Sitting of 12 June 1996

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

  Child Benefit
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coe.]
  Mr. Nigel Evans: It is always good to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), who has just delivered his maiden speech as a Whip. I congratulate him on that. I hope that many of his subsequent speeches will be equally short.
  We have a great opportunity this morning to discuss an issue that is important not only to me, but to many other hon. Members. There has been much discussion—a lot of heat rather than light—about child benefit. The question whether child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds should continue has been turned into a token of political virility by Labour Members as they try to demonstrate, within their current internal battle, where the soul and heart of the Labour party lie.
  Many of us have in our constituencies youngsters of 16 to 18 who are in further education and whose families receive child benefit. I have estimated that more than 8,000 young people in my constituency would be affected by any plans to stop child benefit for families who have youngsters at sixth-form colleges and schools. They study in Ribble Valley and beyond, in places such as Preston college, Clitheroe royal grammar school, Queen Elizabeth grammar school, which is just outside my constituency, and Stoneyhurst, which is at the heart of it.
  About 7 million families receive child benefit for about 13 million children. It was phased in between April 1977 and April 1979, replacing the redundant child tax allowance and the family allowance. I requested this debate to show why child benefit is so effective and why it is that Labour Members should speak out in support of this vital benefit which helps so many families. It has become clear that the issue is more than just a row over spending; it has become an issue of social justice. Child benefit gives money to families effectively by providing for the children at whom it is targeted at a time when they most need it.
  No one can argue that limited resources should not be spent carefully and effectively, but to raid the child benefit kitty in order to appear responsible is as damaging as making an assault on the old-age pensioners' Christmas bonus, as was done in 1975 and 1976. It is the Conservatives who have proved their ability to control Government spending while targeting benefits more effectively. The Secretary of State for Social Security has won almost universal praise for the way in which he has trimmed welfare spending. He will save £5 billion by
  230
  2000 and £14 billion into the next century, while maintaining essential public spending such as universal child benefit.
  It is safe to assume that we are all agreed on the benefits of education, not just to the individual, but to the economy as a whole. Surely, then, we should look at ways in which to ensure that young people get the best opportunity to further their education. There should be no dogmatic obstacles in the shape of a new tax to hinder young people in getting a good education. Perhaps this is just a softening-up exercise, the beginning of a tax continuum, with a new tax at 16, a graduate tax penalising higher education later, and finally, a good kicking in the world of work with penal rates of taxation after full-time education.
  The Government have proved time and time again that they back education, with Government funding for further education and training at more than £3.5 billion for 16 to 18-year-olds. The number of young people staying on at school after 16 has now reached 72 per cent.—up from 59 per cent. in 1979. Even among the children of unskilled parents, the staying-on rate has reached 56 per cent., compared with 20 per cent. under the last Labour Government. That is due at least in part to the opportunities delivered by child benefit.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that child benefit is of particular importance to Lancashire, where the wage rate is lower than in many parts of the country? We also have exceptionally good secondary schools in my constituency, including two grant-maintained grammar schools and a specialist language school. Therefore, people go to endless lengths to try to keep their children at school. If we kick them in the teeth with a tax of £550 for every child who stays on at school, that will be an enormous deterrent and will send fewer students to the excellent university of Lancaster.
  Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend makes a strong case. I know that she feels deeply for the young people who benefit from education in Lancaster, who, we hope, will go on to university having left full-time education at 18.
  In 1979, one in eight children went to university; now, the figure is one in three. The last thing we want to do is reverse that trend. We want to give young people the opportunity to realise their full potential. That is what I fear is at the heart of the matter. If families are denied child benefit, some young people will have to decide whether they can remain in full-time education. Many young people in Lancaster and elsewhere may be forced out of full-time education because of this dreadful punitive tax.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour's proposed tax—he is quite right to say that it is a tax—is the most regressive of all taxes? Is it not typical of Labour to propose a tax that would attack the very people they profess to support—those most unable to help themselves? Is it not typical that the Labour party always goes not for the highest common factor, but for the lowest common denominator? Labour would tax to drive people down, and in this case it would drive down their education.
  Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend, in an intervention on his birthday—we all wish him well—is absolutely right.

  231
  Removing £10.80 a week from the families of those with children between 16 and 18 in full-time education would be proportionately more damaging to those on lower incomes. Those who are extremely well-off may not miss it so much, but it would target everybody between 16 and 18. It is important that everybody should have access to child benefit irrespective of their means, as there is an important principle at stake.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour is proposing essentially a dog in the manger tax? The Labour party is deeply resentful of hard-working middle classes scrimping and saving to keep their children at school. Penalising those people by £1,000 to keep one child in school for those precious two years to give them the opportunity of going from further education into university is frankly mean-spirited and unworthy, and I am delighted that my party opposes that policy with great vigour. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to do away with that cheap attitude?
  Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a tax of more than £1,000 over a two-year period, at a time when families would need the money most. I imagine that keeping 16 to 18-year-olds is most expensive, with all the designer clothes they demand.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Trainers cost more than £100.
  Mr. Evans: As my hon. Friend says, trainers cost more than £100.
  A tax of £1,000 would be extremely damaging to many families. Child benefit is £10.80 a week, or about £560 a year per child. That would make a difference to a youngster either staying at school or being forced to get a job, especially as 90 per cent. of expenditure on child benefit goes to families on middle and low incomes. Opposition Members may concentrate on the minute percentage of families with very high incomes and ask why they should receive child benefit, but the vast majority of families are on middle or low incomes.
  That is the reason for the existence of child benefit. Its success lies in its simplicity, as demonstrated by the fact that almost 100 per cent. of mothers who are entitled to claim it do so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) said, the poorer the parents are, the more important it is as a percentage of their income.
  The bogey that is thrown up time and again by the Labour party is that a small number of families with children at fee-paying schools are able to claim it. Let us look at the figures. Some 75,000 of the 1.1 million youngsters whose families receive child benefit are at fee-paying schools—about 10 per cent. of 17-year-olds in full-time education. That is a small price to pay to ensure that the bulk of the money goes to those at whom it is targeted.
  Many children who attend independent schools are on grants bursaries or scholarships. The fact that they attend independent or private schools is no clear indicator of the wealth of the family. They may have been fortunate enough to be able to gain a bursary, a grant or an assisted
  232
  place. The removal of child benefit would not only be a tax on fortune, but a tax on the good fortune of the families of children who gain places at those schools, if that is the education they want for them. Again we see Labour returning to its familiar pattern of the politics of envy.
  To take the benefit away from those people and target it on those who earn considerably less would be almost impossible without creating additional costs, and thus balancing out any perceived gains. There would have to be massive bureaucracy to put in place the social engineering of the Opposition.
  According to the Coalition for Child Benefit:
  "Child benefit is cheap to administer with such costs taking only 2 per cent. of its overall budget".
  Any other way of administering child benefit would cost much more, and that would surely defeat the desired object of the exercise for the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown).
  Although child benefit was introduced by the Opposition during their last Administration—I emphasise the word "last"—it was supported in principle by all parties, and has been supported in the past even by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, the Labour party
  now wants to remove it.
  In the Conservative consultation paper "Reform of Social Security", published in 1985, the Government committed themselves to keeping child benefit, and reaffirmed that commitment in the 1992 manifesto, even though they had made a detailed study of the alternatives. The document explained:
  "The first aim in helping families is to provide help generally, while the second is to provide extra help for low-income families. It would be a serious mistake to confuse these quite distinct purposes or to seek to restructure benefit design to meet one aim at the expense of another aim."
  That is especially true today, and the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East was in favour of increasing the benefit at the time of the consultation document. He said in an Opposition Day debate on 27 June 1985:
  "Child benefit could be doubled or at least raised by £6 … An increase in child benefit … would be a … cost-effective way … to ease family poverty".—[Official Report, 27 June 1985; Vol. 81, c. 1122.]
  If it was right then, what has changed now?
  Originally, child benefit was seen as having three main advantages over the provisions it replaced—the child tax allowance and the family allowances. First, it helped those families that did not benefit from child tax allowance because they did not earn enough money to pay tax; secondly, it was payable for the first child and was tax-free; thirdly, it put the money for the care of the child directly into the hands of the mother. For some mothers, it may be the only reliable source of income, if they do not have access to their husbands' earnings, for whatever reason. Those advantages remain true today, and affect only the children they were meant for. The proposals of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East would inevitably take those advantages away.
  I know that not every member of the people's party believes that parents should be clobbered in this way. Indeed, such a betrayal of families will come very hard to some Opposition Members. It will be interesting to see whether they, too, sacrifice their principles in the pursuit of power. For example, the hon. Members for Brent, East

  233
  (Mr. Livingstone) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)—who would have thought that I would ever utilise those characters as part of my defence?—would support my arguments. In a letter to The Guardian of 23 April this year, they wrote:
  "the party leadership needs to stand by its past pledges to retain Child Benefit in full".
  They are right.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): In quoting that senior Labour source, my hon. Friend has put his finger on the nub of the debate. If there is no case for child benefit for 16, 17 and 18-year-olds, is that not the thin end of the wedge? Surely, if there is no case for child benefit for that age group, the whole principle of universal child benefit is undermined by Labour's proposals.
  Mr. Evans: Absolutely. The philosophy and the principle are at stake, not just the provision of child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds. If the proposal is implemented, everything else will be up for grabs.
  Another Opposition Member who agrees with our position is the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). He wrote in the Evening Standard on 19 April:
  "I know of many young people and families who rely on Child Benefit to help them out and enable them to continue in education."
  He is right. According to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the loss of child benefit as a universal benefit would create a poverty trap by making it more economically worth while for low-income mothers to give up their jobs and claim benefits. He, too, is right.
  A quarter of families currently receiving child benefit for children aged between 16 and 18 are claiming other income-related benefits. The change could result in members of families that formerly enjoyed child benefit, but who are now just above the threshold to receive the new upgraded level, deciding that it is more worth while to give up work and collect benefits. New Labour would create a new poverty trap.
  The loss of working people would have two obvious results. First, unemployment queues would increase substantially; secondly, a much bigger burden would be placed on the taxpayer as more people claimed other benefits.
  The existence of a benefits system that encourages people to live off the state is exactly the kind of poverty trap that we should be striving to eradicate. Surely this cannot be the way in which we want to run our welfare state. We need to get people to stay in education rather than taking the option of becoming unemployed because short-sighted politicians have foolishly made that more economically rewarding. The fact that child benefit is not taken away if a family's overall income goes up could act as a work incentive, but it certainly is not a disincentive to work hard, earn overtime and so forth.
  Sally Witcher, director of the Child Poverty Action Group, has also come out against plans to reform child benefit. On 19 April, in a press release, she said:
  "If you remove Child Benefit, how are young people's basic needs going to be met? We recognise the value of training and education but we don't want the benefit taken away".
  Several alternatives have been discussed at one point or another, but none is as effective as child benefit. What about means testing, for example? It would ensure that
  234
  take-up rates for the benefit fell, even among those on low incomes, because—for whatever reason—some would see it as degrading. They might decide not to bother to claim the benefit, feeling that it would seem as though they were sponging. They would not be, however. That is the one thing that child benefit gets over.
  Means testing would achieve the aim of saving money in one area, because people would not be claiming the benefit, but it would be a false economy. Children would have to leave school, and some would claim other benefits—income-related benefits, or even the dole. What is at stake is not just child benefit for a few rich kids; it is the principle that is under fire. The very soul of the child benefit system is under attack.
  Moreover, as the Minister has said, means testing would be only the thin end of the wedge. If the philosophy is to remove child benefit from 16 to 18-year-olds and target families with lower incomes, why stop at 16? What about 14, or even 12? In fact, if the principle is right, why impose any age limit?
  Is this the secret agenda on which we are about to embark? Will the proposal be aimed not just at 16 to 18-year-olds to save £700 million, but at every family in the land? If that happens, and child benefit is means-tested, the vast majority of families will be under direct attack, and will lose a universal benefit that they treasure.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Would not means testing be an extremely divisive way of going about our business? We should have to work out the level at which to carry out the means test, which in itself would prompt a big debate. If the level is too high, we shall be chucking money across the country, when a broadly based system would be far fairer. Alternatively, only a small number of people will receive a bloated sum, leaving a marginalised group desperate and unable to keep their children on at school. Means testing was a much hated system; how can the Labour party possibly want to bring it back?
  Mr. Evans: I agree. The level at which the system is introduced will be important, because, whatever it happens to be, some people will be just above it. That is where the new poverty trap comes in. I suspect that the means test will be so punitive that many people will be drawn into that trap. This is nothing more than a raid on the wallets of families: it is stealing £10.80 from mothers' purses, week in, week out. We must stop it.
  Today it is child benefit; what state benefit will be targeted next? Where will Labour turn its spotlight? Although the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has said that Labour has no plans to introduce means testing of child benefit as a whole, his record is lamentable. As his shadow Treasury gains in strength, who knows what other U-turns in Labour policy he will have up his sleeve?
  Other alternatives that have been suggested include child care allowances and taxing child benefit. Both ideas are fatally flawed, the first because it would not help children whose parents are not working, the second because it would introduce anomalies and divert resources from the intended target—the children.
  It is obvious that changing the child benefit system by means of some form of tax mechanism will inevitably disadvantage some children, especially given that child benefit took the place of the discredited child tax

  235
  allowance in the first place. To abolish it for those who wish to continue their education would be the equivalent of imposing a selective tax increase of 5p in the pound on the average family with one child aged between 16 and 18. Furthermore, tax allowances simply add to the family income as a whole, rather than producing specific sums of cash for children, as child benefit does.
  Another downside of taxing child benefit has been pointed out by various people, including the Child Poverty Action Group. Taxing the benefit for higher earners would cut right across the important principle of individual taxation for men and women. It would fail in the end, simply because a non-working wife would not be affected even if her husband was earning £100,000 a year. Or will that principle be up for grabs as well?
  To change a benefit which, it is almost universally agreed, works where, when and how it should, and to introduce the failed mechanism that it replaced originally, is nothing short of madness. Child benefit offers the only easy, clear and effective way of providing an incentive for children to stay at school after the age of 16, and we should not throw it away.
  Child benefit provides all our youngsters with an incentive to continue their education, irrespective of the means of their families. It provides an extra £560 a year, which for those youngsters could mean the difference between staying at school and being forced out to get a job before they wish to. Child benefit is successful, because nearly 100 per cent. of mothers collect it. It is simple, clear and effective. Withdrawing it would be like imposing an extra 5p in the pound in tax on average incomes. This proposal is ill thought out, and should be chucked out.
  If our youngsters do not get the education they deserve, and if families do not get the support that is their right, it will not just be the youngsters and their families who suffer, but all of us. This country will suffer for years as this spiteful act of small-minded envy works its way through the system.
  9.59 am
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: I am completely opposed to the withdrawal of child benefit from 16 to 18-year-olds, but Conservative Members would be wrong to think that that means that I am with them on this issue. I was interested that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) did not attempt to use my name in support of his argument, although, as a neighbour of mine, he knows my views. I am here to make my views clear, and I will not allow them to be distorted by Conservative Members.
  So far, the debate has been absolutely fascinating, and I shall treasure the Hansard report. Conservative Members have given a commitment to universal benefits, referred to "our welfare state" and come out against targeting, giving a good explanation of its drawbacks and disadvantages. It is unusual to hear those views from Conservative Members, who normally tell us about the advantages of targeting. It is Labour Members who usually talk about the administrative costs, unfairness and lack of take-up of targeted benefits. There has now been a conversion, and it is the Government who are in favour of universal benefits. I shall look at the future utterances of Conservative Members on this subject with great interest.
  236
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) said that Labour would bring back the hated means test, but I can tell her that it has never gone away. Means test after means test is carried out in pursuit of that darling of the Conservative party, targeting. If Conservative Members are to debate the matter convincingly, they will have to do more homework. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley suggested that the proposal to remove child benefit might lead to youngsters claiming the dole, but they cannot do so. The Government have waged war on 16 to 18-year-olds and their families, and I say that advisedly.
  The hon. Member for Ribble Valley talked about Labour's meanness towards what he referred to as "old-age pensioners"; the modern term, I believe, is "retirement pensioners". That is rich from the Tory party, one of whose first acts in office was to ensure that retirement pensioners would no longer share in any increase in national prosperity, by breaking the link between pensions and earnings. That immense attack has cost pensioners dear, year after year. We are not talking about one frozen Christmas bonus, but about pensioners receiving less, week after week, year after year. If the hon. Gentleman is going to delve into history, he should do so a little better.
  I am very much in favour of social justice and the maintenance of essential public spending, but it is news to me that that spirit motivates the Secretary of State for Social Security. If so, why was an order laid before the House on Friday concerning the withdrawal of mobility allowance from people in NHS care? I am pleased to see that the order is to be prayed against by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
  That allowance has been accepted as necessary for vulnerable people since its inception about 20 years ago—it was, of course, introduced by a Labour Government. Some £40 million will be saved by an act of meanness that will affect children, as well as adults, and the most vulnerable 16 to 18-year-olds who are unable to work because of disability. If they happen to be in NHS care, bang goes their mobility allowance. Then the Conservatives have the nerve to accuse Labour of meanness and to claim that they stand for social justice.
  A distinct ignorance about young people has been shown in the debate. When child benefit was introduced—and family allowance before it—it did not extend to youngsters over 16 who left school or full-time education, because it was assumed, correctly, that they were going to work. If they were at work, they would have an income, would be making a contribution to the family budget, and would have some money left over for themselves. They would therefore not be treated as dependent children.
  Youngsters who leave school now have no income, and that has introduced unfairness into the system. My hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench are wrong if they think that the way in which to deal with that is to remove, or partially remove, the payment of child benefit.
  We must ensure that young people and their families are not left without income. But the claimed lack of universality of the benefit arose because, at the time it was introduced, it was not necessary to go on paying those youngsters child benefit, because they would be going to work. Later, it was thought that youngsters in that age group would receive training and a training allowance. So

  237
  a youngster could be at school or in full-time education and getting child benefit; in training and receiving an allowance; or in work and getting wages.
  It is unfortunate that work has just about disappeared for 16 to 18-year-olds, and training and training allowances are woefully inadequate. Not enough suitable training is available, and some 16 to 18-year-olds are left in limbo. That matter should be addressed, and my hon. Friends intend to do so. I give them full credit for reviewing the situation; the Government do not review or consult—they simply act against young people.
  The review will have caused my hon. Friends to concentrate their minds because of the strong objection to the removal of child benefit from Opposition Back Benchers and from within the Labour movement. But Labour's opposition comes from people who are consistent in their determination to safeguard the rights of young people, whereas the Conservative party is simply engaging in some mischievous politics to try to stir up trouble.
  I can assure Conservative Members that there is no need for them to tell Labour Members how to make their views on the matter clear to Opposition Front Benchers—we will do so. We know, however, that they are acting with good intentions. The intent of our Front-Bench spokesmen is to ensure greater provision for 16 to 18-year-olds. I could give them a few suggestions, which would not be popular with Conservative Members, about how to get the funds to do that. However, we are in the process of discussing that.
  There is no harm in a review, as long as it is undertaken with an open mind and a listening ear. I am sure that our Front-Bench spokesmen will say that that is the spirit of the review. I hope that we will quickly bury the notion of an attack on child benefit.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Lady suggests that she wants increased expenditure. That money must come from somewhere else. Does she back the proposal by Labour Members to cut defence expenditure by £4.5 billion? If she does, what impact would that have on British Aerospace in her constituency, where there are many defence procurement jobs?
  Mrs. Wise: Come on, that is more mischief making. This is not a defence debate. You would soon come down on me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I tried to turn it into one. I am on very good terms with the British Aerospace work force, as the hon. Gentleman knows. This is not the place for a constituency squabble between us. We can do that elsewhere in so far as it is worth doing at all—which is not very far. This matter does not affect only our constituencies, but young people at large. We must get back to that.
  Young people cannot get jobs or, often, suitable training. They are treated with contempt. They cannot get social security payments. Even a pregnant 16-year-old is not entitled to financial recognition of the fact that she is unemployed. She has to prove that she is not only 16 and pregnant but suffering from severe hardship before she gets a penny out of the Government. From the party of the family, that is quite remarkable. We often get remarkable demonstrations of the meaning of "party of the family" through its impact on real families. To me, a pregnant 16-year-old has problems, and is already suffering hardship.
  238
  For the linguistic education of Conservative Members, I might say that the concept of "hardship" includes the concept of "severity". I once spoke for 20 minutes on that very point, but I shall not do so this morning.
  I remind Conservative Members that they inflict such things even on pregnant 16-year-olds. They tell them to go on training schemes. They tell the people running training schemes to take such girls for three or four months, knowing that they will not be able to pursue it, that it dilutes the training scheme and is a waste of everyone's time and money.
  However, unless a girl proves severe hardship—which, as I said, means that she must prove that her condition is doubly severe—she will not get a penny. Such youngsters cannot claim the dole. Even in that extremity, the Government have no compassion, and do not recognise what young women in that situation need. To me, a 16-year-old pregnant girl is in deep trouble, and her unborn baby needs to come into a world in which his or her mother has not been driven into more and more poverty as well as being over-young.
  I have put that to Conservative Members, for instance, during Select Committee inquiries. On one notable occasion, I was given a shrug as an answer when I pointed it out. I have been told that such girls can go to local authorities. The sudden interest of Conservative Members in the plight of 16-year-olds would carry more weight if it was a little more regular, widespread and consistent and a lot more honest.
  Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. Lady has been going on about the unfairness of the system and how 16-year-olds who are pregnant and suffering hardship cannot get support. The latest published figures, for 1995, show that they get very good support—79 per cent. of those who apply for hardship payments get them. That amounts to 111,000 young people. How can she suggest that their plight is being ignored?
  Mrs. Wise: A pregnant 16-year-old should not have to prove that she is in severe hardship. The fact that 79 per cent. of them go through that charade and prove that their trouble brings severe hardship only illustrates the problems that face young people and the peculiarity of the Government's approach.
  Conservative Members, from the humblest Back Bencher—such as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley—to the Prime Minister, have no regard for the welfare state. The welfare state is our welfare state, and that of the people of Britain. It is not the Government's welfare state, except in so far as they unfortunately have a great deal of power to destroy, distort and damage it, which they regularly do.
  This debate was instituted not out of care for young people and their families but to make political mischief. I do not think that it will succeed. Labour is having a civilised look at provision for 16 to 18-year-olds with the intention of producing better arrangements.
  I am prepared to show my Front-Bench colleagues that one option that was mentioned should be abandoned, but it was first raised in a throwaway manner. I have studied the speech of my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor. Its thrust was different from that suggested by the reports that came out. In so far as those reports were accurate, I think

  239
  that it will prove to be a temporary aberration, because the whole Labour movement is showing our Front-Bench spokesmen that it would be a mistake.
  However, reviewing provision is not a mistake. To review the situation of the children of unskilled manual workers who leave education with no qualifications with the intention of improving it is good. I will forgive one or two mistakes along the way as long as they are corrected in due time, as I am sure they will be.
  Let Conservative Members focus their beady eyes on the Secretary of State for Social Security. Let them consider the attack on those on family credit which will come into force on 2 July. People on family credit with 16-year-old children who leave school will cease getting family credit instantly, instead of having it run to the end of the six-month period. There are problems with that. It might be said that they have ceased to have a dependent child in the family, but that is not so. The 16-year-old will not cease to be dependent, and will not have an income, as I have explained.
  The family will have to say whether the child will return to school in September, but they may not know. Some families may lose their family credit, then their child returns to school after all. Will they get a refund? Others may claim family credit thinking that their child will return to school, but, by September, some other thing has supervened and they will no longer be entitled to family credit. Will they be accused of having claimed unfairly?
  All such matters are, of course, beyond the scrutiny of Conservative Members, who would be well advised to focus their attention on their own party's attacks on 16 to 18-year-olds in particular and the welfare state generally.
  10.19 am
  Lady Olga Maitland: Over the past few weeks, young people in their hundreds of thousands have been going into their school examination halls to sit A-levels. More students have been sitting A-levels than ever before in British history. They have been doing so with the justifiable aspiration to go on to further education and university to improve themselves. They have been able to do that because their parents have been receiving child benefit, which is worth, over two years, £1,000. It keeps children in education to improve their chances instead of having to try their luck in an unskilled world. The Government are trying to improve young people's chances, not hinder them.
  The proposed removal of child benefit is a sixth form tax; it is punitive. Those who are being punished are the young people on whom our hopes and the good of the country rely. We do not want to return to the dark ages of throwing them into low-paid work. We want to give them the opportunity to improve themselves, and we want to facilitate their progress.
  Labour's muddled, totally misconceived scheme attacks the wrong people. Of course we want to support those who in the lowest incomes groups, and they have such support. Labour's scheme attacks hard-working, middle-class parents who scrimp and save and do everything possible to give their children the chances that they themselves never had. The Conservative party is giving such people that chance. As I said in an
  240
  intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), this sixth form tax is a dog in the manger tax, killing chances and opportunities.
  Surely it is more important to ensure that, at a vital stage in many young people's lives, they are properly skilled in the three Rs. We are living in a very competitive world. For Britain to have a chance to compete in the world, we must ensure that we have the best skills and the most educated people available. We are not part of the unfortunate skivvy world of third-world nations. We want to ensure that we can compete in the most effective way, and we must therefore prepare our young accordingly.
  The other day, I spoke to the headmaster of one of the schools in Sutton—John Vaughan of Cheam high school. The school is interesting and non-selective, and aims to help what I call master and miss average—not obviously academic high flyers. Such young people are being given chances that their parents never had. The school is pushing them forward and giving them the chance to go on to higher education and improve themselves.
  They are not children of wealthy parents. The headmaster said that the parents were alarmed at the thought that child benefit, which is essential to keep their children supplied with equipment, clothing and support, could be withdrawn. It would be a tragedy to throw the chances of such children away on a half-baked scheme, when he or she could be the one child in three who goes on to university.
  The Labour party is staggering and faltering because even its own Back Benchers do not believe in the proposed scheme. It is salutary that the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) began her speech by asking for the withdrawal of the mad idea.
  Mrs. Wise: That is far too free a paraphrase.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Well, the hon. Lady did not say "mad idea".
  However, the Labour party's approach is confused and muddled; it cannot make up its mind. If it is trying to help young people into training, it should get it right. It is getting it so wrong in trying to force employers to enter training schemes that represent disincentives to taking on young people. We should consider examples on the continent. When one goes down the road of artificially forcing employers to enter such schemes, costs of employment rise, and all that happens is that young people do not get jobs.
  It is worth noting that, for instance, in France, youth unemployment is 27 per cent., and in Spain it is 38 per cent. That compares with 15 per cent. in this country. The Government are getting the economy right, and ensuring that they do not shackle employers with the minimum wage.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party is somewhat dishonest in trying to paint the picture that it wants to support people on low wages and middle-income earners? Leaflets and literature are distributed that say:
  "New Labour, new Britain.
  Taxes which are fair for all and do not hit middle and low income families hardest."

  241
  That is what Labour is saying to the public, but we know what it is doing. If it removes child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds, families earning low to middle incomes will be hit hardest.
  Lady Olga Maitland: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. In essence, the Labour party is covering its tracks. It is being dishonest and deceitful, and trying to lead the country by the nose. At the end of the day, the electorate will give a very clear message to Labour. They will say, "No, no and no again. We want to preserve our children's chances. We do not want to be faced with more punitive taxes." Such taxes are the hallmark of the Labour party. I believe without any doubt that the country will reject the Labour party's daft notions—today and in future.
  10.27 am
  Ms Liz Lynne: I am grateful for a chance to debate child benefit, and I thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) for raising it. The Labour party is obviously in total turmoil about child benefit. It does not know what to do about it, especially for 16 to 18-year-olds.
  It is not the first time that the Labour party has been in turmoil over child benefit. Twenty years ago, it announced that it would not introduce child benefit for three years, despite the passing of the Child Benefit Act 1975. It introduced child benefit only when the reasons for the delay were made public. The Cabinet minutes about the postponement were leaked to New Society. The magazine's headline read:
  "Killing a commitment—the Cabinet v Children".
  The magazine revealed that the reasons for the delay were that the Labour party was concerned about the cost, and the fact that the money would be paid to the mother. Of course, under child tax allowance, the money had been paid to the man. It was also revealed that the Labour party's other concern was that the trade union movement was not keen on the idea, and the movement's alienation could not be risked. When the Labour party's views were made public—it thought that they never would be—it suddenly decided that it had to change, and change quickly. So child benefit has never had the full enthusiastic support of the entire Labour party. We can see those divisions reopening in the current dispute.
  The question is whether the Labour party is serious about retaining child benefit as a universal benefit. It currently argues that child benefit is paid to wealthy mothers whose 16 to 18-year-olds go to public schools. It argues that there are better ways to use taxpayers' money. If that is its case for scrapping the benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds, surely the case is the same for scrapping it for all children. That would be a case for bringing in means testing. The Labour party cannot use the argument it has deployed about 16 to 18-year-olds without following it through.
  The Labour party must also accept that it is not cheap to feed, clothe and house 16 to 18-year-olds. I am afraid that many families will say to their children once they reach the age of 16, "We cannot afford to keep you any longer. You will have to go out and try to find work." That is what I fear will happen, not just in poorer families, but in families across the board. I wish that the Labour party would change its mind.
  242
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) will say that it is the Opposition's policy to help those in greatest need. The abolition of child benefit, which is paid to the mother, will not do that. Any means testing will cause some in greatest need not to claim the benefit, and administration costs will absolutely soar. I honestly do not believe that any money will be saved by redistributing it anywhere else, especially when one considers the administration costs.
  Child benefit has many, many advantages. It is still guaranteed to those in work and out of it. It helps to overcome the poverty trap. That is another reason why I am extremely worried about the Labour party proposal, because it will create, yet again, a new poverty trap. If one has to claim for child benefit, a stigma will be attached to it. Because it is a universal benefit, there is little evidence of benefit fraud. The Labour party must change its mind—I mean those on the Opposition Front Bench, because I know very well that many of their colleagues on the Back Benches are totally opposed to scrapping child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds.
  The Conservative party must also make clear its commitment to child benefit as a universal benefit, and say that it will increase it each and every year in line with inflation. I would like the Minister to make that commitment today.
  Child benefit is vital, and any plans to scrap it for 16 to 18-year-olds make no sense and have been broadly condemned. Child Poverty Action Group played a vital role in introducing child benefit in the late 1970s. In response to the Labour party proposal on child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds, it has said:
  "We welcome the recognition of the importance of education and training for young people, but it is vital not to ignore the immediate basic needs of those on low incomes. The fact remains that you cannot eat education, wear it or heat your home with it."
  I think that the CPAG has made my case.
  10.33 am
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I welcome the debate, and congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on introducing it, because, whatever his motives, there is a need for fresh thinking about that important age group of 16 to 18-year-olds. Some important points have been made.
  Fresh thinking is required, because a number of significant trends and developments have affected that group of young people since the mid-1970s. One need only go back to that time to discover that six out of 10 children left school at 16 and found jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) reminded us of that. Today, of course, only a small proportion of that age group are in employment. The great majority are in education and training, but too many are unemployed or unskilled, and often ill equipped for the jobs that are on offer in a modern economy.
  Policy must therefore be based on two things first and foremost. First, we must analyse the characteristics of that age group. Who are they? Where are they in terms of education and employment? Secondly, we need to assess how current policy and practice impacts on that group of young people.
  Although today's debate has been wide-ranging, it is essentially about child benefit. We should therefore ask questions particularly about the impact of child benefit on 16 to 18-year-olds.

  243
  Child benefit goes to those in full-time education. Currently, according to the figures I have, 56 per cent. of 16 to 18-year-olds are in full-time education—that includes 71 per cent. of 16-year-olds; 58 per cent. of 17-year-olds and 38 per cent. of 18-year-olds. Of that entire age group, 17 per cent. are in maintained schools; 35 per cent.—a significant proportion—are in further or higher education, and 4 per cent. are in independent schools.
  Of course, a large proportion of young people do not stay on in education, and that inevitably correlates with their income and socio-economic status. In simple terms, poorer children are less likely to stay on in education. The youth cohort study for England and Wales for 1994 found that, whereas 85 per cent. of 16-year-olds from managerial and professional families were in full-time education and an equally large proportion—83 per cent.—from other non-manual families, that proportion declined to 61 per cent. of children from semi-skilled and manual families and 56 per cent. of children from unskilled manual families. Those facts alone represent major challenges for public policy.
  Current policy includes a range of options—significantly, child benefit. Obviously, as that benefit is paid after the age 16 only to those families with children in full-time education, it follows that the distribution of child benefit resources is skewed. That means that, while a child from a high-income family in full-time education receives child benefit, a family supporting an unemployed 16-year-old receives no child benefit.
  As for other options, the policy governing the education maintenance allowances is frankly a mess, because there is no rationale or fairness to it. The amount paid in those allowances ranges from just 90p a week in some local authorities to as much as £20 a week in others. In some local education authorities, as few as one child in 1,000 receives education maintenance allowances.
  Similar problems are apparent in the provision of grants. At present, some 16-year-olds receive grants for their fees while others do not, but they are taking exactly the same educational courses. Again, there is no uniformity nationally, and the policy is in a mess. Some young people have their fees paid for courses, while others do not.
  What about youth training schemes? We all understand that young people need to take training seriously and that that training must be of a high quality. It must be successful and effective. According to Sir Ron Dearing, just 46 per cent. of young people who enter youth training schemes complete their course of study. In Merseyside, 72 per cent. of those who start such courses fail to complete them. In Sunderland, that figure is 66 per cent. Only one in five training and enterprise areas has a completion rate better than 50 per cent. I put it to the House that that is a pathetic record.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, far from having a so-called pathetic record, the youth training scheme has been an enormous success? Is he not aware that 80 per cent. of those who complete youth training courses go on to jobs? Surely that is a success.
  Mr. Wicks: I am pleased that many of those who complete their courses find jobs; that is the purpose of the
  244
  scheme. To be fair, the hon. Lady must be extremely concerned that less than half those who start youth training courses complete them. I use the word "pathetic" because something is wrong with the quality of the courses.
  Faced with these facts, and given the immense challenges facing policy for young people, can anyone say that resources are currently being spent effectively and equitably? Are policies encouraging young people to pursue their education or to enter training courses? We consider those questions to be vital, so we have announced a review of policies and resources for children post-16.
  The review will examine the whole range of post-16 finance and policy, including grants, fees, discretionary allowances, education maintenance allowances and child benefit. The Government are seldom able to look effectively at policies across Departments—we are doing that through this review, in shadow government.
  Despite the scaremongering from the Government Benches this morning, the Labour party has no intention of interfering with child benefit for children under the age of 16. The Labour party initiated the child benefit scheme—in fact, the great pioneer Eleanor Rathbone was the founding mother of family allowances in this country. The Labour party is committed to child benefit as a universal payment, not least because it is an income for mothers. Let there be no scaremongering about that.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: If the Labour party is opposed to parents who are wealthy or on high incomes getting child benefit for children aged between 16 and 18, why does it not hold the same view in relation to wealthy parents with children below the age of 16?
  Mr. Wicks: Those below 16 are children; those between the ages of 16 and 18 are in a vital transition period through childhood, into adolescence and then into adulthood. We are talking about a range of policies—education, training and social security—that impact on that age group. I have argued that, at the moment, those policies are ineffective, and that is the case for a review—we want something better, fairer and more effective. No decisions have been made because the review is currently under way. It would be wrong to pre-empt any options at this stage.
  I believe that the review represents a major step forward. It shows that the Labour party is not complacent about the position facing many young people in Britain today. I think I heard the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security say that we have had four years—by golly, the Government have had more years than that, and look at the mess that we are in.
  It is sensible to examine the use of existing resources to see how they are being spent and whether they can be spent more effectively. The review deals with some substantive and complex matters. The prime concerns of the review are to encourage and enable significantly more young people to enter education or training, and equip them to take their place in the employment market in a modern, complex and challenging world. The review is

  245
  about offering support to young people and their families, and about producing a coherent system that operates uniformly across the nation.
  Ms Lynne: Does that mean that the Labour party is committed to restoring benefits to those aged between 16 and 18?
  Mr. Wicks: There is no point in us undertaking a review if we know all the answers before the review. We are looking rigorously at the resources and the policies, so that, when we take our place in government, we will have the policies that Britain needs.
  I have welcomed the debate with great enthusiasm because it enables us to remind the House of the Tory record on child benefit. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley—who clearly has a dry sense of humour— presented the Tory party as the party of child benefit. That is one of the better jokes we have heard in the House in an already somewhat whimsical week for the Tory party.
  The Government's record on child benefit includes a three-year freeze on the level of child benefit in the late 1980s. Today, Conservative Members have posed as the champions of the family and of child benefit. However, so committed were the Conservative Government to child benefit that they chose to freeze it for three consecutive years: 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90. This was a withering on the vine strategy. The Government thought that, if they could get away with freezing the benefit, it would disappear and be replaced by the means-tested family credit.
  How does that square with what the hon. Member for Ribble Valley had to say today about the universality of child benefit and his critique of means tests? When he was a parliamentary candidate and Conservative activist in the late 1980s, did he have the courage to attack the Conservative Government because of the freeze of child benefit? I suspect not.
  Nigel Lawson was the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time. In his memoirs, he was remarkably candid about the strategy. He stated:
  "The argument was that help should be concentrated on the poorest families—which meant that what mattered was not the indiscriminate Child Benefit, but the means-tested Family Credit."
  I wonder what the hon. Member for Ribble Valley has to say about that? Nigel Lawson continued:
  "Needless to say, having established the principle, John Major (the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury) … with my strong backing, was anxious to consolidate it with a further Child Benefit freeze".
  That was the strategy of today's Prime Minister. The Government froze benefits—they had a frozen heart about social policy. The policy was implemented by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and by his loyal Chief Secretary—today's Prime Minister.
  This policy, mean-minded as it was, was changed only because of the force of public opinion, led by attacks from the Labour party. The so-called party of the family, after its three-year freeze-up, was forced to increase the rate of this key family benefit. In 1991, child benefit was uprated, and the Conservative party had to commit itself to raising benefits in line with inflation. Why did this happen in 1991? Because a general election was forthcoming—for political reasons, they had a change of heart.
  246
  Mrs. Thatcher, the then Prime Minister, was hardly happy about this, as she revealed in her memoirs—they all write memoirs. She stated in her memoirs—I am sure that Government Members know every passage off by heart:
  "This sum was paid—tax free—to many families whose incomes were such that they did not really need it, and it was very expensive."
  She would have preferred a reform that included child tax allowances.
  More recently, the No Turning Back Group—which includes the hon. Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith), for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) and for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale)—issued a paper on the welfare state. They are the welfare state sceptic wing of the party.
  What did these five social philosophers have to say about child benefit? Did they agree with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley? No, they did not. They stated in their pamphlet of 1993:
  "We believe that the full up-rating of Child Benefit … is unsustainable."
  That is the view of the hard right of the British Conservative party. It is certainly different from what we have heard today. So much for the Tory party posing as the friends of child benefit.
  The Labour party faces the future with confidence—Government members should watch the next election to see how confident we are. We propose a review, for positive social and educational reasons. We care about British families and their children. In contrast, the Conservatives are never less convincing than when they pose as the defenders of the family. When the Tories pose as the friends of child benefit, mothers should hold their purses tightly, and parents should ensure that their children are safely tucked up in bed. The Conservative party has attacked the family; the Labour party will defend it. That is why we need a review.
  10.48 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): As the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) said, this is a timely debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has done a service to the House in introducing the debate: it can examine the extent to which the thinking of the Labour party on this most important area of public policy has progressed since the debate on 17 May. As is becoming increasingly clear, the answer is that it has not progressed at all.
  We absolve the Labour Front-Bench spokesman from any guilt, because he is far too intelligent to believe in that absurd proposal. To use a military metaphor—there was reference to defence earlier in the debate—he has laid down smoke, and not addressed the proposal that we are discussing today. He is simply the hapless Labour spokesman who must come to the Chamber today to defend it.
  The proposal lies alongside Labour's much-vaunted social security review, which has been revealed as a sham and a shambles. The Leader of the Opposition urged his social security team to think the unthinkable, but I am

  247
  sure that those hon. Members could not have dreamt that such an unspeakable proposition would emerge. To be fair to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)—who is my Member of Parliament when I am in London—it is not entirely the fault of him and his colleagues. He has had to endure an ill thought-out intervention from his colleagues in the shadow Treasury team.
  Virtually no Labour Members defend the proposal. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley referred to the Labour Members of Parliament who live in or near Islington and to their comments about the scheme. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne)—with whom I usually never agree—eloquently highlighted the foolishness of Labour's proposal. Although the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) was not keen on my hon. Friend's argument, in a concise and a withering attack, she dismissed the thinking—if one could call it that—of her own Front Bench. She has the courage to say publicly in the House what her Back-Bench colleagues are saying in the highways and byways of Westminster.
  It is important to examine where this absurd proposal has come from. It is wrong in principle, profoundly unfair in practice, based on inaccurate information, and likely to achieve the opposite result to that which is intended. On 17 April, the shadow Chancellor announced plans to abolish the child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds for the purpose of providing additional educational opportunities to children from less well-off families. It seems this week that young people would receive up to £20 per week to encourage them to stay on at school.
  Whatever the plan, Labour's policy is founded on the assertion that 80 per cent. of children with unskilled parents leave school at age 16. It would be shameful if the Government had presided over such a record. Some 20 years ago—after four years of a Labour Administration—those figures prevailed. However, the figure today is 56 per cent. Last year, 72 per cent. of 16-year-olds stayed on at school or further education—an increase from 42 per cent. in 1979–80. Almost 90 per cent. of all 16-year-olds now take part in education or training—five percentage points higher than four years ago.
  As my hon. Friends have said, Labour's proposal would take away £560 per year from families with one child. That sum would not be returned to taxpayers, in whole or in part, through lower taxes. Therefore, it is effectively a tax increase equivalent to a 5p increase in the standard rate of tax for families on average earnings. It is Labour's teenage tax. Labour Members who are always keen to suggest that our provision is deficient in comparison with that of other European Union states should note that removing child benefit would make the United Kingdom the only country in Europe that did not provide assistance to families with 16 to 18-year-olds in non-advanced education.
  It is an understatement to say that the response to the initial proposal was critical. It was criticised by other Opposition spokesmen who had not been consulted, and it was roundly condemned by Back Benchers on both sides of the House in early-day motions. The Child Poverty Action Group opposed the proposal, and correspondence columns in the newspapers showed that the public were profoundly unimpressed. In fact, apart from the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow
  248
  Chancellor, the only person to support the proposal was the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane)—a man whose good sense is clearly exceeded by his ambition.
  It was then suggested that child benefit be withdrawn only from those children at fee-paying schools. That idea was also based on erroneous statistics. We were told that 25 per cent. of 17-year-olds in education attend fee-paying schools, but the true figure is closer to 10 per cent. That is another miscalculation, by a margin of 150 per cent.
  Parents naturally want to do the best for their children, and many make great sacrifices to send them to fee-paying schools. The children who attend such schools are not all from well-to-do families. The 75,000 families who would be affected by such a change include many of modest means. That is useful information, which proves that Labour has lost none of its malice and envy towards those who try to better their position and that of their children in that way. Young people must be supported while they stay on in education, and child benefit can make an important contribution in that regard.
  As the hon. Member for Rochdale pointed out, child benefit may be crucial in determining whether young people from less well-off families stay in education to gain better qualifications that improve their prospects and life chances. Economic pressures may force many young people to leave school and enter the world of work prematurely. For example, child benefit for a 16-year-old contributes a healthy chunk of the income for a family that is just above the point where entitlement to income-related benefits runs out.
  The absurdity of Labour's proposal to abolish child benefit is highlighted by its other proposal, to make it available to bogus asylum seekers. I recently received a letter from the Labour Nottinghamshire county council urging me to support Labour's amendment in another place to pay child benefit to the children of those who seek to enter this country illegally. In other words, Labour believes that ambitious young people from British families should be penalised, but that the children of those who come from overseas and have no right to remain in this country should retain child benefit.
  It is not only young people in education who will be penalised: the Opposition's other policies would damage the opportunities available to any young person with ambition. Between now and the general election, the electorate must try to imagine what life would be like under a Labour Government. They should heed this warning: "Don't be young under Labour. Don't come from less well-off families. Don't try to better yourselves."
  Labour's policies would hit people from five directions. First, they would hit those young people who want to stay on at school after the age of 16. As I have described today, Labour would take £560 from families by abolishing child benefit as a result of introducing the teenage tax. Secondly, Labour's policies would hit those young people who wish to leave school and enter employment. Labour's minimum wage would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, as employers would find it more costly to hire new staff.
  Thirdly, young people, who tend to earn low wages, would be hit the hardest. Those who choose to leave school and learn a trade would face many difficulties. At present, employers are taking on more young people as apprentices and training them in a practical and successful manner. Under Labour, employers would have to give

  249
  16 to 18-year-olds one paid day off a week—whether or not it suited their training needs. Labour would tell employers that they must give five days' pay for four days' work. Why should employers take on young people in those circumstances, when they could employ older people whom they could train in the manner which best suited the firm and the individual concerned?
  Fourthly, young people will be damaged by the abolition of grants as a result of Labour's proposal to introduce a graduate tax. Fifthly, there is Labour's proposal for a curfew on young people, which even some Labour Front Benchers have rightly dismissed as crackers. Under that proposal, Labour would make it a police priority to catch youths, whether guilty or innocent. who are not in their homes after a certain time. Labour fails to understand that guilty youngsters, not the innocent. are the real problem. While the Government seek to crack down on the guilty with our tough law and order policies, Labour Members regularly vote against our proposals.
  Conservative Members understand what young people need: they need to learn and we have helped them to learn. In 1979, one in eight young people went to university, now that figure is one in three. Young people need to work and we have helped them to work: since December 1992 unemployment has fallen by nearly 800,000. Young people need to learn a trade and we have helped them to do so: by the year 2000 there will be 150,000 modern apprentices with the right skills to succeed in the businesses of the next century.
  What the hon. Member for Preston said about the opportunities available to 16 to 18-year-olds was a caricature of the reality; she painted the wrong picture. Young people do not need their opportunities abolished by a future Labour Government. As today's debate has shown, a Labour Government would be an unmitigated disaster for young people and we shall not hesitate to remind the electorate of that fact at every opportunity.

  Drugs (Safety)
  10.59 am
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: The House has given a good deal of attention to the warning given by the Committee on Safety of Medicines on third generation oral contraceptives last October. The committee was right to hold the views and take the actions that it did, given the evidence available at that time. Certainly, there was, and is, a need to review the announcement procedure. Owing to the immediate public reaction, there was a deplorable jump in the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Sadly, some women ignored the committee's advice that no one need stop taking oral contraceptives and that women taking the third generation pill should see their doctors.
  This morning, I wish to talk about the lessons to be learnt about the general arrangements for monitoring the safety of drugs. The second generation pill, which was introduced from 1970, greatly reduced the risk of a blood clot forming in the veins of the legs and moving to the lungs—a pulmonary embolism—with sometimes fatal consequences. Second generation pills are still in use today and the Committee on Safety of Medicines' letter of 18 October reported even lower risks in their use than had previously been observed.
  During the 1970s, there began to be concern about other circulatory side effects. Large cohort studies by the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Oxford Family Planning Association found a slightly increased mortality from heart attacks and strokes, and found factors in those cases that increased the risk of the pill. With appropriate prescribing and lower dosage, the incidence of circulatory side effects and mortality were reduced to very low levels.
  There is a large—and what was a profitable—market for the pill in the United Kingdom, but the patents and trade agreements in the second generation pills held by Schering and Wyeth and by Janssen-Cilag and Syntex began to run out in the 1980s and 1990s. The search was on for new patentable products aimed at further reducing risks and side effects. The risks had become too low to be picked up by the public cohort studies and public funds were not available for a wider form of monitoring of a research standard.
  Researchers began to pay more attention to surrogate or proxy bio-chemical markers to represent the side effects of the pill. At the same time, there was a great deal of research on fats and cholesterol, and their effects on the circulatory system. The relationship of those effects to the use of oral contraceptive pills is somewhat distant: it depends on a connection between the effect of the pill on cholesterol and the effect of cholesterol on arterial disease. Most of the studies of cholesterol changes have been on middle-aged and elderly men, not many of whom are on the pill.
  Before they experience the menopause, women have a particularly low rate of coronary heart disease. Pharmaceutical companies came up with third generation pills with new progestogens that are claimed to protect women against coronary heart disease and strokes. The three firms that hold the third generation patents are Organon, Wyeth-with-Schering and Janssen-Cilag. The latter two had held second generation patents that were running out. Third generation pills were vigorously marketed and about

  251
  1.5 million women in the United Kingdom—out of a total of 3 million pill users in the country—were using them last October. Half the pill users were taking third generation pills.
  It was against that background that the Committee on Safety of Medicines had to issue its warning on 18 October last year that three independent new studies showed that the third generation pills, on a pooled estimate, doubled the risk of the old problem of blood clotting in the legs, leading to pulmonary embolism. It is a good idea to keep a sense of proportion and to bear the numbers in mind. The background risk of pulmonary embolism was five cases per 100,000 women per year not taking the pill, 15 cases per 100,000 women per year taking second generation pills and 30 cases per 100,000 women per year taking third generation pills. The 50 per cent. of young, pill-taking women, probably raising their families, using third generation pills, were therefore suffering 75 to 150 more thromboembolisms, and each year one to two more of them were dying.
  It was not a major disaster by serious epidemic or public health disaster standards, but even those numbers should not be on the conscience of any firm or group of workers. Following the warning in October, sales of third generation pills have dropped drastically. One of the firms affected, Organon, has a factory in Newhouse next to my constituency, so I am acutely aware of the industrial effects. At the time of the announcement, the lay media did an excellent job of accurately reporting the relevant brands and passing on the committee's message that no one need stop taking oral contraceptives, but the scientific press made an ass of itself.
  On 18 October, Schering, one of the three patent holders, flew over from Montreal Professor Spitzer, the author of one of the studies. He gave a press conference at Heathrow criticising the Committee on Safety of Medicines, based partly on his own work—possibly without knowing the other two study results.
  Organon, another of the patent holders, paid for a conference in London for 400 family planning doctors in order to argue its case. Both the British Medical Journal and Nature managed to get their reporting of the facts wrong. For comic relief, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—who I see is in his place and who is the Liberal Democrats' spokesperson on health—persisted in suggesting that the committee's announcement was a Government conspiracy to divert attention from the Home Secretary's troubles with Derek Lewis. I do not think that the Secretary of State for Health is that stupid, but the hon. Gentleman should not attack the independence and integrity of scientists doing their public duty.
  The Committee on Safety of Medicines' announcement was not rushed: data for the two case control studies were collected between 1989 and 1993. The general nature of the results was known to those involved in the industry and in the regulatory agencies in advance of the announcement by the Committee on Safety of Medicines. Owing to the nature of its work, the committee has to base its findings on mostly unpublished work, and when the three studies were published, it was generally agreed on reflection that the committee was right to act as it did.
  252
  In one way, the episode has demonstrated the effectiveness of modern pharmaceutical research and monitoring. Yet, and yet, and yet—was it necessary for that decade of commercial research to be wasted on the blind alley of the third generation pills? More fundamental medical research might have come up with real advances in contraception, but instead contraceptive research was run down by the Medical Research Council. Had the United Kingdom publicly funded cohort studies been extended and had new research methods been adopted, could not the epidemiology of pulmonary thromboses, cholesterol levels, heart attacks and strokes have been properly measured in women at a much earlier stage and at much reduced cost?
  What about the use of the United Kingdom general practice research database? American drug companies often say that the United Kingdom is a good place to do pharmaceutical research, because the national health service provides such a coherent and well-ordered source of data. The general practice research database is a good case in point. It is a computerised record by general practitioners of all the medical events affecting some 3 million or 4 million people and accumulating in the past five or six years. It is a record that could not have been built up in the United States without a general practitioner system. It is a development of the VAMP—value added medical products—system which this privatising Tory Government nationalised absentmindedly when Reuters decided that it could not afford to develop it. It is now run by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys which has now been merged into the new Office of National Statistics. The software is archaic and the only person who seems to be able to wring real results out of the database is Hershel Jick, an American in Boston who is 70 years old and operates on his own with half a dozen assistants. It was to him that the Committee on Safety of Medicines had to go for a database study on third generation pills.
  Open access to the general practitioner research database costs £250,000 a year, which puts it out of the reach of academic researchers. It is a neglected gem of a resource. There are two United Kingdom efforts at exploitation of the database. One is by Dr. Alan Dean, the remarkable medical practitioner who pioneered the database. The other, which is apparently inadequately resourced, is by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Contrast that with the sophistication of the human genome databases. Three independent versions are emerging, two of them with free access and two of them privately financed.
  Let us suppose that the Committee on Safety of Medicines wanted a pharmaceutical company to carry out a study on a licensed drug, as it could have done using the general practitioner research database. The Committee on Safety of Medicines has no powers to require a pharmaceutical company to do that. In the trials before licensing, the CSM has the obvious sanction of refusing the licence until the study is done, but afterwards it has no sanction. It could withdraw the licence, but often that is not desirable because there may be cases in which the drugs are useful, as with third generation pills for older women who persist in smoking while taking the pill. The CSM can ask for new studies on a licensed product, but only if it has new evidence rather than a new judgment on existing evidence.

  253
  The Medicines Control Agency, the CSM, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the British Medical Association and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry have issued agreed guidelines for company-sponsored safety assessment of marketed medicines. That is an admirable example of the way in which progress is made by agreement in the United Kingdom, but the so-called SAMM guidelines do not cover database methods, nor does the CSM have powers to require such studies. Drug companies can be recalcitrant and tough, as the third generation pill affair showed. Could not the CSM have powers to require companies to carry out specified studies on licensed drugs or pay for others to do so?
  In discussing these issues, members and staff from all the organisations concerned, pharmaceutical companies included, have been very helpful, especially John McEwan, a consultant at King's College hospital who alerted me to the broader issues; Michael Rawlins, the chairman of the CSM; Susan Wood, a director of the Medicines Control Agency; and Frances Charlesworth, a director of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. The views that I have expressed and any mistakes that I have made are, of course, entirely my own.
  I think that the practice in the United Kingdom of seeking informal agreement is more healthy and productive than the lawyer and litigation-ridden world in the United States and the regulated, directive-laden world of the European Union, but we have to live with those worlds and they have great strengths, including the enterprise of the American and the thoroughness of the European. We go too far in our passion for informality and agreement if we let things slip.
  Safety is not the only aspect of medicines that has to be considered. Important issues arise in patenting, research and pricing. Safety must not be compromised by those or any other considerations, yet there are interactions. An enhanced pharmaco-vigilance system would increase the price of medicines. Firms will not do research that does not offer the prospect of a commercial return, yet the prospect of a valuable patent can unlock resources for research quite beyond the reach of the basic research funding bodies, whether charitable or public. The CSM and the Medicines Control Agency must not be diverted by interesting research questions, by difficult patent issues, by tough commercial pressure or by political pressures. They must have the uncompromising support of Parliament in discharging their responsibilities for safety, but Parliament must likewise provide other ways in which the interactions can be explored and reviewed.
  Medicines have a long history. The existence of the overarching Medicines Commission was a factor that led the Select Committee on Science and Technology recently to recommend the setting up of a human genetics commission to keep an overview on that rapidly developing field. The Government seem about to accept the principle of that recommendation. A similar breadth of view needs to be, and could be, taken for medicines generally by the existing Medicines Commission without in any way compromising the independence and integrity of the CSM and the Medicines Control Agency.
  The integration of national pharmaco-vigilance in a European framework, which is an important current development, will of course continue, and that offers great advantages if it operates well. We should certainly play
  254
  our full part in its development. But it will increase the complexity of the interactions with the other considerations—for example, patenting and research—that have to be watched. I hope that the Minister will be able to show the House that the Government have learnt the broader lessons from the third generation pill story.
  11.18 am
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) for introducing the debate, but I take a fundamentally different view of the lessons to be learnt and I shall set out why. For the record, I must say that, last October—the time that is most relevant to the debate—I was not doing my current job on health for my party, and I was therefore not directly involved at the time.
  I was appointed to my current job later in the autumn and, by doing by my own research and investigation, I have come to the conclusion that several severe questions have yet to be answered by Ministers and that they have not yet come clean. Something appears to be rotten in the state of the advisory system on the safety of drugs. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I remain to be persuaded that politics and medical advice were not intermixed in this instance, with the serious result that the health of a considerable number of women was adversely affected—in one case, potentially, fatally.
  About 1.5 million women were using third generation oral contraceptives during the second half of last year and, as the hon. Member for Motherwell, South said, a preponderance of them were young. They were much more likely to be prescribed what are called third generation oral contraceptives, the clearest definition of which, as I understand it, is those that contain one of two chemicals—desogestrel or gestodene. They are the type of products affected.
  I want, first, to put on record what I understand to be the sequence of events surrounding the Government's announcement on birth control pills, and a letter sent to general practitioners, last October, which had the same sort of effect as their subsequent announcement on bovine spongiform encephalopathy—namely, that they caused people to change their habits. It is clear that, as a result of the announcement in October, a considerable number of women stopped taking a particular pill, or any pill. The result was that many women had either abortions or unwanted pregnancies.
  No later than July last year, interim results of a World Health Organisation study into second and third generation oral contraceptives were issued. The results were sent to the Medicines Control Agency, the body with responsibility for regulation in Britain. On 19 September, the MCA requested a meeting with Professor Spitzer, one of the three academics referred to by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South. Spitzer is the author of the transnational report. The meeting took place on 9 and 10 October, and those who attended were given tables from the expedited analysis of the study. On 10 October, Professor Spitzer met the MCA and the Committee on Safety of Medicines sub-group, which specifically comprises the people who make the decisions and recommendations.
  The very next day—11 October—the MCA called a special meeting of the Committee on Safety of Medicines for 13 October. On the same day, it referred the matter to

  255
  the European Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products, the CPMP. Papers were sent on 11 October to CSM members who, on the same day, received the final manuscript from one of the other academics referred to by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North, Professor Jick.
  CSM members received the papers—about 150 pages each—on 12 October. On the same day, the MCA met the producer companies, Organon, Schering and Wyeth. On 13 October, with only two days' notice, the CSM met. I hope that the Minister will tell us what it decided and specifically what it recommended, because it would be very helpful if its decision and recommendations were put in the public domain.
  On 16 October, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), who was then an Under-Secretary of State for Health, approved the sending of what has come to be known as the "Dear Doctor" letter, to be issued on 18 October. On 17 October, the European Committee met to consider the safety of oral contraceptives and that meeting went on until 18 October. On the afternoon of 18 October, the "Dear Doctor" letter was sent to about 27,000 GPs across the country. I shall deal later with whether it actually reached all those whom it was intended to reach.
  On 19 October, there was a press conference to announce what was going on and that the letter had been issued. A press release was also issued. The press release is material because it gave doctors advice on what to say to patients but it also specifically made it clear that some women should be advised to change their contraceptive. In the press release, the chairman of the CSM stated:
  "I have written to all doctors and pharmacists to provide them with detailed advice … We realise that our advice will place a burden on doctors and pharmacists … Doctors should discuss the CSM's advice with patients taking the pills listed in order to determine whether a change in brand is necessary. In general, women taking a pill containing gestodene or desogestrel should be advised to change to another brand, unless they are intolerant of other oral contraceptives."
  The salient part of the press release is that advice should be given to change from an otherwise commonly used third generation oral contraceptive.
  The very same afternoon—the public and the House can draw their own conclusions about this—and a matter of four hours after the press conference, there was a debate in the House on the Learmont report, during which the Home Secretary, more than ever before or since in his career at the Home Office, had his back to the wall. The Government were in considerable difficulty. On Friday—the following day—the Department of Health issued a press release refuting the claim that its analysis of the three independent studies was not the final one.
  Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman is obviously trying to create the conspiracy view of history, but on that particular day the Home Secretary gave the shadow Home Secretary such a beating and won such a parliamentary victory that the Government would have wanted it to make the headlines.
  Mr. Hughes: I accept that, but nobody was to know in advance that the Home Secretary would come out on top, not least the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Marshall: The Home Secretary wins against the shadow Home Secretary in every debate. The shadow Home Secretary is an embarrassment even to members of his own Front Bench.
  Mr. Hughes: I am not going to respond to that. I have my own views on those particular battles, but this is a debate on another matter which appears to have become intertwined with the Government's agenda of defending themselves against a serious report on the conduct of the Prison Service.
  On Monday 23 October, the Secretary of State for Health made a statement to the House. In that statement, he did not reveal, although he knew it, that the "Dear Doctor" letter was going to be supplemented by a further letter intended to limit the damage caused by the first. The second letter was being prepared, and was sent on 26 October. It clarified and, in a sense, sought to allay the alarm caused by the first letter that had been sent only a few days earlier. Both letters came, in effect, from the Committee on Safety of Medicines.
  To complete the series of events, in November, the hon. Member for Bolton, West was moved to the Home Office but, most materially, in April this year, the CPMP recommended that no action needed to be taken. On 1 May, however, the CSM sent a letter, which also is not yet in the public domain, to the manufacturers stating that it, the CSM, had advised the licensing authorities that regulatory action should now be taken. I understand that manufacturers are now considering appealing against that.
  Dr. Bray: At this point in the hon. Gentleman's account of events, might it be relevant for him to say that, although the European committee did not recommend action, the German committee took action in amending the licence and, furthermore, since then I understand from a pharmaceutical company that the CSM has written to it proposing a change in the licence?
  Mr. Hughes: I accept the hon. Gentleman's first point, although I am not in a position formally to agree it. On his second point, I said that my understanding was that the CSM had written on 1 May, and that and it is against its position that there will be some regulation that the producers are now considering appealing.
  I contend—it is a belief that is also widely held in relevant professions—that there was great haste in rushing the issue through the CSM, in literally two days, and then on into the public domain, that that great haste was unjustified and that it cannot be adequately explained either by the scientific evidence or by the supposedly increased risk faced by women.
  That view is supported by eminent people. For example, the Government's chief medical officer in Scotland, writing in the January 1996 edition of his official publication, "Health Bulletin", said:
  "Last October's decision to publicise the CSM's warning to all doctors … was taken too hurriedly."

  257
  He refers to it as "an error of judgment". He goes on to say:
  "The Health Departments owe general practitioners an apology"
  for what he then called
  "the fiasco over oral contraceptives."
  That is the view of the Government's chief medical officer in Scotland, and I should be grateful to know whether the Minister agrees with it, and if not, why not.
  Secondly, the chairman of the family planning faculty of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, David Bromham, who I understand was present at the CSM meeting on 13 October as an outside adviser, has said:
  "one is forced to wonder whether the haste in disseminating the CSM letter was justified."
  I shall come back to him in a minute.
  Why was there such urgency to get the CSM advice on supposedly new information relating to third generation oral contraceptives on 11 October? Again, to pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South, the issue was not considered by the sub-committee on pharmaco-vigilance, on the ground of the urgency of the matter, on any date before 13 October, even though it is the normal practice for safety issues to go to that committee for prior consideration.
  The Minister, in an answer to me on 19 December, said that it is normal practice for urgent safety issues to be considered without prior consideration when there are time constraints, but here there were no necessary time constraints. The evidence had been around at least for weeks, if not for months. I say that for this reason. The regulatory bodies had information and did nothing about it from May last year until October. It is clear that the sub-committee met on 5 September and 3 October. We know that oral contraceptives were placed high on the agenda of the European working party in August last year. Therefore, it was already known that there was a problem.
  The question is, why was the matter not on the agenda of either of the two meetings of the relevant sub-committee of the CSM in the UK, which had the principal responsibility for considering these issues, when it could have considered the matter on either of those dates last summer. A full committee meeting was called, at two days' notice, in October, the sub-committee was by-passed, and members were given 24 hours to read all the papers.
  Next, I have a set of questions about the regulatory action. Why, if there was such an urgent need for people to know about the increased dangers, was no regulatory action taken from last October until 1 May this year? If the pills were dangerous, why was it perfectly permissible for them to go on being prescribed? The MCA specifically asked the CSM to consider at its meeting the regulatory implications and whether there should be withdrawal or warnings. Nothing happened for more than six months.
  To make it clear, the word "warning" is, I am advised, a synonym of the technical term "variation"—a variation that applies to the regulations which govern the use of pills such as these.
  The CSM was specifically asked about regulatory action in October. What we have not heard, and what the Minister has so far refused to reveal in any parliamentary answers, is whether the CSM recommended any regulatory action. I ask the Minister to make sure that he tells the House that in his answer today.
  258
  With regard to the regulatory issues, as far as I can judge, and as far as I have been able to research and am advised, it is unprecedented to make an announcement, as the Government did and always planned to do, and then not to take regulatory action within a short period thereafter.
  There was always going to be a public statement. It would have created as much of a scare as did the one issued at midday by the Department of Health. We know that because the Secretary of State said, in his statement to the House on 23 October, that the MCA planned a public announcement on Thursday afternoon. The Minister has twice refused to answer parliamentary questions from me asking him on which other occasions, if any, such a warning letter has been issued without follow-up action.
  For fear that the Minister might interpret that as an unqualified criticism, I should say that I am grateful to him and to his officials, although they may not love me for it, for the many answers to my many questions that I have received. I do not want anyone to assume that a large amount of information has not been revealed. However, some of the key questions have not been answered and I do not want the Minister to believe that he is yet off the hook, because I do not think that he should be. I hope that he will answer today the questions that I pose today. If he does not, I give him warning that they will certainly be pursued. Has there been any warning letter in the past to doctors without regulatory action linked to it?
  The only reason that I have been given for our not having the answer so far is that it would be disproportionately costly. That is a normal let-out of the Government, but compared with the consequences of this action, it could be argued that the costs would be worth paying. Perhaps the answer would be unhelpful to the Government.
  Can the Minister be clear in his answer whether the pharmaceutical companies have a right of appeal? Were the regulatory authorities right to behave as they did? My advice is that, although they were given early advice that they were acting within their power to take the action, or inaction, that they took, they were subsequently told that they were not. We need to be told.
  The fact that such issues have not been addressed and that answers have not been given is ground for suspicion about what the Government were playing at through those crucial days in mid-October last year. What was the outcome? Nothing happened in October, but on 1 May this year, more than six months later, the committee sent a letter to companies stating that it had advised the licensing authority that regulatory action should now be taken.
  The only thing that had happened, apart from, if the hon. Member for Motherwell, South is right, the change in the German regulatory body's view, was that the European body, meeting on 16 and 18 April, decided that there was no decisive evidence of any increased risk from oral contraceptives, and had declined to recommend any regulatory action. Indeed, the chairman of the European body, Professor Alexandre, said last month that it would be "absurd" to take any regulatory action against any of the pills, given the uncertainty of the data.
  If the Government did not take any action until May—they have now, apparently, taken action—because they were waiting for pan-European advice or action, why have

  259
  they now proceeded to propose regulations through their agency, the CSM, against the recommendation of the European body?
  In any event, the Minister for Health at the time said:
  "it is a matter for individual states to deal with"—[Official Report, 7 November 1995; Vol. 265, c. 681.]
  In his statement, the Secretary of State for Health said:
  The responsibility for reaching clinical judgments about which contraceptives satisfy the standards required by law rests on me, subject to the advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines."—[Official Report, 23 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 704.]
  I assume, therefore, that that means that the Secretary of State takes responsibility for the regulatory action that the regulatory authorities have the power to take. The conclusion to be drawn must be either that the oral contraceptives concerned did not satisfy the standards required by law, in which case regulatory action should have been taken, normally on the same day, or they satisfied the standards, which we must assume was the case given that nothing happened for six months. If that was the case, why on earth did we have such an alarmist announcement in October?
  Dr. Bray: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that he is advancing the cause of safety of medicines if he asks for watertight, cast-iron judgments on whether a product is safe? To insist on a reply to such a question would force Ministers and the system into a quite impossible position. The Minister must ensure that agencies spell out the facts and that a judgment is given, but we must recognise that it is a judgment. Now that all the material has been published, is the hon. Gentleman saying that the general view of the medical profession is that they should prescribe third generation drugs in preference to second generation drugs in the ordinary case?
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman asks a perfectly proper and profound central question. I share his view. On this issue, I have been supportive of the Government, such as when the Secretary of State for Health made a statement about bovine spongiform encephalopathy. It is not my case that the Government should always reach conclusions on the basis of scientific evidence, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that. My case is that the letter and the press release that went out in this instance made it clear that the advice that should be given to general practitioners, and which it was suggested they should give to their patients, was that women on the third generation pill should change their prescription. That was the balance of view that was taken. I do not argue that the Government should substitute their view for that professional one.
  The hon. Member for Motherwell, South is a scientist, and I am not, but I have done enough science to understand the issue. My case is that we should give people the evidence and the facts and that, from it, different conclusions can be drawn. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is not the burden of my case that the Government should always have a definitive view, and I would not wish to push this or any other Government into that position. It is important that we do not spoon feed, or pretend to spoon feed, the public when evidence is often contradictory and difficult to draw conclusions from.
  260
  I shall move on to my final remarks, as I know that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) wishes to speak from the Labour Front Bench, and I am keen to give the Minister plenty of time to answer the questions that remain to be answered. I have given the Minister notice of three specific questions.
  First, the Secretary of State stated on 23 October 1995 that the concerns relating to oral contraceptives arising from the World Health Organisation study were brought to the attention of the Medicines Control Agency in July. Will the Minister confirm that that is not correct and that the MCA had the information in May, not July, as the evidence shows that it had a further two months' notice, which the Government have so far not admitted?
  Secondly, in his statement, the Secretary of State indicated that adequate information had been made available to doctors to allow them to make informed decisions. That point was made by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South. When the Secretary of State made that assertion, the MCA was working with the Family Planning Association to sponsor a letter to correct some of the deficiencies of the 18 October "Dear Doctor" letter. The chief medical officer in Scotland made it clear that the "Dear Doctor" letter did not get through to all doctors, and he has severe concerns about the fax system, however good it might be in theory. The MCA spent in excess of £90,000 to sponsor the second letter, which was, in effect, a correction of the first. One of the Minister's written answers describes the second letter as having been issued because of a clear need to provide health professionals with additional advice and guidance on the practical management issues arising from the advice issued by the CSM. I hope that the Minister will issue a correction to the statement of 23 October, and confirm that the Government accepted that the information issued on 18 October was inadequate and flawed and that they knew that by the time the Secretary of State came to the House on 23 October.
  Thirdly, in a written answer on 19 December 1995, the Minister stated that the final report of the WHO study had been received by the MCA on 6 October. A further question, on 30 April, elicited the information that the final WHO report was dated 13 October. Any document received on 6 October cannot therefore have been the final report, which must mean that the answer given to the House on 19 December was inaccurate.
  We are told, in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers":
  "Ministers must not knowingly mislead Parliament and the public and should correct any inadvertent errors at the earliest opportunity."
  I hope that the Minister will correct today what I am still perfectly happy at the moment to accept were inadvertent errors.
  Finally—this is a scientific point—why was an announcement made when there was no new evidence of increased risk? I have taken the advice that is available to all of us, and it has always been known that there is a small risk of blood clots—thromboembolism—from all oral contraceptives. It has generally been supposed that the risk was to about 30 cases per 100,000 women each year. All that the new evidence revealed was that the risk continues with third generation oral contraceptives, while for those containing second generation drugs it is lower than was previously supposed. The news was, therefore,

  261
  good news. It was that there is no greater risk and, therefore, there was no need for any alarming announcement.
  Dr. Bray: There were new data—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that—on second and third generation drugs. The new data showed that the risks from second generation drugs were lower than was thought and that the risks from third generation drugs were twice those of the second generation ones. The absolute level of risk depends on the denominator. A notorious problem in testing is that it is very difficult to know with what a comparison is being made, but in this case it is quite clear: it was between second generation and third generation drugs. I think that there is no dispute about the evidence.
  Mr. Hughes: I am happy to tell the House that, on those facts, there is no dispute between the hon. Gentleman and me, but I draw the same conclusion as I drew before: what went out was a warning. I think that he will accept that it was stated in the letter that GPs should advise women on third generation pills to change their prescription—but there was no evidence of greater risk. It was greater than with second generation drugs, but there was no evidence of greater risk than was known before. I shall conclude with what the professionals say about that.
  The family planning faculty of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists advised GPs this January that it is safe for them to continue to prescribe third generation oral contraceptives. The chairman, who was present at the meeting of 13 October, said:
  "The surprise is that the older Pills carry a lower risk than previously supposed. As this emerges as the true situation, one is forced to wonder whether the haste in disseminating the CSM letter was justified."
  On 23 October, the Secretary of State said:
  "the evidence is that … women do not find it"—
  the advice—
  "confusing."—[Official Report, 23 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 706.]
  I do not think that that is true. A survey of 1,300 third generation pill users carried out in November by Exeter university found that half had had their confidence shaken and that teenagers were particularly confused about the level of increased risk.
  A separate survey by a family doctor in Oxfordshire found that 12 per cent. of users at her practice had stopped taking the pill on the day of the warning. A family planning expert, Dr. Horrocks, at Frenchay hospital in Bristol, said that at least 56 women were known to have had a termination in the past three months because fear had prompted them to stop taking the pill. She said:
  "This is probably an underestimate. In February, we could barely cope with the numbers coming in. Instead of having 70 waiting at one time, there were 170. The waiting list was much longer. Sometimes it was difficult getting women seen before 12 weeks."
  There was widespread confusion and there was panic. Some doctors advised women to stop taking the pill immediately, even if they were in mid cycle. Others advised an immediate change to second generation pills and it has been professionally argued—I say this carefully because I do not want to be alarmist—that there has been one death of a woman who suffered a massive blood clot as a direct result of being switched from a third-generation pill to another.
  262
  There was a public health "fiasco", to use the word of the chief medical officer in Scotland. There are no clear answers to some of the crucial questions, the most important of which is what the advice of the CSM was in October. It is, therefore, difficult to escape the conclusion that there is something as yet not revealed by the Government, and possibly something that they still wish to hide about why there was a rushed announcement in October.
  Why did we get such a slow set of events between May and October last year and then another slow set of reactions between October and May this year? Why did we have a public health warning and no regulatory action, despite the fact that advisers were asked specifically to consider it? Why have we had a further six-month delay before any regulatory action has been taken? Why was regulatory action taken two weeks after the European advice that we did not need to take regulatory action? If this is not a serious set of questions about the control of medicines, I do not know what is.
  11.51 am
  Mr. Henry McLeish: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) on bringing this debate to the Floor of the House. It is an important debate in many respects, the first being the recent health scares—the most notable being the BSE scare. We need to have a debate on the safety of medicines and on the way in which the Government handle the issue.
  Secondly, very sophisticated electronic news-gathering now exists, and increasingly the Government do not appear to be aware of that. Scares can develop very quickly. Thirdly, with the advances in research in science and technology we are in a much better position to identify adverse reactions to drugs, which is much to be welcomed. Fourthly—this is really the background to the debate—we need to have a wider public who are more informed and educated on health matters. It is ludicrous that in 1996 a scare can develop so quickly. One of the reasons for that is the Government's lack of trust in the public and the lack of information that the public have on which to make informed choices about their health and the health of members of their families.
  Above all, there is the question of public confidence in the scientific community, and in the ability of Government to disseminate information, which is a matter that we have to take extremely seriously. It is obviously an issue of public interest, but it is also an issue for manufacturers, who use sophisticated processes to produce excellent products and have a great interest in how we deal with the safety of drugs.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South suggested, we owe it to our scientific community to take them seriously. Scientists do an excellent job of advising Government, but they are often dragged into a debate and treated very unsympathetically. The issue is also vital for the medical profession, especially general practitioners, who are often at the sharp end of receiving information from Government and from the Committee on Safety of Medicines. They are also at the sharp end of public reaction, as we have seen with the scare about the oral contraceptive pill. The issue is of enormous interest for all concerned.
  There are, however, no easy solutions. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) rightly made the point that there is no quick fix for some

  263
  of the serious concerns. Nevertheless, it is incumbent on parliamentarians and on all the organisations that I have mentioned to try always to improve communications techniques so that the public have information on which to make sound choices.
  I will concentrate on two areas. The first is informing the public and the professionals when there is a safety alert involving drugs and medicine. Secondly, I will refer briefly to pharmaco-vigilance and the post-market surveillance of medicines as that is clearly an important issue for those in the field who seek to monitor what is happening in relation to prescribed drugs.
  Today's debate has largely, and rightly, been taken up with last October's scare about contraceptive pills. That has been well documented and I do not intend to go much further into the details. However, important lessons can be learnt from the substance of that issue. It is important to stress that Government can learn lessons. Clearly, we have become immune to the Government's indifference in recent years in relation to certain issues. However, it is vital that they take seriously criticisms that are intended to help the public and not merely to be another debating point in the Chamber.
  An article in The Times on 20 April this year was headlined:
  "Britain is criticised over pill scare".
  It talked about the alert which, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said, is likely to lead to several thousand unwanted pregnancies or abortions. We should not underestimate the importance of that. The Times article then said:
  "The announcement leaves Britain isolated over its stand on so-called third-generation Pills."
  We are well used to the scepticism and exaggeration that can accompany press articles, but The Times makes an important point. The article continues:
  "But the European agency said that there were too many uncertainties in the three studies used by the Government to justify its alert … The European agency said it was calling for more research."
  The article highlights the concerns about why the Government took action and when they took action. It is now important to look further at some of the lessons that can be learnt from the way in which the matter was dealt with.
  Crucially—I have made this point before, but I will make it again because it is worth repeating—the public deserve to have proper guidance and proper information. In many respects, the BSE scare highlighted a real crisis of communication from Government to people. There was no attack on the scientific community, but the initial scare was the basis of the subsequent scares, for which everyone is now paying the price. Information is important.
  An article in the British Medical Journal of Saturday 28 October advising women about which pill to take was a constructive piece. However, the article said that
  "legitimate questions may be asked about the timing of the announcement, procedures for circulating information to doctors, and the detailed content of the committee's letter".
  Again, that illustrates the basic problem of communication between a Government who have absorbed information given to them and the professionals and the public to whom they give information.
  264
  It is also important to consider an article in The Lancet of 27 January 1996, which states:
  "The UK and German regulatory agencies have erred and their respective governments must ensure that such intemperate action does not happen again. The European Union's regulatory authority and regulatory agencies in other countries, including the US Food and Drug Administration, have waited for the opportunity to examine in detail the published, peer-reviewed … studies."
  That is another example of the wide-ranging criticism of the Government's handling of the matter. Articles in distinguished periodicals, the British Medical Association and many consumer organisations have also criticised the Government.
  It is crucial that we have safety margins, but monitoring must not create medical scares. I stress that point and I hope that the Government will respond to it. I have spoken mainly about the public, but in that particular scare, GPs, who are in the front line in terms of patient in care, were given only perfunctory notice of what was happening. Again, they were reading about it in the press while information was filtering through to their surgeries as to what they could tell patients who telephoned them. That smacks of a fundamental weakness in the process.
  If the Government learn nothing more from today's debate than that they must continuously give information to the professionals to pass on to the public, we shall have done the nation a favour. That said, it strikes me that the Government are often unwilling to take lessons.
  Let me summarise the serious issues. First, the quantity, quality and consistency of scientific evidence must be taken seriously. Secondly, although I do not want to join in the attack on the Government in respect of the announcement regarding the contraceptive pill, it is obvious that timing is crucial. Professionals must be informed and the Government must follow up initial health alerts with positive helpful guidance. It did not happen with BSE; we nearly had another crisis on the phthalate in powdered baby milk; and then, of course, there was the oral contraceptive scare last year. There are too many scares. Ultimately, the Government must bear responsibility for improving the handling of information.
  Thirdly, the Government should review the process of circulating information to doctors. Fourthly, we need to examine the process of informing the public. Fifthly, there is concern about the detailed contents of letters and advice as there have been many criticisms in the past that, to use the old adage from one of the adverts, one should never make a drama out of a crisis. Clearly, we should be cognisant of wording and keep it very simple.
  My final point relates to transparency and secrecy. It is not a particular attack on the present Government, but on all Governments. We simply do not take the public into our confidence in the way that we should. There is always reluctance to provide information when we feel more comfortable hanging on to it. It is clear from the medical press and consumer groups generally that there is too much secrecy about health matters. I hope that the establishment of the European agency will provide new opportunities to make issues more transparent.
  I acknowledge that companies need to have an eye on commercial confidentiality and that sophisticated processes are at work, but none of those issues should be subservient to the need for the public to know and to make informed choices on the knowledge that they have. It is a difficult balance to strike. Nevertheless, we should be making greater efforts towards it.

