been well explored in the past and needs no repetition, other than to say that if the Irish sea fleet had to cut its catch by 40 per cent., the present onshore infrastructure simply could not be sustained, because the throughput of fish would be so low as to make the whole operation uneconomic. I am sure that that also applies elsewhere.
  The fishermen in Northern Ireland are astonished by the latest proposals, because they know that some species are abundant in the fishery at present, including haddock, herring and prawns. That was apparently also the view of the scientists until the turn of the year, but those early opinions seem to have been set aside despite the fact that the prawn fishery was increased by some 3,000 tonnes.
  It now seems that a massive cut is being demanded because the Community has taken a global view of all EC fisheries and has made cuts on that basis instead of considering individual species or fishing areas. That is not acceptable to the fishing industry, those who represent it in the House or the country at large. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that it was not acceptable to the Government. I hope that the Government will reject the cuts that have been demanded and opt for a policy tailored to each area and species.
  It is clear that the UK has suffered disproportionately from the changes made over the years, and there has been a huge reduction in the fleet in Northern Ireland already. We shall now be asked to give still more. It is time for a
  664
  radical change of policy, because the Northern Ireland fleet and those elsewhere in the United Kingdom have shrunk far enough.
  Something must be done about quota hopping. Much has been said about quota hopping, but something must also be done about the privileged position created for the Irish Republic by the Hague preference system, which has not been mentioned so far. I shall not go into details, but the facts will be well known to fishermen and all those who represent fishing constituencies. Those problems need immediate resolution and even more immediate is the need to fulfil the Government's pledge that the Irish sea Hague preference losses would be made good by international quota swaps.
  In the longer term, we need to clarify whether the Government accept the draft report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee on fisheries, issued in early May, which discussed decommissioning and reducing activity and catchability. In short, the question the document raises is whether the EC should have a small fishing fleet with a high catch capacity per vessel and utilise it fully—apparently that would be technically easy, because many vessels are tied up—or whether it should be satisfied with many more but less efficient vessels that would keep more people at work at sea and also more small fishing ports open. That needs careful consideration, because the smaller one-rig boats that fish for prawns ensure a steady year-round supply of prawns and steady employment. The larger, more efficient boats provide more seasonal supply and employment.
  The report states:
  "Measures to reduce activity and catchability will improve the willingness of fishermen to leave the industry".
  If applied, that would lead to a policy that squeezed the individual fisherman financially to the point at which he was not able to catch sufficient fish to keep his operation viable and would therefore be forced to take a small sum in compensation and leave the industry. Is that unacceptable policy precisely the result that the demand for a further 40 per cent. cut is intended to achieve?
  7.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): I am grateful to hon. Members for their wide-ranging contributions to what has once again, and rightly, turned out to be an impassioned debate. The fishing industry is a vital part of our national life and is at the heart of the constituencies of many hon. Members who have spoken today. I am proud to include myself among them.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) said, and whatever the difference in views, I believe that the whole House yearns to see a viable and profitable UK fishing industry that husbands the natural resources surrounding these islands and harvests those natural resources on a sustainable basis. The fish stocks on which our fishing industry relies are heavily over-exploited. Failure to tackle overfishing exposes the fishing industry to an increasing risk that those stocks will simply disappear, and that must never be allowed to happen.
  On the subject of the multi-annual guidance programme, the House has shown its real concern about the scale of the possible capacity reductions that the Commission is now seeking to achieve by 2002. I shall

  665
  repeat the comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State and make it clear to all hon. Members that there is no prospect of our decommissioning a third of the UK trawler fleet over the next three years, as Mrs. Bonino has suggested, but there is still a need for us to help remove from the fleet those vessels that are becoming increasingly unviable. Only in that way can we safeguard the future of the remaining fleet, place it on a more viable footing and reduce the incentive to overfish. That is why the Government propose to spend a further £13 million under the scheme before the House.
  There is no doubt that we need to reduce fishing effort for the future of the industry. The question is not whether, but how and to what extent different parts of the European Community fishing fleets should reduce their fishing activity. Of course, as the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said, we do not need to proceed by decommissioning alone. The fleet can be reduced in other ways.
  For example, although there is not much agreement in the industry, I know that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation is increasingly willing to contemplate restrictions on time at sea. I commend that thinking and I look forward to the UK industry acting responsibly and making known its detailed considerations of the Commission's proposals as we discuss them in the months ahead. I stress again that, in their present form, the proposals are unacceptable to the industry and to the Government.
  Many hon. Members mentioned quota hopping, especially my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). Of course, there is no point in spending UK taxpayers' money to decommission fishing vessels if other member states can continue to export their own surplus capacity on to our fishing register. It is vital that action is taken to close that loophole, which is exploited by quota hoppers. It would be intolerable if we were to scrap UK vessels, for them simply to be replaced by flag boats from other member states fishing against UK quotas. Although we took action to try to remedy that problem in 1989, our action was struck down by the European Court—the same European Court that many Opposition Front Benchers would sell their souls to serve.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear the Government's resolve to tackle the quota hopping problem at the intergovernmental conference. He made that point forcefully in his useful meeting with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation in Aberdeen last month. We envisage that our proposals will take the form of a protocol to the treaty, which recognises that national quotas allocated under the common fisheries policy are to be used for the benefit of national fishing communities. The protocol will be designed to allow individual member states to adopt measures to ensure that there are real economic links between their fishing communities and the vessels that fish their quotas.
  As my hon Friend the Minister of State said, the European Commission cannot be surprised that the UK fishing industry and the Government are unwilling to contemplate any further programmes of reductions in the UK fleet as long as the problem of quota hoppers remains to be solved.
  666
  Under the common fisheries policy, UK quotas are for the benefit of UK fishing communities, not for the benefit of fishermen from other member states. Fishing makes a vital contribution to the wealth of fishery-dependent areas, which are often in remote parts of our country where the scope for diversification is limited. It is our job to ensure that that contribution is properly safeguarded and secured.
  Some hon. Members asked about technical conservation and progress. I acknowledge the positive role that is played by our fishing industry and the fisheries conservation group. They have agreed a package of measures which, if adopted, should help to reduce discards and improve the state of some of the stocks on which our fishermen depend. We have passed details to the Commission and will press it to present its proposals as quickly as possible. Of course, we shall update the House on that.
  The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) asked a series of questions relating to his constituency. I shall write to him with detailed replies.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: It is obvious that the Minister is running out of material with which to respond to the debate. I have a basic question. There have been consistent references to decommissioning and to how we can reach the multi-annual guidance programme. Can the Minister state the exact UK tonnage, because three different figures have been published in the past month?
  Mr. Robertson: Obviously, there is confusion about that, and so that there is no ambiguity, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will write to the hon. Lady and to other hon. Members.
  Some hon. Members mentioned a decommissioning scheme specifically for quota hoppers. There are 150 quota hoppers in the UK fleet, representing one fifth of the tonnage of our offshore fleet.
  Mrs. Helen Liddell: I should like to intervene before the Minister moves too far from his response to the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), who made a valid point about the early retirement scheme and the Government's opposition to it. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will look again at introducing the scheme, in view of the considerable hardship faced by some fishermen?
  Mr. Robertson: As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, there is a variety of other schemes, such as FIFG and PESCA. As she presses me to have a second look at the matter, I am happy to assure her that I shall do so.
  Mrs. Ewing rose—
  Mr. Robertson: I have already given way to the hon. Lady.
  Clearly, if we were able to decommission the 150 quota hoppers, it would go a long way towards meeting any targets for capacity reductions. Of course, there is nothing to prevent quota hopper owners from applying for decommissioning grants under the scheme before the House. Some quota hoppers were decommissioned under previous schemes. A special scheme targeting them would

  667
  be quite different, and I am not sure that fishermen would take kindly to our spending large sums of public money to buy them out.
  Even if it were possible to devise such a scheme, some difficult issues would need to be resolved. Should arrangements be voluntary or compulsory, and what steps should be taken to prevent the owners of decommissioned vessels buying back into the UK fleet? How could we be sure that the quota that was released by the decommissioning of such vessels benefited UK vessels and interests? Those and other matters would have to be carefully considered.
  Mr. Salmond: If I were the Minister, I would not burn my bridges about buying out quota hoppers. I would introduce some flexibility. The Minister said that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation supported days at sea measures. Will he make it clear that they would not be an addition but in exchange for a relaxation of the quota regime?
  Mr. Robertson: Of course they are not. I am not ruling out the idea of buying out quota hoppers—far from it—but our fishermen would want satisfactory answers to a series of technical and important questions before we went down that road. I am trying to flag up some of the questions and issues that would have to be discussed with the industry and sorted out. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that. Although we have no plans for a scheme at present, I am not willing to rule it out. Indeed, I am willing to look at it with our industry.
  The measure will, I hope, make a valuable contribution to improving the operation of the UK fleet. As the Minister of State said, there have been a number of changes in the criteria compared with the 1995 scheme, and they are all designed to make it more effective. I am glad that the House has been able to welcome the widening of the scheme, which will allow more vessel owners to apply.
  We have had a full and useful debate. The proposed scheme will make a modest but valuable contribution towards restructuring the UK fishing fleet and safeguarding its future and that of the fish stocks on which it depends. I have no hesitation in commending the scheme to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 1242), dated 7th May 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th May, be approved.

  Parliamentary Proceedings (Welsh)
  7.25 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
  That, whilst English is and should remain the language of this House, the use of Welsh be permitted in parliamentary proceedings held in Wales, subject to the conditions set out in the Third Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, Session 1995–96 (House of Commons Paper No. 387).
  We have emptied the Chamber of Scotsmen and filled it with Welshmen.
  I shall begin by explaining why, to his great regret, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is unable to be present. As my right hon. Friend is not here, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) will reply to the debate. I know that that will be understood by Welsh Members, but I thought that I should put it on the record because the same problem has led to the leading party spokesmen for other parties in Wales being unable to be here.
  They have a good reason. The Secretary of State and the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) are tonight taking part in a long-arranged public debate in Wales, probably in English, on constitutional issues affecting Wales. It is clearly an important occasion and they all felt that they should be present. We all understand that, and I am sorry that we were not able to arrange parliamentary business in a more convenient way for them. I can testify from my conversations with the Secretary of State for Wales that he has asked me to make clear his strong personal support for the proposal.
  The House will recall that, on 11 March, we agreed seven new Standing Orders enabling the Welsh Grand Committee to play an enhanced role in the parliamentary consideration of Welsh affairs by dealing with a wider range of business and holding meetings in Wales. During consultation on the draft Standing Orders and in the debate, representations were made that the use of the Welsh language should be allowed in the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee when it met in Wales.
  I made it clear to the House in, I hope, a characteristically conciliatory way during the earlier debate that the Government did not think that those representations could be dismissed. After all, we are the Administration who carried through the Welsh Language Act 1993, which established the principle that, in the conduct of public business in Wales, the English and Welsh languages should be treated equally.
  As I said in our earlier debate on the matter, it was clear that a decision to allow the use of Welsh in parliamentary proceedings would be a major change in practice on which the House ought to take a view when the issues of principle and practicality had been thoroughly investigated. Accordingly, I invited the Procedure Committee whose distinguished Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is in his place and who was slightly taken by surprise when he read the report of our earlier debate, to consider the matter and to report to the House as soon as possible.
  My right hon. Friend and his colleagues kindly accepted that unexpected and unannounced remit and have discharged it with admirable speed although they

  669
  were engaged in several other inquiries at the same time. It is appropriate to express on behalf of the House, and not only Welsh Members, our gratitude to my right hon. Friend and the members of the Committee for that. I am moving the motion to give the House an opportunity to decide on the Committee's recommendations.
  First, English is the language in which the proceedings of this House are conducted, as it is the only language that all hon. Members are assumed to understand. The Procedure Committee rested firmly on that principle for proceedings here, and recommended that the House should affirm that principle in a resolution.
  In that connection, I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) for his courtesy in giving me notice of some points that he wanted me to cover on the possible uses of languages other than English. This may be an appropriate time for me to pick them up. He asked about the appropriateness or, indeed, orderliness of using Latin and Greek and Chaucerian English. The advice that I have on that is that it would be for the Speaker—or you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to decide whether to allow an hon. Member to use a quotation in Latin, Greek or Chaucerian English during a speech in the House without providing a translation.
  I gather that, unfortunately, no hon. Members of the present House—certainly not me—heard Lord Palmerston get himself out of a tight corner in the "Don Pacifico" debate in 1850, which I remember learning about in my boyhood, with a peroration that included the phrase:
  "Civis Britannicus sum",
  which I hasten to translate, to be sure that I am in order, as:
  "I am a British citizen".
  I do not think that anyone would take exception to the use of Latin in that case, but as a general rule we might do well to follow the practice of Sir Winston Churchill, who on one occasion, when he had made a telling point in a speech with a Latin quotation, followed it up instantly with a translation into English. I suspect, however, that his purpose was not to keep in order but rather to make a different point, because in introducing the English version he said that it was "for the benefit of any Etonians who may be present".
  I move rapidly from Latin, Greek and Chaucerian English to the second question raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, who noticed, no doubt, that I mentioned during the debate in March that Norman French was still used in the other place when Royal Assent is signified to Acts of Parliament by Commission. The formula used—I have heard it many times—is "La Reyne le veult".
  Norman French is also used by the Clerks, I am told—I did not know this before—in the endorsements that are written on Bills as they pass from one House to the other. I see the Clerk nodding—[Interruption.] Is he not nodding? Perhaps he is not allowed to nod, but I am sure that I saw him nodding first. Norman French, although spoken in that one instance in the other place, is never spoken in the House. I hope that that is sufficient guidance for what has been the practice.
  The last point that the hon. Gentleman raised with me can best be illustrated by referring to the speech that was made to a joint gathering of both Houses of Parliament
  670
  by President Chirac recently, which many hon. Members present will have heard, and which was, of course, delivered in French. The point is that it is quite usual for visiting Heads of State and Heads of Government to deliver such addresses in their own language, but these are ceremonial occasions that do not form part of the proceedings of the House, so the normal rules do not apply. I hope that that is sufficient comment on the points that the hon. Gentleman raised.
  I return to the main purpose of the motion, which asks us to reaffirm that English is the language used for the proceedings of the House. The Procedure Committee was none the less satisfied that the Welsh language enjoys a special status in Wales, already recognised in law through the Welsh Language Act 1993, which provides a sound basis for agreeing a narrow derogation from the general rule concerning English to allow the use of Welsh in parliamentary proceedings in Wales. The motion gives effect to that recommendation.
  Finally, the motion approves the conditions for the use of Welsh, which the Procedure Committee has recommended. The principal condition is that facilities for simultaneous interpretation from Welsh into English should be provided for the benefit of non-Welsh speakers. The Committee's advice is that such facilities can be hired at relatively modest cost; indeed, a number of the venues that might be used for meetings of the Welsh Grand Committee are already appropriately equipped, as one would expect, particularly since the passage of the Welsh Language Act.
  The Committee also made a number of practical recommendations, which the motion invites the House to endorse: that hon. Members proposing to speak in Welsh should give notice to the Chairman; that hon. Members should not switch from one language to the other in the course of a speech; and that direct communications between the Chairman and an hon. Member, such as points of order, and communications with members of staff, should be in English. As the report makes clear, all those recommendations are made for practical reasons.
  The motion would apply not only to the Welsh Grand Committee, but to any meetings of the Welsh Affairs Committee and, indeed, other Select Committees that may meet in Wales. The Procedure Committee has recommended a set of guidelines—again of a practical character—that should govern the hearing of oral evidence in the Welsh language.
  Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that some of us have been listening to him with great interest. When the proceedings are published, which will be the definitive text—the English or the Welsh?
  Mr. Newton: Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton will comment. The report recommends that, where somebody has given notice that they wish to speak in Welsh, they will be required to provide an English translation, which will then be the official record. I think that that is the suggestion. Does my right hon. Friend wish to intervene at this point?
  Sir Peter Emery: Perhaps I can come to the aid of the House. All parliamentary papers have always

  671
  been published in English, and the publication of all parliamentary and Committee papers will continue to be in English.
  Mr. Newton: I hope that my right hon. Friend's intervention is helpful to the hon. Gentleman. It was certainly helpful to me. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.
  If the House approves the motion, the way will be clear for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to introduce proposals for a programme of meetings of the Welsh Grand Committee at suitable locations in Wales. In view of the undoubted success of the reforms of the Scottish Grand Committee that the Government have introduced, I am sure that all Welsh Members will be looking forward eagerly to these developments.
  Mr. John Morris: Can we ensure that there is no misconception? My understanding from the Procedure Committee's recommendations is that, if an hon. Member wishes to speak Welsh in the Welsh Grand Committee in Wales, he is not obliged to provide a translation, as a translation will automatically be provided and transmitted by the translators and the equipment. That should be clearly understood here and now.
  Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I can clear up the misinterpretation that I gave by accident just now. When re-reading material on this issue shortly before I came into the Chamber, the last thing that I read was the evidence given by the Editor of Hansard, who I think made the suggestion to which I referred. I apologise to the House for confusing that evidence, which was fairly fresh in my mind, with the report's recommendations, which have been clearly explained by my right hon. Friend and by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope that that helps to remove the misunderstanding to which I inadvertently contributed.
  In conclusion, I join my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales in his endorsement of the Procedure Committee's recommendations. I commend the motion to the House.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I add to the apologies that were given by the Leader of the House for the absence of the Secretary of State, the shadow Secretary of State and the other two party leaders from Wales, who are in Cardiff tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who is shadow Leader of the House, has asked me to reply, which would not usually occur, but she is otherwise engaged. She has given notice of her absence to the Leader of the House.
  The Opposition welcome the Procedure Committee's recommendations. We also welcome the speed with which it carried out its work, its professionalism and that of the witnesses and those who offered written evidence, the Clerks and others, so that it was able to reach the recommendations that we are debating.
  I cavil at two of the Committee's recommendations, but just for the purposes of debate and so that the House may give those matters some thought. It occurs to me that the proposed formal declaration that English is the language of the House of Commons, other than for the Welsh
  672
  Grand Committee when sitting in Wales, is much against the traditions of the House. Such a declaration is almost a first step along the road to a written constitution.
  It reminds anyone with an interest in Welsh history of the 1536 Act of Union, which applied to Wales a rule that never applied in England—that anyone from Wales who wanted to take part in public business, such as the law or Parliament, must do so in the English language. A person would have been at liberty to use another language in England, but not in Wales, because fear of the Welsh language prompted a formal declaration. The House should consider whether it would be better to do without a formal declaration, as such is against the traditions of the House—which permits things to be done by evolution and the rules of pragmatism.
  As to the use of Norman French in limited circumstances, the Leader of the House did not address what would happen if the House were to make a formal declaration that no language other than English could be used in our proceedings. Would Norman French be disallowed? We do not necessarily want to lose those odd bits of Norman French that are used here and there in our formal proceedings, so it might be better to avoid a formal declaration—or at least give serious thought to the implications before making one.
  Mr. Newton: There may be some small misunderstanding. The only use of Norman French in the proceedings of Parliament that is formally recorded is in the other place, so it cannot be affected by a resolution made in this House. However, the Clerks also make use of Norman French in passing Bills between the two Houses.
  Mr. Morgan: That calls into question whether the Clerks would be permitted, if a formal declaration were made, to use Norman French for their purposes.
  My other concern is whether a speech made partly in Welsh and partly in English would be debarred. Hansard has said that that should not be allowed, and although I understand the reasons, I am not certain that it is wise to make such a definite rule. I appreciate that Hansard wants maximum notice, which is absolutely fair, so that it can check that an interpreter is available, but the general principle followed in respect of the proceedings of the House—I speak from personal experience—should take account of the relevance of the language to the topic, not the convenience of the service provided by Hansard.
  I am not saying that I am dismissing the practical concerns of Hansard. Nevertheless, if an hon. Member were to be speaking on the subject of agriculture and wanted to move on from the common agricultural policy wheat subsidy to the BSE crisis in the beef herds of Wales, since most beef farmers in Wales happen to be Welsh-speaking, the hon. Member might want to change at that point to the use of Welsh. If a Front Bencher were speaking on a range of education matters, he might say in the last five minutes, "I want to conclude on the position of Welsh medium schools in Wales." Interested outsiders would be happier hearing about that in Welsh.
  It is the tradition of the House first to try something and, if it causes a problem, to reach agreement with the services provided to the House. If something proves impracticable, it is banned because it has been proved not to work. I understand that principle is known as solvitur ambulando—an ancient phrase that I had never heard until

  673
  a couple of hours ago, when I read that it was used by Lord Howe of Aberavon when he gave evidence to the Public Service Committee.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I would be most grateful if the hon. Gentleman would tell us the meaning of that phrase.
  Mr. Morgan: Having explained who said it and where, I was about to say that it means, "It will solve itself at a walking pace." I am glad to have acted in an educational capacity for the benefit of the Deputy Speaker, as Lord Howe did for me when I read that reference in the Library's helpful briefing for tonight's debate.
  I have practical experience of speaking in both English and Welsh at Labour party conferences in Wales.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: At the same time?
  Mr. Morgan: No—consecutively, not concurrently. That did not seem to cause problems for the audience, but there was no question of interpretation. I have also spoken in Welsh in at least one national Labour party conference, and I recall that the present Member of the European Parliament for Mid and West Wales—my former constituent Miss Eluned Morgan, who is no relation—made part of her speech to the Brighton conference in Welsh and the rest in English. She could not have given her speech entirely in Welsh, but it did not seem unreasonable for her to speak in Welsh for three minutes.
  The practicalities of using Welsh in a political context do not seem to cause problems, and if doing so makes sense, Hansard should fit the occasion rather than hon. Members having to fit Hansard—although I do not wish to sound as though Hansard writers can perform tricks, stand on their heads and write double Dutch at the same time. I know that there are limits to what they can do, but Hansard should serve our practical needs. If it makes sense for hon. Members to speak Welsh because of the nature of the topic, that preference should be given more attention. The Procedure Committee may simply have decided, "Okay, if that's what Hansard says are the practical modalities of allowing Welsh to be spoken in the Welsh Grand Committee, we must do exactly what Hansard wants in every respect." Which is what the Committee has done.
  Mr. Nick Ainger: As someone who served on a council that was bilingual until its abolition earlier this year, I appreciate—as a monoglot Yorkshireman—the concerns that Hansard may have. There is no need for concern because speeches made in Welsh will be interpreted. If the Hansard writers cannot understand a speech and do their job, how will monoglot members of the Welsh Grand Committee understand what is being said? There is some criticism implied of the interpretation facilities. I can assure Hansard as a monoglot Yorkshireman—my hon. Friend has the benefit of being
  674
  bilingual—that interpretation facilities throughout Wales are excellent. Hansard will be able to do its job, as will monoglot members of the Welsh Grand Committee.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions in any language should be short and precise.
  Mr. Morgan: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. If Dyfed county council could interpret my hon. Friend's "Ee bah gum" into Welsh, I am sure that Hansard can do just as well with Welsh interpreted into English for the purposes of the record.
  Incidentally, I was interested to hear the interventions of Northern Ireland Members, and I was glad to see in his place earlier my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), because their presence is relevant.
  It was as late as 1906 before a Speaker ruled that English was to be the main language of the House of Commons, and only because of a challenge by an Irish nationalist Member of Parliament from west Kerry who attempted to make a speech in the Chamber in Irish Gaelic. The Speaker at the time made the point—as did the Leader of the House in his intervention—that the proceedings of the House have been conducted entirely in English for the past 600 years. He went one stage further and said that the House's proceedings had always been in English, which is not true. The House started out as a trilingual Parliament, with proceedings in English, French and Latin. In a fluid, pragmatic, I hesitate to say solvitur ambulando way, the English language gradually took over from Latin and French, probably by about 1450.
  Naturally—and I notice some Euro-sceptic Members here tonight—after the original Norman conquest, the opening of the hundred years war in about 1350 caused this place to become more aggressively English. I hope that we are not about to start another hundred years war with the continent—you never know. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) probably thinks that we have started such a war.
  The use of French started to decrease and the use of English increased. Strangely, however, as the use of English went up, all words with any conceptual significance were borrowed from the French, so by the time English had replaced French, French had been incorporated into English. Words such as procedure, committee, parliament, government and constitution were all borrowed from French. Single-syllable words were of Anglo-Saxon or English origin, and all the two, three or four-syllable words were of French origin because that had been the language of the upper and ruling classes. That is how English became the flexible language that it is today.
  The other great irony about the fear of the Welsh language, which causes Speakers to say, as one did in 1906, "We want to say for definite that the English language is the primary language of the House," is that, by the time the House—having started out on a trilingual basis when it was an England-only Parliament and did not cover Wales, Scotland or Ireland, north or south—became a monoglot English Parliament, it covered initially Wales and then Scotland and Ireland. It was a monoglot English Parliament precisely when it was starting to incorporate the Celtic languages, which might have been relevant in the wish to continue on a trilingual or even quadrilingual

  675
  basis, not with French and Latin, but with Welsh, Scots Gaelic and Irish Gaelic possibly permitted in special circumstances, as we are discussing tonight.
  I hope that the House will warmly endorse the Procedure Committee's recommendation to continue a pragmatic approach to this matter. Rather than issuing firm rules about what shall and shall not be done, we should think about how we handle the problems. This is a British Parliament, not solely a Parliament for England and, therefore, we must incorporate and be flexible enough to allow the use, where appropriate, of languages other than English when covering Welsh business.
  7.52 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for his kind remarks. I suggest that they are applicable mainly to my Committee members, because they have worked solidly to get this through, assisting me in the recommendations that we have made to the House. I am pleased at the speed with which our report has been taken by the House. I urge all Welsh Members to use their influence on their leaders to ensure that other Procedure Committee reports are debated as quickly as this one. I would have liked a "Hear, hear" from Opposition Members on that matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear. "] Thank you very much.
  I must emphasise absolutely that one of the problems that the Procedure Committee had from the start was the concept that this would be a foot, or perhaps even a toe, in the door, which would lead to possible demands for the Welsh language to be used in Parliament in Westminster. To ensure that that was not acceptable to the House generally or to the vast majority of hon. Members, we emphasised that
  "the language of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its committees is English: it has been English for many centuries; and it should in our view remain English."
  I am sorry if the term "British" would be more convenient, but even in America the language is accepted as being English and I hope that that would be acceptable even to the Welsh. We moved in a specific direction because the special status of the Welsh language in Wales, as enshrined in the Welsh Language Act 1993, did not apply to parliamentary proceedings. It was specifically for that purpose that the Procedure Committee investigated and examined the matter.
  There are reasons for our being specific about our proposition about English. The Labour party spokesman, the hon. Member—I was going to say that he was my hon. Friend—for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) pointed out the possibilities of Norman French and other languages. To meet perhaps that point, we are concerned that there should not be an approach that Urdu should be used because it covers certain people whose natural language is Urdu, or that Gaelic should be used in relation to other people in this country. Therefore, we have made that absolutely definite. I hope that the House, in the resolution as set out by the Leader of the House, which I hope will be passed, makes it definite that Welsh is to be used specifically for Welsh parliamentary proceedings in Wales.
  Another helpful basis for allowing this is the amount of translation equipment that exists in many of the places where Welsh Committees meet in Wales. It appeared to
  676
  the Procedure Committee to be nonsense not to be able to use translation facilities in a county council or a chamber if Welsh Members demanded to speak in Welsh.
  We did, however, make it clear that Members should use one language alone, whether in interventions or in speeches. That is specifically to assist both the Chairman and the Committee Clerks in ensuring that they understand what the proceedings are and realise it from the word go.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: In the spirit of co-operation and in assisting the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask him this question? If there were a debate in Wales, an hon. Member were addressing the Welsh Grand Committee in Welsh, the Committee were adjourned and the remainder of the sitting were in London, would that not contravene the golden rule that hon. Members start off and finish in the same language?
  Sir Peter Emery: If it was to be considered a golden rule, the hon. Gentleman would be correct, but we have made the position clear. I hope that hon. Members' speeches will not be cut in half and that they will not have to make half of it in Wales and half in England. To get over that golden rule, I urge the Welsh Grand Committee Chairman to ensure that that does not happen.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the Procedure Committee might reconsider this matter, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) from the Front Bench. It is common for people in the course of a conversation or a speech to switch from one language to another. It is a natural habit in west Wales, in the Gwynedd valley, where my wife comes from, and in many other regions. The Committee and the House should think about that point.
  Sir Peter Emery: Although my mother was a Thomas, indeed to goodness, it was not necessary to switch from one language to the other. We should proceed along with this. After all, it is the start of an experiment. If it appears that there is a problem, the matter can be reviewed. That seems to be the sensible way to proceed. This is a new initiative and difficulties will need to be ironed out. Let us get the system working first and then we can—
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: I want to register my support for the principle that it is better to use one language in one speech. I am not sure whether that needs to be laid down in the stipulation, but it is good practice to follow; otherwise, we tend to get tokenism—this is a common phenomenon in Wales—when people start their speeches in Welsh, deliver the meat in English and then return to Welsh. That is thoroughly bad practice. I want hon. Members to use Welsh seriously and thoroughly throughout their contributions to our debates.
  Sir Peter Emery: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He will not expect me to become a judge of the variation of views among Welsh Members on that matter.
  There was some criticism of cost, because the procedure will involve additional expenditure that has not been thought about or budgeted for. However, when we examined the probable cost, we found it to be quite

  677
  small—about £2,500 per sitting in Wales. That is small compared with the cost for the Scottish Grand Committee, which has to travel to Scotland.
  Points were made about the Order Paper and the Official Report. In paragraph 10 of our report, I asked the House to note that those documents were produced by and for the House and therefore should be comprehensible to all Members of the House. There is nothing to stop any hon. Member producing his speech in the Welsh language if that is what he wishes, but the Committee did not think that it made sense to have a Welsh language Official Report or Order Paper, as they would not be understood by the vast majority of hon. Members.
  We have attempted—I hope—to be practical in our recommendations to the House, which the Government have been willing to accept. I hope that they meet the wishes of the House and of all Welsh Members, who obviously have a particular interest in safeguarding a language that is theirs and that there is great reason to safeguard.
  As I have said from the beginning, this procedure must not be considered as a toe or a foot in the door for any other language, at any time, to be accepted in the House—only English can be the language for parliamentary use.
  8.2 pm
  Mr. John Morris: I, too, wish to thank the Procedure Committee for the speed with which it tackled its remit from the Leader of the House. I will not follow the arguments of the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) on whether the English language should be known as the British language, for the central reason that this country is made up of four nations, so there is no such thing as a British language.
  I very much welcome the proposal that Welsh should be capable of being used in parliamentary proceedings in Wales. The word "permitted" in the motion—in the context of the oldest living language in these islands, which has a special statutory status—strikes an odd note, although it is technically correct.
  As Members, we should not pat ourselves on the back too much over the proposal to allow each Select Committee meeting in Wales to presume in favour of the use of Welsh for those witnesses who wish to use the language.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), in his evidence, made this valid point:
  "Part of the reason for taking evidence away from Westminster is to hear people in their working environment or in a setting that is directly relevant to the inquiry".
  Therefore, I was a little surprised to read that the only time the Welsh Affairs Select Committee had taken evidence in Welsh was as far back as 1981, although it has taken formal evidence in Wales on 18 occasions since then.
  My hon. Friend made the point that some other Committees sitting in Wales, such as the Agriculture Committee, might wish to take evidence in Welsh. I believe that it could. Paragraph 13(d) of the Procedure Committee's report says that Select Committees should give notice of any intention to allow evidence to be heard in Welsh. That is quite wrong. It should be automatically presumed that the Committees will take evidence in
  678
  Welsh, unless there is good reason to the contrary—for example, a lack of translation facilities. I do not understand why a decision should have to be made on each and every occasion.
  I said earlier that we should not pat ourselves on the back too much. For a long time, other bodies set up by the House have done what my hon. Friend the Member for Gower emphasised. It is recorded in the archives of the House that one of my ancestors gave evidence in Welsh to a royal commission on land in Wales and Monmouthshire as far back as 28 April 1894. David Jenkins was called and examined through an interpreter. He had no language other than Welsh in which to express himself if the royal commission wanted to hear how his father had been dispossessed by the Earl of Lisburne from a farm in 1875, which had been tenanted by the family for four or five generations from as far back as 1797 or even earlier. If the royal commission wanted to hear about the hardship involved, it could hear it only in Welsh. It was happening then in the real world, so there is no reason why it should not happen now. I expect that David Jenkins was one of many people who could not express himself in any language other than Welsh.
  We have moved on during the past 50 years and we have passed three important Acts, each in turn enhancing the status of our language. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), the shadow Leader of the House, said succinctly in her evidence, it was inconceivable that, having obliged other bodies in Wales to provide a Welsh facility, we should not do the same. That is the crux of the argument.
  There was no such thing as the Welsh Grand Committee until it was conceived by the joint efforts of Ness Edwards—who was the Member of Parliament for Caerphilly and the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) —and Goronwy Roberts, the Member of Parliament for Caernarfon. It is right that, while English should remain the language of this House, the Welsh Grand Committee, when sitting in Wales, should be able to hear contributions in Welsh from hon. Members. If confined to that Committee, I see no great difficulty in having speeches in Welsh wherever the Committee sits, but that is my personal view. In practice, we are advocates and we seek to persuade, so I suspect that there will not be many instances of Members wishing to do that. Nevertheless, the principle of being able to do so should be established.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), the Chairman of the Welsh Grand Committee, said in his evidence that, from his experience of the Council of Europe, he did not envisage much of a problem with the proposal. I have just returned from the European Court of Human Rights and the diversity of 14 judges from countries as different as Estonia and Turkey, advocates, members of the public, and so on—yet in the cases that I heard there was no difficulty with simultaneous translation. We have moved on and the facilities exist.
  One important practical point is that the translators, especially the simultaneous translators, should be competent. Translating is a difficult art. Most of us who are privileged to be bilingual would not set up as simultaneous translators. It is a difficult art that requires special training. Those I know in that art—they are

  679
  international translators—either have a very mixed background or have immersed themselves in more than one culture. I believe that we in Wales have the advantage in our translators because we are brought up in a bilingual society.
  No one should think that translating is an easy art to do well. Hence, one sees at international gatherings that translators usually do not operate for more than 20 minutes or half an hour at a time, when someone else has to take over, particularly if the subject is technical. I emphasise the importance of good translators.
  Hon. Members have already mentioned the practical problems involved if a person switches during his speech from one language to another. Those problems are not insuperable. We are on a learning curve and, as the right hon. Member for Honiton rightly said, we should reconsider the situation as we go along according to how it develops. That was an important point, which I endorse fully. Let us make a start and see how it goes.
  It is curious that one of the things that might happen—I disagree entirely with the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) on this issue—is that one might want to make a point or more than one point in one language and then switch to English for the remainder of the speech. That would not be tokenism and should not be disapproved of, if we can get over the learning curve; otherwise, the curious effect will be that someone who wants to make a point in Welsh will want to develop his entire speech in Welsh, whereas he might have been prepared to make most of the speech as an advocate, to seek to persuade and to ensure that the language is directly addressed to the majority of those who know both languages. That is an important issue, but it is not insuperable.
  Many years ago, I attended the Canadian Parliament, in Ottawa. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Honiton was with me on that occasion—it was a long time ago, but he may well have been. I think that it was a meeting of the North Atlantic Assembly. Pierre Trudeau was there, fielding questions as Prime Minister in two languages. If a question was put to him in French, he would reply in French. If it was asked in English, he would reply in English. Certainly I saw no difficulties. I am not competent to comment on his French, but he was a native-born French speaker.
  I am proud that when—on my first occasion as Secretary of State for Wales—I visited Gwynedd county council, in Easter 1974, the same type of system prevailed. I was questioned and addressed in both languages. Many questions went on for the good part of two hours, and I sought as best as I could to answer in whatever language the question was asked in. Certainly, as regards the language, there was no complaint—although there might have been complaints about the contents of the answers. It is not an insuperable difficulty, and I think that the wise words of the right hon. Member for Honiton—that we should consider the position as we go along—should be borne in mind.
  I welcome these proposals. On the whole, they are very sensible. I endorse the thanks given to the Select Committee on Procedure for its speed. We are grateful to it for its recommendations. We have come a long way since the time when another ancestor of mine, my grandfather, had to wear the Welsh knot. We have moved a great deal since then. I am grateful to the Committee.
  8.13 pm
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I, too, warmly welcome the third report of the Select Committee on Procedure on the use of the Welsh language in parliamentary proceedings in Wales. I compliment all those who contributed to the Committee's deliberations and led it to its eminently sensible and very comprehensive set of conclusions. I should particularly like to thank my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons for his leadership and my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for, I am sure, the wise guidance that he gave to the Committee. It certainly deserves a "diolch yn fawr iawn" from us, which means thank you very much. The origins of the Welsh language lie way back in Romano-Celtic times, or possibly earlier. I do not have to remind the House that the earliest poetry we have, the "Gododdin", was written at least a couple of centuries before "Beowulf". Although most English hon. Members would not understand a word of "Beowulf", we have a reasonable chance of familiarising ourselves with the contents of the "Gododdin".
  The Welsh language has, of course, long enjoyed the protection of the House. In the 16th century, Parliament legislated that the Bible should be translated into Welsh. Those of us who cherish the language know how important that decision was in ensuring its survival. In this century, Parliament has, of course, passed a number of Acts that have promoted the use of the language, culminating in the 1993 Act, the full effects of which have yet to be realised.
  I accept without question that the language of the proceedings of Parliament is English, but, now that the Welsh Grand Committee is occasionally to become peripatetic in Wales, it would not be understandable, appropriate or right if that Committee—for example, when meeting in a predominantly Welsh-speaking town such as Caernarfon—were not able to allow speeches, questions or interventions in Welsh. That goes for anywhere else in Wales.
  During the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, there was mention of the translation that will appear in Hansard. Perhaps it is just as well to remind ourselves that there is no reason why a Welsh speaker in the Welsh Grand Committee should not supply the Official Reporters with his version of his speech, just as we now supply Hansard with copies of any copious notes that we may have.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton mentioned the visit of President Chirac. I certainly received many letters about his address in French to both Houses of Parliament. The letters asked why French was permitted at the Palace of Westminster while Welsh was not. I explained that the President's address was not a part of the proceedings of Parliament but rather a "special ceremonial occasion", as my right hon. Friend described it. Furthermore—as yet—President Chirac is not an honourable Member of this Parliament.
  The Welsh Affairs Select Committee laid down its ground rules in 1980, under what I thought must have been the very wise chairmanship of the former Member for Pontypool, Mr. Leo Abse. Those rules dealt with the Select Committee's meetings in Wales and with possible requests for the use of the Welsh language. That Committee's far-sighted proceedings are reproduced in an

  681
  annexe to this report, and I am glad that the Procedure Committee found those proceedings a useful precedent, which it has now refined.
  I cannot find much fault with the Procedure Committee's recommendations, although when we come to practise them we may find some shortcomings that we cannot anticipate. I am sure that those shortcomings can be overcome with a modicum of common sense and good humour. We have already heard the argument whether a speech should be in Welsh in its entirety or whether it could be partly in Welsh and partly in English. Clearly, there are arguments to be made for both points of view.
  Personally, I am inclined to agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton that we should begin by asking that speeches should be entirely in Welsh. Welsh speakers in the Chamber know that we wish to encourage the speaking of Welsh, but there is a danger in the tokenism to which the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North referred. However, I am sure that there are also advantages in the part Welsh, part English speech, if only because it allows double exposure in the media.
  I regard the use of Welsh by parliamentary Committees in Wales as an important and necessary step, not only in demonstrating official recognition of the language but in establishing the willingness of Parliament to get as close to the electors as it reasonably can.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) knows as well as any hon. Member the problems that are experienced by people who want to use the Welsh language at an official level in Wales. Of course, he steered the Welsh Language Act 1993 through the House. He also referred to "Y Gododdin"—I am sure that those taking the official note of our proceedings breathed a sigh of relief that he was not tempted to quote it. However, I am sure that when he speaks in the Welsh Grand Committee in Wales, he will take the opportunity to do so.
  Like other hon. Members, I have read the record of the House's dealings with languages other than English. I read the record of the proceedings of 21 July 1966, almost 30 years ago to the month. At that time, the first Plaid Cymru Member—Mr. Gwynfor Evans who represented Carmarthen—entered the House. He raised a point of order with the then Speaker about the possibility of taking the oath in Welsh. The Speaker ruled firmly that the oath had to be taken in English, although a number of hon. Members of all parties supported Mr. Evans.
  I am surprised that no other hon. Member has referred to that occasion today because in 1974 the Speaker allowed hon. Members to take the oath in either Welsh or English. Indeed, the oath can today be taken in Gaelic, too. There are, therefore, precedents for people applying to speak in Welsh in the House. Although the House did not feel able to accept the request in 1966, it subsequently felt that it was appropriate to do so.
  My point is that although, historically, the House has not been able to accept such requests, it has eventually reconsidered the position. Although it took 400 years for
  682
  the oath to be taken in Welsh, it was at least a step in the right direction. Mr. Gwynfor Evans made his point in 1966, and by 1974 the oath could be taken in Welsh.
  We ought to be examining the demand in the House for the use of the Welsh language in the Welsh Grand Committee. In the previous Parliament—in 1988—an all-party early-day motion was tabled and eventually signed by a good many hon. Members representing all the countries of Britain. A grand total of 28 hon. Members felt that it was right and proper for Welsh to be used in the Welsh Grand Committee.
  In 1988, it had not been suggested that the Welsh Grand Committee should become a peripatetic body. It was, however, suggested that Welsh should be used in proceedings in the House—in other words, where we usually meet, in Committee Room 10. There has been considerable debate about the restructuring of the Welsh Grand Committee and everyone eventually agreed that it should be meeting in Wales. Although we think that it is a body almost beyond reform, given that it is to continue to meet, it has been agreed that it should be meeting in Wales periodically. The demand for the right to speak Welsh in that body thus became overwhelming, as the right hon. Member for Conwy said.
  Having passed the Welsh Language Act 1993 so that the Welsh and English languages should be treated equally, and now that the Welsh Grand Committee is to meet in Wales, it would be ludicrous if an hon. Member could not speak in Welsh. It was not a party political issue, and when the Welsh parliamentary party met the Secretary of State for Wales, there was a broad consensus that it was right and proper to allow hon. Members to speak Welsh when the Welsh Grand Committee meets in Wales.
  It seems that all the obstacles that the House thought could be placed in the way of using a language other than English have been overcome in relation to proceedings in Wales. As has been said, week after week in council and other chambers in Wales, people are allowed to use Welsh and English—they can use either language and the content of their speeches is translated simultaneously. That is an enormous advantage. No one present at such meetings is at a disadvantage because both languages can be followed equally or people can follow one language in translation. There is no problem with that.
  The Select Committee on Procedure is to be congratulated on recognising that the language problems could be overcome in relation to the Welsh Grand Committee meeting in Wales. However, I found one aspect of the Committee's recommendations a little curious. The Committee adopted the proposition of the Clerk of the House, as the Leader of the House mentioned. The report states:
  "any proceedings of the House must be comprehensible to all Members, and must therefore be in the only language all Members are assumed to understand."
  I can fully appreciate the first part of that sentence—we all agree that any proceedings must be comprehensible to all Members—but it goes on to say that any proceedings
  "must therefore be in the only language all Members are assumed to understand",
  which means that all speeches have to be in English.
  Simultaneous translation facilities mean that any speech can be heard in a language that everyone can understand. If a Member is speaking in Welsh but his speech is

  683
  simultaneously translated into English, an hon. Member who cannot speak Welsh can still fully comprehend what the other is saying. I am not sure that the Committee's comment still holds true as a general rule.
  If the rule can now be extended to the use of Welsh for the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee in Wales, there is no obvious problem in extending it to the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee in the Palace of Westminster. The practical problem has been overcome in relation to proceedings in Wales and can be overcome in Westminster.
  In case hon. Members think that my idea is revolutionary, I am not suggesting that proceedings in the Chamber or in any Standing or Select Committee of the House should be in Welsh. What I am suggesting is that hon. Members should be allowed to address the Welsh Grand Committee in Welsh, whether it is meeting in Wales or Westminster. Clearly, that would mean Committee Room 10 would have to be fitted with translation equipment, but I cannot see any practical problem with that.
  While we recognise that the Select Committee on Procedure's recommendations are a practical and acceptable step forward, the Committee, once it has considered how things develop in Wales, might want to examine the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee at Westminster.
  I should like to put one point of detail to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) about the production of a Welsh language Official Report, which was also mentioned by the Leader of the House and the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). I understand that there will not be a Welsh Official Report, but if an hon. Member who has spoken in Welsh finds another way in which to make his speech available in Welsh, he will be allowed to do so.
  This also seems rather curious. Why do we publish reports of our proceedings? It is so that people outside can read and follow them; it is not for our purposes. It is curious that a person speaking in Welsh in the Welsh Grand Committee in Wales has to have his speech translated so that people can read it in a language in which it was not delivered. We must remember that people who will follow our proceedings in Wales will be members of the media—spoken and written. If they want to follow our proceedings in the language in which they were delivered and the Official Report needs to be in English, why could not a Welsh-delivered version be annexed to it? If people want to refer to the speech in its language of origin, what is the problem with making it an annex to the Official Report, even if the Official Report is in English? Perhaps that can be considered again after the Committee has met in Wales a few times.
  Progress on the use of Welsh in parliamentary proceedings in this place has been painfully slow. As I have said, it took more than 400 years for hon. Members to be able to take the oath in Welsh and, recently, to be able to speak in Welsh in the Welsh Grand Committee in Wales. Those are very small steps. If we had our own Parliament in Wales none such problems would occur because there would be a bilingual system. But, Westminster is currently our only Parliament and I see no reason why the Welsh language—a 2,000-year-old living
  684
  language—should not be allowed its rightful and proper place in proceedings relating to Wales, whether in Westminster or Wales.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly against some of the Procedure Committee's recommendations. I should like to alter slightly the Latin quotation cited by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House by saying omnes cives Britannici sumus, which loosely translates as, "We are all Brits here." Whether hon. Members are English, Welsh, Irish or Scottish, we are all British—or Irish—citizens and we all speak English in the House and its Committees.
  Such use of English may originally have been part of a campaign to discriminate against Welsh, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) suggested, but no reasonable hon. Member could doubt that the rule serves the convenience of monoglot Members, who should not be discriminated against. Most hon. Members can speak English fluently—[Interruption.] Even in Wales, 80 per cent. of the population cannot speak Welsh.
  I warmly welcome the first recommendation of the Procedure Committee that English is and should remain the language of the House. I would have been happier if the Committee had left it at that, subject to one exception to which I shall return. I do not accept the recommendation that members of the Welsh Grand Committee should be entitled to address the Committee in Welsh when it meets in Wales. I consider that a totally unnecessary, inappropriate and unacceptable sop to Welsh nationalism.
  Such an entitlement is unnecessary, because every member who serves on the Welsh Grand Committee is almost bound to be capable of speaking and understanding English. It is inappropriate, because most Committee members are likely to be unable to understand Welsh. It is unacceptable, because the possibility of Committee members speaking Welsh represents a breach of the centuries-old principle that the language of Parliament should be English.
  The Procedure Committee has considered the matter against the background of the Welsh Language Act 1993. This is not the time to rehearse the general arguments about how best to preserve and enhance the richness that the Welsh language bestows on the culture of Wales, but the detailed application of Government policy on the Welsh language can be intensely irritating and wasteful of paper.
  Every publication that I receive from a Welsh Government agency is printed in both languages, even though virtually every recipient has a good understanding of English. As a non-Welsh speaker, I rip such publications in half and discard the Welsh part—not because I have anything against the Welsh language, but to save storage space and make a small gesture against the waste of paper and print. Some documents frustrate my intentions because the two languages are printed on opposite sides of the page. Whenever practicable, recipients of bilingual documents should elect which language they prefer and then be given a single-language document.
  Documents produced in Welsh cost many times more than those produced in English, because Welsh documents have so few readers. The policy of wasting paper and

  685
  money will be built on if the House accepts the Procedure Committee's recommendation to introduce interpreters and additional electronic equipment that, according to the Committee's report, will cost about £2,500 a sitting. What a waste of money!
  I would have more sympathy with the Procedure Committee's proposals if I thought that there was any significant risk of a member of the Welsh Grand Committee who speaks Welsh being unable to speak English. From talking in English to hon. Members who speak Welsh, such as the hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) and for Gower (Mr. Wardell), I have formed the impression that their English is up to the higher standards found in the House. Such hon. Members are the Welsh equivalent of English people who are good at Latin, Greek, French or German, who tend also to be first-class English speakers. There is no practical benefit for hon. Members who speak Welsh being allowed to speak Welsh.
  Mr. Llwyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Sweeney: I regret that time does not permit me to do so.
  I accept that those whose first language is Welsh may be even more at home with Welsh than they are with English, but any special Welsh idioms or nuances of meaning are likely to be lost in translation. So, for monoglot English colleagues, and in Hansard later, the added value of the original Welsh would be lost.
  I said at the outset that, although I favour the retention of English as the only language authorised and spoken in the House and its Committees, I also favour one exception. If the Welsh Grand Committee or the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs ever take evidence from Welsh speakers who are not hon. Members, and if such witnesses are not competent in speaking English, they should be allowed, at the discretion of the Chairman, to address the Committee in Welsh—whether they give evidence in Wales or Westminster.
  I make that exception not to give witnesses who are equally at home in English or Welsh the opportunity to elect to speak Welsh, but to ensure that Committees are not deprived of the opportunity of hearing evidence from a Welsh speaker in the very unusual circumstances of such a person being unable to speak English.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: It is refreshing that we have heard the authentic, arrogant voice of linguistic chauvinism towards the end of the debate. I shall not dwell on it. Perhaps Freud could explain why the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) tears in half bilingual forms. There are probably deep-seated reasons for it.
  The House has taken a more enlightened position. I add my gratitude to that of others for the thoroughness and speed with which the Procedure Committee reported. I should like to strike a slightly cynical note in saying, to vulgarise Virgil, "Timeo Conservatores et dona ferentes"—I fear the Conservatives though they bear gifts.
  686
  Progress since I tabled an amendment on 11 March—it has caused the Government to act so quickly—has been remarkably speedy. They have suddenly realised that the Welsh language is a great treasure. As has been said, the first early-day motion that I tabled on the first St. David's day after I was elected called for the use of the Welsh language to be permitted in the proceedings of the Welsh Grand Committee using simultaneous translation facilities. That early-day motion was tabled not on 11 March this year but on 1 March 1988.
  We should all acknowledge that the reason for the extraordinary speed with which the Government have acted has little to do with their love of the Welsh language and much to do with their desire for the Welsh Grand Committee to sit in Wales and to do a certain amount of mischief as they see it in putting their case before the people of Wales. They will be sadly disappointed in that aim, which has a clear political slant.
  Let me say what a pleasure it has been listening to the speeches tonight. In my constituency, a fortnight ago I attended a centre where the Romans were in Wales—the second legion were in Caerleon 2,000 years ago. A group of schoolchildren were visiting the Capricorn centre, which is a wonderful centre for teaching children about life in Roman times. That school party was from ysgol Trimsaran. The children were learning about the Roman barracks and the living conditions there. It was all fascinating stuff.
  However, the most vivid reminiscence of Rome was on the tongues of the children who were all Welsh-speaking from Trimsaran. When they see the bridge that crosses the river at Caerleon, they do not call it a bridge, they call it a "pont". When they see the windows that decorate the town, they do not say "window", but "ffenest". Those are two examples of a whole range of words that came to Wales with the Romans 2,000 years ago when the children of Caerleon were bilingual. It is a remarkable miracle that those words have echoed down the centuries and are a great living treasure.
  The right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) mentioned the Gododdin. He did not quote from it. I shall attempt to do so from memory. Its first words are of great significance:
  "Gwyr a aeth Gatraeth
  Godigog oedd eu ffriedd".
  That means "The men went to Catterick". It was the first book in the Welsh language and was written two centuries before Beowulf. If I quoted Beowulf, not a soul in this place would understand me.
  The Leader of the House talked about Chaucerian English which is one of our great joys and a treasure to us all. It is a beautiful language:
  "Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breth
  Inspired hath in every holt and heth
  The Tender croppes, and the yonge sonne
  Hath in the Ram his halve cours yronne,
  And smale foweles maken melodye,
  That slepen al the nyght with open ye".
  It is music; it is poetry; it is beautiful and it is part of the inheritance of every hon. Member. Why do we not delight in it? When I used a different quotation—
  Mr. Newton: I suppose that the hon. Gentleman realises that he will have to write that out for Hansard.
  Mr. Flynn: I shall be quite happy to do that, although I am afraid that the spelling is a matter of dispute. I would be happy to write it out for hon. Members as well.

  687
  If only hon. Members who are unfortunately monoglot could understand what it means to speak more than one language. They are not better Welshmen or Englishman than anyone else. We have many reasons for welcoming the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), to his place tonight. He said with some passion, "I do not speak the two languages of Wales," but he is no lesser Welshman for that. If only hon. Members knew what they were missing—the great treasure that has been handed down to the children from Trimsaran.
  Earlier today I was listening to a gentleman from the place where I was educated. Mr. John Humphreys is from Splott. I had the great fortune to be born in Grangetown in Cardiff and educated in Splott. It is known as the dream ticket in Cardiff circles. Unfortunately, neither of those areas was rich in the Welsh language. Mr. John Humphreys referred to the great change that has taken place since 1979 when the Welsh language, the Irish language and many other languages were seen as a divisive grit in politics. They did divide, separate and create suspicions and hatred. That is gone now. It is remarkable that in Grangetown, Splott, Lliswerry and Ringland in Newport there is a great flowering of Welsh schools. Children without any Welsh language in their background are becoming first generation Welsh speakers—for which they will be grateful for the rest of their days. That is a wonderful improvement that has taken place in our time.
  I share many of the misgivings that have been expressed about the decision of the Procedure Committee. There are many points to quibble about, particularly by those who are used to living in two languages. Nobody is completely bilingual. Nobody is equally comfortable in both languages. Some are more comfortable in English and some are more comfortable in Welsh. It depends on their mother tongue. People should be allowed to use both languages.
  I see little difference between what has been suggested for Wales and what happens in the House of Commons. People who come here from Estonia and Lithuania sit in a special corner where equipment is available to enable our proceedings to be translated for them. That equipment is most sophisticated and could be adapted to other languages.
  We are all in the mood to welcome the concession that we have here tonight. We claim it as a right and we look forward to the great joy of using in the only Parliament that Wales has both the beautiful languages of Wales.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, Mr. Rhodri Morgan.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Morgan: Gyda chymiatad y Ty.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was totally unnecessary.
  Mr. Morgan: I was about to ask for what you had already allowed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It took me unawares and I apologise.
  The only false note in the debate was struck by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) who failed to join in the spirit of the proceedings. In Wales as
  688
  a whole—perhaps omitting the particular corner with which the hon. Gentleman is most familiar—the use of Welsh is appropriate when the Welsh Grand Committee sits in Wales and for those for whom it is more appropriate to speak Welsh.
  I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman attended the meeting in Committee Room 14 a couple of months ago when 300 Welsh farmers spoke to the House about BSE. Although they all spoke English, one could tell by the way in which they spoke it that 95 per cent. of them would have been happier to address the informal procedings in Welsh. There was no question but that at least 280 of them would have been happier had the proceedings been mostly in Welsh. That was their better language. It was clear that they were used to discussing agricultural issues in Welsh. That would probably be the case in respect of other issues such as education.
  It is not a matter of trying to compel those without a command of Welsh to speak it, but of giving permission to those who have a command of the language not to be debarred from speaking Welsh at appropriate times. The hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan failed to understand that.
  The Britishness of our British Parliament is based on mutual respect between the four different nations that make up the United Kingdom. That in turn is based on the fact that English is our lingua franca. The issue does not arise for the 82 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom who live in England. However, that 82 per cent. should have the of respect for other 18 per cent. of the population who live in Scotland, Wales and Ireland and who have sometimes have a linguistic skill, preference or culture.
  Today, when the second Severn crossing was opened, we are more closely integrated with England than Scotland or Ireland—north or south—in all aspects of economics except one. Only in respect of our language are we less integrated with England than even the Irish Republic, let alone Scotland or Northern Ireland, simply because we have never suffered the potato famine or the highland clearances. As a result, the Welsh language is seven or eight times as strong as the original languages are in Scotland or Ireland.
  The necessity of preserving the Welsh language gives Wales a great deal of distinctiveness; that is why we ask the British Parliament to respect that distinctiveness and particularly welcome the recommendations of the Procedure Committee. I hope that we shall carry with us some of those who are more reluctant, such as the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan.
  8.48 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): We have had a constructive and positive debate, ably introduced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. He reminded us that certain of our leading colleagues could not be with us tonight for good reason, but far be it from me to suggest that it was as a result of any such absences that we had such a constructive and positive debate. I heard nothing divisive in any of the differences that were aired, and nothing that might prevent further progress.
  A former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), spoke of the experiences of one of his ancestors in this House with

  689
  the Earl of Lisburne. Only a few weeks ago, I was with the present Earl as we launched a new Welsh milk for St. David's day. In that direction, things have moved on.
  I was glad to hear the speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts). For the attention that he has lavished upon the language of Wales over the years and for seeking to take forward its interests in legislation, my right hon. Friend can be regarded as the father of the Welsh language. We heard a brief intervention from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who I seem to remember is the only remaining Member who was a Minister the previous time there was no Welsh-speaking Minister at the Welsh Office.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) observed that the Conservative party is second only to Plaid Cymru in bilingual terms, with one third of Conservative Members of Parliament in Wales able to speak the Welsh language. That puts the Conservatives above the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. My only quarrel in the debate was with the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) who objected to tokenism and insisted that only one language be used here. I would say to him, were he still here, that those of us whose Welsh is inadequate or absent deserve encouragement and should not be frustrated from taking the opportunity to try to use the Welsh language.
  Much of the debate this evening has centred on what the Procedure Committee has cautiously suggested. The caution of the Committee was set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Committee. We all owe a debt of gratitude to the Committee for considering the matter. He referred to the practical problems and the need to have more experience of dealing with them. Various Members have referred to the problems, which were introduced by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan).
  The suggestion was made that the recommendation of the Committee that Members restrict themselves to one language during any one speech might be unduly restrictive. Of course a Member might wish to deal with several distinct issues during a single speech, and it might seem appropriate to deal with some in English and some in Welsh. I agree with the Committee's suggestion that we ought to proceed with caution, as we do not want to cause difficulties for Hansard and make it more difficult for it to make the accurate report of the Committee's proceedings that the House is entitled to expect.
  690
  When we have gained some experience of running the Welsh Grand Committee in both languages, we may find that the Chairman, the Committee and the reporters can cope with a situation in which a Member switches from one language to another once or perhaps twice in a speech, provided—ideally—that everyone knows his intention. When we reach that point, we may leave it to the discretion of the Chairman of the Welsh Grand Committee to permit a slight relaxation of the rules set out in the Procedure Committee's report.
  The hon. Member for Ynys MÔn (Mr. Jones) asked about the record of proceedings of speeches in Welsh. I could be negative and suggest that he has not proved it necessary to have an alternative record and that, inevitably, it would result in extra expense. Those are not insubstantial objections to his proposals, but I prefer to follow the Procedure Committee and say that we should try to leave the matter open. When this House has had more experience of the Welsh Grand Committee using the language, we might find it appropriate to look again at the matter.
  In conclusion, I wish to make the same point as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West—this is a great day for Wales. We are making great steps in our cultural and material fields, and this evening the House has been dealing with our language. Also, just before 11 o'clock this morning, the second Severn crossing was opened. I had the opportunity to be present, along with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Transport, when the bridge was opened by his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. It is a major development that will improve the economic affairs of south Wales, and it links to the very matter we are considering this evening.
  Also present—perhaps he is still there—was the Chairman of the Welsh Grand Committee, the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), in whose constituency one side of the bridge is located. I am glad that we can move forward—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the question, pursuant to Order [17 May].
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, whilst English is and should remain the language of this House, the use of Welsh be permitted in parliamentary proceedings held in Wales, subject to the conditions set out in the Third Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, Session 1995–96 (House of Commons Paper No. 387).

  Diabetes
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Bates.]
  8.54 pm
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the subject of diabetes. I did not expect to make my speech so early, but I promise the Minister of State that I will not keep him from an early bath.
  I start by declaring an interest—I am an insulin-dependent diabetic, and naturally I take a particular interest in the matter. I shall be talking about matters that lie outside the Minister's area of responsibility, as diabetes is an issue that spreads into other areas. I do not expect definite answers from him on any of these matters, but I hope that he will communicate my queries to other Ministers in one way or another.
  I sought this debate to coincide with National Diabetes Week, which in fact is next week, between 9 and 15 June. The week of activities seeks to educate the public generally and to heighten awareness of the problems and possibilities associated with the condition of diabetes. The British Diabetic Association is targeting in National Diabetes Week fitness and exercise as a crucial part of a diabetic's maintenance of good balance and good health.
  When diabetics maintain the delicate balance between diet, drugs and exercise, they save themselves a lot of personal discomfort and misery in the short and long term, but also save the NHS vast amounts of expenditure. It is therefore in the interests of individuals and the Exchequer that, as a community, we get diabetic care right.
  To indicate the scale of the problem, which has not yet been quantified by the Government, it should be recorded that there are about 1.4 million known diabetics in Britain, with a similarly huge number not diagnosed. Some 20,000 diabetics—almost all of whom are insulin-dependent—are under the age of 20. That is about 100 for each health district. These people have an entire lifetime to seek to control the condition.
  There is a much greater prevalence of diabetes in our Asian and Afro-Caribbean communities, and a higher incidence in men than in women. I do not think it is irrelevant to say that, worldwide, there are estimated to be 110 million people with diabetes, and in Europe, 18.5 million people. A significant fact that interests me is that 10 per cent. of insulin-dependent diabetics use 80 per cent. of the world's supplies of insulin. Western intervention in eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union was particularly important given the lack of health care for diabetics. It is also an important matter in third-world countries, and may be one in which Lady Chalker might wish to take a great interest.
  In large measure, diabetics have to care for themselves on a day-by-day basis. It is a complex task requiring help, education and constant self-monitoring, particularly of blood sugar levels. The more even those levels can be kept, the less likelihood there is of long-term severe complications such as retinopathy, neuropathy, cardiovascular disease, kidney failure, amputations and other conditions that can follow from long-term diabetes.
  When thousands of new diabetics are diagnosed in this country each year, the size of that education and training task can be readily appreciated. As I understand it, records
  692
  of diabetes are not kept by health authorities, so we have no precise statistics. I understand that considerable pressure has been exerted for local registers of diabetics. I commend that proposal to the Minister if he has not already thought about it, but I am sure he has.
  I have many complaints and many descriptions of shortcomings to make in the debate, but I would not like it to be thought of as a gloomy debate. Professor Harry Keen, president of the BDA, has quite rightly said:
  "These are times of great promise for people with diabetes."
  There are exciting developments in research into implants of insulin-producing islets, artificial pancreases, as well better as insulin and better delivery systems for insulin. The Government could do an enormous amount for the health of the nation by encouraging and financing an intensification or speeding up of research into those developments.
  Cuts or the freezing of research budgets, such as that of the Medical Research Council, whose budget has been cut by 1.5 per cent. in the current year, are very sad, and perhaps foolish. They hinder the likelihood of huge savings that would come from more efficient remedies or controls of diabetes. The same is true of research into the causes of diabetes.
  There have also been admirable advances in recent years in the creation of a network of diabetic clinics. At my local clinic at Ormskirk hospital, consultants, a specialist diabetic nurse, a dietician and a chiropodist work together with back-up staff. The easily available provision of such specialist facilities to the entire diabetic population is an aim, I believe, of the NHS, and it should be achieved as soon as humanly possible.
  The St. Vincent declaration has set out targets to reduce dramatically over five years the incidence of severe complications in diabetics. It also sets out to change the emphasis, in order to deal with individuals who are diabetics instead of a category or a type of person.
  I urge the Government to study the shortcomings and difficulties that are faced by diabetics, and to alleviate them where they can. As I said before, I realise that many of them are not the responsibility of the Minister, but I know that he will be interested in them, and will communicate them to his colleagues in other Departments of State.
  The Minister could deal directly with the first problem—the non-availability on prescription of Novopen needles. The Minister will recognise that the pen system for insulin delivery enables a diabetic to keep much better control over blood sugar levels, particularly those who have irregular life styles, as I do perforce as a Member of Parliament. The long-term savings for the NHS are enormous. While some people use replaceable needles several times, many cannot face, and perhaps should not be expected to face, reusing a steadily blunting needle. That can be exceedingly painful, and is a particular problem for young children. A week's supply of such needles can cost as much as £10. As they are not on prescription, that cost must be met by the insulin-dependent diabetic, who might be on the lowest of incomes. I believe that it is only a matter of time before that injustice, as I think it is, is remedied in response to the pressure from many thousands of pen users and would-be pen users.
  The Government could make a very popular gesture by putting those pen needles on prescription, as disposable hypodermics are, at comparatively little cost and with

  693
  considerable future savings in terms of better control of diabetes. As diabetics are converted into using pen needles, they cease to use most of their disposable hypodermic syringes, which are on prescription, so the costs should more or less balance in the long run. I understand that discussions have been taking place on this matter inside the Department, and I urge the Minister to expedite them if he possibly can.
  Experience has shown that no job exists that cannot be done as well by someone who is diabetic as by anyone else, whether it is the job of an international footballer or of an actor, such as Leo McKern, Sir Harry Secombe or Willie Rushton, who were all involved in exceedingly stressful jobs and are all insulin-dependent diabetics; or the jobs done by several hon. Members of the House, and of another place; or heavy manual work. Every diabetic person is different; that is the central message, if any, of this speech.
  Each person must work out his or her own regime. Each person must anticipate times when blood sugar might become low because of missing out on a meal at a specific time or because of unexpected exercise. That can lead to hypoglycaemia, and the diabetic must ensure that he takes in extra carbohydrate sugars to compensate.
  All diabetics, as far as I know—at least unless they are completely mad—carry emergency rations with them to counter such possibilities. However, some occupations deem insulin dependency to be incompatible with the work involved, and in most of the cases I shall mention that assumption is a blanket one, ignoring the individual's success or otherwise in controlling the diabetes, and even ignoring medical evidence provided on that person's behalf.
  For example, police forces usually automatically suspend or sack insulin-dependent officers. Many dedicated police officers have written to me in considerable distress, having lost promising careers simply because they suddenly developed insulin-dependent diabetes in middle age. As far as I know, the Home Office has not seriously studied that problem. I have tabled several questions about this, and received an answer more or less to the effect, "It is nothing to do with us," or, "The problem is in hand."
  It is wrongly assumed that a police officer who is insulin-dependent is more likely than the next man or woman to suffer lapses of health while working. The same applies to firefighters, with the added impetus that a firefighter who is insulin-dependent cannot drive a fire tender or one of the heavy vehicles that the fire service uses, so he or she gets the sack or is demoted or pushed sideways into a desk job.
  Even more peculiarly, in most cases a similar ban applies to offshore work. I take one absurd example. A 50-year-old man working as a ticket seller on the Shetland Isles ferry service became insulin-dependent. As soon as that happened and his employers found out, he was sacked, because he was unable to comply with the medical standards for offshore work. That worker was never more than 15 minutes from land, and had nothing to do with running the vessel. He simply collected the ticket money for the vehicles on the ferry.
  Just as worrying is the story of a girl accepted for nurse training. After her initial acceptance, she was suddenly refused because she was insulin-dependent. Her health
  694
  record, attested by her doctor, was excellent, but she told the hospital, in all honesty, that she had experienced hypos during the previous two years. The attacks were mild and had been self-treated. The hospital concerned was, in effect, refusing to accept any nurse with insulin dependency.
  Only this morning I read an article in the Lancashire Evening Post about a diabetic man in Wigan, who said that he was refused entry into the armed forces because of his diabetes. He had also been sacked from his employment as a barber when his employer found out that he was insulin-dependent.
  Perhaps most pressing in all these examples of discrimination—that is what they are—is the case of heavy goods vehicle and public service vehicle drivers. An insulin-dependent diabetic applying for a driving licence after 1 July this year will be banned from holding one of the new class 2 licences, which would prevent the driving of any vehicle over 3.5 tonnes.
  Already, most HGV drivers in the United Kingdom who become insulin-dependent are effectively banned from continuing their employment. Some flexibility is possible in the European legislation, but it is by no means certain that the Government will take advantage of it to ensure that people treated with insulin are not automatically barred from driving class 2 vehicles and the range of associated jobs. I hope that the Minister will have a quiet word with his hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), who is responsible for these matters and who I know is fully aware of the details.
  There is a further problem associated with drivers. People who apply for work as taxi drivers in some parts of the country are refused licences because they are insulin users. I am unclear how much protection might be provided for those who suffer discrimination in employment in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I know that some protection is provided in insurance matters, but, as I understand it, there is no protection in occupational matters.
  Two issues underlie all these complaints. Insulin-dependent people will have hypoglycaemic experiences from time to time, and there is no point disguising it. They can be very severe. The attacks result from an excessive drop in blood sugar levels and bring about a disorientation which is rather like drunkenness, only slightly less pleasant. I have been a diabetic for 13 or 14 years, and I have suffered two such attacks, both in the middle of the night.
  That raises another problem. As a nation, we keep no records of people who are insulin-dependent and subject to hypoglycaemic attacks but who live alone and have no back-up from relatives. Most relatives of such people are well aware of what the insulin-dependent person has to go through, and are alert to the need to protect them. About three years ago, in a sad case in Grangemouth in Scotland, a woman who was an insulin-dependent diabetic died in a coma, and her small baby died of starvation; yet we have no systems to monitor lone diabetics.
  Vague knowledge of the problem of hypos causes the knee-jerk rejection of insulin dependents by the sort of employers I have mentioned. Those who suffer from hypos are those with poorly controlled diabetes, and no one would suggest that someone who is continually poorly controlled should be allowed to drive an HGV.

  695
  That would be complete nonsense. Most insulin dependents, however, are well controlled, and that is more and more the case as education and monitoring improves and as more pens are in use.
  My case is that every insulin-dependent diabetic who seeks to gain or retain employment should be judged on his or her medical record, witnessed if necessary by independent doctors, as happens in other areas. We seek to end the blanket rejection of diabetics, because that is a plain injustice, and is also appallingly inefficient in economic and employment terms. Many other medical conditions could cause the problems that employers imagine will arise from diabetes, but most of them do not give rise to blanket bans such as I have described.
  I have already said that it is incumbent on diabetics and their medical advisers to educate themselves about the best possible control of their condition. They have primary responsibility. However, it is also incumbent on employers and Ministries that impose regulations to educate themselves about the realities of diabetes and individual differences. The Government must take a key role, whether by using the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to disseminate good practice or through other means.
  Between them, the Department of Health and, especially, the Home Office could—by insisting on an individual approach to judging an insulin-dependent diabetic's fitness for employment—make a major impact on employment practices, without any extra spending. Most insulin-dependent diabetics, like other people, simply want to earn a living and to contribute to key professions and occupations.
  Diabetes is a condition with which many of us have to live, and most of us manage to live normal lives. We can do any job and undertake any task that other people do, with the possible exception of sugar testing. Diabetes can, and does, strike at random. It hit me at the age of 38, probably as a result of a kidney infection, although nobody really knows why. More than 1 million of us face potential discrimination in employment, yet we have a wide variety of talents and energy to contribute. The fact that many of us are not allowed to do so, out of ignorance on the part of those who run some of our systems, is an outrage. National Diabetes Week next week will be just a small part of a campaign to dispel some of that ignorance. I hope that the Government will not only join the campaign, but lead it.
  9.18 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) for observing delightful courtesies at the beginning of his speech and pointing out that some of his comments would be on subjects that are not my direct departmental responsibility. I shall deal with those comments first. Although, of course, I am more than happy to accede to his request that I draw those points to the attention of my fellow Ministers, I can answer to some extent his points about blind prejudice towards people who suffer from diabetes.
  It is common ground that we are happy to do what we can to dispel prejudice, to ensure a proper understanding in the public mind—especially among those who are potential employers of diabetics—of the real difficulties, and to explain why, in many circumstances, no difficulties arise from employing people who have the problem well controlled—as the hon. Gentleman rightly said.
  696
  I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his timing in bringing this matter before the House, but I was rather curious about his interpretation of the declaration of Members' interests. Even in these days, I am not sure that it is necessary to declare that one is suffering from a medical condition before speaking about it in the House.
  The hon. Gentleman certainly displayed his close and keen personal interests, which I know go well beyond being a sufferer. He is an active member of the all-party parliamentary group on the condition, and I know the role that he has played in the British Diabetic Association. That is why those who read the report of his speech will understand that it has great value.
  I shall deal with a number of the detailed points before using the debate to set the problem in context and to explain why my Department and all its Ministers view the condition seriously. I shall also explain why I share the hon. Gentleman's optimism. We have an agenda which we can develop together, and I think that it will improve treatment not just in the long term but in the short term. I may be able to tell the House why that agenda has been pursued positively. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is being pursued in that spirit.
  The hon. Member raised two specific issues, the first of which was about registers. I am sure that everybody who is associated with the problem will be aware that we have been highly successful in incorporating diabetes into the primary care chronic disease management programme. When I was preparing for the debate, I was delighted to note that that programme has gone some 90 per cent. of the way towards achieving its targets.
  In a sense, the chronic disease management programme is the core of providing the database that is necessary, and the sort of register to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I agree with him that the development of local databases is an extremely good way to measure performance against a set of targets. There is much interest in the concept of registers in the management not just of diabetes but across the spectrum of chronic diseases, and my Department takes a keen interest in that.
  It is not just the chronic disease management programme that is being taken forward in this respect. Some districts have made much progress and have done a great deal of work towards building a district-based population diabetes register in collaboration with local GPs. That has been made possible with the rolling out of the chronic disease management programme. I see the role of the Government and the Department as the pulling together of the thinking that has been developed in this area, and the pooling of the efforts that have been made on registers.
  I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Department held a workshop on registers last summer. That was extremely useful, and I am pleased to tell him that the results will shortly be published. He was right to highlight that as an important area in which thinking is being developed. It will be taken further, and I am sure that he will participate in the debate that will follow publication of the results of that workshop.
  Not surprisingly, the hon. Gentleman spoke about disposable and reusable insulin pens and about needles. Of course my Department is aware of the issue and of the views of users, who have been well and constructively represented by the BDA. It might be helpful if I set out where we stand.

  697
  The BDA submitted, as the Gentleman will know, a comprehensive document earlier this year, which is being considered by Ministers and officials in the Department. Although it was not my specific responsibility within the Department, I was interested to see the document in detail. It was a first-class effort in putting together a sound, economically based case as to why it might make sense to move in that direction.
  The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that I cannot give any commitment about that tonight, but I can reassure him that the matter is being treated extremely seriously. Discussions are under way, and I hope that we can make some progress towards reaching a common position and an understanding of the facts and economics that underlie the case made by the BDA.
  It is not surprising that this debate has a high profile, because it precedes a very important week. Diabetes has a high profile not just in my Department but in the country as a whole. I shall use the time available to set that in context.
  It may surprise the House to learn that the treatment of diabetes consumes NHS assets in excess of £1 billion per annum—between 4 and 5 per cent. of total NHS expenditure—because it is so widespread. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the fact that the extent was not quantified. The best efforts that we can make show that diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetics account for 2 per cent. of the population. I know that other figures show that it is perhaps somewhat higher to one percentage point, but even 2 per cent. shows how important and fundamental it is.
  In recognition of that importance, the Department currently supports two major research projects into the illness. The hon. Gentleman touched on the importance of research, and I should like to put on record what the Department is doing. The total cost of the Department's projects is just under £1 million, within the centrally commissioned research programme. In addition, in 1993–94—the latest year for which full figures are available—the Medical Research Council spent a little over £4 million on diabetes research, made up of two components: £1 million in the MRC's research establishments, and almost £3 million in grants to universities and medical schools around the country, which, of course, carry out research projects based on local patients.
  As I have mentioned, diabetes is specifically targeted by the chronic disease management programme, and that has been a success. In addition, the importance accorded to diabetes is illustrated by other work that is under way.
  In August 1994, the clinical standards advisory group, an independent group giving expert advice to Health Departments and the NHS on standards of clinical care and availability of services, produced a report on standards of care for people with diabetes. The Health Departments accepted the group's main recommendation: that they should encourage purchasers of health care to ensure that there are adequate local diabetes services with appropriate standards specified in contracts. That matter has been brought to the attention of those who are at the heart of shaping patient care—the health authorities that examine these matters and decide which services will be available to local people.
  698
  Equally important, in the following year, in 1995, the final report of the St. Vincent task force on diabetes was published. The task force was set up in 1992, jointly by the Department and the British Diabetic Association. Its terms of reference were to advise on which aspects of the St. Vincent declaration recommendations needed to be addressed in England, and also their relative priority, and to provide detailed advice on action needed to implement the priority areas that were agreed with the Department following the advice that had been given under the first term of reference.
  The task force was seen as extremely important by all interested and involved parties, so I will set out in fuller terms what has happened since. Its work was intended to be based on the recommendations made in the St. Vincent declaration, which was promulgated following the famous meeting of the European region of the World Health Organisation and the European committee of the International Diabetes Federation. The declaration recommended action in key areas and set outcome targets, which are an important way of holding health authorities accountable for progress.
  The task force report was circulated widely throughout the NHS last year, and it makes recommendations about good clinical and management practice in 11 key areas. That work not only helped to raise awareness of diabetes among clinicians and the general population, but forged solid working relationships between my officials and the BDA and other professional colleagues in the service. That relationship is still paying dividends.
  The Department of Health is building on the task force work in two main ways. Officials are working up detailed costings for implementation of the report's recommendations, by a survey of current provision and by means of a computer model. Probably more important is that a sub-group of the clinical outcomes group, more commonly known as COG, has been set up to develop guidance for purchasers.
  The terms of reference of COG, which is a multi-professional, non-statutory committee that advises the Department on how to improve outcomes of clinical care, are to advise on the strategy for medical, nursing and therapy audit; facilitate the development of clinical and service-wide audit; disseminate good practice through sharing guidance, material and experience in audit; advise the chief medical officer and the chief nursing officer on the most appropriate action to ensure the attainment of desired clinical outcomes and on the relevant areas of research; and identify areas where measurable and sustainable improvements in health can be achieved, including examples of bad practice—which it is as important to eliminate as to establish good practice.
  To highlight the importance that the Department attaches to the messages that came out of the St. Vincent task force and the CSAG reports, it set up a diabetes sub-group under COG—the clinical outcomes diabetes sub-group—whose task is to develop purchaser guidance based on the report's recommendations. A key element underpinning all that work is that it should be based firmly on medical and scientific evidence of effectiveness where possible.
  The hon. Gentleman rightly emphasised the importance of ensuring that research is translated into good practice. There is a continuing body of work based on research

  699
  currently being undertaken, which, once it is complete, should be available to affect what happens in the field—as the hon. Gentleman suggested should happen.
  I can illustrate the significant relationship forged during the sub-group's work by its diverse membership. Professor David Shaw, who chaired the St. Vincent task force so admirably, and Professor Harry Keen, chairman of the BDA, both serve on the sub-group, which will reinforce the strong link between the new group and the work of the task force. Their important experience of the life of the task force will add immeasurably to the depth of understanding of the issues in the group.
  The sub-group started its work last autumn, and meets at monthly intervals. I understand that it is making excellent progress, and that is an important initiative for the Department. We in government have supported the St. Vincent initiative since its inception. I am sure that the
  700
  work programme that is in hand is a sensible way forward, so that we can continue to make progress and secure better treatment levels and packages of care for all people who suffer from this terrible problem.
  Although the hon. Gentleman said that he would let me have an early bath, it is useful that we have been able to use the earlier conclusion of tonight's proceedings to explore a serious problem in slightly greater depth. I am grateful to him for having raised it. I am especially grateful because it gives us an opportunity to set out the work programme that is in hand. On the other matters, I repeat my reassurance. I will, of course, raise them with the Ministers responsible, and I confirm that I am happy to do so.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Ten o' clock.

DEFENCE

  United Nations
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the advantages of establishing a standby military headquarters unit within the UN department of peacekeeping operations in New York; [30732]

  (2) what is his policy in respect of developing and strengthening the ability of the United Nations to undertake effective and detailed military planning; and if he will make a statement; [30733]

  (3) what proposals he has in respect of the development of (a) generic and (b) specific contingency plans for the UN for future peacekeeping operations; and if he will make a statement. [30734]

  Mr. Soames
  The proposal to establish a standby headquarters unit is a natural extension of earlier work by the Secretary-General which identified the need to strengthen the UN's capacity to conduct and plan peacekeeping operations and which the UK has fully supported. The Secretary-General has already taken important steps to improve the UN's capabilities, in particular by the development of a mission planning service. Increasing the operational effectiveness of the UN is one of the Government's principal foreign policy objectives and both the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are involved in discussions aimed at continuing to take these initiatives forward. To give practical help, we currently attach nine military officers and one civil servant to the department of peacekeeping operations, and we continue to co-operate fully with the UN standby forces planning team.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what targets he has set for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency in 1996–97.[31518]

  Mr. Soames
  The targets set for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency in 1996–97 are as follows:

  (a) Consistent with achieving an average of at least 6 per cent. return on capital employed over a period of three years, the target for 1996–97 is 4 per cent.

  (b) Increase DERA overall utilisation target from 57 per cent. in 1995–96 to 62.4 per cent. in 1996–97.

  (c) Increase DERA overall milestone delivery target from 84 per cent. in 1995–96 to 89 per cent. in 1996–97.

  446

  (d) Increase DERA overall customer satisfaction as measured by the annual survey from 27 percentile points above average in 1995–96 to 30 percentile points in 1996–97.

  (e) To establish an effective capability measurement system through technical assessment and to measure an improvement in the DRA sectors and two protection and life sciences division sectors.

  (f) To have met by 31 March 1997 all the 1996–97 rationalisation project milestones.

  (g) To achieve a non-MOD income of £117 million.

  (h) To achieve formal quality certification to ISO 9000 for all DRA and DERA support services division sectors, plus the centre for defence analysis and the chemical and electronics sector and centre for human sciences sectors of PLSD.

  (i) All division except the defence test and evaluation organisation to demonstrate an improvement in staff satisfaction, and to demonstrate improvements in the working environment, career development and training, and reward and recognition. DTEO to participate to form a baseline.

  (j) To establish a methodology for measuring technology transfer.

  MV Kapitan Mezentsyev (Defects)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 May,Official Report, column 560, if he will list the minor defects identified on the merchant vessel Kapitan Mezentsyev [30731]

  Mr. Soames
  The following defects were identified: A fractured starboard fibreglass lifeboat; inoperable davit switches; badly maintained winch falls and davit; a repair required on a fire station in the after steering compartment and an inoperable watertight door.

  All these were remedied at once, and the vessel inspected to the satisfaction of the US authorities.

  Defence Police and Guarding Structure
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will issue a further consultative document on the Defence police and guarding structure.[31598]

  Mr. Soames
  This consultative document was issued on 29 May. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

HEALTH

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the scientific information that has been made available to the Committee on Safety of Medicines since November 1995; and on what dates the committee considered that evidence. [31287]

  Mr. Malone
  Proceedings of meetings of the committee are confidential.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what dates the National Audit Office most recently examined the Medicines Control Agency; and what assessment the National Audit Office made of expenditure relating to the sub-committees of the Committee on Safety of Medicines. [31288]
  447
  Mr. Malone
  The National Audit Office audit of the Medicines Control Agency's 1995–96 accounts is currently in progress. The audit of the 1994–95 account was completed in May 1995. In the course of that audit the National Audit Office reviewed MCA expenditure generally. No comment was received with regard to expenditure relating to the sub-committees of the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of general practitioner fundholders saving in each region has been spent other than by fundholders themselves, in each of the last four years. [29666]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 16 May 1996]: Fundholders may choose to return savings for wider use in the national health service. Information about savings returned in this way will be placed in the Library.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 1995,Official Report column 521, which advisers were given the elements of the data on desogestrel and gestodene; and on which dates. [31289]

  Mr. Malone
  Communications between the Licensing Authority and its independent safety advisers are confidential.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 1995,Official Report, column 521, on what dates in 1989, 1991 and 1995 the Committee on Safety of Medicines reviewed the safety of oral contraceptives containing desogestrel and gestodene. [31286]

  Mr. Malone
  The safety of oral contraceptives containing gestodene or desogestrel was reviewed in March 1989, February 1991, May 1995 and October 1995.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the estimates made by the Medicines Control Agency of the incidence of venous thromboembolism associated with,(a) desogestrel, (b) gestodene and (c) levonorgestrel both in June 1995 and on 13 October 1995. [31276]

  Mr. Malone
  In June 1995, information on the incidence of venous thromboembolism with specific combined oral contraceptives preparations was not available. By 13 October 1995 new information had become available which provided the following estimates of the incidence of venous thromboembolism: for oral contraceptives containing levonorgestrel approximately 15 cases per 100,000 women each year, for oral contraceptives containing gestodene or desogestrel approximately 30 cases per 100,000 women each year.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health from what location the 190,000 letters relating to oral contraceptives containing desogestrel or gestodene were dispatched. [31277]

  Mr. Malone
  Horndean, Hampshire.
  448
  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his officials made prior to despatch of the "Dear Doctor" letter of 18 October 1995 relating to oral contraceptives of the proportion of letters that would be received by doctors prior to the public announcement scheduled for the afternoon of Thursday 19 October 1995. [31278]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made on 23 October 1995 at columns 701–2. The letters were posted by first class post on Wednesday 18 October 1995. Officials expected that most doctors would receive a copy of the letter, by means of at least one of the three mechanisms of communication used, prior to the public announcement scheduled for Thursday 19 October 1995.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the dates on which Ministers received updates regarding the analysis of the World Health Organisation study; and whether Ministers asked the Medicines Control Agency to seek the advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines on 13 October 1995. [31279]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 7 March at column 321. Ministers were not updated regarding the analysis of the World Health Organisation's study between July and October since there was no material change in the findings of the study.

  It is normal practice for the Medicines Control Agency to seek the committee's advice on all safety issues with medicines which have important public health implications. Ministers did not ask the MCA to seek the advice of the Committee on Safety of Medicines on this issue.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date, and at what time, the press conference as originally scheduled was made known to the media; and on what date and at what time the revised timing of the public announcement was made available to the media. [31280]

  Mr. Malone
  The public announcement last year about the safety of certain oral contraceptives was originally planned as a press notice, to be issued in the afternoon of 19 October, having allowed time for doctors and pharmacists to receive the information already sent to them. As a result of inquiries from the electronic media, which were received from 9 am that day, it was decided to bring the announcement forward to 12 noon so that it could inform lunchtime news coverage on radio and television. The Department does not keep records showing the precise times at which the media are informed of forthcoming press conferences.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) of 19 December 1995,Official Report, column 1153, what steps his officials took to establish that data collection for the transnational study had been completed and if the stage in the recruitment process was communicated to the Committee on Safety of Medicines prior to or during its meeting on 13 October 1995.[31281]

  Mr. Malone
  Officials from the Medicines Control Agency asked the investigators of the transnational study what stage had been reached in recruitment for their study. They were informed that the data on venous thromboembolism were complete but identification of
  449
  cases of myocardial infarction was still in progress and it was understood that substantive data would not be available for one to two years. The Committee on Safety of Medicines were informed of this at the meeting on 13 October 1995.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his officials contributed to the drafting of a letter attributed to the chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines which was published in the British Medical Journal of 4 November 1995. [31282]

  Mr. Malone
  The letter was written by the chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, who discussed its contents with officials before finalising it.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) of 19 December 1955,Official Report, column 1149, if he will list the United Kingdom representatives on the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products in October 1995. [31283]

  Mr. Malone
  The two members of the Committee representing the United Kingdom competent authority are Dr. Susan Wood and Dr. David Jefferys.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) of 19 December 1995,Official Report, column 1149, which of the United Kingdom representatives on the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products made the formal request that the safety of oral contraceptives containing desogestrel and gestodene be placed on the agenda for the meeting of the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products on 17 and 18 October 1995. [31284]

  Mr. Malone
  Dr. Susan Wood, representing the United Kingdom competent authority.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 1995,Official Report, column 522, if Professor John Guillebaud attended the meeting on 10 October 1995 relating to desogestrel and gestodene. [31285]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on19 December 1995 at column 1151.

PRIME MINISTER

  Running Costs and Cash Limits
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals there are to change the 1996–97 cash limit or running costs limit for the Cabinet Office other services vote. [31583]

  The Prime Minister
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for the Cabinet Office other services, class XVIII, vote 1, will be increased by £741,000 from £36,941,000 to £37,682,000 and the running costs limit will be increased by £741,000 from £39,845,000 to £40,586,000.
  450
  This is to reflect the transfer from the Home Office, class VII, vote 1, of provision for certain Government car service costs; and the transfer from the Office of Public Service, class XVIII, vote 1, of provision for Admiralty house and other central service costs.

  The increases are offset by interdepartmental transfers and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Running Costs and Cash Limits
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals there are to change the 1996–97 cash limit or running costs limit for the Office of Public Service and Her Majesty's Stationery Office.[31597]

  Mr. Freeman
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary and revised estimates, the cash limit for the Office of Public Service, class XVII, vote 1, will be increased by £434,000 from £173,540,000 to £173,974,000 and the gross running cost limit will be decreased by £14,411,000 from £88,512,000 to £74,101,000. The cash limit for stationery and printing payments to Her Majesty's Stationery Office, class XVII, vote 4, will be reduced by £1,091,000 from £2,282,000 to £1,191,000. The changes reflect the transfer from HMSO to the Office of Public Service, from the expected date of its sale, of the subsidy to public libraries on Government and other publications, and the supply of publications to United Kingdom members of the European Parliament together with the costs of the HMSO residual body; the transfer of provision for central services to the Cabinet Office: other services, class XVIII, vote 1; and the transfer of the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency and Occupational Health and Safety Agency from gross to net running costs. The increase in the cash limit for the Office of Public Service will be offset by a transfer and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to the Treasury's running costs and cash limits in 1996–97. [31737]

  Mr. Jack
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised estimate, the running costs limit for class XVI, vote 1 will be reduced by £804,000 from £58,122,000 to £57,318,000. The cash limit remains unchanged. The reduction reflects savings which will meet the cost of advisers fees in connection with the privatisation of certain Paymaster functions, which is still subject to ministerial decision.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to the Registry of Friendly Societies' cash and running costs limits in 1996–97. [31738]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XVI, vote 9, the Registry of Friendly Societies will be increased by £1,330,000 from £6,340,000 to £7,670,000. The increase is required for additional capital expenditure in respect of the registry's relocation to Victory house in 1996–97.
  451
  The increase will be offset by savings on class XVI, votes 1 and 16, and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Buying Agency
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what targets he has set for the Buying Agency. [31592]

  Mr. Freeman
  Following the transfer of the agency from the Department of the Environment on 1 January, I have set targets for 1996 as follows:

  Financial

  1. To generate a return on capital employed of 8 per cent.—this was applied to the last six months of 1995 and was achieved.

  2. To achieve a growth in sales of the core business of 20 per cent.—the outturn for 1995 was £137 million.

  Productivity

  3. To reduce the basic cost per £ of core business sales to 2.6p—the outturn for 1995 was 2.8p, additional development costs in 1996 will not be included in this target.

  4. To retain all existing utilities business and achieve a 4 per cent. increase in the number of customers—this is a new target.

  Customer satisfaction

  5. To deliver 93 per cent. of all direct orders by the due date—the outturn for 1995 was 92 per cent.

  6. To resolve 95 per cent. of all customer complaints in one month and the rest within three months—the outturn for 1995 was 94 per cent.

  Internal quality

  7. To gain accreditation as "Investors in People"—this is a new target.

  Environmental

  8. To create an environmental effects register of TBA's activities as described in the BS 7750 standard—this is a new target.

TREASURY

  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost of mortgage interest tax relief would have been in each year since 1994–95 if relief had been available at 25 per cent. [30193]

  Mr. Jack
  The total cost of mortgage interest relief and the estimated cost if relief was available at 25 per cent., for the years 1994–95 to 1996–97 for the UK as a whole, are as follows:

  £ million

  Cost of mortgage interest relief

  Cost of relief if available at 25 per cent.

  1994–95

  3,500

  4,400

  1995–96

  2,700

  4,500

  1996–971

  2,500

  4,200

  1 Estimates for 1996–97 are provisional. They are based on the assumption, by convention, of no change from the current estimated average building society interest rate of 7.03 per cent.

  The rate of relief in 1994–95 was 20 per cent. From 1995–96 onwards it has been 15 per cent.
  452

  Factor 8
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons the medical aid recombinant factor 8 is not zero-rated; and if he will now zero rate it. [31088]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In 1977 the then Government agreed with other member states, under the terms of the EC sixth VAT directive, not to extend the scope of our existing VAT zero rates and so it is not now possible to zero rate these products.

  Human blood and substances derived from it, including plasma-derived factor 8, are exempt from VAT under items 6 and 7 of group 7 of schedule 9 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994. However, recombinant factor 8, being synthetic and not derived from human blood, does not fall within this exemption and so is subject to VAT at the standard rate.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the number of people who pay income tax on invalid care allowance; and how much was received in tax on invalid care allowance in 1995–96. [30713]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 4 June 1996]: The estimated revenue yield for 1995–96 is about £5 million. This is an estimate of the income tax attributable on the benefit, by applying the recipients' average rate of income tax on the whole of their income to the amount of benefit received. About 100,000 individuals who receive invalid care allowance were liable to income tax.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing Bodies
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) of 15 May,Official Report, column 489 on the future of the Commission for the New Towns, what representations he has received on the need for an overarching body to control the sale of assets by (a) his Department, (b) the Ministry of Defence and (c) other Departments of State, with particular reference to the impact of sales of land on land values in new town areas. [31016]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We see no case for setting up an overarching body. The announcement on 15 May concerned the assets, rights and liabilities of new towns, urban development corporations and housing action trusts only. We believe that this proposal provides the best way of maximising returns to the Exchequer from sales of land in new town areas and for handling residual matters from the urban development corporations and housing action trusts effectively and economically. The general policy on disposing of Government land is a matter for my right hon. Friend and the learned Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  453

  Development Plans
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he is putting in place for the consideration of further changes to the system of development plans prepared under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. [31792]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  On 13 March I published proposals to amend the code of practice on development plans and the development plan regulations in order to help speed up the process of adoption by local authorities of area-wide local plans and unitary development plans. The changes proposed in those documents have been broadly welcomed and, subject to consideration of the detailed comments received, will be implemented as soon as possible. I also indicated that I had not ruled out further changes, if these were wanted by the users of the development plan system. Meetings are now being held with a range of organisations representing those with an interest in the operation of the system, including the local authorities, developers and environmental groups. Suggestions for change can also be submitted in writing to: The Secretary, Development plans review, room C13/20, 2 Marsham street, London SW1P 3EB, to arrive not later than 30 June. If it is decided to bring forward further firm proposals for changes to the system, these will be subject to consultation in the usual way.

  Blight Working Group
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the interdepartmental working group on blight will issue a paper summarising the main issues for consideration. [31793]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A paper has been published today, and copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House. The paper, which covers the whole of Great Britain, seeks views on whether any practical changes can be made to the existing arrangements for property purchase and compensation, bearing in mind the particular concerns of the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill about those whose properties decline in value because of the perception of potential purchases rather than because of any physical effects.

  Comments are invited by 31 July from all those with an interest in generalised blight.

  Running Costs and Cash Limits
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to change his Department's cash and running costs limits for 1996–97. [31802]

  Mr. Gummer
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised and summer supplementary estimates, the following cash limit changes will be made.

  The cash limit for class VI, vote 1—housing and construction, England—covering sections A, D to G and J to L of that vote, will be decreased by £10,950,000 from £341,518,000 to £330,568,000. This change reflects transfers of £2,000,000 to provide for a new asylum
  454
  seekers' special housing grant which will not be cash limited; £5,200,000 to class VI, vote 2—regeneration, countryside and wildlife—and a transfer of £4,300,000 within the rough sleepers initiative from current to capital expenditure, the latter of which falls within the DOE/HC non-voted cash limit. The decreases are partially offset by an increase of £550,000 in Housing Corporation administration provision.

  The DOE/HC—Housing Corporation—cash limit will be increased by £4,300,000 from £1,030,199,000 to £1,034,499,000 because of the transfer of provision for the rough sleepers initiative from current to capital expenditure.

  The cash limit for class VI, vote 2—regeneration, countryside and wildlife—will be increased by £6,656,000 from £1,452,787,00 to £1,459,443,000. This reflects a transfer of £5,200,000 from class VI, vote 1—housing and construction—to the Docklands light railway and the London docklands development corporation to cover repair costs following the bombing at south quay in February 1996. An increase of £1,456,000 is also required to pay European regional development fund claims not accepted for payment by the European Community. The increase will be met by a transfer from the DOE/ERDF non-voted cash limit and will therefore not add to the planned control total of public expenditure.

  The DOE/RCW—regeneration, countryside and wildlife—non-voted cash limit will also be increased by £6,656,000 from £1,434,387,000 to £1,441,043,000 for the reasons given in paragraph 4.

  The DOE/ERDF—European regional development fund—non-voted cash limit will be reduced by £1,440,000 from £184,222,000 to £182,782,000. This reflects a transfer of £16,000 from the Department of Health for the St. Gabriel's church scheme and a transfer of £1,456,000 to DOE/RCW for the new ERDF sections to cover gross payments in place of European Community receipts.

  The external financing limit for urban development corporations will be increased by £5,200,000 to £207,050,000 to cover repair costs for Docklands light railway and London docklands development corporation following the bombing at south quays. The external financing limit for the Urban Regeneration Agency, English Partnerships, will be increased by £13,652,000 for provision for current spending which was incorrectly omitted from the introduction to the 1996–97 supply estimates.

  The cash limit for class VI, vote 4—local government and planning, England—covering sections A to F of that vote, will be reduced by £80,000 from £31,128,167,000 to £31,128,087,000 to reflect reductions in the payments made to the Valuation Office Agency in section A valuation services. The savings will be used within vote 4, to cover a payment in South Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority under the Bellwin scheme in section H, other grants, which is outside the cash limit on the vote.

  All the increases will be offset either by savings or transfers from other Government Departments and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.
  455

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Power
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what comparative studies he had initiated of the policies and principles informing the time scale for full dismantling of nuclear power generating plants in(a) the USA, (b) France and (c) Germany; and if he will make a statement. [31084]

  Mr. Lang
  None.

  All UK nuclear power generating plants but one are gas cooled, whereas almost all the plants in the three countries identified are water cooled. There would, therefore, be little purpose in conducting such studies.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the advertising budget for nuclear privatisation in the current year; and what it has been in each of the last two years. [31142]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 4 June 1996]: There was no expenditure on advertising for the privatisation of the nuclear industry in the year 1994–95. Actual expenditure on privatisation of the nuclear industry, including advertising, will be reported to Parliament in the normal way.

  Running Costs and Cash Limits
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what
  changes will be made to his Department's cash and running costs limits for 1996–97. [31801]

  Mr. Lang
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised estimate, the cash limit for class IV, vote 1—programmes and administration—will be reduced by £8,416,000 from £1,310,071,000 to £1,301,655,000. This net reduction results from:

  (i) the transfer on to the vote of the external financing limit of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (-£5,600,000);

  (ii) a reduction of expenditure on both international subscriptions (-£2,461,000) and consultancy (-£210,000) the sum of which will be used to find a non-voted increase in the external financing limit of Companies House; and

  (iii) the transfer of responsibility for Southampton buildings to the Department of National Heritage (-£145,000).

  Within this total, the gross running cost limit for the Department of Trade and Industry is being increased by £4,800,000 from £3,359,237,000 to £364,037,000. This change comprises:

  (i) an adjustment in Insolvency Service fee income required for accounting purposes (£5,000,000);

  offset by transfers of provision to:

  (ii) the Department of National Heritage (£145,000); and

  (iii) the non-cash-limit agency and central services area of the vote (£55,000).

  On a net basis, the Insolvency Service adjustment sums to zero as a fully compensating increase in receipts is also required.

  Additionally, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class IV, vote 12—Office of Gas Supply—will be increased by
  456
  £2,000,000 from £5,743,000 to £7,743,000 and the running costs limit by £825,000 from £7,627,000 to £8,452,000.

  The requirement for an increase results from the necessary costs associated with introduction of domestic competition and the transfer of the gas measurement branch from class IV, vote 1. This will involve expenditure on consultancy and staff related costs together with urgent expenditure on accommodation to comply with health and safety requirements.

  The increase will be offset by savings or charged to the reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Radiocommunications Agency
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets he has set his Department's Radiocommunications Agency for 1996–97. [31799]

  Mr. Lang
  I have set my Department's Radiocommunications Agency the following quality of service targets for 1996–97 in respect of its licensing work and enforcement activities. These are in addition to achieving an overall efficiency improvement of 6 per cent. over 1995–96 and to continue to recover the full costs of its activities from customers.

  Licensing
  Category A: Licences that involve no frequency assignment, site clearance or international co-ordination; 100 per cent. of applications and amendments to be processed and despatched within five working days.
  Category B: Licences that involve frequency assignment but no site clearance or international co-ordination; 90 per cent. of applications and amendments to be processed and despatched within 15 working days, with the remainder to be processed and despatched within 25 working days or an explanation for the delay provided to the applicant.
  Category C: Licences that require frequency assignment and site clearance and/or international co-ordination, 90 per cent. of applicationsand amendments to be processed and despatched within 40 working days and the remainffder to be processed and despatched within 60 working days or an explanation for the delay provided to the applicant.
  Category D: Renewals of all licences in category A to be processed and despatched within 5 working days, renewals of licences in categories B and C to be processed and despatched within 10 working days.

  Enforcement

  100 per cent. of safety of life services complaints to be investigated within 24 hours;

  98 per cent. of business complaints to be investigated within five days;

  98 per cent. of domestic interference complaints to be investigated within one month.

  I also expect the agency's enquiry point to improve its response rate to calls within 30 seconds to 92 per cent. and for 95 per cent. and for 95 per cent. of all invoices to be paid within 30 days, or within the timescale agreed with suppliers. In addition, the chief executive will continue to reply within 10 working days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply.
  457

  Worker Information and Consultation
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will report on the consultation exercise recently undertaken by his Department in relation to the European Commission's communication on worker information and consultation. [31803]

  Mr. Lang
  I have today placed a summary of the responses to the consultation in the Library of the House, together with a copy of the Government's response to the European Commission's communication.