  265
  I have outlined the issues to which the Government should respond, which involve their attitude as well as the implementation of practical policies. They have demonstrated more than a hint of arrogance and complacency in dealing with issues involving the public. We should remember that we are elected by the public and the Government are selected from a group of elected representatives. Therefore, the public should always be the overwhelmingly important factor.
  Finally, so that the Minister, who is desperate to get to his feet, can have adequate time, I turn briefly to pharmaco-vigilance and surveillance in the marketplace. The system in operation is known as the "yellow card" system. It is a basic procedure whereby adverse drug reactions are recorded and forms are submitted to the authorities monitoring drug safety. The system is working well, but the BMA has raised two issues that I should like to put to the House.
  First, it is clear that there are fluctuations in the reporting of adverse drug reactions. There could be good reasons for that, but the BMA suggests that there should be further research into how the system is operating. It could be that there are fewer adverse drug reactions, which would be warmly welcomed by all concerned. Secondly, there is a possibility that the time involved in filling in forms could be a disincentive to some GPs properly to report adverse drug reactions. There may be problems that require investigation.
  The second issue raised by the BMA concerns the confusing terminology used in reporting adverse drug reactions. According to the BMA:
  "For example the British Natural Formulary uses the terms `cautions', 'contradictions' and `side-effects', while MIMS (the monthly index of medical specialties) uses 'special precautions',`drug interactions' and 'adverse drug reactions'. There is a European Union definition of what is an adverse drug reaction."
  It suggests that a standardised definition might be helpful, but acknowledges the complexity of these matters. Nevertheless, the BMA has contributed two positive ideas to the debate and I hope that the Minister will consider them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey have made the issues quite clear. We have had a scientific and technical discussion, but at the end of the day I return to the point on which I started. We must always reassure the public that their drugs are safe in the hands of the Government and the experts who are dealing with them.
  Finally, I call on the Government to review the way in which they handle health issues. It seems to me that we have built up a catalogue of scares. On reflection, some of them might not have been avoidable—perhaps the complex process of society means that it is impossible to get it completely right or wrong.
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone)indicated assent.
  Mr. McLeish: The Minister agrees with me. When we have three or four such scares in a row, however, Oscar Wilde's comment about carelessness comes to mind. It would be worth while for the Government to review the way in which they handle the interface with the public on health issues. I hope that the Minister will consider that point. It is not only germane to the
  266
  Health Department: Ministers at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food could use a significant dose of reality to knock some of them out of their complacency, particularly Ministers dealing with the BSE crisis. However, I will not spoil a speech in which I have tried to be constructive by making any further attacks on the Government. That can wait until another day.
  12.7 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): I welcome the opportunity to respond to the important debate that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) has been successful in securing. In the time that remains, it may be helpful if I address the specific points that the hon. Gentleman made in his speech and then turn to wider issues and set them in the context of the Government's policy in these matters. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss if I begin with the points raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), with the intention of getting them out of the way before dealing with the substance of the debate.
  With typical courtesy, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey gave me notice of the specific questions that he wished to raise. I shall deal with those before explaining how I intend to deal with the range of eclectic points that he made and I shall set out my reasons for dealing with them in that way.
  First, the hon. Gentleman asked when the Medicines Control Agency first became aware of the World Health Organisation study. The MCA first became aware of the likelihood that information would become available from the WHO study in May, but it was not until July that information from the study was provided suggesting that there was concern as to the safety of some oral contraceptives.
  The hon. Gentleman also suggested that the advice of the Committee on Safety of Medicines was not adequate. He has questioned the value of the committee's information on other occasions as well, although in fact it has given doctors extremely clear advice on the use of the relevant oral contraceptives. He then tied that in with the guidance of the Family Planning Association. I remind him that the purpose of that guidance was to place the CSM's advice in the context of family planning practice, which can be different.
  There is no point in the hon. Gentleman's pointing out that the two are different in substance. Of course they are: they are specifically designed to be. The hon. Gentleman, however, seems to take a perverse delight in refusing to recognise what are often simple facts. It is the role of the FPA, not the CSM, to give guidance on the practicalities of management of the care of women. I hope that he will now accept that distinction.
  The hon. Gentleman has often repeated his serious accusation that Parliament was misled about the date of the final World Health Organisation study. I have answered that question at least once, and I do not intend to go over the same ground again; but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he has made some serious accusations. I am not sure whether he thinks that they are part of the cut and thrust of politics, and that that enables him to make his point. I am much less concerned about his accusation that I have misled the House—important though that may

  267
  be—than about the accusation that he levelled, at least by implication, against both officials and professionals who advise the Government on issues relating to the safety of medicines. He suggested that they were involved in some complex and incomprehensible conspiracy connected with the way in which the matter was brought to the public's attention.
  It is disgraceful that, notwithstanding the evidence that I have provided in answer to more than 200 written questions tabled by him, the hon. Gentleman persists in the accusation that a conspiracy has taken place. It is time that he abandoned that false trail, and concentrated on the substance of the issues—which he pretends to do, while using that as a smokescreen for what is simply a political campaign.
  I will check the points made by the hon. Gentleman with the questions and answers that are already in Hansard, and if there are any blank spaces I will write to him. I must deal with this complex subject in that way because I was not able to flick through the answers that had already been provided while listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech in order to establish whether I had answered all his questions. When providing him with written answers, I have often found that answers have already been given to questions which, if not asked by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, have been asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who ran around the race track about six times before handing the baton on to his hon. Friend to run around again in ever-decreasing circles and at ever-increasing speed. I will check carefully what he has said, and, if the House allows me, I will leave this part of the debate at that.
  I will now deal with the serious points made by the hon. Members for Motherwell, South and for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). Having listened with great attention to what was said by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South, I will explain the purpose of controls on medicines and the way in which we try to provide medicines where they can be effective while still maximising the benefits and minimising the risks. That is the general objective of the policy.
  A focal point for the debate must be the recognition of the enormous benefits conferred by modern medicines. They certainly prevent far more adverse events than they cause. The appropriate use of medicines relieves human suffering, and cures or alters the course of many life-threatening diseases. They also provide a cost-effective form of treatment. For example, modern antibiotics and vaccines have markedly reduced the impact of infectious diseases in the past 50 years. Developments in biotechnology and molecular biology are bringing about a further revolution in treatment. That is expected to have an equally dramatic impact on diseases such as cystic fibrosis, which has been extremely difficult to treat hitherto.
  The hon. Member for Motherwell, South struck the right note when he spoke of finding the appropriate balance between what medicines can achieve and the possible risks. In a powerful intervention on the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, he pointed out that value judgments must often be made, and that finding the right balance was the answer. Mechanisms must be designed to find that balance, and when it is
  268
  found, if it is on the side of risk, the mechanisms must deliver that information at the earliest opportunity, not only to the health care professionals who administer the medicines but to the public who consume them. The truth is that no medicine is entirely risk-free.
  There is a well-defined framework for the control of medicines. As the hon. Gentleman said, in a sense the definition of that framework and its development is never completed; there is a continuing debate about how mechanisms can be improved and advanced. The hon. Member for Fife, Central asked whether, in the light of circumstances, the Government would conduct a review. There would be no specific review, but these matters are always open to debate. Better information leads to change. There is, in fact, a constant review of progress, and the hon. Gentleman will know—especially in the light of recent events—that the Government have made clear through the chief medical officer that the dissemination of information to professionals in particular is a process that we think we can improve. That is being examined, and much of it ties in with the development of technology within the national health service.
  The framework for medicines control in the United Kingdom is provided by the Medicines Act 1968, and by a series of EC directives dating back to 1965. It is a comprehensive system of standards, used as the basis for authorisation, marketing and monitoring of medicines in the UK. Those standards are incorporated into the EC licensing system that came into force in January 1995. The system requires all medicines used by the public—either prescribed by doctors or purchased by consumers—to be licensed, with only a few closely controlled exemptions. Licensing is based solely on a scientific assessment of safety, quality and efficacy; other factors, such as costs, do not affect licensing decisions.
  The licensing process involves rigorous assessment, including toxicity tests on a variety of animal species before any medicine is tested on humans. Prior to marketing, clinical trials of efficacy and safety are conducted in between 1,000 and 2,000 patients. As part of that assessment, the Government receive advice from independent experts—I stress the word "independent"—and from those working in the Medicines Control Agency.
  Pharmaceutical companies also have responsibility for the safety of the medicines that they sell, and must meet statutory pre-marketing and post-marketing obligations. I emphasise that aspect because it relates to what seemed to be the burden of the speeches of the hon. Members for Motherwell, South and for Fife, Central: what happens at the post-marketing stage. Those obligations are to provide the licensing authority with information on safety, quality and efficacy. Extensive guidance on those requirements is available, and in general the industry complies well. if it does not, the Medicines Control Agency has power to deal with that and to ensure that it complies in future.
  Pharmaco-vigilance has been referred to by all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, and I shall set out the procedures, the powers and the recent developments which ensure that pharmaco-vigilance is as effective as possible. Once a medicine is licensed, the Government monitor its adverse effects closely to ensure that it is safe in widespread use. The UK is respected world wide in this area, and the MCA also has an excellent record.

  269
  There are a number of key elements in the pharmaco-vigilance system. Access to the best advice, prompt action and effective dissemination of information about the safe use of medicines are the foundation stones on which the system is built. The licensing authority has powers to suspend, revoke or vary marketing authorisations in response to concerns about safety or efficacy, and there is an appellate process involving expert bodies before final decisions are made. The system has a clearly defined process, and has teeth to make things happen.
  I pay tribute to the independent critical review provided by the Committee on Safety of Medicines. Ministers— especially the Minister for Health, in the role of licensing authority—know from direct experience that its advice is sound and can be relied upon. I shall return to how the information is disseminated, but we should consider the means by which possible safety issues with medicines are identified and investigated.
  The first question is that of monitoring. The yellow card scheme, which encourages doctors to report adverse effects of medicines to the MCA, is one of the best-supported reporting schemes in the world. It is underpinned by a purpose-designed, state-of-the-art computer database that enables the MCA to identify important hazards as early as possible. The scheme has a proven track record in identifying drug safety problems promptly. The agency also has access to reports of adverse effects occurring abroad so that it can benefit from worldwide drug safety experience. Wherever possible, the scheme plugs into a wider network.
  Formal post-marketing studies are an important part of the process, and a range of other methods to assess the safety of medicines are also used. The UK has taken the lead in this area by developing guidelines for those studies that are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. The hon. Member for Motherwell, South asked whether we were running down studies in these areas in a formal sense, whether enough was being spent on research and how that tied in with what happens to the commercial studies carried out by pharmaceutical companies.
  The guidelines were a first for the industry, and have been followed elsewhere. They were agreed in 1993 with representatives of the industry and the medical profession. They are important because they provide for independent advisory groups to oversee the studies and for the MCA to comment on their design and receive regular reports on the findings. They are the basis upon which European Union guidelines are drawn up, and they have been incorporated into them. That is sufficient testimony to their robustness.
  The hon. Member for Motherwell, South knows that not all the funding of clinical studies that assess drug safety comes from the companies. Many relevant studies use direct or indirect public funding, including some commissioned by the Department's NHS research and development division—which now has an annual research budget of £21 million—and others funded by the Medical Research Council. The Government also fund the UK Cochrane centre. The hon. Gentleman, who takes a keen interest in these matters, will know that the centre plays a vital role in the dissemination of information about a range of drugs and procedures, not just in this country but world wide.
  270
  The hon. Member for Motherwell, South referred to the general practice research database, and described the present situation as a kind of reverse privatisation. I can tell him that the Department of Health knows a bargain when it sees one, and we were delighted to seize the opportunity when the GPRD became available. Since then, there have been important opportunities to develop the use of this important resource for pharmaco-vigilance purposes. This has been pursued vigorously by the MCA, which has set up an epidemiology unit directed by a leading professor of medical statistics. The goals of the unit are to make the best use of recorded linkage databases in the UK and abroad and to develop other approaches to investigating drug safety.
  Dr. Bray: Will the Minister look further at the arrangements made for the exploitation of the GPRD, because a good deal more could be done?
  Mr. Malone: I was going to give an undertaking that I would look carefully at the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Clearly if there are ways in which greater use can be made of this asset, we would wish to use them. I will take his remarks on board and look at ways in which we might take the matter forward. The MCA has used the GPRD on, I believe, 14 occasions until now. The database is important, and its value is clearly recognised by the Government.
  The provision of information is vital, as hon. Members will recognise. Without it, collecting the information is valueless. Often information arrives that must be made available to the public rapidly because of public safety issues. Value judgments must be made, and I make no bones about the fact that—with the benefit of hindsight— better methods could have been used or further investigations carried out. The Government take responsibility for drawing to the public's attention as early as possible any information affecting public safety. If the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey can create a conspiracy theory from Ministers coming to the House to provide information, I wonder what theory he would have concocted had the decision been not to do so.
  There is a range of ways in which information is made available to the professions and the public, including the British National Formulary. Other regular publications bring the information up to date and draw it to the attention of the profession. Perhaps the best known is the bulletin, "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance", which provides more detailed and technical information on specific drug safety issues. In addition, if an important new hazard is identified, the chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines writes to all doctors and pharmacists as a matter of urgency. We also make use of electronic communication networks to get important information to health professionals more quickly. That is a rapidly developing field.
  The MCA is playing a key role in initiatives—both within the EC and more widely, involving the USA and Japan—through the International Conference of Harmonisation to develop standards to support electronic transmission of pharmaco-vigilance information. It is important that the network spreads and that information can be made available in a comprehensible way so that it can be brought to the public's attention and to the attention of health care professionals as quickly as possible.

  271
  This has been an extremely useful debate that the Government very much welcome. Everyone recognises that medicines sometimes have adverse effects. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South that we must develop the systems that inform us and improve, where we can, the research that is undertaken. We must always get the balance right but never, as Ministers and as the licensing authority, be afraid to go to the public with information as and when it becomes available.
  Dr. Bray: In half a minute, will the Minister say what is the machinery for examining the interactions between safety and other matters?
  Mr. Malone: I am not certain that I shall be able to deal with that point in the 30 seconds available. I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said and I will write to him in detail on that.
  In conclusion, we take our obligations very seriously. This has been a useful opportunity to air the Government's policy and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for choosing this subject.

  Child Abduction (Hague Convention)
  12.30 pm
  Sir John Stanley: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department to his maiden voyage at the Dispatch Box. I am sure that he will have a successful time there and stay there for many years to come.
  I have initiated this debate in my capacity as a vice-chairman of the all-party child abduction group. With your consent, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that the chairman of the group, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner), wishes to intervene briefly in the debate. The all-party group felt that this was an important moment to have a debate on the Hague convention on child abduction, given that the third review meeting of the Hague convention will take place early next year.
  Mercifully, child abduction is not numerically a severe problem. There are between 100 and 200 new cases a year of children abducted from the UK which come to the Lord Chancellor's Department as the central authority under the Hague convention. There are another 100 to 200 cases of children who have been abducted to the UK, which also fall to that Department to deal with.
  However, the trends are disturbing. The figures that my hon. Friend the Minister gave me in a parliamentary answer yesterday show that cases of abduction both to and from the United Kingdom have risen in each of the past five years since 1991. Although the problem may be numerically relatively small, one cannot overstate the magnitude of the distress caused to those who are involved in the forcible removal of their children. There is the distress caused to the parent from whom the child is abducted and the distress caused to the children.
  There are five issues on the working of the convention that I wish to bring to my hon. Friend the Minister's attention. First, there is the issue of entitlement to legal aid. The convention's provisions are effective only to the extent that they are legally enforceable in the jurisdiction that is dealing with the case. Inescapably, many parents— probably the great majority—find the cost of lengthy litigation beyond them. Eligibility for legal aid is of paramount importance for their ability to enforce their rights under the convention. The UK has a reasonable and creditable record on that. The chief executive of the Legal Aid Board, Mr. Stephen Orchard, has confirmed to me that what is creditable about our position is that the country of residence of the individual is irrelevant in deciding whether legal aid can in principle be made available.
  The answers that my hon. Friend the Minister gave me yesterday showed that our expenditure on legal aid in child abduction cases in the past financial year was higher in respect of overseas claimants than in relation to claimants who are resident in this country.
  Unhappily, the position is different for cases that involve UK residents who have had their children abducted overseas and who seek to obtain legal aid in countries overseas. There are many cases of UK residents having had extreme difficulties in getting legal aid to enforce their rights under the convention. There is a serious issue of reciprocity. In equity, it is only right that, if we extend a level of legal aid availability to overseas residents pursuing cases in Britain, the same legal aid rights should be extended to UK residents who are pursuing cases overseas by those countries.

  273
  The second issue that I want to raise relates to one of the most difficult parts of the convention, but it is critical. It is the extent to which the wishes of an abducted child should be taken into account in determining to which parent he or she should be returned. The relevant provisions of the convention are set out in article 13, which states:
  "The judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views."
  The wording is unexceptional in itself. There is no doubt that an inflexible provision whereby every abducted child would be automatically taken back to the parent from whom the abduction had taken place would be wrong. In some compelling cases, there might be justice, in the child's interest, in the child remaining with the parent who had abducted the child.
  The provision is sensible, but it is evident from the study of individual cases that it can be used exploitatively by a parent who has abducted a child. A young child will be easily capable of being influenced by the parent that the child is with. It is possible to manipulate a child to express a wish that he or she should remain with the parent who had carried out the abduction, rather than going back to the parent from whom that child was abducted.
  In the forthcoming review, close attention must be paid to how that provision has worked in practice, and, as far as possible, steps should be taken to try to ensure that it is not exploited and abused by parents who have carried out abductions to try to secure the retention of the children that they have abducted.
  Thirdly, there is the critical issue of the extent to which independent professional advice is made available to the courts in the jurisdiction in which the case is being held about which parent the child should reside with. In part, that flows from the previous point that I made about the wishes of the child.
  It is clearly essential that the court has access to the wholly independent advice of child psychologists, possibly psychiatrists, social workers and others, who have been professionally involved with the child and are able to advise the court on where the child's best interests lie. It has been patently clear in many cases that the court has not taken steps to have before it fully independent advice, wholly divorced from one of the parties.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) brought home the lack of fully independent advice that had been available in the court proceedings in Germany concerning his constituent, Mrs. Catherine Laylle, in a debate that he initiated in July last year. It is imperative that wholly independent professional advice is made available.
  My fourth point concerns the operation of the convention's rights of access, which are set out in article 21. The wording of article 21 is very reassuring. It refers to
  "the effective exercise of rights of access"
  and continues:
  "The Central Authorities are bound by the obligations of co-operation which are set forth in Article 7 to promote the peaceful enjoyment of access rights … The Central Authorities shall take steps to remove, as far as possible, all obstacles to the exercise of such rights."
  274
  There is clear evidence in individual cases that those clear rights of access, especially for the parent who does not have possession of the child—invariably the parent from whom the child has been abducted—are not being properly fulfilled. Given that such rights concern the only point of contact that the parent has, it is essential that there are effective rights of access as stated clearly in article 21.
  My fifth point is that the convention's wording is generally satisfactory and has stood the test of time since its drafting was concluded in 1980. The convention's weaknesses concern the way in which it is operated and interpreted in some overseas jurisdictions. Clearly it would be an extremely laborious task to amend the convention.
  Will my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary consider extremely carefully whether we could improve the convention's operation by introducing an internationally agreed code of practice on the operation of its sensitive provisions, especially in the sort of areas to which I have referred? I hope that he will consider tabling at the review meeting next year a draft code of practice for such areas, to try to improve the effective and fair working of the convention's provisions.
  The Government have frequently stated that they are in favour of open government. This issue provides an excellent opportunity to practise that desirable principle. The review meeting will take place early next year, and many people outside the House and beyond Whitehall have a contribution to make to it.
  I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department will consider issuing a consultation paper or letter, so that those who want to contribute from their own experience of the convention's operation can do so when the Lord Chancellor's Department is formulating its policy on the review meeting. Many very experienced practitioners outside the House have a great deal to offer. The excellent and most effective charity Reunite National Council for Abducted Children has a major contribution to make, as do, perhaps most importantly, people who have been the victims of child abduction.
  I hope that I have put a constructive series of proposals to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I know that he will bear in mind when considering the issue the fact that, although, numerically, child abduction does not occur on a huge scale, it is as heart-rending a human issue for adults, and particularly children, as one can find.
  12.44 pm
  Mr. Bill Olner: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) on securing this very important debate, and I thank him for leaving me a few minutes in which to add to his excellent comments. I also congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on his new post. I think that the first time I saw him was when we were both being issued with our security passes in early April 1992.
  I should like to follow the latter points made by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling on the review of the workings of the Hague convention. I know that Reunite National Council for Abducted Children is doing some excellent work in considering all the problems that people face. It certainly has strong links not only with

  275
  the Lord Chancellor's Department but with the Home Office and the Foreign Office, and is well able and professional enough to bring all those strands together.
  I also think that it would be very difficult to get all the signatories to the Hague convention to alter the wording. We need to take action fairly quickly, however, so I hope that the Government will first concentrate on considering mediation. Perhaps mediation should be included in the international code of practice that will be given to judges. Many cases begin domestically and could be sorted out before they become involved in all the ramifications of the Hague convention. Some guidance needs to be given on the starting point, because many problems could be avoided.
  I am grateful to the right hon. Member for citing the statistics on legal aid, because our nationals feel that it is a great injustice that foreign nationals are able to get legal aid immediately over here. Foreign nationals do not have to prove whether they are rich or poor, but automatically receive legal aid in Hague convention cases. That is not so for our nationals when they are abroad. Such differences should be looked at strictly, because legal aid provisions should be mirrored in other Hague convention countries.
  While we are considering the review, we must look at the quality of the interpretation of the signatories to the Hague convention. Countries sign it, but very little seems to be in place to ensure that it is possible to put right all the things that need to be put right.
  I want to leave the Parliamentary Secretary a fair amount of time to answer the important questions, so I shall leave him with a point that ought to be considered. All child abduction cases are heart-rending, and many people—standard families as well as others—are badly hurt. Even with the best legal process, there can be some injustice. Will the Parliamentary Secretary give serious thought to establishing an international panel of arbiters, so that, when two national law-making bodies clash and cannot agree, the case can be sent somewhere else, where it can be properly, fairly and independently judged?
  I accept that, whatever decision is reached, one of the parties will be disappointed; but at least that decision would be taken out of everyone's hands and made by an independent arbitration panel.
  12.49 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Gary Streeter): First, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) and the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) for their kind remarks. The hon. Gentleman referred to an episode that we shared in the photographic booth in another place, which I remember with great affection and fondness.
  I thank my right hon. Friend for initiating this important debate. I pay tribute to him, the hon. Member for Nuneaton and all members of the all-party group on child abduction for their efforts on behalf of children and parents who are involved in such unhappy situations. I also readily acknowledge the excellent work of Reunite National Council for Abducted Children. In common with my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Nuneaton, I recognise that the distress caused in such dreadful cases is real.
  276
  I believe that my right hon. Friend, and indeed all hon. Members present for this debate, support the important purposes of the 1980 Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction. Those are primarily to prevent international child abduction and to promote the lawful exercise of rights of contact with children. The convention aims to achieve them by requiring a contracting state to return promptly children who have been wrongfully removed from another contracting state in breach of existing custody rights. The prompt return of children in that situation is intended to restore as nearly as possible the status quo before the wrongful removal, and to require both parents to pursue their custody and access claims in the courts of the country where the child is habitually resident.
  As international contacts grow, the need for and use of conventions of that kind will increase. To illustrate the point, the total number of convention cases has doubled in the past five years, and further growth is likely, as my right hon. Friend said.
  I shall attempt to persuade my right hon. Friend that the convention is generally, although not in every case, operating in a satisfactory manner. If that is right, we may reasonably assume that it also performs the valuable function of deterring would-be abductors and encouraging them to resolve their difficulties through judicial processes or mediation. Deterrence of this kind would not, of course, show up in the statistics collected by our child abduction unit.
  I had intended to give the House some background information, but, in view of the time constraint, I shall refer immediately to the specific matters that my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman have raised. My right hon. Friend has argued that the convention is in need of a general overhaul in order to increase its efficiency. He also made a number of specific criticisms of it. As he said, a general review of the convention's operation is planned for early next year.
  The Hague conference on private international law regularly reviews the workings of existing Hague conventions; the one on child abduction was reviewed in October 1989, and again in January 1993. A special commission of the conference, which is a working group of experts from the contracting states, will meet next March to consider an agenda prepared by the permanent bureau. The review will cover any problems with the convention's operation that member states wish to raise.
  The Government take that opportunity for review seriously. In the coming months, we shall do what is necessary to ensure that all relevant problems are identified and included on the agenda, and that they are then discussed by the special commission in as constructive a way as possible.
  As a result of my right hon. Friend's representations today and previously, for which I am most grateful to him, I am glad to say that we have decided to carry out consultations in advance of the special conference meeting to help us to decide what matters to put forward for discussion. We have had some interesting suggestions today.
  One of the problems raised by my right hon. Friend concerns the evidence of expert psychologists in applications for the return of the children under the convention. It is said, quite rightly in my view, that in

  277
  that situation psychologists must be independent experts, offering objective and professional opinions on all aspects of the cases on which their advice is sought.
  It is also said that that has not happened in the case of Catherine Laylle, to which my right hon. Friend drew our attention, in her attempts before the German courts to secure proper custody and access arrangements in relation to her children. I have the greatest sympathy for Mrs. Laylle, as I have for all parents who are separated from their children in unhappy circumstances such as those that we are discussing today.
  It seems that Mrs. Laylle has failed to secure the appointment of a psychologist who is able to speak both German and French, the languages spoken by her children, and who is clearly independent. The one who has in fact been appointed by the court speaks only German—not Mrs. Laylle's language—and is a local practitioner, from Bremen. Mrs. Laylle does not have confidence that his advice has been, or will be, unbiased.
  I should point out that the proceedings in relation to which the psychologist's advice has been sought are not proceedings under the Hague convention. Those proceedings were concluded in October 1994 by the decision of the Celle higher regional court, which decided that Mrs. Laylle's children should not be returned to England. That decision was based on interviews with the children, not on the evidence of psychologists.
  My view at present—I should emphasise that I do not have a closed mind on the issue—is that there is not a general problem with the evidence of psychologists who are not properly independent being given in proceedings under the convention for the return of children. Such proceedings are concerned only with which court should have jurisdiction to make orders in relation to the children, and are therefore necessarily summary in nature. In those circumstances, psychological evidence will not generally be of particular relevance, but if my right hon. Friend has any further material on the matter, I should like to hear from him as soon as possible.
  The second specific matter raised by my right hon. Friend concerns the weight that should be given under the convention to the wishes of the children—an important matter. Under article 13, the courts of a country to which a child has been wrongfully removed may refuse to order his or her return if they find that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of his or her views.
  The suggestion here is that in some cases excessive weight has been placed on those wishes, thereby frustrating the return of children in circumstances where the general principle of the convention should operate— that wrongfully abducted children should be returned to the country of their habitual residence for the courts of that country to make orders relating to their long-term future.
  That is a difficult area, where each case turns very much on its own facts. However, some general propositions can be stated with confidence. There is always a difficulty about the weight to be placed on the
  278
  child's wishes where the dispute is, in effect, only on the limited jurisdictional question as to which court should determine that matter. The general principle of the convention is that abducted children should be returned to the country of their habitual residence. A number of exceptions to that principle are laid down, but it is plainly desirable that they should not be interpreted in an overly broad way; otherwise, the general principle will be undermined.
  In that context, it is important that undue weight should not be attached to the wishes of the children, and that only in clear cases should those wishes be sufficient to undermine the general rule of return to the country from which the children have been abducted. It may be that, in certain cases, that exception may have been interpreted too widely and that, as a result, children have not been returned when perhaps they should have been. We are looking into this further, but my right hon. Friend will be glad to learn that it is one of the issues on which we will be consulting to determine whether we should place it on the agenda for the meeting of the special commission.
  My right hon. Friend rightly complained that, although legal aid is available in this country in the usual way for applications under the convention, it is not always available in the contracting states. That remains the case in a number of countries, which I will discuss with my right hon. Friend at some stage in more detail.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend that the provision of proper legal aid in such circumstances is of the upmost importance. There appears to be a problem in the United States, but it is not apparent in other countries. I will reflect further on whether any useful purpose would be likely to be served by putting that matter on the agenda for the special commission, or by taking the matter up bilaterally. If I consider that there would be, I can assure my right hon. Friend that that will be done.
  My right hon. Friend referred to rights of access and the operation of article 21.I should be grateful if he would let me have details of any particular cases that I should take into account before the meeting of the special commission.
  A number of interesting suggestions have been made today about what should be considered by the special commission—for example, a code of practice and an international panel of arbiters. I will reflect further on them.
  My right hon. Friend is also rightly concerned about the enforcement of return orders made under the convention. That is of crucial importance, because, if a court order cannot be enforced, it is effectively worthless. There are a few cases in which the enforcement of orders by foreign authorities is at best dilatory and inefficient. In particular, there is one case in Germany about which we are concerned and which we are pursuing with as much force as we can.
  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for drawing attention to the various problems that have been shown to exist. He has put up a robust case, and I can assure him that we shall pursue those points with vigour.

  Tourism (Scotland)
  1 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I welcome the opportunity to discuss Scottish tourism and its implications for our economy. Tourism is a vast and complex industry, and it merits great attention. It is my sincere hope that we shall debate the tourist industry again, but that we shall have more time to discuss the issues that are important, to analyse and to make recommendations.
  Tourism is a key industry in Scotland. The latest figures available to me show that some 170,000 to 180,000 people are employed in the tourist industry, which is 8 per cent. of the Scottish work force. Therefore, the impact of the tourist industry on economic activity cannot be underestimated. It is projected that tourism will be the largest single industry in the world by the millennium. It is growing at a rate of 4 per cent. per annum and it accounts for 100 million jobs. In the north-east of Scotland, tourism is the fourth largest employer in the former Grampian region: it supports between 17,000 and 18,000 jobs, it generates some £240 million in income and it involves some 4,000 businesses.
  It is my contention that that key industry deserves a strategic overview, to ensure that appropriate, democratic measures are taken to support, market and develop it. Scotland's tourist industry cannot depend on fortuitous events such as the success of the films "Braveheart", "Rob Roy" and others—even though we may have enjoyed them. Nor can Scotland rely on the nostalgia of the films "Granny's Heilan' Hame" and "Brigadoon". We should put forward the argument that tourism is a vibrant industry—that must be Scotland's approach to the late 20th century and to the beginning of the 21st century.
  Hon. Members know of the delights that Scotland has to offer. My secretary, who works for me in London, had not visited Scotland until she came to work for me. I remember driving her to Dunoon and Inverness one day. Every time I turned a corner, she wanted me to stop so that she could take a photograph—I was almost a road hazard that day. We have great delights to offer people from all over the world. Therefore, we should have a strategy to ensure that we maximise on our economy, hospitality and friendliness.
  In that context, I wish to make some key points to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. My points are tendered in a constructive manner and I hope that I receive constructive answers. I refer to funding. All Grampian Members of Parliament—including the Minister— received a substantial amount of faxed material from the Aberdeen and Grampian tourist board in preparation for the debate. Therefore, I shall not refer to all the details and arguments that are included in that material because of the time limits that are placed on us in these short debates. I draw the Minister's attention to what has been happening in the Irish Republic and the success that it has achieved.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: As the hon. Lady is aware, last Friday the Aberdeen and Grampian tourist board finally managed to set its budget for the coming year. It is £900,000 down on a £2.8 million budget, which is severe. The trade members of the board, in particular, say that because it is a statutory body, there
  280
  should be some way in which the core funding can be guaranteed. Ring-fencing probably is not feasible, but what does the hon. Lady think about the possibility of a three-year budget for the board, perhaps on a rolling programme, so that it can market tourism on a regular basis without having to worry about where the money is coming from?
  Mrs. Ewing: I shall return to that issue later. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The north-east of Scotland seems to have been particularly affected by the current round. Given that it did so much positive work in earlier days, we can draw from that example.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Is my hon. Friend aware of the splendid new tourist facilities at Duff house in the north of my constituency, the lighthouse museum in Fraserburgh and the Maritime Heritage Centre in Peterhead? The facilities have been opened recently, largely due to the work of the previous council. However, three out of five information centres in my constituency are closing. Is that not incredibly short-sighted? We have splendid new facilities, but we do not have the finance to guarantee that visitors will be given the information so that they visit them.
  Mrs. Ewing: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and there are similar problems in my constituency. Tourist information centres are often not open in Moray. The tourist information centre at Peterhead is often not open because of funding limitations—the same applies to the tourist centre at Aberlour. It is ridiculous for us to promote tourist attractions if we do not have the centres to make information available to tourists who are in the area.
  I was referring to the Irish example. There is clearly strong public sector leadership, and it includes the skilful use of European funding. In promotion, marketing and training, no less than 57 per cent. of the 1994 to 1999 programme for the Republic will be funded by Europe. In my area—and in the area represented by the Minister— traditional industries, such as farming and fishing, are being disastrously undermined for a variety of reasons.
  Funding should be available to Scotland from Europe. That is particularly true when tourism is being considered in the context of the intergovernmental conference as a policy that could be included in the revised treaties. That emerged originally from Council decision 92/421/EEC OJL 231. It was agreed that there should be a Community-level policy to strengthen tourism. The first report relating to that was published in April 1994. The Economic and Social Committee has also argued for a legal basis in the treaties. Europe has much to offer in the context of tourism support, particularly as many tourists to Scotland come from Europe.
  Is the Scottish Office seriously looking at the support that could be available? I suspect that the Minister will refer to the tourist projects that are being underpinned by objective 1 in the highlands and islands. However, in the context of the debate on tourism as a whole, we have to look beyond objective 1 status for one area and look at the funding that is available to Scotland as a whole.
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Is my hon. Friend aware that when the Secretary of State visited Crieff hydro earlier this year, he made a promise to

  281
  increase funding for tourism in Scotland? At about the same time, we were preparing for a decrease in local authority budgets across Scotland. Before my hon. Friend moves off the issue of funding, does she agree that the promises of the Secretary of State are yet to be fulfilled? It will be interesting to hear when we shall get that funding.
  Mrs. Ewing: I shall refer to the Minister's speech later. Funding lies at the core of what is happening in the tourism industry, and I urge the Minister to examine what is being done at a national level. The problems can be compressed by referring to a quotation last year from Scottish Business Insider:
  "Tourism in Scotland is large and fragmented. The country is now standing at a critical crossroads … Scotland will struggle to maintain what it has, let alone grow its fair share of the market, if we do not get things right now."
  Therefore, I ask for a strategic overview. That could be best undertaken by the Scottish Office in conjunction with the Scottish tourist board, the unitary authorities—to which my hon. Friends have referred by way of intervention—and our local enterprise companies.
  That review is particularly relevant to the north-east of Scotland. In the months since the reorganisation of local government, discussions have been held in the Aberdeen and Grampian tourist board area. Details of the negotiations and the meetings that have taken place in the past few days are provided in a long fax that Moray council prepared for me. Some progress has been made, but there are deep concerns that the business plan prepared by the board cannot be funded from existing council, Scottish tourist board or local enterprise company budgets. That has implications for the level of service that can be provided. I refer also to the previous comments about tourist information centres.
  I therefore ask the Minister to consider granting some discretion to local enterprise companies in terms of funding for the Aberdeen and Grampian tourist board. At present, the LECs direct attention at specific projects rather than at core funding. If we look to the core funding aspect and to a long-term plan, the people of Scotland— particularly those in the north-east—will derive great benefit. I also ask the Scottish Office to review its decisions on local government funding in that area.
  I refer now to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham). When the Minister last spoke at the Scottish hospitality industry congress, he emphasised the importance that is attached to tourism training in Scotland in order to improve standards of training and staff development in that sector. He recognised that that is a daunting prospect, but he did not refer to pay and conditions.
  For many involved in the tourism industry—the vast majority of whom are women—work is seasonal, part time and low paid. If we are to enhance our tourism industry, we must remove the element of drudgery and make individuals proud to be part of it. The Confederation of British Industry and the Federation of Small Businesses have argued for enhanced training and improved pay. Will the Scottish Office examine those key factors as part of any tourism initiative? Those who work in the tourism industry should take pride in and receive recompense for their efforts.
  Will the Minister talk to the Treasury about variable valued added tax rates for bed-and-breakfast and hotel accommodation? I refer him to my parliamentary question
  282
  of 28 June 1995 on that subject and to the May 1995 edition of the Voice of the British Hospitality Association magazine. It found that the United Kingdom levies the second highest rate of VAT on tourism goods and services in Europe. The findings conclude that an across-the-board cut in VAT to 8 per cent. would create some 87,000 new jobs in the United Kingdom, increase foreign currency earnings by £1.2 billion and generate an extra 10 million tourists for Britain. Of course, Scotland would receive a proportional increase.
  This has necessarily been a short debate. I believe that tourism merits more than simply a lottery of applications for Adjournment debates. Therefore, I have a specific recommendation for the Minister. Earlier today, I checked with the Clerk of the Scottish Affairs Committee as to whether that Committee had undertaken any projects on tourism. Apparently, it has not investigated that subject since its inception—despite the fact that 8 per cent. of Scotland's work force is employed in the industry.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: My hon. Friend may have noticed that the Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), is in the Chamber and has heard her comments. No doubt the Committee will take on board my hon. Friend's excellent suggestions.
  Mrs. Ewing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a hard-working member of that Committee. I am sure that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) will take my comments on board.
  I understand that this Thursday, the National Heritage Committee is commencing an inquiry into tourism. It will hear evidence from the Scottish tourist board on 20 June, and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has made an approach to submit written evidence to the Committee. However, the inquiry places no emphasis on Scotland's tourist industry and only one of the Committee's 11 members is from Scotland.
  I have been advised that the Committee will find it difficult to deal with issues pertaining to Scottish and Welsh tourism because of the complexities in the system. Therefore, I urge the Scottish Affairs Committee to take the issue on board. It should assess the international, national and local impact of tourism, take evidence from all who are involved in the industry and then make positive recommendations. Scotland has a dream to sell, but that dream also provides employment and hope for our constituents and hope for our national economy.
  1.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on being selected to introduce the debate today. I agree with her comments about the way in which tourism contributes to Scotland's economy. During my short reply, I hope to demonstrate the high priority that the Government attach to supporting the industry and to assisting it to develop and meet the challenges that it faces.
  The industry enjoyed a very good year in 1995: expenditure by tourists in Scotland increased by about 7 per cent. to £2.165 million, and the upward trend in the number of overseas visitors continues. Most encouragingly, the recent decline in the number of trips

  283
  from England was halted. English tourism turnover increased by 11 per cent. in real terms in 1995. While talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) before the debate commenced, I was horrified to learn that he has never visited Scotland. I am sure that the hon. Lady will join me in recommending that he visit Scotland very soon. Many in the tourist industry are reporting increased business this year and I believe that the industry can look to the future with confidence.
  The hon. Lady called for a review of the tourism industry. In 1992–93, we conducted a review of the way in which support is provided to the industry. One of the most important outcomes of that review was the preparation of a national tourism strategy. The strategy analysed the performance of Scotland's tourism industry and identified the action that must be taken by those who support the industry and by the industry itself if it is to meet its long-term potential as a major generator of income and employment in Scotland. The hon. Lady is absolutely correct: the tourism industry employs 8 per cent. of the Scottish work force. The figure is even higher in the highlands and islands, at about 20 per cent.
  Local tourism strategies are also being prepared in respect of each tourist board area. Together with the national strategy, they will address many of the difficulties caused by fragmentation, about which the hon. Lady is concerned. The Scottish Tourism Co-ordinating Group, which I chair, comprises the chairmen and chief executives of all the public sector agencies involved in supporting the industry, plus the chairman of the Scottish Tourism Forum, which brings together the private sector. It is charged with overseeing the implementation of the national strategy, and I am pleased to tell the House that it is making good progress. Earlier this year, I published a report reviewing that progress, so I shall draw attention to only a few key points today.
  One priority was to tackle the problem of seasonality and to extend the season. That is very important, as much of Scotland's tourism is concentrated into the tight period from June to August. We clearly need to do more to encourage visitors to come in the spring and the autumn— which I assure the House, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, are excellent months to holiday in Scotland. The first initiative was the "Autumn Gold" campaign in the United Kingdom, which was designed to increase the number of visitors to Scotland during October and November last year. I have reported to the Scottish Grand Committee that the campaign proved a great success and generated an estimated additional spend of £9.7 million. Not unsurprisingly, we shall repeat it this year, when I hope that many more visitors will be encouraged to sample the benefits and delights that Scotland has to offer at that time of year.
  The hon. Lady mentioned skills and training. Enhancing the skills of all those who work in the industry is essential if we are to tackle some of the problems that she mentioned. We are giving a high priority to management development, to encouraging the industry and employees to become involved in the Investors in People initiative, to developing improved links with the education sector in order to advise prospective employees and to developing initiatives on customer care, to increase standards of quality and professionalism in the industry.
  284
  The hon. Lady referred to funding. Last year, we provided to the industry direct support of about £70 million through agencies and local authorities. That is not an exact figure, as there are many areas in which support is being given and it is not easy to identify the specific amount that goes to tourism.
  The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) will be interested to know—and this is where the Secretary of State's commitment comes in— that this year we have increased the resources made available to the Scottish tourist board by 20 per cent., to about £18 million—a record level. The additional funding will enable the board to strengthen its marketing campaigns, both in the United Kingdom and overseas, and to provide substantial additional assistance to Scotland's area tourist boards. We have also provided additional funding to take advantage of specific opportunities that will benefit the industry.
  The hon. Member for Moray mentioned promoting Scotland on the back of films. We contributed about £280,000 to the STB in the last financial year, to mount a promotional campaign in Europe to maximise the tourism spin-off from "Braveheart". Not all that long ago, I launched a campaign in the south-east of England on the back of the introduction of low-cost fares to Scotland, to encourage those in the south-east of England to visit Scotland and see its benefits.
  Mrs. Ewing: I welcome low-cost fares, but will not the absence of the Motorail service to Fort William undermine many opportunities to visit tourist attractions in the north of Scotland? We experienced the chaos over the Fort William sleeper; there are still no Motorail facilities. Could consideration be given to trying to restore some of those facilities?
  Mr. Kynoch: I am sure that the hon. Lady will not be surprised to know that, wearing my constituency hat, I recognise the benefits that Motorail brought, particularly to our part of Scotland. Clearly, Motorail has to be a commercial success for it to be maintained. I was pleased to see the other day in a newspaper that the new franchisee for, I think, the east coast line is considering introducing a form of Motorail service to Scotland, possibly to Edinburgh—clearly, I would encourage that. Private sector involvement provides all sorts of opportunities to identify services that can contribute towards tourism in Scotland.
  The hon. Lady referred to value added tax. While the United Kingdom's tourist operators may face higher VAT rates than some of their competitors in other EU countries, they do not face many other costs. The hon. Lady will not be surprised to hear me mention the social chapter, minimum wage legislation or local tourism taxes that are applicable elsewhere. In Scotland, we have a significant premium product that attracts tourists. I do not believe that VAT is the key element to success in Scotland.
  The review of support arrangements for the tourism industry found that there was widespread support for a smaller number of larger area tourist boards. We acted on that information and on 1 April this year, a new network of 14 boards was created, replacing the former 31. The new structure is already beginning to bring benefits and will be a great success. The area boards, together with the Scottish tourist board, can provide the lead for the tourism industry, both locally and nationally.

  285
  The hon. Lady referred to our joint local tourist board—Aberdeen and Grampian—which she rightly said corresponded to the area of the former NESCOT tourism marketing group. The new area tourist board arrangements mirror almost exactly the arrangements that applied prior to the reorganisation on 1 April. The tourism review concluded that the concept of a locally determined and funded industry and local authority partnership, supported by the STB, generally worked well and should be continued. About 80 per cent. of those commenting on the arrangements at local level commended the system, and I believe that they were correct to do so.
  Although the boards have been established by statute, we have provided, as we were asked, that decisions about funding support should remain, as they have always been, at the complete discretion of local authorities. Similarly, the boards should have discretion to determine their priorities and operational arrangements, including the operation of tourist information centres, which the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) mentioned. I have no powers to intervene in those matters and I currently have no plans to alter the arrangements.
  Earlier, I drew attention to the additional funding that we are providing this year to the Scottish tourist board. From that funding, £700,000 of extra funding will go directly to the area tourist boards, and all 14 boards will benefit as a result. The grant to the Aberdeen and Grampian tourist board from the Scottish tourist board has risen from £257,000 last year to £285,000 this year—an increase of 10.9 per cent. That demonstrates the importance that the Government attach to the work of the area tourist boards and our commitment to their success.
  I clearly look to the local authorities to show a similar level of commitment, and I understand that most have done so by maintaining or increasing their level of spend. I deeply regret that in my area, the north-east, the local authorities have reduced their expenditure. It is for the authorities to decide the priority that is to be attached to tourism in their area and to reflect that priority in the level of funding that they provide to their local tourist board. I have no powers to intervene.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) referred to the possibility of a three-year rolling programme. It is important that the board and its funding partners adopt a local strategy that will apply for a number of years. The Scottish tourist board would be willing to assist in preparing such a strategy if that would help our local tourist board, and I hope that that offer will be taken up.
  286
  The hon. Member for Moray mentioned local enterprise companies and the fact that they had previously contributed. The hon. Lady's LEC was almost unique among LECs in contributing to the core funding of local tourist boards. Following the tourism review and the clarification of responsibilities, it is no longer expected that LECs should provide core funding. Because of tourism's economic significance or potential in many parts of Scotland, LECs will—as the hon. Lady said—be prepared to fund, jointly with tourist boards, individual projects. I understand that Grampian Enterprise is willing to forge such partnerships and to consider supporting appropriate projects.
  While the support arrangements that we have introduced are much clearer, if the hon. Lady would like to provide me with specific examples of areas where she believes local enterprise companies could further assist the area tourist board, I should be more than happy to consider them and take them to the Scottish Tourism Co-ordinating Group for discussion.
  The hon. Lady referred to Ireland and the use of European funding. We must consider the overall funding that goes into tourism. I think that the hon. Lady will find that the overall level is not that different. As she rightly said, objective 1 funding in the highlands and islands area provides for specific projects relating to tourism. The fact that the whole of Ireland has objective 1 status makes it different.
  In conclusion, I believe that the Scottish tourism industry has a positive future. I join the hon. Lady in recognising its importance to the economy of Scotland, not just for employment, but for the success of many small businesses, not just in her area, but in mine and elsewhere in Scotland. I shall seek to encourage tourists to come to as many parts of Scotland as possible—many simply come to our capital, Edinburgh, and do not find time to go beyond it, although there are many attractions further north.
  I know that the Scottish tourist board, under its chief executive, Derek Reid, has made significant strides in the expansion of the promotion of tourism in Scotland. Some of the recent statistics have proved that we are achieving success, although that is not to say that more cannot be done. The co-ordinating group serves a useful purpose in bringing together all the interested parties to co-ordinate all activities to one common aim.
  Our investment is substantial and the tourism industry itself is demonstrating the will to succeed. I believe that it will succeed.

  Driver Theory Testing Station (Southport)
  1.29 pm
  Mr. Matthew Banks: It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity during this short lunch-time Adjournment debate to raise the important question of the provision of a driver theory testing station in my constituency. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London in his place. I look forward to a positive reply at the end of the debate and I have discussed this matter with him in private meetings and, latterly, in correspondence.
  The House will know that I have long had an interest in transport, since before I came into the House. When I was first elected to the House in 1992, I was appointed to the Select Committee on Transport. Before I rose to the dizzy heights of being parliamentary private secretary at the Department of Transport, I was first the secretary and latterly the vice-chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench transport committee. Although I am a firm supporter of Government policy on transport, I have occasionally taken the opportunities afforded to me as a Member of the House, and as a member of those Committees, to affect and to effect Government policy on transport.
  There have been a number of notable successes, including rail privatisation, environmental matters relating to transport and aviation policy. During that period, my hon. Friend has been a Transport Minister and I know that he has been well disposed to listen to, and act on, the lucid, well-argued and detailed proposals that I have put before him. I hope that he will do so at the end of the debate today.
  My hon. Friend the Minister knows the geography of my constituency well, and he also comes from the north-west. He has listened, as I have mentioned, to my lobbying behind the scenes on behalf of my constituents, on this and other issues, and has also received correspondence from me. I hope that, by raising this matter on the Floor of the House, I may be able to elicit a more positive response than I have hitherto received.
  There has been the odd rumour that my hon. Friend the Minister might seek to leave the Government before leaving the House at the end of the Parliament. I know nothing of my hon. Friend's plans, but if the rumour is true, that will be a terrible loss for the Government. If I may say so, those of us who know my hon. Friend well wish him well for the future. There could be no more fitting tribute for somebody from the north-west, who has been such a successful Transport Minister as my hon. Friend has, than the provision, for future generations, of a driver theory testing station in Southport. If my hon. Friend has, could be a little more positive on the issue—I know that resources are tight—I would be the first to think of the station as the Steve Norris theory testing school.
  The driving test was first introduced in 1935 when the first candidate was Mr. Bean. Apart from the scrapping of hand signals—for which another Mr. Bean is famous—in 1975, the test remained largely unchanged, until the European Commission insisted that new drivers face a theory test. Britain's multiple-choice papers, with questions designed to weed out over-aggressive candidates, will be introduced in due course. The theory test is an important part of Government policy and I have no doubt that it will improve road safety. Accident statistics and research have shown that young and inexperienced drivers are several times more likely to be involved in accidents and fatalities than more mature drivers.
  288
  The test complies with the second European Community directive on driver licensing and I have had the pleasure of spending much time in European Standing Committee A, also with my hon. Friend the Minister, dealing with the issue of driving licences. My hon. Friend knows my concern about the competence of the European Commission to take decisions that should be taken by member states of the European Union. He also knows that I am concerned about the competence of the Transport Commissioner, Mr. Kinnock, but I shall leave that subject for another Adjournment debate on another day.
  Although Britain is the only country without a theory test, we have the safest roads measured by casualties. However, I am not complacent. I believe, and I expect, that people will become safer drivers by preparing for the theory test. I hope that my hon. Friend will adopt one small suggestion and ensure that one or two questions in the test cover drivers' awareness of cyclists and motorcyclists. It is important to crack down on the number of casualties among those road users, as well as among car drivers, and to increase the driver's awareness of the motorcyclist.
  That said, we cannot achieve those aims satisfactorily without the provision of a theory testing station in Southport. I want my constituents to be able to take their practical test and their theory test in Southport. It is not good enough that my constituents should be expected to travel to Liverpool or to Preston. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that my constituency was proudly independent before 1974. He also knows that, against all the odds, we shall be unique as the only metropolitan area considered by the Local Government Commission for independent status. We shall break away and make our own decisions locally as we once did.
  We do not want to have to go to Liverpool or Preston for a theory test. Before 1974, we never had to go to Preston to deal with Lancashire county council because it never held sway over our affairs. We did not have to go to Liverpool to deal with Merseyside county council. We were independent. My hon. Friend could give my constituents and myself an enormous fillip in that campaign, too, by ensuring that we are independent in driver theory testing. I am fed up with people in Liverpool telling us what we can do. We should make decisions locally.
  On 29 May, my hon. Friend the Minister wrote his last letter to me on this subject and he drew attention to the railway line between Southport and Liverpool. Due to the policies of the Labour-controlled Merseyside passenger transport authority, that line is the least subsidised line of the Mersey rail network, with some of the most expensive fares in Britain, apart from certain services out of Fenchurch Street in London. The Merseyside passenger transport authority does not allow us to travel by train between Southport and Preston, because my predecessor in the House was so wholly unsuccessful in restoring a piece of track taken away by Beeching.
  The only other railway we have that links my constituency with the west coast main line is the Southport to Wigan line and not a single penny has been spent to promote, protect or maintain that line, not even the part in Merseyside which is in my constituency. That is totally unacceptable. No wonder my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment described me as the only real bulwark that my constituents have against a Greater Bootle.

  289
  I do not know whether the rumours are true that not only does my hon. Friend the Minister know my constituency well but, years ago, he sold some second-hand motor vehicles—fine ones, I am sure—at the northern and southern ends of Lord street in the centre of town. He might also have enjoyed the odd boozy business lunch at the best hotel in town. I know that he knows Southport well and that he will have listened over the weeks to the representations that I have made privately, in writing and now on the Floor of the House. He has listened to detailed arguments, which I hope have been well argued, and I hope that he will be able to act positively on them. I hope that he will look back with fond memories of his time in Southport and I urge him to consider the fact that there could be no finer tribute to his successful tenure as a Transport Minister than providing a theory testing station in Southport.
  If my right hon. Friend can give me a positive response, I look forward at some stage to being able to invite him back to Southport to visit the theory testing station and, perhaps when he has finished driving for the day, I might be able to enjoy a celebratory glass of champagne with him and my constituents.
  1.39 pm
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): In all the years that I have had the honour to be a Minister, I have seldom heard a more oleaginous and sycophantic appeal to my better nature than that expertly articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks). As I do indeed consider pastures elsewhere and contemplate the words of Sir Christopher Wren—"Si monumentum requiris, circumspice"—I can think of no greater monument than a theory testing centre in Southport where, as my hon. Friend rightly said, I passed a considerable part of my misspent youth. I enjoyed a great deal of that time in the Prince of Wales, which was a fine establishment in those days, although I have no idea what it is like now. I was indeed proprietor of several distinguished premises in the town, at both ends of Lord street. A man has to earn a living—I make no other comment.
  As to the crowning achievement of my entire stint at the Department of Transport, rivalling that of Hore-Belisha and my noble Friend Lady Chalker, let me turn to the matter in hand. The specification for the establishment of theory testing centres was based on responses to the Driving Standards Agency's customer surveys. Driving test candidates and their instructors said that they thought that it was reasonable to travel up to 20 miles for a driving test. A national network of theory testing centres has been developed broadly on that basis and they will run frequent test sessions to meet candidates' needs.
  As my hon. Friend said, we have come late to the business of theory testing and I make no apology for the fact that, in due course, we shall perhaps move further than the present theory test, which is a written test, to the use of interactive technology that will enable us to test hazard perception in a more realistic environment than we are able to do with the written test alone.
  My hon. Friend was, however, entirely right to concentrate on the fact that the theory test exists principally because the greatest cause of death among young people is the road accident. Seventeen to 25-year-old drivers have a particular propensity to accidents and injury. They comprise 10 per cent. of licence holders but, sadly, 20 per cent. of casualties and 25 per cent. of fatalities. It is in that
  290
  context that we have introduced the theory test and done so to approbation on both sides of the House. There was no disagreement about the desirability of that happening.
  The specification for test centre location requires that a test centre should be available within 20 miles but in districts—usually towns or cities where the population density is greater than 1,250 people per sq km—a test centre should be available within about five miles, as that is clearly a more appropriate measure in a dense conurbation. For the record, in more sparsely populated areas with low populations, test centres should be available within 40 miles because the nexus of time and distance can be regarded in a slightly different light when there is much less impediment from traffic or population.
  It is on that basis that my hon. Friend made representations to me about his constituency, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) whom I am delighted to see in his place. Convention demands that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford cannot speak in these debates, but I can take it as read that, were he able to do so, the paean that would fall from his lips would equal that of my hon. Friend. I was delighted to be able to accommodate the forceful and articulate representations that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford made to me on precisely this subject in relation to his own constituency and that his constituents will now enjoy that facility.
  The original plan for the theory testing centre serving the Southport area was to put test centres at Liverpool and Preston. However, those plans did not necessarily properly address the fact that Southport lies in the administrative district of Sefton, which forms a strip stretching along the Mersey coastline, and Sefton has more than 1,250 people per sq km. The southern part of the district is within five miles of the theory testing centre at Liverpool but Southport, at the northern end of the strip, is 20 miles by road from the Liverpool centre. The theory testing centre proposals covering Southport did not therefore meet the precise specified requirement because residents would not have a theory test centre within five miles.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport for drawing this error in the application of the service specification to my attention and, even at this stage, giving me the opportunity to set matters right.
  While my hon. Friend knows that I would not dream of touching his champagne for all sorts of reasons, not least my fear and terror of the good Lord Nolan—not to mention my aversion to drinking and driving—I am happy to tell him that I have given directions for an additional theory testing centre to be sited in Southport. He has, in the vernacular much practised in my constituency, got a result. I congratulate him on it.
  It being fourteen minutes to 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.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Iraq
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding United Nations sanctions on Iraq. [30842]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind):Sanctions will stay in place until Iraq fulfils its obligations under the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. Implementation of resolution 986 will give welcome relief to the Iraqi people, whose suffering Saddam has caused.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that implementation of United Nations resolution 986 could be misinterpreted by the Iraqis as weakness? I mention that particularly in the light of the fact that, yesterday, United Nations inspectors were deliberately obstructed by the Iraqis when they went to visit a site in west Baghdad, where they believed that there were weapons of mass destruction, and the Iraqis are still holding more than 600 missing Kuwaitis and prisoners of war. One woman was released just a month ago, having been taken when she was only 14 years old. She is now a wreck. She had been raped and tortured. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we must, with all diligence, press the Iraqis to comply with all United Nations resolutions before we give them any more assistance?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yesterday's incident confirms, as my hon. Friend has shown, why it is necessary for general sanctions to remain against Iraq until it fully complies with United Nations resolutions, including resolutions with regard to those who have been unlawfully detained in Iraq since the end of the Gulf war. Resolution 986 was concerned purely with humanitarian matters, and it is because the United Kingdom and the United States were determined to ensure that no loopholes could be exploited by Saddam Hussein that the negotiations took a long time. I am pleased to say that there was a satisfactory result.
    Mr. Dalyell: What about the 500,000 or more Iraqi children who have died in the past few years as a result of disease and malnutrition? What does the Foreign Office have to say about the reports of the most recent travellers to Iraq which confirm the appalling stagnation of water and waterborne diseases that occur there?
    Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, sanctions have never applied to food or medicines. Therefore, if aid has not reached people in Iraq, that must be entirely the responsibility of the Iraqi Government.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Iraqi regime is one of the most evil— if not the most evil—regimes in the world? It ill behoves any hon. Member to give it any comfort when it has ignored the plight of its own people, the plight of the Kurds and the
    292
    plight of the Kuwaitis, and when it rained down Scud missiles on innocent Israelis in 1991. It is an evil regime and it should get no help from anyone in the House.
    Mr. Rifkind: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, whose views will be commended to the House as a whole.

    EU Presidency
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the Irish Foreign Minister to discuss the priorities of the forthcoming Irish presidency of the European Union. [30843]
    Mr. Rifkind: I expect to meet the Irish Foreign Minister on 17 June.
    Mr. Jones: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the priorities of the next six months for the European Union will be to ensure the success of elections in Bosnia? How, then, would it help Britain's campaign to lift the beef ban for us to block financial assistance for those elections? Is that not another reason why the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), last night described the Government's policies on the beef ban as lamentable and why he called on the Government to rescind them?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is just a little out of date. He is obviously unaware that we did not block the proposal for assistance for the Bosnian elections when it came up on Monday. The hon. Gentleman should do his homework before he asks questions.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important to gear up for the forthcoming intergovernmental conference because the policy of non-co-operation will, we hope, not last for ever and because we shall at some stage resume normal business?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, and even at this moment we are participating fully in the discussions within the intergovernmental conference. The concept of an empty chair was a French initiative, not a British one, and is not one that we have chosen to follow.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the Secretary of State be surprised, when he meets his Irish counterpart, to find that his priority is to persuade the United Kingdom to abandon its policy of non-co-operation? What possible justification is there for this policy which aggravates our European partners and, so far, has produced nothing? The United Kingdom would not negotiate under duress. Why do we expect our European partners to do so?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. and learned Gentleman may have heard the President of the European Commission say yesterday that he was now optimistic that there could be an agreement next week on a framework for the lifting, phase by phase, of the ban on British beef. No one was making that prediction a week or 10 days ago.

    China
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to strengthen the relationship between China and the United Kingdom. [30844]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): We maintain an active programme of contacts with the Chinese at ministerial and official level. Most recently, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made a highly successful visit to China and Hong Kong last month.
    Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is there any action that he could take to increase the resources and support available to Chinese students who come to the United Kingdom to study English at British universities? Does he accept that, if he were able to increase the resources, much would be done further to improve the relationship between China and the United Kingdom? I have little doubt that, if that were done, a substantial dividend would come back to the UK.
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, in terms not only of Chinese students but of students the world over. An increasing number of students come to the United Kingdom both to learn English and to learn a broader curriculum. The money that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office spends on granting scholarships and encouraging exchanges is money well spent.
    Mr. Llew Smith: What representations has the Minister made to the Chinese Government on the recent nuclear test and the adverse effect that that could have on the negotiations for a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty? What information has he received on the hijack of the Greenpeace ship which was on its way to protest about the tests?
    Mr. Hanley: We have long said that we want an indefinite end to all testing. That is why we have been negotiating hard for the early conclusion of a comprehensive test ban treaty; that is our priority. China has said that it, too, is committed to these negotiations. We note that China has announced a moratorium to take effect after a final test in September and I hope that that means that the Chinese are keeping to their commitment. It is now for them to demonstrate their commitment by being prepared to conclude negotiations by the end of June and to sign the treaty, along with all other countries, in the autumn. We have absolutely no plans to resume testing. All other nuclear weapons states have now ceased testing and I hope that China will follow that example.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the biggest single contribution that the Chinese Government can make to Sino-British relations will be to ensure that the principle of two systems in one country is given effect when Hong Kong is handed back to China and to take steps to recognise the rule of law, free speech and free enterprise in that colony?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I cannot add to what he has said.

    Hong Kong
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals the Government have for ensuring that elected members of Hong Kong's Legislative Council are able to continue as members of the proposed provisional legislature. [30845]
    Mr. Rifkind: The members of Hong Kong's Legislative Council were properly elected in free and open elections in September 1995 which were fully consistent with the joint declaration and the Basic Law. It is for China to justify any decision to dissolve the present Legislative Council and to establish a provisional legislature, on which I have made the Government's position clear.
    Mrs. Prentice: Can the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that the administrative arrangements that the Government have put in place will remain intact after July 1997?
    Mr. Rifkind: We believe that is what ought to happen. After July 1997 we are no longer the sovereign power, but it would be against the interests of the people of Hong Kong—as they have clearly demonstrated—to interfere with the legislature that has been established.
    Mr. Robin Cook: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that I recently visited Hong Kong. May I advise him that there is no issue that more affects confidence in the future of Hong Kong than the stated intention of China to replace the elected LegCo with an appointed LegCo? When the Prime Minister asked about that, he said that no options were ruled out for pressure on China. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us what those options might be and exactly how the Government plan to restore a through train for democracy in Hong Kong?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is important for China to appreciate that interest in the welfare of Hong Kong is not just to be found within the territory or within the United Kingdom. There is great international interest. I have discussed these matters with President Clinton and his colleagues in the United States. President Chirac of France and others have raised the question of Hong Kong with the Chinese authorities. Therefore, there will be great global interest in what happens and the Chinese Government will need to reassure the entire international community that the welfare of Hong Kong will be properly safeguarded. The best way to do that is, as the hon. Gentleman said, by confirming that the Legislative Council will be allowed to continue in its normal way.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend has just said. Does he agree that any attempt by China to make the Legislative Council appointed rather than democratically elected, as it is now, would make a mockery of any agreement that China would reach with the United Kingdom on two systems, one country after 1997? Is he aware of the strong feeling in the House as to how appalling that would be for the people of Hong Kong and will he ensure that the international pressure that he has just mentioned will be applied to China if that ever happens?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes. I agree with my hon. Friend. The Chinese have said that the appointed provisional

    295
    legislature would be replaced by an elected Legislative Council. Hong Kong already has an elected Legislative Council. Such a reform is neither necessary nor desired by the people of Hong Kong. Therefore, it would be far more sensible for the Chinese authorities to accept that it will be consistent with the stability and welfare of the territory.

    Kashmir
    Mr. Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the British hostages in Kashmir. [30846]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): We continue to work closely with the Indian and other Governments involved in our efforts to secure the release of the hostages. We very much hope that recent reports that they are no longer alive are untrue.
    Mr. Simpson: Does the Minister agree it was quite irresponsible of the press to have run stories recently announcing the death of the hostages when there have been a series of unconfirmed sightings since their death was supposed to have taken place? Will he give an assurance to the friends, colleagues and fellow students of Paul Wells in my constituency that there have a number of confirmed sightings of the hostages still alive? Will he give the House an assurance that the British Government are actively pursuing the safe negotiated release of the British hostages?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. I entirely agree with him that the reports of the possible death of the hostages are profoundly unhelpful. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he requires: the British Government are making every effort to find the hostages in the hope that they are still alive. We shall continue to work on that basis until we have a more concrete reason to believe that that is not true. I sincerely hope that we never reach that stage and that we can find the hostages and secure their release.

    Hong Kong
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to ensure that Hong Kong has a smooth transition to Chinese sovereignty in 1997. [30847]
    Mr. Hanley: We are committed to doing everything in our power to secure a successful transition for Hong Kong based on the provisions of the joint declaration. We continue to discuss detailed arrangements for the transfer of sovereignty with the Chinese Government at all levels.
    Mr. McAvoy: Does the Minister agree that the interests of the people of Hong Kong are paramount, and that the transfer of sovereignty demands a spirit of co-operation and friendliness between the Chinese and British Governments? If he does agree, can he tell us how the gratuitously offensive comments made by him and by the Foreign Secretary about the Chinese Government will help to ensure that the transition takes place in a co-operative and friendly manner?
    Mr. Hanley: I just turned to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and found that, like me,
    296
    he is mystified by the hon. Gentleman's reference to gratuitously insulting comments. We have the friendliest relations with China; our relations have improved dramatically over the past 12 months alone. The meetings that we have had at all levels have been constructive and friendly. I believe that those relations have helped to settle a number of issues that were outstanding in regard to Hong Kong and the transfer of sovereignty, and to improve the position.
    My right hon. and learned Friend and I have met Qian Qichen, and my right hon. and learned Friend has met a wide range of leaders in Peking. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met Premier Li Peng in Bangkok only last March, and in April my right hon. and learned Friend and I met Qian Qichen in The Hague. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has conducted a very successful trade mission, accompanied by nearly 280 business people. That was a tremendous occasion, which greatly enhanced our relationship with China. All those meetings were in the interests of Hong Kong and her people.

    Malawi
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held, and with whom, in respect of the present political situation in Malawi. [30849]
    Mr. Hanley: My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development keeps in close touch with developments in Malawi, and had discussions with President Muluzi at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in November 1995.
    Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the economic, social and, most of all, political stability of Malawi is essential to the wider stability of the southern region of Africa? What are Her Majesty's Government doing to promote that, and what aid is being given in all respects to ensure that it remains?
    Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for concentrating on a country that receives little notice in the House—which is a shame, because we consider that the principles of good government have improved there. There is press freedom and freedom of speech, there is a genuine debate in Parliament, and the International Committee of the Red Cross now has unrestricted access. Moreover, an anti-corruption bureau has recently been established. That is why we continue to be the largest bilateral donor to Malawi. In 1995, we spent about £40 million, of which £12 million was balance of payments support; to that we can add our share of multilateral aid, which is approximately £3 million.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister guarantee not only that the United Kingdom will continue to provide such support but that we will understand that the enormous economic problems that Malawi faces will put great stresses and strains on the democratic procedure? I hope that the Foreign Office has no intention of either lowering the current representation in Malawi or undermining our important relationship in any way.
    Mr. Hanley: I thank the hon. Lady for pointing out that our presence may be giving some help to the reform

    297
    process in Malawi, and for confirming that the economy there is shaky. We must do what we can to help, and we shall certainly try to ensure that our representation and our aid are maintained. These matters are all part of wider economic issues, but the hon. Lady's comments will be taken into account.

    European Union
    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will conduct a study into the consequences of a British withdrawal from the European Union. [30850]
    Mr. Rifkind: We have no such intention. We need to promote and protect our interests from within the EU, not from outside.
    Mr. Macdonald: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that withdrawal from the European Union would be a disaster for Britain? Does he further agree with the chairman of the European committee of the Confederation of British Industry that the growing support for such a policy among Tory Back Benchers is causing serious damage to British business interests in Europe?
    Mr. Rifkind: It would be profoundly against the interests of the United Kingdom ever to contemplate withdrawal from the EU. There are members of all parties who have long held the view that withdrawal is an option that they would favour, but that is for them to explain to their respective parties.
    Sir Richard Body: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that an educational charity has been searching for a long time for an economist of some standing—from either the business or the academic world—to produce a cost-benefit analysis of our membership of the European Community leading to a favourable conclusion? So far, the charity has failed to find such an expert. Can my right hon. and learned Friend help that charity, or the rest of us, by naming someone willing to carry out that task?
    Mr. Rifkind: In his characteristically objective pursuit of the truth, my hon. Friend will wish to be fully informed about the benefits and any possible disadvantages of the European Union. I am sure that the European Commission would be happy to help him, but many others are able to provide a positive endorsement.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: What are the consequences of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer— one of the prime movers in the Maastricht agreement— producing a paper in which he examines the mechanics and practicalities of withdrawal? Is that not extremely damaging?
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman has not seen it or read it.
    Mr. Kennedy: The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames may not have read the treaty, but neither did the then Home Secretary, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) is not on strong ground there. Is it not
    298
    extremely damaging to the international reputation of this country that the former Chancellor is now taking that view? Is it not time that the Government showed some leadership against the malcontents on their Back Benches, who are damaging not only the Government—that is their problem—but the rest of us in the process?
    Mr. Rifkind: I see that matter as no more significant than the fact that the Leader of the Opposition campaigned for Britain to withdraw from the EU and now wishes to support our membership. These are characteristics that occasionally appear in the House.
    Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give a date when British Ministers will start saying that our membership of the EU is a good thing, as the only one who does so at present is the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. Rifkind: As I said that some 30 seconds ago, my hon. Friend has been overtaken by events.
    Mr. Salmond: When the Foreign Secretary was Secretary of State for Scotland, would he have encouraged his parliamentary private secretary to attend meetings to discuss the mechanics of withdrawal from the EU, as the current Secretary of State has done?
    Mr. Rifkind: I see no objection to private discussions taking place. The idea that the Government—or, indeed, the hon. Gentleman—should dictate to colleagues which meetings they attend for the purposes of intellectual discussions seems to be an extraordinary display of totalitarian tendencies which I am surprised to see from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it serves no purpose that, every time someone criticises the way in which European institutions work or suggests an alternative way in which they might be reformed, a group of Europhiles immediately accuse him of wanting to leave the EU? Would not the CBI do a greater service to British business if it explained the issues and invited contributions from all shades of opinion on Europe, instead of campaigning manically for one particular view?
    Mr. Rifkind: I certainly believe—as, I am sure, does my hon. Friend—that the real issue is not whether the United Kingdom should or should not be in the European Union, but what kind of European Union we wish to see develop. That is a legitimate debate not only within the United Kingdom but throughout all the member states.
    Mr. Robin Cook: If the Foreign Secretary's robust statement of commitment to the European Union represents Government policy, can he explain why half the Conservative Members not on the payroll vote voted with the Euro-sceptics yesterday? Will he take this opportunity to tell them that they should listen to the chorus of dismay from business leaders? Will he tell the most vocal of them to give back the funds that he has taken from Sir James Goldsmith, who made his financial mark by buying up companies and is making his political mark by buying up the Conservative party? If he will not do those things, or cannot convince his Back Benchers,

    299
    will it not be all too plain that the only referendum that will give Britain a fresh start in Europe is a general election that will enable the people to get rid of this divided and incompetent Government?
    Mr. Rifkind: I notice that the hon. Gentleman wished to draw attention to the fact that Sir James Goldsmith and the Referendum party appear to have certain links with certain of my hon. Friends. Curious links between different political parties do not affect only my party. I noticed recently that Mr. Zyuganov, the Russian communist candidate, said that he was looking forward to meeting the Leader of the Opposition because he believed that the Russian Communist party and new Labour had so much in common. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to encourage an investigation to expose those extraordinary and sinister links.
    Mr. Garnier: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the consequences of leaving the European Union would be that it would be much more difficult to improve relations between Spain and Gibraltar? Will he ensure that efforts are made to relieve the present border hold-ups there? It is good for Gibraltar and for Spain that they should get on well, but it is also good for the European Union.
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. and learned Friend is indeed correct. Our common membership of the European Union makes entirely indefensible what would, in any event, be very unattractive: restrictions on movement between Gibraltar and Spain. I saw the Spanish Foreign Minister in Madrid last week and I am pleased to say that, over the past few days, the restrictions seem to have diminished considerably. I hope that that represents a new and permanent arrangement.

    Bangladesh
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about relations with Bangladesh. [30851]
    Mr. Hanley: Our relations with Bangladesh are good. We look forward to maintaining and expanding our political, commercial and cultural links. Our strong hope is that today's elections will help rapidly to restore stability and economic progress.
    Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister send his and the House's best wishes to the people of Bangladesh that today's elections are free, fair and successful? Will he also stress that it is important that whoever is elected makes the democratic process work, that the army is not tempted to interfere with the result and that countries such as the United Kingdom give the new Government every assistance to ensure that democracy can work in one of the poorest countries in the world?
    Mr. Hanley: I agree with every word. The hon. Gentleman is right. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) who are in Bangladesh as election observers, together with four members of the Electoral Reform Society. Let us hope that the elections lead to proper and sustainable democracy.

    European Union
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the benefits to Britain of United Kingdom membership of the EU. [30852]
    Mr. Rifkind: The United Kingdom benefits from the contribution that the European Union has made to peace and reconciliation in the states of western Europe, from our full participation in the world's largest single market and from our ability to make a full contribution to the reaching of decisions on a wide range of issues directly relevant to British interests.
    Ms Eagle: Given the Foreign Secretary's sterling support for Britain's membership of the European Union, which he also expressed in answer to an earlier question and which I assume reflects the views of the whole Cabinet, can he explain why 78 of his Back Benchers, bankrolled and led by a member of a different political party, were allowed to make such a show of Euro-sceptic obsession in the House yesterday? What is he going to do about it?
    Mr. Rifkind: I seem to recollect that quite a number of Labour Members also voted for that 10-minute Bill, so it is curious that the hon. Lady is so preoccupied with my hon. Friends rather than her own.
    Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the benefits of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union is the opportunity that it provides for us to bring into a wider European Union some of the countries for whom we have long held a moral responsibility, such as Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend has said. We often use the term "Europe" as if it means the same as the European Union. The reality is that it never has done, but it may progressively be able to. Twelve countries have applied to join the European Union. They are almost all new democracies of central and eastern Europe. We have a great historical obligation to facilitate their entry into the European Union, and that is the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    Ms Quin: Given that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) claimed a few minutes ago that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the only Cabinet member standing up for the European Union and Britain's membership, will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity to endorse the Chancellor's comments that were reported in today's Newcastle Journal? The Chancellor said:
    "Continual criticism of Brussels by Tory Euro-sceptics could stem the flow of inward investors to the North-East"
    and into Britain.
    Mr. Rifkind: I am always happy to endorse the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and all my ministerial colleagues.
    Mr. Stephen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell his European colleagues that withdrawal from the

    301
    European Union is not the British people's preferred option? Will he further tell them that our vision of Europe is a union of sovereign states working closely together for mutual benefit, but that our people are gravely concerned at the federalist agenda that seems to be being pursued by some of the political leaders of Europe?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right. As I tried to indicate a few moments ago, the debate is about what kind of European Union we should be working towards. Many of the concerns that we have expressed are to be found in France, Germany and elsewhere. History has so determined matters that the United Kingdom has tended to take the lead in presenting the alternative kind of European Union that we believe is in the best interests of Europe as a whole.

    Tibet
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of China regarding the situation in Tibet; and if he will make a statement. [30854]
    Mr. Hanley: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed Tibet during his talks with the Chinese Premier and Foreign Minister in Peking in January.
    Mr. Mullin: As the Minister will be aware, in the past month or so there has been a quite serious crackdown in Tibet and some people have been injured and killed. What precisely did the Foreign Secretary say to the Chinese authorities? Although I appreciate that our influence is limited, there are things that we, with our EU colleagues, could do to impress on the Chinese authorities the seriousness with which we treat the way in which they behave in Tibet.
    Mr. Hanley: My right hon. and learned Friend raised the general subject of human rights in China, including the situation in Tibet, which is a matter of deep concern for us all. He also raised the issue during his meetings with Chinese leaders, not only in Peking on 9 and 10 January, but with Foreign Minister Qian Qichen in The Hague on 20 April. He raised specifically the ill treatment of children in orphanages in China, the dissident Wei Jingsheng and, as I have said, the situation in Tibet. It is also important that we work with our European partners to form a dialogue on the issue because we believe that Tibetans should have a greater say in running their own affairs. The best way in which to achieve that is through dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama, without preconditions. We hope that both parties can start such a dialogue without delay.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Tibetan people will always look to the Dalai Lama as their spiritual leader—and their political leader to boot? Will the Government accord the Dalai Lama greater recognition in that respect, especially during his forthcoming visit to this country?
    Mr. Hanley: The Dalai Lama will visit the United Kingdom next month as a guest of the British Buddhist
    302
    organisations. He is a distinguished religious leader and, in accordance with previous practice, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has agreed to meet him in that capacity.

    Bhutan
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on human rights in Bhutan. [30855]
    Mr. Hanley: We understand that the human rights situation in southern Bhutan has improved significantly in the past three years and that the flow of refugees has almost ceased.
    Mr. Winterton: As the position of the Bhutanese and Nepalese Governments is irreconcilable, with the Government of Bhutan insisting that 99 per cent. of the refugees in the camps are not Bhutanese and the Nepalese Government insisting that they are not Nepalese and that they came from Bhutan and must go back there, how can the British Government continue to argue that the best approach to solving the problem lies in bilateral talks between the Governments of Nepal and Bhutan? What assurances can my right hon. Friend give to those refugees that they will not become stateless, which many of them fear?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to a serious dilemma. We believe that bilateral negotiations offer the best solution to the problem and we will continue to encourage the Governments of Bhutan and Nepal to conduct them. We take suitable opportunities to express firmly our concern to the Bhutanese about human rights. We provide humanitarian aid to support the refugees in Nepal because they are human beings, and irrespective of the status that people might give them. We have raised the issue with the Indian Government, too, on the basis of our humanitarian concern. We will continue to encourage Bhutan and Nepal in their dialogue.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that human rights in Bhutan and throughout the Indian sub-continent are of great concern to neighbouring countries, including those that share borders with Bhutan? One of my constituents who went to visit his family not long ago was murdered at the airport and did not even get into the country. I have already written to the Minister about that case and I hope that he will take up that abuse of the human rights of one of our passport holders.
    Mr. Hanley: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would send me the details of that case, which I do not have with me. I shall certainly look into the matter.
    As for talks between Bhutan and Nepal, matters are not quite as bad as some might think. The seventh round of inter-ministerial talks took place in Kathmandu in April, and ended with an agreement to continue those talks at Thimphu, although no date was set. I hope that those next talks will help to make progress towards a lasting solution to the problem.
    As to the incident to which the hon. Gentleman referred, any such case must be properly investigated independently and the guilty must be brought to justice.

    East Timor
    Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held recently with the Government of Indonesia on the future of East Timor; and if he will make a statement. [30857]
    Mr. Hanley: Ministers most recently discussed the future of East Timor with the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Mr. Alatas, during his visit to the United Kingdom in January.
    Mr. Gerrard: I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the views of many hon. Members that, instead of selling arms to Indonesia, the Government should tell the Indonesians to end their illegal occupation of East Timor, and condemn the genocide that has been committed there. Will he specifically press the Government of Indonesia to implement fully the recommendations of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights following his visit to East Timor? Will he also press the Indonesian Government to allow a UN presence in East Timor—not just in Jakarta—and access to East Timor by human rights organisations?
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the United Kingdom does not recognise Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor. We continue to believe that the dialogue between Portugal and Indonesia, under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General, offers the best chance of finding a just, comprehensive and internationally acceptable settlement to the question of East Timor. The next round of talks will be held this month.
    I was extremely pleased to learn of the meeting between President Suharto of Indonesia and President Guterres of Portugal at the recent ASEAN—Association of South-East Asian Nations—summit in Bangkok. I hope that the Foreign Ministers of Portugal and Indonesia can take forward the issues discussed then, because that is the only way in which we can improve the situation.
    We are concerned about the reports of continuing human rights abuses in Indonesia and East Timor, and we let the Indonesian Government know of our concerns. I have mentioned the meeting that I had with Foreign Minister Alatas during his visit to the United Kingdom in January. We are aware of continued violence in East Timor, and we are monitoring the situation very closely.

    British Council
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to enhance the work of the British Council. [30858]
    Mr. Rifkind: The British Council's activities are at record levels. The council now has 228 offices in 109 countries, compared with 108 offices in 79 countries in 1980. The revision to the grant in aid that I announced on 21 May will enable the British Council to avoid closures of its overseas offices and help to sustain its programmes overseas.
    Mr. Michie: The Secretary of State has been forced to back down from his barmy plans to cut the budget of the
    304
    British Council. Will he admit that he was wrong in the first place? Will he accept that such a cut would have damaged an organisation that is vital if we are to promote British business and culture abroad? Will he behave himself in future?
    Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Member for his friendly advice. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British Council did not, at first, appreciate the implications of the precise figures that were given to them. Further work was done by the British Council, and it alerted us to the implications for its overseas activities. I made it clear from the beginning that I was not prepared to see the closure of overseas offices of the British Council because we greatly value its work. It has greatly expanded under the Government and we have no desire for there to be a contraction in its overseas activities. On that basis, we reviewed its funding.
    Mr. Forman: I warmly welcome the positive approach that my right hon. and learned Friend has taken towards the British Council and the way in which it has expanded overseas, but does he recognise that, from time to time, we should examine the internal workings of the British Council, particularly the structure of its regional offices? Will he assure hon. Members that that matter is being approached in as cost-effective a way as possible? There was a time when the British Council was over-manned and over-present in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Rifkind: As part of the British Council's examination of its domestic operations, it has concluded that it can carry out its tasks with fewer staff than it has traditionally employed. We expect there to be a significant contraction in the number of its domestic staff and its expenditure.

    Bahrain
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action has been taken by Her Majesty's ambassador to Bahrain concerning human rights. [30859]
    Mr. Hanley: Our ambassador in Bahrain, Ian Lewty, and his staff have regular discussions with the Bahrain Government. I will be visiting Bahrain next week to discuss a wide range of issues, including human rights.
    Mr. Corbyn: I am pleased to hear that the Minister will be visiting Bahrain next week. Will he carry with him a copy of an early-day motion, signed by a substantial number of hon. Members, that refers to human rights abuses in Bahrain, to the Bahraini Government's abuse of trade union positions and to the lack of respect for human rights by that country? We get the impression that if Britain sells arms to, and does a lot of trade with, a country, the Government are unconcerned about systematic abuses of human rights there.
    Mr. Hanley: Her Majesty's Government deplore all abuses of human rights, wherever they take place. We treat all allegations of human rights abuses seriously. We frequently raise human rights issues with other Governments. Whether we should express concern and

    305
    how best to do so are questions that we address carefully in each case. Bahrain gave a full response to allegations of human rights abuses to the UNHCR in June 1995.
    I hope to discuss topical issues with the Bahraini Government next week, including the accusations that are included in documents such as the early-day motion. I shall take it with me to Bahrain. As I said, our ambassador and I raise human rights issues with the Bahraini authorities because we have to respond to the many questions that come from Lord Avebury and hon. Members on specific issues. I have always found the Bahraini authorities most co-operative. I hope that that will be the case next week.

    Burma
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Burma regarding human rights in Burma. [30860]
    Mr. Hanley: The United Kingdom has had no ministerial contact with the ruling military regime in Burma, the State Law and Order Restoration Council— SLORC—but we regularly raise our concerns about human rights in Burma at official level.
    Mr. Miller: I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is inadequate simply to criticise SLORC from the sidelines. We all deplore that regime. When considering the plight of people in UNHCR camps, will he have regard to the examples set by Canada, the United States and Australia—which have established small resettlement programmes for people in those camps—particularly when those people have legitimate links with families in Britain who could meet their needs and support them?
    Mr. Hanley: I agree with the spirit behind the hon. Gentleman's question, but I disagree with his suggestion that we are somehow sniping from the sidelines—we are not. On 7 June, our ambassador, Robert Gordon, was sent to the SLORC with a déemarche urging it, first, to free those who were detained immediately; secondly, to permit Burma's pro-democracy groups and others freedom of speech, movement and association in fulfilment of Burma's obligations under the universal declaration of human rights; and, thirdly, to enter into meaningful dialogue with Burma's democratic opposition without delay. That is hardly speaking from the sidelines. We are carrying out our policy in support of democratic reform and human rights in Burma, and we have made it clear to SLORC that the resumption of normal relations- is conditional on progress in those key areas. That is the purpose of our critical dialogue.
    As to the way in which we can help those who have been harmed by the regime in Burma, we will continue to work and to co-operate at every level in order to find the best and most effective way of helping them.
    Mr. Fatchett: If the Minister is so concerned about human rights in Burma, and if the Government's actions are consistent with his words, will he give a commitment to the House that the trade delegation to Burma sponsored by the Government and scheduled for 24 June will be cancelled and that the Government will give no further legitimacy to that foul regime in Burma through their
    306
    actions or finances? Will he also give a commitment that the British Government will make it clear to the regime in Burma that, if there is any further repression of democratic forces, or if Aung San Suu Kyi is arrested, the British Government will take tough retaliatory action against Burma and join the United States and others in the world community in making it clear that democratic rights in Burma are important to us and to the people of that country?
    Mr. Hanley: I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, on 19 July last year, there was an Adjournment debate on the subject, when I set out the Government's policy. I did so again on 7 February and I also referred to our policy in Parliament on 6 March. It is true that we sponsored a mission to Burma in January and February this year, but it is surprising that Mr. Pilger's recent television programme omitted to mention the fact that we have pulled the plug on our support for the trade mission to which the hon. Gentleman referred—for the reasons that he has given. It is strange that programmes criticising the Government fail to mention the facts that they find inconvenient—one must never let the truth interfere with a good story.

    Former Yugoslavia
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations are taking place with other Foreign Ministers over the future position of the implementation force in the former Yugoslavia. [30861]
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: We remain in constant contact with other Governments on this and other Bosnia-related subjects.
    Mr. Winnick: The implementation force is clearly performing a very important task in the former Yugoslavia. As it is now quite clear that virtually every male who was captured after the fall of Srebrenica was put to death, the need to ensure that the most notorious war criminals are apprehended and brought to justice before the war crimes tribunal is all the greater. Should not the President of Serbia be told in clear terms that he has a duty to the international community to hand over to IFOR the two leading criminals among the Bosnian Serbs?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I share the hon. Gentleman's distaste for Messrs. Karadzic and Mladic, and I agree that it is important that they be brought to justice before the international war crimes tribunal, but it is not in IFOR's mandate to make such arrests or to seek Messrs. Karadzic and Mladic. Its job is to ensure that the Dayton peace agreement is taken forward. The hon. Gentleman must not underestimate the difficulty of apprehending Messrs. Karadzic and Mladic, and any military operation that was mounted to do so would undoubtedly involve substantial loss of international life.
    The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should put all possible pressure on the President of Serbia, Mr. Milosevic, to intervene to try to get to Messrs. Karadzic and Mladic. I am afraid that the President of Serbia does not have total control over the Bosnian Serbs—[Laughter.] It is all very well to laugh, but that is

    307
    a fact of life. It is regrettable, but true. We shall continue to put pressure on Mr. Milosevic until we attain the outcome that we desire.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, if the 20 December deadline for withdrawal of the implementation force is to be met, the elections that are currently scheduled for 14 September must be free and fair? Does he think that they will be, when 80 per cent. of the population of Bosnia are living elsewhere thanks to ethnic cleansing or the implementation of the Dayton agreement? Does he think that they will be, when 1 million Bosnians now live overseas and the register for the elections and the census on which it is based are dated 1991? Does my hon. Friend think that, in those circumstances, the elections will be free and fair? Will he, for an alternative, look at the experience of the Republic of South Africa? Many of its citizens were living where they should not have been at the time of the elections, and use of a sophisticated administrative device ensured that a large percentage of the population voted. Those elections were seen by the free world as fair and free.
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I agree that the elections must be free and fair, but it would be unrealistic for any of us to expect them to be perfect. It is the task of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and others involved in trying to organise the elections to ensure that they reach a satisfactory electoral conclusion.
    IFOR will be kept at full strength until after the elections and will be fully operational until 20 December. It is premature for us to plan further at present, but emphasis is placed on the fact that free and fair elections should be held, and all the international community's efforts are currently directed to that end.

    Florence Summit
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the agenda of the summit to be held in Florence on 21 and 22 June. [30862]
    Mr. Rifkind: The agenda for the Florence European Council is not yet decided, but as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in his statement to the House on 21 May, if we have not reached agreement on a framework for lifting the ban on beef, that subject is bound to dominate the agenda.
    Mr. Williams: I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will accept that many hon. Members, including many Conservative Members, are concerned about the deep damage that is being caused to our relations with our European partners by the policy of non-co-operation. Will he make every effort to ensure that a compromise is reached before the Florence summit so that the agenda can be followed and we abandon this unwise policy?
    Mr. Rifkind: We are all anxious to find an acceptable solution, but it must be on the basis outlined by the Prime Minister: agreement on a framework strategy for the phased lifting of the ban.

    EU Intergovernmental Conference
    Mr. Hall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline the Government's objectives for the European Union intergovernmental conference. [30863]
    Mr. Rifkind: Our objectives were set out in the recent White Paper "A Partnership of Nations".
    Mr. Hall: Has the Foreign Secretary taken time to read the pamphlet produced by the Confederation of British Industry entitled "Building a Better Europe" which was published last week? It called for a pragmatic and case-by-case assessment of the case for extending qualified majority voting at the intergovernmental conference. Does not the sensible approach taken by the business community expose the Government's short-sighted and dogmatic approach in refusing to consider a further extension of qualified majority voting?
    Mr. Rifkind: Our view of qualified majority voting is influenced by the fact that it already exists in relation to a large area of policy, including the single market and the common agricultural policy. We have yet to hear a convincing case—I do not believe that there is one—for further extension of QMV.
    Mr. Field: I understand from my Member of the European Parliament that the maritime regions are to be considered by the intergovernmental conference, which will be of considerable interest to areas such as the Scottish islands, the Isle of Wight and the Azores. When will my right hon. and learned Friend be able to make an announcement about the peripheral regions' place in the timetable for the intergovernmental conference?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am not clear about the background to my hon. Friend's question. The purpose of the intergovernmental conference is to consider the possibility of treaty amendments. I have not yet heard of any proposals that would be specifically relevant to maritime areas. Of course, if others make such proposals, we shall consider them on their merits.

    UNESCO
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have to rejoin UNESCO. [30864]
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: We have no immediate plans to rejoin UNESCO. This issue is being kept under review in the light of progress with reform in the organisation and other financial priorities.
    Mr. MacShane: Everybody will agree that, in the 1980s, UNESCO was a ratbag, financially corrupt organisation run by an authoritarian megalomaniac—a bit like the Conservative party. Now it is run by a lean, mean executive called Major—Señor Major—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he has to put a question and I have not yet heard a question from him.
    Mr. MacShane: May I ask the Minister, given that UNESCO today is run by a lean, mean executive called

    309
    Major, who works with the private sector and does excellent work, whether Britain will abandon its petty, petulant refusal to play a part and rejoin UNESCO now?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I shall resist being tempted down that unfortunate path. We keep our rejoining UNESCO under constant review, but at the moment we are not satisfied that the management and administration of that organisation is good value for money for those who fund it. Nor are we satisfied that our membership would be good value for money, given that it would cost £11 million out of a limited budget, which is already fully pressed.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Is my hon. Friend aware that, when we were a member of UNESCO, we gained more money each year than we paid in? The sum that he mentioned should be seen in that context. Is he also aware that it is hard to find an educational or cultural institution in this country that does not think it is a gross mistake not to be a member of UNESCO? Will my hon. Friend please ensure that he does nothing to erect further fences that would prevent our speedy return?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: If my hon. Friend can give me figures that will assure me that we would get more than £11 million back if we put it in, I shall review the position. I think that it is unlikely.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: If there was a logic to the original decision to withdraw from UNESCO, surely the decision not to rejoin smacks of pettiness. Does the Minister understand that there is wide respect now for UNESCO's work and the way in which it conducts its affairs? Will he also recognise the increasing concern among other United Nations agencies that British withdrawal from UNESCO may parallel withdrawal from other organisations in the future? Will the Minister take the opportunity now to ensure that the world understands that there will be no withdrawals from other agencies?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The world is probably more concerned about the fact that the United States does not back UNESCO than the fact that the United Kingdom does not. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we have no plans to withdraw from other organisations. However, we are keeping a close eye on, and conducting a review of, the efficiency and value of some operations
    310
    of the United Nations. I cannot, as yet, give the hon. Gentleman any details of the results that might arise from that examination.
    Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that, at UNESCO's palatial headquarters in Paris, where 2,000 people work, most of the experienced middle management were sacked and replaced by a lot of left-wing trendies, and long-haired men and short-haired women who wore sandals in the office? [Interruption.] There were too many of them in the office and not enough out in the field. Is my hon. Friend also aware that in matters of cultural relations overseas, many of us would much rather support the Government's policy of continuing to fund the excellent work of the British Council and the BBC's overseas service?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His description of those who work at UNESCO matches our view of the Opposition.

    Lebanon
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Israel regarding the ceasefire in the Lebanon. [30865]
    Mr. Hanley: During the conflict in Lebanon, we repeatedly urged all sides to reach a ceasefire agreement. Since the 26 April agreement was reached, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have been in touch, by letter and telephone, with the Israeli Government about Lebanon, and kept in regular touch, in person, with the Israeli ambassador to the Court of St. James.
    Mr. Cunningham: Has the Minister had any clarification from the new Israeli Prime Minister who says that he wants peace and security? What is the Minister's interpretation of that statement?
    Mr. Hanley: I cannot but believe that it is in the interests of the new Israeli Government and their Prime Minister to continue the peace process. Peace comes with prosperity and prosperity comes with peace. It must be in the interests of all people in the middle east to pursue the peace process. Last weekend, and during the week, I visited five countries—Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Morocco—and in each of them I found constructive views and people willing to give the new Prime Minister of Israel the chance to show that he is dedicated to peace. I believe that the Arab world will do so and that Mr. Netanyahu will rise to the occasion.

NHS Dentistry
3.30 pm
The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): With permission, I would like to make a statement on the future of dentistry in the national health service.
Last April, I announced on behalf of all United Kingdom Health Ministers a package of reforms to the general dental services remuneration system. I can now tell the House that a year of constructive and detailed discussion with the General Dental Services Committee has resulted in agreement on that package. Implementation will start in September. This will do much to end uncertainty and to provide an atmosphere of stability and security for the dental profession. It creates a firm foundation for future work. I wish to set out both an immediate and a long-term agenda. I will deal with the immediate agenda first.
The package has a number of elements, one of which is children's dentistry. At present, the treatment of children is funded through a monthly capitation payment to dentists, supplemented by weighted entry payments where significant additional treatment is needed. The new system retains capitation payments, and replaces weighted entry with a new set of fees for individual items of treatment. This will help ensure that children receive appropriate preventive advice and dental treatment.
For both adult and child dentistry, we will harmonise the registration period at 15 months. This will provide a period of continuing dental care following each course of treatment, while streamlining administrative procedures and reducing bureaucracy for dentists.
To help ensure that the public secure the best value for money from resources, we will introduce more rigorous prior approval for some courses of treatment from 1 December. This will ensure that all clinically essential services are available and are secured in the most cost-effective way. A joint working party between Health Departments and the General Dental Services Committee will develop our proposals further.
It is important to construct a remuneration system which encourages improvements in oral health. Our aim is to target substantial existing resources more effectively for the benefit of patients. We shall be working with the profession to monitor the outcome of the changes to the proposed fee scale to ensure that we achieve our objective.
I deal now with the longer-term agenda. I can now tell the House that we intend to pilot and evaluate a system of local contracting for primary care dentists in several areas around the UK. The chairman of the General Dental Services Committee has stated that it will work with us constructively. I welcome that approach. The pilots will require primary legislation, and it is the Government's intention to seek an opportunity to introduce a Bill. I hope that it will prove possible to publish a draft Bill for consultation this autumn. We want to make progress, with the agreement and commitment of the profession.
Such a Bill would provide an opportunity to tackle another agenda which has been set by the dental profession itself and which I have discussed recently with the General Dental Council. The council is charged under the Dentists Act 1984 with setting and maintaining professional standards for the benefit of dentists and patients alike. Last year, the council issued a consultation
312
document setting out its proposals to amend the Act to do away with a number of constraints to the development of the profession. I am now happy to announce that the Government are prepared to take forward their proposals.
First, the Government propose to set up new classes of dental auxiliaries and expand the range of work that they can do. That would allow the GDC to approve pilot studies of mixed-skill working. The aim is to allow dentists to manage their practices more effectively, provide more professional opportunities for hygienists and other dental auxiliaries and increase the amount of care available for patients. It will be necessary to ensure that those changes produce enhanced NHS services, targeted to need. The proposals will enable clinical dental technicians to practise legally in future.
Secondly, in cases of disciplinary proceedings, the Government propose to introduce conditional registration in addition to the sanctions currently in place. Another important component of that proposal would be the creation of a statutory career redevelopment scheme for dentists who do not demonstrate a sufficient level of competence. We also intend significantly to increase the lay representation on their council.
Thirdly, the Government propose to establish a complaints system for private patients, something that was urged upon me recently in a debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown). That would enhance the GDC's powers to deal with complaints against dentists providing treatment outside the NHS.
Those proposals broadly mirror developments for the medical profession which were put to the House earlier this year and approved.
I recognise that, within a growing general dental service, there are some localised problems of accessibility. Health authorities are already able to apply to the Secretary of State to seek to appoint a salaried dentist and use the community dental services in areas where availability problems arise. In addition, we have been consulting within the NHS and the profession on an access fund for this year.
I am pleased to announce to the House that we shall shortly be seeking bids from health authorities in England for individual grants, in the region of £40,000, to enable them to fund local solutions to local problems of availability. An access scheme has already been successfully launched in Wales. We shall monitor the outcome carefully.
Another issue which has greatly concerned the profession is that dentists have been remunerated through a system with a balancing mechanism, whereby overpayments in one year were recovered in subsequent years. However, over a number of years, up to 1993–94, an overpayment amounting to some £16,500 per dentist arose. I have had many representations on the issue. I have listened to the views of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and also to Opposition Members, who have urged me to mitigate the burden of those overpayments.
In view of the agreement reached with the profession, I have decided not to pursue that course of action. Instead, I have decided to announce today a total waiver of the overpayments. As a consequence, I understand that the chairman and executive of the General Dental Services Committee will recommend that the dispute started in 1992 be called off.

313
NHS dentistry is a success story. Since 1992, the number of dentists on English health authorities' lists has increased by around 500, to nearly 16,000. The number of adult treatments has gone up by 50 per cent. since 1979. Expenditure on the general dental services is up by 57 per cent. over the same period. We now have an agreed way forward. In my statement, I have set out an exciting and challenging new agenda for the profession and for the NHS. I intend to pursue it with vigour, and I commend it to the House.
Mr. Henry McLeish: Does the Minister not accept that, against the background of the crisis now gripping NHS dentistry, his statement will be seen as muddled and misguided, and will be a bitter disappointment to the public, professionals and Parliament? Will he acknowledge that this package is further evidence, if any were needed, that the Government are determined to drive dentistry out of the NHS by promoting further privatisation of adult treatment and retaining a residual welfare service for children and people on benefit?
Is the Minister oblivious to the main problem: to ensure that adults get routine NHS general dental services throughout the country? On that issue, does he accept that, in London and the south-west, one in six of the population has difficulty finding an NHS dentist? Does he further accept that there has been a significant fall in the registration of young adults over the age of 18? Why does nothing in his statement address those issues?
No one will disagree with more assistance being given to children, nor with the proposals to maintain professional standards. The belated attempt to solve the payments problem is welcomed by most people, and the Government have belatedly accepted that there are localised difficulties in terms of access, but will the Minister explain the knee-jerk reaction to the crisis facing children in NHS dentistry?
Will the Minister confirm that the proposed amount to be spent is £10 million, and that it will in effect be transferred from adult dentistry? Will he also explain why the item-of-service payments, which have been reintroduced, provide dentists with more money for taking teeth out than for filling them, which will undermine preventive health care?
Does the Minister accept that the reduction in the registration period from 24 to 15 months—or, to use his words, to "harmonise" the phase of registration—could mean that millions of adults will be removed from NHS dentists' registers? I urge the Minister to tell the House whether 2 million, 3 million or 4 million will be removed at a stroke. Can he explain whether the new rigorous prior approval for expensive treatments—crowns and bridges— is designed to improve dental care or merely to provide the cash for transferring to children's treatment?
The Minister's statement does not in any way address the key issue of health inequalities in dental services throughout the country. We need a package to ensure the right of all sections of the community in all parts of the country to comprehensive NHS dental care. The Government have squandered yet another opportunity. We
314
need to keep dentistry within the NHS. The Government have shown by their actions today that they do not share that aspiration.
Mr. Malone: We have just heard the usual drivel from the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), whose view of NHS dentistry is totally unsupported by the evidence. The truth is that NHS dentistry is succeeding. It is receiving record funding from the Government. The number of people who are maintained on registers is broadly the same as it was in the past, in spite of the perverted statistics put out by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—who, rather interestingly, counts those who come off the register automatically and then refuses to look at the figures for those who go on the register, which gives an entirely different picture.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central raised yet again the bogus issue of privatisation. Health service dentistry is receiving additional investment.
Mr. McLeish: What about costs? What about registrations?
Mr. Malone: I shall come to each of those points. The hon. Gentleman need not butt in from a sedentary position.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the undermining of preventive care. Nothing will do that. He made some spurious suggestion that funding for children's treatment will come from adult care. I explained to the House in my statement that the weighted payments that are presently given will fund the fees for patient care for children, and that there will be a ceiling within which the treatment will take place. That has always been the case.
I now come to the hon. Gentleman's point about the 15-month period. The reason why there is a continuous care period of 15 months is that some 4.5 million people were rolling off the register each year, which suggests that they were not receiving treatment. The 15-month period will encourage dentists to provide a course of treatment for patients who need it, and they will then remain on the register. It is in the interest of dentists that they do so.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of prior approval. It will improve dental care, because it will ensure that what is clinically necessary and appropriate for patients will be delivered. What is important is that the protocols will be decided with the dental profession and will be developed during the coming months. Dentists very much welcome that.
Yes, things are different under this Government compared with the previous Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman may be interested in the notice from the British Dental Association, which is headed "Notice to Patients". It says:
"For the time being some patients may be unable to obtain dental treatment under the National Health Service … The British Dental Association regrets that this situation has arisen and hopes that a viable and progressive NHS Dental Service can be restored in the very near future."
It was, in 1979. It has been developed since, and that is an achievement of this Government.
Sir Peter Emery: Although I thank my hon. Friend for that statement, which certainly goes a long way

315
to meeting many of the difficulties in the profession, I believe that it has not immediately met one great worry. Being parochial, I think of Sidmouth, Budleigh Salterton and Exmouth, where people are having to travel perhaps 20 miles to register with a dentist.
Will my hon. Friend consider providing capital to attract dentists into setting up a house and clinic, so that they can take on the great registration that exists not just in my area, but in many areas of the south-west? That would much more quickly get over the immediate problem, which I am sure my hon. Friend wishes to do.
Mr. Malone: Yes, indeed. The fund I have announced to the House this afternoon is designed precisely to meet such a need, where it is clearly demonstrated that there is a requirement for NHS dentistry that cannot be met. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have written to me about access, and I have listened to them most carefully.
My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the legislative framework within which we normally provide NHS dentistry if no dentist wishes to provide NHS care. There are two means of doing so: either through the community dental service or through the appointment of a salaried dentist. That system has proved to be too inflexible, and that is why I have announced in principle to the House today a scheme that will meet local flexibilities and needs—which is why it is not prescriptive. It will be up to local health authorities to devise schemes that match the local situation.
The representations have been listened to and responded to. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will now take up the matter directly with his local health authority, so that it may bid for the fund that has been put in place.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I and my colleagues give a cautious welcome to the Minister's statement, as far as it goes. Does he agree that, unless there is both the commitment and the finance in the next few months, we shall not be able to rescue NHS dentistry from the jaws of disappearance?
Specifically, is it Government policy to reinstate to the NHS all the work that has been lost over the past four years? Is it Government policy that the 1.8 million net patients who have been lost to the NHS will go back to being inscribed on NHS rolls? Is it Government policy that, not just in the south-west but all over the country, there will be access for every citizen, adult and child, to a local NHS dentist?
If so, will the Minister answer the last crucial question? Does the new settlement mean that there is more money for dental remuneration, and does it mean that, once again, there will be free dental checks on the NHS for all adults and all children all over the country, as needed?
Mr. Malone: I will answer the point about additional resources first, because that is at the core of the matter. Since 1979, this Government have provided, on an on-going basis, dramatic additional resources for NHS care. Total real expenditure is £1.4 billion up—60 per cent.—on the 1978–79 figures. It is all very well for the Labour party to talk about fiddling figures; it is nothing of the sort. These are the facts, and to try to suggest by simple assertion that they are not is an absurdity into
316
which Opposition Front-Bench Members fall far too often. Net spending is up by 37 per cent. on 1978–79 figures.
The hon. Gentleman lives in a fantasy land. He totally fails to understand the system if he thinks that people who may have required NHS dentistry in the past and now need it will receive it in terms. I do not know what system of compulsory treatment the Liberal party proposes to employ to seek them out. Time and again, the hon. Gentleman has fiddled the figures relating to NHS dentistry. What is more, when he is discovered fiddling the figures, he changes the ground rules.
I shall tell the House exactly what the hon. Gentleman has done. He has claimed that one patient is deregistered every two minutes, but depending on the basis of calculating the two minutes—I took it to be the normal division of time by two minute segments—some 45 are registered at the same time.
Having been found out on that, and the facts not suiting him, the hon. Gentleman then moved on to something that proved more esoteric. More recently, he claimed that one patient has disappeared every eight working day seconds. So we got out the calculator. We assumed working days to be Monday to Friday, and, giving the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt, we worked out relatively shortly that more than four are registered at the same time. So once again the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong.
Mrs. Marion Roe: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the representatives of the dental profession on finally settling their long-standing pay dispute and on the major strides forward that have obviously been made during the negotiations. As Chairman of the Health Select Committee, I welcome the introduction of a new system of rewarding activity, with particular reference to children's oral health. However, as the Minister will know, the continuing trend of improvement in children's oral health has not been maintained in recent years. Will he confirm that children's oral health will now receive the focus it deserves, and will be put at the top of the priority list?
Mr. Malone: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I thank her for drawing attention to the co-operation of the profession in setting the agenda in lengthy discussions that she acknowledges are now productive.
My hon. Friend referred to children's oral health. It was precisely because it had become evident that the rate of improvement in children's oral health was not being maintained that we decided to look into the issue. My hon. Friend is quite right. We are seeking to ensure that activity relates to oral health and not just to the weighted payments that were previously in place, which meant that a dentist got more cash for putting on to his or her list a child with a bad oral health problem.
However, that did not generate activity. The purpose of the new scheme is to generate such activity, which should improve oral health dramatically. I can confirm that we shall continue to monitor the scheme as it unfolds, and ensure that it promotes the increased activity and improvement in oral health that we believe it promises. If, however, it does not fulfil that promise, I have no hesitation in saying that I shall be prepared to approach the issue again.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister accept that, for the greater part of the past 17 years, the

317
dentistry element of the national health service has fallen apart? He comes here today attempting to introduce pilot schemes in local areas prior to a general election to give the impression that they will get rid of all the problems that have arisen in those 17 years, together with some auxiliaries. Are we going back to the 1930s, when my father was down the pit, and, if somebody wanted a tooth out and they had no money, there was no national health service and people would say, "Go to Tony Skinner, he has a good pair of pliers"? What a fine state of affairs we have reached.
Mr. Malone: I always knew that the hon. Gentleman's family was multi-skilled, but I did not know that it went that far. He harked back to the 1930s. I hope that he will not hark back to the 1950s when, under a Labour Government, a compulsory decrease in dental fees of 20 per cent. was imposed in one year, followed by another of 10 per cent., and there was talk of using military dentists to break a strike. That was acceded to by the saint of the health service, Nye Bevan, so we do not want to get back to the agenda set by the Labour party.
Our agenda is one of continued investment in the health service. The facts absolutely belie the hon. Gentleman's accusation that the service is falling apart. It is receiving increasing investment, and more dentists than ever before are providing NHS treatment. The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. If I am to attempt to call all the hon. Members who are rising, I must now have short, brisk questions, and short, brisk answers from the Minister.
Sir Alan Haselhurst: Is it not well nigh impossible to interpret any part of my hon. Friend's statement as making access to NHS dentistry more difficult? On the contrary, does it not give a clear signal to health authorities, such as North Essex health authority, that there is now an additional means of trying to supply areas such as Saffron Walden, where there are currently no NHS dentists?
Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is quite right. I shall expect him to speak to his local health authority to see whether a scheme can be devised.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Minister will know that I have been corresponding regularly with his Department about what has been described to me as a crisis in dentistry in west Cumbria. We have been viewing the scheme in Wales quite enviously. May I ask the Minister in advance to look favourably on any bid that Cumbria might wish to make?
Mr. Malone: I will certainly take the hon. Gentleman's representations into account if such a bid is made.
Mr. James Couchman: My hon. Friend's statement is very welcome, as is the fact that a long-running dispute now appears to be over.
318
During my hon. Friend's discussions with them, have dentists said whether more of their number will be prepared to take on new NHS patients? May I also ask him whether he believes that this will solve the problem of the scarcity of orthodontic treatment?
Mr. Malone: Given the hypothesis that dentists were saying that they would not take on extra NHS work—or would withdraw from such work—because a dispute was in progress, I hope that a corollary of the end of that dispute will be many more dentists deciding to resume NHS care. I hope that the end of the dispute and, in particular, getting rid of the vexed issue of overpayments—which I know encouraged a number of dentists to give up NHS work—will enable us to put the matter behind us. The legislation to which I have referred is designed precisely to improve the teams, including orthodontists, who will provide care in the dentist's surgery.
Mr. Sam Galbraith: Does the Minister agree that the best way in which to improve children's dental health is to put fluoride in the water? That being the case, what will he do about it?
Mr. Malone: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is exactly the Government's policy. Our policy is that, where it is agreed locally that fluoride should be introduced into the water supply, it should be introduced. The hon. Gentleman comes from an area where that is a contentious issue. I will certainly back schemes that are initiated locally, with local support, and the Government stand ready to back them all with capital investment.
Mr. Barry Field: As my hon. Friend will know, the writing off of overpayments will bring a big cheesy grin to the faces of members of the dental profession. Given the conversations that I have had with him, does he realise just how keen I am on pilot studies involving the Isle of Wight? Will he confirm that he will consider my bid for the island to have just one of the schemes that he has announced?
Mr. Malone: I have been delighted to note the bids from hon. Members on both sides of the House to participate in the next generation of NHS dentistry. My hon. Friend's bid has certainly been noted.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Why, oh why, has it taken four years for the Government to get themselves out of the hole they dug for themselves back in 1992? Why has NHS dentistry disappeared from my constituency for the past three years, despite the Welsh Office initiative? In the past two years, only one dentist in the constituency has been taking on new NHS patients, and we still do not have one additional dentist, in spite of the initiative taken two years ago, and the additional money that was supposed to come.
On Monday morning, I saw a constituent who had a serious toothache last Wednesday, but could get no treatment either in hospital or from a dentist. He was offered antibiotics, or the alternative of having a tooth removed. The position is a shambles. It is high time we saw real action, rather than the window dressing that has gone on in Wales for the past two years.
Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman entirely ignores the fact that we have made solid progress with the profession

319
in that time in resolving a huge range of outstanding issues that will direct dental health care far more appropriately to patients. I should have thought that he would welcome that. He cannot say that he has experienced problems in his constituency in the past, and then belittle a statement today that addresses those problems and takes forward the agenda of NHS dentistry as a whole.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My hon. Friend will recall that I am the adviser to the Clinical Dental Technicians Association. How will he take forward his remarks about legalising the practice of denturism? Will the access funds that he referred to a few moments ago be directed towards the problems at Newton Abbot about which I have spoken to him recently?
Mr. Malone: I forgot that my hon. Friend gave advice—probably to the relatives of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) who get their pliers out occasionally.
Mr. Skinner: My father would have done it for nothing.
Mr. Malone: Well, dentists dictate their own terms of service when providing private care.
My hon. Friend has made representations to me on behalf of his constituents. I note his suggestion today, and assume that he will take it up with his local health authority.
Ms Jean Corston: Does the Minister accept that his statement that NHS dentistry is a success story is simply not true in my constituency, where there are only two dentists providing NHS dentistry? That is two dentists for nearly 80,000 people. Dentists cannot survive professionally unless they encourage their patients to apply for services such as Denplan, for which some people, particularly pensioners, cannot afford the premiums. Is not a consequence of that a decline in the nation's health, and the privatisation of dentistry?
Mr. Malone: I do not accept that the nation's oral health is declining. If one were to believe Opposition Members, one would wonder what those dentists who provide NHS dentistry were up to, and where they were located. According to Opposition Members, there are no NHS dentists in their constituencies. There are, however, 15,500 dentists providing NHS care, and only 500 providing a totally private practice. The hon. Lady is entirely wrong to characterise a successful national service in the way she does.
Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend is, I suspect, as fed up of reading my letters on Weymouth and Portland as I am of writing them. May I congratulate him on producing the flexibility that Dorset health commission has asked for in terms of solving the problems in those areas? Will he ensure that we are one of the areas chosen for the pilot scheme? Will he give a commitment to ensure that, by the time of the general election, everyone who wants an NHS dentist will have one?
Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is entirely wrong—I enjoy reading his correspondence, and I hope that he
320
thinks that I reply to it with some care. I have said to colleagues who want their constituencies to participate in the scheme that, if they fall within the rules, I expect the local health authority to put forward a proposal for consideration.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: How many areas in this country have localised problems of access? Barnoldswick, in my constituency, is a town of 10,000 people with only one NHS dentist. There is a waiting list as long as your arm, and it is impossible to get treatment in the area. Was not the Minister's statement totally fraudulent?
Mr. Malone: No.
Mr. Mark Robinson: Following his welcome statement, will my hon. Friend consider launching a campaign to persuade those dentists who have shut their doors to new registrations— temporarily, I hope—to reopen them?
Mr. Malone: I very much hope that the statement will encourage those dentists who, in the light of the dispute, decided not to provide NHS dentistry to take a fresh look at the situation and review their decision. Having put the dispute behind us, I hope that we will enter a more positive phase and increase the expanding number of dentists providing NHS care.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: Does the Minister recall the report of the Health Select Committee on NHS dentistry that concluded that improvements in oral health achieved by a positive health promotion strategy would enable the Government to reintroduce at no additional cost free dental checks and a free core service of routine treatment? Why was that idea not pursued with the BDA?
As someone who has been told by his NHS dentist to go private or to go away—[Interruption.] I can tell Conservative Members that I left that practice—may I ask the Government to give a guarantee to all taxpayers, who have paid for an NHS dental service, that they will get such a service?
Mr. Malone: I would not fancy looking into the hon. Gentleman's mouth on a regular basis, so perhaps that is understandable. His point is exactly the same as that made by his hon. Friends. It is entirely wrong. He is yet another who claims that the NHS dental service has disappeared. It palpably has not.
Mr. David Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the facts that over the past four years, the number of patients registered—both adults and children—has increased, that the number of treatments has increased and that the state of the nation's teeth has improved show that the NHS dental service is neither in crisis nor a shambles? What steps in his proposals will give an incentive to dentists to carry out preventive treatment? On children's health, will he ensure that proper quality controls are in place for the reintroduction of an item-for-fee service?
Mr. Malone: Yes, I can give the latter undertaking. Dentists are professionals, who have to obey the clinical guidelines set by the profession. I expect them to

321
undertake preventive care. The corollary suggested by some Labour Members is that they behave badly and give unnecessary clinical treatment. I do not think that that is right. The system of improved payments for children's oral health care will strongly contribute to a general improvement in oral health care for children across the nation.
Mr. Nick Ainger: The Minister and several hon. Members have referred to the Welsh scheme. I endorse the comments of those who have said that it has not been a success. As an example, a dentist was relocated to my constituency in December, but has now sent a letter to all her adult patients deregistering them. After sixth months, she faces bankruptcy because of her serious problems.
I urge the Minister to recognise that there is a real problem, especially in rural areas, both in Wales and England. What he has told us today does not go far enough. Can he give any idea how many dentists who have in the past four years deregistered adult and children patients will now come back into the NHS?
Mr. Malone: I cannot predict the precise number. We will exhort those who feel that the environment is better after the statement to resume NHS care. We will see what the numbers will be. It is important that the access schemes are successful in the long term. That will be one of the criteria that we will consider carefully when schemes are put forward by local health authorities.
Some of the relocation schemes we have tried in England did not work in the long term. We are well informed by the fact that they did not work. We will be careful, in spending the taxpayers' money on improving access to dental health care, that we get schemes that will endure and provide lasting benefits for NHS patients.

Points of Order
4.8 pm
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to page 129 of "Erskine May", which states:
"Conduct not amounting to a direct attempt improperly to influence Members in the discharge of their duties but having a tendency to impair their independence in the future performance of their duty may be treated as a contempt."
I raise that because a leading newspaper, The Times, today says that Tory Members who voted for the ten-minute Bill yesterday—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He has used the word "contempt". If it is contempt, it may well be a breach of privilege, and I cannot allow him to proceed in that manner. I ask him to write fully to me, so that I can consider the matter carefully.
Mr. Winnick: I take that point, Madam Speaker, but it was not contempt. I quoted from "Erskine May", but I am seeking your guidance.
Madam Speaker: I understood that the hon. Gentleman said that it was a "contempt", and did not just quote the word. I must be clear about it: the hon. Gentleman is not alleging contempt?
Mr. Winnick: No, Madam Speaker, I am seeking your guidance on a matter arising from what I quoted.
Was it right and proper for hon. Members to vote yesterday for the ten-minute Bill on the basis that it would reduce or eliminate the chances of a candidate being put up against them by the Referendum party? Bearing in mind the fact that one Conservative Member has already described the threat as "blatant blackmail", it seems to me, in seeking your guidance, that we should know precisely where we stand. Are not threats from outside sources that say, in effect, "Vote one way and we won't put up a candidate against you," influencing Members of Parliament unduly? Is not such conduct quite inappropriate?
Madam Speaker: Had the hon. Gentleman given me notice of his point of order, I might have been able to give him an immediate response. If he will let me consider the matter carefully, along with the quotation from "Erskine May" that he cited, I shall attempt to make some response.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter of which I have given you notice. It concerns a letter that I received from Sir James Goldsmith dated 15 February. I imagine that it was sent to quite a number of hon. Members—I see no reason why I should have been singled out. The letter says:
"At the next general election, the Referendum Party plans to field a candidate in each Westminster parliamentary constituency in which the leading candidates are not committed to a fair referendum. As you will understand, it would be extremely helpful if you were to let us have a copy of any speeches or press releases that you have made or plan to make concerning a referendum on Europe."
That, in the light of yesterday's events, is a thinly veiled threat.

323
I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker, on the propriety of that letter in the light of yesterday's events. As I said, the letter was dated 15 February. I did not raise it with you at the time because its significance began to fall into place only after the events of the past few days.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been kind enough this afternoon to let me have a copy of that letter. It does not seem to raise any questions of privilege, largely because, of course, it contains no threat to sitting Members carrying out their parliamentary duties. The matter seems to be about politics and the next election, not subjects on which legitimate points of order may arise. I do not know whether I received the letter, but, had I done so, it would have gone straight into the wastepaper basket.
Mr. Barry Field: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not know whether you were able to observe during Question Time that, exclusively in the Chamber, I was showered by national lottery tickets from the Public Gallery. From where I was sitting, I was unable to ascertain where they came from. From your vantage point, could you tell whether they came from that long lottery finger in the advertisement that points down to people and says, "It could be you"?
I have been assiduous in collecting the tickets. After a very slow start, the Isle of Wight has done rather well out of the national lottery. Should I win this weekend as a result of collecting those tickets, would I have to declare it in the Register of Members' Interests?
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is successful this weekend, I will go 50:50 with him. If they were lottery tickets—I do not know what they were—I did not see any of them. It seemed to be a very mild demonstration, which, frankly, went off like a damp squib.

BILLS PRESENTED
  PENSIONER TRUSTEES
  Mr. Jim Cunningham, supported by Mr. Jon Trickett, Mr. Brian Jenkins, Mr. Bill Olner, Mr. Ian Pearson, Mr. John Hutton, Ms Janet Anderson, Mr. Michael Connarty and Ms Liz Lynne, presented a Bill to give pensioner members of occupational pension schemes the statutory right to be member-nominated trustees of such schemes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 149.]

  Paedophiles (Registration and Miscellaneous Provisions)
  4.13 pm
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to control and monitor convicted paedophiles in order to provide greater protection for children.
  I do not think that anything in the whole pantheon of crime causes more abhorrence than crimes against children, especially when they are of a sexual nature. Such crimes are probably the basest known to man. Recently, Daniel Handley was killed by two paedophiles who had a long string of previous convictions. Such appalling cases go all the way back to Myra Hindley and Ian Brady.
  People are generally appalled not only at the nature of the crime but at the chilling organisation of many paedophile rings—there are estimated to be 20 in the country—and the way in which they operate their terrible activities.
  It is difficult to ascertain exactly the extent of the problem. It is estimated that about 5,000 serious sexual offences come before the courts every year. As I found when I sought information from the West Mercia force in my constituency, however, it is difficult to find out how many of those offences relate to children. Equally, it is difficult to obtain evidence of child abuse or sexual abuse of children. It is estimated, however, that 95 per cent. of child abuse cases never come to court. It is interesting to note that amendments to the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill might make the presentation of evidence in child abuse cases much easier.
  We know from Scotland Yard's national criminal intelligence service that it has 4,500 paedophiles on its books. We also know that there is a significant element of repeat offending by paedophiles. A recent survey of 232 abusers found that they had been responsible for no fewer than 55,000 offences, against about 16,400 children. What we can appreciate is that, despite the difficulty in obtaining evidence of those appalling crimes, the problem is sadly widespread, and is not diminishing. Above all, we know that it wrecks—and I mean wrecks—young lives.
  My Bill comes at an opportune time, because, on 27 March, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) introduced a Bill to register paedophile offenders. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) has also introduced a measure to cover supervision orders for such offenders. In addition, the Home Secretary is due to publish a consultation paper next week that will deal with many of the relevant issues. I also understand that an announcement is imminent about the problem of child abuse in certain parts of the country.
  My Bill has three specific measures, which I hope will inform and influence that debate, and ensure that the community receives adequate notification of the activities of child abusers and child sex offenders. Most important, it seeks to provide proper compulsory treatment for them.
  My Bill would establish a register of listed sexual offenders in line with the offences listed in the Sexual Offences Against Children (Register of Offenders) Bill to which I have already referred. Access to that register would be confined either to those groups that look after children and are registered to do so, or to people whom the chief police officer of an area believes have a legitimate interest.

  325
  My Bill goes even wider than that, because I agree with the Police Superintendents Association, which believes that it should be mandatory for all offenders and ex-offenders to inform the local police of any change of address. After all, there is no point in having a list of offenders if one does not know where they are. I believe that that register should carry information apart from pure convictions, including cautions and recent information about potential or actual paedophiles.
  I understand that such a register may raise certain problems in terms of civil liberties. We must weigh the importance of protecting the interests of the innocent against the importance of protecting innocent children and the public. I also emphasise that 95 per cent. of child abuse cases never come before a court. I should have thought that, as long as non-conviction information was removed from the register within five years, and that information was given out only at the discretion of the registrar or a senior police officer, those civil liberties objections would be overcome.
  The second measure—I believe that it is even more important—deals with the subsequent treatment of sex offenders, particularly child sex offenders, during their sentences and after they have been released. I recognise that many sex offender treatment programmes have, through Home Office evaluation, proved effective. The programme at Peterhead in Scotland was found to have a discernible impact on violent and passive offenders. The programme at Whatton, although more controversial, found that half the abusers benefited from the regime, and that long-term paedophiles may require long-term treatment. I recognise that the number of treatment programmes has increased significantly—up to 109— throughout the country over the past five years.
  I am concerned that the programmes are imposed by the court only to the end of an offender's sentence. In addition, the programmes are not offered to offenders who are serving sentences of less than two years, because, with 50 per cent. remission, it is believed that 12 months is not long enough for the programme to be effective. Given that many of the activities of paedophiles are degenerative, it is important that people who serve shorter sentences are properly treated, or at least given the opportunity to be treated.
  326
  I am concerned that only 10 per cent. of offenders get a court order for treatment within their sentence. There is apparently only one national health service out-patient clinic in the United Kingdom that treats these people outside penal establishments. It should be mandatory for anyone convicted of a sexual offence against children to have a course of treatment after they have finished their sentence. Obviously, that course of treatment would be laid down by the court, depending on the post-sentence reports and on the reports from the penal establishment concerned.
  I appreciate that, as a result of the European convention on human rights, such treatment has to be voluntary—I support that. However, at the same time, there is a strong case for the courts to have the discretion to reimpose a sentence on people if they will not voluntarily agree to a course of treatment—many of them will agree; half the paedophiles say that they need treatment. These people may be a danger to children and to the public.
  Finally, I am concerned that treatment programmes throughout the country are now the responsibility of individual probation services. In other words, there is no point putting in place a mandatory requirement that everyone shall have treatment if there are different kinds of treatment throughout the country. It is vital that there is a standard, a code, throughout the country as to the sort of treatment that ought to be given, albeit on a voluntary basis.
  As these matters are of sufficient importance, the Home Secretary should be required to report on them to Parliament every two years. He should report on the effectiveness of legislation against child abuse. In this way, the kind of injustice, inhumanity—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):Order. The hon. Gentleman's time has expired.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. A. Coombs, Mr. Peter Hardy, Dr. Robert Spink, Mr. Nigel Spearing, Mr. Rupert Allason, Mr. Graham Riddick, Mr. David Jamieson, Mr. Jacques Arnold, Mr. David Evans and Mrs. Teresa Gorman.

  PAEDOPHILES (REGISTRATION AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)
  Mr. Anthony Coombs accordingly presented a Bill to control and monitor convicted paedophiles in order to provide greater protection for children: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 150.]
Orders of the Day
  Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill [Lords]
    New clause 1

      WITNESS SUMMONS: SECURING ATTENDANCE OF WITNESS
      '.—(1) In section 4(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 (judge of High Court may issue warrant to arrest witness in respect of whom witness summons is in force) for the words "High Court" there shall be substituted "Crown Court".
      (2) This section shall have effect in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order.'—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 2

      WAR CRIMES: ABOLITION OF TRANSFER PROCEDURE
      '.—(1) In the War Crimes Act 1991—

      (a) in section 1(4) (which introduces the Schedule providing a procedure for use instead of committal proceedings for certain war crimes) the words "England, Wales or" shall be omitted, and

      (b) Part I of the Schedule (procedure for use in England and Wales instead of committal proceedings) shall be omitted.

      (2) In section 20(4) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 (power of magistrates' court to grant legal aid for Crown Court proceedings)—

      (a) the word "or" shall be inserted at the end of paragraph (b), and

      (b) paragraph (bb) (which relates to a notice of transfer under Part I of the Schedule to the War Crimes Act 1991) shall be omitted.'—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 3

      ABOLITION OF WITNESS ORDERS
      '.—(1) Section 1 of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 (examining justices to order witness to attend and give evidence before Crown Court) shall be omitted.
      (2) In that Act the following words shall be omitted—

      (a) in section 3(1) the words "witness order or";

      (b) in section 4(1) the words "witness order or" and (where they next occur) "order or";

      (c) in the proviso to section 4(1) the words from "in the case" (where they first occur) to "witness summons";

      (d) in section 4(2) the words "a witness order or" and (where they next occur) "order or".

      (3) In section 145 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (rules) subsection (1)(e) (which relates to witness orders) shall be omitted.
      (4) This section shall have effect in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order.'—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 4

      USE OF WRITTEN STATEMENTS AND DEPOSITIONS AT TRIAL
      'Schedule (Statements and depositions) to this Act (which relates
      328
      to the use at the trial of written statements and depositions admitted in evidence in committal proceedings) shall have effect.'.— [Mr. Kirkhope.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 10

      TIME LIMITS: TRANSITIONAL
      '—(1) As regards a case in relation to which no regulations under section 12 have come into force for the purposes of section 3, section 3(8) shall have effect as if it read—
      "(8) The prosecutor must act under this section as soon as is reasonably practicable after—

      (a) the accused pleads not guilty (where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(1)),

      (b) the accused is committed for trial (where this Part applies by virtue of section 1 (2)(a)),

      (c) the proceedings are transferred (where this Part applies by virtue of section l(2)(b) or (c)),

      (d) the count is included in the indictment (where this Part applies by virtue of section 1 (2)(d)), or

      (e) the bill of indictment is preferred (where this Part applies by virtue of section l(2)(e))."

      (2) As regards a case in relation to which no regulations under section 12 have come into force for the purposes of section 7, section 7(7) shall have effect as if it read—
      "(7) The prosecutor must act under this section as soon as is reasonably practicable after the accused gives a defence statement under section 5 or 6." '—[The Solicitor-General]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 5

      RESTRICTIONS ON USE BY ACCUSED OF SEXUAL OR VIOLENT PROSECUTION MATERIAL
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by order make provision for the modification of any duty placed by this Act upon the prosecutor to disclose prosecution material to the accused when the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) below are fulfilled.
      (2) The conditions are—

      (a) the material is of a sexual or violent nature, or

      (b) there are reasonable grounds for supposing that the accused or others will use the material for purposes other than for the preparation of the accused's defence.

      (3) No modification made under subsection (1) above shall have the effect of preventing the accused from inspecting any material which he would but for the provisions of this section be able to inspect.
      (4) A modification made under subsection (1) shall include requirements as to the retention and custody of material.
      (5) "Prosecution material" in this section has the same meaning as in section 3.
      (6) An order mentioned in subsection (1) shall be laid before Parliament not later than six months after this Act is passed.'.— [Mr. Michael.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.26 pm
      Mr. Alun Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 69, in clause 72, page 47, line 16 after 'section', insert

      329
      '(restrictions on use by accused of sexual or violent prosecution material) or'.
      Mr. Michael: The purpose of the new clause is to stop the scandal and the disgrace of prosecution material— including photographs and interview material—being used as pornography both inside and outside prison. It is right that any material that is used by the prosecution should be viewed by the defendant in order for the defendant to prepare his or her case. However, it is not right that such material—which often includes photographs of innocent victims or transcripts of interviews with women or vulnerable children—should be in circulation inside prison or elsewhere in order to provide a most disgusting form of pornography. That is what is occurring at present. It is not new, and the Government have been aware of it for some time. It is a disgrace that must be ended.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I wish to pose some serious practical problems to the hon. Gentleman. In his new clause, he uses the phrase "sexual or violent nature" rather than "sexual and violent nature". Many of those on remand face charges regarding the commission of violent acts, such as murder or grievous bodily harm. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he does not intend to prevent prisoners on remand from working on the papers associated with their cases while in their cells, so that they may instruct their lawyers properly for the purposes of the trial? Alternatively, is the hon. Gentleman prepared to countenance the provision of special rooms within prisons where prisoners can do that work and thereby instruct their advisers properly?
      Mr. Michael: I welcome the Liberal Democrats to the consideration of the Bill. We have heard little from them until now—Liberal Democrat Members were absent during the Committee's considerations. That is a matter of choice, but it is nice to know that they have decided to take a belated interest in the legislation. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had attended the Committee, he would have heard our illuminating debate and he would know the answer to his question. If he had read the new clause, he would know the answer to his question. It states:
      "No modification made under subsection (1) above shall have the effect of preventing the accused from inspecting any material which he would but for the provisions of this section be able to inspect."
      It protects the rights of the accused and ensures that, in introducing an order, the Home Secretary protects the rights of the accused to inspect material in order to prepare the case.
      Mr. Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Michael: I shall not give way for a moment or two. With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, it would be useful if he allowed us to start the debate on an issue covered by the Bill in which he and his party have taken no interest. The hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to sideline an important discussion, and I do not understand why. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to advance my argument for the new clause, I shall be happy to give way to him and respond to any queries that he may make. Because of his interruptions, I have not even been given the opportunity to explain why the new clause is so important.
      330
      I shall return to the basics of the argument. It is a disgrace and a scandal that evidential material, including photographs and interviews with vulnerable people who have been the subject of attacks, should be made available and circulated within prison. That happens on many occasions and we must take a grip on that problem.
      This is not the first time that the issue has been raised; we raised it during our debates on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, but the matter has not been dealt with. We have just witnessed the introduction of a ten-minute Bill calling for a paedophile register—another aspect of child abuse that needs to be tackled. We hear much on that subject from Conservative Members, but there seems to be little action from the Home Secretary, who blocked the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson). My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) also introduced a Bill to try to deal with such serious issues, but we seem to have heard nothing from the Home Secretary. Under pressure, the Home Secretary has started consultation on both those issues. He is not renowned for consulting people when he wants to do anything. The protection of children is a matter for action. Cross-party consensus should be sought to find a means of tackling the problem.
      Material such as the photographs that need to be shown in evidence to reveal the nature of attacks and the interviews in which the attacks are described in detail should be protected from abuse. It should not be allowed to be circulated and used as pornographic material. I stress the need to prevent that from happening both inside and outside prison, but it is a particular scandal that it should happen in prison.
      Our new clause deals with all the objections made to our first attempt in Committee to table a new clause to deal with such abuse. First, it gives a power to the Secretary of State to introduce a statutory instrument to protect material of the sort described. Secondly, it makes it a condition that the order must be placed before Parliament no later than six months after the Act is passed. That provision deals with the point made in Committee about the Home Secretary's consultation—it allows the consultation to continue and the findings to be incorporated in the statutory instrument, thus avoiding the delay caused by waiting for primary legislation. The new clause also refers to material of a sexual or violent nature and to circumstances where there are reasonable grounds for supposing that the accused or others will use the material for purposes other than the preparation of the accused's defence.
      To deal with the point of detail raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), I am advised that the words "and or" should not be used in legislation. In most circumstances, we would be dealing with material of a sexual or violent nature used in circumstances where there are reasonable grounds for supposing that the accused either would abuse that material or would come under pressure to make the material available to others.
      The way in which we have phrased the new clause allows either for a knowledge of circumstances in which material might be abused or for a knowledge of circumstances in which the nature of the material would lead to temptation that it be used as pornographic material. The reason for having "or" rather than "and" is that it would be a disgrace, in my view, if, through a

      331
      technicality, some material could not be protected despite knowledge of its nature or knowledge of the circumstances. In most circumstances, both those conditions would be fulfilled.
      As I have said, the interest of the accused in preparing his case would be protected by subsection (3). Subsection (4) sets out the need for the Home Secretary to make requirements in the order for the retention and custody of material. The purpose of that is to deal with three circumstances, which also cover the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. The first is the situation in prison where arrangements would have to be made for the accused to be able to inspect material, but would not allow him to take it into his possession in a way that would allow him to abuse it or come under pressure to allow others to use it as pornographic material. The second situation is when access is controlled by a legal representative in the community, and the third is that of the unrepresented defendant, who also might need to have access to such material. In that case, it would still be right that misuse of the material should be prevented.
      I hope that what we are trying to do is clear. The new clause is an enabling clause and it would enable the Home Secretary to do what he has promised to do, which is to introduce legislation to deal with the problem. The new clause would avoid an extended wait for further primary legislation, because the scandal exists now and should be tackled now.
      At this point, I am happy to give way to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery.
      Mr. Alex Carlile indicated dissent.
      Mr. Michael: If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish me to give way, let us make progress.
      We were surprised that the Government rejected our amendments in Committee, although the Minister raised some issues, which we have overcome in the new clause. I am even more surprised that the Government have not come forward with a similar enabling clause by this stage, and the Minister should explain why not. This is an important issue and we have tabled an enabling clause that would allow rapid progress, if the Government really want to make progress. If there were to be any technical difficulties with the new clause, the Bill still has to go to the House of Lords, and that will give the Government an opportunity to undertake any fine tuning. If the new clause were to be accepted, it would deal with a serious and scandalous issue.
      I am sure that hon. Members will have received correspondence from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which invites us to consider the experience of an individual who has to stand up and tell a room full of strangers about a traumatic experience. We have been invited to imagine the experience of being repeatedly questioned and even called a liar to the point of tears. We have been asked to imagine the effect of those circumstances on a child who is only six years old. The NSPCC has underlined the terrifying ordeal that may be faced by children who have been physically or sexually abused when they act as witnesses in court cases in Britain, and it has rightly drawn our attention to a scandal which we, as a society and a Parliament, need to do far more about.
      332
      The NSPCC also makes the point that the children face yet another abuse from the very legal system that is meant to protect them. We shall shortly hear views about the way in which cases involving children's evidence are dealt with.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to be talking about evidence by children, which is covered in new clause 6.
      Mr. Michael: As I was saying, those children are going on to face yet another abuse from the very legal system that is meant to protect them. Under that legal system, we currently allow evidence in the form of photographs of and interviews with children to be circulated in prisons and, in some circumstances, in public, to be used as pornography. It is that scandal which the new clause seeks to end. I was merely trying to place the new clause in the context of the wider range of problems facing victims of child sexual abuse and other victims of sexual offences, something that we need to take much more seriously.
      As further proof of the seriousness of the issue, I point to evidence made available by "The Cook Report", which showed that the tendency to abuse children is stimulated by the use of certain material. The programme showed interviews with paedophiles, one of whom referred to himself and those with whom he associated as
      "master of manipulators, extremely adept in lying, and telling our victims, our friends, people that saw us, that they had no idea that we were of this character".
      A survey undertaken as part of the programme "Children in Danger: Special" shows that 90 per cent. of paedophiles say that they will reoffend, many of them encouraged by the kind of filth peddled by some of the individuals shown in the programme.
      The tragedy is that many of the 90 per cent. who say in prison that they will be inclined to reoffend as soon as they are released also have their inclinations stimulated by the circulation of evidence which at the moment legitimately comes into the hands of prisoners but which is then passed on, for the use not only of the individual defendant but of others. We owe it to the children who may be the victims of the fresh offences that 90 per cent. of offenders think they are likely to commit after leaving prison to ensure that every step that can be taken is taken to prevent the continuation of such activity.
      It is difficult for reasonable people to understand the mindset of those who get involved in child sex offences and, indeed, adult sex offences. However, after speaking about child prostitution when we debated a private Member's Bill only a few weeks ago, I was shocked to receive one particular letter. It was a reasonable letter, which included a name and address and had been thoughtfully typed. It asked why we were concerned about child prostitutes and said:
      "They are in employment in a pleasant and not too demanding job. They are earning money and they do eat. A good situation to them?"
      When there are people with such a mindset, when the material that is required to pursue prosecution can be circulated in prison in such a way as to make a bad situation even worse, and when the evidence shows that 90 per cent. of child sex offenders think that they are likely to reoffend as soon as they get out, surely there is good reason to take a grip on the situation now.