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets he has set his Department's National Weights and Measures Laboratory for 1996–97. [31800]

  Mr. Lang
  I have set National Weights and Measures Laboratory the following targets for 1996–97:

  to ensure that external fee-earning activities remain self-financing;

  to reduce the real cost of a programme hour by 1 per cent.;

  to complete 85 per cent. of European type approvals within 10 weeks;

  to complete 95 per cent. of all calibration jobs—including preparation of certificates—within 18 working days.

  On moving to net running costs control, I expect NWML to meet its net vote target in 1996–97.

  In addition, I expect the chief executive of NWML to continue to reply within 10 working days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to visit the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement. [30259]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 22 May 1996]: Diary commitments preclude my visiting the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the foreseeable future.

  Information Society Initiative
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the operation of the two pilot schemes running in Manchester and Harlow under the information society initiative. [30728]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 4 June 1996]The information society initiative pilot local support centres at Manchester and Harlow are both open. The Manchester centre, based at the national computing centre, was formally opened on 13 February and the Harlow centre, which is based at the Harlow information and technology training centre, ITEC, was opened on 19 March 1996.

  Both have facilities for businesses to get "hand-on" experience of using the Internet, world wide web, etcetera for commercial purposes, to encourage electronic commerce, and provide advice sessions and training courses for small businesses. Both are working with local business link partnerships in the development of services. The Manchester centre has been running training course for business link advisers and counsellors.
  458
  A countrywide network of local support centres will be established over the course of the information society initiative.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  State Pensions
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the gross annual cost of increasing the basic state pension by(a) £5, (b) £10 and (c) £20 a week; what would be (x) the annual savings in means-tested benefits and (y) increased Treasury receipts from income tax if the basic state pension was increased by (i) £5, (ii) £10 and (iii) £20 a week; and what increase in national insurance contributions would be needed to meet the net cost from increasing the basic state pension by (1) £5, (2) £10 and (3) £20 a week. [30165]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the tables:

  Cost and benefit effects of increases to basic state pension 1996–97 prices

  £ billion

  Gross cost to national insurance fund

  Saving in income related benefits

  Increase in treasury income tax receipts

  Basic retirement pension increased by £5

  2.7

  0.7

  0.2

  Basic retirement pension increased by £10

  5.4

  1.5

  0.5

  Basic retirement pension increased by £20

  10.8

  2.9

  1.1

  1. Estimates of cost to the national insurance fund are supplied by the Government Actuary's department.

  2. Calculations are based on increasing basic retirement pension only and assume that increases are applied to all recipients of any basic RP.

  3. Savings in income-related benefits are calculated using the policy simulation model 1996–97, based on the family expenditure surveys 1991, 1992 and 1993.

  4. Income tax effects have been calculated by the Inland Revenue using a projection of the 1994 family expenditure survey and are provisional.

  5. All cost are rounded to the nearest £100 million, 1996£97 prices.

  Effects of increasing basic state pension on class 1 national
  insurance contribution rates

  Percentage

  Employee main rate

  Employer main rate

  Current rates

  10.0

  10.2

  Basic retirement pension increased by £5

  10.8

  10.7

  Basic retirement pension increased by £10

  11.6

  11.3

  Basic retirement pension increased by £20

  13.4

  12.4

  1. Rates are rounded to the nearest 0.1 per cent.

  2. The new contribution rates are derived by maintaining equity between the burden of extra contributions borne by the employee and the employer for an employee on average earnings.
  459

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the types of non-advanced courses which are recognised for the purpose of claiming child benefit for a child aged between 16 and 19 years. [30240]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The administration of child benefit is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Peter L. Pike, dated 4 June 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will list the types of non-advanced courses which are recognised for the purpose of claiming child benefit for a child aged between 16 and 19 years.
  There are nearly 90 courses of education which are classed as non-advanced. They include GCE "A" level, GCSE and SCE Higher Grade or equivalent, GNVQ/NVQ levels 1,2 and 3, B/TEC National Diploma, SCOTVEC National Certificate of 6th Year Studies, Foundation art course and secretarial course with GCSE entry. Others, such as Pathway, Horizon and Gateway, can be grouped together under "Special Needs" courses. The remainder can be grouped together as "Job Specific".
  This would include courses such as Hotel and Catering, Travel and Tourism.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what monitoring the Child Support Agency undertakes(a) of the number of its clients who become insolvent following its intervention and (b) of the change in the number of clients becoming insolvent; and what procedures the agency adopts to avoid a client becoming insolvent following its intervention. [30692]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 4 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency clients.
  No formal records are kept of the number of clients who report that they have become insolvent following contact with the Agency, nor does the Agency petition for bankruptcy.
  Absent parents are always left with at least 70% of their income (67% if paying arrears) after a child maintenance assessment has been made. It should also be remembered that it could be the parent with care who has been made insolvent because legally due child maintenance has not been paid.
  The Agency has a legal liability to enforce maintenance payments in suitable cases even if it reaches the stage of court proceedings, to protect the interest of the taxpayer and the parent with care.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the number of (i) male and (ii) female employees, (b) the number of officials employed at each of the principal grades and the numbers and percentages of women employed at each of these grades and (c) the number of staff employed at administrative grades and the numbers and percentage of these staff who are women in his Department on 1 April. [30555]
  460
  Mr. Burt
  The information is set out in the tables:

  Permanent staff in post at l April 1996

  Number

  Male

  31,709

  Female

  65,797

  Principal grades

  Grade

  Total staff

  Total women

  Percentage women

  1–4

  29

  8

  27.6

  5

  105

  25

  23.8

  6

  434

  130

  30.0

  7

  641

  165

  25.7

  Senior Executive Officer

  1,256

  381

  30.3

  Higher Executive Officer

  5,204

  2,394

  46.0

  Executive Officer

  26,314

  16,513

  62.8

  Total

  33,983

  19,616

  57.7

  Administrative grades

  Grade

  Total staff

  Total women

  Percentage women

  Administrative Officer

  48.982

  36,409

  74.3

  Administrative Assistant

  11,452

  7,876

  68.8

  Total

  60,434

  44,285

  73.2

  Staff numbers in grades not regarded as either principal or administrative, e.g. support grade bands 1 and 2

  Total staff

  Total women

  Percentage women

  3,089

  1,896

  61.4

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many registered disabled people are employed by his Department; and what percentage this is of the total figures. [30772]

  Mr. Burt
  The Department employs 1,675 registered disabled people. This represents 1.8 per cent. of the total number of staff employed by this Department.

  Benefits Agency
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the savings to the Benefits Agency of the arrangements whereby mail hand-delivered to the agency in Stockport is re-delivered to that agency by the Royal Mail via Crewe. [31054]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Ann Coffey, dated 4 June 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what assessment he has made of the savings to the

  461
  arrangements whereby mail hand-delivered to the Agency in Stockport is re-delivered to that Agency by the Royal Mail via Crewe.
  As part of the 'Competing for Quality' initiative the BA has market tested its accommodation and office services, which includes arrangements for the collection, sorting and opening of post. The in-house team won the contract and sub-contracted the post opening service for the Greater Manchester Area to Royal Mail.
  This means that as District Office staff are no longer involved in the post opening process they can now concentrate on the core business of the Agency, which is the processing of benefits.
  All BA offices in Manchester have external boxes where our customers can hand-deliver items of post. All post is opened by Royal Mail and distributed across the District within 24 hours. There are notices on the external boxes telling customers at what times the boxes are emptied.
  The post opening arrangements are just one of a whole package of services delivered under the accommodation and office services contracts and therefore it is not possible to attribute a financial saving to one specific task within the package.
  However, it is estimated that savings of 29 per cent. will be made for the whole of the Greater Manchester area in respect of accommodation and office services, which include post opening, over the duration of the contract.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) of 15 May,Official Report column 451 (1) how many home visits were made by Benefits Agency staff for the periods (a) April 1980 to April 1984, (b) April 1985 to April 1989, (c) April 1990 to April 1991 and (d) April 1992 to April 1994; [31089]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the discrepancy between the figures quoted in the answer and the answer given to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on 19 July 1995, Official Report, column 1503. [31090]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested as figures on some areas of work are not collated nationally. Such information as is available is set out in the table:

  The error in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Garscadden related to the number of effective supplementary benefit visits for April 1979 to March 1980. This was due to a clerical error and resulted from double counting of data.

  The table also includes data on effective contributory benefit visits in 1979–80 and 1984–85 which were erroneously omitted from my written answer of 15 May to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks).

  Effective supplementary benefit/income support visits

  Effective contributory benefit visits

  18 April 1979–15 April 1980

  —

  428,784

  16 April 1980–14 April 1981

  3,490,320

  309,094

  15 April 1981–13 April 1982

  3,554,302

  220,495

  14 April 1982–12 April 1983

  3,385,476

  180,068

  13 April 1983–10 April 1984

  3,515,234

  128,778

  11 April 1984–9 April 1985

  —

  129,627

  10 April 1985–8 April 1986

  2,356,203

  129,664

  9 April 1986–7 April 1987

  1,578,038

  352,728

  8 April 1987–8 April 1988

  1,228,694

  174,653

  11 April 1988–31 March 1989

  960,746

  n/a

  462

  Effective supplementary benefit/income support visits

  Effective contributory benefit visits

  April 1990–March 1991

  580,900

  n/a

  April 1992–March 1993

  509,722

  n/a

  April 1993–March 1994

  505,507

  n/a

  1. The table includes supplementary benefit and income support visits for all the periods requested and contributory benefits visits for April 1980 to April 1988.

  2. The contributory benefits figures include visits made to employers in relation to national insurance contributions.

  3. Information is not available for contributory benefits for 1988–89, 1990–91, 1992–93 and 1993–94 as there were no figures collated for this period.

  4. Data in respect of periods prior to 1989 may not be directly these comparable with one in respect of later periods as the Benefits Agency no longer holds detailed guidance on interpretation of the earlier data.

  5. Contributory benefit data were not collected for the period April 1990 to March 1994.

  6. Data are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Access Committee for England
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to make a statement on the review of the role of the Access Committee for England. [31735]

  Mr. Burt
  I am pleased that the review acknowledged the valuable work undertaken by the Access Committee for England in providing a forum for discussion that involves all interested parties and in fostering local access groups. The review also found that the committee's ministerial advisory role had worked less well. This finding, allied with the setting up of the National Disability Council to advise the Government on issues relating to discrimination against disabled people, has persuaded me and my hon. Friends the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency and the Under-Secretary for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), that this aspect of ACE' s work should cease. We have therefore agreed to offer funding for the committee for two years from April 1996 to allow time for it to continue to develop those areas where it has proved most effective. These arrangements will be reviewed before the end of that period.

  This revised remit will enable ACE to focus more clearly on promoting the accessibility to disabled people of buildings and of indoor and outdoor environments—including housing—by:
  actively promoting the formation of local access groups and providing them with advice and support;
  providing a focal point for information on access matters for individual disabled people and others, referring them where appropriate to other agencies;
  consulting and offering practical advice on access matters to local government associations, industrial and commercial representative organisations. professional bodies, voluntary organisations and other interested groups; and
  advising local authorities and other agencies which may be considering the designation of access officers.

  In view of the committee's changed role, I shall no longer have any responsibility for appointing members or determining its constitution.
  463

  Family Credit
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he proposes to implement the measure he announced in November 1995 to terminate payment of family credit when the last remaining dependent child in a family leaves full-time education. [31736]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I am today laying before the House the Family Credit (General) Amendment Regulations 1996, which will give effect to that measure, and the associated report of the Social Security Committee with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's response to it. The regulations, subject to negative resolution, will come into effect from 2 July 1996.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the Social Security Advisory Committee's report about his proposals to restructure benefits for lone parents and his response to it. [31796]

  Mr. Lilley
  I am today publishing the committee's report and my response to it, together with draft regulations. From April 1997, the lone parent premium in the income-related benefits will be replaced by an additional element to be incorporated into the family premium. One parent benefit will be replaced by an additional element to be incorporated into the main child benefit rates. The benefits system is relatively more generous to lone parents than to couples. The regulations will provide a more flexible mechanism for adjusting the relative level of support provided to these different types of households. I intend, over time, and without cash losses to individuals, to narrow the gap between benefits that go to lone parents and those that go to couples.

  Housing Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish a response to the third report of the Social Security Committee of Session 1995–96 on housing benefit fraud HC 90. [31797]

  Mr. Lilley
  I have today laid copies of the Government's response to the Social Security Select Committee's report "Housing Benefit Fraud" before the House and copies have been placed in the Library. I am also announcing two new measures to reinforce our anti-fraud initiatives. First, we will be setting up a ministerial group on countering benefit fraud, which will focus on cross-Government action and include all Departments with a role in tackling benefit fraud.

  Secondly, there will be an improved flow of information from Inland Revenue to DSS officials under section 122 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The development of data matching to combat serious social security fraud means that the undertaking to limit the transfer of information, given on 22 April 1986, Official Report, column 1603, should be relaxed.

  Taken together with other measures, these represent a further considerable step forward in our fight to stop benefit fraud.
  464

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Housing Benefit Fraud
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals have been successfully prosecuted for fraudulent claims relating to housing benefit in each year since 1991; what assessment he has made of the correlation between the number of criminal prosecutions for fraudulent claims of housing benefit and the total amount of housing benefit fraud; and what joint initiatives he has undertaken with the Department of Social Security on the matter. [29970]

  Mr. Maclean
  It is not possible from the information held centrally by my Department to identify offences relating to fraudulent claims of housing benefit from other summary offences.

  There are no joint initiatives between the Home Office and the Department of Social Security on this matter.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence he has evaluated of links between organised crime and systematic abuse of the housing benefit system. [30450]

  Mr. Maclean
  Organised criminals have been involved in serious fraud against the benefit system, including housing benefit. The National Criminal Intelligence Service and the police are working closely with other agencies to identify and tackle this type of crime.

  Police Morale
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve the morale of Britain's police officers. [30451]

  Mr. Maclean
  Morale is high, and will continue to improve as a consequence of the Government's effective policies to combat crime and deter criminals, and the continued significant investment in the police service.

  Domestic Burglaries
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the clear-up rate of recorded domestic burglaries in(a) Coventry and (b) the west midlands for each year since 1990; and for each year what was the percentage change on (i) the previous year and (ii) 1990. [30647]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for Coventry is not collected centrally. Figures for the west midlands are given in the table.

  Clear-up rate for offences of burglary in a dwelling recorded by the police in the west midlands

  Year

  Clear-up rate (percentage)

  Percentage point change on previous year

  Percentage point change over 1990

  1990

  39

  1—

  1—

  1991

  31

  -8

  -8

  1992

  24

  -7

  -15

  1993

  31

  +7

  -8

  1994

  32

  +1

  -7

  1995

  38

  +6

  -1

  1Not applicable.

  465
  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average value of items stolen in recorded domestic house break-ins in 1995 in(a) Coventry and (b) the west midlands. [30648]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for Coventry is not collected centrally. The available information for the west midlands is for 1994. For offences of burglary in a dwelling where property was stolen, the average value was £1,054.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recorded domestic burglaries there were in(a) Coventry and (b) the west midlands in each year since 1990; and for each year, what was the percentage change on (i) the previous year and (ii) 1990. [30659]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for Coventry is not collected centrally. The available information for the west midlands is given in the table.

  Offences of burglary in a dwelling recorded by the police in the west midlands

  Year

  Number of offences

  Percentage change on previous year

  Percentage change over 1990

  1990

  35,613

  1—

  1—

  1991

  41,624

  +17

  +17

  1992

  52,202

  +25

  +47

  1993

  51,815

  -1

  +45

  1994

  48,241

  -7

  +35

  1995

  46,368

  -4

  +30

  2 Not applicable.

  Private Investigators
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what use his Department has made of private detective agencies or investigators during 1995–96 and 1994–95; what agencies have been employed; for what purposes; and at what cost to his Department. [30561]

  Mr. Howard
  The Home Office and its agencies did not employ private detective agencies or investigators for detective or investigative work during 1995–96 and 1994–95. However, during 1995–96, three companies were employed by the Prison Service to carry out pre-occupation searches of establishments following construction work etc. It is understood that these companies carry out private investigative work for other organisations.

  The companies in question are:

  Network Security Management

  Pinkerton Consultancy and Investigation

  Sigma Projects

  Payments made to these companies by the Prison Service for search activities during 1995–96 total £188,000.

  Car Theft
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the clear-up rate for recorded car theft in(a) Coventry and (b) the west midlands in each year since 1990; and for each year, what was the percentage change on (i) the previous year and (ii) 1990. [30655]
  466
  Mr. Maclean
  Information for Coventry is not collected centrally. The available information for West Midlands is given in the table.

  Clear-up rate for offences of theft of a vehicle recorded by the police in the west midlands

  Year

  Clear up rate (percentage)

  Percentage point change on previous year

  Percentage point change over 1990

  1990

  35

  1—

  1—

  1991

  30

  -5

  -5

  1992

  25

  -5

  -10

  1993

  25

  —

  -10

  1994

  21

  -4

  -14

  1995

  20

  -1

  -15

  1 Not applicable.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cars were recorded as stolen in(a) Coventry and (b) the west midlands in each year since 1990; and for each year, what was the percentage change on (i) the previous year and (ii) 1990. [30654]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for Coventry is not collected centrally. The available information for the west midlands is given in the table.

  Offences of theft of a vehicle recorded by the police in the west midlands

  Year

  Number of offences

  Percentage change on previous year

  Percentage change over 1990

  1990

  34,236

  1—

  1—

  1991

  41,415

  +21

  +21

  1992

  39,632

  -4

  +16

  1993

  40,184

  +1

  +17

  1994

  40,347

  —

  +18

  1995

  45,102

  +12

  +32

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many car break-ins were recorded in(a) Coventry and (b) the west midlands in each year since 1990; and for each year, what was the percentage change on (i) the previous year and (ii) 1990. [30656]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for Coventry is not collected centrally. The available information relates to offences of theft of and from a motor vehicle and figures for the west midlands are given in the table.

  Offences of theft of and from a vehicle recorded by the police in the west midlands

  Year

  Number of offences

  Percentage change on previous year

  Percentage change over 1990

  1990

  84,321

  1—

  —

  1991

  95,775

  +

  +14

  1992

  95,881

  —

  +14

  1993

  94,925

  -1

  +13

  1994

  90,061

  -5

  +7

  1995

  95,596

  +6

  +13

  1 Not applicable.

  467
  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average value of items recorded as stolen from cars in(a) Coventry and (b) the west midlands for the latest available year. [30658]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for Coventry is not collected centrally. The available information for the west midlands is for 1994. For offences of theft from a motor vehicle where property was stolen, the average value was £279.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average age of people convicted of(a) car theft and (b) burglary in the west midlands in the latest year for which statistics are available. [30649]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for 1994 on the number of offenders convicted at all courts in the West Midlands police force area by age is given in the table.

  Data for 1995 will not be available until the autumn.

  Number of persons convicted at all courts of (a) car theft and (b) burglary offences in the West Midlands police force area by age, 1994

  Age

  Car theft1

  Domestic burglary

  Burglary Non-domestic burglary

  Total burglary

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  1

  5

  2

  7

  12

  9

  4

  10

  14

  13

  25

  18

  19

  37

  14

  73

  32

  29

  61

  15

  99

  70

  61

  131

  16

  127

  79

  73

  152

  17

  157

  129

  99

  228

  18

  172

  93

  104

  197

  19

  101

  91

  117

  208

  20

  105

  68

  90

  158

  21 and under 25

  235

  194

  258

  452

  25 and under 30

  294

  125

  175

  300

  30 and under 40

  62

  81

  127

  208

  40 and under 50

  21

  18

  24

  42

  50 and under 60

  3

  2

  9

  11

  60 and over

  1

  —

  —

  —

  All ages

  1,280

  1,009

  1,197

  2,206

  1 Car theft includes the indictable offences of aggravated vehicle taking—injury to person, damage to property of car; theft from vehicles; theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicle car and the summary offences of stealing and unauthorised taking of a conveyance and aggravated vehicle taking where criminal damage of £2,000 or under.

  2 Includes persons, convicted of summary offences, given the default age of 25 where the exact age was not known.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the clear-up rate of recorded car break-ins in(a) Coventry and (b) the west midlands in each year since 1990; and for each year, what was the percentage change on (i) the previous year and (ii) 1990. [30657]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for Coventry is not collected centrally. The available information relates to offences of theft of and from a motor vehicle and figures for the west midlands are given in the table.
  468

  Clear-up rate for offences of theft of and from a motor vehicle recorded by the police in the west midlands

  Year

  Clear-up rate (percentage)

  Percentage point change on previous year

  Percentage point change over 1990

  1990

  34

  —

  —

  1991

  26

  -8

  -8

  1992

  22

  -4

  -12

  1993

  21

  -1

  -13

  1994

  19

  -2

  -15

  1995

  18

  -1

  -16

  1 Not applicable.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of recorded crimes in(a) Coventry and (b) the west midlands in 1979. [30650]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for Coventry is not collected centrally. There were 156,671 recorded offences in the west midlands in 1979.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of recorded crimes in each year since 1990; and for each year what was the percentage change on(a) the previous year and (b) 1990. [30651]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police in England and Wales

  Year

  Number of offences

  Percentage change on previous year

  Percentage change over 1990

  1990

  4,543,611

  1—

  1—

  1991

  5,276,173

  +16

  +16

  1992

  5,591,717

  +6

  +23

  1993

  5,526,255

  -1

  +22

  1994

  5,249,478

  -5

  +16

  1995

  5,123,638

  -2

  +13

  1 Not applicable.

  Buckley Hall Prison
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff have left the employment of Group 4 at Buckley Hall since the prison opened. [30677]

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

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 5 June 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the numbers of staff who have left the employment of Group 4 at Buckley Hall prison since it opened.
  Since the prison opened there have been twenty eight resignations and two redundancies.
  469

  Trooping of the Colour
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will request(a) the Metropolitan police and (b) Buckingham palace authorities to move the trooping of the colour ceremony on 15 June to 16 June to avoid a clash with the England v Scotland Euro 96 cup match at Wembley. [31026]

  Mr. Maclean
  Arrangements for both events, including appropriate security measures, are far advanced and I am confident that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner will allocate resources in the most appropriate way in order to ensure that any problems of crime and disorder in London will be dealt with.

  Prison Escapes
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) escapes and (b) attempted escapes there have been at each male category C prison since 14 December 1994. [30807]

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

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 5 June 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many (a) escapes; and (b) attempted escapes there have been at each male category C prison since 14 December 1994.

  The following table shows the position as at 18 May 1996.

  KPI escapes and attempted escapes from category C establishments 14 December 1994 to 18 May 1996

  Establishment

  Escapes from establishments

  Attempted escapes from establishments

  North

  Acklington

  Nil

  3

  Ashwell

  1

  6

  Brockley

  Nil

  Nil

  Buckley Hall

  5

  4

  Everthorpe

  Nil

  Nil

  Featherstone

  Nil

  Nil

  Haverigg

  Nil

  4

  Kirklevington

  Nil

  Nil

  Lancaster

  1

  1

  Lindholme

  1

  12

  Ranby

  8

  10

  Risley

  2

  Nil

  Stafford

  2

  3

  Stocken

  2

  2

  Wealstun (C)

  Nil

  2

  Whatton

  Nil

  Nil

  Wymott

  Nil

  Nil

  South

  Aldington

  7

  1

  Blantyre House

  Nil

  1

  Camp Hill

  Nil

  3

  Channings Wood

  Nil

  3

  Coldingley

  1

  Nil

  Downview

  1

  Nil

  Erlestoke

  5

  Nil

  Guys Marsh

  Nil

  1

  Highpoint

  Nil

  2

  Latchmere House

  Nil

  Nil

  470

  KPI escapes and attempted escapes from category C establishments 14 December 1994 to 18 May 1996

  Establishment

  Escapes from establishments

  Attempted escapes from establishments

  Littlehey

  4

  1

  The Mount

  Nil

  1

  Oxford

  1

  Nil

  Send

  1

  Nil

  Shepton Mallet

  Nil

  1

  Usk/Prescoed

  Nil

  1

  The Verne

  7

  4

  Wayland

  Nil

  Nil

  Wellingborough

  2

  1

  Haslar

  3

  Nil

  Civil Defence Grant
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the total expenditure in 1996–97 approved as eligible for civil defence grant aid for(a) London FCDA, (b) Hounslow London borough, (c) Newham London borough, (d) Hull unitary authority, (e) North Lincoln unitary authority, (f) North East Lincoln unitary authority and (g) East Riding of Yorkshire unitary authority. [31087]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is as follows:

  £

  London fire and civil defence authority

  388,000

  Hounslow London borough council

  35,000

  Newham London borough council

  35,000

  East Riding unitary authority

  266,000

  Hull unitary authority

  East Riding acts as host authority

  North Lincolnshire

  East Riding acts as host authority

  North East Lincolnshire

  East Riding acts as host authority

  Sexual Offences Against Children
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of prisoners convicted of sexual offences against children were re-convicted for a sexual offence against a child within two years of their discharge from prison in each year since 1980 for which figures are available. [30783]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Offenders who are convicted of sexual offences against a child can be charged with any one of a number of offences. The legal categories of sexual offence do not always differentiate between child and adult victims. This means that the information requested is not centrally available.

  Driving Offences
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average fine levied for drivers in the last year who(a) do not have insurance and (b) have not stopped after an accident; what assessment he has made of the desirability of a review of the penalties for such offences; and if he will make a statement. [31163]
  471
  Mr. Maclean
  The average fine imposed for the offence of using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks at all courts in England and Wales in 1994—the latest year for which figures are available—was £209. For the offence of failing to stop after an accident it was £133.

  For both offences the maximum fine is £5,000, accompanied by obligatory licence endorsement and discretionary disqualification. In addition, for failing to stop after an accident, a sentence of up to six months' imprisonment can be imposed. The Government are satisfied that these penalties adequately reflect the seriousness of the two offences, but remain committed to keeping all penalties under review to ensure that they remain appropriate.

  Mr. Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases in each of the last five years there have been where a motorist is found not to have the legal insurance required. [31164]

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information relates to the number of findings of guilt for using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks in England and Wales, and is as follows:

  Findings of guilt for using a motor vehicle uninsured against third
  party risks in England and Wales

  Year

  Number

  1990

  209,463

  1991

  225,910

  1992

  246,054

  1993

  281,136

  1994

  286,252

  Figures for 1995 are not yet available.

  Running Costs and Cash Limits
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for changes to the 1996–97 cash and running costs limits within his responsibilities. [31593]

  Mr. Howard
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised and supplementary estimates, the cash limit for class VII, vote 1—Home Office administration, police, probation, immigration and other services, England and Wales—will be decreased by £14,447,000 from £4,611,752,000 to £4,597,305,000 and the cash limit on class VII, vote 2—prisons, England and Wales2—will be increased by £589,000 from £1,521,081,000 to £1,521,670,000. This decrease in the cash limit for vote 1 is the net effect of transfers to the Department for National Heritage, the Cabinet Office and the Prison Service Agency, class VII, vote 2. The increase in provision for vote 2 is the net effect of the delegation from Home Office central services, class VII, vote 1, of office support services, reclassification of some refunds of value added tax for business activity and of the running cost element of the Parole Board's costs when it becomes an executive non-departmental body.

  The Home Office running cost limit will be decreased by £584,000 from £1,802,065,000 to £1,801,481,000.

  Passport Agency
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the United Kingdom Passport 472
  Agency performed against its targets in 199–6; and what performance targets he has set for the agency in 1996–97. [27769]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 April 1996, column 431]I am pleased to say that the United Kingdom Passport Agency achieved all its targets in 1995–96. The targets for processing properly completed straightforward applications were met despite a 20 per cent. increase in demand for passport services with an average turnround time for the whole year of 6.1 working days, well within the average target of seven working days. The Passport Agency's financial target was to reduce its unit cost by 5 per cent. in real terms. The latest indications are that the agency has achieved a 7.25 per cent. real terms reduction in its unit cost. Another notable achievement was the re-award of the Chartermark in December 1995.

  During 1996–97, I shall expect the Passport Agency to continue to improve its standard of service to the public, while seeking further efficiency savings in its operations.

  I have set the agency the following key targets:

  1. to process properly completed straightforward applications within a maximum of 15 working days between April and October 1996, and 10 working days from 1 November 1996 onwards.

  2. to reduce unit costs by a further 3 per cent. in real terms in comparison with the outturn for 1995–96.

  The chief executive will remain directly accountable to me for the performance of the Passport Agency. An advisory board, including two private sector members with experience of delivering services to the public, will continue to provide me with an independent assessment of the agency's performance.

  Performance Bonds
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 20, how many (a) unconditional on-demand bonds, (b) performance bonds, (c) parent company guarantees, (d) advance payment bonds and (e) retention bonds were required by his Department in the last five years. [31235]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 4 June 1996]The information required to answer this question is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Dangerous Dogs
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost to the Metropolitan police of kennelling dogs detained under the terms of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in each year since 1991. [31075]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 4 June 1996]The following is the information requested:

  £

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Kennelling

  1,263,763

  773,469

  443,646

  368,000

  Veterinary

  66,075

  77,418

  57,829

  47,000

  Total

  1,329,838

  850,887

  501,475

  1415,000

  1 Estimated costs.

  473

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  China
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what discussions her Department had with the Chinese Minister for the State Family Planning Commission during her visit to Britain on 17 and 18 May on(a) the male to female birth ratio and (b) covert abortions and sterilisations in China; [30758]

  (2) what assurances were sought from the Chinese Minister for the State Family Planning Commission during her recent visit to Britain that there would be a halt to coercive birth control policies in Tibet and China. [31092]

  Mr. Hanley
  In her meeting with Mrs. Peng Peiyun, Chinese State Councillor with responsibilities that include family planning, Baroness Chalker of Wallasey discussed UK concerns about human rights abuses, such as forced sterilisations and abortions, in the implementation of Chinese family planning policy. In order that such informal contacts continue to be constructive, ODA believes that it is not appropriate to release details of these discussions.

  HIV and AIDS Funding
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which United Kingdom based non-governmental organisations have been allocated funding for HIV and AIDS programmes for(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96. [30229]

  Mr. Hanley
  UK-based NGOs receiving funding for specified HIV/AIDS programmes in developing countries 1993–94 to 1995–96 are as follows:

  1993–94

  Agency for Cooperation and Research in Development (ACORD)

  Action Aid

  Appropriate Health Resources and Technology Action Group (AHRTAG)

  African Medical Research Foundation (AMREF)

  Associated Country Women of the World

  Catholic Fund for Overseas Development

  CARE—UK

  Christian Aid

  Health Aid Moyo

  International HIV/AIDS Alliance

  International Planned Parenthood Federation

  Marie Stopes International

  Oxfam

  Panos Institute

  Plan International

  Save the Children Fund

  United Kingdom Foundation for the Peoples of the South Pacific

  1994–95

  Action Aid

  Appropriate Health Resources and Technology Action Group (AHRTAG)

  African Medical Research Foundation (AMREF)

  Associated Country Women of the World

  Catholic Fund for Overseas Development

  474

  CARE-UK

  Christian Aid

  Concern

  Concern Universal

  International Childcare Trust

  International Children's Trust

  International Family Health

  International HIV/AIDS Alliance

  International Planned Parenthood Federation

  Marie Stopes International

  National Network of Body Positive Groups

  Oxfam

  Panos Institute

  Plan International

  Save the Children Fund

  Tear Fund

  United Kingdom Foundation for the Peoples of the South Pacific

  1995–96

  Action Aid

  Appropriate Health Resources and Technology Action Group(AHRTAG)

  African Medical Research Foundation (AMREF)

  Associated Country Women of the World

  CARE

  Catholic Fund for Overseas Development

  Christian Aid

  Concern

  Concern Universal

  International Childcare Trust

  International Children's Trust

  International Community of Women Living with HIV/AIDS

  International Family Health

  International HIV/AIDS Alliance

  International Planned Parenthood Federation

  Medicines Sans Frontieres-UK

  Marie Stopes International

  Oxfam

  Plan International

  Population Concern

  Save the Children Fund

  Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund (SCIAF)

  Tear Fund

  Uganda AIDS Action Fund

  Urban Aid

  World Vision

  Many other UK NGOs receive funds to implement community development and health programmes which will influence the well-being of people exposed to or affected by HIV.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the £39.3 million allocated specifically for HIV/AIDS in 1995–96 was distributed through(a) multilateral agencies, (b) bilateral agencies and (c) non-governmental organisations. [30230]

  Mr. Hanley
  The table gives a breakdown of the £39.3 million allocated to HIV/AIDS—related activities in 1995–96 by spending channel.
  475

  Spending channel

  HIV/AIDS spend £million

  Per cent. of spend

  Baiateral

  33.815

  86.0

  Multilateral

  5.035

  12.8

  Non-governmental

  1.2

  organizations

  0.450

  Total expenditure

  39.3

  100.0

  In addition, a significant number of reproductive health projects approved during this period include prevention of HIV transmission as one of several objectives.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Exports and Imports
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the value of(a) exports from and (b) imports to Northern Ireland in each of the last five years for which figures are complete. [30828]

  Mr. Ancram
  Statistics on Northern Ireland's exports are currently available only for the financial years 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95 and are provided. These are taken from a survey undertaken on behalf of the Department of Economic Development and the Industrial Development Board by the Northern Ireland Economic Research Centre and published on 1 May 1996.

  Statistics on imports to Northern Ireland are not available.

  Year

  Exports £ million (excluding sales to GB)

  1991–92

  1,784

  1992–93

  1,980

  1993–94

  2,175

  1994–95

  2,637

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which standards which apply to the provision of nursery education will be relaxed under the voucher scheme. [30476]

  Mr. Ancram
  I do not propose to relax any standards applying to the provision of nursery education.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of(a) the number of children who will qualify for nursery vouchers and (b) the lengths of time they will be qualified. [30481]

  Mr. Ancram
  I estimate that approximately 19,500 children annually will be eligible for a voucher. The length of time for which they will be eligible will depend on the date of their fourth birthday. For planning purposes we have assumed the following distribution:

  Three terms: 4,400 children

  Two terms: 8,600 children

  One term: 6,500 children

  476
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the secretary of state for Northern Ireland how many inspectors are competent and qualify to investigate provision under the nursery voucher scheme; and what proposals he has to increase these numbers. [30482].

  Mr. Ancram
  At present five inspectors of the Department of Education's inspectorate are competent and qualified to inspect provision under the nursery voucher scheme.

  Arrangements are being made for the recruitment of up to five additional specialist inspectors of pre-school education.

  Pre-five Services
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he collates on the provision on(a) public and (b) private provision of pre-five services apart from those in state nursery schools and nursery classes. [30480]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department of Health and Social Services collates information on the number of day nursery, play group and child-minding places available in public facilities provided by health and social services boards and private facilities registered with health and social services trusts.

  At 31 March 1995, the latest date for which figures are available, the position was as follows:

  Type of facility

  Number of premises

  Average available places

  Day nursery

  Public

  4

  81

  Private

  104

  3,083

  Total

  108

  3,164

  Play group

  Public

  10

  270

  Private

  624

  15,539

  Total

  634

  15,809

  Child-minding

  Private

  4,225

  16,564

  School Meals
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he has taken to improve the nutritional value of schools meals since receiving the report of the school meals project in December 1995; and if he will make a statement on his proposals for future action. [30477]

  Mr. Ancram
  Following consultation with the Department of Health and Social Services and the Health Promotion Agency, the Department of Education has accepted that the existing nutritional guidelines for school meals should be reviewed having regard to the guidelines issued by the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy. A working group has been set up to take this review forward. The Department for Education and Employment is in the process of preparing voluntary nutritional guidelines for school meals in England and
  477
  Wales and the working group will be liaising closely with DfEE to ensure that all available information is taken into account before final guidelines are issued.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for education expenditure under the private finance initiative. [30478]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Two PFI projects for the provision of new accommodation at the North West Institute for Higher and Further Education and for the development of a new visitors centre at the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum have been advertised in the Official Journal of the European Community. The Department of Education is also considering projects under the PFI for schools, other further education colleges, higher education institutions, libraries and its periphery activities.

  Youth Training Scheme
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the numbers involved in the youth training scheme, the completion rate, the qualifications achieved and the numbers who are in or moved on to full-time work. [303791

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

  Letter from Ian Walters to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 5 June 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me, as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency to reply to your question.
  In the year ended 31 March 1996, a total of 10,543 young people aged 16 and 17 years entered the Agency's Jobskills training programme which was introduced in Northern Ireland on 3 April 1995 to replace the Youth Training and Job Training Programmes. During that period 3,534 left without completing their programme, of whom 1,620 (46%) entered employment, full-time education or another form of training.
  Training periods in the new programme range from 39 weeks to 156 weeks depending on the occupational area and level of qualification being followed. The large majority of young people did not join the programme until after 30 June 1995, the single school leaving date in Northern Ireland. More than 90% of the trainees are in training programmes lasting 52 weeks ore more and will not complete their training until 30 June 1996 at the earliest. Information on completion rates, qualifications achieved and numbers of trainees moving into employment will be available in due course.
  However, I can provide data from the Jobskills pilot programme which operated in two areas of Northern Ireland from 1 September 1992 to 31 March 1995. A total of 7,311 people, including 4,417 young people started training in the pilot programmes. In excess of 50% of those who joined these programmes achieved a full National Vocational Qualification at Level 2 or above. To date, 68% of those who left the pilot programmes have found employment.
  The figures for residual trainees in the Youth Training Programme for the year ended 31 March 1996 show that 29.8% of leavers achieved a NVQ at Level 2 or above. 7,089 young people left the programme during this period of whom 3,312 (65%) entered employment and 210 (4%) full-time education.
  I hope you find this helpful
  478

  Running Costs and Cash Limits
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the 1996–97 running costs limit for the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments. [31798]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The gross running cost limit for 1996–97 for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is £787,695,000. Details of the provision for individual Northern Ireland Departments are set out in the Northern Ireland estimates published today and are available in the Library.

  Performance Bonds
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his Department's policy on the use of performance bonds; in what circumstances they are used; what was the total sum paid by bond in each of the last five years; and if his Department requires bonds from businesses with fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50 and (c) 20 employees. [29500]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 20 May 1996]The Northern Ireland Office and Nortern Ireland Departments' policy on the use of performance bonds is in accordance with HM Treasury central unit on procurement's guidance on bonds and guarantees.

  The potential exists for demanding performance bonds in the allocation of construction contracts. The facility has been used by the Department of the Environment's roads service, which requests performance bonds for all contracts costing £200,000 or more which are awarded by open contract. For contracts less than £200,000, bonds may be requested where there is concern about the capacity of the lowest tenderers to perform the contracts. The roads service has had no occasion to receive payments by bond in the last five years.

  The number of staff employed by businesses is not a factor in deciding whether a bond is necessary.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cattle Slaughter Scheme
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the capacity of incinerators in the United Kingdom to dispose of culled cattle. [30412]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 21 May 1996)The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced in the House on 16 April that cull cows would be rendered and the resultant material disposed of by the best practical environmental option. At present there are 10 incinerators approved to burn suspect BSE cases, with an estimated capacity of 40,000 carcases per annum. Some of the limited spare capacity available in these incinerators is being used to be dispose of casualty over 30-month animals which are slaughtered on-farm.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the alternatives his Department has assessed other than incineration, for the disposal of culled cattle, indicating the reasons for their rejection. [30413]
  479
  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced in the House on 16 April,Official Report, columns 513–16, that cattle over 30 months would be rendered and the resultant material disposed of by the best practical environmental option. The Government have since been working intensively with the trade to examine means of disposal of the material derived from rendered carcases. A number of options for the eventual disposal of meat and bonemeal are under active consideration and in all cases full weight will be given to protection of the environment. These options include incineration, use as fuel in power generation and eventual landfill.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Luxembourg on 3 and 4 June; and if he will make a statement. [31740]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Agriculture Council on 3 and 4 June in Luxembourg. I was accompanied by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Welsh Office, and my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office.

  The Council considered the proposal by the Commission to lift the EU-wide export ban on United Kingdom produced gelatine, tallow and bull semen. This proposal had failed to attract a qualified majority in the EU Standing Veterinary Committee on 20 May, and the Commission therefore submitted it to the Council for a decision. The proposal was supported in the Council by nine member states but as this did not amount to a qualified majority, the Agriculture Commissioner announced that the Commission would implement the proposal under its own powers. It is likely that this will take effect from 10 June.

  I presented to the Agriculture Council the United Kingdom's comprehensive eradication programme for BSE, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. I expect that the programme will be examined in detail by EU veterinary experts in the near future.

  The Council also discussed a proposal from the Commission to increase the payments to EU beef producers by way of top-ups to the 1995 beef special premium and Buckler cow premium schemes in order to give some urgent income support to those affected by the BSE crisis. The proposal envisages in addition an allocation of Community funds to member states, based on the size of the national beef herd, to provide further assistance to beef producers according to national priorities. The proposal also provides for an increase in the age limit for calves brought forward under the calf processing scheme. Ministers in the Council welcomed the Commission's proposal, though recognised that, pending an opinion from the European Parliament, it could not be formally adopted. It will be discussed further at the Agriculture Council meeting on 24 and 25 June.

  The Presidency also undertook further bilateral contacts with member states on the reform of the EU fruit and vegetable regime. It is expected that, in the light of these discussions, a compromise proposal will be put before the late June Agriculture Council meeting.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he proposes to implement the EU Commission regulation authorising the United Kingdom to permit cattle aged over 30 months to graze on set-aside land. [31741]

  Mr. Baldry
  I welcome the Commission's agreement to our request to allow cattle to graze set-aside land in view of the difficulties currently facing our cattle farmers. The relevant Commission regulation, which is expected to come into force shortly and will run until 31 August, requires the United Kingdom authorities to take the measures necessary to ensure that only cattle aged over 30 months are permitted to graze set-aside and that the existing rules restricting lucrative use of set-aside land are observed. We shall therefore be laying before Parliament a statutory instrument subject to negative resolution procedure which will require those farmers wishing to take advantage of this facility to return a simple form to their agriculture departments. The instrument will also enable authorised persons to inspect cattle on set-aside land to ensure compliance with the regulations.

  Producers may allow another farmer's cattle to graze their set-aside, but they may not receive any payment in cash or kind for the use of the set-aside as grazing.

  We will be writing to all cattle farmers early next week explaining how they can take advantage of this provision. Farmers should not begin to graze cattle on set-aside until receipt of their notification form has been acknowledged by their agriculture departments as to do so would jeopardise set-aside payments and associated crop area aid payments.

  Running Costs and Cash Limits
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes are proposed to his Department's running costs and cash limits for 1996–97. [31831]

  Mr. Baldry
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate the cash limit for the Intervention Board Executive Agency (class III vote 1 section B) will be increased by £9,388,00 from £47,429,000 to £56,817,000. The increases are to cover the administration costs associated with the implementation of emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the United Kingdom. Capital will be increased by £370,000 to £1,979,000 and agents' services by £6,715,000 to £18,427,000.

  The running cost cash limit for the Intervention Board executive agency will be increased by £2,303,000 from £34,515,000 to £36,818,000 to reflect the additional costs of operating BSE measures in the UK.

  The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class III, vote 2—Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: departmental research, advisory services and administration, executive agencies and certain other services—will be increased by £206,700,000 from £704,618,000 to £911,318,000. The £206,700,000 all

  481
  relates to additional responsibilities arising in response to the BSE crisis. The gross running costs limit for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be increased by £50,066,000 from £304,702,000 to £354,768,000.

  The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

SCOTLAND

  Vandalism and Burglary (Shops)
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to protect shopkeepers and shops in Scottish cities and towns from vandalism and burglary. [30090]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Two key steps are "Operation Shopkeep", which is a campaign specifically against crime facing small shopkeepers, and our £4 million closed circuit television challenge competition, which will extend closed circuit television to more communities in Scotland.

  Housing, Glasgow
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whn he intends to meet Glasgow city council to discuss housing conditions. [30092]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  I last met representatives of Glasgow city council on 21 March 1996 to discuss housing. In addition, I met a number of hon. Members representing Glasgow constituencies on 14 February to discuss housing matters.

  Education Assistance
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance he can give to ensure that children aged 16 years or over are not discouraged from staying on in full-time education. [30093]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  We are already developing a new system of courses and assessment, Higher Still, to give all young people from age 16 the opportunity to study and gain relevant qualifications to the highest standard they can reach.

  Financial support is available for this age group through child benefit and bursaries amounting to over £91 million.

  Primary Schools
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent per pupil in primary schools in Scotland in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the figure in 1978–79 at constant prices. [30094]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Current expenditure per primary pupil in 1993–94 was £1,773. That is 58 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1978–79.

  Party Conferences
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who is responsible for meeting the cost of security for political party conferences. [30095]
  482
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Under section 170 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 my right hon. Friend may contribute towards the cost of security at each qualifying party's main annual conference. Policing costs incurred on all party conferences are met from the budget of the police authority or joint board concerned, with the assistance of police specific grant, normally at 51 per cent. of the budget, from the Scottish Office.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to attract inward investment to Scotland. [30098]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Locate in Scotland will continue to promote Scotland's advantages as a business location, working in partnership with the local enterprise companies and other bodies in both the public and private sectors. Its resources will be targeted on those markets which generate the strongest flows of outward investment and where Scotland's competitive strengths make it an attractive location.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of Scottish inward investment on Scotland's economy. [30100]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Inward investment has been—and continues to be—a very important element in the Scottish economy. Not only does it create new jobs but it helps introduce new technologies and new management practices, generates wealth, contributes significantly to our exports and creates opportunities for subcontractors and suppliers, many of which are indigenous companies.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about inward investment into Scotland. [30103]

  Mr. Kynoch
  1995–96 was another very successful year for inward investment in Scotland. Locate in Scotland and the Scottish Office Education and Industry Department helped to attract to Scotland 84 inward investment projects involving planned investment of nearly £1 billion and the expected creation or safeguarding of over 12,500 jobs.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of homeless people in Scotland in 1996; and what was the equivalent figure in 1986. [30099]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  In 1994–95, the most recent year for which figures are available, 25,100 households were assessed as homeless by Scottish local authorities following applications under the homeless persons legislation. The corresponding figure for 1986–87 was 10,600.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children aged three to five years are currently in education; at what cost; what were the equivalent figures in(a)M 1976 and (b) 1986; and if he will make a statement. [30102]
  483
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  At September 1994, the total number of children in education in Scotland aged three to five years, inclusive, was 125,720. The equivalent figures for 1976 and 1986 were 118,455 and 117,428 respectively. Information on costs is not available in the form requested.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received about the Scottish beef industry; and if he will make a statement. [30104]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for agriculture, forestry and environment have received many representations about the state of the Scottish beef industry from all sectors, including the National Farmers Union, the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers, the Auctioneers Association, Transport haulier associations, individual companies and farmers affected by the BSE crisis.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding compensation to those companies which have lost business in the meat industry. [30106]

  Mr. Robertson
  The Government have not sought to provide compensation for any individual or company that has lost business. The package of measures introduced is designed to provide support to the vital parts of the beef chain to help restore consumer confidence, and to get the whole sector moving again.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 23 April,Official Report, column 129, on the incidences of BSE within East Kilbride and Lanarkshire, when he plans to place the information requested in the Library. [31229]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 4 June 1996]The information was placed in the Library of the House on 23 May 1996.

  Tenants' Rights
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on tenants' rights; and if he will make a statement. [30105]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Government are committed to protecting and strengthening the rights of tenants through legislation and through the implementation of the commitments made in the tenants charter for Scotland.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to reduce bureaucracy in the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [30107]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  NHS trusts and health boards in Scotland have been asked to reduce their administration costs by at least 5 per cent. in 1996–97 and to contain their total management costs to £10 per head of weighted population in 1997–98. This is expected to release around £25 million a year for investment in patient care.
  484

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the benefits of the current block grant system for the public finances in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [30087]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The block and formula arrangements have resulted in a spending level over 35 per cent. higher per head than England.

  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average expenditure per head by local authorities in Scotland in 1995–96; and what was the United Kingdom average figure. [30108]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Comprehensive outturn data for 1995–96 are not yet available. However, on the basis of budgeted expenditure data, the relevant Scottish figure is £1,270 and that for Great Britain is £970. A figure for the UK as a whole would not be meaningful because local authorities in Northern Ireland provide a far narrower range of services.

  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about his review of local authority spending. [30101]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Our current timetable is to award a contract, or contracts, for the study of local government current expenditure later this month. We hope that the study will be completed by the end of the year and that the results will inform a more rational debate about the levels of local authority expenditure.

  Health and Social Services
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an official visit to the Scottish borders to discuss health and social services. [30089]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I would be very happy to receive an invitation to do so.

  Scottish Record Office
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the targets he expects the Scottish Record Office to achieve in 1996–97. [31594]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have set the Scottish Record Office the following key targets for 1996–97:

  to reduce the unit cost of preserving and making available the records of Scotland by 10 per cent. in real terms;

  to increase the number of catalogue entries available for public scrutiny on the electronic system by 46,000;

  to produce material for readers in 92.5 per cent. of cases in 30 minutes or less for material from the same building and in two days or less for material from elsewhere;

  to answer 85 per cent. of correspondence within 10 days, absorbing up to a 2 per cent. increase in demand; and

  to publish the "Guide to the Records of Scotland".

  Pensioners (Home Ownership)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated number of senior citizens who are home owners in Scotland. [30109]
  485
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Almost 241,000 household heads of pensionable age were identified as owner occupiers in the 1991 census of population, the latest date for which complete information is available.

  Running Costs and Cash Limits
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes he intends to make to the cash limits and running costs provision for 1996–97 within his responsibility. [31596]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, I intend to make changes to three voted cash limits and two non-voted cash blocks.

  The cash limit for class XIII, vote 2, local government, housing, transport, other environmental services and European funds, Scotland, will be increased by £23,075,000 from £5,545,508,000 to £5,568,583,000. The increase will be offset by savings of £12,000,000 from cash limit Scottish Office European regional development fund; £5,000,000 from cash limit SO/LA1 and £6,075,000 from class XIII, vote 3.

  The cash limit for class XIII, vote 3, education, industry, arts, and libraries, Scotland, will be reduced by £6,075,000 from £1,602,605,000 to £1,596,530,000. The reduced cash limit takes account of the transfer of £75,000 to class XIII, vote 2, in respect of consultancies in relation to European Community structural funds and the transfer of £6,000,000 to class XIII, vote 2, in respect of increased support for local authorities. Provision for self-governing schools in respect of annual recurrent grant has been increased by £540,000. This has been offset by a corresponding amount taken as appropriations in aid.

  The cash limit for class XIII, vote 5, law, order and protective services, police grant and social work services, Scotland will be decreased by £810,000 from £625,209,000 to £624,399,000. This reduction takes account of a transfer of £500,000 to the non-voted SO/LA1 cash limit to meet the costs of a Scottish DNA database; and a reduction of £310,000 in police capital grant. The reduction in the grant will result in a corresponding increase in net capital allocations.

  The non-voted cash limit SO/LA1, which covers non-housing capital expenditure by local authorities, will be decreased by £4,500,000 from £431,120,000 to £426,620,000. This reflects a reduction of £5,000,000 transferred to class XIII, vote 2 and an increase of £500,000 transferred from class XIII, vote 5.

  The non-voted cash limit SO/ERDF which covers European regional development fund payments in Scotland will be decreased by £12,000,000 from £109,079,000 to £97,079,000. This reflects the transfer to class XIII, vote 2.

  These increases will be offset by savings and will not therefore added to the total of planned expenditure.