      333
      I conclude by making two final points. First, we are not arguing a new case. It has been made for several years, and although the response of a consultation period may be sensible, it is too little, too late. The new clause would allow the completion of the consultation that the Home Secretary has undertaken, but would also allow him to act now and, at the end of the consultation, to introduce a statutory instrument and proceed to legislation without further delay.
      Secondly, the new clause is carefully phrased to protect the interests of the defendant, so that he will have the opportunity to inspect the material to whatever extent is necessary to prepare his case. Clearly, his representative will also have that freedom. Therefore, the new clause does not undermine the rights of the defendant, but it protects the rights of victims.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I start by reminding the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who I think got out of bed on the wrong side this morning, that Committees are selected by the Committee of Selection.
      New clause 5 is an awful muddle and it would be a nightmare to interpret. But, having said that, I support its thrust and, if necessary, will vote for it because it tackles an important issue. However, facets of the issue would have to be met if such a provision were to become part of our law.
      In particular—I see in the Chamber a few other people who have had the experience of attempting to take instructions from defendants charged with violent or sexual offences in some of Britain's less savoury prisons—it is extremely difficult to obtain instructions over a proper length of time and in reasonable circumstances.
      If prisoners are not to be able to have all the papers that are relevant to their cases in their cells—there may be good reasons for that, as the hon. Gentleman suggested—two steps must be taken. Indeed, they are needed whether or not the new clause is passed.
      The first is that proper facilities should be provided in prisons so that prisoners can consider all the material in their cases, including material that may properly be put to them dealing with violent or sexual aspects of their cases. The second is that it is high time that prisons provided proper facilities so that counsel can have conferences with their clients in reasonable circumstances, at reasonable times of day and of a reasonable length.
      Having said that, I am content to support the new clause for what it means, although, I emphasise, not for what it says, because it says it very badly.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has an active legal practice and can point out some of the practical difficulties involved in taking instructions, often in rather cramped, unsavoury and unsatisfactory conditions.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on his initiative. I am confident that it is part of a series of suggestions for
      334
      reform that he has made which the Government will ultimately, but belatedly, accept, but that they should have met rather more positively at an early stage.
      The matter that my hon. Friend raises is one of real concern. It is surprising that it has not been dealt with before. My hon. Friend has given the genesis and development of his proposal. Surely the Government have had ample time since 1994 to accept that there is a real matter of concern here, to consult and to come forward with their own proposal. It is sad that the Government are stronger on rhetoric than on taking practical measures to deal with the real problems. This is a matter which, had the Home Secretary wanted, he could have included in that rather notorious list of reforms at the Conservative party conference, or about which he could have done something by now.
      I follow the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery by saying that, although various practical problems arise, I think that we all agree with the principle of the new clause. However, the fact that it is an enabling clause allows those practical difficulties to be addressed by the process of consultation. I note, for example, the duty of the prosecutor to disclose.
      The real mischief is leaving material of a violent or sexual nature in the hands of those who might misuse it, either defendants who are not in custody or, more relevantly, those who are in custody. Everyone who has been in practice or is now in practice knows well the sort of material concerned. It may include photographs. Having dealt with nasty multiple rape cases and murder cases involving photographs of parts of bodies or bodies which have been disfigured, one can well imagine the currency of such photographs in prison. However, it is unnecessary for prisoners to take away photographs and so be able to show them around in the prison. They can look at them without having to take them away.
      The problem arises more, perhaps, with depositions where there is a series of interviews, perhaps with a child, or where there is a description of a multiple rape or a murder, which might excite the passions of those in prison. The defendant might need adequate time to digest the material. It may be sufficient for accommodation to be made for counsel to take adequate instructions, but we must guard against the prisoner being able to trade in such material in prison, feeding his own and others' addiction. If the Government recognise that there is a problem, they should find practical ways to address justice for the defendant while ensuring that material such as interviews, descriptions and photographs does not become a currency in prison. It is not beyond the wit of the Government to come forward with practical proposals.
      I am a little concerned about who decides what material will or will not be made available. At the moment, it looks as though the discretion is with the prosecution, and there will have to be not only joint consultation between prosecution and defence but some form of appeal, if necessary, to ensure that the interests of justice are considered. These are practical problems, but with good will they can be solved.
      The other practical question about which I need to be satisfied is the phrase "reasonable grounds for supposing". How can one guess in advance who will use or misuse such material? If the material were put into the hands of a defendant, that defendant would be tempted to misuse it. All defendants would. That will have to be dealt with.

      335
      I am also concerned that an individual may, for various reasons, choose not to be represented. Depositions will have to be made fully available to such an individual, and there could be few curbs on the misuse of material by a defendant in person who is not represented, whether or not he or she is in custody. If the defendant is in custody, it is difficult to see how any deposition can be withheld from that individual if the interests of justice are to be served.
      I am confident that, with good will, those problems can be ironed out, but from my own experience of some pretty lurid cases—both sexual and in terms of violence—and my knowledge of the way in which explicit material can be misused, particularly in prisons, I commend my hon. Friend for having raised the issue, but condemn the Government for not having responded as they should. I believe that they should, as a matter of urgency, be prepared, if not now, certainly in the other place, to come forward with practical means to meet this very real problem.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I take some comfort from the fact that the new clause suggests that the Labour party has finally accepted our view that preventing the misuse of sensitive victim statements and photographs is a particularly difficult and complex task. It is likely that rushing into inadequate legislation without the opportunity to consult practitioners on the detail would achieve little.
      If the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) thinks that the new clause is a muddle, he should have seen the amendment tabled by the Opposition in Committee.
      I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has still not fully appreciated the intricacies of devising a workable and effective scheme.
      The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) deplored the rhetoric and then condemned the Government. He fully supported the new clause but then went on to shoot it down by pointing out all the holes in it. He said that he was worried about the reasonable grounds and that there would have to be safeguards for this and that. He pointed out all the faults in the new clause, and he was right to do so because it is fatally flawed.
      There is no disagreement in the House on the need for a scheme to prevent the misuse of some of the material that can circulate in prisons, but we should not underestimate the difficulties of legislation. When we last invited the views of interested parties on measures to tackle the problem, there was no consensus on how best to proceed. That is hardly surprising because there is a difficult balance to strike between the rights of defendants to know all the evidence against them and the need to protect victims from improper use of their statements or of photographs of them.
      As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced last month, we have decided that a statutory scheme is needed. We have devised proposals that are workable and effective. We shall embark on a consultation process in the very near future, in the light of which we shall legislate as soon as possible. It serves
      336
      no interest, least of all that of the credibility of the Labour party, to try to anticipate that consultation by legislating on the basis proposed in the new clause.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: The Minister has used the phrase, "as soon as possible". My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth mentioned that the problem was first raised in 1994. Does that suggest that there is any real urgency on the part of the Government?
      Mr. Maclean: There is real urgency on the part of the Government. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, when my right hon. and learned Friend produced his famous 27 proposals, there was ridicule from the Labour party. Half the Labour party, including its leader, said that they were just an ineffective publicity stunt. We published those proposals and we have legislated on the vast majority of them. There is only one outstanding proposal, which the Bill includes. We now find the Labour party saying, "You should have done more." Labour Members ridiculed the proposals at the time, but they now say that they do not go far enough and that we should have included a host of other things in legislation. New issues which deserve to be tackled will always come along, but not a single Labour Member demanded that we included this measure with the 27 proposals and added it to a Criminal Justice Bill.
      The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth should not provoke me in this short debate. If he looks at the voting record of Labour Members on this issue, or on other child protection issues that were debated in the 1980s, he will see that some of his hon. Friends have a sorry record.
      I shall give the House two examples to show how the new clause is fundamentally flawed. First, any scheme must include provisions for its requirements to be enforced. We have made it clear that we believe that it should be an offence for defendants to have protected material in their possession other than in accordance with the requirements of a supervised access regime. Those responsible for protecting the material must also be liable if they commit any breaches of the regime.
      The new clause would modify the duty on the prosecution. In those circumstances, it would not be right for an order made under it to provide for new offences and penalties to be applied to defendants. In addition, those new offences would require substantial penalties of up to two years' imprisonment to deal with the worst offences. When we introduce our statutory scheme, if we find that there are criminals in prison who have access to such material and who are breaking rules by circulating pornographic material, we want to have substantial penalties against them.
      The House would never agree to a penalty of up to two years' imprisonment being created by order of the Secretary of State, even if the new clause contained an express power for the order to include criminal offences. The new clause is, of course, silent on this matter. If the Government said that the Home Secretary could, by order, introduce a power to send people to prison for two years, the Labour party would be the first to condemn us and, in that case, rightly so.
      The second fundamental flaw in the Opposition's argument is this. We believe that all material that might be misused, whether or not it forms part of the prosecution case, should be protected. Any unused material—not just

      337
      the pornographic material—that might be part of the prosecution's case should be protected. There could be a whole raft of unused prosecution material that might be disallowed or not given in evidence. We cannot allow sexual material that could involve children to circulate around prisons because it has not been protected. There must be immediate and certain protection for victims.
      As the new clause is confined to the prosecutor's duty under the Bill to disclose prosecution material as defined in clause 3, it would apply only to that unused prosecution material and not to the central evidence on which the prosecution intends to rely, and which is bound to include sensitive victims' statements and photographs. That would be plainly ridiculous.
      5 pm
      The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery identified another problem. The new clause ignored the advice of the royal commission on criminal justice, which did not identify the information on common assaults or violent crime as a concern. That problem relates to sexual material. That is the only stuff that has currency in prison and is circulating. The new clause is far too wide in catching violent material. Sexually violent material would be caught under the sexual definition, but there is no point in including material on other assaults and violence. The core of the problem is not that, but sexual material. We want to home in on that and to provide automatic protection for all victims and all sexual material in statements, and we shall be consulting on that shortly.
      It is not a matter of saying that we accept the spirit of the new clause and we shall tickle it or amend it in another place. The new clause is fatally flawed. If our experience on the Bill is anything to go by, it is worth consulting the legal practitioners before rushing into legislation.
      Mr. Alex Carlile indicated assent.
      Mr. Maclean: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is nodding in agreement. In that case, I agree with him on the matter.
      There was no consensus when the Government last considered the matter. I hope that when we publish our consultation paper shortly, we shall have the views of the Law Society and others so that, if there are changes to be made, we can make them and introduce sensible and workable legislation that will protect victims as the new clause manifestly fails to do.
      Mr. Michael: The Labour party's voting record on crime and children's issues stands the test of time and it is mere bluster for the Minister to suggest otherwise. One has only to look at the series of issues on which the Opposition have been constructive long before they were identified by the Government to recognise that the Labour party is serious about tackling crime, just as it is serious about tackling the misuse of evidential material of a sexual and violent nature.
      The Minister says that it is wrong to rush in. Let me make two points on that. First, that has not stopped the Home Secretary tackling any issue that he perceives to be popular with the Conservative party conference. He is renowned as the Home Secretary who rushes in without
      338
      advice on issue after issue. Secondly, the Government have had long enough to consult and to construct serious amendments. They do not need more time. It is an excuse, and not a very convincing one, to suggest that further delay should be allowed. If the Government were determined to end that disgraceful abuse, they would have started consultation two years ago.
      The Minister suggests that merely sexual material and not violent material should be caught by any legislation. That is not enough. Photographs and material involving mutilation and violence on people have been at the core of many serious cases. The advice of those concerned with such issues is that there is often a mixture of sexual and violent motivation and that the domination of children and women is at the heart of many of the offences that we seek to cover in the new clause.
      The Minister would be wise to recognise the need to extend the Bill beyond merely sexual evidence to sexual and/or violent evidence, as we have proposed in the new clause. If there is cross-party agreement, as the Minister suggested, that we should end this abuse, the Government should be finding ways to tackle the abuse, but yet again the Labour party shows the sense of responsibility appropriate to Government by trying to tackle the problem.
      The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery should understand my slight frustration when he intervened during my first sentence on the new clause. Labour Members have spent time in Committee trying to make constructive suggestions and trying to tease out information when the Liberal Democrats chose not to be involved in the Bill. We have attempted to do that difficult job without the benefit of parliamentary counsel.
      When the Minister makes minor criticisms of what we have done, he should bear in mind the fact that the Opposition are trying to fill the gap that has been left by the Government's unwillingness to tackle serious problems. Having said that, I thank the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery for his support for the new clause and for his constructive criticisms. I acknowledge that he has raised important issues. That is why we phrased the new clause so that the regulations would be required to take into consideration the practical details and would specifically require the disclosure to be no less as a result of the new clause in order to protect the interests of the defendant while also protecting the interests of those portrayed in photographs or interview evidence.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) asked who would decide how the measures would operate. That should be covered in the regulations. I have taken advice on the capacity to deal with that and appeal rights by statutory instrument. I would be happier for detailed legislation to be part of the primary legislation, but as the Government have not included it in the primary legislation, have not taken the hint in Committee and have not undertaken the consultation that should have started a couple of years ago, it is surely better to pass this enabling legislation and, in the fullness of time, to let the scheme be amended to make it perfect in the light of experience.
      I am absolutely clear that the difficulties of producing appropriate legislation are no excuse for doing nothing. Immediate action is needed on this scandal. The new clause should be passed into law in order to make sure that we act on it now.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 235.

      Division No. 142]

      [5.07 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Graham, Thomas

      Allen, Graham

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Alton, David

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Hain, Peter

      Ashton, Joe

      Hall, Mike

      Austin-Walker, John

      Harvey, Nick

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Barnes, Harry

      Henderson, Doug

      Barron, Kevin

      Heppell, John

      Battle, John

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Hinchliffe, David

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Hoey, Kate

      Bell, Stuart

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

      Betts, Clive

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Blair, Rt Hon Tony

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Blunkett, David

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Boateng, Paul

      Hutton, John

      Bradley, Keith

      Illsley, Eric

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Ingram, Adam

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

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

      Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

      Burden, Richard

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Byers, Stephen

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Caborn, Richard

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Jowell, Tessa

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Keen, Alan

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

      Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Khabra, Piara S

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Livingstone, Ken

      Coffey, Ann

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Connarty, Michael

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      McAllion, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Corston, Jean

      McCartney, Ian

      Cox, Tom

      Macdonald, Calum

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      McKelvey, William

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Darling, Alistair

      McWilliam, John

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Madden, Max

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

      Mahon, Alice

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Denham, John

      Marek, Dr John

      Dewar, Donald

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Dixon, Don

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Dowd, Jim

      Martlew, Eric

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Maxton, John

      Eastham, Ken

      Michael, Alun

      Etherington, Bill

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Milburn, Alan

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Fisher, Mark

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Fraser, John

      Mudie, George

      Fyfe, Maria

      Mullin, Chris

      Galbraith, Sam

      Murphy, Paul

      Gapes, Mike

      Olner, Bill

      George, Bruce

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Gerrard, Neil

      Pearson, Ian

      340

      Pendry, Tom

      Stott, Roger

      Pike, Peter L

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Pope, Greg

      Straw, Jack

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Timms, Stephen

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Tipping, Paddy

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Touhig, Don

      Reid, Dr John

      Trickett, Jon

      Rendel, David

      Turner, Dennis

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Tyler, Paul

      Rogers, Allan

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wallace, James

      Rooney, Terry

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Welsh, Andrew

      Short, Clare

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Simpson, Alan

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Skinner, Dennis

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

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

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Winnick, David

      Soley, Clive

      Wise, Audrey

      Spearing, Nigel

      Worthington, Tony

      Spellar, John

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mr. David Clelland and Mr. Joe Benton.

      Stevenson, George

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Alexander, Richard

      Day, Stephen

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Devlin, Tim

      Amess, David

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Dover, Den

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Duncan, Alan

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Dunn, Bob

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bates, Michael

      Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

      Batiste, Spencer

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Bellingham, Henry

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Evennett, David

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fabricant, Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bowis, John

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Forman, Nigel

      Brazier, Julian

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Forth, Eric

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Gale, Roger

      Burns, Simon

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Burt, Alistair

      Garnier, Edward

      Butcher, John

      Gill, Christopher

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Gillan, Mrs. Cheryl

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Carrington, Matthew

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Carttiss, Michael

      Gorst, Sir John

      Cash, William

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Clappison, James

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Congdon, David

      Hannam, Sir John

      Conway, Derek

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Haselhurst, Sir Alan

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Hawkins, Nick

      Couchman, James

      Hawksley, Warren

      Cran, James

      Hayes, Jerry

      Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

      Heald, Oliver

      341

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hendry, Charles

      Richards, Rod

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Riddick, Graham

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Robathan, Andrew

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Jack, Michael

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Sackville, Tom

      Jessel, Toby

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Key, Robert

      Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shersby, Sir Michael

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Sims, Roger

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

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

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Knox, Sir David

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Legg, Barry

      Sproat, Iain

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lidington, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Stephen, Michael

      Lord, Michael

      Stern, Michael

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Stewart, Allan

      MacKay, Andrew

      Streeter, Gary

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Sweeney, Walter

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Sykes, John

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Madel, Sir David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mans, Keith

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Marland, Paul

      Thomason, Roy

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Merchant, Piers

      Thumham, Peter

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Mills, Iain

      Tracey, Richard

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Tredinnick, David

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Trotter, Neville

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

      Viggers, Peter

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Nelson, Anthony

      Walden, George

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Waterson, Nigel

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Watts, John

      Norris, Steve

      Whittingdale, John

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Ottaway, Richard

      Willetts, David

      Page, Richard

      Wilshire, David

      Paice, James

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Wolfson, Mark

      Pawsey, James

      Wood, Timothy

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Yeo, Tim

      Pickles, Eric

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Rathbone, Tim

      Mr. Roger Knapman and Mr. Bowen Wells.

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 6

      VIDEO RECORDINGS OF CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CHILD WITNESSES
      '—(1) Section 32A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (3), paragraph (a) shall be omitted.
      (3) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
      "(3A) Where a video recording is to be tendered in evidence under this section the court may grant leave for a child witness to be cross-examined at a pre-trial hearing in informal surroundings at which only—

      (a) the judge;

      (b) counsel for the parties;

      (c) an appropriate adult to accompany the child as set out in the rules of court

      shall be present in the same room as the child.
      (3B) At any pre-trial hearing the defendant shall be permitted to see and hear the proceedings and to communicate with his legal advisor by such means as shall be laid down by the rules of court.
      (3C) The pre-trial hearing of the cross-examination of the child witness shall be video recorded and the video recording shall, with leave of the court, be tendered in evidence before the jury.".'.—[Mrs. Golding.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mrs. Llin Golding: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 7—Time limits for pre-trial hearings—
      '.—(1) Where permission is given under section 32A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 subsection (3A), the pre-trial hearing shall be fixed within six weeks of the transfer or committal proceedings unless the court considers that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.
      (2) Where the court does not consider that the usual time limit of six weeks would be in the interest of justice, an alternative time limit shall be fixed by the court.'.
      New clause 8—Recall of child witnesses—
      '.—There shall be inserted after subsection (5) of section 32A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988—
      "(5A) The court may grant leave for the recall of a child witness who was cross examined at a preliminary hearing if it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to give such permission.
      (5B) Where the court allows a child witness to be recalled, a further out-of-court hearing should be held under the same conditions as the preliminary hearing".'.
      New clause 9—Evidence of absent children—
      '.—(1) The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In section 42, in subsection (1) the words "or by video recording" shall be inserted after the words "may take in writing".
      (3) In section 43, the words "he or" shall be omitted.'.
      Mrs. Golding: I wish to declare an interest, in that I am a trustee of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the joint chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for children.

      343
      I pay tribute to the work that the NSPCC has done to achieve justice for children, and which has led to the production of these new clauses. The Minister has said that the Labour party has not been heavily involved in this issue, but I can refer him to three Acts that contain measures that were proposed by Labour Members and others in an effort to get the Government to do something to provide more justice for children. I also wish to pay tribute to Baroness Faithfull, who died recently. She was irrepressible, and will be irreplaceable as far as children are concerned.
      Much has been done to improve our criminal justice system through a series of Criminal Justice Acts. Unrepresented defendants can no longer cross-examine a child witness. Child witnesses are allowed to give evidence through a live television link or from behind screens with the leave of the court. Video recording can be given in evidence in place of the examination-in-chief, as long as the child is available for cross-examination at the trial. The competency requirement for child witnesses has been abolished.
      It is clear from research that, even when a child has given the evidence-in-chief on video and has then been cross-examined by live television link, he or she finds the experience of live cross-examination at trial extremely intimidating. Children suffer from high stress while waiting for our court system to move, and there can be long delays before they give evidence. These new clauses would go a long way towards remedying that problem.
      Imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, having to speak in a court to a room full of strangers while being repeatedly told that you may be lying. Very often, that can be done until the witness breaks down in tears and does not know what to say. Imagine being six, seven, eight or nine years old and having to face our court system. It is bad enough for an adult—it must be much worse for a young child. Too many children face such abuse from a legal system that is supposed to protect them.
      The NSPCC, which does much good work to help children who have to go to court to give evidence, told me that a 13-year-old child called Philip had to wait seven months to go to court. He attended the trial, but was unable to testify at the last moment. He said:
      "I could have done it six months ago when I was so angry about what he did to me. I can't face it now. I've had too long to think about it".
      A problem for many children is that the stress and strain of waiting to go to court is too much for them. How can we protect other children if a child cannot give evidence? How can the accused defend himself if the case does not come to trial? How can we protect other children and break the cycle of abuse? We must obtain the best possible evidence from child witnesses without inflicting more emotional damage upon them. A court is no place for children, and we must do more to tackle that fact.
      We must implement the recommendations of the 1989 Judge Pigot report of the Home Office advisory group into the giving of video evidence, and allow children to give evidence at an early stage outside court. That key proposal is receiving strong backing from people and organisations directly involved with children. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has said:
      "Overall, we consider that the Pigot Committee recommendations should be implemented fully."
      344
      The report of the Commission on Children and Violence said:
      "The proposals concerning child witnesses in the Pigot Report should be implemented in full."
      The British Association of Social Workers said:
      "The recommendations of the Pigot Report should be implemented in full, which call for pre-trial hearings."
      The Law Society said:
      "The Pigot Report recommended that a judge should be able to order that the cross-examination of a child witness takes place at a pre-trial hearing in informal surroundings"
      and backed that recommendation.
      The Criminal Bar Association and the Law Society back the proposal. the Government should certainly back it. It would go a long way to remove the unnecessary stress on child witnesses, and it would be better for the child's welfare if such cases came to court as quickly as possible. That would ensure that fuller and more accurate evidence was given, and it would be in the interests of the accused. In addition, the Director of Public Prosecutions said recently:
      "A justice system where decisions of guilt or innocence are based on the fortitude of witnesses rather than the truth of allegations should not be permitted."
      New clause 6 is backed by a wide variety of people and groups. The Minister said that we should consult legal practitioners. We have, and we have received much backing. I hope that the Minister will support it. We have asked for this measure for a long time, and it is time that the Government supported it.
      New clause 8 provides for the judge to recall a child witness if he deems it necessary. The Minister may say that that negates the benefits of new clause 6, but I do not see it that way. It is in the interests of the accused and of the accuser that there should be a mechanism for the recall of a witness who has testified if something unforeseen has occurred. Many sex abuse cases, I am told, are perfectly straightforward. The evidence is known to both sides, and it would be exceptional for a recall to be applied for. It is another recommendation of the Pigot committee.
      Despite its contradictory appearance, the advantage of the pre-trial hearing is that the main evidence will have been dealt with and the child will be expected to deal only with the new points on application to the judge. That is fair to both sides, and that is what our justice system should be about.
      New clause 9 deals with evidence from absent children. It is another proposal that has been made before, but it is no less relevant today. The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 very sensibly allowed for written evidence to be given by children who were not well enough to be brought to court. The new clause would extend that provision to the use of video recorded evidence. As technology moves on, so should we.
      If a child is ill in hospital or immobile because of a fractured femur or because they are in traction, it is not possible to move them, or the bed, into the court. It makes sense to take a video recording of the evidence. There is no need to suppose that because a child is immobilised by broken bones, he or she will not be lucid or able to give evidence. That might occur rarely—I have not been able to find any cases of written evidence being taken from a hospital bed—but it is no reason why we should not have such a provision for the occasions when it is.

      345
      5.30 pm
      New clause 7 deals with the time limit for pre-trial hearings and states:
      "Where permission is given under section 32A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 subsection (3A), the pre-trial hearing shall be fixed within six weeks of the transfer or committal proceedings unless the court considers that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so."
      All the Home Office Ministers to whom I have listened—and I have listened to many—have emphasised their commitment to children and the need to hold hearings as quickly as possible and to bring such cases to court quickly. New clause 7 seeks to ensure that the pre-trial hearing is fixed at an early date to reduce the stress suffered by children. Under the present system, there is an average of 10 months before cases come to court. All too often, they are thrown out. One case has been waiting 13 months to go to trial. What sort of court system is that? What does that say about a Government who allow it?
      I had a letter from a lady from Carlisle about a man who had been brought to court charged with indecently assaulting her 14-year-old daughter. He was also charged with assaulting his daughter. The charge was brought in May 1995. The case went to Carlisle Crown court on 6 September 1995. On 16 October, the court arranged a trial date of 15 January, but the judge directed that there should be a hearing on 17 November, when he would consider whether to allow the two victims to give their evidence by video link.
      I got this information from the chief executive of the Court Service's reply to my complaint. He said:
      "On 17 November, the judge did not decide on this point but told the prosecution how he was likely to view such an application. The provision of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 about evidence by video link relates to child witnesses under the age of fourteen…The judge therefore told the prosecution that on the basis of the age of the witnesses alone it would be difficult to persuade him to agree to the application."
      I do not understand that, because the Criminal Justice Act was amended in 1991 to permit children up to the age of 17 to give their evidence in that way. It is obvious that the judge did not know about that. The judge also asked the prosecution to consider the likely effects on the other victim of giving evidence against her father. I do not know who the judge was or why he should think that fathers do not abuse their children. Often, someone in the family—and very often the father—is involved in abuse cases. If that judge is saying that children cannot give evidence against their father, hardly any cases would come to court. That would be nonsense.
      In this instance, the Crown Prosecution Service—that well-known defender of children—told the court that it no longer wished to continue the prosecution and offered no evidence. The man got off scot free and still lives with his daughter. Nothing has been done about him.
      The Government are always promising action to reduce delay. New clause 7 should at least concentrate their mind. Both the Bar Association and the Law Society think that something can be done. It is time that the courts and the Government did more than they have up to now and concentrated more on giving justice to our young children.
      Ms Ann Coffey: I support my hon. Friend's new clause. She has campaigned hard and long
      346
      for changes in the way in which children are allowed to present evidence in court. The crucial part of the proposals would allow pre-trial cross-examination of children and speed up the court process.
      Appearing as a witness in court can be an intimidating experience for anyone, and it can be particularly traumatic for children, especially when they are being asked to give evidence involving descriptions of incidents in which they have been sexually or physically abused. Such evidence may be against a parent or step-parent. The child is already traumatised by shame, guilt, anger and deep distress. The initial disclosure by the child can cause great difficulties for the family of which he or she was a member. The family's emotional disturbance will continue for months. The child and the family have to cope with that.
      It is not only the immediate families that have to cope. If the family member accused of assault is still in the house, the child will probably be moved to foster parents or to a children's home. The foster parents, or staff of the home, have to cope with deeply disturbed children for a long time. The child may ask about what is happening or when he or she can go home. Children, especially young children, do not have the maturity to understand the complexities of the justice system.
      Speeding the system up is important. The longer the delay in resolution by the court process, the longer it is before counselling and therapy can begin, not only for the child, but for other family members. The longer the delay in beginning counselling, the harder it is to repair the damage—if it can be repaired. No one should underestimate the effect of sexual abuse on children. I am not an expert, but I worked for 20 years in child care before I was elected to the House, and I know enough to understand how complicated, sensitive and difficult the subject is.
      We must have a court system that delivers justice so that, as far as possible, the innocent go free and the guilty are convicted. Sexual abuse is a serious offence. In difficult cases, where forensic evidence may not exist or be inconclusive, the evidence of the child is crucial. The new clauses acknowledge that such evidence must be credible and open to proper examination. Pre-trial cross-examination takes nothing away from that process, but would ensure that it took account of the special vulnerability of child witnesses.
      There is often a great gap between the Government's rhetoric on an issue and their actions. On this matter, the gap is very evident. The new clauses have cross-party support and give the Minister the opportunity to close the gap. Accepting their principle would give justice to children who are traumatised by the way in which the court process is set up, and further traumatised by the way that they have to give evidence, on top of the trauma that they have suffered as victims of assault.
      Mr. Roger Sims: The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) is a doughty champion of children's causes. She and the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) have effectively deployed the case for the new clauses, to which I was glad to add my name to ensure that these issues were discussed today.
      I shall not detain the House by repeating the arguments, but I was much involved in the early stages of legislation to make the video recording of children's evidence

      347
      admissible in the courts. I drew on my experience as a magistrate, as chairman of my local juvenile court before I entered Parliament, and on my close knowledge of the work of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. I was a predecessor of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme as a trustee of that society. I saw something of the pioneering work that was done in Bexley to work out ways in which evidence could be taken on video.
      When the idea was first proposed, the hope was that, when an accused person was confronted with a video recording of evidence given by the child as soon as possible after the offence was revealed, and realised that the evidence would be produced in court, he—it is usually he, but could. of course be she—would change his plea to avoid the child having to appear in court and realise that such evidence would be difficult for him to refute.
      Unfortunately, although that hope has been realised in some cases, it has not happened to the extent to which many of us had hoped. As a result, a number of such charges still find their way to court. That being so, it is all the more important that the recommendations of the Pigot report are implemented. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government specifically requested the Pigot report. The committee was set up by the Government to advise them on how such matters should be handled. That the report's recommendations have been implemented only in part has shown the potential value of video evidence, and, now, there is surely a need to implement them in full.
      It is important that our legal procedures provide justice for the accused—of course I understand that in this context—but it is also important that there should be justice for children. For all the reasons described by the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme and for Stockport, that is not always so at the moment.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will feel able to accept some or all of the new clauses—at least in spirit, if not to the letter. Failing that, I hope that he will be able to give some convincing explanation why he cannot do so.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I shall start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). Since she came into the House, she has dedicated herself to this issue and has already achieved a great deal. I hope that she will achieve more tonight.
      I want to try to offer some apolitical, practical observations on what is proposed in the light of what is already available. As it happens, and as the House knows, I am a practising barrister. I have practised in cases during which the existing video provisions have been used—as a prosecutor in some and as a defender in others. I have also been a recorder of the Crown court for a number of years and, as a judge, I have conducted cases in which video equipment has been used.
      My observation is that, although there were many doubts among practitioners about the way in which the video system would work, it has worked very well. It has been possible to prosecute and defend effectively, and judges, after all, have had to learn only how to control a box with three buttons on it, which most of them have managed without too much difficulty. The system is simple and effective.
      In accordance with the recommendations of the Pigot committee, it is proposed that, having tried and tested the system, we should extend it to cover cross-examination.
      348
      It would not be a very dramatic extension, and I believe that all practitioners with experience regard it as feasible. It would not remove from the trial judge discretion— indeed, it specifically preserves it—where appropriate to have a live cross-examination in open court with the defendant and witness present, which would undoubtedly remain appropriate in some cases, although I suspect not very many.
      In contrast to new clause 5, this group of new clauses seem peculiarly well drafted. I hope that the Government will see fit to take not a very bold step, but a sensible and logical step, to allow the next stage to proceed.
      5.45 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I do not think that there is any particular difference between hon. Members on the need to look after the interests of children in what might often be an extremely stressful situation. I add my tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). I know of their enormous work, especially as trustees of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and in other ways, looking after the interests of children. The Government also want to try to preserve those interests. Because of that, I am unable to recommend that the House should accept the new clauses, and I shall explain why.
      The new clauses reflect the concern that we all share. We must be responsive to the needs of children in such a difficult situation. It was, of course, that concern that prompted the Government to include in the Bill provisions on binding rulings on applications to give evidence by means of a video recording or live television link. The new clauses go further in a way in which, as I shall explain, we do not believe is in the best interests of children.
      New clause 6, which repeats some of the recommendations of the 1989 Pigot report, provides for a scheme of pre-trial cross-examination of children to be video recorded for use at trial. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme suggests that, in that way, cross-examination could be conducted sooner, that the child would never have to appear in court, and that there would be no constraints on the provision of therapy. I am sure that those are all laudable objectives, but neither we nor the former Lord Chief Justice, whose views we sought, are satisfied that they can be achieved. Indeed, we are concerned that such an approach could result in more stress for the child rather than less.
      Implementation of the Pigot report's recommendations has been mentioned. I should like to clarify that—I am sure hon. Members are aware of it—we have implemented the vast majority of the Pigot recommendations, mostly in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Many helpful recommendations were implemented. If they were thought to be practical, they were introduced in that Act. I am sure that they have done much to help the way in which we deal with children in court or procedural settings.
      The fundamental difficulty with the approach proposed by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme is that a proper cross-examination cannot take place until the defence is fully prepared to proceed with the trial. At that stage, the aim should be to proceed with the trial as soon as possible. I acknowledge the hon. Lady's remarks about

      349
      the need to proceed with the trial as soon as possible, but it is unlikely that pre-trial cross-examination could take place very much earlier than it does at present.
      New clause 7 seeks to address that problem by imposing a time limit within which cross-examination must be completed following committal proceedings. In effect, as I have just explained, that time limit would be one within which both sides must be ready, not only for cross-examination, but for the trial to proceed. New clause 7 also provides for extensions of the time limit. It is likely that such a power would be used frequently, and that there would, therefore, be no practical improvement.
      A further difficulty with pre-trial cross-examination is that it could lead to a child having to be recalled to answer further questions at the trial and so being caused further distress. New clause 8 recognises the potential for such recalls. That was also an aspect of the proposals on which we sought the views of the former Lord Chief Justice at an earlier stage in the passage of the Bill. He and his senior colleagues took the view that further questions might easily arise and that, bearing in mind the judge's responsibility to ensure a fair trial, the judge could not reasonably refuse the defence the chance to do so. Further cross-examination would also be video recorded, but could place further stress on the child who had to go through the process two or more times, perhaps at short notice.
      New clause 9 appears to be designed to create a similar scheme by a different route. Sections 42 and 43 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 provide for a child's evidence to be given in the form of a written deposition taken down by a magistrate. The offence must be one involving sexual assault or violence and a qualified medical practitioner has to give evidence that attendance at court would involve serious danger to the child's life or health. The provisions were intended to provide a method of getting so-called "sick-bed" evidence by children tested at the bedside and admitted into court. The provisions are hardly ever used, as the hon. Lady suggested—no doubt because the test of serious danger to the child's life or health is very difficult to meet. In addition, evidence taken in that way is admissible only if the defence has had an opportunity to cross-examine the child.
      The new clause would, therefore, allow the child's evidence and the cross-examination to be video recorded in advance of the trial. For that reason, it raises all the difficulties about pre-trial cross-examination to which I have just referred. A child in such a condition should be protected from stress as far as is humanly possible. In any event, if a child is seriously ill it must be doubtful whether he or she should be expected to have to video record evidence or undergo cross-examination.
      The Government are unable to accept the new clauses, not because we doubt in any way the strong views that have been expressed, or the commitment of those who have expressed them to the interests of children, but because, for the reasons that I have explained, we do not believe that they are in the best interests of the child. Rather than embark on changes of the kind proposed in the new clauses, we are pursuing a range of practical improvements to the present arrangements for child witnesses to give evidence.
      350
      I was most interested to hear the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) endorse the current processes, although he support the new clauses. We shall be engaging the Criminal Justice Consultative Council in further consideration of ways to reduce delays and practical measures to ease stress on children by familiarising them with the court and preparing them for what to expect. We are conducting further research to promote best practice for video recorded interviews with children, and we have contributed £35,000 to help fund the preparation of a video to encourage best practice in dealing with children in court.
      We are also considering what more can be done to encourage greater use of video recordings of evidence-in-chief and to make the use of the live television link less stressful for children. We believe that that is the best way to secure practical improvements for children—not, I regret, the approach reflected in the new clauses.
      Mr. Michael: We are rather disappointed in the Minister's response. He does not appreciate what is happening in practice, the trauma involved for children and the scandalously low levels of prosecution and conviction. All that makes it necessary to change the procedures governing how children should be dealt with.
      I should like to point out to the House that before the Bill went into Committee, I asked the Minister of State whether the Government would be sympathetic to using the Bill to change the current procedure for the prosecution of child sex abuse cases. Arrangements are still extremely unsatisfactory, despite the improvement that has been made largely through the efforts of Opposition and Conservative Back Benchers rather than through the initiatives of Ministers. That is extremely disappointing.
      The Minister of State responded to my letter by saying that the Government would pursue practical improvements to the present arrangements and consult widely with all interested groups. That assurance has been repeated by the Minister in response to the debate. Unfortunately, his letter added:
      "But we do not envisage making further amendments to the Bill on this subject."
      We pressed him further about that in Committee, and suggested further amendments. A useful debate took place, but the Government did not accept our argument. In Committee, we appealed to the Minister to reconsider whether improvements could be made on Report—today. We took on board the technical difficulties in our new clauses in order to allow a debate to take place in Committee. We tried to be as mild as possible in our support of such measures, because, rather than tabling official Opposition amendments, we stood back because we felt it was better for the cross-party concern in the House to be reflected in amendments tabled by Back Benchers.
      It must therefore be particularly disappointing to the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) that the Government have not accepted their proposals. I should like to pay tribute to the unflagging determination with which my hon. Friend has pursued this issue, year after year, despite discouragement, and despite the fact that a great deal of

      351
      effort seems to be needed for the odd small step forward to be taken. I am certain that her efforts on behalf of vulnerable and damaged children will be rewarded in the end. Frankly, the Government should be taking the lead.
      It is a scandal that such a small proportion of offences end up with convictions. It is disappointing that Ministers have not accepted our suggestion that the vast resources of the Home Office should be used to introduce relevant measures on Report to alleviate the traumatic experiences currently suffered in the courts by youngsters who have already been traumatised by events that we all agree are horrendous to them and unacceptable to society.
      I am disappointed that the Minister is unable to offer support for the new clause, but I am in a position to offer Labour party support for the cross-party measures that have been proposed.
      Mrs. Golding: I am extremely disappointed that the Minister has refused to do anything further to help children. He need only speak to people who must deal with traumatised children to realise how much we need to implement all the Pigot recommendations. I am sorry that, in the dying months of the Government, they have not sought to accept it in full. I assure him that an incoming Labour Government will do so.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 238.

      Division No. 143]

      [5.57 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Ainger, Nick

      Connarty, Michael

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Allen, Graham

      Corston, Jean

      Alton, David

      Cox, Tom

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Ashton, Joe

      Darling, Alistair

      Austin-Walker, John

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

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

      Barnes, Harry

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Barron, Kevin

      Denham, John

      Battle, John

      Dewar, Donald

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dixon, Don

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Dowd, Jim

      Beggs, Roy

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Bell, Stuart

      Eastham, Ken

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Etherington, Bill

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Betts, Clive

      Fatchett, Derek

      Blair, Rt Hon Tony

      Faulds, Andrew

      Blunkett, David

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Bradley, Keith

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Fraser, John

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

      Fyfe, Maria

      Burden, Richard

      Galbraith, Sam

      Byers, Stephen

      Gapes, Mike

      Caborn, Richard

      George, Bruce

      Callaghan, Jim

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Graham, Thomas

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Hain, Peter

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hall, Mike

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Henderson, Doug

      352

      Heppell, John

      Olner, Bill

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hinchliffe, David

      Pearson, Ian

      Hoey, Kate

      Pendry, Tom

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Pope, Greg

      Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Hutton, John

      Reid, Dr John

      Illsley, Eric

      Rendel, David

      Ingram, Adam

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Rogers, Allan

      Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Rooney, Terry

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Short, Clare

      Jowell, Tessa

      Simpson, Alan

      Keen, Alan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

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

      Khabra, Piara S

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Soley, Clive

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Spearing, Nigel

      Livingstone, Ken

      Spellar, John

      LIwyd, Elfyn

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      McAllion, John

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Stevenson, George

      McCartney, Ian

      Stott, Roger

      Macdonald, Calum

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      McKelvey, William

      Straw, Jack

      McLeish, Henry

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

      McWilliam, John

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Madden, Max

      Timms, Stephen

      Maginnis, Ken

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mahon, Alice

      Touhig, Don

      Mandelson, Peter

      Trickett, Jon

      Marek, Dr John

      Turner, Dennis

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Tyler, Paul

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Martlew, Eric

      Wallace, James

      Michael, Alun

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Milburn, Alan

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

      Winnick, David

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Wise, Audrey

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Worthington, Tony

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Mudie, George

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mullin, Chris

      Mr. David Clelland and Mr. Joe Benton.

      Murphy, Paul

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Boswell, Tim

      Alexander, Richard

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Bowis, John

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Amess, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

      Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Burns, Simon

      Bates, Michael

      Burt, Alistair

      Batiste, Spencer

      Butcher, John

      Bellingham, Henry

      Butler, Peter

      Bendall, Vivian

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Carrington, Matthew

      Body, Sir Richard

      Carttiss, Michael

      353

      Cash, William

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Clappison, James

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Key, Robert

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Coe, Sebastian

      Knapman, Roger

      Congdon, David

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Conway, Derek

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

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

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Knox, Sir David

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Couchman, James

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Cran, James

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Legg, Barry

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Day, Stephen

      Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Lidington, David

      Devlin, Tim

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lord, Michael

      Dover, Den

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Duncan, Alan

      MacKay, Andrew

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Dunn, Bob

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Dykes, Hugh

      Madel, Sir David

      Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Malone, Gerald

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Mans, Keith

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Marland, Paul

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Evennett, David

      Merchant, Piers

      Fabricant, Michael

      Mills, Iain

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Forman, Nigel

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Forth, Eric

      Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

      Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      French, Douglas

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Nelson, Anthony

      Gale, Roger

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Garnier, Edward

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Gill, Christopher

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Norris, Steve

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Ottaway, Richard

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Page, Richard

      Gorst, Sir John

      Paice, James

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Pawsey, James

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hannam, Sir John

      Pickles, Eric

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Haselhurst, Sir Alan

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hawksley, Warren

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Hayes, Jerry

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Heald, Oliver

      Richards, Rod

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Riddick, Graham

      Hendry, Charles

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Horam, John

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Sackville, Tom

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Hunter, Andrew

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Jack, Michael

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

      Jessel, Toby

      Shersby, Sir Michael

      354

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Tredinnick, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Trotter, Neville

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Viggers, Peter

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Walden, George

      Sproat, Iain

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Waterson, Nigel

      Steen, Anthony

      Watts, John

      Stephen, Michael

      Wells, Bowen

      Stern, Michael

      Whittingdale, John

      Stewart, Allan

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Streeter Gary

      Willetts, David

      Wilshire, David

      Sweeney, Walter

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Sykes, John

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Wolfson, Mark

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wood, Timothy

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Yeo, Tim

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Thomason, Roy

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mr. Patrick McLoughlin and Dr. Liam Fox.

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Tracey, Richard

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 11

      EVIDENCE OF MULTIPLE SEXUAL OFFENCES
      '.—(1) Where an indictment alleges more than one sexual offence against the same defendant the offences shall be tried together unless the defendant satisfies the judge that it would be unfairly prejudicial to do so.
      (2) Section 5 of the Indictments Act 1915 shall have no application to a sexual offence committed after this section comes into effect.'.—[Ms Jowell.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      6.9 pm
      Ms Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 12—Irrelevant questioning about the victim's past sexual history—
      '.—In section 2 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 the following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (1) and (2)—
      "(1) If at a trial any person is for the time being charged with a sexual offence to which he pleads not guilty, then except with the leave of the judge, no evidence and no question in cross-examination shall be adduced or asked at the trial, by or on behalf of any defendant at the trial, about any sexual experience of a complainant with a person other than that defendant.
      (2) The judge shall not give leave in pursuance of the preceding subsection for any evidence or question except on an application to him made in the absence of the jury by or on behalf of a defendant; and on such an application the judge shall give leave if and only if he is satisfied that—

      (a) it is evidence—

      (i) of sexual experience or sexual activity taken part in by the complainant at or about the time of the time of the commission of the alleged sexual offence; and

      (ii) of events which are alleged to form part of a connected series of circumstances in which the alleged sexual offence was committed; or

      355

      (b)(i) the accused person is alleged to have had sexual intercourse with the complainant and the accused person does not concede the sexual intercourse alleged; and

      (ii) it is evidence relevant to whether the presence of semen, pregnancy, disease or injury is attributable to the sexual intercourse alleged; or

      (c) it is evidence relevant to whether at the time of the alleged sexual offence there was present in the complainant a disease which at any relevant time was absent in the accused person; or

      (d) it is evidence relevant to whether the allegation that the sexual offence was committed by the accused person was first made following a realisation or discovery of the presence of pregnancy or disease in the complainant (being a realisation or discovery which took place after the commission of the alleged sexual offence); or

      (e) it is evidence tending to show that the complainant has, at a different time, made another allegation of a sexual offence which the complainant has subsequently withdrawn, admitted was false or which was unsubstantiated; or

      (f) where it has been disclosed or implied in the case for the prosecution against the accused person that the complainant has or may have—

      (i) had sexual experience, or lack of sexual experience of a general or specified nature; or

      (ii) taken part or not taken part in sexual activity of a general or specified nature; and

      (iii) the accused person might be unfairly prejudiced if the complainant could not be cross-examined by or on behalf of the accused person in relation to the disclosure or implication.

      (2A) The judge shall not give leave under paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (2) above unless he is satisfied that it would be unfair to that defendant to refuse to allow the evidence to be adduced or the question or questions to be asked.
      (2B) Where a judge has given leave in accordance with this section for evidence to be adduced or for a question or questions to be asked he shall record or cause to be recorded in writing the nature and scope of the evidence which may be adduced and the question or questions which may be asked and he shall further record or cause to be recorded in writing his reasons for giving leave.
      (2C) In considering the nature and scope of the evidence which may be adduced and the question or questions which may be asked the judge shall take into account any distress, humiliation or embarrassment which the complainant might suffer as a result.".'.
      New clause 13—Trial judge warnings on delays in reporting sexual offences—
      '. —Where on the trial of a person for a sexual offence evidence is given either by the prosecution or the defence or a question is asked of a witness which tends to suggest an absence of complaint in respect of the commission of the alleged offence by the person upon whom the offence is alleged to have been committed or to suggest delay by that person in making any such complaint, the trial judge shall—

      (a) give a warning to the jury to the effect that absence of complaint or delay in complaining does not necessarily indicate that the allegation that the offence was committed was false; and

      (b) inform the jury that there may be good reasons why a victim of a sexual offence may delay in making, or may refrain from making, a complaint about the offence.'.

      Ms Jowell: The new clauses are entirely consistent with the purposes of the Bill as set out by the Home Secretary when the legislation was published last November. The Government said that their aim was to ensure that
      356
      "the guilty are convicted while continuing to protect the innocent through detailed measures to improve the administration of justice".
      The Home Secretary added:
      "The criminal justice system should not be a legal maze which allows too many guilty people to walk free. The Bill will also help to reduce trauma and stress on victims".
      The three new clauses introduced by the Labour party today are designed to ensure that the victims of rape and sexual assault receive fair, sensitive and humane treatment at the hands of the legal service and to help to reduce the intolerable trauma and stress that often accompanies the experience of becoming a complainant in a case. They also seek to ensure that serial rapists receive the punishment that they deserve and do not walk free only to assault again.
      The purpose of any justice system must be to ensure that the innocent go free and that the guilty are convicted. With the conviction rate for rape at less than 9 per cent.— unchanged since 1985—no one can believe that 90 per cent. of women who make a complaint to the police alleging rape are making it up. The new clauses seek to address those issues. They represent small but important steps in a long process of rebuilding the confidence of victims of rape and sexual assault in the criminal justice system.
      In recent weeks I have received many letters from women which give vivid glimpses of their damaged self-confidence. Women's self-confidence is damaged initially by the assault and then damaged further by the legal processes that follow, or by their encounter with them. I received a letter from a woman in Liverpool who was raped when she was 10. She summed up the feelings expressed by many. She wrote:
      "People should remember that we have already been through a degrading act when we are raped and have to relive it when we are in court. We are the victims not the perpetrators. A woman does not ask for this invasion by what she wears or how she talks. I only hope that my daughter sees the day when she can be proud of the justice system and of the help it gives to rape victims".
      Recent improvements in the way that the police deal with women who are the victims of rape and sexual assault are welcome. However, according to Commander Tom Williamson, who chairs the Metropolitan police's sexual offences steering committee, the benefits of those improvements have been undermined by the treatment of victims in court. At a conference last year, he said:
      "Just because a victim is giving evidence about a rape it should not entitle a barrister to rape them metaphorically a second time".
      Commander Williamson said that the prospect of that ordeal still prevents many victims from coming forward. He added:
      "A consequence of this lack of confidence in the criminal justice system is the loss of criminal intelligence, with the modus operandi in a series of crimes not being identified and rapists not being brought to justice".
      Twenty years ago, the Heilbron report found that the intrusive and irrelevant questioning of rape victims by defence lawyers was in effect putting the woman on trial. That is still true today. A 17-year-old rape victim remarked after the trial and conviction of her rapist:
      "no woman in her right mind would bring a case".
      Our new clauses reassert the Heilbron report's unarguable and obvious principle which should not need to be restated: a woman's sexual experiences with partners of her choice in no way indicate a general willingness to

      357
      consent to sex with anyone. Women do not give consent to sex with general categories of men; nor do they give general consent to intercourse in particular places. Consent is granted or declined only on an individual and private basis.
      Our proposals also address the alarming decline in the conviction rate for rape offences in recent years. In 1980, 37 per cent. of rape offences reported to the police resulted in a conviction. By 1994, the figure had fallen to 8.6 per cent. Since the Crown Prosecution Service was established, the percentage of cases that have not proceeded to a Crown court committal has trebled. We share the Home Secretary's aspiration that:
      "The criminal justice system should not be a legal maze which allows too many guilty people to walk free".
      Today we will give the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues the opportunity to put that principle and that aspiration into practice.
      I shall summarise briefly the essence of the three new clauses. The first concerns evidence of multiple sex offences. The new clause tackles judges' evident reluctance to hear together the separate sexual offences of which a defendant may stand accused. There is alarming evidence to show that such reluctance is resulting in men who are accused of multiple rapes against different women going free or receiving lighter sentences that do not match the severity of their crimes. Trial judges' readiness to hear cases separately denies juries crucial information about the extent of the allegations made against some serial rapists. The new clause tightens the current rules on multiple sex offence charges and makes it clear that the presumption for the trial judge should be that such cases are tried together.
      New clause 12 deals with irrelevant questioning about a victim's past sexual history. The new clause is necessary because of the evident failure of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976, which gives judges the discretion to limit questions about the complainant's sexual history. Research conducted by Zhusanna Adler at the Old Bailey in the early 1980s found that not only was leave given to the defence to ask about sexual history in more than 70 per cent. of cases when it was requested, but the defence counsel frequently did not bother to ask for leave and launched into cross-examination on sexual history without any objection from the judge or from the prosecution. In a further study on Court of Appeal rulings about sexual history evidence in England and Wales, Professor Jennifer Temkin argued:
      "The willingness of the Court of Appeal to see a wide range of evidence as relevant to consent means that trial judges who refuse to allow in sexual history evidence do so at some considerable risk of a quashed conviction on appeal. It will be an inept defence counsel who is unable by some means or other successfully to apply under Section 2".
      Professor Sue Lees, who has conducted landmark studies in this area, monitored all contested rape trials at the Old Bailey over a four-month period in summer 1993. She found that judges allowed questions about victims' past sexual histories in seven out of 10 rape trials. She has shown how judges continue to give defending barristers free rein to ask the most intrusive and needlessly distressing questions of women who have been the victims of rape.
      358
      Barristers claim that such questions are vital in order to protect the defendant from false allegations. It is true that such questioning is needed on some occasions, and our new clause allows for it in those circumstances. However, a Scottish Office survey of defence barristers got closer to the truth. Many admitted that they used such questions to:
      "create a smokescreen of immorality around the girl."
      In her book "Carnal Knowledge: Rape on Trial", Professor Lees gives examples of questions that, according to the spirit of the Sexual Offences Act 1976, should not have been allowed. In one case, the complainant was asked:
      "Before this incident on 5 February, when was the last time that you had sexual intercourse with anyone?"
      On another occasion, a complainant was asked:
      "Have you had sex with a man other than the defendant?"
      Often, the questions are more oblique. Questions such as "What kind of material is your underwear made of?" or "Would you agree that it's a dressy dress?" are designed to construct the "smokescreen of immorality" through insinuation and innuendo. Sue Lees has said:
      "In the trial transcripts I examined I found that the perfectly normal behaviour of young women is presented as evidence that they provoked the man's attack or asked for it."
      The new clause revises sections 1 and 2 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 to provide important new protections from unjust, irrelevant and intrusive questioning of rape and sexual assault victims. The proposals are based on the tried and tested formula of the 1981 New South Wales Act. The proposals set out in the new clause would establish for the first time clear and specific circumstances in which a judge may allow any questioning about the victim's sexual history. It requires the prosecution to seek permission to ask any such questions away from the jury, and requires the judge to state clearly in writing the questions that may be asked, and his reasons for giving such leave.
      The new clause would require the judge, in considering any request from the prosecution, to take clearly into account any distress, humiliation or embarrassment that the questioning might cause the victim. The proposals should also be linked to improved training for judges when handling rape cases, and to a more determined effort than we have seen to increase the number of women sitting as judges.
      New clause 13 refers to delays in reporting offences. The aim of the new clause is to ensure that the victims of sexual crime receive fair treatment at the hands of the courts. Victims of sexual offences frequently delay reporting the offence to the police, and they often have a number of good reasons for doing so. Those reasons might include their immediate distress and the fact that they were only urged to report the offence when they talked to a friend.
      Some victims are prevented from reporting an offence by a sense of shame; others are simply too embarrassed or too fearful of the effects of a complaint on their families or friends. While people in the criminal justice service may be aware of those good reasons, there is evidence that juries are often misled about the significance of any such delay. We therefore propose to require trial judges to inform juries in all sexual offences trials that there may be good reasons why a victim may delay reporting an offence, so that juries do not draw unwarranted conclusions from any delay.

      359
      The three measures that we have placed before the House today are small steps to end some of the injustices experienced by victims of rape and sexual assault. They are a start, and are entirely in keeping with the spirit and intended purpose of the legislation. They are consistent with the Bill's aims of ensuring that the guilty are convicted while continuing to protect the innocent. and of offering detailed measures to improve the administration of justice.
      I shall finish with the words of a woman who, having experienced rape, wrote to me recently. She said:
      "I hope I can see the day when we can cheer the support of the courts instead of weep."
      The Government have betrayed the victims of rape and sexual assault. Today the Labour party is giving the Government the opportunity to repair some of that damage.
      Mr. Maclean: The hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) made an interesting speech, but I am sorry that she spoilt it at the end with her ridiculous jibe. This Government introduced, in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, powers to increase the maximum penalty for cruelty to children—something that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) conveniently forgets when she trumpets the work that she is now doing for children.
      The Government increased the penalty from two years to 10, and the Labour party voted against it. That happened on 18 January 1988, when, under the Criminal Justice Act, we increased the maximum penalty for cruelty to children to 10 years' imprisonment. I accept that the hon. Member for Dulwich was not in the House then, but other hon. Members were. I invite Opposition Members to check Hansard of 18 January 1988, when they will see that the Labour party voted against the Criminal Justice Act.
      The Government increased the maximum penalty for dealing in hard drugs to life imprisonment. We increased the maximum penalty for taking a gun to a crime to life imprisonment. We gave the Attorney-General the right to appeal against lenient sentences, including lenient rape sentences, and the Labour party voted against it. I was not going to recite that list, Mr. Deputy `Speaker—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would have welcomed it if the Minister had not done so, as the list has nothing to do with the new clause.
      Mr. Maclean: I am sorry to have strayed into that subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the hon. Member for Dulwich should not have said that the Government betrayed rape victims. The Government made all the changes in the 1980s to make life easier for rape victims. They strengthened the police; they dramatically increased their numbers; they encouraged the police to introduce rape suites to help rape victims; they introduced the DNA national database—the first in the world. The hon. Lady should get her facts straight before making such silly jibes.
      The new clauses deserve to be considered seriously, as they raise complex issues about the admissibility of evidence in sexual offences cases. I think that we would all agree that there is something particularly abhorrent about such crimes, and we are all aware of their dramatic
      360
      effect on the victims. The Government have introduced a range of measures to strengthen the powers of the police and the courts to prosecute those who commit such crimes. The national DNA database provides the police with a valuable new weapon to investigate such crimes.
      We have removed the requirement for juries to be warned about convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of the victim of a sexual offence. We have announced tough new proposals for automatic life sentences for offenders who are convicted for a second time of a serious violent or sex offence unless there are genuinely exceptional circumstances. The Opposition have been in a quandary over our proposals for automatic life sentences and minimum mandatory sentences; they are not sure whether or not to support them.
      The nature of sexual offences and the frequent lack of corroborating evidence makes it particularly difficult to prosecute successfully. There has been a reduction in the number of convictions, as a proportion both of the number of offences recorded and of the number of prosecutions. That is a matter of concern, but it is the product of a wide range of factors.
      Recent research has suggested the need for a larger-scale study to ensure that we properly understand the problems and how best to tackle them. We intend to conduct such research. Despite the understandable desire to make it easier to secure convictions, it is essential to maintain a proper balance—to preserve the defendant's right to a fair trial, and to ensure that the case against the criminal is properly tested.
      The Government fully understand the concerns that have prompted the new clauses, but we are not convinced that they have been subjected to the rigorous examination necessary before changes can be made to such a complex and sensitive area of law. I shall consider first new clause 11. Often, those responsible for crimes of a sexual nature are known—or thought—to have committed other similar offences. I agree that it is important that juries should have the opportunity to hear that that has been the case where the judge believes it is in the interests of justice to do so.
      It is worth correcting any misconception that sexual offences cannot be tried together. Under the 1971 indictment rules, charges for offences may already be joined in the same indictment. The particular nature of sexual offences and the frequent lack of corroborating evidence require a slightly more cautious approach to whether cases can be tried on the same indictment. A jury may find it more difficult to consider each charge separately, as they may be influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by the extent and nature of the charges against the defendant.
      The Indictments Act 1915, to which the new clause refers, gives the trial judge discretion to decide whether, on the particular facts before him, it would be appropriate for the charges to be tried together or severed. Before the judge can do that, it will first be for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide how the indictment against the accused is prepared.
      The Crown Prosecution Service, quite rightly, will want to take a view on how best to prosecute an individual who is to be charged with more than one sexual offence when there are similarities between his crimes. That is a matter to which the CPS already attaches great importance and charges are joined whenever it seems right to do so. So

      361
      new clause 11 would not automatically mean that all charges against an accused would be heard at the same time if the CPS considered that the public interest, including that of the victims, is better served by separate prosecutions.
      6.30 pm
      In our view, a decision on severing an indictment remains an important judgment, which the trial judge is best placed to make based on all the circumstances of the case before him. He has the ability to consider a wide range of criteria before making his decision, which the new clause would remove.
      That ability was reinforced in a recent ruling by the House of Lords in a case involving multiple sexual offences against different victims. The ruling in Regina v. Christou reinforced the right of the courts to try cases together even when the evidence is not corroborative, and has provided useful guidance on the factors that trial judges should take into account when making such decisions.
      The new clause is unsound in two respects. First, it is seriously defective because it would disapply section 5 of the Indictments Act 1915 altogether in relation to sexual offences. Among other things, section 5 allows the courts to order the amendment of defective indictments. Those might include the fact that the trial would become too unwieldy if all the charges were tried together. The court's powers in respect of trying cases together are to be found in section 5(3) rather than section 5 as a whole.
      The second and more serious flaw is that new clause 11 would unnecessarily restrict the discretionary powers of judges to rule on the extent of indictments that come before them. It would do this by requiring that decisions were made on the grounds of prejudice alone and can only be made at the request of the defence. Presently, the judge can act on his own initiative, and may take account not only of whether the indictment is prejudicial but of other important issues, such as the impact on victims of ordering two or more trials. We believe that judges should retain their existing discretion to decide upon those important matters.
      The question that faces us on new clause 12 is whether it would improve the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976. I believe that it is clear that section 2 of that Act represents an additional hurdle to be cleared after common-law tests of relevance have been met, and that its main purpose—the prevention of mud-slinging attacks on the complainant's reputation—is plain.
      The most difficult issue in practice, however, is the degree to which sexual history may be relevant to the issue of consent, and it is on that question that the greatest scope for dispute over individual judicial decisions arises. The Court of Appeal has in a number of cases, and notably in Regina v. Viola in 1982, provided guidance on how the existing provisions should be applied. The Court of Appeal said that the general aim should be to exclude questioning relating to the credit of the complainant but generally to admit that which is relevant to an issue in the trial.
      New clause 12 seeks to prevent irrelevant questioning about a victim's previous sexual history by defining the circumstances in which the judge may exercise his
      362
      discretion. It would also extend that provision to victims of all sexual offences. Cross-examination about previous sexual experience is more likely to be an issue in rape cases—hence the need for the special provisions in the 1976 Act. It is not clear that a major extension of the present situation to all sexual offences is justified.
      Section 2 of the 1976 Act is a straightforward provision that allows a proper balance to be struck between giving the complainant some protection from oppressive and irrelevant questioning, while safeguarding the defendant's right to a fair trial.
      Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order,Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to raise an issue of contempt, but it is a contempt of the House to misrepresent proceedings of the House of Commons. You will have heard the Minister tell the House that, on 18 January 1988, Labour Members of Parliament voted against increasing penalties during proceedings on the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
      I have checked the Hansard, and found that Labour Members of Parliament did no such thing. They voted against the Second Reading of that Act on the basis that it had implications for civil liberties that arose out of changes to extradition, jury selection and remand and sentencing. We voted against Second Reading, and we have been misrepresented during this debate.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That point can be made in debate; it is certainly not a point of order for the Chair.
      Mr. Maclean: I am glad to hear those confessions and admissions. Perhaps the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will take the time to read the contents of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. He will find that the Labour party voted against penalties to increase sentences for people who are cruel to children and for drug dealers.
      It is no wonder the Labour party does not like being reminded about that. Labour Members can come up with any excuse they like now, but they voted against that Act, lock, stock and barrel. They now have a guilty conscience about it, and I suspect that that is why we have seen all these spurious and bogus new clauses, which are 10 years late. The Labour party is trying to say that it is sorry about the mistakes of 1980s, and that it wants to make up for them. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is my near neighbour, for his confession—he is "one sinner that repenteth".
      I turn now to new clause 13, which raises complex issues about the law on evidence—I do not know of any issues about the law of evidence that are not complex— and, in particular, what evidence may be given to explain why a complaint was not made or was delayed.
      Of course the Government share the concern that juries should be able to make a proper assessment of the value of evidence on such matters; that is why, last year, we removed the automatic warning that juries were given that the evidence of one woman alone had to be treated with a certain circumspection. It was not right to retain that warning, but I am not convinced that it is right to create a new warning for the jury.
      The present position is that, if evidence is admitted that a victim has made no complaint—or, more likely, that the complaint was substantially delayed—the court may hear

      363
      evidence to explain why the alleged victim did not complain. That is the correct way to proceed. The court is then able to hear the evidence relevant to the circumstances of the case, which may explain the reasons for the delay. There may be good evidential reasons why the victim did not come forward immediately to report a sexual attack, and the court should be told those reasons and the jury should take them into account.
      In other cases, the evidence may not be so strong. In some cases, the absence of complaint may be crucial to the case, and a warning in the terms proposed would be inappropriate. A requirement to give the same warning regardless of the circumstances of the case and the quality of the evidence explaining any delay would confuse the issues and make the task of the judge and the jury more difficult.
      The use of a warning should therefore be considered in the context of the rules governing the evidence that may be admitted to refute any allegation of the kind mentioned in new clause 13. It may, for example, be possible for previous consistent statements to be produced in evidence to support the allegation made by the victim.
      That is a complex aspect of the law on hearsay and related topics, which the Law Commission is at present considering. Its report is expected later this year. It is likely to include proposals about the extent to which previous consistent statements should be admissible as evidence of the truth, and not merely, as at present, the credibility of the witness. It is also likely to address the question whether previous consistent statements should be admissible in cases other than sexual offences, in which physical injury might also have been inflicted.
      Those are important issues that bear directly on whether there should be a statutory warning, and, if so, what it should be. It would, in our view, be wrong to legislate on that complex area of the law without having the benefit of the Law Commission's work. For those reasons, the Government cannot support new clause 13.
      I am sorry that I have spoken at length on new clauses 11, 12 and 13, but they raise important and complex issues. We shall give further consideration to changes in the law in the light of the Law Commission's current work and the research that we intend to conduct into attrition rates in sexual offence cases, but we are unable at present to support the new clauses.
      Ms: The length of the Minister's speech has served as an effective smokescreen for the fact that he has nothing to say. His lengthy diatribe about the defective nature of the new clauses is simply a way to sidestep the real issues that they raise.
      Those of us who read our copy of The Independent this morning have been led to believe that next week the Government are holding their law and order week in order to regain the initiative on law and order from the shadow Home Secretary and the Labour party. There is a growing conviction across the country that it is the Labour party that understands people's fears about crime, and that it is Labour which brings forward specific and practical proposals, which the Government then reject out of hand.
      The Government's response to the new clause will be received by women across the country for what it represents: indifference, and a refusal to do anything about one of the most serious problems besetting women in the criminal justice system.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 190, Noes 234.

      Division No. 144]

      [6.42 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      George, Bruce

      Ainger, Nick

      Gerrard, Neil

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Allen, Graham

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Graham, Thomas

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Ashton, Joe

      Grocott, Bruce

      Austin-Walker, John

      Hain, Peter

      Barnes, Harry

      Hall, Mike

      Battle, John

      Harvey, Nick

      Bayley, Hugh

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Heppell, John

      Beggs, Roy

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Bell, Stuart

      Hinchliffe, David

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Hoey, Kate

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Benton, Joe

      Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

      Berry, Roger

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Betts, Clive

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Blair, Rt Hon Tony

      Hutton, John

      Blunkett, David

      Illsley, Eric

      Boateng, Paul

      Ingram, Adam

      Bradley, Keith

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Johnston, Sir Russell

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

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Burden, Richard

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Byers, Stephen

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Jowell, Tessa

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Keen, Alan

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Khabra, Piara S

      Canavan, Dennis

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Clapham, Michael

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      McAllion, John

      Clelland, David

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      McCartney, Ian

      Coffey, Ann

      Macdonald, Calum

      Connarty, Michael

      McKelvey, William

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Corston, Jean

      McWilliam, John

      Cox, Tom

      Madden, Max

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Maginnis, Ken

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Mahon, Alice

      Darling, Alistair

      Mandelson, Peter

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Marek, Dr John

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

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Denham, John

      Martlew, Eric

      Dewar, Donald

      Maxton, John

      Dixon, Don

      Michael, Alun

      Dowd, Jim

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Eastham, Ken

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Etherington, Bill

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Fatchett, Derek

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Faulds, Andrew

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Mudie, George

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Mullin, Chris

      Fraser, John

      Murphy, Paul

      Fyfe, Maria

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Olner, Bill

      Gapes, Mike

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      365

      Pearson, Ian

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Pendry, Tom

      Straw, Jack

      Pope, Greg

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Timms, Stephen

      Purchase, Ken

      Tipping, Paddy

      Reid, Dr John

      Touhig, Don

      Rendel, David

      Trickett, Jon

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Trimble, David

      Rogers, Allan

      Turner, Dennis

      Rooker, Jeff

      Tyler, Paul

      Rooney, Terry

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wallace, James

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Welsh, Andrew

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Simpson, Alan

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

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

      Wilson, Brian

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Winnick, David

      Soley, Clive

      Wise, Audrey

      Spellar, John

      Worthington, Tony

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stevenson, George

      Mr. Malcolm Chisholm and Mr.John Owen Jones.

      Stott, Roger

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Cran, James

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Alexander, Richard

      Davies, Quentin (Starnford)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Day, Stephen

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Amess, David

      Devlin, Tim

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Dover, Den

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Duncan, Alan

      Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Dunn, Bob

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

      Bates, Michael

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Batiste, Spencer

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Evennett, David

      Body, Sir Richard

      Faber, David

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fabricant, Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bowis, John

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Forman, Nigel

      Brazier, Julian

      Forth, Eric

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      French, Douglas

      Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Burns, Simon

      Gale, Roger

      Burt, Alistair

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Butcher, John

      Garnier, Edward

      Butterfill, John

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Carrington, Matthew

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Carttiss, Michael

      Gorst, Sir John

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Clappison, James

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Congdon, David

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Conway, Derek

      Hannam, Sir John

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Haselhurst, Sir Alan

      Couchman, James

      Hawkins, Nick

      366

      Hawksley, Warren

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Hayes, Jerry

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Heald, Oliver

      Richards, Rod

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Riddick, Graham

      Hendry, Charles

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Horam, John

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Sackville, Tom

      Hunter, Andrew

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Jessel, Toby

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Shersby, Sir Michael

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Sims, Roger

      Key, Robert

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

      Speed, Sir Keith

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

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Knox, Sir David

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Sproat, Iain

      Legg, Barry

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Leigh, Edward

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Steen, Anthony

      Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

      Stephen, Michael

      Lidington, David

      Stern, Michael

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Stewart, Allan

      Lord, Michael

      Streeter, Gary

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Sweeney, Walter

      MacKay, Andrew

      Sykes, John

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Madel, Sir David

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Malone, Gerald

      Thomason, Roy

      Mans, Keith

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Marland, Paul

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Merchant, Piers

      Tracey, Richard

      Mills, Iain

      Tredinnick, David

      Trotter,Neville

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Viggers, Peter

      Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Walden, George

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Waterson, Nigel

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Watts, John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Wells, Bowen

      Norris, Steve

      Whittingdale, John

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Willetts, David

      Ottaway, Richard

      Wilshire, David

      Page, Richard

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Paice, James

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Wolfson, Mark

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Wood, Timothy

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Yeo, Tim

      Pawsey, James

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Pickles, Eric

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Mr. Patrick McLoughlin and Mr. Roger Knapman.