  Officials (Meetings)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings have taken place between officials of the Scottish Office and Scottish hon. Members during the past three months without Ministers present. [25771]
  486
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 24 April 1996]Officials of the Scottish Office have met hon. Members without Minister present on the following occasions in the last three months:19 January 1996: The chief executive of the Student Awards Agency for Scotland met the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang).
  22 January 1996: Two senior officials from the Education and Industry Department met the hon. Members for Dumbarton Mr. (McFall) and for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell).
  4 April 1996: The chief medical officer met the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson).

  Severe Weather Working Party
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the report of the working party, which he established to review the experiences of the severe weather at the end of 1995, to be published. [31595]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I have received the severe weather working party's report and have today placed copies of the report in the Library of the House.

  Unemployment
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on unemployment levels in Scotland. [30096]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The seasonally adjusted level of unemployment in Scotland has fallen by more than 53,000 since December 1992. The unemployment rate in Scotland is well below the European Union average.

  Cairngorms Funicular Railway
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call in the planning application for the Cairngorms funicular railway. [30097]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The relevant considerations remain as described in my reply to the hon. Member on 14 March,Official Report, column 730.

WALES

  Mobile Snack Bars
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what objections he had received to the proposal to introduce clearway orders which would result in a trading ban over the length of the A55 in north Wales in respect of mobile snack bars. [31027]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None. The draft orders have not yet been advertised.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the provision of snack bar facilities in lay-by areas along the A55 in north Wales. [31028]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There have been 14 such representations about the proposed ban on lay-by trading along the A55 trunk road, nine against and five in favour.
  487

  Hospital Care
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he proposes to enable hospital doctors to participate in decisions about hospital care; and if he will make a statement. [31003]

  Mr. Hague
  All NHS hospital services in Wales are provided by NHS trusts. To achieve such status all applicants were required to demonstrate the full involvement in management of their senior professional staff, especially clinical consultants. It is also a statutory requirement that the executive directors of each hospital trust should include a medical practitioner.

  UK Forum of Mobility Centres
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what further assistance he plans to give the United Kingdom forum of mobility centres to promote and develop its work. [31020]

  Mr. Hague
  There are no members of the UK forum in Wales. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People on Wednesday 14 February,Official Report, column 650.

  Wind Turbines
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the gross output of electricity produced from wind turbines in Wales in each year since 1993; and if he will make a statement. [30737]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Electricity generated by wind schemes in Wales in each of the years since 1993 was approximately as follows:

  Year

  GWh

  1993

  110

  1994

  167

  1995

  171

  I expect the output to continue to rise year by year as more wind farms come into operation.

  Tai Cymru
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of Tai Cymru's annual budget is spent on central administration; and if he will make a statement. [30738]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In the current year, I expect Tai Cymru's administration costs to be less than 2 per cent. of its total programme.

  Electricity Consumption
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the gross consumption of electricity in Wales in each year since 1993; and if he will make a statement. [30739]
  488
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Gross electricity consumption in Wales in each of the financial years since 1993 was as follows:

  Year

  GWh

  1992–93

  16,363

  1993–94

  16,589

  1994–95

  15,869

  Eisteddfodau
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what evaluation he has made of the attraction to tourists of the annual international eisteddfod at Llangollen; and if he will make a statement. [30741]

  Mr. Hague
  The Wales tourist board has made no evaluation of the international eisteddfod specifically as a tourist attraction.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what evaluation he has made of the attraction to tourists of the(a) annual national eisteddfod and (b) national Urdd eisteddfod; and if he will make a statement. [30743]

  Mr. Hague
  The national eisteddfod and Urdd national eisteddfod are important culture festivals which annually attract upwards of 150,000 and 80,000 visitors respectively. It has been estimated that the national eisteddfod brings over £3 million to the local economy of the area it visits.

  Vaccination and Immunisation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children have been vaccinated in schools as part of the school health service; and if he will make a statement. [30742]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not collected in this format.

  Pontypool Bypass
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the name of the contractor currently working on the Pontypool bypass; and if financial penalty clauses were included in the contract. [30808]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Shepherd Hill Civil Engineers Ltd. is the contractor for the A4042 Cwmbran roundabout improvement.

  The contract allows for liquidated damages to be applied in the normal way for late completion.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when roadworks on the Pontypool bypass, A4042, will be completed. [30979]

  Mr. Jones
  The roadworks on the A4042 Cwmbran roundabout are currently scheduled to finish on 15 June 1996.

  Prostate Cancer Screening
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to improve prostate cancer screening; and if he will make a statement. [30780]
  489
  Mr. Hague
  I have no plans at present to introduce a NHS screening programme for prostate cancer in Wales. They key aim of any screening programme must be to secure a demonstratable improvement in health by increasing length of life and enhancing quality of life. There is, as yet, no evidence that this would be achieved in relation to prostate cancer. Although screening is not routinely available to NHS patients, individual patients can be tested on request. This may be of benefit where there is a family history of the disease.

  The Government remain interested in assessing the value of prostate cancer screening programmes.

  Unitary Authorities
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the age profile and employment status of the current unitary authority councillors in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [30752]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Care and Repair Cymru
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes his Department is evaluating in respect of the existing funding arrangements for Care and Repair Cymru; and if he will make a statement. [30760]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are currently no proposals to change the funding arrangements for Care and Repair Cymru.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of Care and Repair Cymru. [30750]

  Mr. Jones
  Care and Repair Cymru has been developing and monitoring roles for new and existing schemes respectively. Its future roles will be considered in the light of responses to the consultation paper "The Welsh Office and Local Government: Redefining the Relationship" and the plans of local authorities.

  Open Heart Surgery
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the present waiting list for open heart surgery in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [30762]

  Mr. Hague
  About 400 patients are currently waiting for open heart surgery in Wales and will be treated within 12 months.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what steps he is taking to safeguard NHS dentistry services in(a) Torfaen, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales; [30981]

  (2) what measures he is taking to increase the number of NHS dentists in Wales; [31006]

  (3) what steps he is taking to increase the number of dentists in (a) Torfaen, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales. [30982]

  Mr. Hague
  On 21 September last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) announced details of a £3 million initiative to attract more dentists into Wales. The initiative enabled Welsh health 490
  authorities to offer grants of up to £50,000 to attract new dentists into their areas. Grants of £25,000 were available for most parts of the Torfaen area.

  By the end of April, nearly £2 million has been offered in grants for:

  Wales

  Gwent

  Torfaen

  New practices

  20

  2

  1

  Existing practices being expanded

  12

  2

  New community dental service posts

  16

  3

  1

  School Inspections
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list(a) pre-school, (b) primary, (c) secondary and (d) special school registered inspectors and their teams who are currently involved in school inspections, and, using the same categories, those registered inspectors and their teams who are not currently involved in inspections; [30840]

  (2) if he will list the current (a) levels and (b) types of other full or part-time employment of registered inspectors and their teams, and, in the case of retired inspection personnel, their last paid employment. [30841]

  Mr. Hague
  These are matters for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in Wales. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member, and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much additional finance has been provided to teach Welsh as a second language to students of constituent colleges of the university of Wales for each year since 1989; and if he will make a statement. [30747]

  Mr. Hague
  The Higher Education Funding Council for Wales has made the following allocations to the constituent colleges of the university of Wales under its Welsh for adults programme:

  1993–94: £304,500

  1994–95: £431,600

  1995–96: £1,116,255

  1996–97: £1,179,500.

  Colleges are also able to use the general funding made available to them by the funding council to increase the resources for teaching Welsh to their students. In addition, the allocations in 1993–94 and 1994–95 were supplemented by the colleges from the funding for extra mural activities made available by the funding council.

  Comparable information for the period prior to 1993–94 is not available.

  Rental Housing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he will take to increase the number of affordable homes for rent; and if he will make a statement. [31004]
  491
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Some £85.390 million is being made available during the current year to housing associations enabling the provision of at least 3,500 additional homes, some 80 per cent. of which will be for rent.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what properties are owned or leased by his Department for the use of Ministers; what was the total running cost for each property for the latest year available; and if he will make a statement. [30748]

  Number of full-time qualified teachers employed by each LEA in Wales1

  19932

  19943

  1995

  Local education authority

  Schools3

  Further education institutions4

  Schools3

  Further education institutions4

  Schools3

  Further education institutions4

  Clwyd

  3,315

  686

  3,006

  0

  2,898

  0

  Dyfed

  3,341

  364

  3,241

  14

  3,171

  15

  Gwent

  3,743

  414

  3,710

  8

  3,674

  7

  Gwynedd

  2,053

  203

  1,987

  0

  1,928

  0

  Mid Glamorgan

  5,138

  508

  5,078

  1

  5,138

  1

  Powys

  1,085

  118

  1,084

  2

  1,053

  2

  South Glamorgan

  3,537

  347

  3,347

  66

  3,404

  69

  West Glamorgan

  3,212

  464

  3,256

  12

  3,226

  11

  Wales

  25,424

  3,104

  24,709

  103

  24,492

  105

  Notes:

  1 At January each year.

  2 From 1 April 1993 sixth form colleges and FE colleges became autonomous institutions funded by the Further Education Funding Council for Wales and teachers at these institutions were no longer employed by the local authority.

  3Includes full-time qualified teachers based in schools, pupil referral units, peripatetic teachers, advisory teachers, teachers providing education otherwise than at school and in 1993 teachers in two sixth form colleges.

  4Full-time lecturers employed by local authorities to provide further education in adult or community centres, youth clubs and centres, other establishments and in 1993 in FE colleges.

  Source: Form 618G.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he proposes to recruit more general practitioners. [31001]

  Mr. Hague
  Government policy is to secure an adequate supply of appropriately trained doctors in each sector and specialty, including general practice. This is achieved through advisory and planning mechanisms at a UK and Wales level.

  The medical work force standing advisory committee considers the longer-term need for doctors and makes recommendations on the intake of medical schools. In 1995, the committee recommended an increase of 11 per cent. in UK medical school intakes by the year 20000 to a total of 4,970. The Government have accepted that recommendation.

  The Welsh Office is involved in UK work force planning through its representation on the advisory group on medical education and staffing. This group is examining the issue of recruitment and retention of GPs. The Welsh Office also has regular discussions with education providers in Wales to ensure that there are appropriate training opportunities to potential GPs.
  492
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office has no properties for the sole use of Ministers. Ministers have rooms in properties in Cardiff and London. The cost of these properties are included in the running cost expenditure published in the Welsh Office departmental report 1996, Cm 3215.

  Teachers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many full-time teachers were employed by Welsh local education authorities in(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [30749]

  Mr. Hague
  Information on full-time qualified teachers is given in the following table:

  Home Ownership
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to make mortgages more affordable for young people; and if he will make a statement. [31005]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  We already have schemes which make home ownership more affordable for those on lower incomes, including young people, who cannot raise a sufficient mortgage to buy a home of their own. The successful homefinder and homebuy option schemes, operated by councils and housing associations respectively, allow people to buy a home for 70 per cent. of its value. The remaining 30 per cent. is held as a charge on the property and does not have to be repaid until the home is sold.

  Rural Railways
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received during the last 12 months on the future of rural railway services; and if he will make a statement. [30746]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Fifteen representations were received in the 12 months ended 30 April 1996.
  493

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what progress he is making on the elimination of bureaucracy, waste and maladministration in the conduct of non-departmental public bodies in Wales; and if he will make a statement; [30744]

  (2) what new measures he will introduce to make quangos democratically accountable; and if he will make a statement. [30745]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office continues to remind public bodies of the need for the highest standards of propriety in the conduct of public affairs in Wales. We have developed the arrangements previously introduced for monitoring and controlling the performance of public bodies in Wales. This work has meant that the Welsh Office has already been able to put into effect a number of recommendations of the first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

  My right hon. Friend and I hold regular meetings with each Welsh executive public body to consider targets and performance; and they are provided with clear statements of their responsibilities, the roles of the board and staff and of the Welsh Office. Each pubic body is also expected to adopt, with such adaptations as are appropriate to its circumstances, the code of best practice for board members of public bodies published by HM Treasury in June 1994. This requires public bodies and their boards to:
  observe the highest standard of impartiality, integrity and
  objectivity in relation to their stewardship of public funds;
  comply with Government policy on openness and to respond to all reasonable requests for information;
  be accountable to Parliament, individual citizens and staff for the activities of the bodies concerned, their stewardship of public funds and the extent to which key performance targets have been met;
  maximise value of money by ensuring their activities are carried out in the most efficient and economical way.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Travel-to-interview Scheme
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people, eligible for assistance under the travel-to-interview scheme, were unemployed for(a) longer than four weeks and (b) longer than 13 weeks in each year since 1993–94. [30541]

  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. Brian Donohoe, dated 5 June 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions on how many people, eligible for assistance under the Travel to Interview Scheme (TIS), were employed for longer than four weeks and longer than 13 weeks in each year since 1993–94.
  I am unable to provide the information you ask for, as my Jobcentres do not record how long people who apply for TIS have been unemployed. However, in the sample taken for a recent study, 26% of applications were from people unemployed for less than 13 weeks.
  I am sorry I cannot be more helpful.
  494

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what research she has(a) undertaken and (b) evaluated into the potential benefits to trainees of encouraging TECs to award longer-term contracts to training providers; and if she will make a statement; [31216]

  (2) what measures she plans to introduce to encourage TECs to extend longer-term contracts to local, regional and national training providers; and if she will make a statement. [31217]

  Mr. Paice
  There has been no research specifically into this issue.

  The precise nature of training and enterprise councils' contracts with their providers is a matter for individual TECs. However, we hope that the greater stability afforded by three-year TEC licensing arrangements will lead TECs to offer greater stability in turn to their providers. Some TECs are already starting to do so. We will be encouraging others, via the TEC National Council, to also consider the opportunities for this.

  Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the outcome of the EU Social Affairs Council of 3 June. [31734]

  Mr. Forth
  I attended the Social Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 3 June.

  In the light of the Prime Minister's statement on BSE to the House on 21 May, I was unable to agree to four items on the agenda: a Council recommendation on balanced participation of men and women in decision making; a resolution on the transparency of training certificates; a resolution on a European year against racism; and Council conclusions on a Commission report no the demographic situation. It is likely that, in other circumstances the United Kingdom would have been able to agree to the adoption of these proposals.

  An interim report on employment was forwarded to the Florence European Council with no discussion.

  There was a short orientation debate on a Commission communication on information and consultation, on which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry leads. I made clear that the UK does not believe that there is any need for legislation in this area, either at national or at European level.

  Running Costs and Cash Limits
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to announce changes to cash limits and running costs on votes within her responsibility for 1996–97. [31739]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the cash limits for class IX, vote 1, Department for Education and Employment: programmes and central services; class IX. vote 3, Employment Service; class IX, vote 4, office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England will be amended as follows:
  495

  Class

  Vote

  Existing cash limit

  Change

  New cash limit

  IX

  1

  8,751,429,000

  -6,484,000

  8,744,945,000

  IX

  3

  1,287,560,000

  1,417,000

  1,288,977,000

  IX

  4

  117,600,000

  5,067,000

  122,667,000

  The cash limit for class IX, vote 1 will be reduced by £6,484,000 from £8,751,429,000 to £8,744,945,000. This is as a result of transfers to Ofsted of £5,055,000 for work in connection with inspection of providers of under-fives education, and £12,000 for the inspection of careers education. An additional £1,500,000 has been transferred to the Employment Service to increase the provision for the access to work programme. This transfer has been partially offset by a transfer of £83,000 from the Employment Service in respect of salary costs of staff transferred from the Employment Service to the Department of Education and Employment.

  The cash limit for class IX, vote 3 will be increased by £1,417,000 from £1,287,560,000 to £1,288,977,000. This is the result of a transfer of £1,500,000 from the Department for Education and Employment in respect of additional provision for the access to work programme, which is partially offset by a transfer of £83,000 to the Department for Education and Employment in respect of salary costs of staff transferred from the Employment Service to the Department for Education and Employment.

  The running costs provision for class IX, vote 1 will be increased by £83,000 from £366,622,000 to £366,705,000 and the running costs provision for class IX, vote 3 will be decreased by £83,000 from £910,234,000 to £910,151,000. There is no change to the overall DfEE gross running costs limit.

  The cash limit for class IX, vote 4 will be increased by £5,067,000 from £117,600,000 to £122,667,000. The running costs limit will be increased by £2,185,000 from £27,429,000 to £29,614,000. These increases are to enable Ofsted to undertake work in connection with the inspection of providers of under-fives education and the inspection of careers education. The increase in the cash limit will be offset by the reduction to the cash limit for class IX, vote 1 mentioned above.

  The increases will be offset by savings elsewhere or charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the total of planned public expenditure.

TRANSPORT

  Railway Stations
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many railway stations have been(a) opened and (b) re-opened since 1993 on the initiative of (i) local government, (ii) British Rail Railtrack and (iii) central Government. [31130]

  Mr. Watts
  It is for train operators, and local authorities or passenger transport executives, to decide which stations they wish to open or re-open for the benefit of the local travelling public. Since 1993 14 new stations have been opened and 28 stations have been re-opened as a result of close co-operation between those organisations and British 496
  Rail and/or Railtrack. In addition, Waterloo and Ashford International stations were opened by European Passenger Services for international passenger traffic.

  Airworthiness
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the countries receiving advice from the Civil Aviation Authority on(a) airworthiness and (b) other issues. [30493]

  Mr. Norris
  The following have current agreements for the provision of airworthiness advice by the UK CAA.

  Bahrain

  Falklands

  Cyprus

  Hong Kong

  Brunei

  Fiji

  Solomons

  Kiribati

  Malaysia

  Bahamas

  Cayman Islands

  Jamaica

  Turks and Caicos

  Belize

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Guyana

  Suriname

  British Virgin Islands

  Anguilla

  Antigua

  Dominica

  Grenada

  Montserrat

  St. Christopher and Nevis

  St. Lucia

  St. Vincent

  The Grenadines.

  In addition, 109 nations have now attended the UK CAA airworthiness course and many others seek advice on an ad hoc basis.

  Advice on other aspects of civil aviation regulation, operation and development has been provided to more than 150 countries in the past 25 years.

  MV Derbyshire
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will initiate an up to date report into the arrangements to undertake the second survey of the MV Derbyshire wreckage field; [31270]

  (2) for what reasons his Department has refused to form a formal partnership with the technical advisers to the Derbyshire Families Association. [31271]

  Mr. Norris
  The return expedition to the wreck of the Derbyshire will take place in two phases. The first phase will be a limited sonar and photographic survey of the wreckage field, to be carried out in late June or early July by Oceaneering Technologies, who undertook the initial
  497
  expedition in 1994. It is expected that the main expedition will take place early next year. The Department of Transport and the European Commission are sharing the costs of both phases.

  The first phase will involve a detailed survey of the wreckage field with the aim of identifying individual parts of the ship and, in particular, to establish the location and accessibility of the ship's stern. The material collected is intended to assist in the detailed planning of the main expedition.

  The purpose of the return to the Derbyshire is to see what lessons can be learnt from the loss of this particular ship which could help avoid future bulker losses and the continuing loss of life such losses involve. Planning and control of both phases rests with the three independent technical assessors. Ministry of Defence officials will act as project managers overseeing the activities of the appointed contractor or contractors.

  On completion of the second phases, they will prepare a report on their findings and conclusions which will be submitted to Ministers and the European commission. Their report will be published and, following its completion, the data recovered will be made available to interested parties.

  It is possible that this report may lead to the reopening of the formal Investigation into the loss of the Derbyshire and the taking forward of specific safety initiatives through the International Maritime Organisation.

  We have given sympathetic consideration to the request from the Derbyshire Families Association that they should be represented on, or have a degree of control over, the return to the ship. We have concluded that this would not be appropriate. The association is one of a number of parties with an interest in the outcome of the return expedition. For one of these parties, but not the others, to be represented on the return expedition could lead to suggestions that the findings lacked balance or objectivity., For all the parties to be represented on the return would be impractical given the nature of the operations to be undertaken. To allow the independent assessors to complete their task, without any risk that they could be considered to have been influenced in any way, it has also been decided that the Department of Transport, Marine Safety Agency and Marine Accident Investigation Branch will not be represented on either phase of the return.

  We continue to welcome the advice and involvement of all parties in the planning of the return. The independent technical assessors stand ready to discuss matters with any interested party.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the names of each technical expert who has been engaged to take part in the second survey of the MV Derbyshire wreckage field. [31272]

  Mr. Norris
  The following are expected to be on board the survey vessel carrying out phase 1 of the return expedition.

  Dr. Remo Torchio: EU technical assessor

  Robin Williams: UK technical assessor

  Professor Douglas Faulkner; UK technical assessor

  Morgyn Davies: Ministry of Defence salvage officer and project manager

  Steve Quin: Ministry of Defence, salvage officer.

  498

  Running Costs and Cash Limits
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to change his Department's cash limits for 1996–97. [31923]

  Sir George Young
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary revised estimate, the cash limit for class V, vote 5 will be amended as follows:the cash limit for class V, vote 5—roads and local transport—is reduced by £3,382,000 from £392,962,000 to £389,580,000. The reduction is one of a number of revisions to realign entries in the main estimates with the published local transport settlement.

  The Department's local authority capital cash limit covering supplementary credit approvals for local authority spending on public transport programmes will be increased by £3,382,000 from £304,732,000 to £308,114,000, all of which is derived from the transfer from the transport supplementary grant, class V, vote 5.

  The increase to the Department's local authority capital cash limit will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Railway Stations (Disabled Parking)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evaluation he has made of the practice at railway stations of charging severely disabled orange badge holders for parking; what is his policy in this regard; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement. [30228]

  Mr. Watts
  Car parking charges at railways stations are matters for individual station operators. The Rail Regulator is responsible for protecting the needs of disabled passengers and has required all station operators to produce and comply with a disabled people's protection policy as a condition of their licence. The Rail Regulator will consider taking action if operators introduce any measures which result in a reduction in present levels of access for disabled passengers across the rail network.

  Accidents (Failure to Stop)
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cases in each of the last five years there have been where drivers involved in reported accidents have failed to stop. [31162]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is shown in the following table. Figures for 1995 should be available in July.

  Injury road accidents in Great Britain in which one or more vehicles failed to stop after a collision: 1990–94

  Year

  Total reported injury road accidents

  Injury road accidents in which one or more vehicles failed to stop

  (b) as a percentage of (a)

  1990

  258,441

  19,354

  7.5

  1991

  235,798

  18,360

  7.8

  1992

  233,025

  18,114

  7.8

  499

  Injury road accidents in Great Britain in which one or more vehicles failed to stop after a collision: 1990–94

  Year

  Total reported injury road accidents

  Injury road accidents in which one or more vehicles failed to stop

  (b) as a percentage of (a)

  1993

  228,865

  17,358

  7.6

  1994

  234,101

  17,980

  7.7

  1. Police reports of injury accidents may include vehicles not physically involved in the collision if they are deemed to have contributed to the accident. These vehicles are not included in this analysis, as their drivers may have been unaware of the accident.

  Collisions at Sea (Liability)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what international conventions govern liability for(a) private shipping and (b) Government-owned vessels in cases of accidental collisions with oil industry installations in United Kingdom waters. [31207]

  Mr. Norris
  There is no international liability and compensation regime that applies specifically to collision damage caused by ships involved in accidental collisions with oil industry installations. Following such a collision, the shipowners may generally limit liability to an amount determined in accordance with the convention on the limitation of liability for maritime claims 1976. There are also two international conventions which could govern the shipowners's liability for damage caused by the ship's cargo following such a collision. The civil liability convention 1992 makes shipowners liable for pollution damage caused by oils spills from tankers, whatever the cause of the spill. When it enters into force, the hazardous and 'noxious substances convention 1996 would extend the liability of shipowners to damage caused by all hazardous and noxious cargoes carried on ships. All three international conventions apply to all commercially operated ships, whether owned by a private individual, by a private company or by a Government.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Running Costs and Cash Limits
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what changes she proposes to make to her Department's cash limits and running costs limits for 1996–97. [31794]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the cash limit for class X, vote 1 will be increased by £17,519,000 from £931,241,000 to £948,760,000. The increase will be to transfer responsibility for the voluntary services from the Home Office to the Department of National Heritage, and for a building from the Department of Trade and Industry to the British library and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Indemnity Undertakings
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list(a) the number of indemnity undertakings given by Departments under section 16 of the National Heritage Act 1980 for the six-months period ended 31 March 1996 and (b) the value
  500
  of any contingent liabilities in respect of such undertakings given under that section which remained outstanding as at 31 march. [31795]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information is as follows:

  (i) in the six-month period ended 31 March 1996 the following undertakings to indemnify were given by the relevant Departments for hems on loan to national and non-national institutions:

  Number

  Department of National Heritage

  452

  Scottish Office Education Department

  52

  Welsh Office Education Department

  30

  Department of Education for Northern Ireland

  12

  (ii) the value of contingent liabilities in respect of such undertakings given at any time under section 16 and outstanding at 31 March are:

  £

  Department of National Heritage

  1,366,004,790

  Scottish Office Education Department

  75,901,633

  Welsh Office Education Department

  81,430,000

  Department of Education for Northern Ireland

  4,186,274

  Underwater Archaeological Sites
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she expects English Heritage to take over responsibility for the protection of underwater archaeological sites. [31015]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department published, on 22 May, the consultation paper "Protecting Our Heritage" which includes details of the proposed transfer of underwater archaeology to English Heritage. The proposed transfer will be considered in the light of comments on the Government's proposals. It will require legislation.

  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what funding her Department provides for the protection of underwater archaeological sites. [31013]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department's expenditure on underwater archaeology for 1995–96 was £220,000. This provided for the cost of marking historic wrecks on land and at sea and for the archaeological diving unit based at St. Andrews university to provide advice in relation to wrecks of historical, archaeological, or artistic interest. The Department also meets the costs of the Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites.

  In addition, two voluntary organisations were given grants from the Heritage grant fund 1995–96 for underwater archaeology projects. The Hampshire and Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology received £16,000 and the Nautical Archaeological Society received £18,000.

  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many officials in her Department are involved with the protection of underwater archaeological sites. [31014]
  501
  Mr. Sproat
  Three officials spend part of their time on the protection of underwater archaeological sites. The percentage of time spent by the three officials on underwater archaeology is the equivalent to approximately one full-time member of staff.

  Angling
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what responsibility her Department has for the funding of angling. [31011]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department does not fund any sports directly. The majority of Government money specifically allocated to sport and active recreation is channelled through the Sports Council. While operating within a policy framework set by Government, the Sports Council has a degree of independence under its royal charter. In 1994–95, Sports Council grants to the governing bodies of angling totalled £54,125. The Department also funds Sportsmatch, the business sponsorship incentive scheme, which provided £42,250 in awards for angling schemes in 1994–95.

  Television Licence Fees
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if she will estimate the additional cost of reducing the level of the colour TV licence fee to the same level as the black and white TV licence fee for pensioners in receipt of means-tested state support; [30839]

  (2) what plans she has to increase the concessions available to retired people for colour television licences. [30838]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government have no plans to extend the existing concessionary television licence scheme. This would lead to a reduction in television licence revenue, on which the BBC depends for its home broadcasting grant. To make good the shortfall, we would have to increase the licence fee for all other licence payers, regardless of their means. The additional cost of providing 502
  colour licences at £30—the current black and white licence fee—for all pensioners in receipt of one or more means tested benefit would be approximately £165 million.

  White Paper
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she now expects to publish a Heritage White Paper. [31012]

  Mr. Sproat
  The consultation document, "Protecting Our Heritage" was published on 22 May. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many registered disabled people are employed by her Department; and what percentage this is of the total figures. [30773]

  Mr. Sproat
  A central record of disabled people in the Department of National Heritage shows that there are nine currently in employment. This represents 2.7 per cent. of the total staff in post in the Department. We no longer differentiate between registered and non-registered disabled people in our central records.

  Television Violence
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations her Department held with the Home Office in preparing the provisions of the Broadcasting Bill concerning the depiction of violence on television. [30508]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 4 June 1996]Policy responsibility for broadcasting issues rests with my Department. Consultations were held with a number of other Government Departments in the course of preparing the provisions of the Broadcasting Bill; there was no policy matter in the Bill in respect of the depiction of violence on television requiring consultation with the Home Office.

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

Armed Forces: Manpower Shortages
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether any of Her Majesty's Armed Forces were under strength at 30th April 1996; and, if so, whether these shortages are expected to continue into 1997 and what steps are being taken to overcome them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, the most significant shortfall in manpower was in the Army. There was also a shortage in the Royal Marines General Duties and for certain specialisations in the RAF. All are expected to continue into 1997 but at a reduced level. Steps taken to overcome the shortfall include the introduction of a retention incentive bonus and recruiting bounty in both the naval service and the Army, an initiative launched in January to use the Employment Service Jobcentre network for Armed Forces recruiting, and increased recruitment advertising activity.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. However, does he agree that the situation is slightly worse than he indicated in his response due to the shortage of trained skilled personnel and recruits of the correct age group, and the habitual overstretch to which we have become used in the Armed Forces?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Army is currently 4,000 trained troops under strength, primarily due to the problems of recruitment and retention in the Royal Armoured Corps, the Royal Artillery and the infantry. That is a source of concern, but I must point out that the Army's numerical size is not a full guide to its front-line strength, as the noble Viscount will appreciate. Its structure, readiness, capability and ability to sustain itself on operations must also be considered. Administrators are confident that the Army can meet its commitments.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us on this side of the House are anxious about the strength of the Armed Forces? Can he give a firm assurance that the measures to which he referred in the course of his reply will definitely restore the Armed Forces to their full strength in a limited time?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and the answer is "yes". We are confident that the initiatives we now have in train will enable the Army
1246
to correct its manning shortfall by the year 2000 at the latest and will certainly improve the situation considerably before that time. One of the measures that I did not mention was that the programme of closures of the Army careers information offices has been halted. We intend to ensure that 84 such offices remain open, including five new ones, and that 39 Armed Forces careers offices are up and running by 1st April next year.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I listened with interest to the noble Earl saying that the Army may be up to some sort of full strength by the year 2000. What happens between now and then to the commitments that the Army, Royal Air Force and Royal Navy have? Is the noble Lord able to say what is the present level of recruitment to the Armed Forces as opposed to the level of 20 years ago?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I emphasised that we are confident that the Army can meet its commitments, and the same applies to the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. There is no difficulty of manning in the Royal Navy, and the Royal Air Force is only marginally under strength. The main difficulty is in the Army. But that does not impact on its operational effectiveness. The noble Lord asked about recruitment into the Army. We need around 16,000 new recruits into the Army each year. That target is not quite being met, but the initiatives I mentioned will redress that position shortly.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the Minister aware that from the start there were different opinions in this House about the planned overall reductions in service manpower? But I believe I am right in saying that there has been unanimity in every part of the House that the planned reductions of Army manpower were excessive. Is the noble Earl aware that, although the remedies being taken by the Government are welcome, it is a problem that Ministers have brought on themselves?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. The reductions that we have seen in the Armed Forces are a direct result of a reduced threat. That is a point that is well appreciated by noble Lords throughout the House. Where I do agree with the noble Lord is that one of the difficulties of recruiting is that we are in a real sense the victims of our own success in another field. More young people than ever are entering further education. One in three pupils now stays on for some form of further education compared with one in eight 15 years ago. Both of those developments have greatly reduced our pool of potential recruits.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those of us who went to war in 1939 with an ill-equipped, undermanned and wholly inefficient Army read with dismay the debate, as reported in the Official Report, in which the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall and Lord Craig, and others explained the deficiency of our forces today? Is it not really a shame on any government that we should be in this position now?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I really must take issue with my noble friend, much as I respect him in all that he says. I believe that our Armed Forces are the best armed forces in the world. I believe that they are the best qualified. They are certainly better equipped now than they have been for very many years. My noble friend does not need to take my word for that. He can talk to any soldier in the British Army and he will be told the same thing. Motivation is high and I believe that our Armed Forces do credit to us wherever they are seen around the world, especially in their operations in Bosnia.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in his answer to the first supplementary question the noble Earl said that the Ministers involved are satisfied with the situation. However, have not the exchanges in the House today shown that people with experience of the defence of the realm are certainly not satisfied? My noble friend on the Front Bench asked about recruitment. Is it not the case that only a few years ago the Armed Forces accepted only one in three applicants? What has happened to reverse the situation; or are we still refusing people who could be recruited and trained?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I made a particular point of saying that we were not satisfied with the situation. We were satisfied that the Army could meet its operational commitments but we were not satisfied that we had done enough about recruitment. Hence we have introduced all the measures I have set out. The noble Lord referred to acceptances and enlistments. One of the main problems in carrying through inquiries to enlistment is physical fitness. One of the initiatives we have recently taken is to put new recruits who just fail the physical fitness test through a course to enable them to bring their standards of physical fitness up to par. I am pleased to say that that has proved a success.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, is not retention also a serious issue? Is the Minister aware that 11 of 12 Tornado flight commanders in Germany intend to exercise their option to retire at the early age of 38? These officers provide future station and squadron commanders. What measures do the Government believe are necessary to correct this very worrying situation?
Earl Howe: My Lords, many RAF officers have taken voluntary redundancy. As the noble and gallant Lord will know, the draw-down from the RAF has been a managed and carefully planned operation which should ensure that the RAF can meet its commitments quite readily. However, I take his point. We want to ensure that once the RAF is reduced to the target strength we do not lose the people that we would like to keep. We are therefore giving consideration to a number of measures which will ensure that that will not happen, including bonuses and retention bounties.

Organophosphate Exposure: Disease C3
2.47 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why employees who suffer from the prescribed industrial disease C3, exposure to organophosphates, are not treated equally in different parts of the United Kingdom when they claim industrial injury benefit.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we have no information to indicate that that is the case. Claims for industrial injuries disablement benefit in respect of prescribed disease C3 are dealt with under the same rules throughout Great Britain. The procedures for diagnosis and assessment of disablement from prescribed diseases are laid down in legislation.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I know of about six cases in which industrial injuries disablement benefit has been allowed for claimants? Is he further aware that Benefits Agency Medical Service doctors and the statutory authority doctors will often openly admit that they know nothing about OP poisoning and that claimants presenting with a history of exposure to OPs and with medical evidence which corroborates peripheral nerve damage and psychiatric damage are totally set to one side? I receive letter after letter and I have then to write to the Benefits Agency Medical Service, from which, I must say, I get a tremendous amount of co-operation. Can the Minister please ensure that all the doctors involved are well aware of the chronic effects of OP poisoning on people's health?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the doctors involved should be aware of the chronic effects of acute organophosphate poisoning. They receive special training to do the work that they carry out for the Benefits Agency. Organophosphate poisoning is clearly part of the prescribed disease, C3, and should be something with which the doctors are familiar. If it is becoming apparent to the noble Countess that that is not the case, I should be grateful if she would correspond with Ministers as well as with officials.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we welcome the Minister's assurance on that. Does he agree that there appears to be some evidence that different doctors in different parts of the country are responding to similar cases in different ways and that, as a result, some people with the same symptoms are getting benefits while other people in other parts of the country with the same symptoms are not? If that is the case—and the noble Countess appears to have evidence to suggest that it is—may we have the Minister's assurance that he will take up this matter and try to ensure, either through guidance or whatever, that doctors treat similar cases in similar ways?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Baroness that people with the same disease should be treated in the same way. Organophosphate poisoning is

1249
a difficult disease to diagnose because the symptoms are various and they are shared by many other conditions. However, it should not be the case—certainly not in this very specialised and additionally-trained service—that there is a wide disparity in the way in which doctors report in relation to industrial injury benefits. If we receive the information which the noble Countess may have on this matter, we shall certainly take it seriously.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his co-operation, as always. I shall be writing to him.

Prisons Ombudsman: Terms of Reference
2.51 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the terms of reference of the Prisons Ombudsman have been made more restrictive.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has not made the Prisons Ombudsman's terms of reference more restrictive; he has clarified them.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness who has, as usual, defended with much charm the totally indefensible; in fact, the ludicrous. Is she aware that under the new plans the ombudsman will not be allowed to criticise any decision made by a Minister? Moreover, is she aware that under the new plans the ombudsman will not be allowed to criticise or discuss any advice given by civil servants to Ministers? Is the Minister further aware that the ombudsman himself has expressed much regret before the Select Committee at these very significant changes?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Prisons Ombudsman's task is to consider grievances from prisoners who have failed to obtain satisfaction from the prisoners' complaints system. Indeed, the post of Prisons Ombudsman was created by this Government as a result of the Woolf Report which followed the Strangeways riot. While there was no direct criticism of the complaints system itself, it was thought that a further layer of independent scrutiny would be helpful. That was why the ombudsman was appointed. I am aware that the ombudsman has made one or two complaints; for example, he said that 6 per cent. of cases are not easy to investigate because he believes that his work is thwarted. We have asked him for evidence to support that claim, but to date we have not received it. He also believes that sometimes the files are incomplete or even missing. We have asked him for evidence to substantiate that claim and so far he has failed to present it.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in clarifying Sir Peter Woodhead's powers three restraints have been imposed in his previous powers: first, restricting his access to
1250
documents, making him dependent on what the Prison Service chooses to hand over to him; secondly, removing his right to investigate or even check any decisions made by Ministers or advice given to them; and, thirdly, requiring him to provide draft reports for checking by the Prison Service before publication? Does the Minister further agree with the Conservative Member of Parliament, Michael Lord, who commented:
"It is now a misnomer to describe him as an ombudsman at all in view of his lack of independence. He is really a complaints investigator who does as much as the Home Office wishes him to do"?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is wrong in the question that he has just put to me. Access to documentation is not restricted. The Director General of the Prison Service will ensure that the Prisons Ombudsman has unfettered access to Prison Service documents, including classified material, and to information entrusted to the Prison Service by other organisations but excluding advice or reports to Ministers which invite or result in ministerial decisions. It is well known to this House that ministerial decisions are subject to judicial review and the process by which they are taken is subject to the Parliamentary Commissioner as another form of scrutiny. So the Home Secretary and Ministers are subject to scrutiny.
As regards ministerial advice, all advice that does not result in a ministerial decision is available to the Prisons Ombudsman as long as it relates to the particular investigation that was within the remit of the Prisons Ombudsman.
As regards the report from the Prisons Ombudsman, it is only fair that if there are criticisms of the Prison Service the service should be allowed at least to see them in advance and to have some view about the accuracy of the reports.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is it not the case that the answer which the Minister has just given is directly contradicted by the letter which the Home Secretary wrote to the Prisons Ombudsman on 7th May? He said:
"On the question of access to documents to determine eligibility (paragraph 9) I cannot agree that you need unfettered access to papers for this purpose".
Is that not—and will not Hansard show it to be—in direct contradiction to what the Minister has just said? Whether or not the changes in the terms of reference are clarification, as the Minister claims, or real changes, as the ombudsman claims, is it not the case that the ombudsman wrote to the clerk to the Select Committee of the Commons on 29th April this year saying:
"Much of my attention over the past 14 months has been on resolving the differences in interpretation about my terms of reference with the Prison Service and other bodies"?
If that is so, surely at the very least that is an example of bad management by the Home Office and the Home Secretary?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord. In my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I said that the Prisons Ombudsman has unfettered access as long as the information he seeks

1251
is directly relevant to the case he is investigating. The ombudsman believed that his remit extended to the merits and processes of ministerial decisions. He believed that he did have unfettered access to ministerial advice. He also believed that he could investigate matters which were for the Parole Board. He further believed that he could request information for purposes other than investigation. The noble Lord makes the case very well that the Prisons Ombudsman did have a misunderstanding of his proper remit. The reason that the situation has been clarified is precisely to clear up those points.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was taught in business that misunderstandings on remit are always the responsibility of the employer and not the employee. If the Minister is right about the relevant documents, who is to decide what is a relevant document and how is the Prisons Ombudsman expected to respond to the invitation which he says has been made to him to give examples of documents that he has not seen?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is entirely a matter for the Prisons Ombudsman to decide what is relevant. When he has an individual complaint from a prisoner who is deemed to have exhausted the complaints procedure, the complaint will be a very specific one. The Prisons Ombudsman will ask for all relevant papers, and there is an obligation on the Prison Service to provide all the relevant papers. If the Prisons Ombudsman believes that he has not been given the relevant papers, he must complaint about it. To date we are waiting for evidence from him, but so far we have not received it. If he wishes to have access to advice to Ministers which does not result in a ministerial decision, he also has an entitlement to see that. It will be the Prisons Ombudsman who will determine its relevance.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is a Catch-22 situation. If the ombudsman does not know that a paper exists, how can he tell whether it is relevant?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if the Prisons Ombudsman is investigating a specific complaint from a prisoner and if the prisoner has exhausted all avenues for having the complaint investigated by the Prison Service, there is an obligation on the service to provide all the relevant papers on the files. If the Prisons Ombudsman believes that he is not receiving all the relevant information—if he believes that files are missing or that they are incomplete—it is for the Prisons Ombudsman not only to complain to the Home Office but to produce the evidence. So far he has not produced the evidence.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, he cannot.

NATO: Enlargement
3 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their current expectations as to the timetable for the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which countries they expect to accede, and how they intend to involve Parliament in the process of negotiation and ratification.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, NATO has yet to decide which countries to invite to join the Alliance and when. NATO Foreign Ministers decided in December 1995 to consider the way forward at their meeting this coming December. Many of the details of the process of negotiating enlargement and ratifying any enlargement document have yet to be decided by NATO. The Government will, however, keep Parliament informed as appropriate.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, but may I ask him whether the Government are worried that the process of ratification through the US Senate, which will be a great deal more open than the process of ratification through these Houses of Parliament, may lead to another situation in which we have marched all the way up the hill only to find that the US Senate is deeply reluctant to enlarge NATO security across Eastern Europe?
I have been impressed by some of the papers that are already available to the US Senate—in stark contrast to what has not yet been provided to this House. One of the papers which I have just seen, from the Rand Corporation, suggests that there must be a clear link between NATO enlargement and the enlargement of the European Union. Do the British Government also see a link? If so, how does that affect the likely timetable for NATO enlargement?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, there is not necessarily a link between the enlargement of the EU and that of NATO. They are complementary processes with similar objectives, but all the allies agreed that there should be no formal link. Both organisations are autonomous and decisions on NATO enlargement must be based on defence criteria.
We cannot be responsible for the information that is available in the United States or for any decisions that are made there. However, in September 1995 the Alliance produced an extensive study into the howl and whys of enlargement. A copy of that has been in the Library of the House for some time. All interested Partnership for Peace partners have received full briefing on it.
Lord Carver: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that if the membership of the North Atlantic Alliance is to be expanded in the way that is envisaged at present, it will be essential to modify Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which ensures that, to quote the words of the previous Foreign Secretary in April of last year,

1253
"if a member of the Alliance is attacked in the morning, Britain is at war in the afternoon"?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord for that question. Under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, NATO allies agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and that if such an armed attack occurs, each ally will assist the ally or allies so attacked by taking such action as is deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain security in the North Atlantic area. I do not believe that that should he changed.
Lord Carver: My Lords, will the noble Lord admit that he has left out one important word, the word "forthwith"?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I do not have the word "forthwith" on my brief.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the noble Lord who is speaking for the Government agree that it is important to reassure Russia if there is to be enlargement to the east? In that context, can the noble Lord tell the House what plans the Government and their Western allies have for developing the special relationship with Russia that has been promised beyond the Partnership for Peace?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for that question. There was a meeting yesterday between NATO and Foreign Minister Primakov, after which Foreign Minister Primakov made positive statements and the Russians appear to be more willing to accept the fact that enlargement will happen. We particularly welcome Primakov's emphasis on the need to develop a closer NATO-Russia relationship. The UK has been at the forefront of efforts to improve Russia's relations with the Alliance. We are pleased with the practical co-operation between Russia and NATO which has developed in IFOR.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, what is the point of pushing the frontiers of NATO up against the Russian frontier and saying that it threatens no one when the Russians insist that they feel threatened by it? Is it not likely that they know best about that and that they will rearm and once again adopt a more military stance towards us in response to that feeling of being threatened? If that happens, what happens to the reduced threat, which was adduced a moment ago by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, as the reason for the reduced numbers in the British Army?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we believe that enlargement will be a further step towards the Alliance's goal of enhancing security and stability throughout the Euro-Atlantic area within the context of a broad European security architecture based on true co-operation. That will also extend to new members the benefits of common defence and greater integration into European and Euro-Atlantic institutions and will help to protect their further democratic development. We do not believe that that is a threat to Russia. As I have already
1254
said, we are having great discussions with Russia, which now appears to accept that an expanded NATO will be a fact.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, although many of us agree with the noble Lord that the expansion of NATO does not constitute a threat to Russia, nevertheless it is important to secure at least its acquiescence if we are to avoid increasing tension in Europe. In those circumstances, what is the Government's reaction to what I believe was expressed by Marshal Grachev recently; namely, that there might be room for agreement between NATO and Russia provided that, while accepting those countries into membership, we did not put NATO troops at this stage on Russia's borders with Poland and Hungary?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we shall, of course, take full account of Russian concerns and do everything possible to reassure Russia. There is no intention at this stage of stationing any NATO troops or equipment into any new members of NATO unless there is a threat such that it is appropriate to do so.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the prospective new entrants will bring with them a military capability which will balance the increase in the responsibilities and commitments of the other NATO partners?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, that very point is being discussed at the moment. Obviously, we shall have to consider such matters not only from the budgetary point of view but also in terms of compatibility with existing equipment.