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 14

      PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO DISCLOSE
      '. —(1) A failure by any individual or organisation to disclose material required to be disclosed to the prosecutor under the provisions of this Act shall be an offence.
      (2) An offence under subsection (1) may be punished on conviction on indictment by imprisonment for five years or a fine, or on summary conviction by imprisonment for six months or a fine at level 5 on the standard scale.'.—[Mr. Michael.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      New clause 14 introduces a penalty for failure to disclose information. It arises from the concern that is felt in many places that the legislation as it stands is balanced in terms of obligations, which is why we have supported it and the principles that it seeks to introduce, but that there is no equivalent penalty for the failure to disclose by the police or the prosecutor. It is for that reason that we have tabled the new clause.
      The new clause makes it clear that
      "A failure by any individual or organisation to disclose material required to be disclosed to the prosecutor under the provisions of this Act shall be an offence."
      It arises from discussion in Committee when, in response to the debate, the Solicitor-General suggested that, as far as prosecutors are concerned, the professional onus and requirements placed upon them would give a mechanism to deal with any breach.
      It was pointed out during the course of that debate, however, that there is no similar onus and no penalty in respect of a failure to disclose by the police to the prosecutor. It was also pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) that a number of miscarriages of justice had arisen precisely from failure to disclose by the police at an appropriate stage.
      Now that we are giving matters much greater clarity in the Bill and in the code of conduct that will follow it, it is surely appropriate that in the background there should be the possibility of punishment, which surely concentrates minds when it comes to ensuring that the letter of the law is observed.
      I emphasise that the new clause does not mean that an inappropriate or excessive punishment would follow an accidental breach of the requirement. I took advice in advance of today's debate and in preparing the wording of the new clause and the advice was to the effect that accidental failure or a minor sin of omission could be dealt with by no prosecution taking place. However, there are occasions, and there have been events in the past, when an omission or a failure to provide information has had a major impact, and when it has been serious and deliberate. Such an event requires the new clause to be added to the Bill.
      The situation for the prosecutor is, in the view of the Solicitor-General, already covered in the legislation. The Opposition were not entirely satisfied by that, but we accept that the Solicitor-General made a strong case in Committee. However, there is a gap with regard to the investigator.
      It is for those reasons that we seek to add the new clause to the Bill. In Committee, the Solicitor-General referred to professional discipline and the views that can
      368
      be expressed by the jury. But they can be expressed only if matters come to light in a way that enables a jury to make such an observation. The question is whether there is a suitable mechanism to deal with a failure to disclose in the manner described in the new clause. The Opposition believe that it would fill a gap and ensure a proper balance between the two sides involved in dealing with a case in the courts.
      Mr. Chris Mullin: I support the new clause. Non-disclosure, deliberate or negligent, has been a feature of most of the major miscarriages of justice that have been proven during the past four or five years and of many of those that are alleged. One feature common to all such cases is that, even if those responsible for suppressing inconvenient information or evidence are caught red-handed, nothing ever happens to them. To my knowledge—I welcome correction— even though they have been caught red-handed and in some cases denounced by the judge, no prosecutor or police officer has suffered anything more than mild inconvenience. As a result, they do not have much incentive to ensure that all evidence that should be put before a court is put before it.
      The new clause will provide them with an incentive. No one is suggesting that in cases of minor negligence some draconian penalty should be visited on those responsible. But where, as in the Guildford case and the Judith Ward case, for example, there was a deliberate suppression of evidence at a high level, in which a number of people connived, some of whom either were at the time or went on to become very distinguished, they should be aware that some penalty awaits them. That has not been the case in the past, but it must happen in the future if the legislation is to be taken seriously by those whose job it will be to implement it.
      The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): Without being disrespectful to the hon. Members for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who have just spoken, I can deal with the matter quite briefly.
      In summary, the new clause is quite unnecessary, as a range of sanctions are already in place that are proportionate to the gravity of the failure to disclose. Let me explain. The objective, which I assume lies behind the proposal, of ensuring that the prosecutor has available all the necessary information is sensible, as the system will not work properly unless evidence is properly gathered by the police and they reveal it properly to prosecuting counsel in accordance with the regime set up by the Bill. Clearly, the police and other investigators must help the prosecutor if the disclosure system is to work.Inb
      7 pm
      The responsibilities of the police to retain, record and make available to the prosecutor relevant information obtained during an investigation will be set out in the code of practice, for which provision is made in clause 22, which is extensive and contains many paragraphs that deal with the duties of the police in relation to a wide variety of material. We are also amending the Bill to place a duty on the police to investigate all reasonable lines of inquiry, both those that point

      369
      towards the guilt of a defendant and those that point the other way. That mirrors best practice at the moment but it is a new step in terms of statute.
      Sanctions already exist if there is a failure to meet responsibilities by law. I shall say briefly what they are: first, a deliberate failure by an investigator to disclose material could render him or her liable to prosecution for perverting or attempting to pervert the course of justice. If two or more are involved, the offence would be conspiracy. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South says that no more than slight inconvenience has been caused to those caught grievously—and dishonestly—failing in their duty to disclose. He must be familiar with the criminal proceedings that were taken against the police officers who inquired into the Birmingham Six and the Guildford cases, in which the officers were prosecuted and the due process of law took place.
      Mr. Mullin: Will the Solicitor-General give way?
      The Solicitor-General: My patience was taxed in Committee by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, but, notwithstanding that, I shall give way.
      Mr. Mullin: I am very familiar with the two cases that the Solicitor-General just named, and I have rarely seen a more half-hearted attempt to prosecute those allegedly responsible for fraud and perjury on a vast scale. Can he name one example of any charges brought against the Crown prosecutor for deliberately suppressing inconvenient evidence?
      The Solicitor-General: There has never been any evidence that counsel or any Crown prosecutor acted in a dishonest way. I am surprised at the selective way in which the hon. Gentleman addresses the problem. When he made this complaint in Committee, and repeated it just now, he overlooked the prosecution of the police officers in the Birmingham Six and Guildford cases. He casts aspersions, sometimes on named and unnamed prosecutors, and in Committee he went so far as to say:
      "I do not doubt that everyone intimately involved in those cases, including Lord Havers and the DPP, knew from the outset that they had got the wrong people once they had caught the right people, but they chose to rewrite the script to prevent that from coming out."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 21 May 1996; c. 137–138.]
      I have to say that, as Lord Havers' former pupil in chambers and then his Parliamentary Private Secretary when he was Attorney-General, I repudiate entirely those allegations, which are not supported by a shred of evidence. Indeed, Sir John May's report, which was published in two stages, the second part in 1992, demonstrated quite clearly to anybody who was prepared to read it that the allegations that the hon. Gentleman just made were without foundation. I remember standing at the Dispatch Box shortly after the second report had been published and saying just that. I am deeply disappointed with the hon. Gentleman's approach to the problem.
      Mr. Mullin rose—
      Mr. James Hill: Say it outside the House.
      Mr. Mullin: I have done so, as it happens.
      370
      When members of the IRA unit captured at Balcombe street were arrested, they owned up in considerable detail to the Guildford and Woolwich bombings. They were interviewed by superintendent Peter Imbert, who told the Home Affairs Select Committee that the Director of Public Prosecutions was responsible for ensuring that the statements from the captured IRA people were not made available to the defence. I rest my case.
      The Solicitor-General: This has all been investigated in the greatest detail by Sir John May, whose report is available for anybody who cares to read it. The hon. Gentleman talks about rewriting the script. When rewriting the script is discussed, he should own up to doing just that, because his account of these matters does not bear the most cursory examination.
      Mr. Mullin: My track record is better than yours, judged by results.
      The Solicitor-General: Let me proceed with something serious and not be distracted by such trivia.
      The second possible sanction available if there has been a failure to disclose is disciplinary proceedings against the police. New disciplinary arrangements are currently being developed following the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994.
      Thirdly, clause 25(4) requires the court to take into account, when determining any question arising in the proceedings, a failure by a police officer to comply with the code, or a failure of any other person charged with the duty of conducting an investigation to have regard to the code.
      Fourthly, if new relevant information becomes available after conviction, it may form grounds for an appeal.
      The new clause is defective because, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth observed, it contains no mental ingredient at all, in the sense that it just speaks about a failure to disclose. It does not say whether that failure is deliberate or reckless or whether there is any reasonable excuse. It says that the maximum penalty for that is five years imprisonment on indictment. But its deficiencies do not end there. I imagine that it is an example of the law of unintended effect. It is drafted so widely that it appears to take into account the defence as well as the prosecution. Accordingly, if there is a failure by the accused or his or her legal adviser to disclose, that might also be caught by the new offence. I doubt very much whether that is what the hon. Gentleman intends.
      The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said that I concentrated in Committee on the professional restraints on the Crown Prosecution Service and on counsel involved in the case. I did not concentrate on it; I referred to it, but on this occasion I do not think that it is necessary to repeat what I said in Committee. I invite the hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter, and I hope that when he has done so he will agree that the new clause is unnecessary and withdraw it.
      Mr. Michael: I have never heard such an inadequate response from a Minister. If the Solicitor-General's patience was taxed in Committee, he must suffer from patience deficiency syndrome. His patience should not

      371
      have been taxed in Committee because we tried to have a reasonable discussion there; he must be an extremely impatient man.
      The Solicitor-General's response today has been complacent in the extreme and he does neither himself nor the legal system any benefit by it. It is a great pity that he has been distracted from whatever he would otherwise have been doing by being brought before the House for the trivial matter of trying to ensure that justice is conducted in such a way that the guilty are punished and the innocent walk free. The Solicitor-General has not enhanced his reputation by the way in which he has dealt with this debate.
      I explained in my introduction, to which the Solicitor-General does not seem to have listened, that the case of someone who is acting inadvertently is not affected by a requirement of recklessness because there is no need for a prosecution to follow if there is an explanation of an accidental omission. The court would be able to take that fully into account and would not have to use the top end of the penalty scale if it was inappropriate to do so. It shows a lack of confidence in the courts to suggest that they would be constrained to act in a different way.
      The Solicitor-General concentrated on the position of the lawyers in his response in Committee; that is not dealt with under the new clause. I am also surprised by his suggestion that the requirement of disclosure includes the defence because it is clear that the requirement is on
      "any individual or organisation to disclose material required to be disclosed to the prosecutor under the provisions of the Act."
      That requirement is clear.
      I am disappointed by the Solicitor-General's response; he has not engaged seriously with the serious issues before us. It is clear that he and the Government would vote against the new clause, so there is no point in taking up further time. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause—not because we have been wrong to raise the issue, but because there is no need to take up the time of the House following such an inadequate response.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 15

      CODES OF CONDUCT (NON-POLICE INVESTIGATIONS)
      '—(1) The Secretary of State may prepare a code or codes relating to the conduct by persons other than police officers of criminal investigations with a view to it being ascertained—

      (a) whether a person should be charged with an offence; or

      (b) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it.

      (2) In preparing a code under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall have regard to—

      (a) the nature of the investigations conducted by the persons to whom the code applies; and

      (b) the need to ensure that, so far as possible, persons other than police officers conduct investigations in the same manner as police officers.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 73, in clause 24, page 17, line 18, after '22', insert
      372
      'or (Codes of Conduct (non-police investigations))'.
      No. 74, in clause 25, page 17, line 33, after '(1)', insert
      'If no relevant code prepared under section (Codes of Conduct (non-police operations)) has been brought into operation,',
      No. 75, in page 17, line 40, leave out 'police officer' and insert 'person'.
      No. 76, in clause 26, page 18, line 10, after '22', insert
      'or (Codes of conduct (non-police investigations))'.
      Mr. Michael: In Committee, we pointed out that it was extremely unsatisfactory for a number of investigators not to be required to operate to the standard that we required of the police. The response was that Ministers did not want to place onerous requirements on a variety of organisations that had a variety of responsibilities involving undertaking investigations. During the debate, we made it clear that we wanted to regulate the activities of and place the same onerous requirements on, for instance, customs officers, who frequently undertake investigations into criminal activities, which are comparable in every way to the work of the police. That point does not cover all their activities, and the same applies to other organisations that are sometimes involved in the investigation of criminal offences.
      We took the Minister's response in Committee seriously and that is why we tabled the new clause, which we hope will cover the point rather more constructively. It would give a power to the Secretary of State to prepare a code or codes relating to the conduct of persons other than police officers who undertake criminal investigations. That means that the power lies in the hands of the Home Secretary to introduce a code for investigative organisations where it is appropriate. We also make it clear that he would have regard to the nature of the investigations being conducted by the person to whom the code applied. In responding to the debate in Committee, the Minister made the valid point that some investigations are comparable to the work of police officers, but that other investigations undertaken by a variety of public bodies are not comparable. We allow for that distinction in the new clause.
      7.15 pm
      We also underline the point that there is a need for persons other than police officers who conduct investigations to do so in the same manner where an equivalent matter is involved. I make the point strongly that it is the work of Customs and Excise in gathering intelligence, through central intelligence operations, and in investigating offences which is strictly comparable to the work of the police. It seems odd to suggest that, in relation to matters such as drug smuggling, different criteria should be applied to a non-police prosecuting or investigating agency from those that are stringently applied to the police, who are already far more accountable than an agency such as Customs and Excise. I again make it clear that I am talking only about the investigative functions of such agencies which are comparable to police functions.
      There is a danger of confusion, arising from questions such as who is an investigator, to whom the code applies, which is not mentioned in the Bill, and which parts of the code apply to people other than police officers, if we stick to the present wording in the Bill. It merely requires other

      373
      investigators to have regard to the code of conduct, which has been made available in draft and which specifically applies to the police. We require the highest standards to be observed by police officers. The fact that Ministers made the draft code available at a very early stage has been helpful to us. That allowed for much better and informed debate, and I place on record our thanks for the way in which Ministers made our deliberations in Committee far more fruitful as a result. The need to go down many false trails was avoided because answers had been given to us in the draft code.
      At the end of the debate in Committee, I said that I hoped that the Minister would consider the points raised in the light of our constructive exchanges and that we would study the Minister's comments between the Committee stage and Report. We have done so. I believe that the new clause avoids the difficulties that the Minister highlighted in the Committee debate. It is disappointing that the Government have not tabled an amendment rather than, once again, leaving it to the Opposition. However, I stress that we have tabled an enabling new clause. It does not require the Home Secretary to use the power that it contains, but it means that, without primary legislation, it would be possible to extend a specific code to agencies other than the police.
      Mr. Kirkhope: On 16 May in Committee, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth knows, mark 1 of his proposals was put before the Committee. Sadly, I had to say that we were unable to accede to his wishes. In the following sitting on 21 May, as I said and as was reported in Hansard, he miraculously produced a derivative which I regard as mark 2. Again, I was not able really to help him. Today we have mark 3, so one cannot say that the hon. Gentleman has not been trying hard in his wish to see his proposals accepted. I am sorry to say that I cannot accept those proposals, and I shall explain why.
      New clause 15 would enable the Secretary of State to prepare codes for the conduct of criminal investigations by persons other than police officers. Amendments Nos. 73 to 76 make related changes to part II of the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman has more or less confirmed, the new clause is presumably meant to ensure that if the Secretary of State prepares a code for non-police investigations, it is binding to the persons to whom it applies. However, I am not certain that the new clause would achieve that. Unlike clause 22, it does not require the code to contain provisions designed to secure that anything is done by such persons. It provides simply that the Secretary of State should have regard to the nature of a criminal investigation and ensure that it is conducted as far as possible in the same manner as if it were conducted by police officers. It is not clear what practical effect the new clause would have. Despite the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I am sure that that is the position.
      Mr. Michael: Perhaps I may help by explaining what is meant by that. The new clause states that the Home Secretary, in preparing the code, should have regard to those elements. Once it had been prepared by the Home Secretary, the code would be binding on the individuals required to observe it.
      374
      Subsection (2) of the new clause would merely ensure that the Home Secretary had regard to two elements that I understand the Minister wanted to include in the requirements placed on non-police investigating bodies.
      Mr. Kirkhope: We had a long debate in Committee on the whole question of codes as they apply to non-police investigators. We exhausted the discussion and my conclusions at the time were that codes of practice were so different and disparate, and in many ways they should be, because of the different nature of activities of certain bodies and the fact that some, such as the Health and Safety Executive, have a dual role of investigation and prosecution. I explained all that and we went through it with great care.
      I know that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful, but whatever he has said, I do not consider it necessary to amend the Bill as he proposes. As he knows, it already requires the Secretary of State to prepare a code of practice for criminal investigations by police officers and it requires investigators other than the police to have regard to the relevant provisions.
      As I explained in Committee, that formulation was based on the precedent in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I also explained that a number of cases since then have established that the relevant provisions of the PACE codes of practice are binding on persons other than police officers who are charged with the duty of investigating offences.
      Although I fully understand why the hon. Gentleman wants to give the Secretary of State the power contained in new clause 15, we continue to believe that it is one power that he does not need to take.
      Despite the hon. Gentleman's eloquence, the arguments that he made and the stamina that he displayed, we are not persuaded that the new clause is necessary or desirable. We believe that we can achieve the necessary elements without it. So, on behalf of the Government, I am afraid that I am not able to accept the new clause.
      Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Minister for at least trying to be positive in the way that he responded, even if the answer is still a clear no. We all agree about the importance of giving the police specific and clear responsibilities. The trouble is that the Bill requires non-police investigators only to "have regard" to its provisions and to the code of conduct. To a great extent, they will decide for themselves what it means to have regard to those provisions. Therefore, the requirements on non-police investigators are far less onerous than they are on the police.
      Mr. Kirkhope: I shall not detain the House, but I should make it clear that although those investigators have only to "have regard to", as I explained, the courts will take careful note of whether they have done so, and there is plenty of evidence that that is an onerous requirement.
      Mr. Michael: I accept that it would be an onerous requirement if it were enforced by the courts, but that will not apply where it does not come to the attention of the courts. We are concerned not only with what comes to the attention of the courts, but with the ethos and method of investigating and passing on information in the process of prosecution, which investigators are required to observe.

      375
      The fact that the requirements are less onerous than those on the police is perhaps a tribute to the importance that we place on the police. However, there is a growth in investigative and intelligence activities by non-police organisations, particularly Customs and Excise, as I highlighted earlier.
      Many investigating organisations also act as the prosecutor, so there is no clear separation between investigator and prosecutor, which is a strength of the structure reflected in the Bill in respect of the police.
      For those reasons, we felt that the new clause was desirable and should be added to the Bill. However, it is clear that the Minister will not accept it. He has responded in a courteous way. I believe that at some point in future we shall have to return to this in amending legislation, but for today I am content for the points to have been made. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 3

      PRIMARY DISCLOSURE BY PROSECUTOR
      Mr. Mullin: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 2, line 34, leave out from 'accused' to 'or' in line 36 and insert
      'and which may be relevant to an issue in the case'.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 32, in page 2, line 34, leave out
      'in the prosecutor's opinion might'
      and insert
      'might be reasonably expected to'.
      No. 71, in page 2, line 34, leave out 'in the prosecutor's opinion'.
      No. 72, in page 2, line 35, leave out 'undermine' and insert 'cast serious doubt on'.
      No. 31, in page 2, line 39, after second 'material', insert
      'relevant to the offence or to the offender or to the surrounding circumstances of the case.'.
      No. 33, in page 3, line 3, at end insert—', or
      (c) which falls within subsection (2A).
      (2A) Material falls within this subsection if in pursuance of a code operative under Part II the prosecutor must, if he asks for the material, be given a copy of it or be allowed to inspect it in connection with the case for the prosecution against the accused.'.
      No. 34, in clause 7, page 5, line 25, at end insert—', or
      (c) which falls within subsection (2A).
      (2A) Material falls within this subsection if in pursuance of a code operative under Part II the prosecutor must, if he asks for the material, be given a copy of it or be allowed to inspect it in connection with the case for the prosecution against the accused.'.
      Mr. Mullin: The amendments address what in my view is the main defect of the Bill—that, as drafted, it allows the police and prosecution to determine what material will be made available to the defence and prevents the defence from deciding for itself what is relevant to its case. That flies in the face of the lessons that we should have learnt from the disastrous series of miscarriages of justice in the 1970s and 1980s, which inflicted so much damage on the credibility of our legal system. I am sorry if it upsets the Solicitor-General, but I repeat that deliberate or negligent
      376
      disclosure by the police or prosecution was an important feature of just about all those cases and, if it remains unchanged, the Bill will lay the ground for further disasters.
      My amendments and those in the names of my hon. Friends provide the Government with a number of alternatives. In amendments Nos. 71 and 72, my hon. Friends seek to soften the effect of clause 3. That is certainly a step in the right direction, but I seek to go further. My amendment No. 30, drafted with the help of Mr. Roy Amlot QC, deletes the prosecutor's opinion from the clause and the suggestion that only evidence that undermines the defence case should be disclosed, and seeks considerably to widen the definition of what should be disclosed by obliging disclosure of any material that might be relevant to the case.
      Amendment No. 31 offers an alternative. It proposes that the prosecutor must make available to the defence all material
      "relevant to the offence or to the offender or to the surrounding circumstances of the case".
      Those words have been chosen with care. They are taken from recommendation 124 of the royal commission on criminal justice, which was set up by the Government precisely with a view to recommending measures that would restore confidence in the criminal justice system. Ministers are not slow to quote the royal commission when it suits them, but they rejected that recommendation, and I am seeking to implement it.
      My amendment No. 32, drafted with the help of the Law Society, offers yet another possibility. It deletes the reference to the prosecutor's opinion, and substitutes a test of reasonableness. My amendments Nos. 33 and 34—also drafted with the help of the Law Society—clarify the definition of prosecution material in clauses 3 and 7. As currently drafted, the Bill gives the police far too much latitude. There is a danger that they, not the overworked prosecuting counsel, will in practice decide what shall be disclosed. That is a recipe for a great deal of trouble in the future.
      7.30 pm
      The Government are spoilt for choice. They can choose between four definitions of what should be disclosed. Before they reject them all out of hand, they should perhaps bear it in mind that the definition proposed in the Bill has been rejected not only by the Opposition but by the royal commission, the Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association, whose members will have to implement the disclosure regime.
      Far from simplifying matters, the Bill introduces unnecessary complications. Many criminal cases are not particularly complex: under the present system, the prosecution simply provides the defence with a bundle of what is known as non-material evidence—that is, statements collected by the police and not relied on as part of their case. The Bill requires the prosecutor to examine all material before handing it over, and to make a judgment about every item. He will then have to provide the defence with a schedule describing the nature of each item. Finally, the prosecutor must make a judgment about what further material must be disclosed. Just where will Crown prosecution lawyers, who are already considerably overstretched, find time to engage in such a complex procedure? There is an obvious danger that mistakes will

      377
      be made; indeed, it is likely that in most cases such judgments will be left to the police, and that is fraught with danger.
      I recognise—as the royal commission did—that occasional demands from unscrupulous lawyers for large quantities of material relevant to the defence case can cause unnecessary delay and expense. That is particularly the case in fraud trials. I acknowledge that it may well be possible to take steps to simplify and improve existing practice, but I do not believe that the problem is as great as some people allege. Indeed, I believe that it has been deliberately talked up to distract attention from the inconvenient fact that the failure of the police and Crown prosecutors to disclose material that they should have disclosed caused many of our recent problems.
      In the Carl Bridgewater case—if I may take a topical example—many years elapsed before it was revealed to the defence that unidentified fingerprints had been found at the scene of the murder. A further five or six years elapsed before Ministers were persuaded to disclose that those fingerprints—which do not belong to any of the convicted men—were found on the victim's bike, which was picked up by one of the murderers and tossed into a nearby pigsty. Despite what has now emerged, and although the man who prosecuted in the case has urged the Government to refer it back to the Court of Appeal, the Home Secretary is refusing to do so. That suggests that a very casual attitude to disclosure prevails among Home Office Ministers. Indeed, one is bound to wonder whether any of the lessons of past disasters have been learnt.
      That case is an illustration—only one of a number that I could offer—of the gulf that divides us on this issue. I say "divides us"; I remind the House that it divides the Government from not only the Opposition but the Criminal Bar Association, the Law Society and just about anyone with any expertise relating to criminal trials. It does not make sense to try to resolve problems with the existing arrangements by devising a system that is considerably more complicated than the existing system, and may store up even greater problems for the future.
      Incidentally, anyone who thinks that this is a cheaper solution should reflect on the millions of pounds that are spent, and the vast quantities of extra paperwork that are incurred—to say nothing of the cost of imprisoning and compensating innocent people—when controversial cases revisit the Court of Appeal, often many years later. I have no doubt that, if it remains unamended, the Bill will result in more cases being referred back to the Appeal Court, as it becomes clear in future years that material that should have been made available to the defence at trial has been either negligently or deliberately—probably negligently in most cases—unreasonably withheld.
      Mr. Michael: I wish to speak briefly about amendments Nos. 71 and 72, to which my name is attached.
      Clause 3 requires the prosecutor to
      "disclose to the accused any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed to the accused and which in the prosecutor's opinion might undermine the case for the prosecution against the accused".
      We feel that the words "in the prosecutor's opinion" incorporate in the Bill a subjective test, rather than the objective test that is normal in legislation. I shall not make
      378
      the point at length, because I made it strongly in Committee. It is simple and straightforward, and I am surprised that the Government have still not accepted it— unless the Minister is going to surprise and delight us by accepting it in the next few minutes. I suspect that he will not do that.
      Amendment No. 71 would leave out the words "in the prosecutor's opinion". Amendment No. 72 would replace the word "undermine" with the words "cast serious doubt on". We feel that the test that matters need to be disclosed if they might undermine the prosecution's case is far too black and white. To undermine a case is to leave nothing of that case to proceed, but other matters might be involved which, although not absolute and conclusive, would require judge and jury to exercise their critical faculties in deciding whether the case was made or had failed in the light of the evidence. The piece of evidence concerned, however, might be serious, and it is possible that, according to all the tests that we discussed in Committee and in previous debates on the Bill, it should be made available to the accused. It is not a question of absolutely anything having to be disclosed, but I feel that requiring the disclosure of significant material that would cast serious doubt on the case is preferable to the absolute concept of material that would totally undermine the case.
      Let me make it clear—as we have done on a number of occasions, including Second Reading—that the Opposition fully support the Bill. We believe that the reduction in the volume of disclosure, and in the amount of paperwork, is an important objective. We also believe, however, that in seeking that objective it is important to get the balance right. That, indeed, is what most of our debates on Second Reading and in Committee have been about.
      I think that the Bill has improved as a result of our debates. The Government have tabled amendments, in Committee and on Report, which deal with some of the issues raised in earlier debates. That is positive, and it is right to give credit for that. The absolute nature of the test in clause 3(1)(a) fails to get the balance right, and I hope that—at the very least—the Government will be willing to change the word "undermine" to a requirement to reveal material that would "cast serious doubt" on the case for the prosecution.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) takes a serious view of these matters, and I greatly respect his opinion because of his experience and the vast amount of time that he has spent dealing with serious miscarriages of justice. His judgment has been proved right on a number of occasions when hon. Members and others have backed away from accepting the logic of his case. I understand his personal reservations about the Bill and his concerns that limiting disclosure may lead to miscarriages of justice. Opposition Front Benchers have taken a different approach, which is to try to make sure that safeguards are in place and that the balance is right, to produce a reduction in disclosure without leading to miscarriages of justice.
      In general, the Bill has the balance right, but I hope that the Minister will accept the two specific amendments about which I have spoken—in particular amendment No. 72, which I believe would make a significant improvement to the balance of the Bill without in any way undermining its purpose, which we support.
      The Solicitor-General: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on this important topic, which goes to the heart of our reforms. I am a member of the Criminal Bar Association and I practise in the courts. If the regime is going to lead to injustice, I—together with my colleagues in the association—will be engaged in the front line with it. Therefore, I am as anxious as anyone can be to ensure that we put on the statute book a system that gives rise to justice, and avoids some of the horrible miscarriages of justice that have occurred in the past. I urge him not to remain in the past on this issue, as some of the critics of the Bill have done. The Government have learnt the lessons of the past and the structures that we are endeavouring to put in the Bill show that we have learnt those lessons well and truly.
      Amendments Nos. 30, 72, 32 and 71 would all change the test for primary prosecution disclosure. In summary, they would not affect any worthwhile reform, and would entrench the present deficiencies of the law in the statute book. For that reason, I invite the House to resist the amendments. I would also caution against wrenching part of the new system out of its context. For example, there has been an over-close examination of the prosecution's primary disclosure and the test to be applied there. It must not be taken out of context, and should be looked at against the background of part II and the code that will be introduced, which will place new and extensive duties upon the police.
      The hon. Member for Sunderland, South was right— unless the investigation is carried out both honestly and effectively, and unless honest and effective revelation is made of all information by the police to the prosecutor, injustices will occur. One of the best encouragements to get the police to act in an honest and effective way is to present them with a regime that is fair, and that they can see is fair. There is therefore no incentive for them to cut corners and indulge in what is sometimes infelicitously called "noble cause corruption". One of the attributes of the Bill is that it presents a regime that is fair, and places explicit duties on the police, prosecution and defence. Everyone will see that it is fair and will co-operate in its implementation. If so, the horrors of the past will be avoided.
      Mr. Mullin: Does the Solicitor-General agree that, far from reducing the burden on the Crown Prosecution Service, the Bill will increase it, because the CPS will have to make a judgment about each separate item? Alternatively, will not the CPS leave the responsibility to the police because, as he knows, the CPS is seriously overstretched?
      7.45 pm
      The Solicitor-General: Such complaints are made by people who do not have sufficient first-hand experience of the system. One of the problems of the present system is that far too much material—indeed, virtually the bulk of the prosecution material as defined by the broad test of the Keane case—is revealed by the police, first to the prosecution and then by the prosecution to the defence, irrespective of what the defence case is. That must be stopped. We must introduce into our law a test that is focused on the revelation and dissemination to the prosecution and the defence of material that is necessary in the interests of justice. At the moment, virtually
      380
      everything that the police find must be copied and disgorged through the system to the prosecution and the defence.
      Amendment No. 30 proposes a test of relevance, which includes everything that might have a bearing on the case. That is very different from whether it has a bearing on the defence, and that is what the accused relies upon in court. The affect of the current test is that the police often have to photocopy and deliver large volumes of material to the accused, much of which is unnecessary and completely irrelevant to the defence. It places upon the police, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, a completely disproportionate burden.
      A test as wide ranging as "relevance" does nothing to narrow the issues in dispute in the case. One of the objectives achieved by the legislation is not only to reduce the volume and nature of the material that goes down the pipeline from the prosecution to the defence, but to put in place a system that will enable the issues in the case to be identified before the trial begins. Our present system is sorely defective, in that it does not achieve that. All too often, we go into cases not knowing what the issues are, and we sometimes sit for weeks before the issues emerge. That must not be allowed to continue.
      Amendment No. 72 would replace the word "undermine" with the phrase "cast serious doubt on". I do not accept that the word "undermine" is unduly weighty. It is designed to ensure that the prosecutor discloses at the first stage material that, generally speaking, has an adverse effect on the strength of the prosecution case. I urge those who say that that is an unduly narrow test to hold on because the machine does not stop there. The next stage is for the defence to put its case and then secondary prosecution disclosure takes place.
      The second reason why I invite the House to reject amendment No. 72 is that it would not materially benefit the accused. It may create difficulties of its own by requiring the prosecutor to consider whether material casts doubt on the prosecution or serious doubt. There would be word pinching about whether it was a doubt or, as the amendment requires, a "serious doubt".
      Amendments Nos. 32 and 72—a similar amendment was tabled in Committee—would introduce an objective test. They would give rise to the risk of judicial review of many thousands of cases in the magistrates court where, under our new regime, for the first time, there would be disclosure. There would be a risk of judicial review along the lines that existed for a period on the grounds of abuse of process based on delay. We do not want to return to that.
      Mr. Michael: I am concerned at what the Solicitor-General is saying. First, the meaning that he places on the word "undermine" is far too slack. It means material that would do far more than merely have an adverse effect on the prosecution case, and therefore it is an onerous test. The test that we suggest involves material that would cast "serious doubt". I am not satisfied with his explanation. That would lead us to press amendment No. 72 to a vote. I invite him to explain why more legal challenges would be likely on our suggested wording than on his word, "undermine". Surely that word opens up far more avenues for argument than does our suggested formulation.
      The Solicitor-General: The elimination of the words "in the prosecutor's opinion" and the substitution of that

      381
      subjective test by an objective one would lead to judicial review of many thousands of cases in the magistrates court.
      Mr. Michael: With respect, I was talking about amendment No. 72. It was on that narrow point that I was asking for a response.
      The Solicitor-General: The original White Paper, on which we consulted widely, had the word "undermine" in it. There was no dissent from that. When the Bill was introduced in the other place, the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, gave it his blessing. We have considered time and time again the representations that we have had not only from the Opposition but from the Criminal Bar Association, the Bar Council and the Law Society and concluded that the present test is the correct one.
      Amendments Nos. 31, 33 and 34 are not necessary. The code of practice provides that material that is relevant to the investigation must be recorded and retained by the investigator and revealed to the prosecutor, who will receive a schedule of sensitive material and a schedule of non-sensitive material. The description of each item on the schedule should make clear the nature of the item and contain sufficient detail to enable the prosecutor to form a judgment on whether it should be disclosed. Furthermore, clause 4 provides that the prosecutor must give the accused the schedule of non-sensitive material at the time of primary prosecution disclosure.
      Similarly, amendment No. 34, which widens the definition of prosecution material in clause 7, is unnecessary because clause 8 provides that if the accused has reason to believe that the prosecutor has material that has not been disclosed and that might reasonably be expected to assist his defence, which he has disclosed, he may apply to the court for an order requiring the prosecutor to disclose such material. It is perfectly open for the defence in those circumstances to apply to the court for disclosure of the material that the prosecutor has not himself inspected but which is referred to on the schedule. That should allay the fear of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South that the defence will not be put in a position to put forward its best defence. We are confident that this regime, considered in full, will achieve the essential objective of doing justice in all cases. I therefore invite the House to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Mullin: I want to address one point made by the Solicitor-General. He said that he suspected that the fears were on the part of people who were stuck in the past and who do not have too much experience. I will own up to not having much experience of the conduct of criminal cases, although some of those in which I have had an interest were large and complex. My points about the extra burden that would be placed on the prosecutor were made not by me, but in a paper by the Criminal Bar Association. The signatures on the bottom are those of Mr.Roy Amlot, QC; Mr. John Nutting, QC; Mr. Stephen Kramer, QC; Mr. David Perry; and Mr. Jeremy Dein, on behalf of the Criminal Bar Association. Those gentlemen have quite a lot of experience of the criminal justice process. I cannot stress too strongly that it is their opinion, not mine.
      382
      I take a more robust view than my Front-Bench colleagues, but I recognise that their amendments are an improvement on what is in the Bill. So, with some reluctance, I withdraw my amendment in favour of those of my hon. Friends.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed: No. 72, in page 2, line 35, leave out 'undermine' and insert 'cast serious doubt on'.— [Mr. Michael.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:
      The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 200.

      Division No. 145]

      [7.57 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Heppell, John

      Ainger, Nick

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Allen, Graham

      Hinchliffe, David

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Hoey, Kate

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Ashton, Joe

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Austin-Walker, John

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Hutton, John

      Barnes, Harry

      Illsley, Eric

      Bayley, Hugh

      Ingram, Adam

      Bell, Stuart

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Jamieson, David

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

      Benton, Joe

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Berry, Roger

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Betts, Clive

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Burden, Richard

      Keen, Alan

      Byers, Stephen

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Khabra, Piara S

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Canavan, Dennis

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      McAllion, John

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      McCartney, Ian

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Macdonald, Calum

      Connarty, Michael

      McKelvey, William

      Corston, Jean

      Maclennan, Robert

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Madden, Max

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Mahon, Alice

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

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Denham, John

      Maxton, John

      Dewar, Donald

      Michael, Alun

      Dixon, Don

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Eastham, Ken

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Etherington, Bill

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Fatchett, Derek

      Mudie, George

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Mullin, Chris

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Murphy, Paul

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Fraser, John

      O'Hara, Edward

      Fyfe, Maria

      Olner, Bill

      Gapes, Mike

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      George, Bruce

      Pearson, Ian

      Gerrard, Neil

      Pike, Peter L

      Godsiff, Roger

      Pope, Greg

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Grocott, Bruce

      Reid, Dr John

      Hain, Peter

      Rogers, Allan

      Harvey, Nick

      Rooker, Jeff

      Henderson, Doug

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      383

      Rowlands, Ted

      Tyler, Paul

      Simpson, Alan

      Vaz, Keith

      Skinner, Dennis

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wallace, James

      Spellar, John

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Stevenson, George

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Strang,Dr. Gavin

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Wilson, Brian

      Straw, Jack

      Winnick, David

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wise, Audrey

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Worthington, Tony

      Tipping, Paddy

      Touhig, Don

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Trickett, Jon

      Mr. Eric Clarke and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

      Turner, Dennis

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Forman, Nigel

      Alexander, Richard

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Forth, Eric

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Amess, David

      French, Douglas

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Gale, Roger

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Garnier, Edward

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Gill, Christopher

      Bates, Michael

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Batiste, Spencer

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Beggs, Roy

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bellingham, Henry

      Gorst, Sir John

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Boswell, Tim

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

      Bowis, John

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Brazier, Julian

      Hannam, Sir John

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

      Haselhurst, Sir Alan

      Burt, Alistair

      Hawkins, Nick

      Butterfill, John

      Hawksley, Warren

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Heald, Oliver

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hendry, Charles

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Cash, William

      Horam, John

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Clappison, James

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Congdon, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Conway, Derek

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jessel, Toby

      Couchman, James

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Cran, James

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Key, Robert

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Knapman, Roger

      Devlin, Tim

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knox, Sir David

      Dover, Den

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Duncan, Alan

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Dykes, Hugh

      Legg, Barry

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Leigh, Edward

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

      Evennett, David

      Lidington, David

      Faber, David

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Fabricant, Michael

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      MacKay, Andrew

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Fishburn, Dudley

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      384

      Madel, Sir David

      Sims, Roger

      Maginnis, Ken

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Malone, Gerald

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Mans, Keith

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Marland, Paul

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      Merchant, Piers

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Sproat, Iain

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

      Stephen, Michael

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Stern, Michael

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Stewart, Allan

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Streeter, Gary

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Sweeney, Walter

      Norris, Steve

      Sykes, John

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Ottaway, Richard

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Page, Richard

      Thomason, Roy

      Paice, James

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Tracey, Richard

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Trotter, Neville

      Pawsey, James

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Pickles, Eric

      Viggers, Peter

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Rathbone, Tim

      Watts, John

      Riddick, Graham

      Wells, Bowen

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Whittingdale, John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Willetts, David

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Wilshire, David

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Sackville, Tom

      Wood, Timothy

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

      Dr. Liam Fox and Mr. Simon Burns.

      Shersby, Sir Michael

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 7
      SECONDARY DISCLOSURE BY PROSECUTOR
      Amendment made: No. 10, in page 5, line 15, leave out 'to the prosecutor'.—[Mr. Maclean.]
    Clause 8
      APPLICATION BY ACCUSED FOR DISCLOSURE
      Amendment made:No. 11, in page 5, line 45, leave out 'to the prosecutor'.—[Mr. Maclean.]
    Clause 9
      CONTINUING DUTY OF PROSECUTOR TO DISCLOSE
      Amendment made: No. 12, in page 6, line 46, leave out 'to the prosecutor'.—[Mr. Maclean.]
    Clause 11

      FAULTS IN DISCLOSURE BY ACCUSED
      Amendments made: No. 13, in page 7, line 37, leave out 'that section' and insert 'section 5'.
      No. 14, in page 7, line 40, leave out 'that section' and insert 'section 5'.
      No. 15, in page 7, line 43, leave out 'that section' and insert 'section 5'.
      No. 16, in page 8, line 2, leave out 'that section' and insert 'section 5'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 22

      CODE OF PRACTICE
      Amendment made: No. 18, in page 15, line 1, at end insert—
      '(aa) that where a criminal investigation is conducted all reasonable steps are taken for the purposes of the investigation and, in particular, all reasonable lines of inquiry are pursued;'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 43

      REINSTATEMENT OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS
      Amendment made: No. 35, in page 27, line 24, leave out from '(repeals)' to end of line 25 and insert
      'the entries relating to the following (which concern committal, transfer and other matters) shall be omitted—

      (a) sections 13(3) and 49(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1925;

      (b) section 1 of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965;

      (c) section 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and in section 36(1) of that Act the definition of "committal proceedings";

      (d) in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 the words from "section 13(3)" to "but";

      (e) in section 46(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 the words "Section 102 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and", "which respectively allow", "committal proceedings and in other", "and section 106 of the said Act of 1980", "which punish the making of, "102 or" and ", as the case may be", and section 46(2) of that Act;

      (f) in section 32(1)(b) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act1973 the words "tried or";

      (g) in Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978, paragraph (a) of the definition of "Committed for trial";

      (h) in section 97(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 the words from "at an inquiry" to "be) or", sections 102, 103, 105, 106 and 145(l)(e) of that Act, in section 150(1) of that Act the definition of "committal proceedings", and paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 to that Act;

      (i) in section 2(2)(g) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 the words "or committed for trial";

      (j) in section 1(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 the words "trial or";

      (k) paragraphs 10 and 11 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 1987;

      (1) in section 20(4)(a) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 the words "trial or", and section 20(4)(bb) and (5) of that Act;

      (m) in section 1(4) of the War Crimes Act 1991 the words "England, Wales or", and Part I of the Schedule to that Act.'—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 45
      COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS
      Amendment made: No. 36, in page 28, line 23, after 'proceedings' insert 'and related matters'.— [Mr. Maclean.]
    Clause 63

      SUMMONS TO WITNESS TO ATTEND CROWN COURT
      Amendments made: No. 1, in page 40, line 32, leave out 'sections'.
      No. 2, in page 40, line 33, at end insert—
      '"Issue of witness summons on application'.
      No. 3, in page 40, line 34, leave out
      'Summons to witness to attend Crown Court'
      and insert
      'Issue of witness summons on application to Crown Court'.
      No. 4, in page 41, line 5, after 'issued' insert 'under this section'.
      No. 5, in page 41, line 6, leave out
      'by a party to the case'.
      No. 6, in page 41, line 26, at end insert—
      '(aa) may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require an application to be made by a party to the case;'.
      No. 7, in page 41, line 37, after 'hearing' insert
      'of the application for the witness summons'.
      No. 8, in page 42, line 13, after 'summons' insert
      'which is issued under section 2 above and'.
      No. 9, in page 43, line 45, at end insert—
      'Issue of witness summons of court's own motion
      Issue of witness summons of Crown Court's own motion
      2D. For the purpose of any criminal proceedings before it, the Crown Court may of its own motion issue a summons (a witness summons) directed to a person and requiring him to—

      (a) attend before the court at the time and place stated in the summons, and

      (b) give evidence, or produce any document or thing specified in the summons.

      Application to make summons ineffective
      2E.—(1) If a witness summons issued under section 2D above is directed to a person who—

      (a) applies to the Crown Court, and

      (b) satisfies the court that he cannot give any evidence likely to be material evidence or, as the case may be, produce any document or thing likely to be material evidence,

      the court may direct that the summons shall be of no effect.
      (2) The Crown Court may refuse to make a direction under this section if any requirement relating to the application under this section is not fulfilled.
      (3) An application under this section must be made in accordance with Crown Court rules; and different provision may be made for different cases or descriptions of case.
      (4) Crown Court rules may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require that where—

      (a) a person applying under this section can produce a particular document or thing, but

      (b) he seeks to satisfy the court that the document or thing is not likely to be material evidence,

      he must arrange for the document or thing to be available at the hearing of the application.
      Other provisions'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 74

      EXTENT
      Amendment made: No. 19, in page 48, line 29, leave out 'section' and insert
      'sections 43, 45, (Abolition of witness orders), (Witness summons: securing attendance of witness), (Use of written statements and depositions at trial) and'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

  New Schedule
    STATEMENTS AND DEPOSITIONS

      Statements
      1.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if—

      (a) a written statement has been admitted in evidence in proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices,

      (b) in those proceedings a person has been committed for trial,

      (c) for the purposes of section 5A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 the statement complied with section 5B of that Act prior to the committal for trial,

      (d) the statement purports to be signed by a justice of the peace, and

      (e) sub-paragraph (3) does not prevent sub-paragraph (2) applying.

      (2) Where this sub-paragraph applies the statement may without further proof be read as evidence on the trial of the accused, whether for the offence for which he was committed for trial or for any other offence arising out of the same transaction or set of circumstances.
      (3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply if—

      (a) it is proved that the statement was not signed by the justice by whom it purports to have been signed,

      (b) the court of trial at its discretion orders that subparagraph (2) shall not apply, or

      (c) a party to the proceedings objects to sub-paragraph (2) applying.

      (4) If a party to the proceedings objects to sub-paragraph (2) applying the court of trial may order that the objection shall have no effect if the court considers it to be in the interests of justice so to order.

      Depositions
      2.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if—

      (a) in pursuance of section 97A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (summons or warrant to have evidence taken as a deposition etc.) a person has had his evidence taken as a deposition for the purposes of proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices,

      (b) the deposition has been admitted in evidence in those proceedings,

      (c) in those proceedings a person has been committed for trial,

      (d) for the purposes of section 5A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 the deposition complied with section 5C of that Act prior to the committal for trial,

      (e) the deposition purports to be signed by the justice before whom it purports to have been taken, and

      (f) sub-paragraph (3) does not prevent sub-paragraph (2) applying.

      (2) Where this sub-paragraph applies the deposition may without further proof be read as evidence on the trial of the accused, whether for the offence for which he was committed for trial or for any other offence arising out of the same transaction or set of circumstances.
      (3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply if—

      (a) it is proved that the deposition was not signed by the justice by whom it purports to have been signed,

      (b) the court of trial at its discretion orders that subparagraph (2) shall not apply, or

      (c) a party to the proceedings objects to sub-paragraph (2) applying.

      (4) If a party to the proceedings objects to sub-paragraph (2) applying the court of trial may order that the objection shall have no effect if the court considers it to be in the interests of justice so to order.

      Signatures
      3.—(1) A justice who signs a certificate authenticating one or more relevant statements or depositions shall be treated for the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2 as signing the statement or deposition or (as the case may be) each of them.
      (2) For this purpose—

      (a) a relevant statement is a written statement made by a person for the purposes of proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices;

      (b) a relevant deposition is a deposition made in pursuance of section 97A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 for the purposes of such proceedings.

      Time limit for objection
      4. Without prejudice to section 84 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (rules of court) the power to make rules under that section includes power to make provision—

      (a) requiring an objection under paragraph l(3)(c) or 2(3)(c) to be made within a period prescribed in the rules;

      (b) allowing the court of trial at its discretion to permit such an objection to be made outside any such period.

      Retrial
      5. In Schedule 2 to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (procedural and other provisions applicable on order for retrial) in paragraph 1 for the words from "section 13(3)" to "before the original trial" there shall be substituted "paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule (Statements and depositions) to the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (use of written statements and depositions) shall not apply to any written statement or deposition read as evidence at the original trial".

      Repeals
      6.—(1) Section 13(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 (which relates to depositions taken before examining justices and is superseded by paragraph 2 above) shall be omitted.
      (2) Section 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (which is superseded by paragraph 3 above) shall be omitted.

      Commencement
      7. This Schedule shall have effect in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order.'—[Mr. Maclean.] Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
    Schedule 1

      COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS
      Amendments made: No. 38, in page 49, line 30, at end insert—
      '(dd) statements complying with section 5D below.'
      No. 39, in page 49, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 50 and insert—
      '(e) documents falling within section 5E below.'
      No. 40, in page 50, line 48, at end insert—
      '(6) In this section "document" means anything in which information of any description is recorded.'
      No. 41, in page 51, line 15, at end insert—
      '(4) So much of any deposition as is admitted in evidence by virtue of this section shall, unless the court commits the accused for trial by virtue of section 6(2) below or the court otherwise directs, be read aloud at the hearing; and where the court so directs an account shall be given orally of so much of any deposition as is not read aloud.
      (5) Any document or other object referred to as an exhibit and identified in a deposition admitted in evidence by virtue of this section shall be treated as if it had been produced as an exhibit and identified in court by the person whose evidence is taken as the deposition.
      (6) In this section "document" means anything in which information of any description is recorded.'
      No. 42, in page 51, line 15, at end insert—

      'Statements
      5D.—(1) For the purposes of section 5A above a statement complies with this section if the conditions falling within subsections (2) to (4) below are met.
      (2) The condition falling within this subsection is that, before the committal proceedings begin, the prosecutor notifies the magistrates' court and each of the other parties to the proceedings that he believes—

      (a) that the statement might by virtue of section 23 or 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (statements in certain documents) be admissible as evidence if the case came to trial, and

      (b) that the statement would not be admissible as evidence otherwise than by virtue of section 23 or 24 of that Act if the case came to trial.

      (3) The condition falling within this subsection is that—

      (a) the prosecutor's belief is based on information available to him at the time he makes the notification,

      (b) he has reasonable grounds for his belief, and

      (c) he gives the reasons for his belief when he makes the notification.

      (4) The condition falling within this subsection is that when the court or a party is notified as mentioned in subsection (2) above a copy of the statement is given, by or on behalf of the prosecutor, to the court or the party concerned.
      (5) So much of any statement as is in writing and is admitted in evidence by virtue of this section shall, unless the court commits the accused for trial by virtue of section 6(2) below or the court otherwise directs, be read aloud at the hearing; and where the court so directs an account shall be given orally of so much of any statement as is not read aloud.'
      No. 43, in page 51, line 15, at end insert—

      'Other documents
      5E.—(1) The following documents fall within this section—

      (a) any document which by virtue of any enactment is evidence in proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices;

      (b) any document which by virtue of any enactment is admissible, or may be used, or is to be admitted or received, in or as evidence in such proceedings;

      (c) any document which by virtue of any enactment may be considered in such proceedings;

      (d) any document whose production constitutes proof in such proceedings by virtue of any enactment;

      (e) any document by the production of which evidence may be given in such proceedings by virtue of any enactment.

      (2) In subsection (1) above—

      (a) references to evidence include references to prima facie evidence;

      (b) references to any enactment include references to any provision of this Act.

      (3) So much of any document as is admitted in evidence by virtue of this section shall, unless the court commits the accused for trial by virtue of section 6(2) below or the court otherwise directs, be read aloud at the hearing; and where the court so directs an account shall be given orally of so much of any document as is not read aloud.
      (4) In this section "document" means anything in which information of any description is recorded.'
      No. 44, in page 51, line 15, at end insert—

      'Proof by production of copy
      5F.—(1) Where a statement, deposition or document is admissible in evidence by virtue of section 5B, 5C, 5D or 5E above it may be proved by the production of—

      (a) the statement, deposition or document, or

      (b) a copy of it or the material part of it.

      (2) Subsection (l)(b) above applies whether or not the statement, deposition or document is still in existence.
      (3) It is immaterial for the purposes of this section how many removes there are between a copy and the original.
      (4) In this section "copy", in relation to a statement, deposition or document, means anything onto which information recorded in the statement, deposition or document has been copied, by whatever means and whether directly or indirectly.'
      No. 45, in page 51, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 42.
      No. 46, in page 52, line 22, leave out first 'the' and insert 'a'.
      No. 47, in page 52, line 33, leave out 'Isles' and insert 'Islands'.
      No. 48, in page 52, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 38.
      No. 49, in page 52, line 53, at end insert—
      '(6A) Where—

      (a) a summons is issued under subsection (2) above or a warrant is issued under subsection (3) or (6) above, and

      (b) the summons or warrant is issued with a view to securing that a person has his evidence taken as a deposition,

      the time appointed in the summons or specified in the warrant shall be such as to enable the evidence to be taken as a deposition before a magistrates' court begins to inquire into the offence concerned as examining justices.'
      No. 50, in page 53, line 39, after 'for' insert
      '"tendered" there shall be substituted "admitted" and for'.
      No. 51, in page 53, line 40, leave out from 'Schedule 3' to end of line 41 and insert
      'the following shall be substituted for paragraph 2(a) (representative may make statement on behalf of corporation before examining justices)—
      "(a) make before examining justices such representations as could be made by an accused who is not a corporation;".'
      No. 52, in page 53, line 43, at end insert—

      'Criminal Law Amendment Act 1867
      14A. Sections 6 and 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1867 (statements taken under section 105 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980) shall be omitted.'
      No. 53, in page 54, line 37, leave out paragraph 22 and insert—
      '22.—(1) Section 46 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 (written statements made outside England and Wales) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (1) the following words shall be omitted—

      (a) "Section 102 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and";

      391

      (b) "which respectively allow";

      (c) "committal proceedings and in other";

      (d) "and section 106 of the said Act of 1980";

      (e) "which punish the making of;

      (f) "102 or";

      (g) ", as the case may be".

      (3) The following subsections shall be inserted after subsection
      (1)—
      "(1A) The following provisions, namely—

      (a) so much of section 5A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 as relates to written statements and to documents or other exhibits referred to in them,

      (b) section 5B of that Act, and

      (c) section 106 of that Act,

      shall apply where written statements are made in Scotland or Northern Ireland as well as where written statements are made in England and Wales.
      (1B) The following provisions, namely—

      (a) so much of section 5A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 as relates to written statements and to documents or other exhibits referred to in them, and

      (b) section 5B of that Act,

      shall (subject to subsection (1C) below) apply where written statements are made outside the United Kingdom.
      (1C) Where written statements are made outside the United Kingdom—

      (a) section 5B of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 shall apply with the omission of subsections (2)(b) and (3A);

      (b) paragraph 1 of Schedule (Statements and depositions) to the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (use of written statements at trial) shall not apply."

      (4) Subsection (2) shall be omitted.'
      No. 54, in page 55, line 13, at end insert—
      '23A. The following shall be inserted at the end of section 71 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (microfilm copies)—
      "Where the proceedings concerned are proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices this section shall have effect with the omission of the words "authenticated in such manner as the court may approve.'"
      No. 55, in page 55, line 33, leave out lines 33 to 37 and insert—
      ' "(5) This section shall not apply to proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices.'"
      No. 56, in page 55, line 40, leave out lines 40 to 43 and insert—
      ' "(5) This section shall not apply to proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices.'"
      No. 57, in page 55, line 43, at end insert—
      '28A. The following shall be inserted at the end of section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (statements in certain documents)—
      "This section shall not apply to proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices."
      28B. The following shall be inserted at the end of section 27 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (proof of statements contained in documents)—
      "This section shall not apply to proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices.'"—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Schedule 2

      FRAUD
      Amendment made: No. 17, in page 61, line 9, at end insert—
      '(aa) on or after the appointed day the accused is committed for trial for the offence,'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Schedule 3

      MODIFICATIONS FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
      Amendments made: No. 70, in page 62, line 22, at end insert—
      '5A. In section (Time limits: transitional) (1) for "the bill of indictment is preferred" substitute "the indictment is presented".'
      No. 20, in page 64, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 43 and insert—
      '(8) This section applies where a notice of transfer is given under Article 3 of the 1988 Order or Article 4 of the 1995 Order (as the case may be) on or after the appointed day".
      17A. In section (War crimes: abolition of transfer procedure) for subsections (1) and (2) substitute—
      "(1) Part II of the Schedule to the War Crimes Act 1991 and section 1 (4) of that Act so far as relating thereto (transfer procedure in Northern Ireland in cases of war crimes) shall cease to have effect.
      (2) In Article 29(2) of the Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (free legal aid in Crown Court) sub-paragraph (d) (which relates to a notice of transfer under Part II of the Schedule to the War Crimes Act 1991) shall cease to have effect." '.
      No. 21, in page 67, line 7, leave out
      'Summons to witness to attend Crown Court'
      and insert
      'Issue of witness summons on application to Crown Court'.
      No. 22, in page 67, line 22, after 'issued' insert 'under this section'.
      No. 23, in page 67, line 22, leave out
      'by a party to the case'.
      No. 24, in page 67, line 42, at end insert—
      '(aa) may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require an application to be made by a party to the case;'.
      No. 25, in page 67, line 52, after 'hearing' insert
      'of the application for the witness summons'.
      No. 26, in page 68, line 21, after 'summons' insert
      'which is issued under section 51A and'.
      No. 27, in page 69, line 39, at end insert—
      'Issue of witness summons of Crown Court's own motion
      5IDA. For the purpose of any criminal proceedings before it, the Crown Court may of its own motion issue a summons (a witness summons) directed to a person and requiring him to—

      (a) attend before the court at the time and place stated in the summons; and

      (b) give evidence or produce any document or thing specified in the summons.

      Application to make summons ineffective
      51DB.—(1) If a witness summons issued under section 51DA is directed to a person who—

      (a) applies to the Crown Court, and

      393

      (b) satisfies the court that he cannot give any evidence likely to be material evidence or, as the case may be, produce any document or thing likely to be material evidence,

      the court may direct that the summons shall be of no effect.
      (2) The Crown Court may refuse to make a direction under this section if any requirement relating to the application under this section is not fulfilled.
      (3) An application under this section must be made in accordance with Crown Court rules; and different provision may be made for different cases or descriptions of case.
      (4) Crown Court rules may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require that where—

      (a) a person applying under this section can produce a particular document or thing, but

      (b) he seeks to satisfy the court that the document or thing is not likely to be material evidence,

      he must arrange for the document or thing to be available at the hearing of the application.'
      No. 28, in page 70, line 46, at end insert—
      '26A. In section 64(1) for "section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967" substitute "section 1 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968" and for "subsection (3)(a)" substitute "subsection (4)(a)".'
      No. 29, in page 75, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 44 and insert—

      '1. WAR CRIMES

      Chapter or Number

      Short title

      Extent of repeal

      1981 NI 18

      The Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.

      In Article 29(2), sub-paragraph (d) and the word "or" immediately before it.

      1991 c.13

      The War Crimes Act1991.

      Section 1(4), so far as relating to Part II of the Schedule. Section 3(3). Part II of the Schedule.

      ' —[Mr. Maclean.]

    Schedule 4

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 58, in page 77, line 10, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 and insert—
      'In Schedule 11, the entries mentioned in note 1 below.'
      No. 59, in page 77, line 12, at end insert—
      '1. The entries in Schedule 11 to the 1994 Act are those relating to the following—

      (a) sections 13(3) and 49(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1925;

      (b) section 1 of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965;

      (c) section 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and in section 36(1) of that Act the definition of "committal proceedings";

      (d) in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 the words from "section 13(3)" to "but";

      (e) in section 46(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 the words "Section 102 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and", "which respectively allow", "committal proceedings and in other", "and section 106 of the said Act of 1980", "which punish the making of, "102 or" and ", as the case may be", and section 46(2) of that Act;

      394

      (f) in section 32(1)(b) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act
      1973 the words "tried or";

      (g) in Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978, paragraph (a) of the definition of "Committed for trial";

      (h) in section 97(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 the words from "at an inquiry" to "be) or", sections 102, 103, 105, 106 and 145(l)(e) of that Act, in section 150(1) of that Act the definition of "committal proceedings", and paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 to that Act;

      (i) in section 2(2)(g) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 the words "or committed for trial";

      (j) in section 1(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 the words "trial or";

      (k) paragraphs 10 and 11 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 1987;

      (l) in section 20(4)(a) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 the words "trial or", and section 20(4)(bb) and (5) of that Act;

      (m) in section 1(4) of the War Crimes Act 1991 the words "England, Wales or", and Part I of the Schedule to that Act.'

      No. 60, in page 77, line 13, leave out 'These repeals' and insert
      '2. The repeals under this paragraph (reinstatement of certain provisions)'.
      No. 61, in page 77, line 13, at end insert—

      '1A. WAR CRIMES

      Chapter

      Short title

      Extent of repeal

      1988 c.34.

      Legal Aid Act 1988.

      Section 20(4)(bb).

      1991 c.13.

      War Crimes Act 1991.

      In section 1(4) the words "England, Wales or". Section 3(2). Part I of the Schedule.'

      No. 62, in page 78, line 4, at end insert—

      '4A. WITNESS ORDERS

      Chapter

      Short title

      Extent of repeal

      1965 c.69.

      Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965.

      Section 1.In section 3(1) the words "witness order or".

      In section 4(1) the words "witness order or" and (where they next occur) "order or".

      In the proviso to section 4(1) the words from "in the case" (where they first occur) to "witness summons".

      In section 4(2) the words "a witness order or" and (where they next occur) "order or".

      1971 c.23.

      Courts Act 1971.

      In Schedule 8,paragraph 45(1).

      1980 c.43.

      Magistrates'Courts Act 1980

      Section 145(l)(e).

      These repeals have effect in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order under section (Abolition of witness orders) of this Act.'
      No. 63, in page 79. line 13, at end insert—

      '1867 c. 35.

      Criminal Law

      Section 6.

      Amendment Act 1867.

      Section 7.

      1972 c.71.

      Criminal Justice Act 1972.

      In section 46(1) the following words—

      "Section 102 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and";

      "which respectively allow";

      "committal proceedings and in other";

      "and section 106 of the said Act of 1980";

      "which punish the making of; "102 or";

      ", as the case may be". Section 46(2).'

      No. 64, in page 79, column 3, leave out lines 14 and 15.
      No. 65, in page 79, leave out line 25.
      No. 66, in page 79, line 25, column 3, at end insert—
      'In Schedule 7,paragraph 2.'
      No. 67, in page 79, line 30, column 3, at end insert—
      'In Schedule 15, paragraph 68.'
      No. 68, in page 79, line 32, at end insert—

      '8A. STATEMENTS AND DEPOSITIONS

      Chapter

      Short title

      Extent of repeal

      1925 c.86.

      Criminal Justice Act 1925.

      Section 13(3).

      1965 c.69.

      Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965.

      In Part I of Schedule 2, the entry relating to the Criminal Justice Act 1925.

      1967 c.80.

      Criminal Justice Act 1967.

      Section 7.

      1980 c.43.

      Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

      In Schedule 7, paragraph 63.

      These repeals have effect in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order under Schedule (Statements and depositions) to this Act.'—[Mr. Maclean.]
      Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third Time, and passed.

      DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).

      EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (TREATIES)
      That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (The Energy Charter Treaty) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 20th May, be approved.—[Mr. Burns.]
      Question agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).

      GUN BARREL PROVING
      That the draft Deregulation (Gun Barrel Proving) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 29th April, be approved.— [Mr. Burns.]
      Question agreed to.

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

      DRIVING LICENCES
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5414/96 relating to driving licences, and endorses the Government's proposed approach to negotiations on the proposal in the Council.—[Mr. Burns.]
      Question agreed to.

      273 Squadron (Badge)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
      8.11 pm
      Mr. Nigel Waterson: We have all heard about the forgotten army in Burma, a memorable phrase coined by the late Earl Mountbatten. The debate tonight is about the forgotten squadron—a group of brave men who have fought for more than 50 years ago to have their squadron properly recognised.
      No. 273 Fighter Squadron was originally formed during the first world war, and was disbanded at the end of hostilities. The squadron was reformed on 1 August 1939 in Ceylon, where it withstood the most ferocious Japanese attack. The squadron went on to be one of the most forward squadrons during the Burma campaign, as it was based just 260 miles south of Japanese lines. It was the first squadron into Rangoon and into Saigon. Its pilots flew sortie after sortie from airstrips cut from the jungle or from dried-up rice fields.
      Conditions were far from ideal, and 14 pilots were killed. Since the days of the last war, others have died from natural causes, but the spirit of 273 Squadron has lived on, in the survivors and in the families of those who have not survived.
      The campaign, spanning more than 50 years, has sought to give the squadron the recognition it so richly deserves by means of a squadron badge. I was wholly unaware of the history of 273 squadron until I received a letter from a constituent, Mr. Miles Bayly, known affectionately as Bill. He wrote to me on 6 March and told me that he had served as pilot in Burma with 273 Squadron, and also told me of the attempts to obtain a squadron badge since November 1944.
      As he put it:
      "many members of the squadron who came from the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are now all well into their seventies with the likelihood of a limited remaining life expectancy. Thus it would seem fitting and most appropriate if this question could be resolved now before they, and the squadron, sink into oblivion—'unwept, unhonoured and unsung'."
      I was touched by that appeal, and immediately raised the matter in correspondence with the Ministry of Defence. I asked for the debate tonight because the MOD is still putting forward what are, in my opinion, inadequate reasons for not honouring the squadron. To grant it its badge would be a relatively small thing for the Ministry, but it would mean so much for the survivors of 273 Squadron, their families and the families of those who did not survive.
      The squadron is, I am told, the only active service Fighter Command squadron that fought in any the theatre of war in the second world war, and suffered significant losses, and yet was not granted its own badge. You may ask, Madam Deputy Speaker, why that has presented a problem. Over the years, the MOD has put forward a number of different reasons or excuses.
      It is said by Ministers, and most recently by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Earl Howe, that badges are not approved for disbanded units. That can hardly be of any real relevance, because the original application for the 273 Squadron badge was
      398
      submitted from Ceylon in 1943. The request was received in Whitehall, after some delay, in November 1944, before the squadron was disbanded for the second time.
      I take the view, not unreasonably, that any delay after the application was made is a matter for the MOD, and not the fault of the squadron. After all, it was certainly not within its control when it was disbanded at the end of the war.
      The actual design for the badge comprises the ancient Asian fylfot or cross Gamadian on a castellated fess, symbolising peace and good will. Superimposed on that is the black widow spider, with the motto "Toujours Prêt". It is said that the cost of granting badges in such circumstances would be "prohibitive", apparently because each design submitted must be approved by the College of Arms and Her Majesty the Queen. I would like the Minister to tell us what sort of costs we are talking about. I cannot imagine that they come even close to outweighing the sacrifices made by those who did not survive—or, indeed, by those who did.
      Amazingly, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who wrote to me on 21 May, said that, apart from the cost of granting badges in such circumstances being "prohibitive", it
      "would immediately be non-effective".
      Well, that may be strictly true in terms of a squadron that no longer exists, but that is far from the case when one considers the feelings of those involved. A squadron does not cease to exist in the hearts of its men merely because it is disbanded. It is important to note that the squadron was disbanded once, and re-formed, and then disbanded a second time. Heaven forbid, there is always the possibility that it may be re-formed in the future.
      Another reason for not granting the badge that has been given in the past, and in the Under-Secretary's letter most recently, is that the design originally submitted by the unit incorporated a fylfot, which is synonymous with the swastika. While there may be some similarity between the fylfot and the swastika, the former, which in Asia symbolises peace and good will, is considerably older than the swastika, and was recognised, and in general use, thousands of years before it was hijacked by the Nazi party.
      It would indeed be the height of absurdity if that Royal Air Force squadron were to be denied its badge design of choice because of the modern pretensions of the Nazis, one of the very enemies against whom it was fighting. Be that as it may, it has been put to me that, if this still appears to be an insurmountable objection to the granting of the badge, the survivors are prepared to consider a change in design. I think that is only fair, and I hope that it will provoke a dialogue with the MOD and with the College of Arms.
      A further objection is that parts of the design and the motto have been incorporated into the badges of other units. I am told that there is no formal objection to the use of a motto more than once. Indeed, King George VI granted 617 Squadron the motto "Apres Moi Le Deluge", which was already in use. I have explained that the survivors are willing to consider a change in the design if it is thought appropriate.
      Incidentally, I have received a letter from another constituent, Mr. Reg Baldwin, who pointed out that, during the 1914–18 war, the British National War Savings Committee used an emblem very similar to the swastika.

      399
      Another reason that is put forward from time to time is that the granting of 273 Squadron's request would open the floodgates for other units. In addition, there is a rule that a squadron should exist for five years before and after receiving recognition of its badge. Only one other squadron has been mentioned as being in a similar position to 273 Squadron. I very much doubt whether there would be a queue of other units seeking recognition after all these years.
      I am told that there are a number of squadrons that did not come within the five-year rule, but they still received badges—including Squadrons 272, 274, 353, 617 and 684. For example, 177 Squadron existed for only two years and seven months, and it was granted a badge after it was disbanded. I have already made the point that 273 Squadron had no control over its disbanding, but that it certainly made its application for a badge before that date. Moreover, it can trace its history back to the great war.
      As if this were not enough, there is also a regulation saying that those who made conspicuous contributions are exempt from the normal requirements. I am afraid that I must part company with the Minister, who said in a letter to me:
      "The lack of a badge should not detract from the very great contribution made by those who served in 273 squadron."
      However, the letter fails to recognise that those who suffered the privations of the Burma campaign and who put their lives on the line on a daily basis feel that their recognition is incomplete without the badge being approved. It means that their badge cannot appear in the RAF church, St. Clement Danes, or in the RAF club in Piccadilly or in the RAF museum in Hendon. That is the issue here, and that is why I urge my hon. Friend to apply a fresh mind to it.
      I shall quote from a moving letter that I received from John Taylor MC, from Dorset, who had read of the efforts of 273 Squadron to obtain recognition. He wrote a letter to the editor of The Times and spoke about the involvement of the squadron in his activities when he was attached to the 5th Indian division near Rangoon. He talked about the Gurkhas being cut off on the banks of the Sittang river and about 273 Squadron coming on to the scene.
      He stated:
      "First, they bombed a machine gun post occupied by the Japs, which fired straight down the railway line for the Jap railway. Armed with 5001b bombs they dived in sequence, in spite of Jap efforts to discourage them. Finally, a lucky strike got a bomb to enter the post via an opening. Watching, I saw the roof lift about a foot. After that, the machine gun was silent"—
      adding, in a masterpiece of understatement—
      "and crossing the line from one side of our perimeter to the other became much easier."
      "Secondly, two nights later, the Japs had succeeded in getting 150 men and 75mm guns into caves on the cliff of the Sittang River … I counted 142 shells which landed in our area within half an hour. I took bearings of the gun flashes".
      The information was then passed on to 273 Squadron.
      He continued:
      "it was later reported that three or more of the guns had been knocked out by bombs."
      He concluded:
      "For these two actions 273 Squadron have surely earned the right to be treated in exactly the same way as all other Squadrons of the Royal Air Force, who were so helpful to us on the ground."
      400
      With respect, Mr. Taylor is in a far better position to judge the true contribution of 273 Squadron than any civil servant in Whitehall. The men of 273 Squadron risked their lives flying Spitfires in the heat of battle, alongside the forgotten army. Many paid the supreme sacrifice, and now—50 years later—there are only 90 survivors. They seek the recognition that they and their fallen comrades so richly deserve.
      8.15 pm
      The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on securing this important debate tonight, and I am delighted to have the opportunity to reply to it. My hon. Friend deserves great credit for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.
      Many hon. Members have made representations to my Department on this important matter. I pay a warm tribute to the efforts of my hon. Friend's constituent, Mr. Bill Bayly. I also pay a warm tribute to the dedication of Miss Jane Pelling, who has worked tirelessly with veterans and their dependants to enlist the support of hon. Members in bringing an important and interesting matter before the House.
      I have listened with great care and interest to the points made by my hon. Friend. I share with him—he knows that I mean this—the sentiments that he has expressed about the contribution that the men in 273 Squadron made to the heroic struggle in the far east. They were dark days, and we all owe an immense debt of gratitude to those gallant Royal Air Force men who fought so well against the Japanese. They performed a valuable service. I am reminded of the words of Field Marshal Lord Slim, who, in speaking of the RAF's part in victory, said:
      "I do not think that such devotion has been surpassed in any air force, and I doubt that it has been equalled."
      The 273 Squadron made a particularly noteworthy contribution, first in resolutely defending Ceylon, and then, once the tide had turned, in speeding the retreat of the enemy's forces by constantly harassing their ground positions. As my hon. Friend said, their efforts were not made without supreme sacrifice—and a number of valiant squadron members sadly lost their lives on other occasions during the campaign.
      I want hon. Members to understand how deeply I share in the wish of all those who are keen—rightly and admirably—to keep alive, green and fresh, the cherished memory of those fine young men of 273 Squadron and its significant contribution to winning the war in the far east. We should and do remember their efforts. We should do so as a tribute to those who sadly died. Succeeding generations should look back with pride and in wonder at the achievements of their forebears.
      I deeply wish that it need not have been necessary for my hon. Friend to bring this matter before the House today. I wish also that it could have been possible to accede to the request of Miss Pelling and fellow supporters of the 273 Squadron and to award a badge to the squadron. However, as the many hon. Members who have made representations to me are aware, the award of a badge results from a detailed process, to which are rightly attached long-standing rules that have been applied faithfully and consistently over the years for very good reasons.