Judiciary, Legislature and the Executive
3.8 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg rose to call attention to the relationship between the judiciary, the legislature and the executive, and to judicial participation in public controversy; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I believe that this debate is timely. It comes when the country must believe that there is unprecedented antagonism between the judges and the Government both over judicial review of ministerial decisions and the restrictions which the Government propose on judicial discretion in sentencing. Certainly, there has been a long string of decisions striking down ministerial actions as unlawful. That has even led to some Conservative politicians calling judicial review itself into question. The public must be perplexed by what they perceive as a major clash over the distinct roles of Parliament, Ministers and the judges.
It is time to return to first principles. The British Constitution, largely unwritten, is firmly based upon the separation of powers. Parliament makes the laws, the judiciary interprets them and the judiciary develops the common law. Parliament also confers all manner of powers on the executive and other bodies, and it is for

1255
the courts to ensure that those powers are neither exceeded nor abused but exercised lawfully. Judicial review promotes the rule of law.
The separation of powers represents a delicate balance. Its success requires continued public confidence in the political impartiality of the judiciary. It is precisely because of that public confidence that judges are entrusted by government with inquiries into areas of the highest political sensitivity. To attack their reports for party political reasons is to undermine the very purpose of entrusting these inquiries to senior judges.
I do not believe that there is any question as to the political impartiality of the judiciary in the 1990s. It is true that in the late 1970s the Court of Appeal, responding to sympathetic withdrawals of labour and secondary blacking, restricted the immunities from liability for industrial action conferred by Parliament. And restricted them (it was said) inconsistently with the intention of Parliament. The unions claimed judicial fouls. But in a landmark case in 1980, Duport v. Sirs, your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity affirmed that it was the judges' duty to apply the statutes, however unpalatable and whatever their own perception of where the public interest lay. Lord Diplock pointed to the risk of judges straying beyond their constitutional role as interpreter of the enacted law and assuming a power to decide at their own discretion whether or not to apply the general law to a particular case.
In exercising their powers of judicial review, the judges should never give grounds for the public to believe that they intend to reverse government policies which they dislike. That is why I regard as unwise observations off the Bench by eminent judges that the courts have reacted to the increase in the powers claimed by government by being more active themselves, and adding for good measure that this has become all the more important at a time of one-party government. It suggests to ordinary people a judicial invasion of the legislature's turf.
I regard as equally unwise a number of recent extra-judicial statements by distinguished judges that in exceptional cases the courts may be entitled to hold invalid statutes duly passed by Parliament. This causes ordinary people not only to believe that judges may have got over and above themselves but that perhaps they are exercising a political function in judicial review cases instead of simply upholding the rule of law. The idea that an Act of Parliament could be held invalid by the judges became obsolete when the supremacy of Parliament was finally established by the Revolution of 1688. Lord Reid, one of the greatest Law Lords of our century, who held that office for 26 years from 1948 to 1974, said this:
"It is often said that it would be unconstitutional for the United Kingdom Parliament to do certain things, meaning that the moral, political and other reasons against doing them are so strong that most people would regard it as highly improper if Parliament did these things. But that does not mean that it is beyond the power of Parliament to do such things. If Parliament chose to do any of them the courts would not hold the Act of Parliament invalid".
I say the same about the present Home Secretary's sentencing proposals if ever Parliament could be persuaded, which I doubt, to put them on the statute book. Your Lordships' House debated these proposals on 23rd May in a debate initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, the former Lord Chief Justice, whose outstanding occupancy of that office has been tragically abbreviated. I take this opportunity to welcome the appointments of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Bingham as Lord Chief Justice and Lord Woolf as Master of the Rolls, both lawyers of the highest distinction and independence of mind. I share the misgivings expressed by many noble Lords in the debate of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor. The Home Secretary's proposals are ill-judged. To put legislative straitjackets on the judges' discretion to sentence for serious crimes is almost always a mistake. The Home Secretary has already put the prison population up from 40,000 to 55,000. These proposals, if implemented, could easily push the prison population up to 80,000 or more. The present Home Secretary gives every impression of playing politics with the administration of justice.
But if Parliament were to legislate for these proposals it would be neither unconstitutional nor prejudicial to the independence of the judiciary. Parliament is free to fix both minimum and maximum sentences. To claim that judicial independence is as a result threatened is to confuse. As Chief Justice Holt said in the very first year of the 18th century,
"an Act of Parliament can do no wrong, though it may do several things that look pretty odd".
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the high quality of judicial review in this country. It has so often rightly held the executive to account and improved the quality of administrative decision making. It promotes the rule of law. Judicial review is not an appellate procedure. The court does not substitute its opinion for that of the decision maker on whom Parliament has conferred the power of decision. The court rules only on the legality of a decision, not its correctness. Courts strike down a discretionary decision, not otherwise unlawful, only if it can be stigmatised in the literal sense as irrational. Of course, there are sophisticated levels of professional disagreement among lawyers whether the judges may in some cases have departed somewhat from these basic principles, which I would describe as judicial self-restraint combined with an acceptance of the sovereignty of Parliament. I drew attention to some of these disagreements in a public lecture last year. But I take this opportunity to make plain that it is for the judges, and ultimately your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity, to define these principles. I would be hostile to any legislative attempt to restrict judicial review, which I believe directly promotes the rule of law.
I turn to judicial participation in public controversy. The 5th June 1996 seems a long way away from the Kilmuir Rules which were designed to ban the judiciary from speaking to the media. These rules were set out in a letter written in 1955 by the then Lord Chancellor, Viscount Kilmuir. He wrote that as a general rule it was

1257
undesirable for members of the judiciary to broadcast on the wireless or to appear on television. Today, Lord Kilmuir's language has a period ring. I quote:
"So long as a judge keeps silent his reputation for wisdom and impartiality remains unassailable: but every utterance which he makes in public, except in the course of the actual performance of his judicial duties, must necessarily bring him within the focus of criticism".
The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack took office in 1987. He took a different view. In an interview with the Daily Telegraph on 3rd November of that year he said:
"If a person has been appointed a judge and that trust has been placed in him. I think he should be able to decide what to do if he is approached by the media".
In other words, he is appointed for his judgment and he should be trusted to have the judgment to deal sensibly with the media.
I imagine that the noble and learned Lord would have taken the view—rightly I think—that since the Kilmuir Rules had no statutory basis they ceased to be effective when he gave his interview on 3rd November 1987. At any rate, two years later, on 16th October 1989, in a letter to the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, which was copied to all judges and full-time judicial officers in England and Wales, the noble and learned Lord replaced the Kilmuir Rules with his own advice to the judges. He wrote that judges themselves should be left to decide whether, and on what conditions, they should give interviews to journalists or appear on radio or television. He recognised that there were cases in which the media in a spirit of inquiry wished to explore matters affecting the legal system so as to secure a wider public understanding of the working of the law, and that the value of such programmes might be enhanced by the participation of judges. He sounded this cautionary note, however:
"The nature of their office makes it necessary for judges to be very cautious about their exposure to the media, and they must avoid public statements either on general issues or particular cases which might cast any doubt on their complete impartiality. Above all they should avoid any involvement, either direct or indirect, in issues which are or might become politically controversial".
And he added this further caveat:
"As a general principle, if a judge, having considered all the relevant circumstances, including such matters as the reputation of the source of the invitation as well as the subject matter of the interview, has any serious doubts about the wisdom of participating, he or she should decline the invitation".
So the judges should follow a principle of "safety first".
He excluded from the new permission, however, "pronouncements by judges on individual cases". He advised:
"When a judge has decided a case or imposed a particular sentence, in my opinion it is not appropriate for him, or any of his brother judges, to discuss it publicly out of court, whether or not the matter has finally been disposed of on appeal".
In my view, the new advice expresses a right balance for today.
I turn to the role of the Law Lords, both sitting and retired, in your Lordships' House. Their expertise in the administration of justice allows them to make an invaluable contribution to our debates on that subject. And sometimes strong language is used. I well
1258
remember the judicial hostility to the noble and learned Lord's Green Paper of January 1989 under which the Government were claiming to decide who should have rights of audience in the higher courts, so leading to a break in the Bar's monopoly. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, then the Lord Chief Justice, thought that the very foundations of our democracy were being destroyed by this proposal. He observed:
"Loss of freedom seldom happens overnight … Oppression does not stand on the doorstep with a toothbrush moustache and a swastika armband. It creeps up insidiously; it creeps up step by step; and all of a sudden the unfortunate citizen realises that it has gone".
I am and was a great admirer of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, and I do not question his right to speak in strong terms on a subject about which he felt so strongly. For myself, it certainly had not occurred to me that the Bar's then exclusive rights of audience in the High Court were of quite that constitutional importance.
Many judges have criticised the Government's insistence on keeping the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder, notably the noble and learned Lords, Lord Lane, Lord Taylor and Lord Ackner, whom I am pleased to see in his place. I have already mentioned your Lordships' debate on 23rd May on the Home Secretary's White Paper.
I am firmly of the view that in relation to the administration of justice, and in relation to sentencing, where the expertise of the judges is obvious, they are well entitled to express their views and seek to influence Parliament. The judges have been vindicated in their criticisms before. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, strongly attacked some provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 as,
"counter to all principles of good sentencing policy".
Again, the issue was the restriction of the discretion of judges in sentencing. The noble and learned Lord was shortly proved right and the legislation was repealed. I repeat that I see no reason at all why judges should not say that statute laws either will not work or are not working. They have a direct, practical experience of the administration of justice day-to-day which makes their contribution to public debate on that subject of high value.
However, as I have said, it is important to distinguish between what they can argue is unwise; let it be disastrously unwise; and what they can properly claim to be unconstitutional. Just as Parliament is entitled to fix maximum sentences, so it is entitled to fix minimum sentences. Certainly the latter removes judicial discretion but it does not affect judicial independence. The duty of the judges is to apply the law as determined by Parliament; and what judicial independence means, properly understood, is their right not to be subject to any interference with their independence in carrying out that task.
Moreover, many judges spoke out against the Government's cuts in eligibility for legal aid. Also many judges, including the noble and learned Lords, Lord Bingham and Lord Taylor, have publicly called for incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights. I am less confident about recent extra-judicial statements that if Parliament does not

1259
legislate a law of privacy, then the judges will invent—or perhaps I should say develop—one. This is a hard question. Judges do make law. As Lord Reid once said—you would believe in fairy tales if you thought otherwise. But what is the boundary between legitimate development of the law by judges and what counts as illegitimate legislation by judges? The general understanding of English law is that it does not recognise a generalised right to privacy. Should the judges make one? Only, I would say, if there were a clear community consensus that way. If there is no such consensus—and I am sure there is none—then I say that if the judges invented a law of privacy, they would seem to be taking sides. The result would be to imperil their major asset: their reputation for impartiality. I agree with Lord Reid:
"When there is sufficient support from public opinion, Parliament does not hesitate to intervene. Where Parliament fears to tread it is not for the courts to rush in".
I say that judges should think hard before they don the mantle of moral leadership through their judgments according to law.
So statements that judges can invent or make a law protecting privacy, where there is no consensus for it, sounds to ordinary people uncomfortably like a judicial threat to legislate. It must be for Parliament to decide whether self-regulation of the press should be replaced by a law of privacy.
Obviously there is a fine line to be drawn between judicial participation in public controversy of a political nature—and the noble and learned Lord's letter of 16th October 1989 advised that,
"above all judges should avoid any involvement either direct or indirect in the issues which are or might become politically controversial".
There is a distinction between judicial participation in public controversy of a political nature and the judges' participation in public controversy concerning the effective administration of justice. The debates about legal aid, maximum and minimum sentences and the size of the prison population all concern the administration of justice. But at the same time they are issues of deep political controversy. For myself, I think that the judges would be wise to confine themselves to controversy about the administration of justice. If they engage more extensively in political controversy, they risk undermining public confidence in their political impartiality. There is a basic tension between judicial engagement in political controversy and public confidence in the judges' political impartiality in deciding disputes according to law.
I hope and believe that today's debate will be significant. I am heartened by the number of your Lordships who have chosen to take part. In these days of high profile judicial review cases and public controversy between Ministers and judges there is understandable public concern. The separation of powers is a crucial but delicate component of our unwritten constitution. Another is the judges' reputation for political impartiality. I have no wish, and see no need, to censor the judges to maintain that reputation. My only plea is for self-restraint by the judges so as to conserve their
1260
reputation for political impartiality in the decisions which they make according to law; and for self-restraint by Ministers when addressing decisions of judges, which have struck down their decisions as unlawful. It is only if that self-restraint is displayed on both sides that the public will have confidence that the separation of powers is alive and well and working. I beg to move for Papers.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords feel indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, for having raised this important constitutional matter. The relationship between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary has been considered by lawyers, especially constitutional lawyers, for hundreds of years. I like to think that in our country we have got it about right.
I am not in a position to answer every point made by the noble Lord because it was only yesterday, when I happened to see him at about this time of day outside your Lordships' Chamber, that he suggested I should put my name down to speak in the debate. I did not expect to be the one immediately to follow him. However, I believe that he hit the crux of the matter in his concluding passages when he referred to the need for restraint. Let there be freedom of expression in matters of public importance but it largely depends on how that is done.
Before going further, I wish to endorse the tribute which the noble Lord paid to the retiring Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth. I sat at his feet when he was Chairman of the Bar many years ago, and I was an ex-officio member of the Bar Council. I acquired the greatest admiration for him, as did all of us at the Bar.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, the new Lord Chief Justice, was born some years after I was called to the Bar. That does not prevent me from having learned a bit about him—second hand, of course—and being in a position to congratulate and welcome him. I also congratulate and welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, as Master of the Rolls. Perhaps I may say in passing that I believe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning (who, alas, now in advanced old age is so incapacitated that he cannot take part in today's debate) did a most valuable service as Master of the Rolls. Whether or not the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, believes that he is following in his footsteps, I hope that he will not ignore the great contributions which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, made in his time.
The paramount factor in this important debate is the independence of the judiciary coupled with its impartiality. The judges must be not only independent and impartial but must manifestly be seen to be so. Broadly speaking, no one doubts the independence or impartiality of our judiciary.
Your Lordships' House has the immense advantage of having as Members not only Bishops and Law Lords and ex-Cabinet Ministers, but those who have risen to the top of each of the professions, of industry and

1261
commerce, the Armed Forces, the public service, the Civil Service and the arts. In my opinion, none of those eminent people ought to be muzzled when speaking in your Lordships' House.
Members of the higher judiciary in this House are free to give our democracy the benefit of their most valuable experience, in particular when changes in the law are proposed by the executive or are thought by public or judicial opinion to be necessary. Therefore, I did not blame the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, for giving us the benefit of his opinion on the White Paper, whether or not we agreed with him. I do not suggest that we should have a further debate like the valuable short debate on 23rd May to which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, referred. However, I must mention a feature of the debate which was not touched upon but which is vital to the subject of today's debate. It is not the question of whether judges should be required by Act of Parliament to send to prison perhaps for life offenders who have committed more than two serious offences. The problem is that for years there has been an assumption, even among some members of the judiciary, that prison sentences deter crime; that serious offenders deserve to be sent to prison anyway; that they will benefit from it; and that they may be cured and deterred from committing further offences. Alas, that does not always happen.
I speak having been in the Home Office for four-and-a-half years with the late Lord Butler of Saffron Walden and during much of that time responsible for the prison system. I can say that prisons are universities of crime and we cannot get away from that. They are and for years have been so overcrowded that prison officers find it difficult to practise the art of redemption. As a result, the success rate—that is, the proportion of former prisoners who commit no further crime after release—is still too low. Reconviction rates vary with age; but, even among those who have been in prison a number of times and who one would have thought would have had enough, according to 1994 statistics 45 per cent. come out and commit serious offences.
Therefore, the assumption that some prison sentences should be automatic is, perhaps I may say with deep respect, doubtful and to that extent one sympathised with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor. However, discussions have overlooked the fact that the Home Secretary proposes that in exceptional circumstances judges need not send people to prison after three or more serious offences—sometimes for life—so in that way judicial discretion would be preserved. I hope that I may be forgiven for going over that part of the ground again but it is necessary to bear that fact in mind.
If judges today, with their knowledge of all the circumstances of the offence, the offender's previous record and character and with such knowledge as they manage to acquire of what happens in prisons, decide to keep people out of prison if that can be avoided I should be the last to blame them. The position can be summed up as follows: Parliament must give enough power to the judges to ensure that crime is reduced as well as enough power and discretion to ensure that justice is
1262
done. However, judges must be free—at any rate, those who are Members of your Lordships' House—to make their views known in the light of their experience.
I turn to one or two issues which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. I am not sure whether I am right to call him "learned" and perhaps being on this side of the House I do not look forward to having to do so. He is right to say that the public should be confident that judges are not subject to ministerial pressure. I must say that I do not believe that the judges have been so subject.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, if I may say so, is a paradoxical denial of the separation of powers. He has judicial duties to perform; as a member of the legislature, he presides over your Lordships' House; and he is a Member of the Cabinet. He manages to combine those duties admirably, as did his predecessors, without giving rise to any conflict of the kind which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, mentioned.
Reference was made to earlier times when Lord Kilmuir and others tried to lay down a rule that judges should never express their opinions except when giving their decisions in court. That is a good general rule. But the senior members of the judiciary, like the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls and noble and learned Lords who are members of the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House, so long as they exercise restraint and do not appear to be politically motivated, should have a degree of freedom of speech.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in welcoming this debate. We are all most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, for raising matters here which he raised previously last October in a seminar for lawyers.
He is right to bring the issues here, both because this is one of the two Chambers of Parliament and I should like to think because some of us, perhaps very few today, are not lawyers. I speak as somebody with no experience whatever of the law but as one who for 25 years has served in the legislature in one Chamber or another and for a period of 11 years in part of the executive branch as a member of a government.
I listened with very great care to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine. I felt that there was a message of good will towards the judges wrapped round a gentle but clear warning. I hope that he will not mind me saying, because my mind was running very much in the same way as that of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that he spoke as much today as a member of a government in waiting who hope to be, within a year, sitting on the other side of the Chamber as a distinguished member of the Bar and a distinguished Member of this House.
Looking back and recollecting now in tranquillity those years in government, I must say that I have no doubt whatever that all governments abuse power, either through inadvertence, impatience or arrogance. If the balance of our constitution needs to be redressed, it is against the executive. If the legislature cannot do that or fails to do it, then inevitably, in one way or another, the judiciary will do it.

1263
It is perhaps an axiom that good lawyers almost always make bad politicians. In that respect, the need for judges not to become involved in unnecessary public dispute is one which I support. But as I say, if the balance is to be corrected, it needs to be corrected by both Chambers of Parliament and by the judiciary in their different ways seeking to redress the balance against the executive.
I hope that I shall not upset the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, by reminding him of a debate which we had almost exactly a year ago. It was a debate on the conditional fee agreement order. An amendment was tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I had no formed view of the matter and so I listened to an extremely eloquent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. He persuaded me to support the amendment and I went into the Lobby accordingly.
But I must remind the noble Lord that he was not there and nor were most members of the Opposition Front Bench. The amendment was lost by 100 votes to 105. I was extremely concerned about why that should be the case. I learned afterwards that the Opposition were scared that voting for an amendment, an amendment which they strongly supported on its merits, could embarrass them when they were in government if the new Opposition did likewise on a statutory instrument.
I mention that because I believe that there is something in common in the thoughts behind the decision made a year ago and the failure of the noble Lord to vote at that time and his remarks today, though for a very large part, I agree with them. But to fail to vote on that amendment a year ago was irresponsible. First, it is always dangerous to presume that one will be in government because it tempts fate; and secondly—and this is most relevant to our discussion today—it is the duty of us all in this House to judge issues on their merits or according to our loyalties and then to use the procedures properly available to us. If we in this Chamber and those in another place neglect those opportunities, it is inevitable that, in one way or another, the judiciary will fulfil a larger role as a check on the arrogance of the executive which is sometimes the case.
My view is simple: that Britain would be governed better if the legislature and judiciary, in their different ways, exercised their powers to the full, particularly in the protection of the citizen, even if that irritates and angers the government of the day. We may spend a great deal of time debating the shortcomings of the legislature: the extent to which the House of Commons, elected under the present system, is unrepresentative of the opinion of the nation; the case for reforming your Lordships' House while maintaining its diversity and freedom of expression; and particularly the stultifying effect of a rigid party system, especially in another place.
My view is that it would be better for this House and for the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, right though it was for him to raise those issues today, to give his mind to how best to reform the legislature as a check on the
1264
actions of the executive rather than worrying too much at this juncture about the actions or words of the judges. The duty of the judiciary is to protect the rule of law. The degree of intervention in what might be seen to be public controversy may ebb and flow. But everything considered, I believe that in recent times—in the past 30 years—it has seldom or much over-reached itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, referred to judicial review. I understand that in 1976 there were 500 applications for judicial review and that in 1993 there were 3,000. I do not have later figures. Of those 3,000 applications, about one-half go forward and one-quarter of those are allowed; that is, 236 in 1993. That does not seem to me an excessive number, especially as some do not relate to decisions of government or statutory bodies but to other bodies which are performing a public function.
I am chairman, although I do not speak as such today, of the Advertising Standards Authority which is the consumer protection arm of self-regulation in the non-broadcasting advertising media. It operates in the public interest and it is the consumer protection arm of a self-regulating system. It is a small organisation of modest resources and it is non-statutory, but it is subject to judicial review.
There have been times during my tenure of the chairmanship that I have been irritated, even angry, by what seems to me the easy access to judicial review of those who might disagree with the decisions of my authority. But I believe it to be right. If it is right in that sector where some large organisations with greater resources can call on judicial review of the decisions made by my organisation, how much more so is it right that judicial review should not be inhibited in any way in dealing with matters of government?
As the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, said, the judiciary today is a great deal more open than it was once upon a time. We owe much to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, the former Lord Chief Justice. Much of the unnecessary mystique has gone. We would not pretend—indeed, I would certainly not do so—that judges can do no wrong. They certainly make fools of themselves from time to time and they also show their prejudices. But, on balance, the role of the judiciary at present in relation to the executive is about right. I see no current fear of judicial "supremacism". There is far more to worry about concerning the balance between the legislature and the executive.
As I said, I welcome today's debate. I do not share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, that judges are losing the public's confidence through their failure to exercise impartiality. But they would lose it if they failed to apply the same rules to the decisions of an incoming government as they have applied to those of the present one. If that is the fear of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, I do not share it.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, introduced a very large and wide-ranging subject, but also one of great importance. It has been a great opportunity for this House and for

1265
noble Lords to hear his own views on this very important matter which he developed with great expertise, as one would expect, but also, if I may say so, with great moderation.
For my part, I propose to limit my few observations to the less exciting part of the noble Lord's Motion—that is to say, not that relating to controversy with Ministers, but with judicial review. I do so because I wish to concentrate more on what judges are doing rather than on what they are saying. It may be duller, but it is just as important.
The questions that I want to put—and they were really posed by the noble Lord in his opening speech—are: has judicial review of administrative acts by the judges got out of hand? Are the judges straying (to borrow the noble Lord's words) beyond their constitutional role? Are the judges exercising a political function in judicial review, or are they not? Those are the questions that I believe we must face. If, like me, any noble Lords prefer, when reading a novel or detective story, to look to the last page first, perhaps I may tell your Lordships at once that the answer that I shall try to give to those questions is no.
As your Lordships know, judicial review is a developing subject. Indeed, it has been moving all the time and has existed for many hundreds of years. However, in its modern form it dates from the judicial decision of this House in 1968 in Conway v. Rimmer. Ever since then it has been on a path of expansion. There has been a great extension of matters which can be reviewed: from by-laws or decisions of justices to decisions of the biggest enterprises, of administrative organisations, of Ministers and Secretaries of State right up to high profile matters—indeed, not little questions of administrative law.
There has been a great extension of the grounds upon which the courts seek to question administrative acts or to examine them ranging from improper purposes, ultra vires acts to neglect of relevant considerations, irrational decisions, and zealous applications of rules. All that has taken place under judicial decision, without any assistance at all—and I should like your Lordships to register this fact—from Parliament.
There have been a number of reports from the Law Commission on the subject invited by the Lord Chancellor of the day. We had one in 1969 on administrative law generally. There was a debate in this House, although I do not remember the exact date—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone may remember it because he has a better memory than I do—on the question, partly, of whether there ought to be some statement by Parliament of the substantive grounds for interference with and controlling administrative acts. The noble and learned Lord was against that at the time and, in due course, another line was taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, signalled the year 1976 as being an important one in the history of judicial review. Indeed, in that year the Law Commission produced another report which resulted in a change in the rules of court. It swept away all sorts of antiquated rules which had tied the hands of
1266
courts for many years. That was a very beneficial reform put before the House by the noble and learned Lord and which was carried. The judges were left to develop the substance of the law without parliamentary admonition or parliamentary control. Little wonder that the judges were a bit enthusiastic at times about that great tool which had been put into their hands. Perhaps I may translate from the Latin: it is the function of a good judge to amplify his jurisdiction. The judges certainly took advantage of that.
I should just like to remind your Lordships that we are not alone in the field. We are not an excrescence, as it were, on a generally acquiescent world of legislative measures. All other countries in Europe have very substantial systems of control of administrative acts and control over the Executive. They all have a body of administrative law and they all have a system of administrative courts. That fact was brought home to me very vividly in 1945 when I went, in uniform, into Berlin to control that great city and the western zone of Germany. Our headquarters were situated in the Supreme Administrative Court—the Oberverwaltungsgericht. It was a most splendid building; indeed, there was nothing like it in this country. It consisted of storey after storey with lifts and every kind of facility. As I said, there was nothing of that sort in this country.
In every other country there is a right to challenge legislation either in formation or after it has been made. Of course, that right to challenge legislation is linked very closely with the existence in every case of a written constitution which sets down the ground rules within which challenges can be made. It is very interesting to note that the only other western country which does not have a constitution, along with us, is Israel. Very much like this country, Israel is experiencing great difficulty in formulating the rules according to which judges ought to supervise and control administrative acts. There is a lesson for us there, or, at any rate, an explanation of what is sometimes thought to be our weakness—the vagueness of the jurisdiction of the courts and the risk of excess—because we do not have a written constitution setting down the ground rules.
There is one other point worth mentioning when one is trying to appraise the value of judicial review in this country; namely, that we have a much better system of examination of administrative acts in process. We have the right to challenge decisions before they take effect to a very great extent. We have the right to challenge a decision at public inquiries. Indeed, that is very extensive as we know to our cost in the Channel Tunnel exercise. We have very extensive consultation of interest groups—almost too much, some may think, at one time. We have very much more powerfully organised interest groups than any other western country. They are given a very strong position of consultation while administration is being formed. We also have very great accessibility to public officials and, in modern times at any rate, some loosening of the constraints of secrecy.
These are all factors which one has to bear in mind when considering the force and effect of judicial control of administrative acts. But given all that, since 1968 there is no doubt—I am entirely in agreement with the

1267
noble Lord on this—that there has been a large expansion of the sphere of judicial interference. There are several clear reasons why that has taken place. First, a mass of legislation now emerges from Parliament, some of it ill thought out, ill phrased and ill digested, and which often gives extensive powers to legislate by regulation. Judges have to cope with that and to criticise it to a greater extent than was ever the case in the 19th century.
Secondly, there are the vacua which are left in legislation which sometimes judges are called upon to fill. On this point, I venture respectfully to differ from the noble Lord. It is the only point on which I differ from him. I think that privacy is one of those areas where it may be appropriate for judges to take a hand, as it were. Parliament has consistently refused or been unable to deal with that matter. It is a consistent and growing difficulty and no doubt with sufficient caution—I say this with great care in the presence of the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls—the courts may find it necessary to define in some way the limits of privacy of an individual in this country, if Parliament will not act.
The third factor which has caused the expansion of judicial review is the considerably greater public demand for limitation of executive powers. The public are much more expressive. They are informed by newspapers of what is taking place, and grievances are much more heavily highlighted in the press. The demand for control, in suitable cases, of executive excesses has grown. I do not hesitate to say that judges have become much more outward looking and much more concerned with social needs and social imperatives. Where are we now, that being the picture? Is there need for corrective action? I was glad to hear the noble Lord say that he was not in favour of legislation constraining the process of judicial review. I am entirely in agreement with him on that.
What else could be done? We could have a written constitution. I do not spend much time on that because it is unrealistic. It is not so unrealistic perhaps to presuppose the introduction of a Bill of Rights, whether the European Bill of Rights or any other. However, we have to face up to the fact that if we bring the European Convention on Human Rights or any Bill of Rights into operation, that will extend the power of judges and not restrain it because judges will be called upon to give interpretation to all sorts of vague expressions which are inevitably used in Bills of Rights, and which are found in the European Convention and which are really policy decisions. Judges will be compelled to decide these questions—for example, questions about the right to life, the right to privacy, freedom of expression and many others that are scattered about us. Judges would have to deal with those questions if that were made part of our law.
What rests apart from that? There is restraint. Everyone would join with the noble Lord in his appeal for judicial restraint. I am entirely in agreement with him on that. I do not take much alarm at some of the excursions—either judicial or extra-judicial—which have occurred in recent times. There have been attempts
1268
to play with Continental ideas such as proportionality or legitimate expectation and others which have not yet taken root in this country. Some judges are perhaps inclined to toy with them, but I believe—and generally in relation to development, and perhaps enthusiasm—that we can safely trust the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords to prohibit any possibly dangerous growths.
Indeed, I think it is right to say that following a period of enthusiastic expansion of judicial review since 1968 there are signs now of a rather more cautious attitude in the higher courts, in the Court of Appeal and in your Lordships' Appellate Committee. They are alive to the wisdom of not letting a valuable instrument of control get out of hand. We need to keep a continuous watch on what is called the standard of review—that is a technical expression which I shall not expand upon—to be applied to administrative acts. We need perhaps to allow ourselves greater comparative studies to see what other countries are doing. Perhaps we need to consider setting up not an administrative court but the enlistment of specialist judges to handle this delicate matter.
As to that other question of the supremacy of Parliament, that is simply another health scare based on exploratory, extra-judicial utterances. As regards the law, what Lord Reid said in Madzimbamuto in 1969—the noble Lord quoted the passage from that judgment—and what Lord Wright said in Liversedge v. Anderson is written in stone. There is no question of that being eroded by anything that judges do or are likely to do. Let us not lose our nerve. Let us keep to the path the judges have shown they can tread in the past.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, from these Back Benches I thank my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg for making possible this interesting constitutional debate. I thought his speech was quite outstanding and showed that he had (I thought meritoriously) given a great deal of thought to the matters which might be his responsibility in future years. I can well understand why the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, did not find it necessary to take the same line!
We are singularly fortunate in our judiciary. If I may say so at once, I thought that that was very much the theme of my noble friend's reference to the judiciary. I apologise for again mentioning the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, but I did not recognise what was supposed to be a paraphrase of my noble friend's remarks, as I did not find it a paraphrase at all; I found it an inaccurate account. I say that we are fortunate in our judiciary not only for the character of most of our judges but also because of the sacrifice—we often forget this—that a leading Silk makes when he accepts the great honour of judicial appointment.
These days that appointment is usually given to people in their early 40s. Considerations of trying to look after dependants when one is on a full pension, which is only earned after 20 years' service, obviously account for the fact that our judges are now appointed at such an early age. That is the very time when our leading lawyers, whether they be banisters or—at the

1269
better end of the profession—solicitors are at their peak. I repeat that it is with a material sacrifice that so many of our leading lawyers accept judicial appointment.
It has been said many times—not just in this debate but frequently in your Lordships' House—that the independence of the judges is our pride and glory. If we erode it, we are lost. I take the liberty, arising out of that, to ask whether we are sufficiently safeguarding the independence of our judges for future generations. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, in his eloquent speech—delivered, as he told us, almost as a surprise for himself, but it was a pleasant surprise for us—mentioned, as I understand it, that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had a dual existence with which he was coping in spite of its difficulties; namely, the Lord Chancellor the politician, and the Lord Chancellor, the head of our judges and our judicial system. It is no empty compliment, but a belief sincerely held by all sections of your Lordships' House, that that duality has been remarkably well served by the noble and learned Lord who sits at present on the Woolsack.
But what about the future? As I understand it—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—the chief judicial appointments are made on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, but are submitted to the Prime Minister of the day. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, will correct me, as he always does when I go wrong (and that is quite frequently), but in his day it was his habit to submit two or three names to the Prime Minister in order of preference, with a comment which justified that order of preference. It was not always the first preference that was chosen. I believe that I am right in saying that that might be the experience—again I shall be corrected if I am wrong—of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. If we are speaking about the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary, is it right that it is ultimately a Prime Minister who decides who are to be our chief judges? It is a matter which ought to be considered not because of difficulty at this moment but because of the difficulty that future generations may have to face.
As regards appointments, I was pleased to hear, and wish to be associated with, the congratulations extended to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, uttered the mystical name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. He hoped that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, would follow in those masterly footsteps. I hope that he will do it in one respect, and, knowing him as I do, I have no doubts. I refer to the sense of humour of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. It was with the greatest joy and pride that he would tell of the letter he received from an engineer in Pakistan congratulating him on his appointment. The engineer enclosed a curriculum vitae and said, "Now that I know that you are Master of the Rolls, would you please get me a job?" The appointment is an honour to the Bench, but with deep regrets that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, had to retire early in his period of office. I believe that all of us would
1270
wish to send him our good wishes and tell him how much we miss him from our deliberations at the moment.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I have discussed whether or not the independence of the judiciary has been preserved for all generations having regard to our method of appointment. Perhaps I may deal with a subject which has been discussed; namely, whether, if a Minister decides to promote a Bill in the House, it is proper for our judges to comment on it, especially if the comments are adverse. In all our affairs, with our unwritten Constitution we rely upon common sense. I know that I shall be forgiven for saying that it is not really common sense for a Minister to promote legislation which limits the discretion of our judges. Having said that, I at once agree with my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg that constitutionally it is quite right to do so. Parliament is sovereign. However, when looking up an old debate, I noted that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor saw fit to read to noble Lords present at that time a letter written by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, to The Times. At col. 791 of the Official Report of 27th April 1994, the noble and learned Lord said:
"My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, in a letter to The Times of 8th May"—
that was 8th May, 1993—
"put that in a way which I should like to refer to. It was in connection with a sentence that had been before the court. The letter is dated 8th May 1993. The Lord Chief Justice is the writer.
"'Sir, You print today an account of the case in the Court of Appeal yesterday in which the Attorney General's application to have an unduly lenient sentence reviewed was granted and the sentence was increased. The headline read: Lord Taylor Ignores Act to Increase Jail Sentence. The report went on to say: "The Lord Chief Justice over-ruled the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Justice Act yesterday when he increased a jail term on a motor cyclist …". Those assertions were wholly wrong. The judgment of the court, as anyone who listened to it would readily have realised, explained how and why it was possible and appropriate for the court, within the terms of section 29(2) of that act, to take into account the circumstances of previous offences because they showed an aggravating factor in the instant case. I do not ignore acts of Parliament. To suggest the contrary is not only wrong but a gross libel. I am therefore glad that you have agreed to publish forthwith a retraction and apology as well as this letter. It is true that I have made it clear I consider the 1991 act to be flawed in a number of respects. I support the broad philosophy which inspired it that a custodial sentence should be imposed only where the seriousness of the offending merits it or the protection of the public demands it. But a number of provisions in the Act place arbitrary and unworkable restrictions on the discretion of the judge to deal with each case on its merits. I hope that these defects can be cured in the very near future'".
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor goes on to say this:
"But this is the quotation which I wish to emphasise, and with which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice concludes the letter: 'However, until they are, it is my duty and that of all the judges to apply the law as Parliament has enacted it. That duty we will fulfill'".
I do not think that there can be any doubt, therefore, as to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, felt about the sovereignty of Parliament, nor about the right of judges to warn, to criticise, and to plead for liberty

1271
as regards legislation which they regard as being harmful in carrying out their duties in both civil and criminal matters. That liberty is as a rule very carefully and studiously adhered to with propriety.
I repeat that this has been an interesting debate. It has thrown up issues which we have discussed before. Nothing very novel has emerged, but there is one thing which we can conclude. I started with it and I shall finish with it: we are lucky in the judges whom we have.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Woolf: My Lords, I was very much in two minds as to the advisability of my taking part in the debate this afternoon, just over 24 hours after donning new clothing—not sheep's but, as noble Lords have heard, as Master of the Rolls. There are two reasons why I decided to do so, although having heard the debate so far this afternoon I fear that my intervention will not be of great assistance to your Lordships.
The first reason is the importance of the question which my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg has raised before your Lordships. It is one of constitutional importance and one which calls for great sensitivity on the part of the legislature, the government of the day, and particularly the judiciary. It raises issues on which no doubt the new Lord Chief Justice would have been happy to address the House, if he had not been prevented from doing so since he has not yet had an opportunity to be introduced to your Lordships' House.
The second reason is one which will no doubt interest the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I received a letter of congratulations signed "Tom, 97 and-a-third". The "97 and-a-third" reflected the age of the author. It came from no ordinary Tom, Dick or Harry, but from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, the distinguished past holder of my present office. In that letter, the noble and learned Lord reminded me that we had both made Hamlyn Lectures, but some 40 years apart. The noble and learned Lord gave the first of those lectures, "Freedom under the law". In his letter he referred me to the final paragraph of his lecture, of which I was well aware, which includes these eloquent words:
"Just as the pick and shovel is no longer suitable for the winning of coal so also the procedure of mandamus, certiorari and actions on the case are not suitable for the winning of freedom in the new age. They must be replaced by new and up-to-date machinery'".
In that passage, in 1949, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was referring to the importance of establishing the present role of the courts on judicial review—a subject to which I shall return briefly later.
In this country we are fortunate in having a constitution which is truly unique. One of its unusual features is that it is unwritten, but, as noble Lords have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, it is not unique in that regard. There is the other jurisdiction to which he referred which is in the same position, and in New Zealand there is a similar situation. But we are unique, first, in relation to the roles of the Lord Chancellor, to which reference has already been made. Secondly, we are unique in that members of our supreme appellate court are able to take part, as I do this afternoon, in the deliberations of your Lordships'
1272
Chamber and, of course, also in your Lordships' Committees. The ability of Law Lords to take part in such deliberations is something which I hope your Lordships value. It continues to exist only because the noble and learned Lords who sit in the Appellate Committee exercise the restraint to which your Lordships have rightly drawn attention as a necessary concomitant to their having that ability.
We have a great advantage in enabling those who have the responsibility for interpreting and applying the law to give advice, to the House when it is appropriate, on matters of which they are knowledgeable as a result of their experience.
Another role which our constitution places upon the judiciary which is not unique but is unusual is the extent to which the judiciary are invited by the government of the day to take part in inquiries on behalf of the Government and usually to conduct those inquiries on the Government's behalf. That is a role which the judiciary do not seek but which is thrust upon them. But they accept the responsibility for doing so because they recognise that it is thought that it is in the public interest that they should do so.
However, the fact that a judge is given that task creates problems for those who have the responsibility of conducting the inquiry. They are sometimes inevitably drawn into positions of public debate. They are sometimes drawn into situations of political debate. That is unfortunate, but we are in the position that either we dispense with what I regard as an important public service by the judiciary or we accept the consequences which flow from it. We cannot have it both ways. I say to your Lordships that restraint needs to be exercised, not only by the judiciary in making comments as a result of such inquiries, but also on the part of those, either in the Executive or in the legislature, who are desirous of criticising the judge who is responsible for making the contribution.
The reference by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, to his Hamlyn Lecture drew attention to the fact that before the Kilmuir rules, indeed, before the statement of the present noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, it had been the long-established practice of members of the judiciary from time to time to give lectures. Again, I suggest that this is a desirable and constructive practice, something from which the public benefits because it contributes to the development of the law. In relation to constitutional issues, it can inform the debate because of the advantage of the judiciary's experience in relation to the subjects in question.
If that practice is to continue—and I suggest we would all be the poorer if it did not—it is very important that what the judiciary say, often to learned audiences and to specialist bodies, should not be taken out of context. If my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg will forgive me in this respect, I would say that he was in error in focusing upon one or two lectures and extracting from those lectures a sentence here or there which did not give a true representation of the content of the lecture as a whole. The fact of the matter is that there are areas of the law where it can be genuinely and fairly

1273
said that our laws at present are not serving the public in the way that they should. In that situation it is the strength of the common law that it can develop and extend in a way in which it has in the past, and in which I hope it will continue to do in the future, to make up for those deficiencies.
The Law Lords themselves now have the power to set aside decisions given in the past by which they no longer feel the public are served. If their Lordships can do that in the Appellate Committee, surely it cannot be objectionable in the course of a lecture to identify an area of the law which many would say needs re-examination and suggest that, in the course of the ordinary development of the law on a case-by-case basis, a change might take place. In doing so, the judge is not seeking in any way to interfere with or abrogate the sovereignty of Parliament.
We have been reminded of the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, the former Lord Chief Justice. I venture to say that every judge of whom I am aware on the High Court Bench, the Circuit Bench or in the Appellate Courts would agree with everything that he said. No one would say that any legislation that we can contemplate having been passed by our Parliament would not be honoured both in the letter and in the spirit by the judiciary of today.
The comments that are made in the course of a lecture must be seen in the context in which they are made. When they are seen in that context it is beneficial, not a disadvantage, that a judge should express his views. I dissent from the suggestion that it is only the higher judiciary who can be trusted to make comments of that sort in the course of a lecture.
Finally, I turn to the question of judicial review. We heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, a masterly examination as to the way in which that subject has developed extensively over the 40 years or more that have elapsed since the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, gave that lecture. Judicial review is the means by which the courts enforce the will of Parliament, not the contrary. What the courts are doing when they hear an application for judicial review on a case brought before them by a member of the public or some institution is ascertaining whether the public body concerned has acted in accordance with the law as laid down by Parliament. If the public body has not performed a duty placed upon it by Parliament, then the courts will intervene and order the public body to perform that duty. If the public body has acted in a way which is beyond the powers given to it by Parliament, the courts will remove the decision that results from that action and quash it, because it has acted unlawfully. If the public body has not gone about the process of reaching its decision in accordance with the requirements of Parliament, again the courts will intervene. In this way the courts do not act inconsistently with the will of Parliament, but support the will of Parliament.
As we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, the law has developed in relation to judicial review without the direct intervention of Parliament. But Parliament has endorsed the machinery
1274
of judicial review; it did so in the Supreme Court Act 1981. Since that time, the Law Commission has looked at the way in which judicial review is working and, on the whole, has reached the conclusion that it deserves a clean bill of health.
Judges do act with restraint in relation to judicial review. Judicial review is a singular procedure, because it is surrounded by safeguards for the Executive to ensure that it can properly perform its function. The courts hesitate before interfering with the decision of the Executive. But if the decision is unlawful they have no alternative. They would be failing in their duty if they did not make use of the powers that Parliament has said they should have; namely, the remedies given to them by the Act of 1981.
Speaking for myself, I hope that the courts will continue to dismiss applications for judicial review where the action concerned is lawful, but that they will not hesitate to intervene, no matter who is the applicant, if a public body has acted unlawfully. I am grateful to your Lordships for hearing me.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I am only the second non-legal Member of the House to speak in the debate. As such, perhaps I may hope that I speak for the whole House in congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, on the cogency and force of his first intervention in this House as Master of the Rolls. As well as being a Member of this House for 36 years watching life go by, I have served both as an official and a Minister in the executive. But, as I say, I have no legal experience whatever.
Within our sovereign constitutional edifice cohabit the three powers that the French political philosophers of the 18th century saw as such a healthy tripod in this country; namely, the legislative, the judicial and the executive. That is also the separation that the framers of the American constitution sought to produce in written form. Ever since, new or renewing countries have incorporated that separation in their written constitutions, right down to Russia a couple of years ago.
But our constitutional arrangements include many historical idiosyncrasies. Our lower House is democratically elected—more or less; it is many years since the Government had the majority of the voters behind them. Our upper House is, quite unusually, not only part hereditary but gives house room to Bishops of the established Church, leaders of other denominations ennobled for the purpose, the top judges, and nationals of several other countries. So we have the top of the judiciary in this House and the top of the executive in the other House.
Thus, today, the powers are not separated. The executive is not a distinct, free-standing leg of the tripod, as it is for instance in that elective monarchy, the United States. Here, the executive now emerges directly from within the elected Chamber of the legislature where previously it emanated directly from the monarch. That leads to constitutional confusion—the subject of our debate today— because the executive has been

1275
attempting to seize and misuse Parliament's democratic credentials for its own, now often unconstructive, purposes.
That confusion has licensed the repeated and sometimes successful attempts by the present Government to introduce retrospective legislation and Henry VIII clauses and Bills so badly drafted that we spend days examining the Government's hundreds of amendments to their own Bills. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, a few years ago famously used the phrase "elective dictatorship" to alert us to the vulnerability of our position and to the scale of the damage we might suffer.
This very day we have that "dictatorship" on full display with the executive's announcement that it intends, regardless of the lawful procedures of this House, to enact the privatisation and commercialisation of the Civil Service Recruitment and Assessment Services. It seems in fact to be tending towards a kind of unicamerality. And all that it is able to do because we have no written constitution. We still seem to be rather proud of that. But any society which chooses to live without the certainty of law can only rightfully do so as long as no harm results. We are now living without a part of that which the rest of decently governed humanity regard as necessary law: the coherent constitutional law that ought to govern all the other parts. Unlike others, we have no administrative court—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, wisely reminded us—to thwart the executive when it steps outside its role. We have no constitutional court either, to strike down Acts that the executive has succeeded in whipping through the legislature when they conflict with the constitution. The suggestion that we might have such things may strike tenor into untravelled souls. But does anyone who knows France or the United States believe that they are any the worse off for having those elementary precautions against "elective dictatorship"?
We may perhaps already have something to which we could turn to preserve our ancient laws and freedoms. We have the oath the Queen took at her coronation by which she is solemnly bound and from which no one in the United Kingdom has released her. At her coronation the Queen swore to govern us,
"according to [our] respective laws and customs".
Certainly, among our reputed "customs", if not our actual laws, is precisely that invaluable and widely admired tripartite division of the powers.
Since the Queen's Ministers exist to execute the power that was once her predecessors'—power wrested from those predecessors by the people in the 17th century—and since Ministers and the Government constitute her Government, it must follow that they are bound by her oath. I was particularly glad last week to see Sir Frederick Lawton—a much respected and now retired Lord Justice of Appeal—quoting the Queen's coronation oath, though another part of it, to the same effect. He wrote in a letter to The Times that the judges, in their dispute with the Home Secretary,
"regard themselves as the Queen's delegates to perform the part of her coronation oath whereby she undertook 'to cause law and justice in mercy to he executed in all [her] judgements'".
1276
Those are the words in the oath which bind the judiciary. The words in the oath which bind the executive are those with which she promised to govern us,
"according to our laws and customs".
And her Ministers must regard themselves as her delegates to perform that part of her coronation oath.
The question arises: if that oath is, as it surely must be, binding on the executive, who, in the absence of constitutional and administrative courts, is to judge whether and how well it is being kept? The Government today intensely dislike judicial review because, some Ministers claim, it enables the judiciary to restrict the sovereign rights of Parliament. In fact it does not do that, as has become clear in this debate. On the contrary, it is a means whereby the judiciary examines whether the executive—the Ministers themselves—have properly respected the will and the Acts of the legislature and whether or not they are breaking, by their executive acts, the laws which Parliament has, usually at the behest of that same executive and often under threat, made.
The judiciary is part and parcel of our customary system of internal sovereignty—"the Queen in Parliament". It is one of the three separate but symbiotic powers, and it is a capricious and self-serving contention that it should not have the power to preserve the authority of the legislature over the executive.
On executive matters, the Queen is, of course, advised by her Prime Minister who is bound by her oath. On judiciary matters, she is advised by her Lord Chancellor who is also so bound. The press has been telling us—it was alluded to earlier—that not all Ministers were happy with the Lord Chancellor's recent appointments to the judiciary. The possibility therefore arises of the executive Prime Minister and the judicial Chancellor disagreeing about some larger matter. If that were to happen, ought the Queen simply to take her own counsel? I think not, but as this Government increasingly, and quite unprecedentedly, insult our laws and customs, the question deserves examination. Given the division of the powers that our system in theory used to embody, how has the "elective dictatorship" come about and what redress do we have?
It has come about because of the conflation within the House of Commons—a subset of the legislature—of the legislative power with the executive power which now emanates directly from it. The executive now regularly seeks full control of that part of the legislature and often achieves it. But that democratically elected part of the legislature is not only not the Queen's; it is not the executive's either. It is the electorate's, and it alone democratically represents those whose laws and customs the Queen's coronation oath binds her to protect.
The House of Commons' democratic glory today is horribly tarnished. Members of the judiciary have, at the executive's request, made that only too clear. We do not—thank God—have sleaze, as the current mix of corruption and mendacity has come to be called, in the judiciary. But we do have it in the executive, as Scott showed, and in the legislature, as Nolan showed. The electorate does not care for the sleaze which members of the judiciary have uncovered and displayed.

1277
If the Government were to try to prevent or limit judicial review of ministerial executive action or to wriggle away from Scott or Nolan, that would quite specifically be an insult to the electorate and to the House of Commons it elects. The legislature clearly has the right to insist that executive behaviour is properly examined and by now judicial review is customary, even if all its limits are not yet quite hard-edged.
It is not now unimaginable that some members of this Government—of the executive and of its friends—should wish to squash this still rather new custom. They might even obtain a majority in the House of Commons. What would the Lord Chancellor then do? I speak entirely hypothetically, and this is not a direct question to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. I am asking what any Lord Chancellor would do. One hopes that he would stand up for the Queen's oath.
But then, with her two principal customary advisers advising differently, what should the Queen herself do? It is worth thinking around all the possibilities. Facing such a dictatorial text, should the Queen obediently declare la Reine le veult? Her Prime Minister might advise her to do so, despite her oath; her Lord Chancellor might tell her that the oath is binding above all else, and advise her not to. She would have no customarily valid individual from whom to obtain formal advice. Previous monarchs since 1688 have not, I believe, faced that specific situation.
One can think of a novel, if quaint, procedure that might answer that not quite unimaginable situation. The Queen might, quite privately—perhaps at Sandringham—invite the Speaker of the House of Commons to join her for tea, and while informally showing her the auriculas in the greenhouse invite her opinion, saying, "This piece of legislation that the Government have whipped through, is it in accordance with our longstanding customs whereby the powers are properly divided and the executive does not take more power than law and custom allow? My Lord Chancellor has already advised me that it is not. What is your view, as the personification of the democratically elected House of Commons?"
And if the Speaker were to venture the purely personal opinion, using the words of the Bill of Rights of 1689, "No, I think it seeks to subvert and extirpate … the laws and liberties of this kingdom", the Queen might then signify that she was not minded to vouloir any such thing—La Reine ne le vault pas.
To her Prime Minister the Queen might even quote Winston Churchill, who saw the British constitution as "liberty broadening down from precedent to precedent", and Burke, who recognised the right of a people to throw out a ruler—in this case the elected dictatorship—who like James II subverted its liberties.
But of course the Speaker could not do or say any of this, because she can do nothing except as the House of Commons bids her. And that executive-controlled House would not bid her to undermine its own decision.
And so we are forced back on the question: can we really go much longer without beginning to think of a written constitution? Of course the forthcoming change
1278
of government will no doubt make that seem less urgent, but we may live to regret it if we let the subject drop permanently out of sight.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, 57 years ago I was in practice at the Bar when my practice was rather rudely interrupted by the actions of the late unlamented Corporal Schicklgruber. Therefore, for the purposes of this debate, I think I come, together with the last speaker, on the amateur side as opposed to the very distinguished professional representation of the law which we have had the privilege of hearing. I hope I may be allowed very respectfully to thank the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, very much indeed both for the debate and for the admirable speech with which he opened it. In his speech he raised a great many of the difficult issues of today without, as I understood it, offering any dogmatic assertions in respect of them. It has been extremely helpful to have his opening speech.
I would say, too, that the debate is a very good indication of the immensely useful role which your Lordships' House can fulfil. A House constituted as your Lordships' House is, with its immense experience and knowledge, with high legal officers like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and with people of every kind of experience, can discuss these matters in a way which no other organisation in this country is capable of doing. The debate so far shows that this is one of the many justifications for the House and makes one express very sincere regret at those—there are some outside—who in different political circumstances would like very much to alter it. Your Lordships' House is justifying itself by holding a debate of this kind.
For my own part, I shall for the reason I have given not venture to detain your Lordships for any substantial length of time; but I should like to say that I was intensely interested in what was laid down as being the duty of the judges. As I understand it, the first and main duty of the judge is to interpret the law as it stands, and where it is difficult to understand, where it is complicated, to give the advantage of his ability and experience to working out the application of that particular branch of the law to the case which is before him.
I am not saying for a moment that it is not right separately from the judicial duties for members of the judiciary, particularly senior members of the judiciary, to offer their advice to Parliament as to possible changes in the law. But in the handling of actual cases I would stress very strongly that the judicial duty is simply assessing what the law means in the context of the case that is before it. Of course that is sometimes a matter of very great difficulty and it is sometimes a matter on which opinions may vary. But it is an important aspect of the matter.
Therefore, I suggest that there are two areas for discussion. The first is what the judiciary should do in court. There, I am afraid, there is no doubt that it is the duty of judges, whatever their personal views on the legislation they are construing, to give the best possible

1279
interpretation of what Parliament meant when the particular Act or even the particular section of the Act was under discussion.
I should like to take up a point made by my noble friend Lord Renton in the course of what was, I hope he will allow me to say, a delightful and very adequate speech. As I understood it, my noble friend was against the provision which exists in certain statutes that where a conviction is recorded for certain offences, there is a minimum penalty which cannot be cut back by the court which is handling the case. Personally, I think it is a good safeguard to have a certain number of minimum penalties so that if one gets an aberration by a judge—as occasionally one does—it does not mean that someone guilty of a very serious offence is too lightly treated and indeed does not receive a proper penalty. Therefore, with respect, I differ from my noble friend Lord Renton and I feel that the minimum penalty which exists for only a certain number of offences is a salutary part of our judicial system.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend should remember that I said that, under the Home Secretary's proposals, if there were exceptional circumstances judges would not be required to apply the minimum penalty. I agree with that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, that is a matter of some detail and some discussion. What are exceptional circumstances is a matter where I foresee that legal argument of great length and prolixity could undoubtedly be operated. As I understood my noble friend—I do not think I misrepresented him—he was intending to be critical of the minimum penalty provisions of certain statutes. I understand his view. I am rather in favour of them. Indeed, it might be sensible in certain cases to extend their scope and to apply the minimum penalty rule to a number of other offences which are frequently committed.
Our discussion today has been enormously valuable, and as soon as I sit down, will continue to be valuable. I should like once again to thank the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, for introducing the debate and to say that your Lordships' House has shown the great value of its widespread membership and of its capacity to deal with every kind of technical problem that arises. I hope therefore that this debate will succeed in influencing opinion in the right direction and will help us to support a judicial system which is undoubtedly the best in the world.
5 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am always glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, because I always find that he has said, much better than I could, everything that I wanted to say. I agree with him particularly in what he said about the role of your Lordships' House in the Constitution. I disagree with him on only one matter where I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton; namely, on minimum sentences. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, left out of
1280
account entirely that in the serious cases to which he referred the Attorney-General can refer unduly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal.
Like the noble Lord and all other noble Lords who preceded me, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, on having introduced this important debate. It is the third important constitutional debate that we have had within a comparatively short period of time. The first was in relation to the amendment of the Defamation Bill seeking to amend the Bill of Rights. The second important debate, just before the Recess, was on sentencing and was initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, to whom the expressions of sympathy today have been so amply due. The third debate is this one. In the three debates perhaps more questions have been asked than answers provided. The fact that this is the third debate must make one regret that the constant plea in Queen's Speech after Queen's Speech for a Royal Commission on the Constitution fell on deaf ears.
Being so much older, the other thing I wish to say about the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, is that he made a statesmanlike speech. He will forgive me for saying that it differed in tone from the lecture he delivered on this subject and which was printed in Public Law. Today he was far less critical of the way in which judicial review has developed and far more muted in his criticism of the judges who are highly qualified to speak and who have given public lectures on the subject. I refer in particular to public lectures questioning the frontiers of judicial review, which I believe should be questioned in two directions; namely, are we doing too much or are we doing too little and is there something more that we can do? In initiating this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, made a speech which was statesmanlike and illuminating.
There has been much talk today about the division of powers. Even in the United States there is no complete division. In this country we have practically no sign of it, or very little, and certainly no rigid division of powers. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, accused my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack of leading a double life. I fear that it is far worse than that. He is presiding today as Speaker in your Lordships' House. He is replying to this debate, I believe, as head of the judiciary. He is head of an important Government department and he is also a member of the Cabinet bound by the collective responsibility of Ministers, as one saw in his reply to the debate just before Whitsun.
So we have no rigid division of powers. We have something which is much more important and vital to the liberty of the individual citizen—that is, the balance of powers, which is a system of checks and balances, as Walter Bagehot put it. What is essential for the liberty of the individual citizen is that no one organ of the Constitution shall exercise to a substantial extent the functions vouchsafed primarily to another organ of the Constitution.
That leads me to ask why judicial review has been such an emerging part of the law in recent years. I believe that there are two reasons. The first is the extensive and increasing power of the Executive and its