      401
      Indeed, it is precisely the ancient traditions, rules and conventions of heraldry that make an officially approved badge so special—and they are the rules that prevent my Department from responding positively to this request.
      I therefore hope that the House will forgive me if I pause a moment to explain a little about the significance of squadron badges. I will also touch on the process by which those badges are awarded. That is important in understanding why my Department has been unable to agree to the award of a unit badge to No. 273 Squadron.
      The control of heraldry, and therefore of unit badges, squadron standards and the Queen's colours in the Royal Air Force, is entrusted to officers of the College of Arms, who are appointed by the sovereign for that purpose. The granting of new arms is the prerogative of the sovereign, as she is the Fountain of Honour. That prerogative is delegated by letters patent under the Great Seal to the Kings of Arms-Garter, Clarenceux, Norroy and Ulster in England and Northern Ireland, and Lyon in Scotland.
      My hon. Friends may be aware that heraldry first appeared in this country about the middle of the 12th century. Its object was twofold: on the one hand there was a need to identify one person from another in battle, when mediaeval armour completely covered the wearer and made him indistinguishable save by the banner, shield and surcoat of his arms; and on the other there was a requirement to identify him when conducting business. In a time when writing was not commonly practised, documents were "signed" by affixing to them the seals of their arms.
      Heraldic insignia consists of arms, crests and badges. Arms are borne on a shield, and crests on a helmet, corresponding to their original uses. Badges are a separate category. They are devices which stand alone, and were used—as they are today—to mark and to identify property. They are possibly the oldest form of heraldic insignia.
      Before the 18th century, Army regiments tended to be raised and supported by the officers who commanded them. The commanding officer thus placed his arms on colours and uniforms in order to signify his control of the unit. From that time on, however, a royal warrant laid down that no regiment might bear on its colours the arms or crest of its colonel, thereby asserting the prerogative of the Crown to raise armies.
      Regiments were henceforth the King's regiments, and therefore any badges borne on their colours must be royal badges or badges approved by the sovereign. That rule against displaying arms and crests of individuals and corporations has since been generally enforced. When badges were instituted for Royal Air Force units, a similar rule was laid down.
      Badges, not crests, are used by all three services. The various devices are heraldic in nature, and are controlled by heraldic officers—the newly appointed inspector of Royal Air Force badges is Garter, Principal King of Arms. Royal Air Force badges are designed to bear some allusion to the services or associations of the units to which they are assigned. All unique badges receive the approval of Her Majesty the Queen before they are issued and recorded.
      Badges are approved, I stress, as a means of displaying to the world the unit's pride in its service to the sovereign. Therefore, giving the badge a memorial significance—
      402
      while in many ways a wholly admirable sentiment—plays no part in its essential nature, which is simply as a unique unit identification. It is the standard of the fighting unit that is more appropriately identified as a memorial, bearing as it does the battle honours of the unit. My hon. Friend and I have been privileged to see many regimental and unit standards of the three services displayed with great reverence in churches and cathedrals throughout the length and breadth of this land.
      The procedures for obtaining a badge include a requirement that the unit should have been in existence for a least five years or, exceptionally, have made some conspicuous and meritorious contribution to the good name of the Royal Air Force—clearly No. 273 Squadron did that. It must have at least five years further service available to it. Furthermore, the design of the badge and motto must be in a form acceptable to the service chain of command who will recommend the design to the College of Arms for endorsement.
      The College of Arms must also be satisfied that the proposed design is unique and heraldically correct. In the case of Royal Air Force unit badges, the heraldic decision is made by the Inspector of Air Force Badges. Finally, if the criteria are met, the badge is submitted to the sovereign for Her Majesty's personal approval.
      I hope that that general explanation of the award of unit badges will help my hon. Friend to understand—as I know he does—the great difficulty that I have in responding positively to the request for a unit badge for No. 273 Squadron. A badge design was first submitted by 273 Squadron for approval in November 1944. That design, which we are told was being used by the squadron throughout the Burma campaign, was rejected by the Air Command South East Asia, by the Allied Air Commander-in-Chief, by the Air Ministry and by the College of Arms.
      As a consequence, the squadron was requested to submit an alternative design. It did so, but regretfully that also was rejected, as it duplicated both a design and a motto already in use. The squadron was accordingly invited to submit a further alternative design. In March 1946, on the instructions of the then Air Command South East Asia, no further action was taken on the resubmission of an alternative unit badge. Under the rules then current, such a resubmission on behalf of a disbanded unit would not have been allowed—neither, I should add, would such a submission be acceptable today.
      No. 273 Squadron is not alone in not having a unit badge. Indeed, there are some 80 former Royal Air Force flying squadrons for whom no badge was approved for a large number of reasons. Some, like 273 Squadron, were disbanded before a design could be agreed, and there were those who simply failed to apply.
      I know that, over the past 30 years, a number of requests for the award of a badge have been rejected. I know—and wholly appreciate—that those decisions have been met with great disappointment and sadness by those who have advocated the award of a badge for 273 Squadron. They rightly point out that, without a unit badge, there can be no representation of the squadron alongside the replica slate badges in the floor of the Royal Air Force church of St Clement Danes in the Strand, or at the Royal Air Force museum at Hendon.
      As I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate, I share fully in the sadness of those who regret that it is not possible for an official badge to be accepted. However, I am truly

      403
      at a loss to see how the House can be asked to change an event in history: put simply, the squadron was disbanded before a badge could be awarded. Nor am I able to seek the approval of Her Majesty the Queen regarding the award of a badge that is not required to identify equipment in the service of the Crown. That would amount to the reversal of a policy approved by previous sovereigns, which has stood the test of time over the past 200 years.
      That said, I believe that there are a number of steps that might assist those hon Members who believe, as I do, that the squadron deserves better recognition. I believe that there could be no more fitting memorial to that heroic squadron than if the group who have campaigned so splendidly were to form into an official squadron association. My hon. Friend may not know that Garter, King of Arms may, by letters patent, grant an heraldic insignia to squadron associations. In the absence of an official badge, that may enable the veterans of 273 Squadron to gain, in part, what they desire.
      Furthermore, it would potentially facilitate the provision of a permanent memorial to 273 Squadron. I am pleased to say that, following discussions that I have had via the relevant command, the trustees of St Clement Danes would be prepared in principle to give sympathetic consideration to a request from the supporters of 273 Squadron for a memorial of an approved design to take its place in the body of the church along with those of
      404
      other squadrons. My Department will of course be delighted to assist in bringing that to fruition if it is the wish of a newly formed squadron association.
      We all agree that we owe a huge debt to those who fought so valiantly, and who sacrificed so much, in order that subsequent generations should enjoy freedom. That debt can never be fully repaid. I hope that the House will understand and accept my explanations of why it has not been possible to accede to the request for the award of a unit badge to the disbanded 273 Squadron.
      I hope that my hon. Friends will agree that the lack of a badge in no way diminishes the fine record of 273 Squadron. The men of that squadron are neither unwept, unhonoured nor unsung. Nor does it deny the squadron its rightful place in history among all the other units which gave so much in the cause of freedom. As I have said, many other squadrons for one reason or another have, like 273 Squadron, not been awarded a unit badge.
      I hope that the House is encouraged by my remarks about the possibility of placing a memorial in St Clement Danes. I commend that course to those who have tonight brought the record of 273 Squadron so admirably to the attention of the House. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne on his measured, persuasive and elegant presentation tonight.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Nine o 'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Buckley Hall Prison
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number and types of incidents reported to the Prison Service since 1 March in relation to Buckley Hall prison. [30679]

  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 12 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 number and types of incidents reported to the Prison Service since 1 March in relation to Buckley Hall prison.
  The requested information is given in the following table:

  Number

  Assaults

  5

  Concerted indiscipline

  1

  Drugs

  12

  Escape

  1

  Fire

  5

  Miscellaneous

  1

  Recapture/surrender

  14

  Temporary release failure

  5

  Total

  44

  Prison Escapes
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are unlawfully at large having failed to return from authorised leave at each male category C prison. [30806]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 12 June 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners who are unlawfully at large having failed to return from authorised leave at each male category C prison.
  The information is not available in the form requested however, between 1 April 1995 and 31 March 1996, 271 prisoners failed to return to male category C prisons after being temporarily released on licence. In the same period, 1,458 prisoners who were unlawfully at large were recaptured or surrendered themselves.
  The figures are not directly comparable because those prisoners who were recaptured or who surrendered between 1 April 1995 and 31 March 1996 include those released during that period and before.
  150
  The 1,458 figure includes all prisoners who were unlawfully at large from any prison for any reason, including temporary release failures, absconds from open prisons and escapees.
  Also, recaptured prisoners sometimes use different names on return to custody and are often taken back into custody in a part of the country different from their destination when granted temporary release from prison.
  Following changes to the Prison Rules in April 1995, the new scheme for release on temporary licence introduced tighter controls including a stringent risk assessment. Since the introduction of the new scheme, the number of prisoners who have failed to return has fallen by 75 per cent. Since August 1995, the Prisoners (Return to Custody) Act makes it a criminal offence for any person to remain unlawfully at large following the expiry of the temporary release licence.
  The Act also gives the police increased powers to enter and search premises without a warrant in order to recapture those unlawfully at large. These provisions were designed to ensure that prisoners do not abuse the trust placed in them when granted a period of temporary release on licence.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department spent in recruiting staff to his Department and its executive agencies during the 1994–95 and 1995–96 financial years; and how many staff were recruited in each of these years. [31391]

  Mr. Howard
  Excluding the Prison Service and recruitment undertaken locally within the main Home Office, apart from the immigration and nationality directorate, the Home Office spent £824,829 in 1994–95 on the recruitment of 939 staff. In 1995–96, the Home Office spent £1,059,426 on the recruitment of 1,172 staff. These figures exclude staff costs. Figures for the Prison Service and recruitment undertaken locally within the main Home Office, apart from the immigration and nationality directorate, could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Fires
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was, for each fire authority in England and Wales the number of(a) fires and (b) injuries and fatalities sustained in fires on residential, holiday and touring caravan sites in the years 1990 to 1995 inclusive; [31857]

  (2) what was the number of (a) fires and (b) injuries and fatalities sustained in fires in each fire authority in Scotland on residential, holiday and touring caravan sites in the years 1990 to 1995. [31856]

  Mr. Sackville
  The readily available information for England and Wales and Scotland is given in the first table, with 1993 data for each fire authority given in the second table. Data for each separate fire authority for each year could be produced only at disproportionate cost. Data for 1994 and 1995 are not yet available.
  151

  Fires, deaths and injuries from fires starting in caravans on sites, attended by local authority fire brigades in England and Wales and Scotland, 1990 to 1993

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  Year

  Fires

  Deaths

  Injuries1

  Fires

  Deaths

  Injuries1

  1993

  511

  1

  28

  51

  0

  1

  1992

  600

  1

  43

  73

  0

  4

  1991

  722

  0

  36

  82

  0

  4

  1990

  883

  7

  60

  115

  0

  8

  1 Injuries are defined as those which required medical treatment beyond first aid at the scene of the fire.

  Fires, deaths and injuries from fires starting in caravans on sites, by fire brigade areas in England, Wales and Scotland, 1993

  Fire brigade area

  Fires

  Deaths

  Injuries1

  England and Wales

  511

  1

  28

  Avon

  10

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  7

  0

  0

  Berkshire

  3

  0

  2

  Buckinghamshire

  4

  0

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  5

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  9

  0

  0

  Cleveland

  2

  0

  0

  Cornwall

  8

  0

  0

  Cumbria

  5

  0

  0

  Derbyshire

  9

  0

  0

  Devon

  8

  0

  2

  Dorset

  5

  0

  0

  Durham

  8

  0

  0

  East Sussex

  4

  0

  0

  Essex

  15

  0

  1

  Gloucestershire

  9

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  7

  0

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  6

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  3

  0

  1

  Humberside

  15

  0

  1

  Isle of Wight

  1

  0

  0

  Kent

  19

  0

  1

  Lancashire

  19

  0

  2

  Leicestershire

  10

  0

  2

  Lincolnshire

  13

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  19

  0

  5

  North Yorkshire

  11

  0

  0

  Northampshire

  8

  0

  0

  Northumberland

  8

  0

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  14

  0

  0

  Oxfordshire

  4

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  2

  0

  0

  Somerset

  6

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  5

  0

  1

  Suffolk

  3

  0

  0

  Surrey

  2

  1

  0

  Warwickshire

  5

  0

  0

  West Sussex

  6

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  5

  0

  0

  Greater Manchester

  23

  0

  0

  Merseyside

  12

  0

  0

  South Yorkshire

  14

  0

  0

  Tyne and Wear

  20

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  25

  0

  1

  West Yorkshire

  26

  0

  2

  Greater London

  24

  0

  1

  Clwyd

  25

  0

  1

  Dyfed

  5

  0

  0

  Gwent

  4

  0

  0

  Gwynedd

  7

  0

  1

  Mid Glamorgan

  14

  0

  3

  South Glamorgan

  3

  0

  0

  West Glamorgan

  7

  0

  0

  Scotland

  51

  0

  1

  Strathclyde

  29

  0

  1

  Highlands and Islands

  4

  0

  0

  Grampian

  2

  0

  0

  Tayside

  3

  0

  0

  152

  Fires, deaths and injuries from fires starting in caravans on sites, by fire brigade areas in England, Wales and Scotland, 1993

  Fire brigade area

  Fires

  Deaths

  Injuries1

  Lothian and Borders

  7

  0

  0

  Fife

  4

  0

  0

  Central

  1

  0

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1

  0

  0

  1 Injuries are defined as those which required medical treatment beyond first aid at the scene of the fire.

  Source:

  Home Office.

  British Citizens
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many British citizens with right of abode in the United Kingdom are currently living in(a) the European Union, (b) Commonwealth countries, (c) the United States of America, (d) Switzerland and (e) the rest of the world outside the United Kingdom. [32027]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  There were 420,000 British citizens resident in other countries now in the European Union and 19,000 resident in Switzerland on 1 January 1993. Later data, and the other information requested, are not available.

  Constitutional Unit
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the creation of the new constitutional unit in his office and list its responsibilities. [32265]

  Mr. Howard
  The constitutional unit was set up as part of the reorganisation of the Home Office which followed its senior management review. It is responsible for advice on the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, elections, human rights and royal and constitutional issues.

TREASURY

  Census (Welsh Language)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure that the census in the year 2001 includes questions relating to the number of people in Wales who understand the Welsh language. [31307]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The census offices expect to include questions in the 2001 census in Wales on whether respondents understand, speak, read and write Welsh. This would provide additional information to the questions asked in the 1991 census which covered speaking, reading, and writing Welsh, but not understanding Welsh.
  153

  Self-assessment
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reports he has received of difficulties experienced by the Inland Revenue in respect of self-assessment income tax returns in the pilot areas operating this scheme. [31423]

  Mr. Jack
  A prototype of the self-assessment tax return has been used in a trial in Leicester involving 5,000 taxpayers. Results of that trial are currently being evaluated and a report will be published later in the year. I understand that this will suggest that the results are in line with Inland Revenue expectations of taxpayer behaviour. Feedback from the trial did inform the continuing consultation on the self-assessment tax return and a number of changes were made to the return as a result of live trial experiences.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the movement each month in 1996 of the pound against(a) the US dollar and (b) the German mark. [31931]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Figures for monthly averages in 1996 of sterling's exchange rate against the dollar and the deutschmark are as follows:

  £/$

  £/DM

  January 1996

  1.53

  2.24

  February 1996

  1.54

  2.25

  March 1996

  1.53

  2.26

  April 1996

  1.52

  2.28

  May 1996

  1.51

  2.32

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received regarding re-entry into the European exchange rate mechanism at existing parities with particular reference to the effect on exports; and if he will make a statement. [31933]

  Mrs. Knight
  None. The UK will not rejoin the European exchange rate mechanism during this Parliament, and there is no question of us ever rejoining a rigid, old-style exchange rate mechanism.

  Nationalised Industries
  Mr. Pawsey:
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total amount of public funds invested in the nationalised industries since 1966 in 1996 prices. [31926]

  Mr. Waldegrave:
  The total amount of capital expenditure by public corporations, which include the nationalised industries, from 1966–67 to 1994–95 was £358 billion at 1994–95 prices. Of that, £135 billion was financed by capital grants or net lending from the general government sector. No separate information on the nationalised industries is held for the earlier part of this period.
  154

  Civil Servants (Duties Abroad)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor the Exchequer how much his Department spent during the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96 on sending civil servants accompanying Ministers from his Department on official duties abroad. [32412]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Expenditure on travel and subsistence overseas in the two years is included in the published running costs.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the readiness of his Department's information technology projects for the start of income tax self-assessment in April 1997. [31782]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: The information technology system for self-assessment is being developed in the form of a number of related tranches. Their readiness to perform the task of delivering self-assessment will be assessed on a continuing basis as software testing is undertaken during the remainder of this year and the early part of 1987.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the likely cost overrun on the information technology projects associated with the move to income tax self-assessment; and if he will make a statement. [31791]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: The Inland Revenue is keeping costs to completion of the information technology projects under continuous review. These costs remain within budget.

  Insider Dealing
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to amend legislation in relation to the offence of insider dealing; and if he will make a statement. [32058]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 10 June 1996]: I have no proposals to amend part V of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. An order will be made shortly under section 64(2) of that Act to update the lists of regulated markets in the Insider Dealing (Securities and Regulated Markets) Order 1994.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which grant-maintained schools have hosted "Going GM" open days at the request of the Department; how many invitations have been issued to each; how many people have attended each; what has been the cost of each; and how many further such open days it is planned to hold. [28608]

  Mrs. Gillan
  GM schools "open days" have given head teachers and governors from local authority schools opportunities to see how GM schools are run and to discuss the implications of GM status with staff and governors. Since March 1994 the Department has supported 26 such open days, with a further six scheduled to take place this
  155
  term. We do not hold information on the number of invitations sent. An average of 14 delegates attend each of the days held so far. Costs vary, because schools make their own arrangements. The average cost so far, where a claim has been submitted, is some £430 for staff costs, including preparation for the day, and some £540 for other costs such as administered and catering. The average cost per head is some £70. We are reviewing the range of activities undertaken to provide information about the GM programme, taking account of the forthcoming White Paper on extending self-government for schools.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the criteria for the nomination and selection of members of training and enterprise councils; and if she will make a statement. [32477]

  Mr. Paice
  Training and enterprise councils are private companies. The appointment of directors to TEC boards is determined by the members of the company acting in accordance with the company's articles of association and the eligibility conditions set by the TEC's contract with Government. It is for each TEC to decide on its own membership in accordance with the TEC National Council's "Framework for the Local Accountability of TECs" which has as its first principle clarity and openness in the selection of well-qualified and trained board members.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Overseas Development Assistance
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the overseas development assistance budget is spent on projects and programmes which are primarily designed to meet the objective of the promotion of democracy and good governance. [32470]

  Mr. Hanley
  ODA bilateral assistance in 1994–95 totalled £1,120 million. Our policy information marker system covered £624.5 million, of which £164.3 million or 26 per cent. was spent on projects and programmes where good government was either a principal or significant objective. We are not able to disaggregate our multilateral contributions to identify expenditure on good government.

  Mrs. Kudirat Abiola
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about the likely motive for the murder of Chief Abiola's wife, Mrs. Kudirat Abiola, on 4 June. [32513]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have received no reports about the likely motive. We welcome the Nigerian Government's undertaking to investigate the circumstances of Mrs. Abiola's death promptly and to bring those responsible to justice.

ENVIRONMENT

  Recruitment
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much his Department spent in recruiting staff to his Department and its executive agencies during the 1994–95 and 1995–96 financial years; and how many staff were recruited in each of these years. [31393]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In 1994–95 and 1995–96 the number of permanent staff recruited to the central Department and executive agencies, and the cost of that recruitment was as follows:

  Year

  Numbers recruited

  Cost £000

  Central Department

  1994–95

  37

  216

  1995–96

  17

  51

  Executive agencies1

  1994–95

  82

  168

  1995–96

  129

  173

  HSE

  1994–95

  83

  266

  1995–96

  154

  145

  1 Excluding the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

  Women (Promotion)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures her Department has implemented during the last 12 months to encourage the promotion of women into senior positions with his Department and its executive agencies; and what progress her Department has made in encouraging the promotion of women over the last five years. [31543]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Specific action increasing opportunities for women over the last 12 months includes the issue of guidance to remind staff about the Department's policy on sexual harassment and their rights and responsibilities; detailed analysis of a new internal advertising scheme for job vacancies to ensure that it operates fairly; and the preparation of a leaflet on equal opportunities publicising the Department's policy. Items of particular relevance to women cover flexible working and coping with caring responsibilities; plans to reimburse additional expenses for the care of elderly and infirm dependents when the normal working routine is broken; and as a follow-up to a departmental review and staff attitude survey, a study is being undertaken to consider to what extent long hours working impacts on staff and how it might be reduced.

  Most of the above initiatives were taken under the Department's action plan for women published in 1993. Many others have been in place since then or earlier. They include:

  (a) a range of equal opportunities training for staff including senior management and women-only developmental training;

  (b) flexible and part-time working arrangements;

  (c) career breaks with a keeping in touch scheme;

  158

  (d) workplace nursery and holiday play scheme arrangements, and provision of reimbursement of additional child care costs incurred when normal working routines are broken;

  (e) raising awareness through membership of Business in the Community's Opportunity 2000 campaign and the Parents at Work organisation;

  (f) the appointment of equal opportunity liaison officers in each directorate to help promote equal opportunities in the workplace and reflect local needs;

  (g) ensuring that wherever possible a woman serves on promotion and selection panels and that these panels take account of equal opportunities issues;

  (h) monitoring success rate by gender applies to all stages of recruitment and promotion boards, annual performance and promotability markings, performance pay and bonuses, internal postings and part-time working. Any significant disparities between the success rates of men and women are investigated with a view to making improvements to procedures;

  Progress on all equal opportunities measures is reported to the Department's management board annually and the results of the continuous monitoring are made available to all staff. The percentage of women in the Department has increased from 34 per cent. in 1991 to 42 per cent. in April 1996. Currently, 23 per cent. of staff in the top three grades are women exceeding the existing civil service-wide benchmark of 15 per cent.

  Coal Industry (Accidents)
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with the Health and Safety Executive regarding the substantial increase in major accidents in the deep coal mining industry for 1995–96. [31930]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None. The mines inspectorate of HSE conducts an investigation into all major accidents in the coal industry.

  While there has been an increase in serious accidents, the overall trend in reported accidents, including fatalities, continues on a downward trend. Every effort must be made to reduce accidents further, but the UK deep coal mining industry remains one of the safest in the world.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to inquire into the management of safety in the deep coal mining industry following the increases in major accident figures in 1995–96. [31929]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None. I am satisfied that the mines inspectorate of HSE give proper priority to ensuring the effective management of safety in the deep coal mining industry.

  While there has been an increase in serious accidents, the overall trend in reported accidents, including fatalities, continues on a downward trend. Every effort must be made to reduce accidents further but the UK deep coal mining industry remains one of the safest in the world.

  Housing and Council Tax Benefits
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make the payment of housing benefit and council tax benefit in the areas of local authority work to be subject to compulsory competitive tendering. [31972]
  159
  Sir Paul Beresford
  Our proposals for changes to the framework for compulsory competitive tendering for professional services includes a proposal to raise the percentage of financial services work which must be exposed to competition from 35 per cent. to 65 per cent., and limit the availability of exemptions from CCT for authorities which cannot meet that requirement without exposing benefits work to competition. The legal definition of financial services work includes benefits work and relevant authorities may well choose to expose this work to competition in order to meet their competition requirements.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has in the event of private sector management of the payment of housing and council tax benefits to ensure(a) confidentiality of claimant information and (b) adequate training in the processing of claims. [31973]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Statutory guidance on the conduct of compulsory competitive tendering—DOE circular 5/96—advises that it is for local authorities to specify the work to be done and the standards which must be met. Within this framework, it is for relevant local authorities to ensure that the confidentiality of claimant information is properly protected and that staff who are processing claims have appropriate training.

  Further guidance in relation to housing and council tax benefit is contained within DSS circular HB/CTB A2/95.

  Private Sector
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment where the private sector has competed for public sector work in the last five years, what percentage of work it has won. [31974]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Latest available figures from the November 1995 survey by the Local Government Management Board show that the private sector held 25 per cent. of contracts, by value, tendered by local authorities under the Local Government Act 1988. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy figures for 1994–95 for work tendered under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 show the private sector holding 56 per cent. of contracts, by value.

  Voluntary Contracting Out
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has made to the conclusion of the report of the Business Services Association in respect of voluntary contracting out, a copy of which has been sent to him. [31975]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State agrees with the Business Services Association that many local authorities have failed to secure for their electorates and taxpayers the benefits of private sector provision of public sector services. Voluntary contracting out is one way of securing such benefits. It is pleasing to note that the director general of the Business Services Association has welcomed our proposals for changes to the framework for compulsory competitive tendering of professional services, which we announced on 21 May.
  160

  Asbestos
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tonnes of asbestos has been imported into the United Kingdom in each year since 1970. [32031]

  Mr. Clappison
  This information is not available in the required form. However, it is estimated that imports of asbestos peaked in 1973 at around 195,000 tonnes, and have since declined to around 11,000 tonnes per annum. Imports of blue and brown asbestos ceased in 1972 and 1980 respectively.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many prosecutions have been made since 1970 for breach of asbestos regulations. [32035]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Information is readily available only since 1 April 1986. The latest year for which information is available is 1994–95. The number of informations laid under asbestos regulations by inspectors in HSE's field operations directorate since 1 April 1986 is shown in the table:

  Regulations

  Informations laid from 1986/87 to 1994/95

  Asbestos Regulations 19691

  35

  Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983

  133

  Asbestos (Prohibitions) Regulations 19852

  nil

  Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987

  269

  Asbestos (Prohibitions) Regulations 1992

  nil

  1 Revoked from 1 March 1988

  2 Revoked from 1 January 1993.

  Details of proceedings taken by other enforcing authorities under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 are not readily available.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the research which he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the development of knowledge of the hazardous properties of asbestos. [32033]

  Mr. Clappison
  The hazardous properties of asbestos are well known and have been extensively researched by my Department. The results of that work and work commissioned by others are well documented in the scientific literature. Recently, the Department of the Environment has been researching the risks to health from exposure to asbestos in the non-workplace environment. The results of this research will be published early next year. Information on DOE's research programme is published biannually in "Research Report, DOE Science". In addition, the Helath and Safety Executive continues its programme of research into the hazards of asbestos and other fibrous materials in the workplace. Information on HSE's research programme is given in its publication "Mainstream Research Market 1996–97". HSE will also shortly publish a review of the toxicology of fibrous materials.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many approvals the Health and Safety Executive has withdrawn for respiratory protective equipment associated with asbestos work since January 1990. [32028]
  161
  Sir Paul Beresford
  None. However, since July 1995, new respiratory protective equipment has not required the Health and Safety Executive's approval.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money the Health and Safety Executive has spent on researching measures to prevent exposure to asbestos at the workplace for each year since 1986. [31989]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is not readily available in a disaggregated form. The Health and Safety Executive sponsors a wide-ranging programme of research to underpin its enforcement, technical standard-setting and policy work. Some of this addresses measures to prevent exposure to asbestos specifically, but other parts of it cover more general aspects of exposure control that nevertheless have an impact on controlling exposure to asbestos.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much asbestos is currently estimated to exist in United Kingdom buildings. [31991]

  Mr. Clappison
  This information is not available in the required form. However, the Department of the Environment has commissioned research to estimate the amount of asbestos in homes. The results of this research will be published early next year.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many notifications of asbestos work have been recorded by the Health and Safety Executive for each year since 1986. [31993]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Health and Safety Executive does not maintain a central record of notifications received by its area offices under the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987 or under the conditions of licences granted under the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983. However, a telephone survey of HSE area offices undertaken in December 1995 produced the following figures:

  Year

  Notifications received under the conditions of licences granted under the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983

  1992–93

  8,895

  1993–94

  7,954

  1994–95

  7,829

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tonnes of asbestos roof tiles were imported into the United Kingdom in each year since 1990. [32030]

  Mr. Clappison
  This information is not available in the required form. However, it is estimated that around 40 per cent. of the asbestos currently imported into the United Kingdom is used for producing asbestos cement, and this cement is largely used for roofing products and slates.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which asbestos products are currently used in building materials. [32034]
  162
  Mr. Clappison
  White asbestos may be used in building materials apart from those products specified in the schedule to the Asbestos (Prohibitions) Regulations 1992 (SI 3067). In practice, the main current use of asbestos is in asbestos cement roofing products and cladding. The use of blue and brown asbestos was banned in 1986 and this ban was extended to all other forms of amphibole asbestos in 1993.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been provided by the Health and Safety Executive for campaign work aimed at raising(a) employee and (b) public awareness of the dangers of asbestos for each year since 1990. [31990]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Health and Safety Executive's campaign on raising awareness of the risks from asbestos is aimed at both employees and employers, and so expenditure on campaigns aimed at employees only cannot be distinguished. The expenditure on publicity campaigns addressed to both employers and employees is shown in the table:

  Year

  Employers and employees £

  1990–91

  nil

  1991–92

  nil

  1992–93

  nil

  1993–94

  nil

  1994–95

  469,700

  1995–96

  2,000

  1996–97 (to date)

  5,500

  This does not include internal staff costs, such as action by HSE inspectors. Further expenditure on raising awareness of asbestos amongst employers and employees will be incurred this year during the second phase of HSE's campaign "Good Health is Good Business".

  The Health and Safety Executive is not responsible for raising public awareness of the dangers of asbestos, and has therefore incurred no expenditure in this respect. The Department of the Environment published a leaflet for the public on asbestos in housing in 1991 and is currently preparing a revised version of this guidance.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in what year(a) blue and (b) brown asbestos was prohibited from being used as a construction industry material. [32007]

  Mr. Clappison
  The marketing and use of blue and brown asbestos, and materials containing those minerals, was prohibited under the Asbestos (Prohibition) Regulations 1985 (SI 910) which came into force on 1 January 1986.

  Rents
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the annual average rent increase for (i) developing housing associations, (ii) council and (iii) private tenants since 1988. [32039]

  Mr. Clappison
  The available information is that council rents increased at an average annual rate of 10.7 per cent. per annum between April 1988 and April 1995, and private rents by an average of
  163
  15 per cent. per annum between 1988 and 1994–95. These increases make no allowance for changes in the mix of property quality and type over the period.

  The estimate for private tenants is from the family expenditure survey and, like all estimates from sample surveys, is subject to sampling variability.

  Information is not available centrally on rent increases by developing housing associations for periods prior to March 1993.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times the director general of the Health and Safety Executive has met members of the deregulation unit during(a) 1994, (b) 1995 and (c) 1996. [31988]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The current director general of the Health and Safety Executive, Miss Jenny Bacon, took up post in July 1995. Since then she has met members of the Cabinet Office deregulation unit—CODU—on two occasions. She has also been to two other meetings where members of CODU have been present. Information about meetings prior to this is not available.

  Respiatory Protective Equipment
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many research projects the Health and Safety Executive has funded in the past five years which analysed the effectiveness of respiratory protective equipment. [31992]

  Sir Paul Beresofrd
  Ten.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which respiratory protective equipment has been identified to give less protection than claimed by the manufacturer in research projects funded by the Health and Safety Executive in the last five years. [32008]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Research projects funded by the Health and Safety Executive in the last five years have examined the field performance of respiratory protective equipment, including full-facepiece powered respirators, compared with their performance in laboratory-based tests. The HSE is not aware that manufacturers claim that respiratory protective equipment will always meet in practice the standard of protection that can be achieved in laboratory tests, so it is not possible to say from the HSE's research which respirators given less protection than that claimed.

  The HSE has for some time advised users of respirators that they should not rely on laboratory-derived information alone when choosing appropriate respiratory protective equipment.

  Health and Safety Commission
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many consultation documents the Health and Safety Commission has published for public consultation in each year since 1988. [32029]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The figures requested are set out in the table:164

  Calendar year

  Number of Consultation documents

  1988

  8

  1989

  15

  1990

  8

  1991

  13

  1992

  13

  1993

  16

  1994

  13

  1995

  16

  1996

  10

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies his Department has undertaken to evaluate the comparative efficiency of tenant-managed housing associations. [31984]

  Mr. Clappison
  Ten case studies comparing tenant management organisations with locally matched social housing managed by local authorities and housing associations were carried out between 1991 and 1994. A report, "Tenants in Control: an evaluation of tenant led housing management organisations", was published last September. A copy is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on investments by housing associations in derivatives. [31985]

  Mr. Clappison
  Housing associations are allowed to use derivatives only in order to reduce risk and, in particular, the risk of interest rates fluctuating. Each derivative transaction must match a corresponding identified risk. Speculation is not permitted. Guidance on investment in derivatives by housing associations is set out in Housing Corporation circular 11/95.

  Working Times
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the circumstances in which a 12-hour working shift would be considered a risk to health and safety. [32032]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Employers are required to carry out assessments to identify the risks to the health and safety of their employees, including any which might result from working hours. There is no definitive list of circumstances where working 12 hours shifts might be considered a risk to health and safety, but employers might consider factors such as the nature of the work, its physical or mental demands, the level of concentration required and whether it is safety critical.

  Rents
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the annual average rent increase for non-developing housing association tenants in each year since 1988 in(a) cash and (b) real terms. [32040]

  Mr. Clappison
  This information is not held centrally.
  165

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what estimate he has made of the number of new black and minority ethnic construction firms or consultancies which(a) have been able to start up and (b) develop further, from the projects that have been funded in inner-city areas; [31962]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of black and minority ethnic construction firms or consultancies which the banks have assisted in (i) the last financial year and (ii) in the last five years; [31963]

  (3) how many black and minority ethnic construction firms or consultancies, as defined by the Commission of Racial Equality, are on the approved contractors list of local authorities in London. [31964]

  Mr. Clappison
  No data are available centrally to answer these questions.

  Mr. Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many black and minority ethnic construction firms or consultancies (i) are currently and (ii) are planned to be engaged in capital projects under(a) round 1 single regeneration budget challenge fund projects in London and (b) round 2 single regeneration budget challenge fund projects in London. [31965]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is not available. Partnerships are required in the grant offer letter not to discriminate unlawfully against any person on the grounds of sex or race.

  Mr. Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to ensure that black and minority ethnic businesses are able to compete successfully as part of the single regeneration budget challenge fund programme in London and the regions. [31966]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The SRB challenge fund bidding guidance clearly states that bids for funding must be supported by partnerships representing all those with a key interest, including ethnic minority communities. Challenge fund objectives also address the need to involve ethnic minorities; these include enhancing the employment prospects, education and skills of local people, particularly the young and those at a disadvantage, promoting equality of opportunity and promoting initiatives of benefit to ethnic minorities.

  Over a third of successful SRB challenge fund schemes in the first two bidding rounds are specifically targeted at ethnic minorities. In addition, over 60 per cent. of successful round 2 schemes will include outputs for which ethnic minorities are intended beneficiaries.

  Mr. Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are being taken to monitor the success of local authority equal opportunities policies, with particular reference to the awarding of contracts for capital projects under the single regeneration budget challenge fund programme in London and in the regions. [31967]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  No formal monitoring of equal opportunities policies is carried out. Local authorities are required to comply with the law relating to equal opportunities. In the specific case of the SRB challenge 166
  fund, all successful partnerships are made aware of the need to comply with this law in the grant offer letter and are directed to the codes of practice issued by the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission for further advice.

  Mr. Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the single regeneration budget—SRB—challenge fund(a) has been paid to and (b) is planned to be paid to black and minority ethnic construction firms or consultancies in (i) round 1 SRB challenge fund year by year in London and (ii) round 2 SRB challenge fund year by year in London. [31968]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is not available.

  Thamesmead Town Ltd.
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many properties have been sold to tenants of Thamesmead Town Ltd. who had the preserved right to buy. [32455]

  Mr. Clappison
  Thamesmead Town Ltd. has sold 860 residential properties and 11 garages to tenants who had the preserved right to buy.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many properties have been sold by Thamesmead Town Ltd. since the company took over from the London residuary body; and what was the figure for capital receipts for each year. [32456]

  Mr. Clappison
  The number of properties sold by Thamesmead Town since the company took over from the London residuary body is as follows:

  Number

  Residential land sales

  11

  Industrial land sales

  2

  Right to buy units sold

  860

  Garages sold

  12

  Equity share property sold

  1

  Void property sold

  1

  Capital receipts for each year were:

  1987–88: £2,878,000

  1988–89: £10,155,000

  1989–90: £5,350,000

  1990–91: £1,546,000

  1991–92: £876,000

  1992–93: £1,251,000

  1993–94: £3,165,000

  1994–95: £1,496,000

  1995–96: £768,000

  167
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what level of public subsidy Thamesmead Town Ltd. has received either in cash or reliefs, allowances or benefits in kind since its creation. [32457]

  Mr. Clappison
  Since its creation, Thamesmead Town Ltd. has received the following public subsidy:

  Urban Programme (received via the London Borough of Greenwich) (a) Additional pavements, Titmus avenue

  £

  Grant

  35,278

  Thamesmead Town

  11,760

  Total

  47,038

  (b) Play area, Hawksmoor youth club

  £

  Grant

  20,000

  Thamesmead town

  22,000

  Total

  42,000

  (c) Additional pavements in Bentham road were provided by the London borough of Greenwich, cost not available.

  Derelict Land Grant (received via the London borough of Greenwich) (a) Landscaping and removal of fly-tipping, East Thamesmead business park

  £

  Grant

  30,000

  Thamesmead town

  45,000

  Total

  75,000

  (b) Landscaping work and removal of fly-tipping, Eastern way verge in Birchmere park carried out on behalf of the London borough of Greenwich. Total cost £65,000.

  Urban Partnership Fund West Thamesmead business park improvements

  Source of funds

  £

  London borough of Greenwich

  40,000

  Thamesmead town

  95,000

  Business Park companies

  44,500

  Thames Water Utilities Ltd.

  15,000

  Sub-total

  194,500

  Urban Partnership Fund

  165,000

  Scheme total

  359,500

  Environmental improvements to Maran Way

  £

  Grant from Bexley London borough

  30,000

  Thamesmead Town

  45,000

  Total

  75,000

  168
  Thames Cycle Route
  Work carried out from Abbey sluice to Crossness sewage works on behalf of Bexley London borough and Sustrans. Total cost £32,500.

  Outside Toilets
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many residential properties(a) in England and (b) in the local authority area of Manchester and Trafford still depend on outside toilets. [32515]

  Mr. Clappison
  Figures for the number of residential properties with outside toilets are not available at local authority level. The census does, however, give figures for households. These will be slightly higher because a property can contain more than one household. The 1991 census found 78,640 households living in dwellings with no inside WC. Of these, 911 households lived in Manchester and 180 in Trafford.

  Merseyside Property Development Fund
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the Merseyside property development fund to commence operation; what are the main aims of the fund; and how much is being invested in the fund by each of its partners. [31824]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: The proposal for a Merseyside property development fund is being developed by English Partnerships in discussion with other objective 1 partners. The objective of the fund would be to encourage greater private sector investment in the Merseyside property market.

  The applicant is exploring appropriate structures and financing mechanisms. It is envisaged that there will be funding from EP, objective 1 European regional development fund, and the private sector. Due to the complex nature of the proposals, it is difficult to forecast when the fund will be operational.

TRANSPORT

  Port of Tyne Authority
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ask those who made written representations in respect of the proposed privatisation of the Port of Tyne authority if it has any objections to these being placed in the Library. [31311]

  Mr. Norris
  I understand that the Port of Tyne authority has already asked those who made representation whether they have any objection to the details being so deposited.

  Highway Improvement Schemes
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the cost evaluation techniques used by his Department for major highway on-line improvement schemes with particular reference to the range of costs associated with the maintenance of traffic flows; and what reliability tests are applied to these evaluations. [32037]
  169
  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Llew Smith, dated 12 June 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question concerning the cost evaluation techniques used for major on-line improvement schemes.
  The Agency uses similar economic evaluation techniques for all the schemes in the Road Programme whether they be a bypass on a new alignment or an on-line widening. This involves the assessment of all the capital and maintenance costs of the scheme and the benefits to road users in reduced congestion and accident savings over a 30 year period. All these costs and benefits are discounted to a common price base and present value year to give a Net Present Value for the scheme.
  Traffic forecasts for such a long period into the future are naturally subject to uncertainty because of the effects of factors such as the price of fuel and the future economic performance of the country (in terms of GDP) for which assumptions have to be made. The Department of Transport has, for some time, recognised this uncertainty and publishes "high growth" and "low growth" national traffic forecasts, representing the range of what is likely to happen. These forecasts are incorporated into the Department of Transport's COBA (Cost Benefit Analysis) computer program which is used to assess the day to day benefits in terms of time saving, fuel savings and accident reductions. The enclosed booklet "GETTING THE BEST ROADS FOR OUR MONEY" describes the basic principles.
  The cost of delays and accidents during construction and maintenance works over a 30 year period are assessed using the Department of Transport's QUADRO (Queues And Delays at Roadwork) computer program. This program assesses the cost of delays in terms of increased fuel cost, vehicle occupants' time and accidents. It can take account of different traffic management arrangements, e.g. number of lanes closed, length etc. including the availability of a suitable diversion route.
  All appraisals are scrutinised by Departmental or Agency staff as agreed by the Department.
  The parameters and values used in the computer programs are based on research and updated when necessary. The Highways Agency's Research Programme includes projects which have the objective of improving network safety and efficiency by reducing delay and accidents at roadworks. In the current financial year the following projects may produce benefits in this area:-

  Study of Accidents and Incidents at Roadwork

  This study will update the current information about the causes, types and frequencies of accidents and incidents at roadwork and may identify improvements to the techniques used.

  Merging Traffic at Roadwork

  This research will provide information about possible ways of improving the capacity at merge points resulting from lane closures.
  If this work produces information that could affect the calculations in QUADRO or COBA the results will be passed to the Department's Central Transport Group for incorporation into the computer programs.

  London Underground
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guarantees against the failure of the power supply to London Underground his Department has required, and from which parties, following the tendering exercise. [31977]

  Mr. Norris
  None. This is an operational matter and any such guarantees will be a matter for discussion in due course between London Underground and the preferred bidder for its Power PFI project.
  170
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if staff members' pensions will be restored to their original value in the event of a failure of a contractor to meet the standards required by London Transport in supplying electrical power to the underground and that contract being returned to London Underground; [31979]

  (2) if staff pensions will be preserved when transferred to companies bidding for the power supply to London Underground. [31978]

  Mr. Norris
  I understand that London Underground will require the chosen contractor under its Power PFI project to offer the staff who will transfer to him pension arrangements which are broadly comparable with the existing London Transport pension scheme. In the event that a contractor defaulted and the relevant staff transferred back to London Underground until a new contract could be let, it is likely that they would temporarily rejoin the LT pension scheme.

  Swedish Minelayer
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how the Marine Safety Agency determined the ownership of the former Swedish minelayer MUL 16. [32209]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Marine Safety Agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Rupert Allason, dated 12 June 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question about the ownership of the former Swedish minelayer MUL 16.

  The ownership of MUL 16 has not been determined by the Marine Safety Agency (MSA). In my letter to you of 16 February I explained that the Registrar General of Seamen and Shipping was awaiting a number of documents, including proof of ownership before proceeding with the registration of this vessel. The necessary information has not been obtained to enable the ownership of MUL 16 to be determined in accordance with the Merchant Shipping (Registration of Ships) Regulations 1993, as amended.

  Glasgow Vehicle Registration Office
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what basis the appeal board in the recent trawl for executive officers in the Glasgow vehicle registration office turned down candidates on appeal when those candidates had shown that the information given to the original sift panel was incorrect and produced additional information to support their applications. [32439]

  Mr. Norris
  The original sift board had already taken a balanced view of the inconsistencies that it had identified between certain comments on some of the trawl application forms and the wider evidence available to it for reviewing at least three years' annual staff reports and the attendance records of all applicants.

  The letter sent to unsuccessful candidates failed to make this clear. These should have explained that, given the high level of competition—15 candidates for two vacancies—only applicants with the strongest claim had been shortlisted for interview. Unfortunately, would-be appellants were instead led to believe that recent

  171
  comments of their line manager on their application forms had been paramount in deciding not to call them for interview.

  The appeals board considered appeals from eight applicants, but in all but one case there was no significant new information which the original sift board had not already taken into account. The original shortlist of applicants to be interviewed increased from five to six.

  Subsequently, at a meeting sought by officials of the Civil and Public Services Association on 3 June, the procedures of the sift and appeals board were explained to the satisfaction of those present. Exceptionally, it was agreed to increase the number of candidates to be interviewed for the two vacancies from six to eight, and a detailed letter of explanation was sent to the CPSA national official for distribution to his members at Glasgow vehicle registration office.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria were used by the sift panel in the recent trawl for executive officers in the Glasgow vehicle registration office. [32440]

  Mr. Norris
  The sift panel considered 15 applications for the two executive officer vacancies at Glasgow vehicle registration office. It reviewed the information on the trawl application forms against the evidence of the applicants' annual staff reports and attendance report to establish those whose skills and personal qualities best matched the job descriptions in the trawl notice. The shortlist of five applicants originally selected for interview included two established executive officers from outside the VRO, as well as three administrative officers from within seeking to fill the vacancies on promotion.

  Deaf Drivers
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps the Driving Standards Agency has taken to ensure that deaf candidates are not at a disadvantage when undertaking the practical part of the driving test. [32404]

  Mr. Norris
  The DSA has well-established procedures to assist deaf or hard-of-hearing candidates to take the driving test. The test application form invites persons with special needs, such as hearing difficulties, to draw this to the attention of the booking office when making an appointment, and the booking office will arrange for more time to be allocated in which to conduct the test. This allows examiners extra time to explain the test procedures, either using printed materials or by the candidate lip-reading.

  Safety Advisers
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what training is given to safety advisers in his Department and in each of his Department's agencies. [32437]

  Mr. Norris
  Staff advising on health and safety matters study for certificates of competence issued either by the National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health or by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.
  172

  Driving Examiners
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the Driving Standards Agency training package for new entrant driving examiners. [32341]

  Mr. Norris
  I have arranged for a copy of the briefing package given to all new driving examiners when starting their training to be placed in the Library today.

  M25
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if plans to widen the M25 motorway between junctions 12 and 15 will be subject to a public inquiry. [32281]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 12 June 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about a public inquiry into the recently published proposals for widening the M25 between Junctions 12 and 15.
  The period for comment on the Environmental Statement ends on 3 July. All the comments received will be taken into consideration before the Secretary of State for Transport make his decision on the way forward. This scheme would be constructed entirely within the existing highway boundary. There are no statutory orders and therefore no statutory requirement for a public inquiry.

  Light Dues
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if light dues are levied on European Community vessels in British waters. [32472]

  Mr. Norris
  Yes.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was raised by the light dues system from(a) commercial vessels over 20 tons, (b) pleasure craft over 20 tons, (c) tugs over 10 m in length, and (d) fishing vessels over 10 m in length in each of the last five years; and what is his estimate for the next financial year. [32530]

  Mr. Norris
  The information is as follows:

  1991–92

  (a) £45,524,904

  (b) £30,013

  (c) £131,040

  (d) £1,177,260

  1992–93

  (a) £58,485,221

  (b) £33,687

  (c) £124,353

  (d) £1,215,798

  1993–94

  (a) £62,817,801

  (b) £4,860

  (c) £139,987

  (d) £1,344,873

  173

  1994–95

  (a) £63,402,714

  (b) £3,556

  (c) £141,495

  (d) £1,237,731

  1995–96

  Provisional figures pending preparation of final accounts

  1996–97

  Estimated

  (a) £63,000,000

  (b) Nil

  (c) £110,000

  (d) £1,000,000

  First Aiders
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether employees of his Department or agencies within his responsibility who volunteer to carry out first aid duties are remunerated. [32438]

  Mr. Norris
  No, with the exception of first aiders in the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency who receive a small allowance on satisfactory completion of first aid training.

  Aviation Safety (Turkey)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he sought from the Civil Aviation Authority on safety matters before granting a permit to Monarch Airlines Ltd. to wet-lease a TriStar aircraft registered in Antigua for a flight from the United Kingdom to Turkey on 19 May. [32279]

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he had with the Civil Aviation Authority over granting a waiver to Monarch Airlines Ltd. to lease a TriStar aircraft registered in Antigua for a flight from the United Kingdom to Turkey on 19 May under article 8.3 of European Council legislation 2407/92; and if such a waiver was granted. [32280]

  Mr. Norris
  None. A waiver was granted for the flight.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of the civil aviation authority in Turkey. [32278]

  Mr. Norris
  None. Turkey is now a signatory to the joint aviation authorities arrangements and has committed itself to the implementation of all joint aviation requirements. These are generally more stringent than the minimum standards of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. Turkey's national aviation authority will be assessed by the joint aviation authorities as part of the procedures for full membership. If any shortcomings are identified they will be addressed.

  Commercial Vehicles (Disabled People)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to ensure that vans and other commercial vehicles adapted to carry 174
  people with disabilities for their own personal use do not attract insurance premiums at rates applying to commercial vehicles. [32235]

  Mr. Norris
  The setting of insurance premiums is a commercial matter for the insurance industry. When the appropriate provisions come into force, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will prevent insurance companies from practising gratuitous discrimination by charging disabled people unjustifiable additional premiums. My Department is not aware of any cases of insurance companies charging disabled people business rates of insurance for converted commercial vehicles which are only used privately.

  PTC Grades Pay Bill
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide the estimated outturn of the Public Service and Tax Commerce Union grades base pay bill for this financial year. [32441]

  Mr. Norris
  The estimated outturn for the PTC grades base pay bill in the central transport group for the current financial year is not yet known as pay negotiations for the 1996–97 PTC pay settlement are still in progress. The estimated outturn excluding the pay settlement is £14.5 million.

  Vehicle Registration Offices (Lighting)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action has been taken to remedy the lighting deficiencies at the vehicle registration offices in the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's Scotland and North area. [32436]

  Mr. Norris
  The lighting deficiencies in the Scotland and North vehicle registration offices have been identified. A plan of action has been drawn up which will enable all deficiencies to be rectified by the end of October 1996.

  Traffic Area Office (Cardiff)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the role played by the traffic area office in Cardiff in the field of road safety and environmental protection in south Wales; and if he will make a statement. [32351]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on 10 June,Official Report, column 30. The contribution to road safety and environmental protection of any one traffic area office cannot be separately assessed.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what health and safety training is undertaken by(a) senior driving examiners, (b) supervising driving examiners, (c) assistant chief driving examiners, (d) deputy chief driving examiners and (e) chief driving examiners as part of their supervisory training; [32338]

  (2) what subsequent (a) assessments and (b) reviews have been conducted by the Driving Standards Agency on their health and safety risk assessments of the driving examiner grade; [32342]
  175
  (3) what large goods vehicles, passenger carrying vehicles and motor cycle testing duties were included in the risk assessment carried out for the driving examiner grade; [32331]

  (4) if he will place in the Library a copy of the first draft of the risk assessment for the driving examiner grade; [32332]

  (5) if he will list the driving test centres that have been closed (a) permanently and (b) temporarily over the last 12 months as a result of health and safety problems; and which driving test centres are currently being considered for closure; [32344]

  (6) if the risk assessment for driving examiners included assaults on staff; [32401]

  (7) how many recorded assaults there have been in each of the last three years on driving examiners; and how many driving test candidates have been prosecuted for such assaults in the same period; [32345]

  (8) what measures are taken by the Driving Standards Agency to protect driving examiners from injury; [32340]

  (9) if he will list for the last three years the dates of the health and safety inspections carried out at the Driving Standards Agency training centre at Cardington; [32348]

  (10) if he will list the dates when the Driving Standards Agency health and safety committee has met over the last 12 months; [32443]

  (11) on what basis it was decided not to provide first aid training for driving examiners; [32444]

  (12) how many inspections of premises occupied by the Driving Standards Agency have been made to ascertain the presence of radon gas; [32339]

  (13) which driving test centres in the Midlands and Eastern areas have had health and safety inspections carried out in the last two years; [32347]

  (14) how many fax machines have been stolen from driving test centres, from which centres they were stolen; if they were insured; and if they were security marked; [32346]

  (15) if he will list by location the driving test centres where the staffing complement has been increased to meet the demand for driving tests prior to the introduction for the theory test. [32442]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Driving Standards Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Laraine Manley to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 12 June 1996:
  PQS RE: DSA'S HEALTH AND SAFETY PROCEDURES
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent questions about the Agency's Health and Safety procedures, staffing complements and security at driving test centres.

  32338

  Health and safety guidance to all Agency staff is implemented primarily by Health & Safety Advice Notes. These are drafted in consultation with the managers concerned and Trades Unions. The last three Senior Driving Examiner refresher courses, conducted during 1994 and 1995, included a unit given by the DSA Health Safety & Working Environment Unit, and this will continue with future such courses.
  176
  32342 and 32331

  The original driving test risk assessment focused on car tests only, as these account for most of the Agency's testing activities. An assessment was carried out during 1993/94 and the results were promulgated in May 1994.

  Since then the following risk assessments have been conducted:

  (a) risks arising from the wearing of motorcycle radios on test was undertaken in September 1995 and resulted in guidance being issued in November 1995.

  (b) risks to driving examiners arising from vehicle pollution was undertaken in autumn 1995 and resulted in guidance being issued in January 1996.

  (c) a Female Driving Examiner Breast Trauma risk assessment is currently subject to consultation with the Trade Unions.

  (d) a large goods vehicle/passenger carrying vehicle risk assessment was completed in May 1996 and a draft report will be sent shortly to the Trade Unions for comment.

  (e) a motorcycle testing risk assessment will commence shortly.

  32332

  The report of the driving test risk assessment was placed in the House of Commons Library in February 1996. Like any important document, a Health & Safety assessment report requires quality assurance and consultation with interested parties before its findings can be considered robust. I think it would be misleading to interested parties to publish preliminary drafts of such a report.

  32344

  The following driving test centres have been closed as a result of health and safety problems during the last 2 years:

  (a) Permanently: Chaddesden (in Derby); Bounds Green (in London).

  (b) Temporarily: Cardiff East; South Norwood Road (in London).

  There are no further closures planned at this time.

  32401 and 32345

  The original driving test risk assessment, issued in May 1994, did not include reference to assaults on staff. The Agency has developed an Assaults Policy separately. Advice about assaults was issued to all staff in February 1995 following consultation with Trade Unions.
  DSA does not have a record of prosecutions or convictions of candidates over the last three years. Since February 1995 there have been 14 physical and 103 verbal assaults report.

  32340

  Driving Standards Agency takes all reasonably practicable measures to protect Driving Examiners from injury by the following methods:

  (a) providing an Agency Health and Safety at Work Policy.

  (b) control of local Health and Safety matters by senior staff.

  (c) providing written Health and Safety advice in the form of a Health, Safety and Working Environment manual for each location.

  (d) empowering Driving Examiners to cancel or terminate tests if vehicles presented are in a dangerous condition.

  (e) undertaking and making available risk assessments for working practices, associated risks and premises.

  (f) training all new entrant driving examiners in a safe system of work and including Health & Safety modules in refresher training.

  (g) ensuring adequate supervision.

  (h) ensuring that new arrivals to all locations are briefed on emergency procedures and local risk control measures on their first day in that location by their line managers.

  (i) visits from the Health and Safety Unit.

  177
  32348

  Formal Health and safety inspections were carried out by the Health, Safety and Working Environment Unit in November 1993, October 1994 and July 1995. Members of this Unit visit Cardington each month and carry out informal inspection.

  32443

  The Driving Standards Agency Health and Safety Committee has not managed to meet over the last 12 months owing to difficulties findings a date that suited the Trades Union representatives.

  32444

  Following consideration about first aid training for staff at driving test centres, it was decided that each centre would have one first aid appointed person, retrained every three years, but there was no need for cover during temporary absences.

  32339

  The Agency does not consider that such inspections are necessary.

  32347

  The Driving Standards Agency Health, Safety and Working Environment Unit have visited 17 driving test centres in the Midlands and Eastern Area; 3 have been visited twice. The Agency's Midlands and Eastern Area management have carried out 12 Health and Safety visits during the last 2 years.

  32346

  Fax machines were introduced into driving test centres in May 1995. Since that time, 18 machines have been reported stolen, from the following offices—Coventry, Crawley, Eastbourne, Gosforth, Grimbsy, Inverurie, Keighley, Kidderminster (twice), Neath, Norwood, Rotherham (twice), Wallasey and Washwood Heath (three times).

  In keeping with general Government policy these machines were not insured. Nor were they security marked. The Agency, however, did keep a record of the serial numbers and these details were passed to the police when the thefts were discovered.

  DSA is currently considering options for improving general security at driving test centres.

  32442

  The surge in demand for driving tests prior to the introduction of the theory test is expected to be a temporary phenomenon, so the Agency has not altered its formal staffing complements per test centre. It has, however, increased its examiner workforce in the face of this increase in demand for tests. Over the last 5 months 97 contract examiners have been allocated to centres to conduct practical driving tests, and these will be joined by another 135 shortly. These are employed on a contractual basis and will be used as and when required to increase test capacity. The Agency will be closely monitoring the position to ensure that we have sufficient flexibility to increase capacity further if required.

  I attach a list which shows, by area, the allocation of these extra staff to each test centre.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many people were nominated by the Local Government Management Board to serve as temporary lay members of the London North industrial tribunal between 14 November 1994 and 24 October 1995; [32017]

  (2) how many people who were nominated by the Local Government Management Board to serve as temporary lay members of the London North industrial tribunal between 14 November 1994 and 24 October 1995 were subsequently appointed. [32018]
  178
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Organisations were not asked to nominate candidates for temporary appointment to the London North industrial tribunal in November 1994. Instead, temporary members were chosen from suitable applicants who had been put forward in 1992 but not selected. In 1992, five candidates nominated by the London Government Management Board were considered suitable but were nevertheless not appointed as lay members because other candidates were better qualified. All five were considered for temporary appointment to London North in November 1994 and four were subsequently appointed.

  Lower Vickers Street, Miles Platting
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the draft order was published relating to the closure of Lower Vickers street in Miles Platting; what plans he has to order a public inquiry; and if he will make a statement on the timetable or implementing the order. [32550]

  Mr. Norris
  The draft order was published on 11 December 1995 and a public inquiry has been arranged for 3 September 1996. We expect that the inspector will make the report six to eight weeks after the inquiry. If he recommends that the Secretary of State should make the order, a decision letter could be published within four to six weeks, and the order made about two weeks later. The roads in question could then be closed at any time during the period of planning consent granted by the local authority to the developer concerned.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Inward Investment
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of inward investment in 1995 was due to the acquisition, takeover or merger of a United Kingdom company by overseas investors. [31370]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: In 1995, acquisitions, takeovers and mergers accounted for around 25 per cent. of foreign direct and portfolio investment into the UK, based on UK balance of payments data.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) pursuant to his answer of 28 March,Official Report, column 733, how much his Department estimated it would have cost to provide the information requested; [31451]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 22 March, Official Report column 366, how much his Department estimated it would have cost to provide the information requested. [31445]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  More than £450, the current threshold above which answers are deemed to incur disproportionate cost.

  Women (Promotion)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures his Department has implemented during the last 12 months to encourage the promotion of
  179
  women into senior positions with his Department and its executive agencies; and what progress his Department has made in encouraging the promotion of women over the last five years. [31535]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Promotions to the senior civil service of the DTI in the past year have been minimal because of staff reductions following the implementation of the Department's senior management review. Of the four promotions that did take place, two were women.

  In other grades, under both centrally managed promotion boards that operated before September 1994 and the promotion to post system now in operation, all staff involved in selection decisions have been trained in selection techniques and in avoiding discrimination. Also, all internally advertised posts offering promotion are open to part-timers unless the post is clearly unsuitable for part-time work. In the first year of the new promotion procedures, female applicants were more likely than male applicants to be selected for promotion. Over the past five years, 3.7 per cent. of female staff outside the senior civil service have been promoted compared to 3.4 per cent. of male staff.

  I have asked the chief executive of DTI agencies to respond direct to the hon. Member in respect of the second part of the question.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 12 June 1996:
  I have been asked to reply to the second part of your question on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency.
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures his Department has implemented during the last 12 months to encourage the promotion of women into senior positions with his Department and its Executive Agencies and what progress his Department has made in encouraging the promotion of women over the last five years.
  The Agency received delegated responsibility for equal opportunity matters from DTI in October 1994. As part of the Agency's first programme of action on equal opportunities all members of the Agency central promotion board for engineering and technical grade staff took part in a one day refresher seminar on interviewing techniques with special emphasis on equal opportunity issues and best practice.
  Since September 1994 promotion in the administration group has been by promotion to specific (advertised) posts. Each individual promotion board is chaired by a representative of the Agency's personnel directorate who have had training in selection and interviewing techniques, which cover equal opportunities and best practice to avoid discrimination. The Agency also has a pool of line managers who have received similar training and who act as an independent members on each individual promotion board.
  From its monitoring, the Agency has identified the relative under representation in the Agency of women in Grades EO—SEO when compared to DTI centrally. Examination of the possible reasons for this relative under representation forms part of the Agency's 1996 programme for action on equal opportunities.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 12 June 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about the promotion of women in The Insolvency Service.
  Mr. John Taylor MP has replied to you, on behalf of the President of the Board of Trade, with regard to employees in the DTI. Promotion of women into senior positions within The Insolvency Service is included in Mr. Taylor's reply.
  Until 1994, the majority of staff were selected for promotion through DTI managed promotion boards. In August 1994, responsibility for promotion up to Grade 6 level was delegated to
  180
  The Insolvency Service. It is a requirement of the delegation that at least one member of staff involved in selection decisions is suitably trained and certificated. The Service's training for promotion panel members covers equal opportunities issues and best practice to avoid discrimination. All posts advertised on promotion are open to people on a career break, maternity leave and part-timers, unless the post is considered to be unsuitable for part-time work.
  Monitoring of the first year since delegation shows that female applicants were marginally more likely than male applicants to be selected for promotion. During the past five years, 5.6% of female staff have been promoted compared to 5.2% of male staff.

  Letter from Zélie Armstrong to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 12 June 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about promotion of women.
  The first part of your question will be answered centrally by the Department. On the second part, this Agency's policy is consistent with that followed by the Department in that all staff have always had an equal opportunity to apply for all vacancies for which they are eligible.

  Letter from Paul Hartnack to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 12 June 1996:
  I am replying in relation to the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade about the promotion of women into senior positions in the Department of Trade and Industry and its executive agencies.
  The senior management of the Patent Office includes one woman, the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks. Most of the other senior positions in the Patent Office are held by professional patent examiners, the grades of Principal Examiner and Superintending Examiner being broadly equivalent to Grade 5 in the general civil service. Promotion to these grades is by internal advertisement followed by interview and appointment is on merit. Over the last 12 months, due to retirement, nine vacancies at Principal Examiner and above have arisen, two of which have been filled by women. Of the 32 staff who applied for these vacancies, four were women.
  The Patent Office belongs to Opportunity 2000 in its own right and steps it has taken to encourage women to undertake careers in the Office include sponsorship of two women at Cardiff and Southampton universities who are studying science subjects.

  Letter from John S. Holden to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 12 June 1996:
  I have been asked by the President of the Board of Trade to respond to your parliamentary question 95/2453 concerning the promotion of women into senior positions within Companies House.
  As an Executive Agency within the DTI, we generally follow initiatives implemented within the Department. However, you might wish to know we received delegated responsibility for Equal Opportunities in September 1994. We have appointed an Equal Opportunities Officer, who happens to be a woman, and have issued our own Equal Opportunities Policy. We have also progressed an extensive programme of training for all managers and staff which is aimed at promoting a much better understanding of Equal Opportunities issues.
  Within the director-level team of five persons in the Companies House organisation, two posts are occupied by women. Within our senior management group which comprises a further ten people, three further posts are also occupied by women.
  To encourage career development and promotion opportunities for women within all grades at Companies House, we have extensively promoted opportunities for job-sharing, part-time and other flexible working patterns. For certain grades there are also opportunities for evening work.
  We have a number of women employees who have taken advantage of our career break facility and during the main school holidays we have for some years provided children's crèche facilities.
  181

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the contract which was assumed in the bid by the consortium which purchased the Laboratory of the Government Chemist. [33018]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  In the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) on 2 April 1996,Official Report, columns 149–50, regarding the sale of the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, I stated that, in the event the purchaser was not awarded a contract which was assumed in the bid, there would be (a) payment of the purchaser of £300,000 to forestall consequential redundancies and to enable it to develop alternative business streams, and (b) an indemnity for the cost of any such redundancies up to a maximum sum of £500,000. Details of this contingent liability were notified separately to Parliament by way of a departmental minute, which was laid before the House on 1 April.

  This contingent liability matured on 22 May as LGC was not awarded the contract: the sum of £300,000 was paid to LGC on 3 June from voted provision on class IV, vote 1. The purchaser will also be able to call on the redundancy indemnity, although a number of conditions apply to this indemnity including (a) the requirement for the redundancies to be related directly or indirectly to the loss of the specific contract, (b) the sum being capped at the lesser of £500,000 or the aggregate of the payments up to the first 18 relevant redundancies, and (c) its expiry after 12 months.

  Information Society and Development Conference
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what conclusions emerged from the information society and development conference held in Midrand, South Africa, on 13 to 15 May. [33017]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The information society and development ministerial conference, the aim of which was to consider how developing countries could be integrated into the emerging global information society, was attended by 40 countries and 18 international organisations. I led the United Kingdom's delegation to the conference, which included senior representatives of UK companies in the information and communication sector. UK companies also participated in the exhibition which ran alongside the conference.

  The conclusions agreed at the conference endorsed the core principles agreed at the G7 conference on the information society in February 1995, which included promoting dynamic competition, encouraging private investment, defining an adaptable regulatory framework and providing open access to networks. The conference also identified a number of key policy issues. I have placed a copy of the chair's conclusions in the Library of the House, as well as a copy of the formal intervention I made at the ministerial session.

  I welcome the conclusions of the conference, which set out a clear path for the extension of super-highways to developing countries and establish a common way forward in promoting the information society. Also important is the conference's recognition that the private sector has the primary role in creating the global information society and its commitment to fostering
  182
  partnerships between the public and private sector. This will encourage projects to be realistic, building on existing applications available in the private sector to meet the needs of developing and developed countries alike. I am convinced that what should follow this conference is practical implementation of technology, not a further round of Government-led pilot projects.

  The global information society offers tremendous and exiting opportunities for all countries but the attitude of Government is crucial. Countries cannot expect the information society to develop if they do not welcome and safeguard investments or do not enforce protection of intellectual property rights. Governments who want their countries to join the information society should not persist with putting barriers in place.

HEALTH

  Cardiac Surgery, Bristol
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department received from Professor English about neo-natal cardiac surgery at Bristol royal infirmary during 1992; and what action was taken in response. [31255]

  Mr. Horam
  The only representation from Sir Terence English about the neonatal cardiac surgery service at Bristol royal infirmary was a telephone call to the medical secretary of the supra-regional services advisory group in which Sir Terence expressed reservations about the continued designation of the Bristol unit, one of 10 designated units then providing the service. The SRSAG met in July 1992 to consider, inter alia, the continued designation of neonatal and infant cardiac surgery as a supra-regional service. As Sir Terence was not present, his views were conveyed to the meeting by the medical secretary. In the event, the advisory group decided to de-designate the service as a whole.

  Prosthetic and Wheelchair Services
  Mr. Mellor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he proposes to take in response to the National Prosthetic and Wheelchair Services report. [31483]

  Mr. Bowis
  The two groups have produced reports which we have seen and shall take into account as we develop policies in these areas. We recently announced extension to our wheelchair policies in respect of powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs and of a voucher scheme.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what considerations led to the decision to allocate funding for indoor/outdoor wheelchairs on a basis other than the estimated number of disabled people requiring such wheelchairs in each health authority. [31934]

  Mr. Bowis
  Of the options available, we considered allocation on the basis of total resident populations most equitable. We recognise, however, that the relative number of severely disabled people might be higher in one area than another. In guidance issued to the national health service—HSG(96)34, copies of which are available in the Library—we have therefore asked health authorities
  183
  to consider setting up consortia where this will help address varying needs. Future years' allocation will be made in the light of experience gained at local level.

  Mental Illness
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 13 March,Official Report, column 621, what progress is being made in developing outcome scales to assess the health and social functioning of mentally ill people; what the indicators will be; and how assessments will relate to treatment received. [31937]

  Mr. Bowis
  The development of outcome scales to assess the health and social functioning of mentally ill people, which the Department has been undertaking with the Royal College of Psychiatrists, is nearing completion.

  The outcome scales have now been approved for use with non-elderly adults and the national health service executive priorities and planning guidance for 1997–98 requires health authorities to make progress with information systems to support their introduction.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the results of the south London survey into the met and unmet health and social care needs in the community among mentally ill people will be available. [31942]

  Mr. Bowis
  The results of the survey being conducted by the Medical Research Council at its unit at the Institute of Psychiatry will be published later this year and will be promulgated through the medical literature.

  Learning Disabilities
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 19 December,Official Report, columns 1143–44, when the report evaluating the comparative benefits of different communities in meeting the needs of people with learning difficulties will be published; to whom it will be distributed; and when he expects further action to be taken in respect of the report's conclusions. [32013]

  Mr. Bowis
  The first phase of the evaluation was completed by the end of May as planned. I am currently considering the report and shall make a statement shortly.

  Smoking-related Diseases
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the annual cost to the national health service of smoking-related diseases for each year from 1990, and give this figure as a percentage of the overall annual health care budget; and if he will make a statement. [31900]

  Mr. Horam
  Treatment costs to the national health service are not available on a year by year basis. Based on 1990 figures, the Health Education Authority's report, "The Smoking Epidemic—A Prescription for Change", estimated that the annual cost to the NHS of treatment smoking-related diseases is £610 million.

  The national health service's total gross expenditure in 1990–91 was £23,654 million.
  184

  Mental Health Services (Staffordshire)
  Mr. Brian Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what transport facilities are to be provided for patients who will have to travel from Tamworth to Burton following the transfer of mental health services; [32011]

  (2) what assessment he has made of Premier Health NHStrust's proposals to close mental health services in Tamworth; and if he will establish an urgent independent audit of the trust's accounts; [32010]

  (3) what representations he has received on Premier Health NHS trust's proposal to transfer mental health services from the George Bryan centre in Tamworth to the Margaret Stanhope centre in Burton; and if he will make a statement. [32012]

  Mr. Bowis
  No decision has yet been made about changes to services provided by Premier Health national health service trust. Proposals for change, including associated transport arrangements, are currently the subject of a public consultation exercise which closes on 3 July 1996. The annual accounts of all NHS trusts are subject to an independent audit.

  Civil Servants (Compulsory Directors)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those companies which have civil servants from his Department as directors and all the occasions in which those companies have been found guilty of any civil or criminal offence in the last eight years. [32285]

  Mr. Horam
  Civil servants are permitted to undertake and be paid for work outside official time—for example, directorships—if there is no conflict of interest. Staff who disclose relevant interests do so on the understanding that the declaration, like all employment matters, is confidential between them and their employer. We do not hold central records of these declarations or of the companies involved.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances general practitioners are required to tell patients what services they choose to contract for; and if he will make a statement on best practice for keeping patients informed of services they will or will not be contracting. [31980]

  Mr. Malone
  General practitioner fundholders' purchasing plans, and the contracts they place, are public documents and available at the health authority. In addition, fundholders should make copies available at their practice or produce summaries or leaflets for patients.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners were in practice in(a) England and (b) in the south-west region on 1 April for each year since 1989; what action he is taking to increase recruitment; and if he will make a statement. [32525]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is shown in the table. The number of general practitioners continues to rise.
  185

  Year

  England

  South and West

  1989

  25,608

  1,942

  1990

  25,622

  1,980

  1991

  25,464

  1,982

  1992

  25,823

  2,018

  1993

  26,116

  2,054

  1994

  26,387

  2,084

  1995

  26,702

  2,140

  Data is at 1 April each year except 1989 and 1990 when only data at 1 October is available.

  Mr. Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's policy over general practitioners remaining in post(a) after the age of 60 years and (b) after the age of 65 years; and what action he takes to ensure that service is continued where it is in the interest of effective health service provision. [32481]

  Mr. Malone
  General practitioners are able to practice as principals until they reach the age of 70 when health authorities are required to remove their name from the medical list. General practitioners over the age of 70 remain eligible to work in general practice as assistants or locums or in a private capacity.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what expenditure has been undertaken by ambulance services on the procurement of systems to prepare for the prioritising of ambulance response times; and if he will list the systems. [32205]

  Mr. Horam
  A number of ambulance services have procured systems which offer telephone advice to callers as well as enabling prioritisation of calls. The Department of Health has commissioned a research evaluation, in two ambulance services, of the safety, reliability and costs of two types of system considered for use in this country. These are the medical priority dispatch system and criteria-based dispatch.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Services Ombudsman
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the legal services ombudsman intends to publish his fifth annual report. [33012]

  Mr. Streeter
  The legal services ombudsman has today published his fifth annual report, and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  European Union Flag
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what instructions were issued to his Department's offices and agencies in respect of flying the European Union flag on 8 May; and if he will make a statement. [31499]

  Mr. Streeter
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 6 June by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office,Official Report, column 518.
  186

  Census Returns
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received in relation to the role of the keeper of public records in relation to the holding of 20th century census returns. [31488]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Lord Chancellor's Department and the Public Record Office have received inquiries from one correspondent over recent months concerning the role of the keeper of public records in relation to census returns under the operations of the Public Records Act 1958 and the legislation governing the taking of the decennial census of population and the confidentiality of the returns. The Public Record Office has responded to two letters from constituents forwarded by hon. Members.

  Census Data
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) how many applications were made to release personal census data from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in each of the last five years; [31486]

  (2) for how long the information contained within the 20th century census returns has been (a) sold and (b) otherwise released for profit; and which returns are involved; [31516]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the arrangements for the safekeeping of 20th century census returns and their continued confidentiality; [31487]

  (4) on what statutory authority, the sale or disposal for profit of personal information contained in 20th century census records takes place; and for how long such sales and releases have occurred. [31517]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  The records for the 1901 and subsequent censuses in England and Wales are in the care of the Registrar General for England and Wales. They are confidential and not open to public inspection in any circumstance, undertakings having been given at the time of each census that the information would be used only for the preparation and publication of statistical data.

  Personal information obtained from 20th century returns are not, and never have been, either (a) sold or (b) otherwise released for profit. Census records are held in strict confidence for a period of 100 years by virtue of an instrument under the Public Records Act 1958. Under a concession announced in Parliament in 1972, information on place of birth and age can be made available from the 1901 census with the consent of the persons concerned or, if deceased, a descendant—or next of kin if the person dies childless. A further concession, announced in 1993, allows information form the 1911 census to be released where, and only where, it is essential for the purpose of establishing a legal entitlement such as an inheritance. A charge is made to the applicant to cover the administrative costs of searching the appropriate census records, and the supply of the information, if the search is successful but not for the information itself.

  The numbers of written requests for such information held on record for the last three years are:

  187

  1993: 597

  1994: 715

  1995: 673

  The census records for the years 1901 and 1911 are held by the Public Record Office in secure accommodation respectively at Chancery lane—shortly to move to Kew—and Hayes, Middlesex. Those returns for the years 1921, and 1951 to 1991 are held by the registrar general at Christchurch. Returns from the 1931 census were destroyed by fire and there was no census in 1941.

  In 1990, the British Computer Society carried out an independent review of the census security and confidentiality arrangements. Its report to Parliament— published in 1991 as Cm 1447—stated that they were generally satisfied with the arrangements for the safekeeping of census forms but recommended that the possibility of storing the forms in an alternative format be kept under review. This is being done. There was a similar review in 1981.

  Statistical abstracts of data from censuses since 1921 have been made available under section 4(2) of the Census Act 1920.

WALES

  Road Deaths
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many road deaths in(a) Wales and (b) Clwyd involved speeding vehicles, for each year since 1985; what percentage of overall road deaths this account for in each year; and if he will make a statement. [31848]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not available. Information on personal injury road accidents which is recorded by the police and forwarded to the Welsh Office does not include the cause of accidents.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Department of Social Services
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 22 May,Official Report, column 187, if he will define the Department of Social Services. [31971]

  Mr. Freeman
  All the references to the Department of Social Services that appeared in my answer to the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 22 May,Official Report, column 187, should have read the Department of Social Security.

  Civil Service Recruitment
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to publish the first civil service fast stream recruitment report. [32942]

  Mr. Freeman
  The first civil service fast stream recruitment report was placed in the Libraries of the House earlier today. It covers the year to 31 March 1996, reporting the results of fast stream competitions completed during that period and action undertaken for 188
  future competitions. This information has in previous years formed part of the annual report of the Civil Service Commissioners, but is now separately published following the change to the commissioners' responsibilities last year.

  The report shows that the civil service over the year in question has successfully met its need for fast stream recruits to both generalist and specialist schemes. However, the needs of civil service work do not stand still and the report also details action under way to allow the launch of a revised fast stream development programme later this year. The revised scheme will put a stronger emphasis on early training and development and, in selection, on testing candidates' ability to get to grips with numeric data and with science-related issues. Promotion of the programme will also aim to overcome stereotypes which exist in some quarters about the sort of candidates the civil service is seeking to recruit. The goal will be to encourage top graduates from all types of background to apply.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which(a) employer, (b) employee and (c) independent organisations the deregulation unit consults before proposing deregulatory measures. [31994]

  Mr. Freeman
  Deregulatory measures are proposed by the Government Department responsible for the relevant legislation and not by the deregulation unit. The unit is responsible for co-ordinating the deregulation initiative.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations the deregulation unit has received that the six-pack health and safety regulation has put businesses into liquidation. [32009]

  Mr. Freeman
  I have received no representations specifically identifying the implementation of the "six-pack" of EC health and safety directives as the cause of a firm going out of business. However, surveys such as that carried out by the British chambers of commerce in September 1995 have consistently identified health and safety legislation as one of the main burdens on business, particularly small business. Both the 1994 Sainsbury task force's report and the Health and Safety Commission's own 1994 review of regulation identified the "six-pack" as an area of concern and confusion for business.