1281
all-pervasiveness. The second is that judicial review, in those circumstances, has been found to be useful by the individual citizen who has applied for the review and for some who have been granted it. I said that liberty is threatened and that judicial review is required in so far as the Executive power has increased in pervasiveness and in potency.
As regards Parliament, I need only read something written by an independent political journalist in The House magazine quite recently. He referred to the "alarming loss of influence" of the House of Commons. I agree very much with the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, put his point. It is because of that alarming loss of influence by the House of Commons that judicial review has been increasingly called on.
With the House of Commons suffering an alarming loss of influence, the role of your Lordships' House—and I agree so much with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—becomes more important. But what does one find? Although lip service is paid to your Lordships as a revising Chamber, in fact it is not recognised that a revising Chamber means nothing if it is not an amending Chamber. It is not sufficient for a revising chamber merely to exist to rubberstamp the after-thoughts of Parliamentary Counsel. What has been dismaying has been the constant reluctance of government business managers to contemplate your Lordships making effective amendments or, if they do, to give your Lordships the opportunity to ask the other place to reconsider the matter. The most important recent example related to the amendment tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner to the Criminal Appeal Bill.
In view of that, there has inevitably been pressure on the judiciary to make use of the powers that have been vouchsafed to it in the way shown by my noble and learned friends Lord Wilberforce and Lord Woolf. Those powers were vouchsafed by Parliament, endorsed by the Law Commission and were given at least tacit approval by the Government.
So much for judicial review, but I mentioned frontiers. We must remember that in this country, unlike on the Continent, we have no Conseil d'État, as was described by my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce. We do not have the powers of judicial review such as exist in the United States of America. Years ago the noble Lord, Lord Renton, collaborated with others in producing a pamphlet called Rule of Law when we were faced with the problem which has faced your Lordships today; namely, administrative potency proceeding seemingly unchecked. Having taken counsel with two senior and experienced former civil servants, we suggested that there should be an administrative division of the High Court with important, newly retired civil servants sitting with the judge as the elder brethren of Trinity House sit with the Admiralty Judge.
I am afraid that much bilge has flowed under the bridges since then, but I think that it might be worth reconsidering that matter in the context of the frontiers of judicial review. Where there is a question of extending the frontiers—I think that it rests mainly in
1282
two directions at the moment, with both of which I must confess that I am in sympathy. The first is the importing of the continental concept of proportionality of administrative remedy, and the other is the concept of reasonable expectation. When the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, gave his lecture he was, I think, chary of both of those developments. If I understood him correctly—the noble Lord will correct me when he replies if I have got him wrong—that was mainly because it was taking judges too much into the realm of administration for which they were not really qualified. However, if we are to advance in those two directions, might it not be useful to revive the idea of having administrative assessors sitting with the judge to provide the necessary expertise, such as was vouchsafed to us who sat in Admiralty by the older brothers of Trinity House?
I come to my final point which relates to the extra-judicial activities of judges. I found little to quarrel with in what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, and I entirely agree with what was said on the matter by my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf. There is no need for me to repeat what they have said. However, we must be guarded in two directions. I refer first to the danger of judicial populism. Given that popular opinion veers from side to side, judicial populism would lead to judicial decisions veering with similar uncertainty. That would bring about unpredictability in the law.
My second point on this has already been mentioned. Increasingly, when there is a difficult and controversial public issue, such as Hillsborough or the Strangeways riots, a judge is called on to assist by conducting an inquiry. That is because of the first quality that is required of a judge. When the eminent American judge and jurist Felix Frankfurter was asked about the three most important judicial qualities, he said, "First, detachment; secondly, detachment, and thirdly, detachment". Although I would certainly put detachment first, there is also room for intuition, particularly by judges of instant jurisdiction, and for logical rigour, particularly on the part of appellate judges. However, I entirely agree that detachment must come first. That is why judges are called on for such inquiries. However, we must remember that every time that a judge is called to conduct such an inquiry, he is embroiled in a controversial issue and his detachment may be compromised. Indeed, the reputation for detachment of the judiciary as a whole may be compromised. Although, as my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf said, judges have to consider that role as part of their public duty, what I think is a great mistake is if they afterwards campaign for their report, particularly if it has some party political significance, as so many do.
I entirely agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf about the value of judges giving the sort of lectures that were given in the Hamlyn Lectures and the Holdsworth Lectures. Judges can be creative in such work. Shortly after the war my noble and learned friend Lord Denning wrote a seminal article in a Law Quarterly Review on onuses and presumptions. It has been formative in the law. That sort of activity is

1283
valuable and I think that it would be a mistake to consider that that is not a proper activity for a serving judge.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I, also, pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg on the way he introduced this debate and the topic itself. I contribute to the debate with some trepidation, in that I am sandwiched between two eminent noble and learned Lords. In a debate which calls attention to the relationship between the judiciary, legislature and the Executive it is useful to have noble Lords who are neither members of the judiciary nor members of the Executive contributing as lay members of the legislature as it were. One of the great benefits of this debate is that it is almost completely devoid of political partisanship. One is talking of major constitutional matters which cut right across party and belong to no party at all.
It would be easy for Members of your Lordships' House contributing to this debate to criticise either members of the judiciary for exceeding their brief or members of the Executive as a whole for usurping their powers. It is not my intention to do that this afternoon but to engage in a degree of self-criticism. I believe that that can be applied not only to me individually but to all noble Lords collectively as members of the legislature. One of the difficulties we have presented to the judiciary and the Executive is our failure to ensure that the laws that we write and the Acts of Parliament that we determine are clear, concise and easily understood. I believe that that is a major failing. If we do not recognise that and take steps to improve the situation we will create more and more problems for the judiciary and the executive.
One recent event in the justice system is the judgment in Pepper v. Hart. I am not a legal expert; my understanding of that case is that when interpreting an Act of Parliament the judiciary can have regard to the parliamentary record. To assist them in determining what is meant by a particular Act of Parliament they can look at the record and see what the Executive said it should mean. I believe that that is a very dangerous situation. If we allow it to become the norm that an Act of Parliament does not mean what it says and cannot be commonly understood to mean what it says in the words set out on paper but is determined by what the Executive says it shall mean, we are on very dangerous ground. The judiciary will be placed in a position where the Executive tells it what an Act of Parliament means. I hope that before too long there will be a coming together of the legislature, judiciary and Executive to recognise that that is a wholly unfortunate development in our systems and procedures which needs to be tackled.
I intended to speak as a layman on the subject of judicial review, largely on the basis of pronouncements by the Executive that it was the judiciary interfering with the Executive's powers and privileges. I have learnt in this debate, not only from my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the new Master of the Rolls, that that is not the
1284
way judicial review works and that it is a process by which the law is upheld. I hope that the judiciary continues to ensure that that is the way it goes forward.
I turn to judicial participation in public controversy. In Parliament there is a coming together of the legislature, Executive and the judiciary. I believe it is important that each speaks not only forthrightly but is listened to by the others. It is to be hoped that the judiciary as exemplified by the Law Lords, who have their rightful place in Parliament, will make its contribution clear and unambiguous on the basis of its expertise and knowledge so that other members of the legislature and the Executive, who are also members of the legislature, can hear its views. They may not necessarily agree with them all the time but at least they will have the benefit of the wisdom of those views. I hope that not only retired but also sitting members of the judiciary will contribute and that in any future changes to the constitutional arrangements there is no separation and division of these three essential elements of our lives. It has been suggested that there should be a separation of powers. One of the glories of our unwritten constitution is that all of those powers come together. There is no occasion on which one of those powers is in practice allowed to dominate the other; and there is no occasion on which one of those powers can operate separately and independently and have no regard to the other powers. It is useful to have a mechanism within our system whereby everybody can come together to talk and to listen and over time arrive at an arrangement which benefits everyone in society.
In conclusion, I take issue with one phrase which I believe I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, utter. He referred to the judiciary acting in the public interest in interpreting, or reinterpreting, the common law. One of the most difficult issues is who is to determine the public interest. I believe that the judiciary needs to be wary that it is not seen to be interpreting the public interest but rather as interpreting the law as determined by the legislature in the hope that the Executive is kept in check, if that is necessary.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, nearly 10 years ago, at the fourth international appellate judges conference held in Kuala Lumpur, I met the most senior Judge of the USSR. He was Chief Justice Terebilov. I have no doubt that he lived up to his name. Some five years later, shortly after the collapse of communism, I attended a seminar in Moscow arranged by the Council of Europe. Chief Justice Terebilov was no longer in evidence. It so happened that on the very first day of our meeting, the President approved a new law on the status of judges, recognising that the judiciary was a separate power and guaranteeing the judge's independence.
I learnt during the seminar that many judges were, during the Terebilov days, known as "telephone judges". Either before a trial took place, or, exceptionally, part way through the trial, they were rung up by the prosecuting authorities and told what their decision should be. A few years later I raised that with the chief prosecutor from Moscow who confirmed with approval the existence of that practice, saying that after all the

1285
work they had spent on building up the prosecution case, whatever that might mean, they were not going to run the risk of a judge making a mess of it.
Those were no doubt extreme cases of interfering with the independence of the judiciary, totally at variance with our concept of the rule of law. Indeed, in the Government's Green Papers of 1989 entitled The Work and Organisation of the Legal Profession, which foreshadowed the radical provisions of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, it was stated:
"a strong and independent judiciary is one of the central supports upon which our liberties are based and upon which the Rule of Law depends".
In the White Paper issued by the Home Office in 1990—a strong contrast to that issued in 1996—and entitled Crime, Justice, and Protecting the Public it is stated:
"No Government should try to influence the decisions of the courts in individual cases. The independence of the judiciary is rightly regarded as a cornerstone of our liberties".
Thus it seems that everyone supports judicial independence. It is after all the judge, and the judge alone, who stands between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual under the law. But does everyone support judicial independence? That very question was answered in a lecture given by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham in 1989, in these terms:
"Certainly not the public or the back-benchers in the House of Commons, who constantly revile, frequently from inconsistent standpoints, individual judges on particular decisions, or what they imagine to be judicial qualities, and daily demand the individual judges be directed or rebuked (presumably by the Executive Government) to move in this direction or that or even that they should be removed from office. Certainly not the Opposition, whichever party happens to be on the Speaker's left. Certainly not Party Conferences of any hue. And least of all, I reassure you, individual Members of the Cabinet whose Departmental interests from time to time basically conflict, not only with the views of the judiciary, where they are entitled to differ, but in provision of the means necessary to enable the courts to discharge their functions".
In the opening words of the leading article in The Times on Saturday 25th May, commenting upon relations between the judiciary and executive, it was stated, and in my view rightly stated:
"In any democracy there will always be a measure of tension between the Judiciary and the Executive".
However, I submit that currently, and indeed for the past few years, that measure of tension has proved excessive. I believe that that is due largely to the fact that the Government fail properly to understand, and therefore properly to protect, judicial independence—a vital ingredient in our system of justice.
There are many examples I could provide to support that thesis, but the time limitation on our speeches permits me to refer to only a very few. It goes back to the 1989 Green Papers produced by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor at the behest of a sub-committee of the Cabinet's Economic Committee, chaired by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Nigel Lawson. He was warned by the Lord Chancellor that his proposals would be, "bitterly opposed by the judges" (page 619 et seq. of the noble Lord's biography entitled View from Number Eleven).
1286
Indeed, the Green Papers were described by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in the debate on 7th April 1989 as another attempt by the Civil Service to establish its control of what had hitherto been an independent and separate part of our national life. With the deepest respect, my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg is totally wrong in thinking the Green Papers were limited to the question of rights of audience. That was far from the case.
One of their central proposals, which the Government were later obliged somewhat to modify, was the so-called Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee—a lay-dominated committee staffed by civil servants of the Lord Chancellor's Department of which all the members were or are appointed at the sole discretion of the Lord Chancellor. "An instrument", said my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver of Aylmerton:
"by which the Executive can in very large measure control a legal profession which was previously self-regulated and by which it can, by the creation of new classes of practitioners in the courts, secure an even greater control than it enjoys at the moment over the composition and, of course ultimately the conduct of the judiciary at all levels".
In the same debate, my noble and learned friend Lord Lane, the then Lord Chief Justice, referring to the totality of the proposals in the Green Papers, warned in trenchant terms that the growth of the powers of the executive and therefore of the Government over the administration of justice had steadily increased in recent years. He said:
"The signs are that it will extend still further. and one asks whether we are now seeing tools being fashioned which by some future, perhaps less scrupulous, government, may be used to weaken the independent administration of justice".—[0fficial Report, 7/4/89; col. 133.]
Some may view those observations as highly prophetic.
Some two years ago I attended, at the invitation of the British Council, a series of meetings and discussions with the Mauritian judiciary. One of the problems which confronted it was the rather too early retiring age which denuded the Bench of experienced judges. To mitigate that, the Government had suggested that the Prime Minister should have the statutory power to retain in office up to a given number of years, judges after they had reached retiring age. That suggestion was quickly rejected by the judiciary, appreciating the danger to judicial independence of judges being placed on short-term contracts. Indeed, unbeknown to them, some 60 years earlier, a Royal Commission (the Peel Commission) for the same reasons firmly rejected a similar suggestion when judicial retirement was being first considered.
The then permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department (Sir George Shuster, later Lord Shuster) spoke firmly against the proposal. Yet when the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill was introduced into this House in 1992, it was specifically proposed in one of the clauses that the Lord Chancellor, without the obligation to consult anyone, should have that very power. How did that come about? It was only at a very late stage in the Bill that the Government bowed to the criticism and withdrew the proposed section, not without my noble and learned friend

1287
Lord Simon of Glaisdale expressing his astonishment that this unconstitutional provision ever appeared in the Bill.
The Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill 1994, when first introduced into this House—it later had to be substantially amended—provided for a structure of control covering not only the administration of magistrates' courts but the selection and employment of magistrates and their clerks which in the view of many, including the former Lord Chief Justice the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, would have provided a means in the hands of the Lord Chancellor or his department of directly influencing the magistrates or their clerks in the discharge of their judicial duties. Indeed, that necessitated for the first time, to my knowledge, the need to insert in the Bill a specific clause purporting to safeguard their independence.
While the Bill was being presented to Parliament the Observer disclosed letters, copies of which were later deposited in your Lordships' Library, from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to Mr. Justice Wood, the then President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. In substance they stated that, if that judge did not apply certain statutory rules to the tribunal in the manner in which the Lord Chancellor thought appropriate, he should consider his position. That led to Questions in the House and subsequently to a debate at the instigation of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, on 27th April 1994.
In a fully considered reply quoted in the debate, Mr. Justice Wood concluded his letter to the Lord Chancellor in the following terms:
"You have demanded that I exercise my judicial function in a way which you regard as best suited to your executive purposes, but I have to say that in all the circumstances that present themselves to me, and in the light of the existing law, I cannot regard compliance with your demand as conducive to justice … You express disappointment. I express profound regret that it has ever been the uncomfortable duty of a judge in this country, in compliance with his Judicial Oath, to write to a Lord Chancellor refusing a demand such as the one you made of me".
No reply came. There was merely a civil servant's acknowledgment on 5th May stating:
"The Lord Chancellor is … considering the issues you raise and hopes to reply shortly".
In the course of that debate, which ended shortly before 1 a.m., my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver was moved to say:
"Recent pronouncements in this House have seemed to indicate that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his department interpret the principle of judicial independence in a very much more restricted sense and as meaning simply this: that judicial independence is infringed only if an attempt is made to dictate or influence the decision in a particular individual case".
He observed:
"I hope very much that I am wrong about that because one has only to think about it to see where the logical train then leads. On that analysis, a direction in the 1930s by the German Ministry of Justice that judges were not to decide disputes in favour of members of the Jewish faith or against party members"—[Official Report; 27/4/94, col. 779.]
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord give way? I happened to participate in the debate
1288
to which he has referred and was able to present to the House correspondence which showed an aspect of the matter which was entirely different from that quoted by the noble and learned Lord. If I remember correctly, and I am sure that I do, I also pointed out to the House, which was subsequently confirmed, that the request made of Mr. Justice Wood was in accordance with the regulation passed by this House and was therefore a parliamentary matter and not a legal matter.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have the correspondence here. With great respect, it does not bear out what the noble Lord says. I am sure other noble Lords who were present will remember that a detailed explanation was provided by the learned judge as to why he was adopting the course that he did. He explained that it was done by all his predecessors, including other distinguished judges such as the noble and learned Lords, Lord Browne-Wilkinson and Lord Slynn of Hadley. He set out in full the reason why he adopted that particular process. I shall read out the letter to which I referred. I am sorry to weary the House but, in view of the intervention, I have no alternative.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, while the noble and learned Lord looks through his papers perhaps he will kindly resume his seat for one moment. It is not for me in any way to defend the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who is more than capable of doing so himself. However, I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, as one of our outstanding lawyers, would always wish to present fairly both sides of the case. He has presented only what was said by some of the participants in that debate and not by others.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have found the letter and I shall read it out because it is short. It is the letter to which the reply that I mentioned was made. It states:
"I was, frankly, disappointed by your reply to my letter of 5 February following our meeting on the first.
"I did not seek further discussions of Rule 3 but had sought to make it clear to you that I was not prepared to accept preliminary hearings being held where Rule 3 provided a cheap and expeditious procedure for final disposal of a purported appeal.
"I ask you again for your immediate assurance that Rule 3 is henceforth to be applied in full and that preliminary hearings are not being used where no jurisdiction is shown in a notice of appeal".
The final sentence reads:
"If you do not feel you can give me that assurance, I must ask you to consider your position".
The reply, the final paragraphs of which I quoted, set out in full further submissions.
I shall complete what was said by my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver in the debate. It was:
"On that analysis, a direction in the 1930s by the German Ministry of Justice that judges were not to decide disputes in favour of members of the Jewish faith or against party members would have been no infringement of their judicial independence-and that, of course, is palpably absurd".—[Official Report, 27/4/94; col. 779.]
My penultimate example is the exhortation delivered to the public by the chairman of the party at the latest party conference suggesting that they should write to judges where they were dissatisfied with sentences,

1289
thereby clearly seeking to influence or pressurise the judges to adopt the tougher line which was then to be the view of the Government.
My final example relates to the Home Secretary's proposals in relation to minimum sentences and mandatory life sentences, and in particular to the observations made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in the debate on Thursday 23rd May which, with great regret, I was unable to attend by reason of being abroad. The essential complaint by the judiciary was that in cases to which these proposals related they, the judges, would be prevented from doing justice. Indeed, they would on occasions be required to do injustice. To this, to my astonishment, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replied:
"The structure that he [the Home Secretary] proposes in no way interferes with the independence of the judiciary. It of course limits the discretion of the judiciary in relation to particular cases; but it does not in any way interfere with the independence of the judiciary to reach the appropriate sentence within the structure of law laid down by Parliament".—[0fficial Report, 23/5/96; col. 1074.]
I respectfully submit that there is here a serious confusion of thought. Of course, Parliament, by virtue of being supreme—and that has never been in issue—has the power, subject nowadays to European Community law, to interfere as much as it likes with the independence of the judiciary and, indeed, with the rule of law. It happened thus in the USSR. Hence the "telephone judges" to whom I referred earlier.
I conclude by going back 20 years to the first international conference of appellate judges held in Manila and I end with a quotation from the then Lord President—that is the Chief Justice, Tun Mohamed Suffian, an old friend of mine and a Fellow Bencher of the Middle Temple—who warned delegates present to be on their guard:
"Because … while all governments publicly endorse the principle, some quietly work to undermine it, and it behoves judges of the world to be on their guard against the erosion of their independence".
Thus, I submit, we have the current tension.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I rise with the same feeling expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, when he spoke; that is, that everything one wants to say has already been said. The only difference is that, in his case, it was not true but, in my case, it is. Nevertheless, I cannot resist the temptation to make one or two remarks about the constitution and about the subject of judicial review.
The key factor about our constitution is that it is a common law constitution. The most important relationships are based on the common law. The definition of a statute is a common law definition. The basic principles of judicial review are laid down not by statute but by the common law. Indeed, the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament, to which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, referred with such force, is actually a doctrine of the courts, not an assertion of the legislature. It is, indeed, a relatively recent doctrine of the courts. If one goes back to the days of Coke and Hale and even, to some extent, Blackstone, one can see
1290
that statutes were tempered by the "sweet reason of the common law" although one cannot be certain whether that was an attempt to disapply statutes or simply to interpret them in a certain way.
It was not until, I suppose, the revolution of Bentham, culminating in the writings of Dicey, that the idea of the sovereignty of the legislature became finally dominant in our constitution. Since, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said, the common law evolves, who knows what will be the ultimate destination of the common law in defining our constitutional arrangements?
If I am right about the role which the common law plays in our constitution, it must follow that the judges have a crucial part to play in its development. Although the sovereignty of Parliament was a very important part of the legacy of the great constitutionalist, Dicey, it is often forgotten that he considered an equally important part of our constitution to be the rule of law.
The rule of law depends upon the doctrine of the separation of powers. The reason that our constitution has worked so superbly well is because judges on the one hand, and legislators on the other, have shown great self-restraint towards each other. The courts will never interfere in the internal proceedings of the other place or this House. Equally, it is a great tradition of this Parliament that it will not interfere in the proceedings of the courts. Judges have always been at liberty to look at statutes and interpret them according to the common law in the way they think right. Legislators have never questioned that. It will be a sad day if that tradition is broken. The day on which the tradition of the separation of powers in our constitution is broken will be a real threat to individual freedom in our society.
I should also like to say something about the development of judicial review. The key to the development of judicial review—I was much struck by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, in this respect—lies outside the relationship of the courts and the legislature. It lies within the legislature itself and in particular, another place. The development of judicial review over the past 30 years results from changes in the relationship between the legislature and the executive. I am afraid that it is no longer the legislature which controls the executive but the executive which controls the legislature.
The modern Member of another place is really the representative of an electoral mandate which is received every five years in order to put in place on the statute book certain policies advanced at general elections. That is a long way away from the legislature of the 19th century. Indeed, I believe that the elected Member of another place is put in an impossible constitutional dilemma. On the one hand, he has to keep his party and government in power in order to realise the electoral mandate; on the other hand, he has to keep that same government under control. It is impossible for a single person to fulfil those two mutually contradictory demands at the same time.
With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, if there was something I found lacking in his speech—I make no criticism of what he said but rather perhaps of what he did not say—it was some indication as to how we could advance on that important front.I

1291
believe that if the legislature could in some way redress that balance, the huge responsibility that has now fallen upon the shoulders of judges in dealing with any conflict between the citizen and the state would be at least to some extent lifted. I believe that they would be glad about that.
In any judicial review case, the courts have to consider the crucial relationship between the state, seeking to enforce Acts of Parliament which are, by definition, in the general interest, and the citizen. But the general interest in any particular case can act very unfairly for an individual. It is a great principle of our country that when the judges look at the impact of a statute on a particular person, they do their best td see that that impact is fair in the circumstances and that that individual understands that if, at the end of the day, he is disadvantaged he at least knows the reasons why he is being disadvantaged and has an opportunity to say something about the situation.
These are great traditions. It is worth doing everything we can to preserve them. I believe that they will be preserved if legislators on the one hand and judges on the other mutually respect each other's spheres of influence.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Thorndon: My Lords, the subject of this debate is defined in its first limb in terms so wide that they are capable of extending to virtually the whole field of the British constitution or at least a catalogue of the shortcomings of its vital organs. It is much easier to grapple with the narrower second limb, about which I wish to make only one point.
Judges who comment extra-judicially on current public controversies are inviting trouble unless, perhaps, what they say is strictly incidental to a professional paper—a kind of exercise increasingly expected of the judiciary today. Except when making that kind of contribution, I have striven, while holding judicial office, to avoid public statements otherwise than in judgments. But a price must be paid for such restraint. There can be allegations that the judge lives in an ivory tower or avoids with fastidious horror what the media see as legitimate questions for holders of public office. On the whole, I must admit to having preferred to pay that price, but I sympathise with judges impelled to a more robust solution. For the objective approach that can come from judicial office-holding free of electoral pressures is a useful element in a balanced democratic process.
On the wide first limb of the subject I would offer two thoughts. First, there is nothing new in judicial review, except the name and the procedural changes that have accompanied its use in roughly the past 40 years. The essential principle that executive and administrative authorities, high or low, must act within the law is unchanged and centuries old, as is its companion principle that it is for the courts to determine the law in cases of doubt.
In modern times most of the relevant law is enacted by Parliament, although in a few fields the scope of the prerogative is in issue. It is the quantity of legislation
1292
that accounts for the greater impact of judicial review, rather than any change in the true constitutional role of the judges. Because the United Kingdom system is one of the separation of powers, it is a necessary and probably inseparable function of the courts to interpret Acts of Parliament. Inevitably they will not always do so correctly, at least in the eyes of the losing side. And in the comparatively rare cases, for they are comparatively rare, when a government are the losing side, there may be strong complaints as well as disappointment. But the alternative of no judicial review is in the end surely unthinkable.
Secondly, the legislative changes which introduced the modern judicial review procedure began in Ontario and were subsequently developed first in New Zealand, then in Australia, and ultimately, in the later 1970s and early 1980s, in this country. Some major and internationally influential administrative law decisions have been given by United Kingdom courts, such as the decision of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House in the 1968 case, Anisminic v. Foreign Compensation Commission reaffirming the duty of the courts to correct errors of law even where a tribunal had jurisdiction to enter into the inquiry in question. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, contributed a decisive speech in that difficult case.
Yet, just as the main steps in procedural reform were not initially British, so I think the general verdict of comparative lawyers would be that the English courts have been, on the whole, more conservative in the field of public law than the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand courts. Any concern felt here about what is often, but somewhat misleadingly, called "judicial activism" can be tempered by that consideration.
Again, concern is sometimes voiced—and, indeed, was voiced this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg—about exploration of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty or of the principles governing media freedom, or media intrusion as some would describe it. It may perhaps help to see those quite profound issues in perspective if it is borne in mind that such concepts are ultimately the legal creation of the courts, whose responsibility it is to articulate their true legal scope. On that point, I fully ally myself, and gratefully so, with the tenor of the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, who immediately preceded me.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, in 1987 the Treasury Solicitor's Department produced a modestly sized but remarkable booklet entitled Judge over your shoulder. It was a guide to civil servants, a warning to take care, as the booklet itself said, because of an increased willingness of the judiciary to intervene in the day-to-day business of government and what it called the courts' "imaginative interpretation of statutes". I do not know how it came to be the case, but a few years later there was a revised edition of the booklet within which the word "imaginative" was deleted and replaced by the word "liberal".

1293
The publication appeared because, during the past 30 or 40 years, the courts had considerably developed the scope and thrust of judicial review of administrative action and of government departments and executive agencies of all kinds. In a judgment given in 1982, the late Lord Diplock said that the strengthening of administrative law was,
"the greatest achievement of the English courts in my judicial lifetime".
From the vantage point of 1996, it is even more clear that judicial review of administrative action has been a growth industry. Previous speakers have given the figures and also indicated that fact. I believe that the basic principles of judicial review, the concept that the decision of any public body should be challengeable in the courts on the grounds that it is tainted with "illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety", to use the words of Lord Diplock again, deserve to be widely accepted and applauded.
If "irrationality" seems to be unduly broad, the same Law Lord made it perfectly clear in the GCHQ case in 1984 that the courts are not entitled to use irrationality as a basis for attacking executive decisions just because they might disagree with those decisions on the merits. He pointed out that irrationality only applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.
I am happy to be counted among the enthusiasts—of which clearly, from this afternoon's debate, there are many in this House—for the growth of judicial review. As other speakers have said, there need to be checks and balances in the constitution. There also needs to be accountability on the part of government and government departments and agencies of all kinds to an independent judiciary, especially because accountability to Parliament is, to say the least, imperfect. I also welcome the growth of judicial review because it shows that the common law that has come down to us through so many centuries is capable of expansion and development and is sensitive to the needs of the times.
However—I say this with great care in view of the fact that there are so many noble and learned Lords present today—both before judicial review became fashionable, and even since, the courts have sometimes tended to overreach themselves. In particular the courts have not always been careful to maintain the distinction between procedures and merits, on which Lord Diplock rightly placed such emphasis.
Sometimes, to go a stage further, the courts have been so astute in finding a ground for diminishing executive power that they may not have paid as full regard as they should to the positive purposes of the legislation they seek to interpret. Even this House in its judicial capacity has sometimes given a strained interpretation to the legislative powers granted by Parliament, especially to local authorities, for example in the famous—or infamous, as some people would describe it—Poplar Council case in the 1920s in relation to employment policies, and also in the GLC fares case in 1981 regarding the fares on London buses and the Underground. In each of those cases the House of Lords
1294
in its judicial capacity overturned—interfered with, if you will—the policy decision of a democratically elected local authority in the name of keeping a balance between the interests of the ratepayers on the one hand and the interests of employees or travelling customers respectively in those two different cases. But this so-called balance—which may also be expressed in terms of a fiduciary duty which a local authority owes to its ratepayers—was of course a gloss which the Law Lords themselves put upon the wording of the Act. It is not a duty which is found in either of those pieces of legislation from this House.
Unlike my noble friend Lord Monkswell, I am not an opponent, or I do not dislike, the case of Pepper v. Hart which may entitle judges to look at the legislative history of an Act of Parliament, because in my view it is much less likely now that judges would misinterpret the basic purposes of a piece of legislation when they are entitled to look at Hansard. On the face of it, it is difficult to quibble with the right of the courts to review an executive decision on the ground of it being illegal, or that an error of law is contained within a decision. After all, the courts are courts of law and the courts are surely the supreme arbiters of what is the law.
But suppose, as has often happened, Parliament has set up a specialised tribunal or hierarchy of tribunals, as it has done most notably in the fields of social security and of employment, typically with a lawyer as chairman and others representative of lay interests as lay members. Those tribunals are in effect—and have been described officially as such—specialised courts with specialised jurisdiction. They build up considerable expertise in detailed branches of the law containing much technical regulation. It is not obvious to me that in those circumstances the ordinary general courts that administer the general law should assert their right to review, on the ground of illegality, a decision of such a tribunal simply because they have an alternative interpretation of those detailed regulations. Judicial review in those circumstances is really not very different from an appeal. It is, I suggest—it may be regarded as such—an appeal from a relatively expert body to a relatively inexpert body; that is, the general courts.
There is some scope for, or risk of, the courts overreaching themselves under the head of irrationality, although I gave what I hope is the authoritative Diplock explanation of what that word means. However, I have direct experience of the willingness of the Divisional Court in 1989 to interfere with the discretion granted by Parliament to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, as he now is—not to refer the takeover of the House of Fraser by the Fayed brothers to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The Secretary of State announced that he had made his decision on my advice under the Fair Trading Act when I was Director General of Fair Trading. But the Secretary of State did not reveal his detailed reasons for the non-referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission because to do so would have involved disclosing the contents of the then unpublished report of inspectors appointed under the Companies Act, and the investigation of possible criminal offences might have been hindered at the time by such disclosure. The

1295
Divisional Court ruled that the Secretary of State's decision must be quashed as irrational because he had given no reasons for the decision. In fact the Secretary of State's decision had been based on confidential advice from myself which ran, as I recall, to some 12,000 words and which I hope included a certain element of rationality.
For me—and, I think, for the law and judicial review—the story had a happy ending because both the Court of Appeal and this House in its judicial capacity took a different view from the Divisional Court. I particularly welcomed the dictum of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Kinkel, who said:
"The judgments of the Divisional Court illustrate the danger of judges wrongly though unconsciously substituting their own views for the views of the decision-maker who alone is charged and authorised by Parliament to exercise a discretion".
The judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Kinkel, was concurred in by a number of noble and learned Lords—I see three of them here today, who include one who has spoken, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and one who is about to speak, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry.
I say, with respect, that the dictum I have just quoted is a most helpful corrective—if there needs to be one—to the sort of imaginative or, if you prefer it, unduly liberal interpretation of statutes referred to in the booklet distributed among civil servants from which I quoted at the beginning of my speech. As long as that view prevails, anyone overly concerned about lack of judicial self-restraint has little to fear.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Lowry: My Lords, the later one goes in to bat, the more obvious it becomes that every conceivable stroke has been played and every useful run has been scored. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I, too, make some reference to judicial review, because in reference to that procedure misunderstandings can so easily arise about the role of the judiciary vis-à-vis the executive. Noble Lords who have mentioned this subject are now too numerous for me to list. While I cannot hope to emulate the felicity of my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce in his review, I feel it might—if your Lordships will bear with me—be useful on a lower plane to recount some matters from my own experience.
The term "judicial review" is of recent official use, although no doubt it came from Professor Smith's great book of the early 1950s entitled Judicial Review of Administrative Action. Many of your Lordships will feel grateful that at last a second edition of that work has been published. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, played a dominant part in bringing it to publication. I wish to take the opportunity of confirming in this House the congratulations and good wishes which I have already ventured to tender to the noble and learned Lord on his new appointment.
"Judicial review" was the title given in 1977 to a new Order 53 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, but the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court over inferior
1296
courts and public authorities in proceedings on the Crown side of the court is an historic part of the common law. That jurisdiction was not, and is not now, appellate. It should be exercised not in order to interfere with decisions on their merit but to ensure that lower courts and public authorities act within their powers and according to law. In Rex v. Nat Bell Liquors Ltd., in 1922, Lord Sumner, delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council said (it is now a slight irony) that the superior court's jurisdiction was one "of supervision, not of review".
To traditional lawyers the new title of Order 53 had therefore a somewhat revolutionary sound and there were others for whom that title was seen to have a revolutionary effect, encouraging judges to review decisions and orders in the sense in which Lord Sumner refused to do so. But in reality, as recent authority confirms, the new order simply reformed procedure but did not alter the substantive law of what could be quashed and on what grounds. I do not step aside to discuss the developments which have continued taking place in this sphere.
But what the new procedure did was to wake people up and alert them to the full range of the supervisory jurisdiction, and in particular the jurisdiction to quash and annul legally objectionable decisions and orders of public authorities, including government Ministers. Indeed, in the past, the courts themselves had occasionally slept on the Crown side. For over 100 years before 1951 it was generally assumed in England (your Lordships will, I hope, forgive the inflexion in my voice) that decisions could be quashed only for want of or excess jurisdiction and not for some other forms of legal error, and as late as 1957 (despite 200 years of history) there was some doubt whether administrative, as distinct from judicial or quasi-judicial, acts could be quashed at all. That is strange, because we have only to go back to 1948 for a classic pronouncement by Lord Greene, the Master of the Rolls, in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation, the case which gave birth to the convenient shorthand "Wednesbury unreasonableness", as a ground for quashing an administrative Act. Lord Greene envisaged the situation where,
"although the local authority have kept within the four corners of the matters which they ought to consider, they have nevertheless come to a conclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it. In such a case, again, I think the court can interfere".
He went on:
"The power of the court to interfere in each case is not as an appellate authority to override a decision of the local authority, but as a judicial authority which is concerned, and concerned only, to see whether the local authority have contravened the law by acting in excess of the powers which Parliament has confided in them".
Note, my Lords, that Lord Greene classifies Wednesbury unreasonableness as a form of legal error which invalidates the decision. It is not the only flaw which can invalidate a ministerial decision, but it is distinguished by the fact that a Minister or other public authority can appear to be acting within his powers and yet turn out to have exceeded them. There is therefore a large subjective element in the court's decision when Wednesbury unreasonableness is relied on and for that

1297
reason the court must be scrupulously careful to ensure that it is not simply substituting its own view for that of the authority. The judges will often be reminded of the appeal in your Lordships' House in 1985 in which Lord Diplock, having used the word "irrationality"—the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has referred to it—said that,
"it applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it"
The supervisory jurisdiction properly exercised is salutary. Its object is protection from power, the power of bureaucracy; and its purpose is not to usurp the decision-making function but to secure fair and lawful treatment. As the title to the proceedings shows, the jurisdiction is exercised by the Queen through her judges against the allegedly offending authority and for the benefit of her subjects.
I suggest that those who report and comment on judicial review decisions should be careful not to depict the quashing of an administrative act as an aggressive difference on policy. I always recoil from the picture of "judges hitting out", or "judges slamming Ministers". And of course judges must be equally careful to ensure that reports and comments of this kind cannot with justification be made.
We should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, for introducing this debate. The number of noble Lords who have signified their wish to speak is an eloquent tribute to his initiative. He cannot know what sweet music it was in my ears to hear him say how unwise it usually is for a judge to make comments on public questions off the Bench. Four-fifths of my judicial experience were spent in another jurisdiction. For 17 of those years I was a Lord Chief Justice. Many things appeared in the press, or were said at random, and I often wondered whether I was wise to hold my peace. But what Lord Irvine said has helped to reassure me that I was probably not wrong.
My noble and learned friend Lord Cooke referred to the risk that one will be accused of residing in an ivory tower. I believe that that risk must be accepted. As I sat here, I wondered on the effects of one's environment on a judge. In the place where I judged for most of my career, there was one cardinal rule: one must be detached and apolitical. That was as important as judging with competence as regards the reputation of the Bench. That was simply a hothouse which made that rule the more obvious and a necessary concomitant of sitting on the Bench. It is a good guideline anywhere, if only because the Book of Proverbs tells us that:
"Even a fool, if he holdeth his peace, is deemed a man of understanding".
About 60 years ago I purported to apply that saying to Pompey, that rather brainless member of the great triumvirate. For one thing, if you launch some even rather carefully considered observation, you never know when you will sit on a case during which the issue you addressed will come before you.
1298
Judges should be independent, but that does not mean that they should be independent to do and say what they please. Some degree of self-denial must be accepted as a necessary burden of office.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, although coming late in your Lordships' debate, I am much relieved to note that nothing I had proposed to say has so far been said by anyone else. I begin by not joining the normal congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. Congratulations are easy. I am more moved, in considering his speech and this debate, by the reflection of what one of my heroes, Talleyrand, said, when the death of a foreign statesman was reported to him: "What, I wonder, did he mean by that?"
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, has expounded the views that we have heard this afternoon in public lectures and articles and it is quite interesting to know why he should wish your Lordships to be apprised of them in this more public manner. With that in mind, the point was referred to obliquely by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, and the name that came to mind was that of Sir Stafford Cripps. That is not the Stafford Cripps whom most noble Lords will remember as the austerity Chancellor of the Attlee Government, but the Stafford Cripps whom I remember from the early 1930s, after the fall of the second Labour Government. He embarked on a campaign urging that a future Labour government should begin by introducing an emergency powers Act which would give the executive the freedom that he believed it needed in order to fulfil what was then the socialist programme of the Labour Party.
No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, when he replies for the official Opposition, will tell me whether I am right when I wonder whether the idea of some kind of conferment of powers on the executive is lurking in one of the think-tanks, fora or wherever it is that Labour party policy is now made.
The second point is that I am sure that there should always be the word "congratulations" in any debate. My congratulations would go to the United Kingdom because of the degree to which, by international comparisons, our judges enjoy independence. A year ago there was a conference of European judges and magistrates on the problems of corruption and international crime connected with corruption. From what was said by representatives of a number of important countries—France, Italy, Spain—it is clear that if they had been discussing the subject of the relation between the executive on the one hand and the judiciary on the other, they would have been concerned about the ability of the executive to prevent or to abort judicial inquiries into evidence of ministerial and parliamentary corruption.
In considering the independence of our judiciary, it is interesting that we cannot point to anything so dramatic and dangerous to the body politic. We have a high degree of judicial independence, even though some noble and learned Lords would occasionally wish it to be even greater.

1299
The other point which struck me about the interesting and in many respects convincing speech of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, is that he left out an important part of his now famous article, in Public Law. In the last pages of the article, he points out that although judicial review, in terms of United Kingdom law, has been fairly restricted and should not worry a law-abiding government, a quite different aspect now exists in relation to our involvement in two bodies of European law and two European courts: the European Court of Justice at Luxembourg and the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg. If we consider their insistence upon that judicial interpretation of Acts of Parliament and subordinate legislation one must conclude—although I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, came to that conclusion—that the self-restraint which he believes is essential for a judiciary which exercises judicial review is hardly the most evident characteristic of either of those courts or their judges. To find self-restraint among the judges of the two European courts is as improbable as to find alcoholic self-restraint among the practitioners of association football.
There is a serious issue which I am surprised no noble and learned Lord has brought to our attention this afternoon. After all, it is the cases which have involved the intervention of European courts that have been the most important in restricting the sovereignty of our Parliament.
When we come to the final point about whether the judges should pronounce in public, I am again surprised that although so many references have been made to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, not much attention has been paid to the fact that he was one of the few senior members of the judiciary who pointed out early on that the whole British judicial and legal system would now be seriously altered in ways which had perhaps not been foreseen when the country acceded to the Treaty of Rome. If I had a complaint about the judiciary, it would not be that judges do not say enough in public about controversial issues; it would be that on an issue of this kind which is fundamental to our constitutional way of being, they have on the whole been very reticent.
That explains why, although I have found the debate interesting, illuminating and instructive, I also found it, as occasionally with matters in your Lordships' House, a little cosy and parochial. When we consider matters which should preoccupy us and which, in the light of history, are likely to seem characteristic of the age in which we live, their echo in your Lordships' House is rather muffled.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, very kindly encouraged me to participate in this debate. I was concerned that I should be absent from a meeting of Sub-Committee E; but I decided I should like to take the noble Lord's encouragement and in the normal course of events my name would have appeared on the list of speakers.
1300
However, unfortunately there was a misunderstanding between me and my office for which I am entirely responsible. I knew that I should not be able to get to the House until late this morning. I therefore asked if an advance telephone call could be made. That telephone call should have been made to the office of the Government Chief Whip. It was made to Black Rod's office. Upon my office expressing my wish to participate in the debate, my office was quite correctly told by Black Rod's office: "Lord Hacking is absolutely entitled to participate in this debate but he does not require our permission". There, I am afraid, matters rested, and that is why I must apologise to the House for intervening at this stage of the debate.
I have personal knowledge of two constitutions, the constitution of the United Kingdom and that of the United States of America, where I remain a member of the Bar of the State of New York. In the United States there is a written constitution and a complete separation of powers. In the United Kingdom, as we know, there is no written constitution and no separation of powers. The former has disadvantages in terms of the political appointments of members of the judiciary, which goes right up to the Supreme Court. There is a very clear tendency for a Republican President during his period of office to appoint members of the Supreme Court who favour the Republican Party, and vice versa when a Democratic President is in power. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, observed, there are definite advantages in our mixture of powers and in judges participating, both inside and outside this House and outside Parliament, in the legislative process. In my very short intervention I shall focus on that point.
I have not had the opportunity of attending or reading the lecture of the noble and learned Lord the new Lord Chief Justice. I therefore have no personal knowledge of what he did or did not say on the issue of privacy. However, I do know that judges over many years have played a vital role in the development of our law. There are a host of examples. To refer to just one, the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, may recall the High Trees case in early 1951. I believe the noble Lord was instructed in English law at about the same time as myself. The noble Lord seems to be searching his memory on that case.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: No, I am not.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I am so glad he remembers it clearly. That established the doctrine of estoppel. The vital role that judges have played in the development of law should be encouraged. I refer therefore to the importance of judicial review. I greatly regret that the European Court is not nearly so effective in matters of judicial review in the application of Article 175 and in its approach to such cases. That is of particular importance when judicial review cases are referred from our courts to the European Court of Justice.
I conclude with some remarks from my side of the profession. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to our side of the profession as being the "better end" of the profession. The noble Lord has so much seniority

1301
that he can get away with a comment like that. However, I certainly join with him in saying how lucky we are with our judiciary. Without a written constitution, the debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, becomes all the more important. While we should be aware of the interaction of the powers of judiciary, legislature and executive, I believe that each of those powers should continue to be active.
6.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have on occasion felt some regret that it has not proved possible to include in the national curriculum a basic citizen's education in law. I formed that opinion when listening to a first-year undergraduate reading an essay on the writ of "alias" corpus. There is confusion between statute and common law. Clearing up that confusion for the laity is quite important.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, for introducing a subject that has shown this House at its best. I agree with a very large part of what he said. However, I do not altogether agree that the tension at present between the judges and the executive is unprecedented. In 1388, all the judges were impeached. In 1641, two-thirds of the judges were impeached. Once, when browsing in the Public Record Office, I came across the accounts for the diets of Judge Jeffreys in the Tower many years after he had been sent there. All were judges who had allowed themselves to get too close to the executive. So judges may take comfort from the fact that it could have been worse.
Another matter on which I do not wholly agree with the noble Lord is the idea of the separation of powers. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, expressed views much closer to my position. It is impossible to distinguish vires from origins. All three branches, judiciary, legislature and executive, are emanations of the King's Great Council. So it is a relationship in which the balance that the noble and learned Lord invoked is a key feature. I see it as having been over many centuries a creative tension. I am reminded of a remark by Machiavelli:
"Those who condemn the tension between the Senate and the people of Rome condemn that which was the very origin of liberty".
That balance is the balance of a see-saw—and the day it stops moving, it is defunct. So if there is a tension from time to time, there are uses as well as dangers in it.
Occasionally, there were some quite acute confusions, which show in the early yearbooks. I believe it was Chief Justice Hengham who, in addressing counsel, once said: "Do not presume to gloss the statute to us. We understand it far better than you do, for we made it". His successor, Chief Justice Bereford was listening to counsel arguing whether something was logically implied in the Act and therefore covered, or not in the Act and therefore excluded. Chief Justice Bereford said, "He that drew the statute intended to put it in, and only left it out through inadvertence. It shall therefore be construed to be in the statute."
Those are not remarks that come from a tradition of separation of powers. Nor, taking the other two powers of legislative and executive, is the example of the
1302
Select Committee of another place in the reign of Elizabeth I which, when considering a Bill on the organisation of the Exchequer, met in the private house of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When teaching in the United States I found that producing that example opened a great many doors which otherwise took some opening. "Separation of powers" is not quite the right term. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, used the example of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. It is a positively Athanasian example of the mingling of the three powers with each other.
In the division of function but not the separation of powers, there is a need for restraint. I think we should get it wrong were we to think that it was only a need for judicial restraint. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, referred to judges having on occasion overreached themselves. No doubt that has happened. Every power overreaches the boundaries of its authority. But the executive also overreaches itself. Of the two dangers, I know which, over the centuries—for one executive is very like another—worries me more. My greatest anxiety is not focused on the judiciary.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, stated that Parliament makes the law. That is an incomplete enumeration. It has been clear at least since the middle of the 15th century and, for all I know, possibly longer that a parliamentary statute is the highest form of law there is; it trumps anything else. But statute is not the only form of law. I believe, subject to correction—I have been unable to confirm it in the time at my disposal—that the first statutory prohibition of murder was the homicide Act 1956 whence legislation was necessary in order to restrict the application of the death penalty. Therefore, subject to correction, murder was simply a crime at common law. The authority of the common law cannot come from an Act of Parliament because it pre-dates the existence of Parliament. The limit of legal memory is 1189, and that is a good century before Parliament was in any significant sense a fact.
Whoever wrote Glanville and Bracton—I realise that question is disputed—they were people who did most of their work before parliaments existed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, once said that the common law was like Topsy: it just "growed". So the basic authority of the common law must derive from prescription.
A great deal of the development of the law has been through common law cases where there is a general principle which is interpreted by the judge in the light of precedents. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, has many times praised the late Lord Reid. I recall more years ago than I care to remember reading a Times Law Report of a judgment by Lord Reid about a case where a council had dug a hole in the pavement—as councils do from day to day—and a blind man had fallen into it and broken his leg. The governing legal principle which was agreed well enough was that the council was bound to take reasonable care to make sure that people did not fall into the hole. The point at issue was whether reasonable care included the need to take care in case there should be a blind man passing. There was a previous judgment of the Appellate Committee of this House that it was not required. Lord Reid, after very

1303
careful argument, decided otherwise. That seems to me typical of the way the common law has developed to meet new situations; to meet in that case a change in society's attitude to disabled people.
Without needing to clutter up this House with endless new statutes and regulations, we should be grateful to the lawyers that they do it that way. There is nothing new about that either. In 1632 my ancestor—my ancestors have been unlucky in being on the receiving end of test cases—the one who developed Covent Garden, was hauled into Star Chamber for creating a nuisance because he had built Covent Garden without putting in any sewers. The case first established that it was to create a nuisance to build an area of housing without putting in sewers. In that situation the common law was reacting to a growing population density. There again I think the law was reacting sensibly to change. Whether or not judgments of that sort are making new law is a matter of immense philosophical argument into which I am certain the House will not wish me to enter.
Judicial review, about which we have argued so much, rests, before the 1981 statute, on common law principles. I agree with the noble and learned Lords, Lord Cooke of Thorndon and Lord Wilberforce, that those principles go back for centuries. I once had the privilege of reading the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, as he became, in the case of Ridge v. Baldwin. His earliest case cited came from the reports of Sir Edward Coke. I traced it back to source and found it was one of a sequence of very similar cases exercising a jurisdiction which seems to me to have great similarity to judicial review as it is presently constituted. But that is something which I have yet to publish and before it is taken seriously it needs peer review of another sort than that readily available in this House. However, that is my opinion for the time being. Therefore there is nothing particularly new about judicial review.
Sir Edward Coke's judgment in Bonham's case, quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in his lecture and to which much reference has been made, is sometimes misunderstood. As I understand it, all he was saying is what was said by Blackstone in a passage quoted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in his article to which reference has also been made, namely, that Acts of Parliament impossible to be performed are of no validity. If one reads the statute on which Sir Edward Coke was judging one will take the point. It is the most abominably drafted statute that it has ever been my misfortune to read.
If Parliament were to follow the example of an old lady making her will in an Agatha Christie novel and passed an Act dividing something into four equal thirds, the judges would not be guilty of any contempt of Parliament were they to fail to divide the thing in question into four equal thirds. That is all Sir Edward Coke was after.
On many occasions judgments are necessary because of the bad drafting of the original statute. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, in the case of
1304
Bate v. The Chief Adjudication Officer—decided in the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House a couple of weeks ago—had this to say:
"It is deplorable that legislation which affects some of the most disadvantaged people in society should be couched in language which is so difficult for even a lawyer trained and practised in this field to understand".
I declare an interest in agreeing with that view. The clause in what became the 1990 Social Security Act, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, was one where I put myself into the doghouse by getting the House counted out dividing against it at 10 minutes to 12 at night. When the Court of Appeal held otherwise I was reminded of that famous story of the judge's children seeing crate after crate of champagne borne into the house and being told by their mother, "Daddy's been upheld in the appeal court". Alas, I was not upheld in the Appellate Committee of this House.
What that illustrates is that the clause was a last minute government amendment tabled very late on the day it was put to the vote. I wonder whether a slightly more leisurely drafting would perhaps have produced a slightly better statute. I agree profoundly with what the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said in his article in the lecture; that is, that one of the reasons why judges needed to do what they did is what he called the "democratic deficit"—the inability of the legislature to provide a sufficient check on the power of the executive.
When the phrase, "the intention of Parliament", is used, I sometimes wonder exactly whose intention we are talking about. I remember one occasion when we were debating the Child Support Act 1995. We were discussing Section 2 of the 1991 Act, which was introduced as a consequence of an amendment in this House. The Minister told me with great authority what had been the intention of Parliament in 1991. He was not then a Member of either House. Three people who spoke to that amendment were in the Chamber. None of us believed that our intention had been what the Minister was describing but we did think that the Minister was describing with complete accuracy the intention of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in accepting what we were saying.
So when we talk about the intention of Parliament, are we actually talking about the intention of Parliament, or are we talking about the intention of the responsible Minister? So long as we have that confusion in our mouths, we are leaving the judges rather more work to do than is fair. We need to take our share of the work; and until we do, we are not entitled to complain.
7 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in the very dark hours before the dawn, sometimes a shaft of light sets itself upon you and gives you infinite uncovenanted pleasure. That happened to me just about half an hour ago in your Lordships' Chamber when the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, invited me to say yes or no to whether the noble Lord was right or wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, was wrong, though he provided me with an interesting historical, nostalgic memory. I had not heard the name of the late Sir Stafford Cripps used as a bogey man since I was a small child in north Wales. My

1305
mother used to hasten me up to bed if I was slow by telling me that if I did not hurry off to bed soon Sir Stafford Cripps would come and take my thruppenny savings away from me. Sir Stafford Cripps never did and so perhaps we can leave him where he rightly belongs—in mythology and grave.
It is worth reminding ourselves of what my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg actually said. He began by saying in effect that the political incorruptibility of the present judiciary is not in question. He affirmed that on a number of occasions in different ways. That was manifest in every speech that was put before your Lordships today. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, rightly said, the ground encompassed in the terms of this Motion is panoramic. There are deep questions about the nature of our constitutional arrangements as well as the nature, scope and quality of judicial office and judicial power. We are a fortunate regime indeed, legally speaking, to be able to have two such towering figures as the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf and Lord Bingham, to occupy their new positions. I say without disrespect to either of them that there were a number of other candidates who were well-qualified in a Court of Appeal that has probably never been exceeded in the quality of its intellect and judicial authority.
I would suggest that we should define some issues of principle. First, it is not possible precisely to delimit the respective powers of judges, Parliament and executive. Secondly, it is not desirable to attempt such precision, for at least three reasons. First, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, pointed out, we do not have an overarching written constitution. Secondly, the modern history of this country—this was alluded to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in his reference to less fortunate countries in the east of Europe—shows that we are fundamentally, rightly and deeply an anti-authoritarian country. We believe in the rule of law, which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry, said on an earlier occasion, is not a synonym for law and order but encompasses and describes a much more fundamental and nobler concept. Thirdly, changing circumstances demand changing remedies if a legal system is not to ossify and therefore become of no value.
I would further suggest that each party—Parliament, executive and judiciary—needs to have a decent reflective consideration for the claims made by the others. It is always bound to be a dynamic competition because nothing remains the same. Therefore, the answers to the questions will never be the same. They will be infinitely variable.
Part of the purpose of this debate of course arises by virtue of the insistence by some Secretaries of State recently on the exercise of unbridled, and therefore illegitimate, power. It is normally the Home Secretary but, in fairness to him, not always. This debate should not remain lodged in a period when public debate is rather febrile because we are in the expiring months of a government who are about to fall. The tensions which have been described in various ways will undoubtedly continue after the next election. There will be angry words from Labour Ministers and about Labour
1306
Ministers. I feel like an aboriginal in Australia. I have just thrown the boomerang. Next year it will come back and hit me on the back of the head. But it matters because the principles must endure, whatever the complexion of the government in power, or the struggle is valueless. If a principle obtains in June of 1996, it must obtain thereafter—in June of 1997 and following.
It is interesting to see what contribution the judiciary has made to the modern life of this country. Virtually the whole of the modern law of negligence is judge-made—compensation for individuals wronged by the illegal acts of others. There would be no system effectively of employee compensation for the negligent acts of the employer without judicial intervention. Parliament did not give proper rights. The judges provided them. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, touched on this point in his reference to Lord Reid's judgment. On the other hand, it could be said that the judges have not discharged their duty fully in keeping personal injury awards up to an appropriate level. If that is so, the remedy is available to Parliament and Parliament has not chosen to take that remedy.
The common law, it is said, can grow organically. It does not always do so. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, as I understood his lecture, was pointing to the fact that a discrete right of privacy does not exist in this country. I did not understand my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg to dispute the right of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, to put that forward as a proposition. What I understood him to be saying was that there are different complexions; that the question of privacy impinges on the freedom of the press; it subtly interrelates with the question of freedom of information; it also has to do with the reform of the defamation laws. Therefore, it is not always the courts which must attend to these very difficult questions. There may be occasions, particularly at a time when there is a promise from the present Government that a White Paper will be produced, when it is better for Parliament to reform than for the judges to create. I submit that that is a perfectly legitimate point of view for anyone conscientiously to hold.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, himself in 1992 made a noteworthy speech at the Bar conference about incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights. I believe that he was perfectly within his legitimate authority to do that. It is an expression of judicial view which he was entitled to hold and publicly express. It is right that judges should give academic lectures. It is right that senior judges—I mention three: the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf, Lord Nolan and Lord Templeman, over the years—should be able to discuss law reform and change on a philosophical jurisprudential basis with colleagues; for instance, in other jurisdictions like India.
The question is where the line is to be drawn. If the courts and the prisons become clogged with petty offenders who have not paid their fines for their television licences, are the senior judges entitled to complain? I believe that they are. If legislation is tortuous, confused and plain wrong, is the

1307
Lord Chief Justice entitled to say so in your Lordships' House? I believe that he is. I believe that it is part of his duty on his oath to do that.
One looks at what the judges have done in the field of crime. The protection of the illiterate, uneducated and largely unrepresented defendant was entirely brought about by the judges and not by Parliament. It was the judges who in fact erected and perfected the Judges' Rules to protect the weak defendant. Parliament did not do that: it closed its eyes. It is the judges who have taken to themselves the power, which may not always be appropriately exercised, for striking out criminal cases for abuse of power or for abuse of the system. Parliament gave them no such right. The judges have taken it to themselves and many would say that in a free society they have rightly done so.
There must be a much more subtle interplay between the judges and the legislature than some speeches have implied. Many of the judges and many practising lawyers colluded, as we all know to our shame, in a system which produced many miscarriages of justice. Eventually, that meant legislative intervention in the form of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. On another occasion, following headline miscarriages, the executive intervened. The then Home Secretary directed the setting up of a Royal Commission nobly chaired, if I may say so, by the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman. Following that report Parliament re-intervened by passing some of the appropriate legislation. So the dynamic which I earlier described is capable of working without the embattled judiciary, the envious legislature or the overweening executive, each settling into its respective trench thinking that there is no good in this partnership which is capable of being alive and valuable.
I turn very briefly to public controversy. I respectfully agree with what the noble and learned Lords, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, and Lord Lowry, said. For instance, it would be wrong for a practising judge, however senior, to conduct a public campaign on something as controversial perhaps as abortion. However, senior judges now have to deal with questions which I take almost at random: when is it lawfully allowable to cut off a life support system from a patient who has been in a coma for many years? When is it appropriate in law for a conscientious doctor to carry out a sterilisation operation on a mentally defective young woman who is sexually active? This is a judicial power which no judge that I have ever spoken to is greedy to take. They are obliged to take those powers because Parliament has been too busy, too supine or too fearful to define the limits of those activities.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, mentioned the use of judges in inquiries. I believe that there are significant dangers there. There are enormous benefits in having the independence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, Sir Richard Scott, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf and Lord Taylor, and, just a few years ago after Aberfan, Lord Edmund-Davies. But it was a very wrong consequence of Sir Richard Scott's report that there was an officially orchestrated, mischievous, wilful campaign to undermine the judge who had done no more than his
1308
public duty. When people suggest, quite improperly, by misrepresentation of what he said, they might care to re-read the debate which your Lordships had at some length to see who supported Sir Richard Scott and who did their best to undermine him.
The Law Commission does extremely important work. We shall not be able to look to High Court judges to chair that commission if the sort of unscrupulous campaigns that we have recently seen continue. I refer to Mrs. Justice Hale and now Lord Justice Brooke. I shall say nothing about judicial review because I cannot improve on the masterly exposition which the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, gave. I simply wish to offer this as a proposal: all we can hope for in a civil society bound by law is a decent, honourable understanding that there are competing claims. Each of those claims may be of apparent legitimacy; not all of them can always be perfectly reconciled. If we understand that, the problem sets itself in appropriate proportion.
7.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I certainly wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, for introducing this debate. I do not follow my noble friend Lord Beloff into particular speculations, but I am indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for the remark of Mr. Enoch Powell that the amateur in politics is the one who predicts the result of the next general election. Accordingly, it would not at all surprise me to find the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, still sitting comfortably where he is this time next year.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, said, the subject matters in this debate are extremely wide. I do not believe that your Lordships would thank me if I were to try to encompass all that has been said. I wish to start by reference to the judiciary. We are extremely fortunate in this country in the quality of our judiciary. I was very glad to hear that said from a number of parts of the House and perhaps particularly what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said about the standard of, among others, the Court of Appeal at the present time. I agree with the view that there were a number of very worthy candidates for the highest offices in our judiciary. That is a great tribute to the judiciary. As the noble Lord, Lord Mischon, said, there is an element of sacrifice for many in joining the judiciary. In my experience it is a sacrifice which is very willingly made. It is embraced as an honour by those who receive these offers, and for that I am extremely grateful.
We also have a judiciary whose independence, as individual judges from one another and from any improper influence, is also superb and complete. I certainly do not know of anyone who has successfully attempted—or indeed has attempted without success—to influence the decisions of the judges in the cases committed to them. The essence of judicial independence is that the judge trying the case is free to decide it according to his judgment in the light of the existing law. That applies to the individual case and that is the essence of judicial independence.

1309
The independence of the judiciary—in agreement, for example, with my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale—is an important part of the checks and balances of our constitution. The jurisdiction which the judges exercise right across the board is fundamental to the rule of law. I agree with the view that the rule of law is a deeper concept than just that of law and order.
I, too, very much support the view that judges have developed the law over the centuries. The extent to which that is permissible for them is not easy to formulate. I have seen various attempts in recent times to define the boundary between what is a proper development and what is not. Like some of my noble and learned friends in the Judicial Committee in recent times, I find it difficult to enunciate what that boundary is. That can sometimes be seen in the difference of views between my colleagues as to whether that boundary has been passed. If the boundary were clear, one would not expect such a difference of opinion. In my submission, that development of the law is part of the traditional role of the judges over the years under our system. It has been a healthy and a powerful influence on the law and on the development of the law and the protection of our people in the various centuries when it has been done, and it continues with complete health and robustness at the present time.
Judicial review is a particular part of that judicial function. My noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce, who has played a vitally important part in the development of the jurisdiction in the years during which he has served particularly in your Lordships' House, gave an exposition which I would not seek to modify in any way.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, was involved almost as a litigant. He was an adviser, whose advice underlay a decision that was called into question in the Divisional Court. His reaction to that decision by the Divisional Court is not an uncommon reaction among litigants who find that a court has in some way differed from them. His reaction was to say that the court had in some way overreached itself or gone wrong. That feeling is quite common among litigants. It sometimes affects even Ministers of the Crown who happen to be overruled. The noble Lord, Lord Borne, is fortunate in this respect: the Court of Appeal and ultimately the House of Lords agreed with his point of view. He was therefore able to have a comfort which some litigants are not able to attain.
On that aspect of the matter, the important point to underline is the impartiality of the judiciary. I do not believe that the impartiality of our judiciary in this country is in doubt and I did not understand the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, to suggest that. I may have misunderstood what the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, said, but whatever the position with regard to his remarks, I do not believe that there is any question about those of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine.
Some questions have been raised about developments in the law. I refer, for example, to Pepper v. Hart. That matter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. As the lone dissenter in the Judicial Committee on Pepper v. Hart, I would be glad to have the noble Lord's
1310
support for the view that that decision was not correct. Unfortunately, however, I do not feel that I can embrace that support because I do not for a moment take the view that the decision of the majority had the effect that the court would take what the Minister said was the meaning of an Act of Parliament as binding it. With great respect to the noble Lord, I think that that is a misreading of Pepper v. Hart. Your Lordships may remember that among the majority on Pepper v. Hart was my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner and he would be unlikely to subscribe to the view that a Minister could tell the court what to do even in that indirect manner.
The next point which I think is important in relation to the position of the judiciary is the supremacy of Parliament. A good deal has been said about that and I do not propose to elaborate upon it. I had intended to quote the passage from the letter to The Times by my noble and learned friend Lord Taylor of Gosforth. However, as it was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I do not need to repeat it. It is a most clear, succinct and authoritative modern statement of the position and has lost none of its authority by the sad fact that my noble and learned friend has now resigned his office as Lord Chief Justice of England. I believe that the supremacy of an Act of Parliament, and the giving of effect to an Act of Parliament according to the meaning which a judge concludes that it has, is the basis on which courts exercise jurisdiction and give full effect to Acts of Parliament.
Some points have been made about the difficulties which give rise to judicial review, to which I shall return later, arising from the nature of the legislative process. Comments have been made about the effectiveness or otherwise of the other Chamber of Parliament. I would not wish to cast any aspersion whatever on the work of either House of Parliament. It is worth remembering, particularly in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said, that this Government instituted the system of Select Committees in Parliament to oversee the activities of particular departments. That is a new and effective method of supervision of the executive by the legislature. I believe that it is a considerable change, enhancing the method by which the legislature can call the executive to account.
The position of the judiciary in relation to the conduct of inquiries has been mentioned. I entirely agree with the view that that has benefits as well as risks. However, I consider that it is a high tribute to the general esteem in which members of our judiciary are held by the public that when a difficult matter has required resolution successive governments have taken the view that the inquiry should be in judicial hands—although not necessarily in judicial hands only. There is sometimes a judicial chairman but sometimes the judge sits alone. I believe that that has advantages from time to time. Of course, there are dangers in that but, on balance, I consider that our practice of using judges rather sparingly for that purpose attains the correct balance.
I come now to the question of the relationship between judges and the public in relation to lectures and other public utterances. I agree strongly with my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf that it is absolutely

1311
fundamental that judges and other lawyers should be able to participate in discussion of developments in the law. Public lectures have been a well authenticated way of doing that over many years.
There is a risk these days that what the judge says may be taken out of context because it is unusual for the press to quote fully from such a lecture. To some extent, quotations are likely to be selective and may be interspersed with comments which the ordinary reader may find difficult to dissociate from the actual text of the lecture. Therefore, it is possible for statements made by the lecturer to appear in the public press in a way which would not strike the hearer of the lecturer as exactly in accordance with what he heard when attending the lecture. One example of this is the matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, referred. My noble and learned friend Lord Bingham recently gave a lecture about the law of privacy. In the very last paragraph he said:
"The lecturer who asks himself a question must answer it".
I am sure that your Lordships applaud that idea. He continues:
"So I do. Should there be a law to protect rights of personal privacy? To a very large extent the law already does protect personal privacy; but to the extent that it does not, it should. The right must be narrowly drawn, to give full effect to the right of free speech and the public's right to know. It should strike only at significant infringements, such as would cause substantial distress to an ordinarily phlegmatic person. My preference would be for legislation, which would mean that the rules which the courts applied would carry the imprimatur of democratic approval. But if, for whatever reason, legislation is not forthcoming, I think it almost inevitable that cases will arise in the courts in which the need to give relief is obvious and pressing; and when such cases do arise, I do not think the courts will be found wanting".
I do not regard that as an indication on the part of my noble and learned friend that judges would create legislation. As I understand it, he says that if a particular case arises in which a remedy is obviously required as a pressing matter the courts will not be found wanting in granting it.
Apart from matters such as lectures, my noble and learned friends Lord Cooke of Thorndon and Lord Lowry counselled caution. I am sure that those counsels are wise. Reference was also made to the risks to those who keep quiet. As my noble and learned friend Lord Lowry reminds us, Proverbs tells us that there is considerable benefit in keeping quiet, because even if a fool keeps quiet he will be accounted wise. I believe that that was substantially the basis of the Kilmuir Rules. However, I felt that on the whole judges could be credited with judgment in this matter and therefore I adopted the course described, which I hope your Lordships will regard as wise in the circumstances. I do not believe that it has been subjected to criticism by any of your Lordships, and for that I am glad.
My noble friend Lord Beloff raised the question of Europe. The judges of the European Court of Justice are judges who, by virtue of an Act of our Parliament, give judgments which may be effective in this country, in the sense that our courts may be obliged to give effect to them. That arises by virtue of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom: the European Communities Act 1972
1312
and Acts which amend it. These judges are surely entitled to the same kind of independence as those who sit in the United Kingdom. They have to construe texts which are less precise for the most part than those which judges are required to construe in the United Kingdom. Those are matters that one has to bear in mind in considering the European Court of Justice. Of course, the European Court of Human Rights is a different tribunal. Its judgments are not directly binding in domestic law in this country. They are binding in international law as a convention commitment and Parliament considers what should be done. It may or may not alter the law according to what it considers is required in the light of the judgments of that particular court.
My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner referred to a number of matters. I believe that most of them are fully dealt with in the passages in Hansard to which he referred. I do not believe that your Lordships would expect me to read them out now. My reply to the last case to which he referred took about an hour. I imagine that your Lordships would not find it convenient if I read that now.
This has been a valuable debate. I believe that the relationships between Parliament, the executive and the judiciary and the extent to which the judiciary should participate in public debate are important matters. Further, I believe that there is a large degree of consensus in the speeches that your Lordships have kindly contributed on the proper role of each of these institutions and their inter-relationship. For that I am extremely grateful.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords and noble and learned Lords who have participated in this debate. I believe these issues to be of great public concern. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, appeared to suggest, I emphatically did not express or imply any lack of public confidence in the political impartiality of judges. I said in terms, as Hansard tomorrow will show, that in my judgment there was no question today about the political impartiality of judges. I do believe, however, that there is much public perplexity about the current issues that have arisen between judges and Ministers and that this debate will go a good way to meet that perplexity.
These issues are not to be passed by in embarrassed silence; they are for discussion in Parliament. I am convinced by the many contributions to this debate that it was right to move this Motion. I was particularly appreciative of the observations to that effect by one of the most senior and respected Members of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Likewise, I am appreciative of the observations to that effect of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The noble and learned Lord thought that on the basis of a public lecture that I had delivered, to which he was kind enough to refer, I had modified my views in this debate. If in future anyone chooses to read my lecture and my opening of

1313
this debate he will find that my views are wholly consistent. But I would say that, would I not? That is for others to judge.
I take this opportunity to agree with the noble and learned Lords, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Woolf, that lectures by sitting judges are to be welcomed. I have listened to many to great advantage, and I encourage them to go on giving such lectures as long as there are audiences for them. I am confident that that will always be so as long as the lectures are of the quality of the lectures of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. However, in his speech the noble and learned Lord took issue with my questioning in a public lecture something that he had said in a public lecture in 1994. We share an affection for public lectures and, I am sure, for fair and rational controversy. I do not accept that I quoted him out of context. I will not take the argument further but leave both lectures to be read and judged for themselves.
I was heartened to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, bring into play the heavy force of his opinion in asserting as strongly as he did that Lords Wright and Reid were absolutely correct to declare that the courts would never question, and could never question, the validity of an Act of Parliament.
I repeat my personal hostility to any legislative attempt to restrict judicial review which I believe directly promotes the rule of law. I enjoyed the first half, if I may say so, of the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I am sure we were all delighted to learn that he has been so widely travelled in recent years. I did not, however, suggest that the 1989 Green Paper exclusively concerned rights of audience. I dare say that he might himself recall that I spoke out against any abolition of the Lord Chancellor's Legal Aid Advisory Committee.
I am sorry that the debate disappointed the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. He has such high standards, and as he told us himself his own speech broke entirely new ground. But deep cynicism, worthy indeed of Talleyrand whom he invoked, must have taken hold of the noble Lord's vitals before he could suspect that the Labour Party harboured any intention to restrict the judiciary. It does not. The role and independence of the judiciary will be vigorously upheld by the next Labour government which, I can assure the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, there will be.
I shall just put the rather jaundiced observation—if he will forgive me—of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, down as an early harbinger of the scaremongering to which some in the next general election campaign may feel increasingly driven to resort. I believe that the debate will stand for some considerable time as the major source of contemporary opinion and judgment on these issues. I repeat my thanks to all noble Lords who chose to participate. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Treasure Bill
7.42 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Perhaps I may add, "Here we go again" two years after considering a similar Bill which was passed with the support of all parties in this House but sadly lost in another place. This one comes—I emphasise the point—from the other place, through which it was skilfully piloted by Sir Anthony Grant.
To digress, we had a stroke of luck. Sir Anthony Grant, who was near the top of the ballot, is an old and close friend of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, whose backing, as we all know, has been consistent and invaluable on the Bill. On learning about the Bill from the noble Lord and also from me, Sir Anthony agreed to adopt it. The rest is history. It was debated fully in another place. The strong support of the Minister of State in the Department of National Heritage was given; indeed, all parties were behind it.
Sir Anthony Grant listened and met all those interested in the Bill, including metal detectorists. He incorporated appropriate amendments in the Bill with skill, and he won the day. All archaeologists—indeed all of us—owe him an enormous debt of thanks and gratitude.
To return to the Bill as it now is, I want to issue one word of warning. Further amendments to it in this House could be disastrous and could lose the Bill for ever. I beg your Lordships to keep that constantly in mind when we debate it. I have no hesitation in asking that because the Bill is similar to what was passed two years ago. There have been one or two amendments. But the Bill is much clearer than before; it has been redrafted for all to understand. If, in practice, there are still certain worries about parts of the Bill—for example, the issue of rewards or the reporting of finds—I am sure that those worries can be met satisfactorily with the help of government assurances.
Amendments to my earlier Bill are valuable but on the whole minor. I say that because we must remember that we have already passed something similar to the present Bill. One of the most important changes may be that the coroner now has discretion to call a jury on an issue if he thinks fit.
The two years have not been wasted. During that time much progress has been made by the Department of National Heritage on the code of practice in Clause 11 which deals with rewards, guidance to finders, and so on. The code of practice has to be approved by affirmative resolution in both Houses. Thanks to the two years' delay, if the Bill passes your Lordships' House we are in a position to act quickly. That is a great plus.
Also, during those two years, another issue has been taken forward. I have in mind portable antiquities and the voluntary reporting of their discovery. Many noble Lords, if not all, will have had copies of the excellent discussion document issued in February by the Department of National Heritage. I shall leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, and others to enlarge upon that. While, if it is accepted in due course, it will cost

1315
money, it will be money well spent, whether by the Treasury, the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the Heritage General Fund or some other source. It is enormously worthwhile, and its value to our history immense. Incidentally, there is nowhere else in Europe which does not have a portable antiquities Bill.
To return to our Bill, once more I have to say, "Here we are again." My reason for saying that a second time is that, happily, the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, is to speak for the Government. She did so two years ago. She has never wavered in her support for a Treasure Bill. She has worked behind the scenes to further it. Her advocacy and charm have ensured that we are considering the Bill today. Thank you, Baroness Trumpington.
Looking down the list of speakers, I see many old friends. Again, I want to thank them for being here and for their support—if that is what they intend. Lastly on this subject, I wish to mention Dr. Roger Bland—a name known to many noble Lords. He has had a double role on the Bill. He has acted for the Department of National Heritage and for the British Museum. His industry, knowledge and persistence have been of the greatest assistance. I hope that when the Bill has been passed he goes on to deal with portable antiquity.
In explaining the Bill I can do no better than quote from its introduction. It states:
"The Bill replaces the common law of treasure trove in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, which is limited to objects with a substantial precious metal content which were hidden with the intention of recovery and of which the owner cannot be traced".
With the invention of the metal detector all kinds of new problems have arisen. One can do no better than describe the present law as a shambles. I go no further but say that I recognise how responsible many metal detectorists are. They have performed a great service for archaeologists, historians and one and all.
The explanation continues:
"The Bill removes the need to establish that objects were hidden with the intention of being recovered; it defines the precious metal content required to qualify as treasure; and it extends the definition of treasure to include other objects found in archaeological association with finds of treasure. The Bill simplifies the task of coroners and includes a new offence of non-declaration of treasure".
I turn to the detail of the Bill. The first three clauses give the meaning of "treasure" and how that can be somewhat changed with the affirmative approval of both Houses of Parliament. The next three clauses deal with ownership. Clause 7 deals with the duties of the coroner and the fact that he can call a jury. Clause 8 is all-important. It introduces a new statutory offence for those who do not within 14 days inform the coroner of their find. However, it is,
"a defence for the defendant [the finder] to show that he had … a reasonable excuse for failing to notify the coroner".
I shall leave the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, on behalf of the Government, to elaborate on that issue and to reinforce the fact that people who behave well have nothing to fear.
Clause 10 deals with rewards. It is right that the noble Baroness, as government spokesman, should go into the detail of that. I say only that for the first time the rights
1316
and interests of the landowner are covered. It should be noted that rewards will be fair. The details of all those provisions will be set out in a code of practice, which is the subject of Clause 11. I repeat that the provisions can be changed by affirmative resolution of each House. The remaining three clauses deal with Northern Ireland.
I know that the Bill is not perfect. Categories of objects could be made much wider, as the National Arts Collection Fund has advocated. However, it realises the reality of the situation and there is provision for a change. Furthermore perhaps one would like to see the wrongdoers penalised more heavily. But they can lose out now because if they behave wrongly they will not receive a reward.
When the Bill was first drafted we tried to go along the path of trespass as the main way of handling matters. However, the Home Office strongly objected to that. Perhaps as time goes on it will be seen that the right way to deal with persistent offenders will be by making provision in a Criminal Justice Bill. I refer to the night hawks. That may be the better way of dealing with such criminals, which is what they are.
I conclude by welcoming the support of the CBA. Archaeologists have such enormous interests and roles to play. I also welcome the support of the NFU and CLA and, indeed, many of the metal detectorists themselves. If the Bill is passed, for the first time England and Wales will be able to safeguard their treasures and history to the lasting benefit of one and all. If nothing is done now and no portable antiquities Bill follows, much will be lost for ever. I greatly hope that your Lordships will support the Bill, which has eluded legislation for 150 years. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Perth.)
7.56 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Renton at the beginning of the previous debate, I am surprised to find myself at the head of the list of speakers. It gives me the opportunity to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Perth, on his persistence, and I hope success, in getting the Bill on to the statute book.
I must declare an interest in that I have a hand in the running of a large amount of land, some of which I own, and I also have a friend who is considerably knowledgeable and has a metal detector. For about 12 years he has collected bits and pieces on a written remit from myself but they all belong to me.
Recently I telephoned my noble friend the Minister to say that we had collected about 800 pieces, mostly metal but also pottery and flint. I then discussed the matter with my friend in anticipation of the debate. I said, "I suppose that as usual I have exaggerated a little". He said, "Not at all. We have collected well over 3,000 pieces now". That is an interesting quantification of what we are talking about. He then told me that none of them came under the old treasure trove rules and that none come under the new rules, either. Therefore, perhaps we are not dealing with too big a question.

1317
I have a certain amount of reservations which I must he allowed to air during the debate, although I have no intention whatever of tabling amendments. I believe that the driving force behind the Bill came from a desire to sort out the reward and in particular the desire not to lose too many artefacts of importance to the nation. It may be indicative to note the two sponsors. Of course, other people are involved. As the noble Earl said, there are plenty of baddies about, but I shall turn to that later.
There are also many reputable people who use metal detectors and they were a little worried in particular about the new definition. I appreciate that these definitions are very difficult to work out; but I believe that it is felt that the 10 per cent. by weight, 10 coins and so on, will be very difficult to prove. In a rather contradictory manner, it will also leave open to false accusations the bona fide person who is not intending to break the law. I do not know how that could have been avoided. Obviously it cannot be avoided because there it sits.
It would be extremely difficult to mount a prosecution in relation to whether a hoard all in one place, had become scattered and then was in one place again, that would be so difficult to prosecute that it was just as well to leave it out altogether. The definition in Clause 3 reads more like a script from the late Tommy Cooper than a Bill in this Parliament.
I turn now to Clause 2. I wish, as I always do, that these matters could be placed immediately on the face of the Bill and not left to statutory instruments. I admit that they are passed before both Houses of Parliament, but they can either be thrown out or accepted but not altered. I personally do not like that sort of thing. Moreover, I believe that it is extremely difficult to debate this matter without the code of practice. The code of practice may well relieve many of my anxieties but it is not yet available.
Clause 8 provides that the person who feels that he has something that should be reported to the coroner must do so within 14 days. If that is to be done by way of a telephone conversation or a letter, that is fair enough. But if it is much more than that, that may create difficulties. The person who hunts about on my land at home works in a very important job—aero design. This is a weekend hobby for him. It may be very difficult for him to comply with that provision, and it may be that a longer time should be permitted.
The other side of the coin is that the coroner apparently may wait as long as he wishes before he convenes a coroner's court to decide upon the matter.
Perhaps I may ask noble Lords to put themselves in the shoes of someone with a metal detector who is wondering whether the object that he has found is treasure trove or whether it is 10 per cent. by weight, and so on. If an article is covered in mud, it must be taken home, cleaned very carefully, examined, categorised, and so on. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether it is easy, as a test in law, without destroying the object, to discover whether it has 10 per cent. of precious metal within it.
1318
I should have liked the Bill to contain a provision dealing with confidentiality. In my experience, we must be extremely careful that nobody knows where anything is coming from. It will be very difficult to hide that. If people discover that something exciting is happening, those people—rogues—come with their own metal detectors by day and by night. Therefore, something to cover that situation should have been included in the Bill.
I apologise for asking all these questions but it is almost inevitable that they crop up in one's mind when considering a Bill which I hope will not go through all the normal stages. What happens to existing collections? Why should not a person with an existing collection be laid wide open to false accusations? We have a new set of rules here. For my part, we have built cases in which to put the coins. Do we have to go back, examine them all and say that they were found before the Bill became an Act? That seems to be an awkward position for some people. I believe that collections of birds eggs were covered by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and I should have thought that a similar provision could have been included in this Bill.
I have two points to make on ownership and who receives the reward. I have always felt that if somebody bought or inherited a piece of land, everything on that land, except for hydrocarbons and treasure trove, belongs to the owner. If anyone is to receive a reward, I feel it should be the landowner and anyone with whom he had an agreement or something of that sort. I consider that otherwise, it may go to the wrong people.
There is a provision in the Bill (which I do not understand) that museums are not obliged to make a payment. Does that mean that they will refuse to take the treasure, in which case it presumably goes back to the owner or does it mean that the museums can be rather stingy and say, "We will take it but, sorry, we're not very rich at the moment and we will not pay"? I may have that wrong. My noble friend in front of me is shaking his head. I am not an archaeologist or a great expert on treasure but the person working with me is. I have merely aired a few of the fears which the bona fide metal detecting community still have.
Finally, I should like to know who is to stand the expense of discovering with certainty whether a coin has that percentage within it? Is it the finder, the coroner or the state who must pay that? That is quite enough from me. I have perhaps exhibited my ignorance but I believe that I have aired some of the genuine concerns of the people who enjoy this hobby and there is no reason why they should not do so.
8.9 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for the introduction of the Second Reading of the Bill. I heard very clearly the warning about amendments. But to begin with, the Church wishes to give its general approval and support and so welcomes the Bill.
For many years, the Church has had its own system of controls over articles belonging to parish churches; that is, the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure. That is part of

1319
the law of the land just as much as the law on treasure trove. Indeed, it is the only legal system of protection for historic articles in this country apart from the law of treasure trove.
In recent years a parallel system was set up for cathedrals—the Care of Cathedrals Measure 1990. We believe that those controls work well in practice, with the result that the Church is the guardian of many objects which are part not only of the Church's heritage but also of our national heritage. So we welcome legislation to help to preserve secular objects more effectively than the old law of treasure trove.
However, the Church has one concern about the Bill, and that is its impact on objects found on Church property. I should have loved to claim the authority of today's psalm which said:
"The Earth is the Lord's and all that is therein."
I hope that the Church might have been the franchisee. But, as I said, the Church has one concern about the legislation. That is not merely because, like the Crown and some Members of your Lordships' House, the Church has owned much of its land for many centuries—not infrequently since before the Norman Conquest. So what is found on Church land in the present will more often than not have been deposited there at a time when the Church already owned it. More importantly, as I have already mentioned, the Church has its own legal controls over those objects. It is obviously anxious to avoid having two different sets of legal rules governing the same articles and possibly conflicting with one another.
I note in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill the following words:
"The Bill removes the need to establish that objects were hidden with the intention of being recovered".
I believe that the focus of that particular aspect is to be found in Clause 4. One area where problems may arise is that regarding objects buried with their owner in consecrated ground, particularly in or around parish churches and cathedrals, as part of the act of Christian burial.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. It was not unknown in medieval times for a bishop or an abbott to be buried with his episcopal ring and chalice. Those treasures are sometimes found in the course of archaeological exploration of our cathedrals and former abbeys. They were obviously not put there with the intention that anyone should retrieve them in the future. Therefore, they are not treasure trove. But, equally, they were not lost nor left where they were by any form of accident: they were by clear intention entrusted to the Church, with the body of their owner, in the expectation that they should remain within the Church's protection for ever.
I understand from those who have informed me that those situations can give rise to some formidable legal questions, but this is not the time to weary your Lordships by referring to the legal complexities. I know that at present officials of the Department of National Heritage are in discussion with the Council for the Care of Churches, and the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for
1320
England in an attempt to resolve them. At a later stage during the passage of the Bill, I very much hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, will be able to assure us that the problems have been solved without the need to delay the legislation.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, this is a very important Bill. Those of us who have a deep concern for the nation's heritage certainly find it so. It is appropriate, first, for me to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Perth, on his presentation of the legislation. We are very much aware that the Bill in its present form owes a very great deal to the noble Earl who, on a previous occasion, introduced a closely related Bill upon which this one is modelled.
One should, of course, pay tribute to my honourable friend Sir Anthony Grant who introduced the Bill in another place and who dealt with so many matters so effectively, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, indicated. The reason that we have a high expectation that the Bill will find its place on the statute book is that it has indeed successfully completed its passage through another place. It now only rests with your Lordships to give it full approval, probably without amendment for the practical reasons mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, before it will be ready to receive Royal Assent.
The matter of amendment is purely one of timing in relation to the present Session. But I am very hopeful that the Bill may not require amendment by your Lordships as, on a previous occasion, a closely related Bill met with the entire approval of your Lordships. Therefore, I hope that that augurs well.
Certainly, the Bill now before us has received the support of a great consensus of archaeological concerns. The Standing Conference on Portable Antiquities has urged its passage as, indeed, has the Council for British Archaeology, the Society of Antiquaries of London, the Museums and Galleries Commission, the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments and county and district archaeological officers. I understand it to have the full support of English Heritage, and certainly the British Museum—and here I must declare an interest as I am a trustee of the museum—gives the Bill full support.
It is important to see the Bill in a wider context. As has already been remarked, Britain is one of the very few countries in Europe which does not have legislation dealing with portable antiquities. Indeed, I believe Belgium to be just about the only other exception. Therefore, although our monuments are in the main quite well protected, it is the case that portable antiquities in general, other than those of silver and gold, are completely unprotected. That gives rise to scandalous episodes like that of the Icklingham bronzes which seem to have been illegally looted from the land where they were located, illegally exported to the United States and subsequently publicly sold there. Of course, because we have not ratified the UNESCO convention, no legal redress was available. As I said, it is a matter of great scandal. The present Bill would not

1321
necessarily rectify that situation as we are talking about bronzes in that case. However, I only mentioned it to indicate the unsatisfactory nature of some aspects of the present situation.
The Bill now before us would end the ridiculous charade of a coroner's inquest with the objective of assessing the motivation of a person burying valuables some 3,000 years ago. That is a pointless undertaking which is impossible to accomplish with any degree of competence. Yet, under the present provisions, it is essential to establish the intention for recovery—the animus revertendi, to use lawyers' jargon—if the objects are to be declared treasure trove. If so, they then become the property of the Crown and the convention is that the finder receives the full market value. It is very important to emphasise that point because that is an incentive for the finder to report the find and is, indeed, a very important consideration. Of course, if the goods are not treasure trove, they are returned to the finder.
However, one has the extraordinary charade involving very important finds. For example, if it is established that the finds constituted a ritual deposit which it was not intended to recover, they are not treasure trove and do not pass into the nation's care; they can disappear without trace. The Bill also has the merit of including objects, other than simply those of gold and silver, in the overall definition of the treasure if they are found together with objects of gold and silver. Again that would overcome the very strange incidents of late where, with the Snettisham finds for example, great quantities of gold and silver were found, together with objects of bronze. The objects of gold and silver were dealt with in the proper way as treasure trove, but the bronze objects were not treasure trove. Therefore, we actually have a system at present where archaeological discoveries of national importance are split up. That situation would be rectified by the Bill. There is also the matter of important, large-scale hoards of bronze coins which at present can disappear without trace because they do not currently rank as treasure.
I am happy to say that the Bill has the support of the County Landowners' Association. It is important to note that, for the first time in the code of practice, the position of the landowner will be recognised in the legislation. My noble friend Lord Radnor should take encouragement from that and from the fact that where a metal detectorist is hunting for treasure with the approval of the landowner, if treasure is discovered and declared to be treasure there will be a 100 per cent. reward. The code of practice will give some indication as to the reward, or they may have already reached some agreement as to how the reward might be divided between them. I hope that is a comfortable thought for my noble friend.
Many metal detectorists support this Bill. Those of them—I am sure it is the majority—who wish to behave legally and responsibly do exactly as does the friend of my noble friend; that is to say, they discuss the matter with the landowner, receive the permission of the landowner to work on the land, and then if the find is to be declared treasure it will go through the proper procedures. In a moment I shall say a few words about the discussion paper on portable antiquities, which is
1322
not, of course, part of the present Bill. If that goes ahead, people will be encouraged to report finds of a broader nature. That will be excellent. I hope it will not prove unduly cumbersome. Then my noble friend and his friend, the metal detectorist, can both feel full of virtue because they will be doing all that they possibly can to ensure that the nation's heritage is fully understood.
It should be mentioned, however, that there is—as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, indicated—a small minority of metal detectorists who, I believe, are repudiated by the majority of metal dectorists. This small minority of metal detectorists are sometimes referred to as night hawks. They flagrantly and illegally trespass, undertake metal detecting and disappear with any treasure that they succeed in finding. It is important that the activities of these persons should be restricted. Many of us hope that before too long there will be introduced, in some criminal justice Bill, a further crime of aggravated trespass, or something of that kind, which will make it possible to nail such persons. However, we should all recognise that when responsible metal detectorists work with the approval of the landowner and in good faith, everything should be made easy for them.
I shall not try to deal with the various points which the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, raised except to emphasise perhaps two of them. First, this is not retrospective legislation as I understand it. Therefore the noble Earl need not be anxious about the objects which he has currently on display, or about objects in his ownership which he will put on display. I agreed with what he said about confidentiality. It is well understood by archaeologists and by the Department of National Heritage that it is not good practice to advertise where important finds have been discovered precisely because one implicitly invites those night hawks to descend, and one does not want that to happen. I am sure that is fully understood.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol mentioned concerns which we can well understand. If a bishop's burial is found in a cathedral, it should be the wish of the Church that the items will remain within the possession of the Church. I believe that could work within the provisions of the present Bill without amendment if it is understood that those items clearly would be treasure and therefore they would fall within the provisions of the Bill. However, there is nothing at all to prevent the treasure, when it is declared treasure, being returned to the custody of the Church. Surely that is the right outcome. That leaves open one question which I shall discuss in just a moment, and that concerns who would pay the reward when a reward is payable. I hope that in most cases a reward would not be necessary. The right reverend Prelate said that sometimes these discoveries occur in the course of archaeological excavation. Reputable archaeologists do not claim rewards and wise Church authorities secure the agreement of archaeologists that they will not claim rewards before inviting them to conduct their excavations on Church property. In such circumstances probably no reward would be payable.
However, in a few cases a reward would be payable for a discovery of treasure that was perhaps a chance discovery in a Church. There have been such cases.

1323
I believe that six Anglo-Saxon brooches were found by the sexton in a churchyard in Pentney in 1980 and were declared treasure trove. The point I am making is that the Church might be better off under the proposed legislation in this Bill than it is at present, because in the case I have mentioned the objects were declared treasure trove. Some silver spoons were found in a wall of a derelict Church at Abberley in the 1960s. They too were declared treasure trove. Under the present Bill they would be treasure, but I hope that there will be measures to return them to the custody of the Church. I hope that to some extent that will set the mind of the right reverend Prelate at rest.
Before I discuss the discussion paper on portable antiquities, I wish to mention my concern about the financial aspect of this matter. At the moment when objects are declared treasure trove—under the Bill more objects will be declared treasure than are currently declared treasure trove because the category is slightly broader—they are looked at, generally by the British Museum, and if it is felt desirable that the museum should retain them, the museum has to put up the full market value to reward the finder. That point was touched on by my noble friend seated behind me.
That can be a difficult matter for the British Museum. In the case of the Hoxne find, a find of the first importance, which was reported at once in the proper manner by the metal detectorist—many of the finds were excavated under the supervision of archaeologists—the find was declared, in a fair manner, to be the discovery of the original finder. That find was valued at £1.75 million. The British Museum had to find £1.75 million in order to give a proper reward to the finder; otherwise, it would have been obliged to return the find to the finder.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt but I hope that my noble friend can explain something. As regards the reward, I refer to Clause 10(6) which states:
"Payment of the reward is not enforceable against a museum or the Secretary of State".
That was my worry.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I am grateful for that comment. I shall give my understanding of that provision but I shall naturally defer to my noble friend Lady Trumpington if she wishes to contradict me. There are two points here. The main one is that if the museum should wish to return the object to the finder and not retain it, the finder cannot say, "I would rather like to have the money". But there may be another sense here. I can assure my noble friend of what is, I believe, the unfailing custom under the present treasure trove provisions where the find has been properly declared. If the treasure trove item is retained by the museum, its full market value is paid. I am sure it is the intention under the rewards provisions and the codes of practice in Clause 10 of the Bill that so long as the items in question are properly declared, the full market value of the finds will be paid. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will confirm that point when she replies to the debate.
1324
I am afraid I must offer a note of dissatisfaction with the present situation. The British Museum's grants in real terms for this year have been cut severely, as have those of other museums. Few museums can now afford the purchases which previously they could have afforded. Therefore I see a difficulty as regards the application of the present Bill unless more generous provision is made. However, I can also see a way forward. The National Lottery provides a good deal of money, much of which is for capital projects or capital acquisitions and not of course, as currently laid down, for recurrent expenditure.
Purchases of objects or the payment of rewards for objects of treasure trove to enable them to remain in the nation's museums—the British Museum or other museums—would be a perfectly appropriate use of National Lottery money under the heritage fund, or whatever may be the appropriate fund. I very much hope that the Government may give consideration to setting up an antiquities heritage fund under the framework of the National Lottery so that it is possible to pay, where necessary, £1.75 million to acquire the Hoxne treasure or its equivalent. That will happen from time to time. If the money is not available to the nation's museums, it will not be possible to reward finders adequately. It will be necessary to give the goods back to the finder, as we have said. Likewise, the same fund would be required in order to reward the finder where appropriate so that treasure found on Church land could be returned to the care of the Church.
As my final and major point, I congratulate the Department of National Heritage on seeing this present Bill as part of a larger vision where the intention will be to consider all the nation's portable antiquities as they are found—objects of bronze, flint or whatever material. It is admirable that the discussion paper on portable antiquities published some months ago—it is still open for comment and discussion—deals effectively with non-treasure categories. I can inform your Lordships that there is a consensus in the archaeological world, as reflected by the standing conference on portable antiquities, that it would be appropriate to bring in a system of voluntary recording. I hope that that will satisfy not only landowners but metal detectorists. It is not suggested that it should be other than a voluntary system, but it would be valuable if a system were set up whereby all finds of archaeological significance were reported without any suggestion that the ownership of the finds would come into question.
The present Treasure Bill deals with ownership. However, any voluntary recording or reporting system would not deal with ownership but with information relating to the circumstances of the find, with all due confidentiality, where appropriate, so that important discoveries of other categories could become known and recorded while the ownership would remain with whoever owns those objects.
Perhaps I may emphasise one point. Such a scheme will need funding on perhaps a modest scale. I hope that the Government will give support. My noble friend on the Front Bench has shown herself to be constructive in these matters in the past. I hope that she is able to give

1325
us some encouragement to believe that the Department of National Heritage may find the resources to set up the necessary pilot scheme so that some modest system could be implemented for the reporting and recording of antiquities under a voluntary scheme. We may then look towards a national scheme working throughout the country. That is what is ultimately needed.
It is helpful to see the present Bill as a first step towards a larger system. Let me emphasise that that larger system would be voluntary and would not impinge on the ownership of finds. It is only the present Bill which naturally does so.
I apologise to your Lordships if I have spoken too long on this important matter, but it is an issue on which I feel strongly. In the discussions in your Lordships' House two years ago, many of these points were most satisfactorily dealt with by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and others. Therefore, if these important points which my noble friends and the right reverend Prelate raised can be dealt with without too much difficulty, as I trust that they can be, I hope that the Bill will commend itself to your Lordships. If it passes through your Lordships' House without amendment, it has every prospect of finding its place on the statute book, and that will be excellent.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, if I appear to your Lordships to be purple in the face, it is not because I feel apoplectic about the noble Earl's Bill but because I was fortunate enough to be a member of a team drawn from your Lordships' House which has just concluded a thrilling encounter at the Oval during which more than 500 runs were scored and an honourable draw was achieved not long ago with the last of your Lordships' team at the wicket.
With that preface, perhaps I may move more directly to the Bill. Like my noble friend Lord Renfrew, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and thank him for his tremendous achievement in bringing prospective legislation on this subject so far forward. While it is not in name his Bill this time, in substance it is, and he deserves the credit and thanks of your Lordships' House for what he has achieved.
I also believe that it is right to express thanks to Dr. Bland. In this area he has shown himself as able administratively as he is distinguished a scholar. I wish also to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington—I hope that it will not embarrass her—for the personal interest that she has taken in the subject and for the way in which she has assisted in bringing this legislation to the point where we are in sight of getting it on to the statute book.
As my noble friend Lord Renfrew said, it is part of an overall look at the question of portable antiquities and treasure. I believe that a voluntary system of reporting and recording finds is highly desirable. It is essential for the purposes of scholarship and preserving items of historic interest. I am sure that it will be possible to work out some scheme. It will involve quite a lot of time, effort and possibly expense. However,
1326
I believe that the outline suggested in the discussion document offers a way forward, and one which should be supported.
My noble friend Lord Radnor discussed various technical points in the Bill. It should be possible to deal with many of those by non-statutory arrangements. Under Clause 11 there is extensive provision for a code of practice to be drawn up by the Secretary of State. I believe that many of the points my noble friend raised could be dealt with in that way. The main elements of the Bill are entirely right. The animus revertendi—the requirement that there should have been a determination on the part of the original burier of treasure to go back to recover it—has proved quite impossible in practice for coroner's courts to resolve in any coherent or consistent way. I believe that the Bill makes a great improvement in putting that issue to bed. I also believe that the definitions of metal content, and numbers of coins needed to be regarded as a hoard, are entirely sensible and I strongly support them.
The suggestions about the coroners' procedures should avoid much of the delays and confusion which have sometimes arisen under the present system.
A topic on which I would like to say a few words is rewards and the code of practice. In the 1970s, as a Member of another place, I was able to persuade the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is now the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that it would be sensible to set up a committee to review valuation. Under the procedures which had hitherto applied, the British Museum found itself in the awkward position of being the intended purchaser of many important items. It was also the arbiter of the price at which they should be acquired. Even in cases where it was quite evident that the price being offered by the British Museum was proper and fully adequate, it inevitably led to complaints and questioning by finders about whether their finds—it was not their property—could be properly valued by the purchaser. The committee was set up and it has worked well in the succeeding years. I have to declare an interest in that I have recently been invited to chair the committee, although the first meeting which I shall be able to attend is not for two weeks.
The treasure trove reviewing committee will no longer be able to carry out its functions once the provisions of the Bill are implemented. Treasure trove as such will cease to exist and a new code of practice relating to treasure in its new form will govern a number of matters, including valuation and various other related questions. That may offer a solution to the problem raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. So far as I am aware, nowhere in this legislation or any existing legislation is there a requirement that objects of treasure trove, or treasure, as it will be under these provisions, must go to a specific destination. Clause 11(2)(a) states that the Secretary of State must prepare a code of practice which must set out the principles and practice to be followed when considering to whom treasure should be offered. If the Church is able to make the appropriate representations when the code of practice is drawn up, it ought to be possible to set out guidance which would enable its objectives to be achieved in virtually every case.

1327
The contents of the code of practice will be important and it is appropriate that the provisions of the Bill should not come into effect as statutes until the code has been satisfactorily established. It will require a considerable degree of discussion from interested parties and I hope that some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Radnor will be taken into account when the code is drawn up.
The way forward with the Bill will be much more satisfactory than the present situation which has caused increasing difficulties over the years. I do not object to Clause 2, as my noble friend Lord Radnor does. It will enable adjustments to be made to definitions of treasure, and experience with most legislation is that one cannot predict in advance everything which one will need to take into account. Although in your Lordships' House horror is frequently expressed at what are termed "Henry VIII clauses", a reasonable degree of "amendability" by means of statutory instrument instead of primary legislation tends to make sense where there are complex issues to be resolved and where only in the light of experience can one see how a point ought to be defined in detail.
The Bill is not necessarily perfect, but I do not believe that a perfect Bill is capable of being brought in and gaining the approval of Parliament because the many interests involved do not always work in the same direction. There are many other issues which relate to portable antiquities, the reporting of finds and other responsibilities.
That said, the Bill is a much better potential piece of legislation than the existing law of treasure trove, which is not sharply defined. I wish it well. I hope that it will pass through your Lordships' House without amendment because such legislation which is not put forward by the Government has a habit of falling victim to parliamentary timetables or other unexpected events. That has already happened once with the original Bill proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in your Lordships' House. I profoundly hope that it will not happen again in connection with this one.
8.46 p.m.
Lord Templeman: My Lords, as your Lordships have heard, this Bill is the product of much consultation and consideration. I shall not go through the list of promoters, some are here tonight and I shall only add to the list Professor Palmer of University College, London, in conjunction with Dr. Roger Bland. They have been instrumental in keeping the Bill on the road.
I wish to stress that in the other place and now, the Bill is widely supported. Apart from the archaeologists, who would support it of course, and the museums, who also support it, the Bill is supported by the department which has examined it in the national interest. In addition, the Country Landowners' Association is properly alive to the rights and interests of landowners and it supports the Bill. Recently, the National Council of Metal Detecting gave it support, so one could say that it has universal support. There are one or two reservations to which I shall come, but on the general principle everyone is agreed.
1328
There is great flexibility in the Bill on the code of practice, which I shall come to later. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, it is important that it should pass and not be amended. Once the Bill is amended, it must go back to the other place and possibly return here. At the present stage of Parliament, indeed at any stage, to inflict amendments on such a Bill and try to get it through the parliamentary timetable and the demands of the Government would mean that, through no one's fault, it would be liable to disappear into a quicksand. Thus I echo the noble Earl's plea: please may we have the Bill and nothing but the Bill?
I must deal with the reservations raised by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and the right reverend Prelate. First, as your Lordships know, the Bill gets rid of many anomalies about treasure trove: the proportion of gold and silver, the fact that awards cannot be given to the owner of the land. There is also the indefensible anomaly that if treasure was lost accidentally, then it was not treasure trove. Only if it was left with the idea of being recovered was it treasure trove. As the Bill deals with articles 300 years old, that was almost impossible to prove. Everyone admits that the old provisions were quite illogical.
On the negative side, we get rid of those anomalies but the noble Earl says: "Yes, but I have great difficulty: how will I know whether there is 10 per cent. and whether it is 300 years old?" In practice, there will be no difficulty. People who turn up treasure, something which they think might be even more than 100 years old, do not normally put it in a bedsock. They want to find out how old it is, what it is and whether it has any value or contains gold. If they are in any doubt, they may want to consult their own jewellers and friends about it, who may be able to tell them straight away what it is—probably the noble Earl himself will know; he has been at it long enough.
Let us suppose that somebody is ignorant and does not want to spend his money. He can still go to the coroner and say: "I do not know whether this is treasure or not. You may have a look at it". Faced with that possibility, the coroner has to hold an inquest (although there does not have to be a jury). First, he has to notify the British Museum. He therefore writes to the museum or sends a facsimile. The museum then directs him to an expert, and an inquest is held. If it is decided that the item is not treasure, it is returned to the man who found it or to the owner of the land. If it is treasure, the Bill is not interested in taking it away from anybody; the Bill is only interested in protecting the national interest. The Bill clearly provides that it is up to the Secretary of State. Assuming that the coroner finds the item to be treasure, under Clause 4 it vests in the Crown (leaving aside franchisees).
Under Clause 6, any such treasure vesting in the Crown,
"may be transferred, or otherwise disposed of, in accordance with directions given by the Secretary of State".
The answer to the point raised by the right reverend Prelate is that no Secretary of State in his right mind would direct him to take the ring off the corpse of the martyred saint or to give up any ecclesiastical item such as a chalice. He ought to be notified, and for this reason.