  The Government fully support the Health and Safety Commission's programme to implement its own review of regulation, carried out in 1994. The "six-pack" of EC directives is being evaluated as part of that programme.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is the current staffing level of the deregulation unit. [31987]

  Mr. Freeman
  The staffing level for the deregulation unit for 1996–97 is 44.2 posts.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what are the current annual running costs of the deregulation unit, including(a) staff costs, (b) administration costs and (c) overheads. [31995]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The annual running costs for the deregulation unit for 1996–97 are as follows:
  189

  £ thousand

  Staff costs

  1,313

  General administrative expenditure

  717

  Overheads (including common services on a per capita share and accommodation and telecommunications costs)

  629

  Total

  2,659

  Capital

  10

  Total

  2,669

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits (Nationality Inquiries)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what sums have been spent on sending out and processing queries about nationality when dealing with routine applications for social security benefits in the last available year; and which benefits are subject to this process. [31309]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of income support 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 Joan Walley, dated 11 June 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what sums have been spent on sending out and processing queries about nationality when dealing with routine applications for Social Security benefits in the last available year; and which benefits are subject to this process.
  The main income-related benefits (Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit) include conditions relating to the immigration status of claimants. Since 5 February 1996 Regulations exclude a person from entitlement to certain non-contributory Social Security Benefits (Attendance Allowance, Disability Living Allowance, Disability Working Allowance, Family Credit, Invalid Care Allowance, and Severe Disability Allowance) if his right to reside to remain in Great Britain is subject to any limitation or condition. In establishing immigration status and conditions attaching to a person's right to reside in the UK, it may be appropriate to seek further information regarding a customer's nationality.
  Queries on nationality are now an integral part in the processing of claims to the benefits listed below. Therefore information on the sums spent on sending out and processing queries on nationality is not available as separate records are not maintained.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Industrial Injuries Advisory Council
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the appointment of a new chairman to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. [32514]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I am pleased to announce that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has appointed Professor A. J. Newman Taylor as chairman of the council with effect from 19 July 1996. He has been a member of the council since 1983 and has chaired the council's research working group for most of that time.
  190

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Polling Stations
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many polling stations in East Antrim were not operable at 7 am on 30 May. [31480]

  Mr. Ancram
  All the polling stations in East Antrim were operable at 7 am on 30 May.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pencils were initially supplied to polling stations in East Antrim on 30 May. [31478]

  Mr. Ancram
  The chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland has indicated that four pencils were supplied to East Antrim polling stations for each ballot box; 60 ballot boxes were used in the constituency and 240 pencils were therefore available to voters.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many additional pencils were subsequently delivered to polling stations in East Antrim on 30 May; and at what cost. [31479]

  Mr. Ancram
  Following inaccurate reports of pencil shortages in the East Antrim constituency on 30 May, two additional pencils for each ballot box in the constituency, making 120 in total, were delivered by roving electoral officers to polling stations. These were delivered at no extra cost and there were already sufficient pencils for all polling booths.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many voting booths were provided at polling stations in East Antrim on 30 May. [31477]

  Mr. Ancram
  A total of 231 voting booths were provided at polling stations in East Antrim on 30 May.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much his Department spent in recruiting staff to his Department and its executive agencies during the 1994–95 and 1995–96 financial years; and how many staff were recruited in each of these years. [31395]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Within the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments the information requested is not fully available. The information available is as follows:

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Number of staff recruited

  2,007

  2,666

  Cost of recruitment

  £1,205,123

  £1,564,197

  Information on the cost of recruitment of industrial and casual staff is not fully available.

  (a) for the Department of Health and Social Services, Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland and Department of Education for Northern Ireland to provide figures would incur disproportionate cost;

  (b) for the Department of Economic Development, only advertising costs are included; and

  (c) for the Department of Environment, estimated costs are included.

  191
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what use his Department and its executive agencies have made of executive search agencies or employment companies in filling vacancies within his Department or executive agencies administered by his Department during the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96; what agencies were employed; what was the cost in each case; how many staff were recruited in each case; and what was the total cost in each financial year of these contracts. [31410]

  Sir John Wheeler
  During 1994–95 and 1995–96, the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments have used Recruitment and Assessment Services and Premiere Employment. The costs and recruitment figures are listed.

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Totals costs

  £15,714

  £15,804

  Number of staff recruited

  1

  1

  Individual cases cannot be identified on grounds of confidentiality.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what circumstances his Department or its executive agencies uses an executive search or employment agency to recruit staff in preference to using personnel staff within his own Department or its executive agencies. [31523]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Northern Ireland Departments would consider using executive search or employment agencies to recruit staff for specialists jobs or in exceptional cases.

  The Northern Ireland Office cadre of home civil servants is relatively small and thus there is a minimal requirement to recruit staff. It is therefore cost-effective to use a recruitment agency.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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 percentages of these staff that are women in his Department on 1 April. [30549]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is contained in the following table:

  (i) Male employees: 10,870

  (ii) Female employees: 10,618

  At 1 April 1996

  Grade

  Number of officials

  Number of women

  Percentage of women

  Grade 6 and above

  527

  82

  15.6

  Grade 7

  896

  132

  14.7

  Deputy principal

  1,456

  290

  19.9

  Staff officer

  2,395

  635

  26.5

  Executive officer I

  3,425

  929

  27.1

  Executive officer II

  3,087

  1,847

  59.8

  192

  At 1 April 1996

  Grade

  Number of staff

  Number of women

  Percentage of women

  Admin officer

  6,639

  4,717

  71.0

  Admin assistant

  3,063

  1,986

  64.8

  1. Non-general service grades have been lumped together with their general service analogues.

  2. Figures relate to the Northern Ireland Office and the six departments of the Northern Ireland civil service.

  3. Figures include full-time, part-time etc staff.

  4. Figures do not include NICS staff seconded to the Police Authority for Northern Ireland.

  5. Industrial staff have been excluded as it would take disproportionate cost to identify the relevant figures.

  European Union Flag
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what instructions were issued to his Department's offices and agencies in respect of flying the European Union flag on 8 May; and if he will make a statement. [31509]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 6 June,Official Report, column 518.

  Forensic Science Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration has been given to market testing has services provided by the Forensic Science Agency of Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [31566]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Forensic Science Agency for Northern Ireland became an agency on 1 September 1995. It is still in the process of developing and refining systems for charging and costing its services. The agency is disposed towards market testing and fully supports Government in this area. At the moment, I consider there is no reasonable or feasible opportunity to consider the transfer to the private sector of any part of its services. The issue will, however be addressed no later than the agency's quinquennial review—that is, by September 2000—and before that if suitable opportunities arise.

  Women (Promotion)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures his Department has implemented during the last 12 months to encourage the promotion of women into senior positions with his Department and its executive agencies; and what progress his Department has made in encouraging the promotion of women over the last five years. [31541]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Measures taken by Northern Ireland Departments and agencies within the last 12 months include the introduction of mentoring, the creation of women's networks and the establishment of "keeping in touch" schemes for staff on career breaks; the inclusion in public advertisements for senior posts of statements particularly welcoming applications from women and a vigorous programme of equal opportunity awareness and training for senior staff. Other measures already in place are reported in the regularly published
  193
  reports from the central equal opportunities unit for the Northern Ireland civil service, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  The proportion of women employed at grade 6 level and above in the non-industrial grades in the Northern Ireland civil service, has increased from 11.4 per cent. at 1 January to 15.8 per cent. at 1 January 1996.

  There is a broadly equivalent programme for action on women for home civil service staff serving in the Northern Ireland Office. Progress on the HCS programme for action on women is contained in regular reports on equal opportunities published by the Cabinet Office.

  Rate Collection Agency
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Rate Collection Agency in 1996–97. [33014]

  Mr. Moss
  For 1996–97 the following performance targets have been set for the agency:

  1. To collect 98.5 per cent. of the gross collectable rate, excluding late assessments, by 31 March 1997.

  2. To achieve a reduction of 5 per cent. in the real value of the unit costs of rate collection per hereditament over the next two years.

  3. To generate refunds to 97 per cent. of ratepayers so entitled within 14 days of credits being identified.

  4. To process by 31 March 1997 93 per cent. of applications for the incoming year received before 15 March 1997 from existing housing benefit recipients.

  5. To achieve a reduction of 5 per cent. in the real value of the unit costs of processing housing benefit applications over the next two years.

  6. To process 96 per cent. of housing benefit claims free of error.

  Probation Board (Review)
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to carry out a quinquennial review of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland. [33015]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have arranged for a quinquennial review of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland to be carried out, which is expected to commence in June and which will be completed by 31 October 1996.

  Harland and Wolff (Pension Fund)
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if arrangements have been concluded with Harland and Wolff Holdings plc in relation to repayment to Her Majesty's Government of the £6.5 million pension fund surplus following the report, HC paper 126, Session 1991–92, of the Committee of Public Accounts into privatisation of the company. [33016]

  Mr. Ancram
  Following detailed negotiations, the Department of Economic Development and Harland and Wolff Holdings plc have agreed arrangements whereby the company will repay £6.5 million to the Department. It has also been agreed that the Department will meet certain additional costs, in excess of those provided for at the time of privatisation, totalling £3.023 million, incurred by the company in connection with the privatisation in 1989. The Northern Ireland Audit Office has been consulted in 194
  the course of these negotiations and has been notified of the agreement which has been reached.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  UN Security Council
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to attend a meeting of the Security Council of the United Nations to discuss the financial circumstances of the organisation. [30853]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Under the UN charter, financial matters at the United Nations are the responsibility of the General Assembly. There are no plans for a special ministerial meeting to discuss these matters.

  Russia
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Russian Government about the timing of the presidential elections. [30866]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has made no representations to the Russian Government about the timing of the elections.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many entry clearance officers have been employed in Russia in each of the last five years; and where they are located. [30877]

  Mr. Hanley
  Following are the number of staff employed as entry clearance officers in the Russian Federation for the last five years. Moscow is also due to be reinforced by 17 man-months of seasonal relief in 1996, equivalent to nearly 1.5 entry clearance officers.

  Entry clearance managers (ECM)

  Entry clearance officers (ECO)

  Moscow

  1996

  2.8

  12

  1995

  1.9

  11

  1994

  1

  10

  1993

  0.5

  6

  1992

  0.5

  5

  1991

  0.5

  6

  The St. Petersburg post has operated only a visa service since 1993. In addition to permanent staff, St. Petersburg will receive four months of seasonable relief in 1996.

  Entry clearance managers

  Entry clearance officers

  St. Petersburg

  1996

  0.35

  2

  1995

  0.35

  2

  1994

  0.15

  1

  1993

  0.1

  1

  Kashmir
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiatives he proposes in respect of Kashmir. [30867]
  195
  Mr. Hanley
  We continue to believe that the best way forward in Kashmir should involve simultaneous progress on dialogue between India and Pakistan, an improvement in human rights in Kashmir, the development of a genuine political process there, and a clear cessation of external support for violence in Kashmir.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Indian authorities to secure the release of the British hostages held in Kashmir. [30881]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The British high commissioner and his staff in New Delhi and Srinagar are in daily contact with the Indian authorities and other Governments involved in our continuing efforts to secure the early and safe release of the hostages.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards elections in Bosnia. [30868]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Under the terms of the Dayton peace agreement, the elections in Bosnia will be supervised by the OSCE and must take place by 14 September. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe mission in Bosnia is now working with the parties on the electoral rules and other arrangements.

  Botswana
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Government of Botswana. [30869]

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary saw the Botswanan Foreign Minister, General Merafhe, on 18 March and will see him again on 18 June when he visits Britain as a guest of the Government.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Sri Lankan Government on the armed conflict with Tamil separatists. [30870]

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the conflict in Sri Lanka with the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister, the hon. Lakshman Kadirgamar, during his visit to London in January. I have had further discussions about the conflict with Ministers of the Sri Lanka Government who have visited London since then.

  Tibet
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to raise human rights in Tibet with the Chinese Government; and if he will make a statement. [30871]

  Mr. Hanley
  It is our policy to raise our concerns about the human rights situation in China, including Tibet, with the Chinese authorities at every appropriate opportunity.
  196

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet the Chief Minister of Gibraltar to discuss future United Kingdom policy on Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement. [30872]

  Mr. David Davis
  I met the new Gibraltar Chief Minister on 5 June. We had detailed discussions on a wide range of issues, including unacceptable delays at the frontier with Spain.

  European Court of Justice
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to discuss the role of the European Court of Justice in the intergovernmental conference. [30873]

  Mr. David Davis
  In due course, we shall publish a memorandum on the European Court of Justice, setting out in greater detail the proposals outlined in the recent White Paper "A Partnership of Nations".

  Cyprus
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the United Nations regarding the occupation of the northern part of Cyprus by Turkish troops. [30875]

  Mr. David Davis
  Cyprus was discussed at an informal meeting of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council on 17 April. They reaffirmed that the status quo was unacceptable and stressed the need for a comprehensive approach leading to a settlement within the framework of the UN Secretary-General's mission of good offices.

  Sudan
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Sudan. [30876]

  Mr. Hanley
  Sudan continues to suffer from the long-running civil war. There is little sign of willingness to make progress towards a negotiated solution, although Her Majesty's Government continue to urge this upon all concerned. The human rights situation continues to give us grave cause for concern, as does Sudan's hospitality to terrorist groups. We are watching closely for firm evidence that Sudan is complying with Security Council resolutions 1044 and 1054.

  Bahrain
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the Government of Bahrain to discuss human rights in that country; and if he will make a statement. [30878]

  Mr. Hanley
  Human rights issues have been discussed at ministerial or official levels on numerous occasions, and will be raised again during my visit this month.
  197
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between the United Kingdom and Bahrain. [32246]

  Mr. Hanley
  Bahrain is a close ally and under our 1971 treaty of friendship there is good co-operation in all fields.

  I shall be visiting Bahrain myself next week to discuss a wide range of issues with the Bahraini Government.

  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what recent representations he has received relating to the matter of the detention in Bahrain of the wife of Mr. John Paul Goostrey; [32248]

  (2) what action he has taken to date to assist Mr. John Paul Goostrey in the matter of the detention of his wife in Bahrain. [32245]

  Mr. Hanley
  Mr. Goostrey's wife, a Bahraini citizen, is not in detention in Bahrain, but her family have obtained a court injunction preventing her from leaving the country. She is applying to the court for this decision to be overturned. The British embassy is in regular contact with Mr. Goostrey and his wife and will continue to provide all the help that it can.

  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Bahraini ambassador in London about the matter of the detention in Bahrain of the wife of Mr. John Paul Goostrey. [32249]

  Mr. Hanley
  None, but I plan to discuss the matter with our ambassador on my visit to Bahrain in the near future.

  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has concerning the number of British citizens whose spouses are citizens of Bahrain; and what advice he would give to such individuals about visiting Bahrain. [32247]

  Mr. Hanley
  We do not maintain records of foreign spouses of British nationals.

  There is no advice particular to such individuals, although they have access to our current travel advice on Bahrain.

  Hong Kong
  Sir Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Hong Kong to discuss administrative arrangements after 30 June 1997. [30879]

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has no immediate plans to visit Hong Kong, but discussions with China on matters relating to the transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong continue at official level, most recently at the 36th plenary session of the Sino-British joint liaison group in London on 5 to 7 June.

  Tigris and Euphrates Valleys (Children)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Secretary General 198
  of the Arab League during his official visit to the United Kingdom in relation to starvation among children in the valleys of the Tigris and the Euphrates. [30880]

  Mr. Hanley
  The condition of children' in Iraq was discussed with Dr. Meguid with particular reference to Saddam Hussain's failure to provide satisfactorily for them.

  Civil Servants (Duties Abroad)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department spent during the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96 on sending civil servants accompanying Ministers from his Department on official duties abroad. [32410]

  Mr. Hanley
  Neither the Foreign Commonwealth Office diplomatic wing nor the Overseas Development Administration holds the information in the form requested, and it could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Diplomatic wing expenditure on overseas travel by Ministers and accompanying officials was £1,848,932 in 1994–95 and £1,496,109 in 1995–96.

  ODA private office expenditure on travel and subsistence, including the Minister and civil servants working in the private office, was £131,993 in 1994–95 and £139,951 in 1995–96.

  European Union (Legislation)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, by Department, the number of officials and other experts from the United Kingdom who assist the European Commission in drawing up legislation under the comitology procedure established by the Council decision of 13 July 1987, laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission. [32462]

  Mr. David Davis
  UK officials participate in the exercise by the Commission of delegated powers to make secondary legislation, through their representation on the committees established under the Council decision on the comitology procedure of 13 July 1987. The number of officials and which Department they are from depends on the committees currently sitting and on the subject matter concerned.

  Argentina
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Argentina on establishing the fate of those who disappeared during the period of military rule from 1976 to 1983 and to bring those responsible before the courts; and if he will make a statement. [30813]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have made no recent representations.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he
  199
  has had with the Argentine Government over the exploration of hydrocarbons around the Falklands Islands. [30874]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  At a meeting on 30 January 1996 my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Argentine Foreign Minister noted the success of the joint declaration of September 1995 which established a joint commission to promote hydrocarbons development in the south-west Atlantic. Official level talks have made good progress.

  European Commission (Employees)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people are currently employed in the European Commission; at what costs to public funds; what were(a) the numbers and (b) the cost in real terms five years ago; and if he will make a statement. [31178]

  Mr. David Davis
  The European Commission's employees totalled 16,627 in 1991, and 20,831 in 1996. The cost to the EC budget was 1,261,834,635 ecu in 1991, and 1,914,177,000 ecu has been allocated to staff costs in the 1996 budget—1,674,695,000 ecu at 1991 prices. There is no direct allocation of this sum, but the UK's contribution to the overall EC budget is approximately 12 per cent. after our abatement has been taken into account.

  European Union
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will notify the European Union Council of Ministers that Her Majesty's Government will suspend forthwith the policy of non-co-operation with the other member states in respect of forthcoming decisions by the Council of Ministers. [32264]

  Mr. David Davis
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 21 May, our policy of non-co-operation will continue until we have agreement on lifting the ban on beef derivatives and a clear framework in place leading to a lifting of the wider ban. The first of these objectives has now been met. We hope that the second will be met soon.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Small and Medium Businesses
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of his Department's budget was spent on procurement from small and medium enterprises in 1995–96. [27536]

  Mr. Boswell
  From information held centrally, some 10 per cent. of procurement expenditure was with enterprises identified as having under 200 employees. The Ministry does not at this time distinguish between small and medium-sized enterprises.

  Aphis Gossypii
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has issued on the use of chemicals to control Aphis gossypii; and if he will make a statement. [31590]
  200
  Mrs. Browning
  I have asked the chief executive of ADAS to reply to the hon. Member direct.

  Letter from Phillip Needham to Mr. Ronnie Campbell, dated 12 June 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply direct to your Parliamentary Question in which you ask what advice has been issued on the use of chemicals to control Aphis gossypii.[31590]
  ADAS has issued advice on recognition and control of A. gossypii to growers and the horticultural industry by individual consultation, newsletters e.g. 'Bedding Plant Technical Notes', 'Outdoor Ornamental Technical Notes' and by speaking at conferences e.g. the National Nursery Stock Conference and the National Cucumber Conference.
  This aphid shows resistance to some types of pesticide. ADAS has been involved in the development of biological control strategies for A. gossypii and has held workshops for growers in order to aid the uptake and success of Integrated Pest Management. Research results have also been presented at conferences and scientific papers published.

  Food Surpluses
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on arrangements for distribution by the voluntary sector of surplus EC food to the elderly and disadvantaged. [31561]

  Mr. Baldry
  The EC surplus food scheme was originally established as a temporary measure to dispose of certain intervention stocks when these were high. Last November my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced, as part of the Government's expenditure plans, that the UK would permanently withdraw from participation, in line with the recommendations of the Ministry's fundamental expenditure review. That decision, among others, has enabled the Ministry to contribute fully to the Government's policy of maintaining a tight control of public expenditure.

  Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd.
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Minister has received a claim for damages from Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd. or its livestock export consultant. [32473]

  Mrs. Browning
  In December 1992 Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd. lodged an application for judicial review in respect of the Ministry's refusal to issue the company with a licence in accordance with the Export of Animals (Prohibition) Order 1991. That application included a claim for damages but the company has not, to date, provided particulars for the alleged losses arising as a result of the decision.

  Animals (Sentient Beings)
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, the Government will make it their policy to argue for the re-classification of animals as sentient beings in the treaty of Rome. [32452]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government have made it clear that they wish to see further progress made on animal welfare at a Community level. That is why we are seeking to have a protocol added to the treaty of Rome which will place a formal, legal obligation on Community institutions
  201
  to give full regard to considerations of animal welfare in the exercise of their powers on agriculture, transport, research and the single market.

  Pesticides (Food Labelling)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans his Department has to introduce a consumer labelling system for foods treated with pesticides that identifies the pesticides used; and if he will make a statement. [32273]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government have no plans to introduce special labelling for foods treated with pesticides.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has of the number of farmers and farm workers disabled following exposure to organophosphates; and if he will make a statement. [32454]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Department has information of reported suspected adverse reactions to organophosphates used in agriculture. Suspected adverse reactions involving veterinary medicines are notified to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. In the period between 1 January 1985 and 31 May 1996 a total of 681 reports involving human suspected adverse reactions to organophosphorus sheep dips and 20 involving OP warblecides were received by the VMD. Details of cases examined by the appraisal panel for human suspected adverse reactions to veterinary medicines are set out in the published annual reports of the panel for 1993 and 1994, which are available in the Library of the House. Suspected adverse reactions involving pesticides are reported to the Health and Safety Executive, and my Department is informed. There were 29 cases of suspected organophosphate poisoning from pesticides in Great Britain in 1993–94 and 43 in 1994–95. "Pesticides Incidents Investigated in 1993–94/1994–95—A Report by the Fields Operations Division of the Health and Safety Executive" is also available in the Library of the House.

  Ostriches
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has of the number of ostriches in the UK. [32510]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Ministry does not collect data separately for ostriches.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provisions regulate the slaughter of ostriches. [32511]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 21 March 1996,Official Report, column 314. The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995, SI 1995, No. 731, regulate the slaughter of ostriches in Great Britain. Similar legislation applies in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research is being conducted into humane methods of slaughtering ostriches. [32512]
  202
  Mrs. Browning
  Earlier this year, a research study of commercial ostrich slaughter practice in the Republic of South Africa was commissioned by the Ministry. In consultation with representatives of the ostrich industry and others, the findings of that study are being used to prepare guidance on humane slaughter which will be made available to ostrich producers. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House once it is completed.

  Sheep (Collection Centres)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if each holding, as defined within the category of collection centres, as laid down in part 1 of the Animals and Animal Products Import and Export Regulations 1995, from which sheep have been acquired for export since 9 October 1995, has been approved for intra-Community trade as required by article 5(b) of the regulations. [30716]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 4 June 1996]: Some, but not all, holdings from which sheep have been certified since 9 October 1995 are also approved collection centres, as defined in Council directive 64/432/EEC. However, the Community legislation concerning the animal health conditions for intra-Community trade in sheep and goats does not require the places at which sheep are acquired to be approved collection centres. Sheep can be exported directly from a holding or via an approved market or assembly centre.

  The purpose of the Animals and Animal Products (Import and Export) Regulations 1995 is to implement certain pieces of Community animal health legislation, including Council directive 91/68/EEC. The regulations are made under the powers conferred on Ministers by section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. It has been drawn to our attention that, in respect of sheep, the regulations do not accurately reflect the provisions in the Community legislation. We intend to take steps to eliminate the anomalies.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he proposes to issue export health certificates in respect of sheep which are acquired through a collection centre which is approved by his Department for the purposes of intra-Community trade; [32099]

  (2) if he proposes to issue export health certificates in respect of sheep which are acquired through a collection centre which is approved by him for the purposes of intra-Community trade but which at the time the sheep were acquired did not comply with the provisions relating to collection centres in Council directives 91/68/EEC. [32100]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 10 June 1996]: It is not a requirement for sheep exported to another EC member state from a holding to be purchased at an approved collection centre. Provided that they meet all other animal health requirements, sheep which are acquired through an approved collection centre can be issued with export health certificates.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what types of establishments and premises within the United Kingdom qualify as holding centers for the purposes of article 2 of Council directive 90/425/EEC. [32101]
  203
  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 10 June 1996]: For the purposes of Council directive 90/425/EEC, all the places at which the animals referred to in annexes A and B of the directive are held or kept are considered to be holdings. Annexes A and B cover all live animals, including aquaculture animals.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research projects have been(a) requested and (b) commissioned by his Department in the areas of BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in the last two months. [31038]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 4 June 1996]: Details of the research projects requested and commissioned in the last two months are as follows:

  (A) Research proposals in the areas of BSE requested by MAFF in the last two months

  Audit of Bovine and Ovine Slaughter and By-products Sector.

  Strain-typing of scrapie agent in meat and bone meal.

  Transmission of studies for the detection of BSE in sheep.

  The study of BSE in sheep and the possibility of its vertical transmission.

  Applied brain metabolism and nutrition studies in cattle to aid in the control of neurological disorders.

  Bioassay of BSE infectivity in non-neural tissues by intra-cerebral inoculation of cattle.

  Immunohistochemical detection of cellular perturbations in formalin-fixed brain from cattle.

  Pathogenesis studies of experimental BSE in sheep.

  Abnormal protein distribution in the central nervous system, non-neural tissues and body fluid of cattle affected by BSE.

  Hot boning of beef to avoid carcase splitting—a case for a development project.

  Pathogenesis studies of experimental BSE in sheep.

  Abnormal protein distribution in the CNS, non-neural tissues and body fluids of cattle affected by BSE.

  A combinatorial molecular approach for the identification of early markers for BSE in cattle.

  The role of glycation in the generation of scrapie amyloid fibrils.

  Identification of peptides that are recognised by sera from animals infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) using a random peptide phage display library.

  Immune complexes and related markers in BSE.

  A potential analysis for the presence of neural-tissue in beef and beef containing products.

  Proposals on the role of free living mites in the epidemiology ofTSEs.

  Proposals for developing a mouse transgenic for the bovine PrP gene.

  (B) MAFF-funded BSE research—approved April-May 1996

  The neuropathological monitoring of suspect BSE cases born in 1992.

  Development of mouse models for the study of bovine transmissible spongiform encephalopathy.

  Electrophoretic analysis of body fluids to identify disease-specific proteins in ruminant spongiform encephalopathy.

  Production of polyclonal antisera to highly purified bovine PrP scrapie.

  Responsibility for CJD research lies with the Department of Health.

  204
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions in each year since 1989 abattoirs were found to be in default of BSE-related regulations governing the treatment of carcases. [31246]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 4 June 1996]: Prior to 1 April 1995, responsibility for meat inspection was the responsibility of local authorities. Details of contraventions of BSE-related regulations in abattoirs prior to this date are not held centrally.

  Since 1 April 1995, responsibility for meat inspection in slaughterhouses was transferred to the Meat Hygiene Service. Results of the state veterinary surveillance programme on the handling of specified bovine material in abattoirs since September 1995 were given in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) on 18 January 1996, Official Report, column 682, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) on 22 November 1995, Official Report, columns 192–93, and 30 April 1996, Official Report, columns 483–84.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions in each year since 1989 abattoirs were prosecuted for failure to comply with BSE-related regulations governing the treatment of carcases. [31247]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 4 June 1996]: Prior to 1 April 1995, meat inspection was the responsibility of local authorities. Details of prosecutions made by local authorities of contraventions in slaughterhouses are not held centrally.

  On 1 April 1995 responsibility for meat inspection in slaughterhouses was transferred to the Meat Hygiene Service. So far, there has been one successful prosecution and a number of other cases are under investigation.

DEFENCE

  Sea Training
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the costs of supporting flag officer sea training at Plymouth rather than at Portland; if he will estimate(a) the training days to be provided this year compared to the last full year at Portland and (b) the number of Sootax helicopter flights in support of flag officer sea training at Portland; what was the original estimate for helicopter flights from Plymouth airport and what number are actually being made from Plymouth airport; how many staff were originally estimated to be needed at Plymouth and how many are now assessed as being needed; and what is the latest estimate of the cost of closure of Portland naval base, transfer of flag officer sea training and of setting up flag officer sea training in Plymouth. [31767]

  Mr. Soames
  The Royal Navy's operational sea training organisation enjoys a worldwide reputation for its excellent and cost-effective training.

  During the period July 1994 to July 1995—the last full year at Portland—225 training days were achieved by flag officer sea training; the estimate for the 12-month period to July 1996—the first year at Plymouth—is 235 training

  205
  days. In the final year at Portland there were 547 planned Sootax helicopter sorties of which 483 were achieved; for the period July 1995 to April 1996 839 sorties were planned and 816 achieved at Plymouth. Activity levels at Plymouth have been higher than originally estimated, because of increased demand for sea training and other operational reasons.

  In 1993 it was estimated that 230 personnel, service and civilian, would be needed to run the FOST operation in Plymouth. However, training is now being successfully achieved with a complement of 202.

  The present estimate for the cost of closing Portland and moving FOST to Plymouth is some £10.4 million.

  NATO
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) his Department's total expenditure and (b) the average defence expenditure of other European members of NATO in each of the last financial years, expressed in 1995–96 prices. [32072]

  Mr. Soames
  Information provided to NATO by member states gives the following comparison, at 1990 $US prices and exchange rates, between UK defence spending and the average among the other European members of the alliance:

  UK ($ million)

  European average ($ million)

  1991

  39,790

  11,869

  1992

  35,473

  11,535

  1993

  34,292

  11,198

  1994

  32,622

  10,909

  1995

  30,710

  10,640

  Armed Forces (Deaths)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 May,Official Report, column 559, how many people in the armed forces who served in the Gulf war have died since January 1991. [31788]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding reply 10 June 1996]: Since January 1991 the total number of personnel who served in the Gulf war and subsequently died, while still serving in the armed forces, is 84.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spent in recruiting staff to his Department and its executive agencies during the 1994–95 and 1995–96 financial years; and how many staff were recruited in each of these years. [31397]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This information is not held centrally within my Department or within some of its agencies, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Where this matter falls to chief executives of my Department's agencies and the information is readily available, I have asked them to write direct to the hon. Member.
  206
  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 11 June 1996:
  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Defence for details of numbers of staff recruited, and associated costs, for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96 for his Department and its Agencies. I am replying on behalf of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).
  Recruitment is only one aspect of personnel work and it is not our practice to allocate specific staff and related costs solely to this activity. Major, and clearly identifiable, costs are those associated with recruitment advertising, promotional and marketing material and recruitment literature. These identifiable costs are as follows:

  1994–95: £0.9 million

  1995–96: £1.4 million

  The number of staff recruited in each of these years is as follows:

  1994–95: 631

  1995–96: 1,046

  As a result of consolidation within the MOD this Agency became about 50% larger in 1995–96 compared with 1994–95, which is the principal reason for the increased activity.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Letter from S. Parnell to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 11 June 1996:
  1.You recently asked the Secretary of State for Defence two Parliamentary Questions concerning the use of executive search agencies and recruitment costs within Agencies of the Ministry of Defence. The matters you raise fall within the responsibilities delegated to the Chief Executive of the Hydrographic Defence Agency, Rear Admiral J. P. Clarke. In the normal course of events Admiral Clarke would reply to you personally but unfortunately he is at present on official duty overseas so I have been asked to reply to you on his behalf.
  2. As the two questions you asked relate to similar issues I hope you will not object if I reply to them both in this letter.
  3. Turning first to your question about recruitment costs (1497H) the information you require, concerning the Hydrographic Office, can be summarised as follows:

  Year

  Number recruited

  Cost £

  1994–95

  15

  1,269

  1995–96

  66

  21,681

  4. As regards your question about executive search agencies or employment companies, (1498H) I can tell you that the Hydrographic Office did not use any executive search agency or employment company in filling any vacancies that arose during 1994/95 or 1995/96.
  I hope the above information has been helpful.

  Letter from J. C. R. Hunt to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 11 June 1996:
  The Meteorological Office is an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Defence. As Chief Executive I am responding to your question regarding recruitment.
  In the financial year 1994–95 we recruited 42 staff at a cost of £71,036.
  In the financial year 1995–96 we recruited 65 staff at the cost of £119,393.
  I hope this gives you the information you need.

  Letter from Brigadier T. McG. Brown to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 11 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence, the Rt Hon Michael Portillo MP, regarding the cost of recruiting staff and the number of staff recruited in 1994/95 and 1995/96 within the MoD and its associated agencies.
  As Chief Executive, this matter falls within my area of responsibility for the Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency.
  207
  During 1994/95 and 1995/96 the Agency employed five staff to manage the personnel function for in excess of 300 civilian staff, and part of their function is to oversee recruitment. However, other than the £7,600 spent advertising for staff, the cost of the recruitment component is not separately identified. In 1994/95 and 1995/96 we recruited 55 and 122 staff respectively, excluding those we assumed responsibility for as a result of MoD reorganisations. We are not responsible for recruiting military staff who are recruited by the Army's centralised recruitment function.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Letter from W. E. Spreadbury to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 11 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence (about recruitment of staff) on behalf of the Chief Executive of the Duke of York's Royal Military School who is absent on duty as this matter falls within his area of responsibility.
  During the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96 my Agency spent £1775 and £1847 respectively on recruiting staff. The numbers of staff recruited in these two years were 7 and 13 respectively.

  Letter from Brigadier K. J. W. Good to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 11 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence regarding how much my agency has spent in recruiting staff during the 1994/95 and 1995/96 financial years; and how many staff were recruited in each of these years.
  My response, therefore, is as follows:

  Total spend on recruitment 1994/95: £86,775

  Total spend on recruitment 1995/96: £89,625

  Total number of staff recruited 1994/95: 358

  Total number of staff recruited 1995/96: 427

  I trust this fully answers your question.

  Letter from I. S. Mitchelson to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 11 June 1996:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence relating to recruitment within this Agency during 1994/95 and 1995/96, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of Service Children's Education, (SCE).
  Almost all Service Children's Education staff are recruited in the UK for service overseas or recruited locally in overseas locations. During the 1994/95 Financial Year SCE's predecessor Agency, Service Children's Schools (North West Europe), recruited 353 locally entered staff. Advertising for these types of staff was through existing service sources at negligible additional associated cost, which was not separately recorded. No associated travel and subsistence costs, nor fees for interview board members was incurred. The Agency only assumed responsibility for recruitment of locally entered staff in July 1994 and figures are not available prior to this. Additionally during 1994/95 10 UK Based staff were recruited at a cost of £20,770, inclusive of advertising costs, board members fees and candidates travel and subsistence costs.
  In the 1995/96 Financial Year, the Agency recruited 1,044 locally entered staff, almost all part-time. Twenty-two UK Based staff were recruited during the same period at a cost of £44,874. In addition to the costs at 1994/95, this figure includes the hiring of regional venues for the interviews.

  Letter from Paul A. Altobell to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 11 June 1996:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about expenditure on recruiting staff as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency.
  DASA has spent the following on the recruitment of staff:

  1994/95: £0

  1995/96: £2,752.35

  In addition to those staff recruited for us by our parent Department (MoD) my Agency has directly recruited the following:
  208
  Number of staff

  1994/95: 0

  1995/96: 11

  Letter from Colonel A. H. Roache to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 11 June 1996:
  As Chief Executive of the Defence Animal Centre (DAC) I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence regarding how much the DAC spent in recruiting staff during the 1994–95 and 1995–96 financial years and how many staff were recruited in each of these years.
  Staff are recruited through the mediums of the Area Civilian Staff Manager and the Job Centre and the use of these organisations is at no cost to the DAC.
  During the financial year 1994–95, 10 staff were recruited and 36 were recruited during 1995–96.

  Letter from Air Commodore P. C. Ayee to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 11 June:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence, asking how much his Department spent in recruiting staff to his Department and its executive agencies during the 1994–95 and 1995–95 financial years; and how many staff were recruited in each of these years as this matter falls within my responsibility as Chief Executive of the Royal Air Force Signals Engineering Establishment.
  From its launch as an executive agency on 22 Nov 94 until the end of financial year 1994–95 my agency recruited 45 staff through the Department at no direct cost to the Agency. In financial year 1995–96 we recruited 51 staff at a direct cost of £2,652.

  Letter from Captain W. S. Graham to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 11 June 1996:

  1. I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence, that asked how much was spent in the 'Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation (NARO)' in recruiting staff during 1994–95 and 1995–96 financial years, and how many staff were recruited in each of these years, as the matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the NARO.

  2. The figures are as follows:

  94/96: 63 £19,112

  95/96: 80 £20,606

  Letter from W. E. E. Boreham to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 11 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about recruitment, as this falls into my area of responsibility as Chief Constables/Chief Executive of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency.
  I recruited 32 police officers and no civilians in 1994–95, and no police officers but 12 civilian staff, for employment at MDP Wethersfield, in 1995–96. I spent £6,192 on police recruitment advertising during financial year 1994–95 and £10,040 in 1995–96. Recruitment is conducted in-house by my Personnel Department as part of its wider duties, and the staff costs associated with recruitment are not separately identified.

  Letters from N. J. Pearson to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 11 June 1996:

  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the cost of recruiting staff and the number of staff recruited as this matters falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre (JARIC) Defence Agency. The Agency, which formed on 19 April 1996, continues to use the Department's centralized resources for its Service and civilian recruitment needs. Information on staff recruitment costs could only be provided at disproportionate costs. Since personnel are recruited to meet central requirements and not exclusively to fill JARIC's needs. The numbers of civilian staff externally recruited to meet JARIC's vacancies for financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96 were 14 and 16 respectively.
  209
  Letter from Brigadier J. R. Drew to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 11 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about how much was spent by Defence Agencies on recruitment in 1994/95 and 1995/96 and how many staff were recruited, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Army Base Repair Organisation (ABRO).
  It is not possible to provide information about the full cost to ABRO of recruitment in these years as the systems are not yet available to provide this without disproportionate cost and effort. I can however advise that the number of staff recruited and the amount spent on recruitment advertising for the most recent full financial years was:

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Number of staff

  243

  533

  Cost of advertising

  £7,618

  £30,027

  I hope that this is helpful.

  Letter from Brian Raine to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 11 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence, on how much his Department spent in recruiting staff to his Department and its executive agencies during the 1994–95 and 1995–96 financial year; and how many staff were recruited in each of these years.

  Cost of Advertising

  1994/95: £9,843.13

  1995/96: £9,385.53

  Numbers recruited

  1994/95: 8

  1995/96: 5

  If you have any further questions about this reply please do not hesitate to contact me.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use his Department and its executive agencies have made of executive search agencies or employment companies in filling vacancies within his Department or executive agencies administered by his Department during the financial years 1994–95 and 1995– 96; what agencies were employed; what was the cost in each case; how many staff were recruited in each case; and what was the total cost in each financial year of these contracts. [31412]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Department and its executive agencies have engaged the services of executive search agencies and employment companies for recruitment to senior appointments such as chief executives of defence agencies.

  1994–95

  Saxton Bampfylde International plc: 1 post

  Norman Broadbent Selection (NBS): 1 post

  Total cost for year £72,000

  1995–96

  Norman Broadbent Selection (NBS): 1 post

  Recruitment and Assessment Services (RAS): 8 posts

  Total cost for year £134,853

  We also use the Recruitment and Advisory Service, formerly the Civil Service Commission, for the Department's fast stream recruitment requirements.

  The figures quoted include value added tax but not the costs of advertising. The individual fees for the companies are commercially confidential.
  210
  Where responsibility for these matters falls to the chief executives of my Department's agencies under the terms of their framework documents and they have exercised that responsibility, I have asked the chief executives to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Brigadier J. R. Drew to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 11 June 1996:

  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the use made by Defence Agencies of executive search agencies and employment companies in 1994/5 and 1995/96, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Army Base Repair Organisation (ABRO).
  I have enclosed the details you requested on a separate sheet. It should be noted that the number of staff engaged through employment agencies was unusually high in 1995/96 because of the need temporarily to replace vital skills lost during the rundown of ABRO Old Dalby. All the work of that workshop is in the process of transfer to other ABRO and MOD facilities or to industry.

  ABRO: Use of employment agencies

  Agencies used

  Numbers of posts filled

  Cost £

  1994–95

  Turner Charles Ltd, Staff UK, British Nursing Corporation

  5

  96,955

  1995–96

  Turner Charles Ltd, Staff UK, British Nursing Corporation, Kelly Services, Matchmaker Personnel

  30

  205,514

  The individual fees for companies are not given as they are commercially confidential.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 11 June 1996:
  Your two recent questions asked the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances his Department and Agencies have used executive search agencies or employment companies in filling vacancies in preference to their own personnel staff and for details about the agencies used in the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. I am replying on behalf of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) and will answer both questions in this letter.
  DERA's policy is to use its own resources for recruiting. On occasion we also use executive search or employment agencies to fill a particularly specialised post or one in a profession not immediately connected with DERA's main business.
  The agencies used by DERA with the numbers of staff recruited in the last two years were as follows:

  Agency

  Recruits

  1994–95

  Hays Accountancy Personnel

  2

  Accountancy Personnel

  1

  Saxton Barnfylde

  1

  Genesis Recruitment

  1

  HS Consultants

  1

  Total

  6

  1995–96

  Robert Half (Accountancy)

  5

  Cambridge Recruitment Consultants

  8

  Accountancy Personnel

  1

  Accountancy Appointments

  1

  Wendy B Employment Consultants

  1

  Manpower PLC

  1

  Howlett Thrope Recruitment Consultants

  1

  Index Recruitment

  2

  Total

  20

  211
  I cannot give the amounts paid to each of these companies individually as this information is commercial in confidence. The total amount paid in 1994–95 was £54,400 and the figure for 1995– 96 was £86,900.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Letter from J. C. R. Hunt to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 11 June 1996:
  The Meteorological Office is an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Defence. As Chief Executive I am responding to your question regarding the use of executive search agencies or employment agencies.
  In the financial year 1994–95 we made no use of such agencies.
  In the financial year 1995–96 we used an agency on one occasion to recruit a senior finance person at a cost of £21,112. This figure is not out of line with recruitment costs generally in an area where market forces are firmly in play.

  Letter from S. Parnell to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 11 June 1996:
  1. You recently asked the Secretary of State for Defence two Parliamentary Questions concerning the use of executive search agencies and recruitment costs within Agencies of the Ministry of Defence. The matters you raise fall within the responsibilities delegated to the Chief Executive of the Hydrographic Defence Agency, Rear Admiral J. P. Clarke. In the normal course of events Admiral Clarke would reply to you personally but unfortunately he is at present on official duty overseas so I have been asked to reply to you on his behalf.
  2. As the two questions you asked relate to similar issues I hope you will not object if I reply to them both in this letter.

  3. Turning first to your question about recruitment costs (1497H) the information you require, concerning the Hydrographic Office, can be summarised as follows:

  Year

  Number recruited

  Cost £

  1994–95

  15

  1,269

  1995–96

  66

  21,681

  4. As regards your question about executive search agencies or employment companies, (1498H) I can tell you that the Hydrographic Office did not use any executive search agency or employment company in filling any vacancies that arose during 1994/95 or 1995/96.
  I hope the above information has been helpful.

  Letter from Brigadier T. McG. Brown to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 11 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence, the Rt Hon Michael Portillo MP, regarding the use of employment and executive search agencies within the MoD and its associated agencies.
  As Chief Executive, this matter falls within my area of responsibility for the Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency.
  In 1994/95 and 1995/96 the Agency used temporary staff from "Manpower", "Remploy Ltd" and "Josephine Sammons Ltd". We also recruited from local Job Centres and directly via advertisements in the local press. We have approached various agencies to recruit accounting staff with successful candidates being provided by "Bond Accountancy" and "Hays Accountancy Personnel". The staff recruited from agencies are temporary staff for whom we do not pay a recruitment fee, but the hourly charge for these staff incorporates a percentage payable to the recruitment agency. The overall cost of employing agency staff is similar to that of our equivalent permanent staff. We do not maintain a record of the number of general temporary staff employed in 1994/95 and 1995/96. However, the number of temporary specialist accounting staff employed in this time was two.
  I hope this information is helpful.
  212
  Letter from I. S. Mitchelson to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 11 June 1996:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence relating to the use of executive search agencies or employment companies, insofar as this area falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of Service Children's Education.
  Service Children's Education, and its predecessor Service Children's Schools (North West Europe), has not used executive search agencies or employment companies in filling vacancies during the financial year 1994–95 and 1995–96. The Recruitment and Advisory Service (RAS) is currently being used to assist the recruitment of my replacement following my retirement on 31 December 1996.

  Letter from Brigadier M. G. R. Hodson to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 11 June 1996:
  I am replying to your two Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence, about executive search and employment agencies, as these matters fall within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Transport and Movements Executive Agency.
  We formed as an Agency in April 1995 and since then have utilized the services of just one outside recruitment agency. This was in connection with the engagement of one person direct from the commercial market and in such circumstances I considered it necessary to employ the Recruitment and Assessment Services, Basingstoke, because of their expertise in this specialist area. The cost falling during financial year 1995/96 was £4,054.

  Letter from Paul Attobell to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 11 June 1996:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the use of executive search agencies or employment companies as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency.
  DAS A has made no use of search agencies during 1994/95 and 1995/96. We have, however, used an employment agency to bring in casual staff on a short term basis to cope with surges in capacity. The details are as follows:

  Employment Agency: Manpower plc
  Cost of using Agency: DASA recruits casual staff through a central contract placed with Manpower plc by our parent Department (MoD). No details are held locally.

  Numbers of staff recruited

  1994/95: 4

  1995/96: 4

  Total cost to DASA

  1994/95: £38,439

  1995/96: £35,608.

  Letter from Brigadier M. J. Roycroft to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 11 June 1996:
  I am replying to 2 of your Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about how much his Department spent in recruiting staff to his Department and its executive agencies during the 1994–95 and 1995–96 financial years; and how many staff were recruited in each of these years. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Clothing & Textiles Agency.
  The Defence Clothing & Textiles Agency has delegated recruiting powers for civilian staff. The Agency did not recruit any staff from external sources in financial year 1994–95 and did not therefore incur any expenditure for recruiting staff. In financial year 1995–96 advertising costs of £5,760 were incurred for the recruitment of 36 personnel. The Agency did not use any executive search agencies or employment companies for filling vacancies during this period.
  I hope that the above information provides the answers you require.
  213
  Letter from Keith Ellender to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 11 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the use made of executive search agencies or employment companies to fill vacancies within agencies. This matter falls to me as Chief Executive of the Disposal Sales Agency.
  During 1995/96 the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency (RAS) were employed to advertise the post of Chief Executive as a cost to my Agency. The cost of advertising amounted to £6,844.37. The fee paid to RAS cannot be disclosed as this information is 'Commercial-in-Confidence'.
  No use was made of executive search agencies or employment companies by my Agency during 1994/95.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances his Department or its executive agencies uses an executive search or employment agency to recruit staff in preference to using personnel staff within his own Department or its executive agencies. [31525]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The recruitment and executive search agencies are engaged to assist the Department and its agencies in identifying and recruiting appropriately qualified and experienced individuals in cases where appointments are being filled by open competition and where the Department does not have the relevant in-house recruiting capability.

  Where the chief executives of my Department's agencies have responsibilities for this matter under the terms of their framework documents and have additional information I have asked them to write direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 11 June 1996:
  Your two recent questions asked the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances his Department and Agencies have used executive search agencies or employment companies in filling vacancies in preference to their own personnel staff and for details about the agencies used in the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. I am replying on behalf of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) and will answer both questions in this letter.
  DERA's policy is to use its own resources for recruiting. On occasion we also use executive search or employment agencies to fill a particularly specialised post or one in a profession not immediately connected with DERA's main business.
  The agencies used by DERA with the numbers of staff recruited in the last two years were as follows:

  Agency

  Recruits

  1994–95

  Hays Accountancy Personnel

  2

  Accountancy Personnel

  1

  Saxton Barnfylde

  1

  Genesis Recruitment

  1

  HS Consultants

  1

  Total

  6

  1995–96

  Robert Half (Accountancy)

  5

  Cambridge Recruitment Consultants

  8

  Accountancy Personnel

  1

  Accountancy Appointments

  1

  Wendy B Employment Consultants

  1

  Manpower PLC

  1

  Howlett Thrope Recruitment Consultants

  1

  Index Recruitment

  2

  Total

  20

  214
  I cannot give the amounts paid to each of these companies individually as this information is commercial in confidence. The total amount paid in 1994–95 was £54,400 and the figure for 1995–96 was £86,900.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Letter from S. Parnell to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 12 June 1996:
  1. You recently asked the Secretary of State for Defence a Parliamentary Question about the circumstances in which the Ministry of Defence or its executive agencies would use an executive search or employment agency to recruit staff. As the issue you raise falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Hydrographic Office Defence Agency, your question has been referred to the Hydrographic Office for the provision of a reply. In the normal course of events Admiral Clarke would reply to you personally but unfortunately he is at present on official duty overseas so I have been asked to respond to you on his behalf.
  2. In answer to your question, the Hydrographic Office would only use employment agencies in special circumstances, for example to meet short-term requirements owing to temporary absences or because of surge requirements to accommodate sudden, but temporary increases in workflow.
  3. I hope the above has been helpful.

  Letter from Brigadier K. J. W. Good to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 12 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence regarding the circumstances in which my Agency uses an executive search or employment agency to recruit staff in preference to using personnel staff within the Ministry of Defence.
  There are currently no circumstances in which the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency would make use of an executive search or employment agency, as we have no personnel delegations for mobile grades. Non-mobile grades are recruited through Job Centres at no cost to the agency or the Ministry of Defence.
  I trust this fully answers your question.

  Letter from Brigadier T. McG. Brown to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 12 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence, the Rt Hon Michael Portillo MP, regarding the circumstances in which employment and executive search agencies are used within the MoD and its associated agencies.
  As Chief Executive, this matter falls within my area of responsibility for the Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency.
  The Agency uses employment agencies to provide temporary staff where it is not possible to recruit permanent staff from within the MoD sufficiently quickly to fill vacancies. This situation generally arises where staff are required at short notice, or occasionally where there is a need to recruit specialist staff on short term appointments. The Agency has not used executive search agencies as all senior staff, both military and civilian, have been appointed from within MoD. We always attempt to recruit from existing MoD staff before approaching employment agencies.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Letter from N. J. Pearson to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 12 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the circumstances under which search agencies or employment companies would be used to recruit staff as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre Defence Agency. The Agency, which is only 2 months old, cannot currently envisage a circumstance in which either an executive search agency or employment company would be used to recruit staff in preference to employing the Agency's Department's own personnel resources.
  215
  Letter from Brigadier J. R. Drew to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 12 June 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking in what circumstances Defence Agencies use executive search agencies and employment companies, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Army Base Repair Organisation (ABRO).
  ABRO uses the services of employment companies only when difficulties are encountered in filling posts with internal candidates who have the requisite skills and experience or can move in the appropriate time frame. All such appointments are made on temporary contracts and are very much the exception rather than the rule.

SCOTLAND

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of NHS expenditure on hospital and community services in Scotland is managed by GP fundholding. [31811]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In 1995–96 GP fundholders managed 3.7 per cent. of NHS revenue expenditure on hospital and community services in Scotland.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the total national cost and (b) the cost per health board area of the allowances to cover the additional administrative costs of general practitioner fundholding in Scotland in each year since its introduction. [31810]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) on 6 February,Official Report, columns 83–86.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many health boards in Scotland have established fundholding units as a means of supporting and encouraging general practitioner fundholding; and what is the annual cost of these units in each case. [31817]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None of the health boards in Scotland has established fundholding units. There is, however, a department of primary care within each health board which seeks to develop general practice. Staff involved in the management and support of all GPs, including fundholders, are employed within these departments.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total amount of efficiency savings by GP fundholding practices in Scotland in each year since the introduction of GP fundholding including the current year to date. [31813]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  For information on the amount of savings made by GP fundholders held by health boards from 1990–91 to 1994–95, the latest year for which audited accounts are available. I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) on 6 February,Official Report, column 85. Audited figures are not yet available for 1995–96.
  216
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the total budgets of all GP fundholding practices in Scotland in each year since its introduction, including the current year to date. [31815]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table. Information for the current year to date is not yet available.

  Financial year

  Approved budgets £ million

  1991–92

  3.1

  1992–93

  15.5

  1993–94

  95.5

  1994–95

  171.8

  1995–96

  210.0

  Purchasing Pilot Projects
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total purchasing pilot projects in Scotland. [31823]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are seven total purchasing pilot projects in Scotland:

  Lothian health Board: Lothian Health total purchasing pilot project

  Lanarkshire health board: Lanarkshire total purchasing pilot project

  Greater Glasgow health board: Strathkelvin total purchasing pilot

  Grampian health board: Aberdeen West group

  Grampian health board: Counties group

  Highland health board: Nairn and Ardersier total fundholding pilot project

  Argyll and Clyde health board: Lomondside total purchasing pilot

  Sentinel Works, Polmadie
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to ensure the physical integrity of the grade A listed building at 61 Jessie street, Polmadie, Glasgow. [32208]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The maintenance of listed buildings is essentially a matter for the owners. In 1995 an application to demolish the building was submitted to Glasgow district council by Strathclyde regional council in connection with the proposed M74 extension. Following advice from Historic Scotland, however, it was accepted that the demolition of the building was no longer required in connection with the extension of the motorway and the application was withdrawn.

  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what responsibility he has retained for the Sentinel Works at 61 Jessie street, Polmadie, Glasgow. [32228]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no direct responsibility for the Sentinel Works. However, as it is a category A listed building, any applications which the planning authority was minded to approve to alter, extend or demolish the building would have to be referred to him.
  217

  Council Homes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many council homes have been built in each financial year since 1979–80 in Scotland. [32447]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The total numbers of completions of local authority dwellings in the financial years 1979–80 to 1994–95 are as follows:

  Financial year

  Number of local authority dwellings completed

  1979–80

  4,818

  1980–81

  5,199

  1981–82

  3,141

  1982–83

  2,222

  1983–84

  2,470

  1984–85

  2,024

  1985–86

  1,880

  1986–87

  1,678

  1987–88

  2,021

  1988–89

  1,818

  1989–90

  1,243

  1990–91

  987

  1991–92

  1,030

  1992–93

  574

  1993–94

  526

  1994–95

  658

  Source:

  The Scottish Office Development Department housing statistics unit.

  Legal Service (Tayside and Fife)
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many police reports were received by(a) Arbroath and Forfar procurator fiscal offices and (b) the remainder of the procurator fiscal offices within the sheriffdom of Tayside, Central and Fife between (i) January and December 1994, (ii) January and December 1995 and (iii) December 1995 and April 1996; and, in each case, how many and what percentage were marked "No proceedings". [32528]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has provided the following information in relation to the total number of reports received by procurators fiscal in Tayside, Central and Fife. This information relates to all reports received in the relevant years, including death reports and reports submitted by non-police reporting agencies such as the local authorities and the Health and Safety Executive.

  Tayside, Central and Fife region—1 January to 31 December 1994

  Total reports received

  Total marked "No proceedings"

  Percentage marked "No proceedings"

  Arbroath

  3,060

  270

  8.82

  Forfar

  2,235

  142

  6.35

  Alloa

  2,588

  398

  15.38

  Cupar

  2,111

  242

  11.46

  Dundee

  11,044

  950

  8.60

  Dunfermline

  7,035

  745

  10.59

  Falkirk

  7,351

  1,011

  13.75

  Kirkcaldy

  7,687

  1,155

  15.03

  Perth

  7,623

  1,211

  15.89

  Stirling

  4,656

  468

  10.05

  Totals

  55,390

  6,592

  11.90

  218

  Tayside, Central and Fife region—1 January to 31 December 1995

  Total reports received

  Total marked"No proceedings"

  Percentage marked "No proceedings"

  Arbroath

  2,985

  354

  11.86

  Forfar

  2,048

  245

  11.96

  Alloa

  2,365

  314

  13.28

  Cupar

  2,118

  322

  15.20

  Dundee

  10,750

  1,476

  13.73

  Dunfermline

  6,497

  979

  15.07

  Falkirk

  7,286

  1,034

  14.19

  Kirkcaldy

  7,473

  995

  13.31

  Perth

  7,527

  1,009

  13.41

  Stirling

  4,926

  630

  12.79

  Totals

  53,975

  7,358

  13.63

  Tayside, Central and Fife region—1 January to 31 December 1996

  Total reports received

  Total marked "No proceedings"

  Percentage marked "No proceedings"

  Arbroath

  1,156

  185

  16.00

  Forfar

  813

  104

  12.79

  Alloa

  1,056

  195

  18.47

  Cupar

  873

  95

  10.88

  Dundee

  4,035

  705

  17.47

  Dunfermline

  2,379

  359

  15.09

  Falkirk

  2,881

  520

  18.05

  Kirkcaldy

  2,933

  395

  13.47

  Perth

  2,902

  332

  11.44

  Stirling

  1,516

  201

  13.26

  Totals

  20,544

  3,091

  15.05

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what considerations underlay the statement in the Scottish Office Development Department circular 6/96 regarding the compliance of tendering practices with legislation; to which legislation this statement refers; and if the Scottish Office has received external legal guidance to support this assessment. [31567]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: The basic legislation is the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, the Local Government Act 1988 and the Local Government Act 1992, and regulations made thereunder. The purpose of the circular, which was issued after careful consideration of all relevant factors and reflects experience, is to provide guidance to authorities on how they may avoid conduct which has the effect or is intended or likely to have the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition and thus ensure value for money for the council tax payer. The circular replaces one issued in 1993.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many representations he has received indicating that Scottish local authorities have been increasing the capacity of their direct labour organisations; and who made these complaints; [31569]

  (2) pursuant to his Department's letter to the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities of 11 May, which Scottish local authorities have used his

  219
  Department's moratorium on compulsory competitive tendering to increase direct labour organisation in-house capacity; and if he will list the evidence supporting the claim. [31576]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: We have received some 20 written complaints from contractors and other interested parties, whom it would not be appropriate to name, about authorities' actions during the CCT moratorium. We have also received representations at meetings which I and my officials have attended and have received other oral complaints. The representations have not concentrated on authorities increasing their DLO in-house capacity, on which we have no information centrally. Instead, the representations have referred to authorities taking work in-house without tendering the market and without ensuring best value for money for the council tax payer.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the legislation, statutory instruments, regulations and circulars relating to compulsory competitive tendering that have been passed or issued since 1980. [31570]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: The information is as follows:

  CCT PRIMARY LEGISLATION

  The CCT primary legislation is:

  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (Part III)

  Local Government Act 1988 (Part I)

  Local Government Act 1992 (sections 8–10)

  CCT regulations and statutory instruments

  Regulations

  Date in force

  The Local Government (Direct Labour Organisations) (Competition) (Scotland) Regulations 1982 (SI 1982/318)

  1 April 1982

  The Local Government (Direct Labour Organisations) (Accounts) (Scotland) Regulations 1982 (SI 1982/319)

  1 April 1982

  The Local Government (Direct Labour Organisations) (Competition) (Scotland) Regulations 1984 (SI 1984/159)

  1 April 1984

  The Local Government (Direct Labour Organisations) (Competition) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1988 (SI 1988/956)

  1 July 1988

  The Local Government Act 1988 (Defined Activities) (Competition) (Scotland) Regulations 1988 (SI 1988/1413)

  1 September 1988

  The Local Government Act 1988 (Defined Activities) (Specified Periods) (Scotland) Regulations 1988 (SI 1988/1414)

  1 September 1988

  The Local Government Act 1988 (Defined Activities) (Exemptions) (Scotland) (Order) 1988 (SI 1988/1415)

  1 September 1988

  The Local Government Act 1988 (Competition in Sports and Leisure Facilities) Order 1989 (SI 1989/2488)

  28 December 1989

  The Local Government Act 1988 (Defined Activities) (Competition and Specified Periods) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 (SI 1990/1484)20 August 1990

  The Local Government Act 1988 (Defined Activities) (Exemptions) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1990 (SI 1990/1485)

  20 August 1990

  The Local Government (Direct Labour Organisations) (Competition) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 (SI 1990/1782)

  1 October 1990/ 1 April 1991

  220

  CCT regulations and statutory instruments

  Regulations

  Date in force

  The Local Government (Direct Labour Organisations) (Specified Number of Employed Persons) (Scotland) Order 1990 (SI 1990/1783) 1 October 1990

  The Local Government Act 1988 (Defined Activities) (Competition) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1990 (SI 1990/2286)

  18 December 1990

  The Local Government Act 1988 (Defined Activities) (Competition) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1990 (SI 1990/2498)31 December 1990

  The Local Government (Direct Labour Organisations) (Competition) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1991 (SI 1991/243)

  1 April 1991

  The Local Government Act 1988 (Defined Activities) (Competitions and Specified Periods) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1991 (SI 1991–2548) 4 December 1991

  The Local Government Act 1988 (Defined Activities) (Specified Periods) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1993 (SI 1993–178)

  28 February 1993

  The Local Government (Direct Service Organisations) (Competition) Regulations 1993 (SI 1993/848)

  10 May 1993

  The Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Defined Activities) (Housing Management) Order 1994 (SI 1994–1671)

  23 June 1994

  The Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Defined Activities) Order 1994 (SI 1994–2884)

  10 November 1994

  The Local Government act 1988 (Competition) (Defined Activities) (Construction and Property Services) Order 1994 (SI 1994–2888) 11 November 1994

  The Local Government Act 1988 (Defined Activities) (Exemption) (Livingston Development Corporation) Order 1994 (SI 1994–3084) 31 December 1994

  The Local Government Act 1988 (Supervision of Parking) (Exemption) (Scotland) Order 1994 (SI 1994–3107)

  31 December 1994

  The Local Government Act 1980 (Defined Activities) (Exemption of Development Corporations) (Scotland) Order 1995 (SI 1995–517)31 March 1995

  The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (Competition) (Scotland) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995–677)

  31 March 1995

  The Local Government (Exemption from Competition) (Scotland) Order 1995 (SI 1995–678)

  31 March 1995

  The Local Government (Direct Service Organisations) (Competition) (Amendment) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995–1336)

  14 June 1995

  The Local Government Act 1988 (Defined Activities) (Competition) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1995 (SI 1995–1972)

  20 August 1995

  The Local Government (Direct Labour Organisations) (Accounts) (Scotland) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996–784)

  1 April 1996

  The Local Government Act 1988 (Defined Activities) (Specified Periods) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996–917)

  1 May 1996

  221

  CCT circulars

  Circular number

  Date

  Title of circular

  46/1980

  18 December 1980

  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980

  8/1982

  25 March 1982

  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980—Part III: Direct Labour Organisations

  5/1984

  28 February 1984

  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980—Part III: Direct Labour Organisations

  1/1987

  22 January 1987

  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980—Part III: Direct Labour Organisations

  9/1988

  20 May 1988

  Local Government Act 1988

  18/1988

  23 August 1988

  Local Government Act 1988: Part I and Schedule I Competition in the Provision of Local Authority Services

  22/1990

  7 September 1990

  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 Direct Labour Organisations

  6/1991

  8 March 1991

  Local Government Act 1988 Part I: Competition in the Provision of Local Authority Services

  9/1991

  26 March 1991

  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 Direct Labour Organisations: Roads Work

  18/1991

  19 December 1991

  Local Government Act 1988 Competition in Sport and Leisure Facilities

  13/1993

  14 June 1993

  Local Government Act 1992, Section 9 Competition in the Provision of Local Authority Services

  11/1994

  30 March 1994

  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 Direct Labour Organisations (Rate of Return on Capital) (Scotland) Directions 1994 Local Government Act 1988 Financial Objectives (Scotland) Specifications 1994

  22/1994

  23 June 1994

  The Local Government Act 1992 (Commencement No. 4) Order 1994 Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 Direct Labour Organisations Financial Objectives (Scotland) Specifications 1994

  10/1995

  30 March 1995

  Extension of Compulsory Competitive Tendering to Legal and Further Manual Services and to Professional Construction and Property Services

  13/1995

  21 June 1995

  The Local Government (Exemption from Competition) (Scotland) Order 1995: SI No. 678 The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (Competition) (Scotland) Regulations 1995: I No. 677

  6/1996

  2 April 1996

  Guidance on the Conduct of Compulsory Competitive Tendering

  8/1996

  27 March 1996

  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 Financial Objectives (Scotland) Specifications 1996 Local Government Act 1988 Financial Objectives (Scotland) Specifications 1996

  The above circulars, with one exception, were issued by the Scottish Development Department/the Scottish Office Environment Department/the Scottish Office Development Department. The one exception is circular 18/1991, which was issued by the Scottish Office Education Department.
  222
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the cost in terms of(a) civil servant staff time and (b) other expenditure incurred by his Department in preparing legislation, statutory instruments, regulations and circulars relating to compulsory competitive tendering since 1980. [31571]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: This information is not available, but I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on 24 April 1996, Official Report, column 124.

  Stonehaven Hospital
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the payback period for the private finance initiative element in respect of Stonehaven hospital. [32041]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 10 June 1996]: Grampian health board has yet to decide on the preferred bidder for the Stonehaven scheme. When a contract is awarded, it will be for an initial period of 10 years and will be for the provision by the successful tenderer of a range of services, which will be provided in new hospital premises, not for the construction of the hospital itself. The winning bidder will need to demonstrate that it provides the best value for money compared to other bids and against a public sector comparator. Therefore, it will be for the private sector to consider the payback period for the new facilities that it provides in the context of its bids, which will be expressed in terms of an overall price covering service provision, overheads and any capital elements.

  Fishing (Net Sizes)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information is held on the amount of large mesh bottom-set gill net in use off Scotland by(a) British boats and (b) foreign boats (i) within the six-mile limit and (ii) beyond; and how any changes in the amount and type of gill net use, as a result of the proposed derogation on monofilament net will be determined. [31777]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: Information is not collected separately on the use of large mesh bottom set gill nets. There are no plans to change this.

  Pesca Funding
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much Pesca funding is available for fishery projects in Scotland in 1996–97; how much was paid in 1995–96; and if he will list those projects funded and the amount each project received. [32193]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 10 June 1996]: Just over one Mecu—£827,000—is available to fund projects under the financial instrument for fisheries guidance in 1996. Eligible activity includes business opportunity studies, product development and marketing research and quality assurance initiatives. No money has been paid out under for 1995 or 1996.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.
The Earl of Effingham The Earl of Effingham—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his uncle.

EU: Harmonisation and Subsidiarity
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware that the obligation of member states of the European Union under the Treaty of Rome as amended to harmonise their laws is in conflict with the subsidiarity rule agreed at Maastricht; and whether they will propose at the forthcoming Inter-Governmental Conference that harmonisation should cease to be an obligation.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, subsidiarity and proportionality are the key principles governing action by the European Community. They do not necessarily exclude harmonisation where this is clearly required, for instance to ensure the effective working of the single market. But they underpin the need for the Community to prefer mutual recognition to harmonisation wherever possible.
Lord Renton: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for her reply, which is to an extent encouraging, is she aware that the Treaty of Rome as amended has created a chaotic and unworkable law-making process which is unsuitable for 15 nations with 11 languages and various legal systems? Does she also agree that if the enlarged Community is to succeed, as we should all wish it to do, we must have fewer and better laws, which means less harmonisation and more subsidiarity? Will the Government press for this at the IGC?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend. We have less regulation because we have less harmonisation. As to primary legislation, the number of proposals continues to fall: 61 in 1990, 48 in 1993, 38 in 1994 and an estimated 25 last year. This year, there are likely to be only 19 new principal legislative proposals. While I agree with my noble friend, I believe it is necessary to ensure that subsidiarity is at the forefront of the European Commission's mind and that of member states in deciding what needs to be done. We should do at Community level only what needs to be done at that level. Certainly, we should not let the Union interfere in everything that goes on. That is the very principle of subsidiarity.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that under Article 100 of the original
1708
Treaty of Rome measures to achieve harmonisation had to be passed unanimously but that unfortunately the position was altered by the Single European Act 1986 and amendments to it? In particular, under Article 100A proposals for harmonisation were allowed on the basis that they were intended to further the single market. In so doing, it invoked Article 189C of the Treaty of Maastricht which introduced qualified majority voting. The original safeguards have been rendered totally invalid by virtue of the Single European Act and the Treaty of Maastricht, and the subsidiarity doctrine in relation to harmonisation is not worth the paper on which it is written.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, not for the first time I have to say that I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I believe that harmonisation had its place in seeking the construction of the single market. We had to remove a multiplicity of national regulations for a single product; otherwise, we would never have achieved a single market. Although the noble Lord will not like my saying so, this country has benefited very greatly from the single market. We were the driving force behind it. The noble Lord can quote Articles 100A and 189C for as long as he likes. I can do similarly in response, but I will not do so for your Lordships' sake. While not everything that comes out of the treaty—formed at that time between 12 participating nations (now 15)—will be exactly to our liking, we are far better off. We would never have achieved the successful outcome in the GATT negotiations without the UK's liberal non-protectionist approach, which also underlay the single market and brought other European Union countries along with us in those negotiations.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, while my noble friend is very persuasive in explaining the Government's view on this matter, is she aware that there is a contradiction in terms in what she has said? If harmonisation is obligatory it makes a nonsense of subsidiarity as it was explained to us. That is the effect of the words as they stand. Can we try to do something about it at the forthcoming meeting?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend misunderstands. The legislation underpinning the single market, adopted under the harmonisation articles, is still operative and is sometimes required for new single market legislation following technological change. That does not mean that harmonisation is always required. In some areas, such as health, it is specifically excluded. That was why I said in my original Answer to my noble friend Lord Renton that we preferred mutual recognition to harmonisation wherever possible. That is what we work for.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may start by welcoming the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, back to the House. It is the first time I have seen him here. I am sure that he is restored to his usual vigour, energy and determination. We are glad to see him back. May I also congratulate the Minister on her robust defence of the necessity for QMV in relation to the single market?

1709
I heard her say with regret that she found herself in disagreement with my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. I shall have to bear that disagreement with equanimity.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, perhaps I may say, first, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, that the Opposition should note that he is back in fighting form; but he still wields a big stick, which is just down there. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for what he said. Of course there are some things which are necessary, but in previous years there have been too many unnecessary proposals from Brussels. We are working towards getting rid of those unnecessary proposals. On those occasions when the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, finds something unnecessary I can agree with him, but not today.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is one of the main problems with Article 3B (the subsidiarity clause) not the fact that its meaning is unclear, and that our European competitors give it the opposite meaning to that which the Government put forward? Is it not true that those competitors see it as a means of advancing their federalist cause, whereas the Government pretend that it is the shield of our sovereignty?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we have always been clear, and so have most of our fellow member states in the EU, about what subsidiarity means. I do not believe that there is any doubt about that matter, which is why we are pressing hard further to entrench the principle of subsidiarity into the treaty in the IGC. We have the support of a large number of other member states. So I hope that my noble friend's problems will soon be put entirely to rest.
Lord Barnett: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, my noble friend said that I had a big stick. That is perfectly true, but I have no intention of using it. If we were to take the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and then the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, there would be time enough for both. Thereafter, I think it would probably be best if we were to move on.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am particularly pleased to see the noble Earl back, and I am obliged to him. Is the Minister aware that I very much agree with what she said to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington about the value of the single market? To refer to the Question on the Order Paper, given current circumstances, is there any chance of success for the Government in proposing anything, whether it be harmonisation, subsidiarity or anything else? Would it not be better if we proposed the reverse? We might then succeed.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I would have thought better of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett—I nearly called him my noble friend—than to ask that
1710
question. He is well aware that there is a great deal at stake. That is why we have this period of non-co-operation in the European Community. We hope that it will soon be at an end. We are seeking a clear and staged process towards the complete lifting of the beef ban. We shall succeed in that—I hope before very long. Honesty is the one thing for which we can be thoroughly respected and for which we can never be criticised. That is why we play straight.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Deputy Leader of the House did invite me to ask a supplementary question.
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Earl tell me whether he will hold to that?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I did suggest that as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, had been getting up to speak there would be time to have his question, but if he could make it succinct that might be to the convenience of the House.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Earl. Is the Minister aware that I was surprised to hear from her that the business of the EC was reducing? Has she noticed the Written Answer in Hansard which quotes eight columns of business to be dealt with by the EC during June? One item is the Justice and Home Affairs Council, which proposes that we should have 1997 as a year against racism, something which was recommended against by the Select Committee on European Affairs of this House.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I did notice, because I answered the Question.