1329
The item will be left with the Church, but there will certainly be a requirement to record where it was found. The British Museum will need to be notified since it may want to send an expert to examine it or ask the Church to allow a student to examine it. Probably the treasure will be so valuable that either the Church will sell it or will need to put it in the bank vaults.
As the right reverend Prelate will know, one of the burdens on the Church is the possession of masses of silver plate and valuable articles which, for historical and cultural reasons, the Church does not wish to dispose of but because of the amount of vandalism these days simply cannot be left on exhibition. If the item is Church property, it can be transferred in accordance with directives given by the Secretary of State. Clause 11 states that the Secretary of State must prepare a code of practice. Subsection (2) states:
"The code must … set out the principles and practice to be followed by the Secretary of State … when considering to whom treasure should be offered … when making a determination under Section 10"—
that is, whether it is to be transferred to a museum—or,
"where the Crown's title to treasure is disclaimed".
I have no doubt that a code of practice, if it is necessary, will serve a cause. The Crown is not in the business of grave-robbing. This circumstance will arise only when somebody authorised by the Church has found some treasure by accident. If it is ecclesiastical treasure, the code of practice will immediately provide that the Crown shall direct that it stay where it is—with the Church. But it might equally ask the Church to let someone come and look at it. I am sure that the Church would not wish to prevent proper authorities such as the British Museum or a very reputable archaeologist from coming to look at the treasure. That will be an end to the matter.
But let us suppose that a sexton is bumbling around on an area that is now a churchyard but was, long before Christianity ever came to this country, obviously not sacred ground, and while digging he turns up, for example, 16 silver candlesticks. They had nothing to do with English religion but might previously have had something to do with the bards. Or he may find 16 tablespoons. The Church will not want to say that such items are ecclesiastical; but it will want to report the find. I have no doubt that the code of practice will provide that where the Church wants an item of treasure, either the Secretary of State will accept an obligation to let the Church have the item, or will say that he will bear the matter in mind very carefully. That will only apply to such items as the spoons. If the Church wants the spoons, I dare say the Secretary of State will let the Church have them. The code of practice can so provide.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I made three points. The first has to do with the fact that legislation already exists to deal with the finding of such items; and we want to make sure that the two come together. Secondly, we are concerned about what happens on Church land. Therefore we want to talk about the issues, and I was laying down markers. Discussions are taking place. In
1330
the legislation as presently drafted we do not see what the details will be. We therefore want to ensure that they are included.
Lord Templeman: My Lords, I was not complaining about the remarks of the right reverend Prelate. I was simply saying that, even as the Bill stands, there is plenty of machinery. It will all come out in the code of practice.
So far as concerns dealing with Church land, it is land belonging to the Church, and the Church must keep out trespassers. If a trespasser turns up a chalice or any other such item I hope he will go to gaol and that the Church will be allowed to keep the item under the code of practice. If the trespasser or the sexton turns up 16 spoons, then if the Church wants to keep the spoons, I think it will be allowed to do so unless the British Museum says that the spoons have nothing to do with the Church but are of an antiquity beyond belief, possibly used by Stone Age man, and the museum wants them.
Whenever treasure is turned up, Clause 10 applies,
"if treasure … has vested in the Crown … and … is to be transferred to a museum".
The Crown is not interested in the treasure going anywhere but to a museum. It will ask the museum whether it wants it. Most people like the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, may have plenty of coins of that vintage and will say no; or will say yes only if they think that the treasure ought to be in a museum so everybody can look at it but not in private hands, or possibly in a church, where it will not be seen.
In that case, if the museum says that it wants the treasure, the Secretary of State must then determine under Clause 7 of the Bill whether a reward is to be paid. The practice is that a reward is always paid for property that is turned up and which is treasure. He then has to determine the market value of the treasure and the amount of the reward. If the museum says that it wants to keep an item of treasure because it is unique and it does not have such an item, the Secretary of State will put a value on it; he may, for instance, say to the museum that the market value is £1.5 million. Under his powers, he can direct that it is transferred to the museum but can say that he will make that direction only if the museum is prepared to pay £1.5 million as a reward.
The Bill carefully preserves the Crown from having any liability; such liability cannot be put on the taxpayer; and the museum cannot be forced to pay. In practice, the museum will be in a dilemma. If it wants the treasure, it must pay the reward. If it does not consent to pay the reward—which is the full market value; so the owner and the finder will not be deprived of anything—all that is done is, in effect, to give a first right of purchase to a museum, at full market value, if it considers that the objects are of national importance and therefore ought to be in a museum rather than in private hands. If the museum says that it either cannot afford the reward or it does not want the treasure, the Secretary of State will direct that it goes back to the noble Earl or to his employee who found it. Then the owner will be able to sell it, and may be able to get £1.5 million for it.

1331
This is not a question of confiscation. It is a right of first refusal for a museum. It is a serious matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said, there are a good many treasures and portable antiquities which ought to stay in this country but which are being sold on the black market and are disappearing abroad. They ought to be revealed, because we can only know our history and culture if we find out where such items are and whether they are worth preserving. For my part, I would have thought it sufficient that the Secretary of State has power to say to whom the property should go, it being his duty to prepare a code of conduct, keep it under review and revise it when appropriate. To do that he must,
"set out the principles and practice … when considering to whom treasure should be offered … where the Crown's title to treasure is disclaimed. The code may include guidance for those who search for or find treasure; and museums and others who exercise functions in relation to treasure".
As I have said, the whole object of the Bill is to see that a museum has an opportunity of acquiring valuable pieces of national importance—if they pay the full market value—and I would have thought that the provisions of the Bill as it now stands and the code of practice are sufficient.
The code of practice must be negotiated, and one of the parties with whom negotiations will take place is the Church. The fact that there is faculty legislation is not a worry. If one intended to keep the treasure or put it somewhere else, it is possible that a faculty would be needed; but if it is ordinary treasure then the provisions of the Bill will cover it. We do not need two Bills.
Equally, on general principles I should like the Church to be under the same umbrella of jurisdiction as everybody else. If a sexton finds silver spoons in a place which may have been a church 100 years before, I do not see why the Church should be in any better or different position from the noble Earl who finds it on his farmland. Equally, if it is within the Church or in consecrated ground, or is what I would call ecclesiastical treasure, I have no doubt that the code of practice will provide that one simply keeps it, subject to notifying the British Museum that it exists so that it may consider whether or not it wants to look at it.
I have spoken for too long. I wish to make one more point. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said regarding the problem of portable antiquities. It has been calculated that there are 30,000 metal detectors which turn up 400,000 buried articles every year. Some of them are absolute rubbish; a lot of them are not treasure within the definition of this Bill, but a great number of them are part of our cultural history. There should be some method whereby those fines can be reported and those which are the most value to our heritage should be preserved.
The Government's proposal is that there should be a voluntary code. That has found general acceptance. Everything needs a little money. To begin with there must be a voluntary code but it must have a little money and centralisation of funding. I shall press the Minister and I am sure that she will press on the Government that it would be a wise investment in our history to produce
1332
enough money to get a voluntary system working which will guard portable antiques which do not fall within the Bill. I hope that I have done something to allay the misgivings expressed in the course of this debate, and I hope that the Bill passes.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it always increases one's confidence in legislation that one wants when one hears it approved by a noble and learned Lord. I am glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, said what he did.
Perhaps I too may try to set at rest the fears of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. It is not unusual in our legislation to have laws overlapping. One could mention many cases but I shall mention just one. We have laws preventing cruelty to children and laws punishing people for assaults of one kind or another. One could go right through the statute book and find many examples of laws which overlap and to a limited extent have the same purpose. Therefore, although I agree with him that it may be better to clarify the matter in the way he suggested, I do not believe that in the meantime the cathedrals and churches need worry.
We have varied and valuable relics of life in England and Wales going back 3,000 years which are buried and form part of our heritage but which receive little or no protection under the law. Therefore I warmly support the Bill put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and thank him for his magnificent initiative two years ago and for continuing it this evening. Without that initiative we might not be providing the protection which is so greatly needed.
The common law of treasure trove in England and Wales is so limited and defective that it is surprising that it has lasted as long as it has. It originated through the need of King Richard I to raise money for the Crusades 800 years ago. It is amazing that that ancient and artificial law survived for so long. Those laws never applied in Scotland—I suppose partly because Scotland was not then part of the United Kingdom and did not become so for a long time. But we owe to a Scottish nobleman—the noble Earl, Lord Perth—the initiative for changing the law in England and Wales in the way proposed, which is long overdue. I am glad to see that he is supported by three life Peers of Scottish origin. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, will acknowledge that even the Welsh sometimes owe a duty to the Scots.
The noble Earl also paid tribute to Sir Anthony Grant MP. Grant is a Scottish name. I should like to endorse that. Sir Anthony is a very old friend of mine; indeed, he represents part of my old constituency of Huntingdonshire. Dr. Roger Bland has also been marvellous.
As the noble and learned Lord said, the Bill is now suitable without further amendment. Minor drafting amendments can be made to almost every Bill but we can do without them on this one. They are really not necessary. The only point I want to raise is one that has not been so far mentioned. Art theft in this country and in other countries runs into huge sums every year. It is

1333
a large international trade. Some of that trade consists of objects which will in future, I am glad to say, be protected by the Bill.
9.8 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches broadly support the Bill. It is admirably pragmatic and it is admirable in the way in which it balances both the private and public interest in an area which has been sadly neglected, as other noble Lords have said, not for many years but for many centuries.
Having said that, it is a Bill which is essentially pragmatic, it has an underlying principle, which is to enable finds of portable antiquities in this country to be examined and reported in a proper way. I do not think any fair-minded person could object to that, though in the other place there were those on, one might say, the liberal wing of the argument who felt that on balance it would be better to keep the status quo as the Bill would curtail the liberty of the individual, whether he was a landowner or an operator of a metal detector, to do what he wished. I do not happen to agree with that argument and I do not think that many noble Lords, if I judge their contributions rightly, would either.
There are in the Bill a number of areas which are not entirely clear to the layman. I was fascinated by a remark by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, about the position of the Church as regards artefacts and antiquities which may be found. I was interested in his view that the position of the Church should in no way be different from the position of others such as the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. That is an interesting point. I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will be able to throw some light on that.
The position today is different, with the increase in technology in metal detecting and other areas. I have to be careful here because when the noble Earl introduced his admirable Bill which fell by the wayside and which is replaced by this even improved Bill my remarks about metal detectors and those who use them resulted in my receiving not abusive letters but letters which criticised the implications of my contribution.
For the benefit of those who will be reading Hansard after this debate, on that occasion I was in no way criticising those who operate this technology in a legitimate and responsible way. I was referring to others: I shall use the word which seems to trip easily off the tongue—nighthawks—which I have heard mentioned in this debate. Being of a suspicious nature, in the society in which we live today, I imagine that nighthawks, if not outweighing in number the responsible ones, are a considerable force to be reckoned with; and not only native nighthawks but nighthawks from other countries who may come here attracted by the prospect of finds. Perhaps they read Hansard and think that there is an opportunity here for a great deal of lucrative work, especially when they realise that just under 500,000 finds are recorded each year and probably about one-third again of finds are not recorded. The position here is one which certainly demands legislation of some kind to replace that which has come through our common law and has been with us for some hundreds of years.
1334
Perhaps I may mention some of the points which I have picked up in the course of the debate which give me some anxiety. Clause 10 refers to the payment of rewards, which was also referred to by other noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. He is anxious about the whole question of rewards. I agree entirely with him that fundamental common sense tells one that the landowner should have the largest claim to the rewards. If one returns to the principle of the Bill, rewards are not the main matter. It is the proper finding and recording of our heritage, the time and the place and other factors which are of greater importance. We all like rewards. I recall recently speaking in a debate on tipping in restaurants. One of my noble friends on these Benches who had been a waiter said that there is nothing in this world that one likes better than a reward. That moved him to believe that to continue tipping in the way we do was better than to change in the manner proposed. Everyone wants a reward, but how it is paid and so forth will be dealt with under the code of practice.
As the matter is expressed in the Bill at the moment, to the lay person it is somewhat difficult and complicated to understand how it will all work. I am sure that the noble Baroness will enlighten us on that. A code of practice is often bandied about in your Lordships' House and one often wonders what it will contain and achieve. For example, will a code of practice tell us more about the procedures which coroners will follow? I do not believe that any noble Lord has mentioned that. I understand from the Bill that a person who fails to report a find within the statutory time limit will be subject to a fine or even a term of imprisonment. But how will a find be reported? Will there be a code or pattern of practice which is the same throughout the country? Will a person gravitate to Cambridgeshire or Devon because coroners in those parts of country are more lenient? A noble Lord mentioned that only a telephone call, a letter or some form was needed, but that is not clear from the Bill.
As regards penalties, it appears that, on the face of it, a fine of £5,000 is derisory. It is not derisory to someone who commits an offence either through negligence, ignorance or carelessness, but it is a derisory amount if the offence is committed with deep intent and careful planning. I shall be very interested to hear the noble Baroness explain why the fine has been set at that level.
Having said all that, these seem to be carping criticisms of the Bill. They are not criticisms really, they are simply areas of uncertainty from my own personal point of view. Obviously, I shall feel very much reassured not only after the noble Baroness has spoken, but after this admirable Bill in many respects has gone through all its stages in this House and has inevitably found its way on to the statute book.
I do not believe that there is anything further for me to say. It has been a very distinguished debate with very interesting and fascinating contributions made by people who are much better qualified to speak on the subject than I, as a mere hereditary Peer who, happily or unhappily, does not have a personal metal detector working for him. I was most interested to hear the noble Earl speak about his collaboration with a metal detector. I believe that that is all to the good. That was a perfect

1335
example of the way in which things should work, but I wonder whether they will work like that in general. It is a fascinating subject. The Bill obviously goes a long way towards making corrections in an area of the law which is in much need of reform. I wish the Bill speedy travel on to the statute book.
9.19 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, those of your Lordships who are in the habit of rising betimes and getting here early in the morning may well have noticed that the annunciator at that time of the day frequently carries an often most interesting thought for the day which seems to originate from somewhere in our security service. Yesterday, for example, the message was a quotation from my master William Shakespeare's play, King Henry VI Part I, Act II, Scene 1, line 58:
"Had your watch been good
This sudden mischief never could have fall'n".
It was slightly misquoted and I have put it right, but nevertheless the idea was a good one and the point was made.
It seemed to me to be rather appropriate to the Second Reading of this Bill today as, if only we had been able to keep careful watch to facilitate the progress in another place of the original Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, we might have settled the whole matter years ago. The House will wish, I am sure, to congratulate the noble Earl not only on his timely good sense, but on his persistence, his tenacity and his perseverance in seeing to it that his original proposals did not fall by the wayside, but marched resolutely onward and upward to the statute book where they unquestionably belong.
We on these Benches—I speak for both of us—take the view that the Bill was carefully and well debated at all its stages in another place. We agree with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that any further amendment would be quite unnecessary and counter-productive. There is little left to say, except to reiterate the total support of the Opposition for what seems to us a thoroughly sensible, well drafted, constructive and helpful piece of legislation.
We realise that the Bill is not the last word on the subject. There is further work to be done to develop the Government's well-thought-out strategy on the matter of portable antiquities, but the Bill is an excellent start. I hope that when the noble Baroness the Minister replies to the debate she may be able to say something about the code of practice which I believe will augment the Bill. The code of practice, as we have all said, will be a very important matter in determining how effective the Bill will be in practice—and the glimpses that we have had of it from the debates at all stages in another place were just enough to tempt the palate, but not enough to satisfy the appetite.
We would welcome enlightenment on a few matters relating to the franchisees referred to in Clause 5 and elsewhere. For example, is it true that franchisees do not have to own the land to have treasure ownership rights? What exactly is the position of the landowner, the
1336
leaseholder, the tenant and the finder when franchisees lay claim to recovered treasure? Is the franchisee able to claim the treasure without compensating anyone? Is the franchisee able to dispose of treasure without any consideration for the national heritage? If the noble Baroness can in any way clarify these matters (either when she replies to this debate or subsequently by letter) I shall be grateful. Similarly, I hope that she may be able to offer the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol some "comfortable words", following the example of her noble friend Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, although I suspect that she will not be able completely to give him, "a happy issue out of all his afflictions".
Finally, perhaps I may applaud the proposals for a voluntary recording scheme to cover all archaeological objects which were set out in the DNH's discussion document on portable antiquities, which was a very welcome document. Clearly, the scheme is deliberately intended to complement the Treasure Bill, and it is distinctly reassuring that it has been welcomed by the antiquities trade, by archaeologists of all sorts and descriptions, and by the metal detectorists—and how good it is to see that the metal detectorists are now overwhelmingly in accord with the Government's proposals about treasure. Those of us who recall the confrontations and disputes so common a decade ago between metal detectorists and all museums—they were almost literally at daggers drawn—will be greatly relieved at the progress which has been made.
Obviously, the voluntary recording scheme will not be possible without some limited additional resources, and I must delicately remind the Minister, as have others, that as yet the Government have made no commitment to providing any additional funds for that purpose. Is it not very nice to find in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill that the whole thing can be done for a mere £10,000 and that,
"The Bill makes no other calls on public funds"?
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, is a Scot. A Scot has been well described as a Yorkshireman without the Yorkshireman's capacity for spontaneous acts of unbridled generosity. He must therefore feel well content that he has achieved excellent value for money and has done Parliament, the nation and the heritage a good turn. Well may he say, in Othello's words,
"I have done the state some service, and they know 't".
9.26 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to welcome the Bill. I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I believe that all noble Lords here this evening will agree that it is due largely to the tireless efforts of the noble Earl that the measure has got as far as it has. Our heritage does indeed have a tireless champion. I know how disappointed he was when his earlier Bill failed to make progress in another place two years ago. I hope that the fact that we are here tonight discussing a Bill which has successfully passed through the other place will be compensation for his earlier disappointment. At that time the noble Earl was greatly assisted by my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Renfrew, as has

1337
happened again this evening. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renfrew for his masterly speech which, luckily for me, covered many of your Lordships' questions. Having listened to my noble friend Lord Stewartby and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, I realise that I speak to a very educated audience.
congratulate my honourable friend the Member for Cambridgeshire South-West who successfully piloted the Bill through another place. It was the first time that a Bill to reform treasure trove had been debated in another place, and we did not know exactly what reception it would receive there. The fact that it passed through all its stages in the other place with support from all Members who took part in the debates was due in large part to the tact and skill of my honourable friend.
I am happy to repeat that the Government welcome the Bill which they regard as a much needed piece of legislation. I am encouraged that all noble Lords who have spoken have also indicated their support for it. I am not surprised. I recall that when the noble Earl introduced his earlier Bill, that, too, received a very warm welcome in this House. I was also encouraged to note that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, who at that time spoke for the Opposition, welcomed the Bill, as did the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who spoke for the Liberal Democrats. This evening the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, were equally felicitous.
I should like to deal with some points raised by your Lordships. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol referred to the concerns of the Church of England that the Bill might have the effect of depriving the Church of its property. It is important to remember that Clause 4 specifically states that the rights of prior owners and their heirs are protected. Therefore, any objects which can be shown to belong to the Church will not be covered by the Bill. I also reassure the House that the Church will be consulted on the code of practice to be drawn up under the Bill. I think of St. Cuthbert's treasures in Durham Cathedral. I can reassure the right reverend Prelate that the future of such relics remains secure.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked about fines. The best I can do is to quote the proceedings of the House of Commons Standing Committee during the course of which my honourable friend said:
"The fine is set according to the standard scale which is regularly increased as the need arises. We considered carefully whether the maximum penalty would be sufficient, and on balance we believe it is best to leave things as they are. One consideration is that if the penalty were to be increased significantly it might no longer be a summary offence and would become an indictable offence, with all the attendant complications of going to the High Court. In the circumstances it is proper to leave such matters to the jurisdiction of the magistrates' court. The fine can be increased as time goes on according to inflation".
I should like to discuss how the Bill will affect two interest groups: metal detectorists and landowners. The Bill places no restrictions on the use of metal detectors and we have repeatedly stressed that any detectorist behaving in a law-abiding manner will have nothing to
1338
fear. My honourable friend the Minister of State in another place gave the following assurance when speaking in the Second Reading debate on 8th March:
"Neither the Government nor the European Union has any plans to ban or otherwise restrict responsible metal detecting … The Government willingly acknowledge that, in recent years, metal detectorists have discovered many objects of great importance for the nation's heritage".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/3/96; col. 584.]
My department, as noble Lords will be aware, has had several meetings with the National Council for Metal Detecting. I believe that these have been very useful to both sides in understanding each other's position and five amendments have been made to the Bill as a result. That amounts to a significant package, without weakening the Bill's archaeological impact.
I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Stewartby for his support regarding coroners. I should like to take up the point made by my noble friend Lord Radnor who was worried about the requirement in Clause 8 that finders should report their finds within 14 days. I can reassure my noble friend that guidance on how finds should be reported will appear in the code of practice but we shall want to make it as simple as possible. He asked how easy it is for finders to determine the metal content of their finds and who stands the expense of deciding whether an object is treasure. The answer to his first query is that minimum precious metal content was raised from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. during the Bill's passage through the other place. It should normally be visible to the finder if an object contains that much gold or silver, but our advice is likely to be, "If in doubt, report it."
In answer to my noble friend's second question, finders and landowners will not be liable for any expenses under the Bill. The cost of determining whether an object might be treasure will be borne by the body which is asked by the coroner to give an opinion—normally the relevant national museum, the British Museum or the National Museum of Wales.
I should now like to say a few words about how the Bill will affect landowners and the question of rewards. I hope I shall answer the queries of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. The Bill strikes a fair compromise between the interests of finders and landowners, which are not necessarily the same.
The current practice is that the Crown offers treasure troves to museums which must pay the finder a full reward if they wish to keep them; otherwise, the objects are returned to the finder. At present landowners are not eligible for rewards under any circumstances—not even if the finder has been trespassing, provided he has reported his find promptly. Rewards will still be payable when museums wish to acquire treasure. However, the Bill will make landowners and occupiers eligible for rewards for the first time. It also gives them the right to be informed of finds of treasure which have been reported from their land. For those reasons, among others, I understand that the Bill has the total support of the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union.

1339
Detailed guidelines on how rewards are to be paid will be set out in the code of practice provided for in Clause 11. The code will be drawn up in consultation with interested parties; for example, bodies representing landowners, the Church of England, metal detectorists and museums. As a further safeguard, the code will have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament through the affirmative resolution procedure before the Bill can take effect. Obviously, it would be wrong for me to anticipate here what may come out of the consultations on the code of practice. However, I can remind the House of the statement that I made during the Committee stage of the noble Earl's Bill in this House two years ago. I said:
"I cannot emphasise too strongly that our paramount objective is to encourage the reporting of finds. We clearly need to ensure that adequate incentives to finders are preserved under any new arrangements. At the same time we want to discourage wrong behaviour".—[Official Report, 23/3/94; col. 733.]
Those are the principles that will guide us.
In fact, we envisage that landowners and occupiers will be eligible for rewards under certain circumstances; for example, if the finder has clearly been trespassing. Thus, where there is clear evidence that the finder has been intentionally and knowingly trespassing for the purpose of searching for treasure we would not expect him to be eligible for a reward. But in the great majority of cases, where the finder has permission to be on the land, we expect that the department would comply with any arrangement made between the finder and the landowner over the division of any reward.
Equally, I think it important that we retain a certain amount of discretion in the payment of rewards. We know from experience that some cases that are not straightforward currently arise. There is a very real risk that a provision stating that under no circumstances are finders who are trespassers to be eligible for rewards would be a serious disincentive to the reporting of finds. It could drive many such finds onto the black market and possibly lead to their being exported without a licence, which would achieve nothing.
My noble friend Lord Radnor asked about museums not being obliged to purchase finds. Museums can choose whether or not to purchase finds. They must find the money from their own resources. I noted the remarks about the Lottery made by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. Certainly he would not expect me to answer on anything financial tonight. Any objects which the museums do not want or cannot pay for will be returned to the finders. It is as simple as that.
My noble friend Lord Radnor also asked about Clause 10(6) which provides that the payment of the reward is not enforceable against a museum or the Secretary of State. That confirms that rewards will be ex gratia, as is the case at present. However, I assure my noble friend that we expect to continue paying rewards whenever a find is acquired by a museum, as at present. If no museum acquires the find, then, as at present, we would expect to return it.
I sympathise with the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Radnor about the need to maintain the confidentiality of findspots. I can assure him that it is
1340
perfectly possible to keep the location of findspots confidential. All those concerned in dealing with such finds—archaeologists, museum curators and coroners—are increasingly aware of the dangers of releasing such information publicly. For example, often at treasure inquests coroners do not make public the place where treasure has been found. As a matter of course, the British Museum consults local interests as to how best to refer to the findspots of treasure troves. It would certainly be possible to include guidelines to that effect in the code of practice.
With his great knowledge, my noble friend Lord Renfrew set out many of the facts about portable antiquities. The Government see treasure trove reform, important though it is, as just one part of the problem. The great majority of archaeological objects that are found will still fall outside the scope of this Bill. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, said, a recent survey undertaken by the Council for British Archaeology has estimated that every year in England and Wales as many as 400,000 objects of archaeological interest are discovered.
It is important to distinguish between the public acquisition of finds and the recording of them. Treasure trove provides for national and local museums to have in effect the right of first refusal to certain finds. On the subject of recording, there is widespread agreement that the reporting of finds, so that they can be properly recorded, is of key importance—more important than public acquisition. But the noble Earl's Bill will make only limited adjustments to the classes of objects that are legally required to be reported and there would continue to be no legal requirement to report many other important categories of find.
For this reason we have published a discussion document on portable antiquities which seeks views on possible measures to improve the recording of all archaeological objects, not just those covered by the law of treasure trove or this Bill, in the belief that current arrangements are, except in one or two areas, not working well. The Government accept that there is an urgent need for action to record these objects as they are irreplaceable and of great importance for the nation's heritage. The portable antiquities document looks at the relative merits of voluntary and compulsory systems for the recording of finds. Under a voluntary system, the Government would draw up, in consultation with representatives of museums and archaeological organisations and also of metal detectorists, a voluntary scheme for the recording of archaeological objects found in England and Wales. One of the advantages of such an approach is that it would not require primary legislation and thus, providing general agreement for it can be obtained, it could be introduced with the minimum of delay. The document states that the Government's provisional view is that a voluntary scheme offers the best solution.
Last year the Council for British Archaeology established a standing conference on portable antiquities, bringing together all the leading archaeological and museums bodies in order to reach a consensus on these issues. I understand that my noble friend Lord Renfrew played a leading role in this

1341
process. The standing conference met again on 1st May and I have been encouraged to learn that it unanimously welcomed the proposals for a voluntary scheme.
I think we should recognise that this new approach means that the archaeological world has moved substantially in favour of a spirit of co-operation with metal detectorists and away from earlier bad relations. I like to think that my department has helped to move that process along. I know how hard officials have worked on the issue. I understand that antiquities dealers also welcome a voluntary approach.
Lastly, I know from discussions that officials from my department have had with metal detectorists that they would also participate in a voluntary scheme; so I believe there is every likelihood that a voluntary scheme will win general support.
This Bill is a classic example of the art of the possible. We see it as a modest measure to extend the protection currently afforded to certain finds of gold and silver coins and objects to a slightly wider range of archaeological finds and to iron out some of the anomalies of this medieval law. The main aim of the Bill, therefore, is to clarify exactly what type of find should be reported. At present, this is very unclear and is the cause of much confusion.
The Government feel that the most encouraging sign for the future lies in the fact that there is so much co-operation generally. Taken together, the Bill and the proposals in our discussion document on portable antiquities represent the best chance yet to secure improvements in the current arrangements for the acquisition and recording of portable antiquities which we recognise are less than ideal.
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, it is very late but I should like, first, to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for her response. If I may say so, the noble Baroness has done it again: she has summed up the whole debate in under 20 minutes. What a great achievement!
Remembering the time factor, I want, nevertheless, to thank all speakers who have taken part, although I shall not mention any of them by name. I am vastly excited by the general support that has been expressed, especially from the Labour and Liberal Benches. We can go forward, confident that we have a real chance to see the Bill reach the statute book.
I am also pleased that those with worries on the matter like the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol had the opportunity to air them. I say that because two things have happened. First, we have heard many of the answers to those anxieties, and, secondly, they can either be removed by further discussion or taken care of in the code of practice.
Along with all the details of the Bill, we have also covered a great deal of the ground on portable antiquities. It is most important that that should be done on a voluntary basis. It is a case of the two going along with one following the other very quickly, if not simultaneously hand in hand. One speaker used the
1342
word "pragmatic" in relation to the Bill, and I also heard it said that the Bill represents the art of the possible. I believe that those two descriptions fit it admirably. It is not a great sweeping undertaking or happening, but it will accomplish much of what we want for the history and safeguarding of the treasures of England and Wales.
I shall conclude my final speech by asking the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Offensive Weapons Bill
9.48 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill amounts to a further critical step on society's road to confronting the evil of knife carrying and the use of knives which has grown up in a culture of the glamorising of violence generally, not least among the immature and in particular the under-sixteens. Indeed, only today the Evening Standard carried a headline regarding schoolboy muggers involved in a cowardly attack on a woman of 72. It was not a knife attack, but it was an attack. That is the culture of violence that we are talking about.
The crux of the Bill is to make evil-intentioned knife carrying legally offensive and, at the same time, enable the police to arrest anyone carrying a knife without good, sufficient and innocent reason, whether in public or on school premises. At first sight that may seem fairly simple. But we have to fit this into the format of existing law and ensure first, that the police have the power of immediate arrest; and, secondly, make the punishment of crime, which could well mean gaol, really effective. Two principal Acts bear pretty comprehensively on this area. They are the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Tonight's Bill would build on both but amend them. The Bill proposes clear measures to deal with a clear evil. Police officers who are in contact with those carrying knives have no doubt that there is a growing knife culture among young people. We must do everything we can to face up to that, which is what the Bill does.
In a worsening trend, the number of convictions for carrying a knife in public without good reason under Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act shows a rise in England and Wales from 1,853 in 1993 to 2,502 in 1994. That is a considerable increase. Recorded offences of violence against the person involving a sharp instrument continued to rise in the Metropolitan Police force area. Indeed, between April 1995 and February this year—the latest period for which we have figures—there were 2,664 such offences, as against 2,550 in the previous year. Such offences, as a percentage of all offences of violence in the Metropolitan Police force area, rose from 6 per cent. to nearly 8 per cent. That is a serious rise indeed.
The Bill was initiated in another place—where it had an extensive Committee stage—by the honourable Member for Sutton and Cheam, following the fatal

1343
stabbing of headmaster Philip Lawrence. That painfully focused society's attention on the menace of illicit knife carrying and generated calls for strong measures. But the Bill is no mere knee-jerk reaction. As introduced in another place by my daughter, to whom should go credit for an imaginative initiative, to say nothing of a whole mountain of related research, it is based on proposals that were already under consideration by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers whose views on the practicalities of handling this measure are important.
These proposals may be found in the Bill at Clauses 1 to 3, which build directly on the existing legislation; namely, the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It may be helpful if I describe the legislation already bearing on knives and offensive weapons.
Controlling the availability of knives is full of problems. Ideally of course we would like any controls which would prevent knives from getting into the wrong hands. But knives have many legitimate uses and can be found in every kitchen and every garden shed. Therefore the Bill addresses this problem with a bold measure to prevent the sale of knives to people under 16. That measure is contained in Clause 6, to which I shall refer presently.
The Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 already bans the sale and importation of flick knives and gravity knives. Another 14 articles, of a truly lurid character—a long and gruesome catalogue—were also banned under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, Section 141. I ask noble Lords to prepare themselves to hear a grim list. These include a thing called the belt buckle knife which has a buckle which incorporates or conceals a knife. There is a butterfly knife which has a blade enclosed by a handle designed to split down the middle—without using a spring—to reveal the blade. Then there is a Death Start—a nasty name in itself—which is a hard plate having three or more sharp radiating points, and is designed to be thrown. Then there is a footclaw which comprises a bar of metal or other hard material with protruding spikes which is strapped to the foot. Then there is a handclaw, which is the same sort of thing but is worn around the hand. There is also the knuckleduster which comprises a band of metal or hard material and is worn around the fingers. There is a knife, which I take it comes from South-East Asia, which is called a Kasuri Gama. It comprises a length of rope, wire, cord or chain attached at one end to a sickle—at the end of a rope. There is also a Kyoketsu Shoge which is similar but is attached to a hooked knife. Then there is a push dagger which comprises a knife where the handle fits within the user's clenched fist while the blade protrudes from between two fingers.
The catalogue illustrates the depth and the antisocial wickedness of the whole revolting culture thrown up by glamorising violence, but because of the difficulty of controlling the availability of knives which may lie
1344
innocently enough in any kitchen or garden shed the Bill focuses on the act of carrying any of those items in public or in a school.
Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 makes it an offence to carry an offensive weapon in public without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. A knife can be regarded as an offensive weapon where the prosecution can prove that the carrier intended to use it to cause injury. In practice, of course, there are many knife-carrying cases where it is not possible to prove such an intention. That is why the Government introduced in Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 the actual offence of carrying a knife in public. Under this provision it is not necessary to prove intent. To protect the position of people who carry knives for a legitimate reason there are a variety of defences open to anyone so charged. That is the background against which I shall try to describe the proposals in the Bill before us.
Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 some offences are arrestable—that is to say, an officer may exercise the power of summary arrest where he has reasonable grounds for suspecting a person to be committing such an offence rather than just standing on the street. That is especially pertinent where the police are trying to establish whether a knife carrier intended to use his knife to cause injury, in which case he would be committing the more serious of the two offences to which I have referred.
Clauses 2 and 3 increase the maximum penalties available for the two offences of carrying an offensive weapon or knife in public. Clause 3 will increase the maximum penalties available for the two offences of carrying an offensive weapon or knife in public. Clause 3 will thus increase the maximum penalty available under Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 from the present derisory level of a level 3 fine, set at £1,000, on summary conviction to the maximum available which is six months' imprisonment or a £5,000 fine, or both, and on indictment to two years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or both. That is more like it for an offence of this kind. It will enable the courts to impose a suitably severe sentence.
However, where an offence does not fall within the arrestable character unless certain conditions apply, an officer has to take the suspect's details and allow him to go on his way, to receive a summons later if appropriate. That, broadly, is the position as of now.
The mere carrying of an offensive weapon or a knife are not arrestable offences currently. Clause 1 of the Bill will amend Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to add those two to the list of arrestable offences. Clause 1 will also add the offence of carrying an offensive weapon or knife on school premises, which is proposed in Clause 4. It is pretty clear why. Carrying a knife or offensive weapon in public or on school premises is indeed a serious matter. It is partly to reflect this that these offences should be made arrestable.
There are also good operational reasons for having a power of summary arrest. It is easier to interview someone about other offences which may be associated

1345
with the carriage of an offensive weapon or knife in a formal setting, for instance, at the police station, where that is needed. It will also bring the law of England and Wales into line with that for Scotland which has had this penalty for a knife-carrying offence since 1993.
The offence of carrying an offensive weapon under Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 is more serious than that of carrying a knife under Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. That is because where a knife carrier is prosecuted under the former offence, it is necessary to prove that he intended to cause injury. That is the difference and the difficulty. It follows that the maximum penalty for carrying an offensive weapon should be substantially higher than that for simple knife carrying. It is currently set, on summary conviction, at the maximum available and, on indictment, two years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine or both.
To maintain a proper differentiation between the penalties available for the two related offences, Clause 2 proposes to increase the maximum penalty to four years' imprisonment or a fine, or both. I have emphasised the relevance of the offensive weapon-carrying offence or the intent to cause injury by the person carrying it because that is our main concern here. But the offence also impacts on other offensive weapons. Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 defines an offensive weapon as:
"any article made or adapted for causing injury".
It also impacts on the carriage of any prima facie offensive weapon such as a flick knife, a swordstick or knuckleduster.
Clause 4 is the first of two major proposals added to the Bill by government amendment in another place. The death of Philip Lawrence and the Dunblane tragedy have focused attention on school security. To consider this, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education set up a working party comprising representatives of a wide range of interested parties.
At an early stage it became clear that one necessary change was to extend to school premises the offences of carrying an offensive weapon or knife. It is, I am afraid, a reflection of what the police service believes to be a developing knife-carrying culture among the young that we should address this in relation to schools.
Clause 4 is a sensible measure to overcome the ridiculous anomaly under which someone commits the offence of carrying a knife or offensive weapon in public at one moment yet ceases to be guilty of the same offence the moment he steps through the school gates. Clause 4 will also give police officers the necessary associated powers of entry to school premises, plus the power to search for and seize any such article. This is in line with their existing powers.
The clause recognises that there will be cases where having a knife on school premises is perfectly legitimate and provides a variety of defences which are the same as those available for the existing offence in public, except that the further defence of having the article for educational purposes is added. Clause 5 proposes a technical amendment to Scottish legislation on offensive weapon carrying.
1346
Finally, I come to Clause 6 which proposes to make it an offence to sell knives and a variety of other articles to people under 16. This proposal, which, as I said earlier, was added by means of a government amendment in another place, is perhaps the most imaginative part of the Bill. There are two ways of attacking knife carrying: one is through giving the police and courts effective powers to deal with the act of carrying. These will be strengthened by the Bill. The other is through preventing or controlling availability of articles which can be used to cause injury.
There is a range of articles, the sale of which is prohibited. I have already given a list of some of them. I know that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is prepared to add further to the list as necessary.
We cannot, we would all accept, simply ban the sale of all knives. We must look at what is possible. I am assured that it is not possible just to add to the prohibited list the types of knives which many of us find offensive. I have in mind such things as the following articles which have been brought to my attention. Something called the "skulletto" has a short double-edged blade with serrations, with a handle fashioned in the shape of a skull and crossbones. Another which is called the "double cobra boot knife" has a handle fashioned in the shape of two intertwined snakes and is said to be convenient for carrying in a boot. Those knives and a good many others have no legitimate use and simply pander to the immature and the violent. Many of us would like them banned altogether.
The trouble is that much of what we find offensive resides in the names or even the ornamentation given to the articles which, though lurid or unpleasant, are not capable of being defined in law. When all is said and done, those articles in all their essentials are no different from knives which have legitimate uses. If it were otherwise, we could seriously consider banning them too. That is why the Government propose in Clause 6 the radical step of banning the sale of knives to people under 16. They concluded that 16 was the right age limit only after anxious consideration. They decided that the age should not be raised above that. They took account of advice from the police service that a higher age limit would be hard to enforce, especially since people can set up home by themselves at the age of 16 and therefore have perfectly legitimate reasons for buying kitchen knives and so on.
The definition of articles to be covered by the ban has been agonised over in the drafting. One problem was to arrive at a definition which retailers will find workable. On the other hand, the aim has been not to draw the definition so wide that it will include many articles which do not present real danger. For example, we do not want to include carpenters' and mechanics' tools and items of that sort.
The proposed definition nonetheless includes various articles that do not present a danger. Some of those "accidental" inclusions we can live with. The definition will include dinner knives. Drafting legislation to exclude these would be exceedingly messy given, for example, that we would not want to exclude steak

1347
knives. Here, we must take the line that removing the total freedom of people under the age of 15 to buy their own cutlery is a small price to pay for a workable definition.
Certain articles are covered by the definition but can be excluded without blurring the clarity of the offence. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has announced his intention to exclude from the ban small folding pocket knives and disposable razor blades. Clause 6 will enable him to do this by order. It will be necessary for retailers, including mail order traders, to exercise due diligence in establishing the age of a prospective purchaser. That is only right.
The Bill will strengthen, and add to, the existing law on offensive weapon and knife carrying in a way that promises to be effective in helping both the police and the courts to do their job and in reinforcing the message for those who need to hear that such activity is simply unacceptable in our society.
As some noble Lords will be aware, honourable Members on all sides in another place gave the Bill a positive reception. It is easy to see why. I hope that your Lordships will share this view, bearing in mind that the parliamentary timetable is such that a difficult Committee stage and a possible group of amendments could mean the Bill will be lost altogether. It had a good Committee stage in another place which went on at considerable length. I hope that the House will share this view. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make one short comment at this stage. When I was at sea, a sailor was expected to carry a knife. But if he ever misbehaved with that knife, or even threatened to misbehave, the mate of the ship would break off the point of the knife using a vice. I wonder whether the Government will consider allowing the police to do the same with anybody they think is misbehaving in any way with a knife or particularly something with a point on the end. I have no wish to defeat the Bill. The idea is good. However, I thought it worthwhile to raise that point.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his intervention. That is a matter for the Minister to answer.
10.8 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, said, the Bill received a Second Reading in another place on 26th January and reflected deep public concern, particularly following the fatal stabbing of Philip Lawrence. We can all understand such immediate reaction to tragic events. But equally, as the House knows very well, there is always a danger of going too far. What Parliament ought to do is listen to public opinion but not be dictated to by it. Notwithstanding that, this is a useful Bill and I hope it will go some way to reducing violence on our streets.
1348
Parliament should hesitate about any legislation which extends arrest without warrant and the powers of entry on suspicion. But, again, the powers that are in the Bill are justified in this case. I do not believe that we can expect too much in terms of results from the Bill. The prevention of crime depends primarily on resources available to the police and how they are used. Nevertheless, I welcome the Bill as an acceptable measure.
Perhaps I can add one further word. As the noble Earl said, the Bill was discussed at considerable length at the various stages in another place and in the course of those continuing debates references were made to the Advertising Standards Authority, of which I am chairman. Perhaps I may change my hat and move in spirit to the Cross-Benches for a brief moment and say this, though I doubt whether there will be any uncertainty about the matter in this House.
The Advertising Standards Authority has an important role in maintaining acceptable standards in the non-broadcasting media, and that would include acceptable standards in advertising offensive weapons. It works to a code designed to represent the public interest and broadly to reflect changes in it. But it has no power to ban advertising and should not have such powers. What is or is not legal must be a matter for Parliament alone. I mention that because it should be borne in mind. I am sure the Advertising Standards Authority, if called upon, will carry out its proper duty in that respect. For those who may be interested, the Advertising Standards Authority conducted a piece of research earlier this year on weapons advertising. If any Member of your Lordships' House would like a copy of that, I can arrange for it to be made available.
I welcome the Bill. I hope it will have a speedy passage and make some contribution at least to a problem that we all recognise and which is certainly much identified in the public mind.
10.12 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, as the wholly inadequate substitute for my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey I am happy to say that we on these Benches or, rather, I on this Bench, having carefully considered it, am fully in support of the Bill which may well make a serious contribution to reducing the level of violent crime in this country.
The honourable Member for Sutton and Cheam, who I believe is not unknown to the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, in introducing the Bill's Second Reading in another place, immediately drew attention to the words of Frances Lawrence, the widow of the murdered headmaster, when she said:
"A knife is an inanimate object, and it needs a human being to invest it with murderous properties".
How right she was, remembering that her husband had recently been stabbed to death outside the gates of his school when he bravely intervened to try to protect one of his pupils from a violent attack. She went on to mention the case of John Killick of Scunthorpe, a security guard who was stabbed to death last December. She drew attention to the pensioner Frank Dempsey who

1349
died after being stabbed in the throat, and also to Imtiaz Begum and her three children who were killed with a nine-inch kitchen knife. They were stabbed to death with an ordinary kitchen knife.
The honourable Member reminded us of the specific figures: of the 677 people who were the victims of murder in this country in 1994, 236 were stabbed. In London 41 per cent. of the crimes of murder involved knives or other sharp instruments and the number of people mutilated, injured or wounded by knives probably runs into many thousands.
The proposals which the Bill makes are sensible, they are clear, and they are sufficient, in every sense but one, to which I will return. The arrest without warrant for offences of carrying offensive weapons is a very necessary reform. Clauses 2 and 3, which increase the penalties, are a proper deterrent in my view. The offence of having an article with a blade or point on school premises is sadly an essential improvement to the law as we now have it, although it seems so sad that it should, in a sense, be closing the stable door after the horse has gone. The sale of knives and articles with a blade or point to persons under 16 is a long overdue restriction for which we should all be grateful.
My honourable friend Mr. Alun Michael made it clear at all the Bill's stages in another place that the Bill has the entire support of the Labour Party. He drew particular attention to the need that the law should be changed to allow the police the power of arrest for the offence of carrying an offensive weapon, although he took the liberty to point out that that was first urged by Jack Straw in 1995. The Labour Party also tried to include a ban on the advertising of offensive weapons, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, drew attention. It was rejected in another place by the Government as flawed and impracticable. We see what they meant but we are not convinced.
We would suggest that amendment would be desirable if it were not for the fact that an amendment puts into danger the timetable of the Bill. It may be that no amendments can be allowed; otherwise the Bill will fall in the Commons on 12th July, and that would be tiresome and regrettable. But if a way could be found to control advertising offensive weapons of the kind the noble Earl has read out to us, which are of no possible use in a kitchen or anywhere else and are simply means of mutilating other people, this would improve the legislation and remove what is unquestionably a temptation and often an incitement to violent crime.
With that having been said, we support the Second Reading, and we shall assist the Bill in its progress through your Lordships' House in every way that we can. So I can say to the noble Baroness the Minister, "It's a fair cop, guy, and we'll come quietly".
10.18 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may first of all say that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, is no poor substitute for his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. We have enjoyed his spirited defence of the Bill and his support for it.
1350
This has been a brief but important debate. As my noble friend Lord Lauderdale has indicated, the Bill as introduced was closely based upon proposals which were previously under consideration between my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the Association of Chief Police Officers, and which therefore naturally have the full support of the Government.
Other proposals were added to the Bill as a result of government amendments, to deal with knife carrying in schools and the sale of knives to people under the age of 16.
The menace of knife carrying, which has been addressed by all who have spoken in the debate, particularly by young people, is one which deserves to be combated with the strongest possible measures. This is what the Bill aims to do. The Government are grateful to my noble friend Lord Lauderdale for agreeing to take forward this important measure and for the support which all of the proposals in the Bill have received on all sides of the House.
It has been made clear during the passage of the Bill that some examples of weapons advertised in the printed media are a cause for concern. Here I must recognise the position that is held by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. The Advertising Standards Authority seeks to ensure that advertisers comply with a code which, among other matters, states that advertisements should not contain anything which might condone or encourage violent or anti-social behaviour. The code is, I believe, right—and I believe that the Advertising Standards Authority exercises the right degree of sensitivity in judging whether advertisements are in breach of the code. We nonetheless need to explore whether more can be done. I take the spirit of what the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, had to say on the subject. It has been discussed in some detail in the other place, where a Home Office Minister has said that he will discuss with the Advertising Standards Authority its approach, its sanctions and the discipline that it brings to the advertising industry. We should now await the outcome of those discussions.
However, I believe that we need to be realistic about what can be achieved in further controls on advertising. In the first place, in general the Advertising Standards Authority is successful in ensuring that the code is adhered to. In the course of its recent survey of advertisements for guns and weapons, it has come across a small number of cases in which the advertising of weapons is questionable. It is pursuing its criticisms with those concerned. We need to see the outcome of its efforts in those particular cases.
It has been implied that the ASA's effectiveness is hampered by the fact that it is not applying statutory controls to advertising. In fact, the reverse is true. I give the example of the offence that it takes at the use of the title, "Knives, Knives, Knives" in a knives' advertisement. I doubt very much whether any statutory control could be devised which would come anywhere near exercising that sensitivity of judgment let alone applying it. If, of course, the advertisement incites a person to commit a criminal offence, the advertiser

1351
himself is committing an offence under existing law. Introducing a lower level of incitement in relation to the printed media is very problematic. But as I say, we must await the outcome of the Minister's discussions with the Advertising Standards Authority before we can usefully take this discussion further, but I take very seriously the point that has been made.
In reply to the point made by my noble friend Lord Balfour, we would say that in any of the kinds of circumstances described by him it would be far better that the police confiscate the knife. They have the power to do so. That is obviously a much better solution.
I believe that precedent has been established by this Bill, having been introduced so ably in another place by the honourable Member for Sutton and Cheam, who is not a million miles away from me at this moment and who is the daughter of my noble friend Lord Lauderdale. The proposals in the Bill represent important protective measures and I hope that it will be given a Second Reading.
10.22 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, in rising to thank my noble friend the Minister for her helpful lead and encouragement on this Bill, I first apologise to the House for my speech which was a sheer gabble. I read it fast because my medical bedtime is in fact nine o'clock. If it is found tomorrow morning that someone has been bludgeoned, not with a knife, but with a rolling pin, that will be the penalty I have paid for being late home. That is why I read my speech at such speed and in such a gabble. I apologise to noble Lords.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. I had it in mind to say something about the Advertising Standards Authority. He is the chairman, and he took the trouble to be here and to sit late. I thank
1352
him and, through him, his office, for the 1,000 words of wisdom on this subject which I managed to condense to about 50 for my own purposes. I did not use them all in the end because time was getting short. I ask the noble Lord to thank his office for the trouble it went to in order to give me the information.
I thank my noble friend Lord Balfour. The whole object of the Bill is to stop people carrying these knives in the first place. He is a wise man. I had a friend who was in America and who was involved in a fight with a man who had a knife. I am glad that my noble friend is with us. My friend broke off the point of the knife that was threatening him and thank God that he did.
I thank noble Lords for their attention and kindness at this late hour. At the risk of possibly misquoting Gilbert and Sullivan, perhaps I may say:
"My object all sublime
I shall achieve in time—
To let the punishment fit the crime—
The punishment fit the crime".
That is what we want. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Belfast Charitable Society Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

City of London (Approved Premises for Marriage) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past ten o'clock.

  Police Search Warrant: Wording
  Police Search Warrant: Wording
  Judges' Clerks
  Judges' Clerks
  Cattle: Permission to Graze Set-aside Land
  Cattle: Permission to Graze Set-aside Land
  Europe: Human Rights
  Europe: Human Rights
  UN Human Rights Committee: Annual Report
  UN Human Rights Committee: Annual Report
  Israel: Nuclear Programme
  Israel: Nuclear Programme
  Smarden Incident
  Smarden Incident
  Mental Illness: Residential Care
  Mental Illness: Residential Care
  French and German Learning in UK Schools
  French and German Learning in UK Schools
  Youth Services
  Youth Services
  Primary and Nursery Pupils: Costs
  Primary and Nursery Pupils: Costs
  Pay Review Bodies: Membership Criteria
  Pay Review Bodies: Membership Criteria
  Pay Review Bodies: Remuneration
  Pay Review Bodies: Remuneration
  Statutory Bodies: Bylaw-making Powers
  Statutory Bodies: Bylaw-making Powers
  Women Offenders: Sentence Information
  Women Offenders: Sentence Information