Prisoners: Education Services
2.50 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What cuts are being made in the educational services provided to prisoners in England and Wales.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, decisions about education budgets are taken by individual governors in consultation with their area managers. Changes to budgets are still being made and information about them collected centrally is not yet available. Efficiency savings need to be seen against a budget increase on education between 1993 and 1995 of almost 25 per cent., to £37 million. The aim

1711
is to target resources more effectively, giving priority to literacy, numeracy, information technology, English as a second language and social and life skills.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is not one of the consequences of the devolution of budgetary responsibility to the level of the governors that the Minister and her colleagues no longer answer Questions about the functional headings of expenditure, such as education, across the Floor of the House?
Has the Minister noticed the report of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education which states that in the 45 prisons which it surveyed there has been a 16.7 per cent. reduction in the number of teaching hours and that in the case of Wandsworth the number of teaching hours has been decreased by 52 per cent.—a fact that she admitted in reply to my noble friend Lord Harris on Monday? Although emphasis must be placed on basic literacy and numeracy skills, as the Minister said, in view of those figures does she agree that we must be losing an enormous amount of other educational provision which is of help in preventing recurring crime by people who are released from prison?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that I answered in great detail all the questions about Wandsworth. He will also know that, despite a reduction in the money for Wandsworth Prison, provision was being sustained. Much of that was related to improving the way education was being done; for example, phasing out uneconomic classes, concentrating on more economic numbers, concentrating on literacy and numeracy, improving the workplaces and the vocational training for people in that prison. Perhaps I may refer to NATFHE, whose survey is interesting. I refer to what it stated about Whitemoor Prison, with which the noble Lord is familiar. However, it was wrong about the number of hours in 1995–96; in fact, they were 14,700. There is no plan to reduce below that number for this coming year.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many prisons have artists in residence?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend that particular information but I can say that a vast amount of art and craft work is carried out in our prisons. As I said in the recent debate, there were 3,000 entries for an art competition from our prisoners and some of the work was of a very high standard indeed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister cited an increase in expenditure on prison education between 1993 and 1995 of 25 per cent. Is not that increase broadly matched by the increase in the number of prisoners? Therefore, is not the amount of education that is available to any individual prisoner not on the increase?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no. Although the number of prisoners has increased, all other factors have increased disproportionately favourably to that. Since the noble Lord is speaking of comparisons, I will compare today with 1979, when his party was in power.
1712
Spending on prisons has doubled; sleeping three to a cell has been eliminated; and sleeping two to a cell has been vastly reduced. Officer to prisoner ratio has improved by 33 per cent.; we now have one officer to every two prisoners, compared with one officer to every three. All prisoners now have 24-hour access to sanitation, compared to 46 per cent. who had no access to 24-hour sanitation in 1979. Escapes from prisons have improved by 79 per cent.; there are fewer assaults in prisons; there has been a vast improvement in time out of cells—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord does not want to hear this because it bears unfavourably on his party's record. May I give him the final statistic?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It is Question Time!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the number of hours of education has improved from 4.6 million to 9.4 million.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, will the Minister deny that under the present Government's policy there is to be a substantial decrease in the amount of education provided in prisons? That cannot be denied, in spite of all the nonsense that we have heard. If any noble Lords doubt that, they can come with me to a prison. There is no doubt at all that there will be a decrease in the number of hours of education. Is the noble Baroness going to justify that in terms of what she calls "efficiency cuts"?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if the noble Earl is looking merely at the number of lecturers coming into prisons he may well be right that there will be a decrease. There will be a corresponding increase in purposeful activity outside cells, which will include vocational training, education, rehabilitation programmes and a great deal more constructive activity. The most constructive activity for someone who has the basic skills and basic education is work experience and the noble Earl knows that a good deal of that is also going on in our prisons.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that any efficiency saving which had the effect of making prisoners more likely to re-offend after release would not be efficient?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Earl is absolutely right. We know that the governors of all prisons have been told to give priority to all those activities which will help prevent prisoners returning to offending; in other words, to address all their offending behaviour. It is important to say that in 1995–96 a total of 17,000 individual national vocational units was awarded, which is an increase of more than 25 per cent. on 1994–95 and more than twice the total for 1993–94.

1713
There was an increase in full national vocational qualifications of 50 per cent., three times higher than in 1993–94—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, noble Lords opposite find this highly amusing. Their record on the Prison Service is lamentable.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Clerk of the Parliaments: The Lord Spens.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Baroness—
Noble Lords: Order!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that the next Question has been called and I believe that, considering the time, it should go on.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I should like to appeal.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Avebury: My Lords, no, I should like to appeal to the noble Earl. I want to appeal to the noble Earl.
Noble Lords: Order!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not wish to cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I realise that he would like this Question to continue but there are two other Questions to be dealt with—
Lord Avebury: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is in the interests of the House that we should go on.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I want to say one thing. I want to say that all the time that was taken up during that Question was by the noble Baroness dealing with matters which—
Noble Lords: Order!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I must appeal to the noble Lord. I believe he has discovered that it is not in the interests of the House to continue with his questioning, however cross he may feel. I can understand him feeling such anxiety. However, the will of the House is clear that we ought to move on to the next Question.

"Marchioness"/"Bowbelle" Collision
2.58 p.m.
Lord Spens Lord Spens asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Director of Public Prosecutions has considered the transcripts of the evidence of the inquest into the sinking of the "Marchioness" where
1714
a verdict, on 7th April 1995, of "unlawful killing" was concluded and, if so, whether any prosecutions are contemplated.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, your Lordships will recall that there have already been two prosecutions arising from the tragic sinking of the "Marchioness". Proceedings brought by the Crown Prosecution Service against the master of the "Bowbelle" for an offence contrary to Section 27 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 resulted in a directed acquittal after the jury twice failed to agree. An application for judicial review of the initial decision by the CPS not to proceed for manslaughter failed. A private prosecution against the owners of the "Bowbelle" also failed when the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ruled that there was no case to answer. The Crown Prosecution Service is reviewing the evidence given to the inquest jury in combination with the pre-inquest evidence. It has also sought the advice of senior counsel. When this task is complete, a decision can then be made on whether further criminal proceedings are warranted.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. Would he agree with me that it has been seven years since this dreadful incident and 15 months since the last inquest, which was achieved only with the aid and help of the noble and learned Lord who allowed legal aid to the families? Is it not time that some decision was reached? Is it not true that the transcripts took eight months to move from the Coroner's Office to the Crown Prosecution Service and that the Crown Prosecution Service has now had six months to look at information which it has known for a very long time? After seven years we ought to be getting a decision, ought we not?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as the noble Lord says, it is true that the evidence from the last inquest took a considerable time to reach the Crown Prosecution Service. But the CPS owes it to the circumstances to make a thorough examination in the light of the evidence at the second coroner's inquest to see whether, in view of the verdict, any prosecution is justified. It is a very complicated matter which must be considered thoroughly and the final decision taken as soon as the investigations are complete.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, is not the key point that the inquest jury in April 1995—that is four years after the two trials to which the noble and learned Lord referred—heard further evidence and returned a verdict of unlawful killing, in terms saying expressly that its verdict was not inconsistent with the outcome of the two previous trials? In those circumstances, is it not now urgently necessary that the Crown Prosecution Service should reach a prompt decision as regards whether or not to prosecute for manslaughter? I well recognise that it is a very difficult decision to reach but the CPS should come to that decision as promptly as may be in the interests of all the relatives of the 51 victims and in the interests of the peace of mind of the captain.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I strongly agree with that, subject to the proviso that it must take sufficient time to examine the detail—and quite a lot of detail there is—to ensure that the decision taken is the correct one.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware of the profit or purpose of raising this Question in your Lordships' House?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I often have a tendency to speculate on reasons for some of your Lordships asking questions, but happily, it is not my function to deal with those speculations. I merely try to answer the questions to the best of my ability, which is what I have done.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has acknowledged that it took eight months for the transcripts to reach the Crown Prosecution Service from the coroner's inquest. Why did it take that long?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, because, as I understand it, the transcripts were not complete and ready to be handed over until the expiry of that period.

British Library: NAO Report
3.2 p.m.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the report of the National Audit Office on the problems attending the building of the new British Library.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, the Committee of Public Accounts in another place will be taking evidence on 24th June from the accounting officer of the department and the chief executive of the British Library. Your Lordships will be aware of the convention constraining comment on the report before the Committee of Public Accounts has taken evidence.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that shrewdly constraining reply. Is he aware that the report listed what was described as a catalogue of technical disasters leading to an overrun of the completion date of eight years and a trebling of the original costs? Is he aware further that the report put the main blame on the Department of National Heritage and its predecessors? Would the Minister like to speculate with the House whether anyone will be held responsible for that—given the fact that we all accept that Conservative Secretaries of State are never responsible for anything?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am of course constrained in my reply to the noble Lord, but this matter has a long history. The noble Lord says that the department has been blamed, but the department has been responsible for the project only since 1992. Indeed,
1716
the project ante-dates the department. The noble Lord says that the costs have trebled, but of course the project itself has changed during that period and there have been factors such as inflation and the imposition of VAT.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a different, if related, question. Have the Government yet made any decision about the vacant land site to the north of the St. Pancras building, as that will be needed for very important expansion, since the number of seats has been reduced from the original figure of 3,000 to just over 1,200? That is not many more than there are in Great Russell Street.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord asks two distinct questions. As regards his first question, the land to the northern part of the site is potentially going to be used during the construction of the Channel Tunnel CrossRail site and may be subject to compulsory purchase until the year 2007.
As regards the provision of seats, it is not merely a matter of the number of seats provided but the use to which they are put. Different forms of delivery are required other than people merely appearing in person. I am advised that the provision of seats is adequate for the purpose for which they are required.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister explain why the costs of such a prestigious building can treble without anybody being brought to account? Why were those costs allowed to treble? How was the money made available? I remind the Minister that if local authorities slightly exceed what they are allowed to spend, they are severely surcharged and called to account.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, bearing in mind the history of the project, the way it has changed and the financial circumstances during that period, I do not accept that the cost has trebled. In view of my original reply, I had better leave the second part of the noble Lord's question unanswered.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I must declare an interest as a member of the advisory council of the British Library. Will the Minister confirm the statement in paragraph 14 of the report that the British Library has never had any management or contractual responsibility for the construction of the project? Does he agree further that any errors by the contractors or others involved in no way diminish the need for a new British Library which will work?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I can confirm the first part of the noble Earl's comments. As regards his second question, this has been a sorry story but I do not believe that there is a possibility of the final dénouement being that, after 14 years and the spending of £500 million, the Library was not necessary. No, this Library is required.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I raised this matter in an Unstarred Question several

1717
years ago when I asked the Government whether they would appoint one single person to be responsible for the whole project? Has that been done?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in July 1995 Mr. David Trench was appointed project manager. His job is to deliver the project on time, which is by the end of this year, and within the cost target.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I should like to ask two questions, but before doing so I must declare an interest. I was Chairman of the National Libraries Committee in 1968–69 when it went outside its remit not only to recommend the foundation of a national library, which later recommendation was incorporated in the British Library Act 1972, but also to recommended that a building must be provided for the vast collections then dispersed, and still dispersed, throughout 16 buildings, many of which are totally unsatisfactory—for example, wooden huts at Woolwich Arsenal—to house that vast treasure house which is so valuable to us.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I am merely declaring my interests. For seven years, I was Chairman of the British Library Board, during which time the project to which the Question refers was started. Certainly while I was chairman for three years there was very strong control within the British Library.
Does the Minister agree with me that this building, which has recently been the subject of favourable comments from knowledgeable people not only in this country but also abroad, will—although smaller than it might be—provide an environment wholly appropriate for the Library's treasure house of knowledge and rich holdings? It will thereby ensure a much longer life and readier and easier access to the users. Does he agree also that judged by any system of rational accounting, the UK will be having a fine building which is much more satisfactory than other libraries? It will certainly be workable and will not be a icon to any particular politician, like the Bibliothèque Nationale at twice the cost.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I have every confidence that this project will turn out to have created a significant, important and long-lasting national asset.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order! Thirty-one minutes!

Henry Johnson, Sons & Co., Limited Bill
3.10 p.m.
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, before moving the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend the
1718
Lord Privy Seal, perhaps I may thank the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for his kind remarks. I can only say that it was a pleasure to be able to come back and see the faces of noble Lords and noble Baronesses opposite looking just as well as they did when I left.
Having said that, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Earl of Gowrie set down for today shall be limited to four hours and that in the name of the Lord Astor of Hever to two hours.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Lottery
3.11 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie The Earl of Gowrie rose to call attention to the social and economic benefits of the work being undertaken by the distributing bodies of the National Lottery; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am delighted that my Motion has at least the merit of attracting the maidenly appearance of my noble friend Lord Hindlip. He is an old friend from youth and when I was chairman of Sotheby's he was a fascinating sparring partner. I congratulate him on now assuming the world chairmanship of another great auction house whose name temporarily escapes me.
If we strip the phrase of its sinister, Maoist overtones, nothing less than a cultural revolution is taking place in our country today. Its engine is the National Lottery. In only a year and a half, the National Lottery—an engine so successful that no one surely should carp at the engineers drawing a 1 per cent. reward—has raised no less than £2 billion for the arts, sport, the heritage, caring charities and schemes to celebrate the new millennium. So far, 5,812 awards for nearly 7,000 projects adding up to £1.7 billion have been committed. Through these the lottery is encouraging a sense of community and social cohesion, not least by acting as a springboard for the regeneration of our towns, our cities and our villages.
With both the major political parties acknowledging that public spending as a proportion of GDP is not only unsustainable, but prevents output from rising as fast as it otherwise might, it is surely fantasy to imagine that the work being done in those fields could be fuelled by conventional public expenditure. In my view, that outweighs hostility to gambling in any form. That hostility has a long and honourable history in our culture, but so does the gambling. Be this as it may, I am told that the average weekly spend is £2 and that no less than 65 per cent. of the adult population regularly take part in the games.
I believe that in a consumerist democracy it is if anything rather offensive to take a paternalist stance, and for us to assume, as legislators, that this huge proportion of people do not know what is right for them. If people change their minds, the lottery takings will

1719
fall—and so be it. Meanwhile work has already been undertaken which is already bringing good news to good causes and which will deliver even greater results in the early years of the new millennium itself.
I am, therefore, most grateful to my noble friend Lady Young, and the Whips' Office, for allowing me this opportunity, on a Conservative day, to draw attention to the social and economic benefits of the National Lottery. It is generous of them, because on all aspects concerning lottery awards and their effects—and these are very far-reaching aspects—and, indeed, on the arts economy generally, I am in effect a Cross-Bencher. The Arts Council which, with the art councils of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, gets one-fifth of the lottery's distributable proceeds, is an instrument of government, peopled by those who support various political parties, and none. But our hand, so to speak, is at arm's length from government, and that is a long accepted and valued system.
However, it is fair to say that there is at least poetic justice in taking Conservative time. The lottery is very much the personal creation of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. Others, myself included, tried to get one accepted for legislation a dozen years ago, and we failed. My right honourable friend got the legislation through and, most important of all, he got it through with all-party support. The three shadow Ministers that I have had the pleasure and interest of dealing with since I joined the council two years ago have been generally supportive as have the three Ministers; and so, indeed, has the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, who I am delighted to see will be speaking for his Front Bench today.
Indeed, the Labour Party in local and regional government, sharply aware of the regenerative possibilities of investing in our culture, has been most supportive. Newcastle and Gateshead, Manchester and Liverpool, Birmingham, Bristol and London, to name only the biggest cities, will soon be transformed in a way not seen since the confident years of Victorian and Edwardian industrial and municipal expansion. Or they will be transformed if we keep our heads and do not mess about with the lottery on any significant scale for five or six years. As the Prime Minister said to me when we discussed my appointment:
"I want young people in Britain to have the best sporting and cultural facilities in Europe within 10 years".
That is an honourable and useful aim. It is shared by the Leader of the Opposition and, I believe, by the Leader of the Liberal Democrats. It is, if we keep our heads, a perfectly achievable ambition.
So the revolution is under way, fuelled by talent and commitment but also by the sudden, and rather bewildering, availability of new, hard cash. The Sports Council (which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will tell us something about) has made about 1,750 awards, totalling nearly £300 million, for football, new swimming pools, athletics, tennis—we shall start winning Wimbledon again when tennis moves from Windlesham, so to speak, to Wigan—for cricket and, I am told, for bowls: in the people's lottery those of us who are not so young must also be served.
The caring charities—and I believe that my noble friend Lady Young will have something to say on these—started a year behind the rest of us. But they are catching up fast, and there have been 2,500 awards totalling about £160 million. Well known organisations like Age Concern, Bamados and Cancer Relief have received lottery funds, so have many much smaller charities whose work is no less important.
When he comes to reply for the Government, I hope that my noble friend Lord Inglewood will tell us a little about the activities of the Millennium Fund as that is ministerially chaired. The noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, who chairs the National Heritage Memorial Fund and whose name I am pleased to see on the speaker's list, has made 336 awards totalling £225 million, with the money going to museums, art galleries, libraries and Churches and to the bedrock of our heritage, the land itself. The NHMF and ourselves combine from time to time. Witness the Royal Albert Hall award and the award for the marvellous opera house/art gallery in the Lowry Centre at Salford.
The arts councils, the largest of which, the one for England, I chair, has made 1,200 awards to the tune of £471 million. They include £23.5 million for film: a wholly new and welcome public contribution to a great art form and a great industry. Over 75 per cent. by number of those awards have been less than £100,000 in value, demanding 10 per cent. in matching funds only. Surely this gives the lie to perceptions that all we do is dish out "dough" in fistfuls to large and prestigious organisations. Of course we also do that, and quite right too. Britain has starved her great theatres, opera houses, concert halls, living art galleries and dance centres of investment ever since I entered my teens, which happened to be the year of the Festival of Britain. How well I remember the excitement, the optimism and the post-war revivalist spirit of 1951 which the Royal Festival Hall, the Dome of Discovery and the much missed Skylon and Battersea Fun Fair generated. How fervently I hope that the refurbishment and regeneration inherent in the South Bank's exciting lottery bid is in due course successful.
When you have spent decades trying to keep shows on the road, at the expense of investment in infrastructure, two things happen. Your overseas trade begins to suffer because however much foreign visitors admire your actors, actresses and musicians, they will not indefinitely support uncomfortable, non-air-conditioned and tatty theatres and orchestral halls. In an age of ever more sophisticated electronically packaged entertainment, catering to brows high, middle and low, it is easier to stay comfortably at home with the TV, the CD and the magic carpet of the Internet. These are all wonderful inventions capable of raising awareness and interest in all fields of endeavour. But they miss out surely on the almost erotic and life-changing encounters with living art and artists which only the public and physical arena can deliver. Your audiences for venues—and therefore your revenues—start to fall off if you start to starve the venues of investment. More seriously still, you begin to fail to generate the new encounters, the progeny, which constitute the yeasts, the gene bank of your culture, be

1721
these sporting or artistic or scholarly or just—in my view this is no less important—plain participatory. Audiences also serve who only sit and attend to things.
Brought down to earth, what this means is losses in terms of revenues, taxes and jobs. The arts in Britain are big business indeed and they repay a minute public investment a thousand times over. So when you read a snide leader in the Sun or the Daily Mail about lottery grants, or tales of "luvvies lining each other's pockets", please remember that "luvvies" of one kind or another are seeing to it that Britain is boxing above her weight in the world, to borrow a phrase beloved of the Foreign Office. The clever Mr. Murdoch and the clever noble Viscount, Lord Rothermere, are both cultivated, agreeable and talented individuals. Their publications draw a shilling, in the tabloids, from those who supposedly hate the arts, and at least sixpence, in the broadsheets, from those who love them. Remember that these gentlemen are also in the entertainment and leisure businesses. What I would like them to do is to recognise that only perhaps the Sovereign carries as much moral weight beyond our shores as our artists.
In recent years British business has come to recognise this to some degree, and I am proud to have played a small part in that. What is new and exciting is that a city council such as Gateshead believes that too. This was the council which under the visionary scheme established by my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, submitted and won that brave bid for the Anthony Gormley sculpture, the Angel of the North. As a senior member of the council put it to me,
"I don't know anything about modem sculpture, though I rather like this one. I do know that our enabling contribution to the Lottery bid is a sensationally cheap way of achieving international standing for Gateshead and that will have positive knock-on effects for our citizens".
For their work on that bid, and for their understanding of one of the key purposes of the lottery, I might be tempted, if I lived in Gateshead, to vote for them. But before I am asked to have a quick word with my noble friend the Chief Whip, let me say that temptations, of course, are designed to be resisted.
The terms of my Motion accentuate the positive. Had I more time I could continue in wholly positive vein, mentioning large awards such as the Cambridge Arts Theatre, the Hall for Cornwall and the Ikon Gallery in Birmingham; middle-scale awards such as the Green Room in Manchester, the Norwich Playhouse and the film adaptation of Thomas Hardy's The Woodlanders; and small awards such as the Warwickshire County Youth Orchestra, the Cheshire Dance Workshop and even Zippo's Academy of Circus Arts. Even more extremely, we have—God bless us—given a little money to a troupe of drum majorettes.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am enjoying the noble Earl's important speech. However, is he not sad that he cannot include an opera house in Cardiff in that list?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, although I am privileged to be a resident of the Principality of Wales, sadly my writ does not run there. If the noble Lord will suggest that it does, I shall see that he gets his opera house.
I believe that, only 14 months on from our first awards last year, it is right to be thoroughly positive—to be bullish even—because I have no doubt whatever that so long as any modifications we make to the lottery and its mechanisms are made in the light of reality, rather than on the grounds of fleeting public perceptions as interpreted by the commercial press, we shall indeed go further up the slopes of Parnassus than at any time since the war. More important still, more and more people will enjoy the climb and become entranced by the view. However, there is a difference surely between being positive and being bland. Any revolution is fraught with difficulty and controversy, and if it is not it is probably not worth doing.
Let me close with the two most considerable of these difficulties and say what, in our field, we are trying to do about them. There is the confusion in the public mind—expertly exploited by the Treasury—between the rules that govern the lottery awards and the rules that govern the grants we make for the support of the arts with the money Parliament votes to that end. Public confusion on this issue extends to Parliament itself and, in my experience, even to Government. It is felt that the arts are all right, and perhaps even rather spoiled, so what on earth is the council doing moaning about cuts and demanding more money?
The short answer is that we are not allowed to use lottery money, nor even the rapidly compounding interest on sums awarded before they are called down, to look after the arts themselves. We can build shining new palaces of culture, and some very needed and exciting bids such as the new centres at Stoke-on-Trent and Milton Keynes, and Alan Ayckbourn's theatre at Scarborough have been successful. But we cannot fund what goes on inside them. On top of this, the funding consensus, which has always governed the council, has in effect broken down. Successive governments may not have provided the money needed but they broadly maintained the provision. Now it is not only being cut in real terms; it is being cut in cash terms.
Since I became chairman of the Arts Council of England only 26 months ago, the Government have cut our current budget by about £17 million in real terms. A further £3 million cash cut is threatened next year. On an annual budget to England of less than £200 million this is having a devastating effect. In terms of my Motion, it is creating cynicism and dismay about the lottery. The administration which, with the institution of the lottery, has offered so much possibility to the arts, is at the same time making it exceptionally difficult for the arts to take advantage of what they have been offered. One of these days a number of cherished orchestras or theatre companies will go bust. I do not believe for a minute that you can indefinitely protect every cultural institution from market changes, but any collapse will be, to put it politely, puzzling to people. "What happened to the lottery?", they will say.

1723
Things are not only bewildering to the public. How would you feel if you were a second violinist in a London symphony orchestra, had trained hard for 10 years, were paid about the same as a 23 year-old typist, and were now reading about your funding Arts Council having more than one-and-a-half times its annual grant to spend on cultural facilities? "What are they going to put into these buildings?", you would say. I very much welcome the Secretary of State's new directions in respect of new works, new talents and the making of new audiences. But those will take quite a time to work through. Our problem is getting from here to there.
The Secretary of State has sought to address this crisis with new directives. I am very grateful to her. It looks as though there will be a small but welcome shift from capital to content, from buildings to people and audiences, particularly young people. But the same financial regulations, different from those which govern our grants in aid, and the same need for challenge funding, will remain. The English have a genius for surrounding beautiful creations and concepts with rings of regulatory fire. Somewhat to my surprise, I now find myself in the unlikely role of Siegfried, hacking my way through these so that Brunhilde may ride once more to our rescue.
Anxiety has been expressed about the share of grants between the capital and the regions. Of our own awards, the largest share has so far gone to London, as one would expect, London being the national capital of a small country. The figure is £216 million for 136 projects, followed by the North West. But, as the House of Commons All-Party Select Committee concluded,
"the Lottery grants do not go invariably, or even usually, to such plush recipients as the Royal Opera House … Countless inner city and rural enterprises have benefited, ranging from community centres to amateur sports clubs. But … it is right that national institutions—like Covent Garden in London or Hampden Park in Glasgow—should receive substantial amounts. They ought to be causes of national pride not envy".
That view was backed by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister in a trenchant speech at the Royal Society of Arts last month, and I agree with him. But as more money is raised and more grants are made, we are confident—and we are working with the regional arts boards to ensure it—that the regions can share fully in the spoils that the lottery brings. I can say, hands on heart, that so far no award made in one part of the country has been made at the expense of any award made in another part of the country. To date we have had sufficient money.
To quote the Select Committee in terms which I hope will set some of the agenda for this debate,
"just for once, let us praise something which has been done well and gone right".
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, it is extremely agreeable to see the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, in his place addressing us again. He has not done so too often in recent years. I remember the elegance and grace with
1724
which he discussed with us such unlikely matters as industrial relations in the 1980s. I am glad to see him back. It is good, too, that he is raising this matter with us.
I begin by giving a total welcome to the idea of the lottery. I think that Britain is a nation of gamblers. My own family has spent a lifetime betting on horses—which explains our present poverty. There is no reason to gainsay the lottery. I have no truck with the puritans among us who oppose it.
However, there is one factor to be remembered. That part of the lottery revenue which goes to the various good causes indicated by the noble Earl is a hypothecated tax, and should be considered in those terms. I welcome the lottery. I welcome the fact that a tax is involved which goes to good causes. However, I nevertheless have some unease. In the course of seven minutes, I can only niggle. I cannot express my approval at great length; noble Lords will have to take the approval for granted and take my niggles as peripheral.
Disquiet has been expressed in public about the initial distribution of the funds. I say immediately that I entirely agree with what the noble Earl said: that for the overwhelming part the distribution has been sensible. He would probably agree that the distribution of funds got off to a rather bad start. The situation was not well received and not well understood.
My views are these. Where we deal with the distribution of large sums of public money, the project should preferably be necessary. One high profile early project caused a good deal of harm to the lottery funding arrangements. I refer to what is popularly called the South Bank Crystal Palace. The South Bank is a conglomeration of buildings of a brutalist architectural persuasion. The proposal was that those buildings should be covered over with a large glass and steel canopy. It was an elegant architectural and engineering solution to a problem had a problem existed. There was no problem. Those buildings already had roofs; they did not need another roof. Elegant arguments were put forward that the concept would produce a contained environment of some kind. Of course it would produce a contained environment—but an unnecessarily contained environment. That project came too early. It might have been acceptable had the concept arisen much later in the distribution of funds.
There were two aspects that were wrong: first, the roof was unnecessary, and to some minds it architecturally clashed with the rather severe, brutal concrete buildings which already existed—and which I rather like. But there was another serious problem: the architect concerned in the project was involved in some way in the distribution of funds; he was close to the decision. I know that he left the room while the decision was taken. But even if one leaves a room, in an organisation in which you are concerned and important can you really have left totally? Do you not leave a miasma? Are you really not there? Do your colleagues not recognise your position?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I believe the answer to this dilemma, at least in the case of the Arts Council,

1725
was succinctly put by the previous Secretary of State, Stephen Dowell. He said that, broadly speaking, one could have a system where decisions are made by participants, the people who were highly involved in the arena, or one could have them made by civil servants. If one has decisions made by participants, one has to put up with a certain amount of linkages and trust procedures that are instituted to deal with that.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, that is a good reply, but I do not like it. The problem still remains. If people are in any way involved in the projects, they should not be in any way involved in the decisions. They must resign totally from these issues. That is my view. I see that the noble Earl shakes his head. His view about people may be different from mine. I have only a minute left, but perhaps I may take an extra one from the noble Earl's intervention.
Projects may be necessary, but do we need a ferris wheel on the South Bank? Great exhibitions are sometimes marked by projects which are not necessary; for example, the Eiffel Tower. It was not necessary but it was at the forefront of the technology of the day. It was a statement of fresh technological fortitude and adventure. A ferris wheel is a nostalgic reference to the Vienna of Johann Strauss. I agree with my noble friend Lord Cledwyn that Cardiff should get its opera house, but I am not sure that it should be the one suggested. However, it should get an opera house of some kind. I am glad that Cardiff has its rugby stadium. Finally, are we sure that we should give the great sporting organisations public funds while they do deals with Sky television and Rupert Murdoch for large sums of money?
I hope that my thoughts will be taken into account. I apologise to the noble Earl for the fact that I am unlikely to be able to hear his reply, although I shall read it in the Official Report. The reason is that I have to chair a meeting in the Moses Room. But if I can neglect my duties there and rush into the Chamber, I shall do so.
3.42 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I wish to devote the short time available to me to funding from the lottery for the film industry. It is welcome news to film activity in this country, and I thank the noble Earl for the chance to speak on it. The exact amount which has been earmarked for film production is not known, but let us say that it is £15 million a year. That is generally understood by people in the film community here to be correct. It is perhaps the most important thing to happen in this country in cinema since the introduction of the multiplex cinema. It has completely changed the ethos and enthusiasm of the industry, which has been given a great lift. Not only that, but in a short time, to use a film industry expression, 11 films are on the slate which have been funded out of lottery funds. I wish to examine how that is happening and how it is likely to continue.
I have no direct interest in the film industry these days, but two close members of my family are involved. One now works in the United States as a writer; and my
1726
wife works as a senior executive for a prominent British company. I doubt whether either of those close relatives will agree with half of what I say, knowing film people as I do; but if they agree with a quarter, then I shall be happy.
Over the past 12 years, the situation in the country has been dismal, to say the least. Twelve years ago we had the Film Bill which became the Film Act—the first piece of legislation on which I had the opportunity to speak during its passage through your Lordships' House. At that time, cinema audiences were down to about 18 million admissions a year. They have now increased to 130 million—that is a huge turnround. For it, we must thank the introduction of better exhibition. I must claim some credit there because I foretold that if there were to be an improvement, it would come first through better cinemas. Other things would fall into place.
The multiplex cinemas were introduced by American and Canadian companies; then others followed. They changed the pattern of cinema going in this country to the extent that the foretold extinction of cinema screens, to be replaced by video, has not happened.
Most of the people who go to the cinema are young; 70 per cent. are under 26. The reason that people go to the cinema is that many are single, they go out and it is a social occasion. However, audiences are fickle. It is impossible for film makers to forecast what will happen, otherwise they would be rich and there would be just a few of them because they would have more successes than they do. The decision on what subject one takes through the laborious process of making a feature motion picture is subjective. The failure rate is high and there is no formula. One can say that in the United States the problem is overcome by having a massive machine, with economies of scale and with a long tradition of making films from the Hollywood period when a great deal was put into the development and marketing of films for the screen. That continues to this day.
If films in the United States break even, make a small profit or even a small loss, they are likely greatly to improve the position when they move into the rest of the world. In this country over 90 per cent. of all films seen by the cinema-going audiences are of American origin. There is nothing wrong with that; people must enjoy what they enjoy. That is where I somewhat disagree with those who in the first flush of enthusiasm over lottery funding have been stating what cinema is all about. That includes the Minister's right honourable friend in the other place who said that film is all about heritage. I am afraid that it is not, any more than it is about art. It is about people paying at the box office, putting their behinds on seats, coming out and saying they enjoyed what they had seen over one-and-a-half or two hours. It may have something to do with heritage or art, but basically film is about giving people what they want to see.
Over the past 12 years, we have not been good at that, but various people bravely and enthusiastically went ahead with producing intermittent independent productions. Some were moderately successful; some lost a great deal of money. For what we have, we must

1727
thank television, Channel 4 and the BBC. We must also thank British Screen for keeping the situation alive. It was given the job of disposing of modest moneys for production.
Perhaps I may concentrate on the lottery money. What worries me is that it is being administered by the Arts Council, for which I have nothing but praise. It has been given a difficult job in a short time. It has got together with various panels of film makers, and so on, and it has a slate of 11 films, if I may use that term. That is an achievement. However, there is uncertainty as to whether the criteria taken into account are right. We will only be able to tell that when we see the films which have been funded, but there will be failures and successes. I hope that the ratio is favourable.
I am concerned that the people who, over the past 12 years, have said to the Government: "We need funding in order to compete with the United States", went quiet purely out of exhaustion because the Government would not listen. I do not blame them for that. However, such people are now coming out of the woodwork saying: "We must now have a British Hollywood". I believe that a report is being published which will show how the seeds for it will be sown. I am sceptical about it and I share the views of Mr. David Aukin, who wrote an interesting article the other day in the Evening Standard. He is the head of drama of Channel 4. If I remember correctly, he said that Channel 4 and the BBC had funded a number of films which had been seen as suitable for both the cinema and the television screen. They created a hybrid. At first, I did not like the concept, but we have developed a great deal of expertise in the area. All the films which have been successful recently in Britain have fallen into that category. For example, "Trainspotting"; "Shallow Grave"; and "Four Weddings and a Funeral". The films were made on modest budgets. Our expertise—that of scriptwriters, actors and technicians—is falling well into the pattern. We now have a success on which we can build.
If the noble Lord has time, I should like him to answer my question. Surely we have now built up if not enough profit out of those activities, enough international regard to continue along those lines before we jump into grandiose ideas, thinking too big and trying to take on the Americans at their own game. That would be extremely unwise. It was tried before by one or two companies, and they are no longer with us. It is not without resonance that the Rank Organisation came out of production a long time ago, and is one of the few major companies that has its money in place. It is much criticised for not backing films, but there it is. I hope that we can build on success. I congratulate the Arts Council and the lottery board for making a brave decision. I hope that they will not be put off by the inevitable passions and the criticisms they receive from a very volatile industry.
3.50 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, for initiating this debate. It gives us a chance to look at the massive new feature at the centre of our life. I also look forward to the
1728
maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hindlip. I wonder whether his ancestral home was in the diocese of Worcester at Hindlip Hall, which is now the headquarters of the police.
There is no question but that I want to join in the celebration. I am no tight-lipped puritan. I want to accentuate the positive and, so far as possible, eliminate the negative—although I cannot do that entirely. I thank the Arts Council for sending me a splendid list of all those applicants in the diocese of Worcester that have received grants. I am delighted that Bretforton village band has received a grant—as has the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra; a primary school in Dudley; the Elgar School of Music in Worcester; and Huntingdon Hall, home of the English String Orchestra. I could go on: £425 million has gone to 701 projects.
However, the noble Earl said that as well as being positive one must avoid being bland. It is equally misguided totally to affirm the lottery and think it wonderful as it is totally wrong to describe it as evil, as some do. We have to live in the real world. Many churches and cathedrals will undoubtedly benefit. It is my own view that in so far as the Government of the day have decided to raise funds in this way, the money raised becomes public money, and I for one will apply for a grant for anything in the diocese of Worcester that is worthy of one. I have no qualms about that.
This is a serious debate. We are not yet clear as to the effect on charitable giving in this country. The Charities Aid Foundation says that there is no problem; but the National Council for Voluntary Organisations is less sure; and the Directory of Social Change is less sure. We have to realise that in this country we have built up a very fine tradition of voluntary giving for charitable and voluntary organisations, choosing those that we want to support rather than having them chosen by a government body. So let us examine that point very carefully. Great work is being done. If people think that millions of pounds in funds are sloshing through the system, they may be less ready to put their hands in their pocket. Furthermore, they may find that there is not much in the pocket if they are busy playing the lottery every week.
There have been more charities applying for grants than good causes under the other four headings. If that is so, will the noble Lord, in winding up, give some reassurance that that aspect will be examined? There were 15,000 applications from charities in the first year—far more than under any of the other headings.
Then there is the question of whether the lottery is taking money from the poor to aid the predilections of the rich. I am told that poorer people spend 30 per cent. of their spending money on lottery tickets or scratch cards, as opposed to 4 per cent. by those who are better off. Are we pursuing those who live on the edge of desperation? That is a serious question.
Scratch cards, which come into the category of instant games, are available to the young, even when we know that fruit machines have become an addiction for young people as much as drugs. Are we going to let scratch cards fall into that category? In the past youngsters have actually committed robbery with violence in order to gain

1729
money for gambling. Perhaps we ought to limit playing of the lottery and scratch cards to those who are over 18. I do not know; but I think the issue should be addressed.
In addition, can we possibly be content with the present size of the jackpot and roll-over prizes? I have no desire to say anything in this House which would identify persons. However, I could tell noble Lords of one family I know that has been totally destroyed by suddenly receiving a massive prize. It has ruined both the marriage and their family life.
More prizes could benefit so many more people: £1 million could lift an ailing family business; get a family farm back into business for instance. There is also the matter of the diminution of our municipal culture. Local authorities have found themselves with fewer funds; therefore they point their applicants to the lottery boards, and municipal culture is diminished. We need to discuss the ways in which public amenities are provided. It is no use encouraging a kind of adolescent or childish view that all good causes can be supplied with resources from the lottery. They cannot. It is a matter of partnership between local authorities, the Government, and perhaps with the lottery. Can we not discuss that in an adult way? I believe that core funding for our public amenities should be provided by taxation, thereby indicating a corporate responsibility, and thereby helping to safeguard the coherence of our nation.
Finally, is it good for government to lead the market in state-sponsored gambling? The 1978 Royal Commission on gambling laid down that gambling should not be artificially stimulated. Yet at the moment we see a massive promotional campaign on the part of Camelot. It is one of the biggest advertising exercises of all time. What is more, regulations on other forms of gambling are being relaxed, after much effort has been made during this century to establish an agreed and acceptable discipline in that field.
I want to rejoice with those that rejoice. Yet I want to see independent, rigorous and authoritative research into the overall effect of the lottery. There is much to celebrate. Yet we should also ask in this House whether state power should be used to promote a form of gambling, escapism and greed. In participating in the lottery, there is a lack of realism and a gullibility which we as a nation cannot afford to feed and fuel. As I said, we must live in the real world. The real world is a place where you cannot get rich quick. It is probably part of the superstition of our time. Since a society that believes nothing is very close to one that will believe anything, we should take heed.
However, I rejoice with the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie; yet I rejoice by no means uncritically.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I might remind your Lordships that when the figure seven appears on the clock, we are in the eighth minute. So far we have had speeches lasting 22 minutes, nine minutes, eight minutes and eight minutes. We are falling behind.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Hindlip: My Lords, first I thank my noble friend, who is my old friend, Lord Gowrie, for his kind
1730
words and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester for his. Yes, Hindlip was my family home. I entirely sympathise with the right reverend Prelate's view about stopping young people stealing money for scratch cards—I find it very difficult to get a taxi to work on account of it.
I must declare an interest. As my noble friend Lord Gowrie pointed out, I am the chairman of an auction house. Just to refresh my noble friend's normally perfect memory, it is the old English house of Christie's. As such, I have frequent dealings with the National Heritage Memorial Fund and the Heritage Lottery Fund and its chairman, my noble friend Lord Rothschild. It is to their work that I wish to address myself this afternoon.
My noble friend needs no introduction from me. His record speaks for itself. He did wonderful work as chairman of the Trustees of the National Gallery. He was responsible not only for approving great acquisitions but also for providing the framework for the superb addition to the gallery by the family of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury and Paul Getty's equally important gift of cash. No one could have come to the lottery with a better track record and better credentials.
But it would be foolish not to admit that the lottery has been subject to some criticism. There have been missed opportunities. That great masterpiece, "The Finding of Moses" painted for King Charles I by Gentileschi—after Holbein, Van Dyck and Rubens, the most important painter to work in Britain—should have been purchased. It is a masterpiece.
That is the nub of it. Lottery money should be spent not on good things but reserved for the very best—such as, for instance, the Churchill Papers. They should have been purchased. There should have been no argument about it. It does not matter where the money goes so long as what is bought with it is the best and the best is made available to the public. It would be perfect if great works of art and great buildings belonged only to the deserving. They do not. They never have and they never will. What is important is that, however feckless and irresponsible the sellers, the few masterpieces that they sell and the few buildings that they leave in ruins are acquired by the nation for its enrichment in perpetuity.
We must not get sentimental about the lottery money. I buy lottery tickets every week but I do not buy them because I am thinking of Gentileschi or even Covent Garden—again, my noble friend Lord Gowrie deserves a big pat on the back for that. I buy tickets because one day I am going to win, and I am no exception. Until I do so, I must slave away as an auctioneer. It is from that perspective and, incidentally, not one of profit but rather of loss that I want to make one specific point; namely, that the lottery money be made available for the purchase of works of art in situ. Surrender in lieu and surrender in lieu in situ, in the lean years before the lottery, with Hugh Dalton's gesture of the land fund the great exception, have been the means whereby the galleries of Great Britain have been able to enlarge their collections, notwithstanding the sadly low level of government support. That excellent system should now be extended into the realms of private sales in situ.

1731
Lottery money should be made available to purchase private collections and leave them in the great houses for which, in so many cases, they were originally intended and where they look best and are best appreciated by the public (when they are not out buying lottery tickets).
There are a few great pictures that should go to Trafalgar Square, Edinburgh and Cardiff. But, leaving works of art in situ appeals not just to the viewing public. It is a system that is inexpensive to administer—the house owner pays for the guides, the security and the fabric of the house. If an owner defaults on his obligations or closes his house, of course the works of art which belong to the nation must leave that house and be shown and enjoyed in a museum or other public place; but, where the owner of a great house is prepared to go on looking after works of art, which he does not own, for the public's benefit—as well as his own; I am not blind to self-interest—he should be encouraged.
In closing, I shall revert to the Heritage Lottery Fund and my noble friend Lord Rothschild, its chairman. I know that there have been mutterings that his powers should be curtailed and possibly handed over to other organisations. But, please, do not seek to curtail the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild; seek rather to give him more support. He and his team have been entrusted with a task that goes far beyond the built heritage. It encompasses the whole of the UK and covers everything from museum acquisitions to wetland marshes. They have been given resources reminiscent of the Medicisor, indeed, the noble Lord's own ancestors. What he needs today for our nation to help him achieve the results that they achieved in the past are trustees. I fear that at the moment he has those who are worthy but possibly too politically correct. He needs men of vision like himself, who can recognise great works of art and take bold and immediate decisions to acquire them. If that happens, we shall all be the winners from the Lottery.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Rothschild: My Lords, the whole of the House will want to join together in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hindlip, to whom I shall refer, if I may, as my noble friend, for not only have our families known one another for a very long time, but he and I have been friends, professionally and personally, over many years and we have never had a disagreement. My noble friend's speech was splendid, light-hearted and characteristically generous—incredibly generous—but with a most serious and professional content. Perhaps I may say that the more time he can spare from his new and distinguished duties as chairman of that great institution, Christie's, away from King Street and Villiers House, the happier and better off we shall be for his specialised knowledge of an area of deep interest to this House. He has always conveyed that deep knowledge with skill, verve and humour. I can assure him that his contribution will be welcomed by all. Let me, finally, renew my congratulations on behalf of the House, and perhaps also thank him personally for his most generous words of support.
1732
I should also like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, my fellow distributor at the Arts Council, for his initiative in calling this debate at a great moment in the very short history of the National Lottery. It was only this week that the landmark figure of £2 billion was raised for the good causes of arts, sports, heritage, charities and the millennium.
The Heritage Lottery Fund, which I have the good fortune to chair, has now awarded some £225 million to more than 330 projects across the United Kingdom, bringing great benefits to many communities. The grants range from £1,500 to help restore St. Mary's Church, Frome, in Somerset, to £23 million toward building the new Wellcome Wing at the Science Museum. Noble Lords may have seen yesterday's announcement about the spectacular, imaginative and generous gift by Mr. Arthur Gilbert of his great collection. That gift, together with a capital grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund of some £15.5 million, to be supplemented in the future by an endowment fund, will ensure at long last the opening up of that hidden architectural masterpiece of Sir William Chambers, Somerset House.
In 1781 Edmund Burke exclaimed that,
"Somerset House did honour to the present age and would render the Metropolis of Great Britain famous throughout Europe".
Now, 200 years later, Mr. Gilbert's generosity and the catalyst of lottery funds have given us that opportunity.
We need a vision for Somerset House, as we do in all things, and must capitalise on our good fortune to achieve it: by banishing the cars from the Great Quadrangle, which could become the greatest urban open space in London where concerts and music could be enjoyed by all; by opening up the Seamans Hall; and by welcoming the public on to the South Terrace. Indeed, I wonder how many noble Lords have ever walked there? Charles Weld in his History of the Royal Society wrote in 1848:
"the view from the Terrace is by far the finest on the banks of metropolitan Thames".
As we approach the year 2000 the view is going to be just as remarkable. We will be able to see an unprecedented range of projects—Bankside, the Globe and Battersea Power Station, which are all being prepared for the Millennium.
Somerset House will be a truly memorable national project made possible by lottery funds. But let us consider a very different example of our heritage which, with the benefit of lottery moneys, could change dramatically—urban parks, the Heritage Lottery Fund's first special theme for which £50 million has been set aside. Many of our public parks have been disgracefully neglected over the past two decades and yet more than 8 million people visit a park every day. At Tollcross Park, in the east end of Glasgow, we have just awarded a grant of £1.95 million to restore and rejuvenate it. When the works are complete it will once again be a place that the people living around that park can take delight in; they will be proud of living where they do and it will help them to feel, as nothing else can, part of a community.
The fund is deeply conscious of the need to be flexible over the issue of partnership funding. Thus, grant applications for more than £100,000 will require

1733
around 25 per cent. partnership funds and for £100,000 or less the threshold has been set at 10 per cent. We have pitched the figure at a level which we hope will encourage applications for small but vital projects such as village halls, churchyards, ponds and small museum acquisitions. Furthermore, we are already prepared to be flexible in accepting how this partnership funding is presented—it may include contributions in kind such as voluntary labour or materials—but our overriding objectives are not to allow imaginative schemes to become silted up and to encourage a spread and a balance of projects large and small across the United Kingdom.
The "Additionality" and its interpretation will be ever-increasingly important. The directions from DNH to the lottery distributors make it clear that lottery funding should be strictly "additional" to government funding. A year on and we are asked to interpret that instruction liberally. But while the lottery is and will remain a substantial addition to funding within the heritage sector, it must not be allowed to threaten or substitute for core funding. It will of course take time to smooth over the distortions between lottery and government funding. Noble Lords may ask: why favour the new rather than the old when many organisations are facing a backlog of essential repair and maintenance works? If we are to help with the "black holes" of our heritage, we should do so on a one-off basis and not accept responsibility for recurring maintenance.
We welcome the Government's green paper on the heritage and the proposals to amend the present restrictive clauses under our Act to give us the freedom which the Arts and Sports Councils already enjoy. That will enable us to broaden the definition of eligible projects and recipients; for example, funding projects to improve access through new technology and educational initiatives. We would like to be able to include private individuals as well as charitable and not-for-profit bodies where there is a clear public benefit.
The lottery distributors are not, nor were they ever intended to be, primarily social regeneration agencies, although many of the projects we fund happily combine restoration and repair works with broader social benefits. Repairing run-down or derelict buildings or open spaces while at the same time finding alternative uses such as providing facilities for local communities may result in a welcome "double dividend". But there are many government departments with far greater funds at their disposal set up to oversee those issues. For example, the Department of Social Security's annual expenditure is 300 times greater than ours. Our focus is, and should remain, the heritage.
We were proud, for example, to have funded Chetham's Library in Manchester, one of the oldest public libraries in the country. Built in 1421, it includes some of the finest examples of medieval collegiate architecture in the world. I will not pretend that thousands of people should go to visit that remarkable library—that would spoil it—to which we awarded £1.8 million; but occasionally we feel that something is of such outstanding quality, such a jewel in our heritage, that we should simply help it.
1734
Equally, we are just as proud to have awarded £250,000 to help restore the River Skerne where it flows through Darlington and to open up the river banks to the public; £400,000 to help restore Polokshields Burgh Hall in central Glasgow for use by more than 20 local communities; and £91,000 to refurbish the galleries and improve disabled access at Brecknock Museum in Wales.
As I have said, the lottery offers a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change our national mood and raise the quality of life in this country. To achieve that we will sometimes need to take a deep breath, take risks and fund projects which will add to our pride in this country. It is indeed an odd situation that the arts and heritage should find themselves lottery rich and public expenditure poor. The responsibility of the lottery distributors therefore becomes all the greater to ensure that, with courage, we break the mould of mediocrity of the past decade and find ourselves in a new era to which we may proudly refer in the future as the "Lottery Age".
4.17 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Gowrie for introducing this debate this afternoon and congratulate him on his speech. I congratulate also my noble friend Lord Hindlip on his maiden speech. I am sure that we all look forward to hearing from him on many occasions in the future.
It is an appropriate time—18 months after the start of the lottery—to debate this issue. Like all other speakers I should like to say that I believe that the lottery is a great success story. We have an extraordinary national habit, when something is successful, of finding opportunities to run it down. But in this case it is encouraging that all those who have taken part in the debate so far have pointed to its success.
First, I should declare an interest as I am a member of the council of the Royal Albert Hall, which received a substantial grant from the lottery. But that illustrates in a real way the value of the lottery. A national institution which we like to describe as "the nation's village hall" will be improved with vastly better facilities for those who go to concerts or other entertainments and not least for those who perform there. It is a magnificent building which will be preserved and enhanced, and all that at no cost to public funds. I believe that the original critics of the lottery have been confounded by its success.
I do not believe that anyone taking part in today's debate is unaware from personal experience of the large number of small projects which have been helped. We listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, said regarding our enormously important national buildings being preserved and helped, which we all support. But the smaller organisations, perhaps with as little as £5,000 or £10,000 are also being helped and, as a result of that activity, being saved. They too are adding to the quality of life of people throughout the country. Indeed, research has shown that the majority of recipients of lottery money consider that the grant not only was essential to their organisation but also to its long-term viability.

1735
As regards the lottery, it is extremely easy to lose one's way in a welter of statistics which have come out about it. I should like to make two points in particular. First, I should like to confirm that, like so many of your Lordships, I think it is remarkable that lottery funding has gone to some of our great national institutions which are not only enjoyed by people here but by people abroad. Sometimes the criticism indicates a very patronising attitude to these matters. After all, there are lots of people who may not go to the opera every week but also like to save up and go somewhat infrequently. If it does not survive, they will not be able to go at all. We have to recognise that our national institutions are there for everyone to use.
Secondly, I should like to turn to what has been done to help charities. We heard only yesterday that £159 million was distributed to 2,229 charities. Altogether—this is the second round of grants—some £320 million has been distributed to more than 4,800 organisations. That is only the beginning. We often talk in your Lordships' House about the need for social services and helping those who are the poorest in the community, but the aim of the first round of these grants was to help those disadvantaged by poverty, and the aim of the second was to support youth issues and those on low incomes. Two-thirds of the funds from the board have gone to meet the revenue costs of charities and community organisations, particularly for the salaries of those running them.
Anyone involved in charitable organisations knows that volunteers need to be underpinned by some professionals. Forty-eight per cent. of the funds have gone to organisations describing themselves as social welfare services, a high proportion to housing and a high proportion to charities involving children. Every part of the United Kingdom has benefited. As a result, the lottery funding has played an important economic role in helping to provide employment, training and education to a large number of people, and it is a benefit in addition to public expenditure.
Perhaps I may comment briefly on some of the points raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. If we did not have the lottery money, the funds would have to come from general taxation. I do not believe that any political party is contemplating raising taxes to cover these kinds of sums of money and to go on covering them well past the Millennium. This expenditure has an enormous knock-on effect not only on employment but on, to use that indefinable term, the quality of life, which is difficult to measure though we know what we mean when we use it, and it goes to all parts of the country.
Have charities suffered? They are facing competition and all charities have to become more efficient. Everyone knows that money raising is very difficult. As I understand it, the Henderson Top 2000 shows that charitable donations were up last year, the first year of the National Lottery, by 6.6 per cent., an increase of £166 million over the previous year. The study of the Charities Aid Foundation showed that the total income from the 500 biggest fundraising charities rose to a record £3.5 billion. I am pleased that the Home Office is to monitor the effects of lottery giving on charity
1736
income, but at this early stage I do not think we need feel depressed. I think that probably after an initial dip the amount of charity giving will continue to increase. The Family Expenditure Survey has also shown that charitable giving has remained unchanged.
My time has come to an end. I shall conclude by saying that the lottery has been a great success. If we had a similar debate in two years' time, we would all be saying the same thing, with ever more objectives of arts, the heritage and charity to support.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I shall reserve my thanks and congratulations to the end of what I have to say in the hope that that will encourage me to get there quickly.
When I thought that I was going to make a long and relaxed speech, I headed down here to say that Oscar Wilde said, "Life follows art". As usual, they all laughed. But, equally as usual, after a while some of them began to think it might not be just a joke. Similarly, housey-housey was just a game which became bingo, and now we have the lottery which is due to become an essential method of wealth redistribution. People love it as much as they hate taxation.
I am not sure whether it was George V who praised the Order of the Garter because, as he said, "There's no damn merit about it". It is only when you introduce an element of merit into it, when you try to decide which of the many deserving causes shall benefit, and by how much, from the consequences, the fruits, of turning the nation into a vast collection of gamblers, that you run into trouble. For what you have to do is to graft rational decisions onto irrationality, to show the mass that they have not been entirely daft without some benefit coming to someone other than the lucky few new millionaires. They know gambling is wrong and they need to be reassured that some good is coming out of it.
As to what is good—here comes the trouble—for as we have seen here this afternoon, one man's good is another's bête noire. I would be hypocritical if I praised over-much the maiden speech we have just heard, though it is the tradition of the House from which I shall not shrink, a speech with which I found myself in very considerable disagreement. Nevertheless, I conform to the tradition and heartily praise the noble Lord.
I am told that the Prime Minister's more sentient friends wish he had not chosen to reveal the Pooterish side of his personality at the Dispatch Box. The P.M. might have reminded himself that Mr. Gladstone did not find helping women out of prostitution something to be condemned. Personally, what I found reprehensible was the other decision to pay a huge sum of money for papers which most of us thought were already state property. Here, once again, I find myself committing the offence of disagreeing with a maiden speech.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, since the noble Lord has mentioned me, I do not speak for the NHMF but the fact was that, like it or not, the Churchill papers did not belong to the nation.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Exactly, my Lords, but that was the public impression. I did not say that it was the

1737
noble Earl's impression, and now he has lost me a minute of my time so I shall have to put one minute on at the end.
I venture to suggest to the House that the overall conclusion of the House of Commons All-Party National Heritage Committee, after prolonged consideration including the examination of witnesses, should be respected. Personally, with my Puritan background, I do not really like the idea that we now live in a society in which a national lottery is acceptable. But we do live in such a society. I know from my connection with the Theatres Trust that there is reason to commend the committee's summary to the House. It is quite brief and reads as follows:
"The National Lottery could be better, and, if our recommendations are accepted, will be better. But, just for once, let us praise something which has been done well and has gone right."
I associate myself with the full sense of that recommendation.
I must now approach the end of my remarks as there is not much time left. I commend that report from the Select Committee. It makes impressive reading and its two pages of recommendations at the end are especially worthy of attention. I shall mention only two. First, I share the view that, with suitable safeguards, it is time to move cautiously into revenue funding in non-profit areas. I hope that, if he has the time, the noble Earl will comment on that point when he replies. I also support the proposal which was made on 4th June by the shadow national heritage secretary, Jack Cunningham, that Camelot shall be replaced by a non-profit-seeking body.
Although I appear to have a minute of my time left, another noble Lord may have it as, finally, I warmly congratulate the noble Earl on initiating this debate. I am sincere in saying that he has done the House a great service on which he is to be warmly congratulated. If there is anybody else I should congratulate whom I have not yet congratulated, I now proceed to congratulate him and sit down.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Palumbo: My Lords, first, I must add my congratulations to those paid by previous noble Lords to the noble Lord, Lord Hindlip, on a truly admirable maiden speech. I share the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, that the noble Lord will make frequent appearances in this Chamber, even if he should win the National Lottery. Secondly, I must express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Gowrie for initiating this debate. Thirdly, I must declare an interest. As chairman of the Serpentine Gallery, I represent a beneficiary of National Lottery moneys for the much-needed refurbishment of that Grade II listed building in Kensington Gardens, which attracts almost 400,000 visitors through its doors every year.
It is important that we should recognise that the definition of "heritage" is what has been, or will be, built. Therefore, it is not so much upon capital improvements to the existing fabric on which I wish to focus attention this afternoon, but rather upon commissions for new buildings to improve and enhance
1738
the environment. A good building, one that is well designed and combines beauty with function, is of incalculable civic benefit. Architecture, after all, is the most visible of all the arts. It is a subject upon which every person feels, rightly, that he or she is competent and qualified to hold a view. There are thus no experts—or perhaps everyone is an expert. The point is surely that a good building does not depend solely upon money, but upon talent and the enlightened use of that talent.
We are particularly fortunate in this country to have available to us creative talent of the highest order—as good as, if not better than, any in the world—talent that is able to celebrate, to raise expectations and to lift up the spirits. God—or at any rate your Lordships—knows only too well how much we need that uplift in these uncertain times.
I cannot help feeling that the Georgians and the Victorians were, above all, confident societies; and that that confidence expressed itself tangibly and in large measure in the architecture of those times. The 19th century, for example, saw the construction from lottery moneys of the British Museum, the finest museum of its kind in the world. I cannot help feeling also that the greatest cultural glory of these islands, the cathedrals, were an expression of spiritual confidence. The spiritual confidence that eludes us today is a response—at any rate, in part—to the turmoil that we are currently experiencing as we approach the dawn of a new millennium. No wonder people are reaching out for certainty, order, stability, permanent values and some sort of return to a spiritual safeground as a counter-balancing force to the apparent chaos that surrounds them. That is precisely what the arts—and the first of the arts, architecture—can provide at its highest level. Which of us has not stood transfixed at one time or another before the wonders of Durham Cathedral or Chartres or the Parthenon or Ronchamps or the great Temple of Karnak? Of course, the secular is able to evoke as equally powerful a response as the religious—the common denominator being God-given talent that has the ability to spawn a great statement of the human spirit.
The application of lottery funds to existing buildings seeks to redress the neglect through woeful lack of funding in the past. Already a good start has been made with the designs of the architect Richard Rogers for the re-ordering of the South Bank Centre; with those of Norman Foster for the British Museum; with those of Michael and Patty Hopkins for the Royal Academy, and with those of Hertzog de Meuron for the Tate Gallery at Bankside.
In my opinion, it is nothing short of a tragedy that the coruscating brilliance of the design for a new opera house at Cardiff by the architect Zaha Hadid was rejected through loss of nerve and lack of confidence. I hope very much that the same fate will not befall the proposed extension to the Victoria and Albert Museum by the architect Daniel Liebeskind. Had the opera house at Cardiff been constructed, I am in no doubt that it would have done for that city what the Sydney Opera House, itself the recipient of lottery money, has done for Sydney; and it would have created the same image and perception both at home and in countries around the

1739
world of a society that was sufficiently confident and forward-looking to commission a masterpiece to withstand the test of time.
Against that background, what do we find at home? We find that the Arts Council of England, one of the five distributing bodies, and itself the recipient of £5 million per week, has received only two major applications for lottery funding for new buildings, the larger of the two from the City of Salford for a new opera house and performing arts complex by Michael Wilford and Partners—a complex incidentally which will be the very reverse of élitist, conferring as it will wide-ranging benefits upon the community as a whole. That is just the sort of exemplary project application that the Arts Council of England should be considering on a regular basis. We must hope that where the City of Salford leads, others will follow.
My time is—
Baroness Trumpington: Up!
Lord Palumbo: Yes, my Lords, my time is up. Perhaps I may close by saying that the objectives are worthy of your Lordships' consideration; that the creative process should be allowed to have its head and be allowed to flourish and that risks should be taken to ensure that 100 years hence our great-great-grandchildren, standing in the sunlight of other days, can smile benignly upon us for initiating in these times a series of commissions that not only transformed the environment, but set the agenda, the standards and the tone for the third millennium.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as has been demonstrated, it is extraordinarily difficult to debate this vast, complicated and enormously important subject with a seven-minute time limit. I begin by expressing the hope that there will be further opportunities for your Lordships' House, given its enormous assemblage of knowledge and talent, to debate the matter more fully. For my part, in the circumstances I shall simply put one or two questions to my noble friend in the hope that he will be able to deal with them in the time available to him. Does my noble friend believe that sometimes lottery awards are on the large size? Would it not be better if awards were sometimes less spectacular and grand and therefore there were more of them? It seems to me that part of the difficulty in working the system is that some of the awards have been very large and therefore limited in number. The development has been remarkable, but the prizes are very big and give rise to problems.
A separate issue was raised in yesterday's and today's press. Awards have been made to homosexual organisations. I do not wish to introduce prejudice, but a good many of your Lordships will feel that where one is concerned with distributing very large funds to help finance activities in this sphere it is a pity that in four cases (according to yesterday's press) awards have been made directly to organisations which believe in and advocate activities which are repulsive at any rate to a great majority of the population. Can my noble friend give an indication as to the Government's view of the future treatment of such applications?
1740
A very big question was raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. He asked about the effect of this system on ordinary charitable giving. Is it the fact that to some extent the existence of these awards has diminished the amount available from other sources, or is it the case—which would be very cheering—that these activities have produced a net increase in the level of charitable giving? This is an extremely important aspect of the matter. If the new system, which one wishes well, detracts from the size of other charitable activities, the enthusiasm which one has for it will tend to be diminished. I would be grateful if my noble friend could give an indication of the tendency in respect of other charitable giving. Has there or has there not been an increase in the totality of charitable gifts since the system came into being? I believe that the view that many people take on this question will be very much affected by that.
Finally, I put in a plea, as I have done more than once, that funds raised in this way, as in others, shall be made available for the repair of old churches. Churches, particularly small, old country ones, are supported by limited congregations with limited means. If this system can be adapted to help to repair these treasures of architecture and wonderful aspects of our civilisation, the enthusiasm for the system will be accentuated.
I would be most grateful if my noble friend would reply to those questions. Perhaps he would also comment on whether the size of some of the individual awards under this system is excessive and whether it may be more productive to have more awards of slightly lower amounts. I hope that those questions are clear and that my noble friend will give his habitually clear answer to them.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, I supported the introduction of the National Lottery for exactly the reason given by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in her observations on the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. It has always seemed to me that no government we can possibly elect in this country can ever give the arts, sports and cultural institutions the support that they deserve.
As the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said in his powerfully persuasive speech, the lottery has transformed the outlook for the arts and heritage world, as well as for sport. I believe that that is a matter for great congratulation. But in spite of the unexpectedly large sums now available to these causes, government support for them remains essential. Cultural institutions need stable and reliable core funding, and lotteries by their nature cannot be relied upon. As the noble Earl said, if people decide not to commit themselves to gambling, so be it. To a greater or lesser degree, that may well happen. That is why, in my view, lottery proceeds should never be used, as some commentators urge that they should be, to supplement public purposes like healthcare or education. Basically, these are government responsibilities.
The Government have recognised their essential, though not exclusive, role in funding the arts and heritage by promising to protect "additionality" (if I may

1741
use that ugly but rather useful shorthand). They have done so by limiting the lottery to supporting capital projects. But in the light of the large sums involved, serious anomalies are being created in various contexts. In mentioning these anomalies I do not wish to appear in any way to underestimate the marvellous work which the lottery has done and is doing through the distributing bodies. These anomalies are especially great where funding is badly needed and difficult to obtain for core purposes.
I make the same point made by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, in relation to an orchestra's running costs: one may give it a hall but not help with its running costs. I make that point in relation to the National Trust. My noble friend Lord Chorley, the present chairman of the trust, has asked me to apologise to your Lordships for his absence this afternoon. Unusually among institutions, the trust is eligible to make application to all five lottery distributing bodies and has received offers of seven grants from the Heritage Lottery Fund. The trust is deeply appreciative of the helpful service that it has received in making its bids.
As an ex-chairman of the trust, I am familiar with its problems, but since my day they have intensified financially as the backlog of necessary repairs to historic properties has grown ever larger through lack of necessary funds. One may say that there was a miscalculation 20 or 30 years ago when many of these properties were taken on. The degree to which inflation has taken place was not then envisaged. However, many people besides the National Trust made that mistake.
The many millions now needed for each of three famous properties—I mention only three because they are probably the most important ones in serious need of funds—Petworth, Knowle and Hardwicke, are the source of deep concern to the trust. What is needed for such properties is a rolling, say 10-year, programme of work where the trust's funds and, I would hope, heritage lottery funds could work together in planned partnership. What more important work for the heritage can possibly be envisaged for heritage lottery funds to be applied to?
Yet under present guidelines it is easier to find money for a new project, such as an interpretation centre, than it is for the maintenance of the building itself. I am not speaking for the trust when I say that my enthusiasm for interpretation centres is strictly limited, but, even assuming their value, it is anomalous, to say the least, to spend money on interpreting buildings and collections which we cannot afford properly to maintain.
I understand that the Heritage Lottery Fund is acutely aware of the problem. I know that it uses what flexibility is allowed it and can in some cases fund endowment for certain purposes. What I want to urge upon the Government is that the anomaly to which I have referred be recognised, and it should be accepted that endowment is essential if heritage lottery money is to be put to the best use. The alternative of course is to contribute to core funding on an annual basis. If endowment is considered a wasteful way of applying money, annual funding is the only alternative, but it must be annual funding on a planned basis. If
1742
that endangers additionality, I would hope that the National Heritage Committee in another place would keep its eagle eye on it. Additionality can only be protected in the long run by public debate and constant public pressure.
Finally, a plea for the private owners of historic property: it is not right to exclude them as potential recipients of grant aid from lottery sources if proper access is provided for and proper standards of care are ensured. The private owner is an indispensable part of the process of preserving historic buildings for public enjoyment. There are of course difficulties in ensuring the permanence of such arrangements, but those difficulties are not insuperable.
I should like to add my own words to those of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and say that money should be made available to the historic churches of our country. There are over 9,000 pre-Reformation churches. They are badly in need of more help.
If these variations or extensions to the process of distributing lottery funds can be agreed upon, the lottery will have an even greater impact upon our national treasures than the important contribution it has already made.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover: My Lords, first, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Hindlip on his most interesting speech, and say how much I, as others do, look forward to his contributions to your Lordships' debates in the future.
Perhaps I may declare an interest as chairman of Britain's oldest public art gallery (the Dulwich Picture Gallery) which is looking forward one day to receiving substantial sums from the lottery. I declare also my interest as chairman of the Royal Ballet governors, and therefore a particular interest in the development of Covent Garden and the benefits that that will bring to the Royal Ballet. Perhaps I may apologise in advance to the House for being unable to remain until the end of the debate owing, unfortunately, to a longstanding commitment in Oxford.
I shall start by thanking my noble friend Lord Gowrie for initiating today's debate. I support all he said with great enthusiasm, and I should like to pay tribute to the Arts Council and the National Heritage Memorial Fund for the imaginative and wise use of lottery funds that they are making, particularly in terms of the spread, size—both large and small—and geography throughout the country.
Noble Lords might feel that such an opinion and enthusiasm are somewhat predictable, given the interests that I have declared, but I should like to justify my opinion and enthusiasm by putting the lottery grants now being made to the arts in some sort of historic and European context.
Looking back over the past 50 years, one sees that the record of post-war governments' investment in the nation's art is abysmal. Let us consider for a moment how few of the nation's great museums, art galleries,

1743
theatres, concert halls, stadiums, and sports complexes, have enjoyed government-funded improvements on any significant scale.
Leaving aside the disastrous British Library project, I believe that there have been only two major new London arts buildings financed by government in the post-war period—the Festival Hall, which has already been referred to, in 1951, and the National Theatre which opened in 1976. An example of reluctance to invest in the arts is the story of the National Gallery. Having left the space beside that great institution empty for 40 years, the Government of the day then only favoured an extension that was half office and half gallery. The only criterion that seemed to matter was that it did not cost the Government a penny.
Such a mean-minded attitude towards investment in the arts is, I fear, typical of all governments over the past five decades. That is why my noble friend Lord Gowrie is right to be optimistic, for what we are seeing is, indeed, a cultural revolution—a complete and desperately needed change from the Philistine past, an escape from the dead hands of the Treasury.
Instead of Whitehall deciding, the distribution of these capital lottery funds is being decided by the heritage, arts, and sports bodies—committed, independent, knowledgeable, non-political, and practical people, giving their nation their valuable time and, in my humble opinion, doing a great job.
No doubt mistakes have been or will be made, but I feel sure that the quality of their decision making will be of a higher standard than had it been left to the Whitehall machine. Of course these are still early days, and time is needed for distributors to adjust fully to their huge tasks. Time is also needed for the public and the media to recognise the great benefits for the whole country that the lottery will create and which are on the way.
I shall turn for a moment to how we compare to Europe. The starting point so far as concerns London is that if we want our capital city to be one of Europe's greatest financial and business centres, then surely it should follow that London should aim to be one of Europe's greatest artistic centres of excellence, bringing also benefit to the rest of the country by raising artistic standards nationally. That is one measure of the importance of lottery funding.
We all know that we spend less on the arts as a proportion of total public expenditure than any European country except Ireland, with France and Germany currently spending approximately three times what we do. One should also recall the mega arts investments in both France and Germany. A recent example is of course the Bastille Opera House in Paris which cost the state £350 million. That compares with the generous lottery grant to the Royal Opera House of £78 million.
However critical one may be of the failure of governments in the past to recognise the capital needs of the arts, it is surely right to praise my right honourable friend the Prime Minister for bringing in the lottery, about which so much enthusiasm has been generated in our debate. The Prime Minister's wish that the young people of this country should have the finest
1744
sporting and cultural facilities is now attainable. It will take time because we have to catch up on decades of under-investment, but now we can do it, and it will be done. The problem today is no longer capital needs, but, as my noble friend Lord Gowrie so clearly showed, it is revenue cuts.
As I said in this House in April last year, lottery funds should be used to increase public accessibility—reducing seat prices, aiding art education and so on—and it is good news that that is now accepted. But such help is insignificant compared to the huge cuts that the Arts Council has suffered.
My final point is my most important. The future health of the arts in this country now depends on not allowing the lottery to absolve the Government of their long-standing responsibility to maintain their support for the Arts Council and on not allowing the principle of additionality to prevent extra funds from the lottery being allowed for revenue needs in the arts.
5 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, with six minutes and 59 seconds available it is difficult to give a résumé of the lottery funding. I intend to confine my remarks to sports. Sports, and especially the Sports Council, have benefited greatly from the vast wedge of new money which they now receive. Most of that money has been spent on a variety of small community-based projects. I believe that 720 projects have received less than £100,000 in funding. Funding small projects is probably the way forward, with a few prestige projects at the higher end of the scale being in the forefront but becoming a diminishing part of the funding procedure.
There is a finite number of new buildings that we can use. If we continue to build using lottery money we will eventually have a sports hall on every corner. We must use the lottery funding for the maintenance of buildings and the repair of infrastructure and equipment. As was said by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie and the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, such funding is more difficult than creating enthusiasm for new projects. Anyone who has anything to do with charitable and sporting projects knows that. If someone is given a fundraising target they will achieve it. Everyone in fundraising departments knows that that is comparatively easy. It is not unusual that one-third of the cost of any project is required to maintain it on an annual basis. That is often the case as regards an old project which has a crumbling infrastructure. More lottery money must be used to fund existing projects because eventually we shall have sufficient facilities and only a limited need for new ones.
Furthermore, if we are to improve our sporting facilities we must consider the people involved and provide good training facilities and good advice on diet and medical issues. That requires people to meet other people and to give them advice, training, encouragement and a supportive background. We must also invest in the sportsmen themselves. Depending on the sport, international sportsmen in this country receive funding from a variety of sources. Professionals receive money from those who watch them play. Those in the amateur bracket—or, as is more common in many sports, the

1745
"shamateur" bracket—who receive only some funding. In addition, there are sportsmen who fall between those two categories; for instance, those who play professional sports to a limited audience, as is increasingly the case. All those people, while they are on their way up need support, but once at the top a professional can be supported by his sport.
It is not sufficient to build an academy for sport and to staff it. Scholarships and bursaries must be given to the athletes who take part. The current lottery set-up does not take that on board; it does not concentrate on individuals. The same is undoubtedly true as regards the arts. There is a pool of talent in the performing arts but if that is to be improved there must be investment in people.
Furthermore, one must be prepared to accept failure in some investments. For a sportsman or a dancer one trip or stumble can mean the end of a career and there is no use in complaining about that. We must be prepared to accept a degree of wastage in order to obtain the best. I suggest that that should be taken on board by all those involved. If not, we shall have wonderful theatres and sports halls with only about three people in them. It will be a total waste of time.
As regards the funding of individual projects, it is important to remember that if one appoints quangos one should listen to them. Unfortunately, we have heard a series of comments to the effect that certain projects were not liked. Using a sporting analogy, that is the same as a child playing in the street and saying, "It's my ball. I don't like the game anymore because I am losing. I am going to pick up my ball and go home". If we are not prepared to listen to such ruling bodies we should give the authority either to Parliament or to local authorities which are democratically elected. We must give the bodies a free hand because, just as we must be prepared to accept a degree of failure in the preparation of individuals, so we must be prepared to accept that people will make decisions that we do not like.
What is politically unacceptable to one group of people is not always politically unacceptable to another. In the future someone may not approve of contact sports—for instance, judo or rugby—and decide to stop them. Can your Lordships imagine the outcry? I suggest that we leave well enough alone and allow those who are appointed to run a project to do so. I shall conclude my remarks because I believe that we can retrieve some of the time that has been lost in the debate.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Gowrie for initiating this interesting and important debate. As I believe most of your Lordships know, I am the chairman of the Football Trust. I wish to highlight the important relationship that exists between it and the Sports Council, which is one of the lottery's distributing bodies with which we have worked closely for many years.
Your Lordships may also know that the Football Trust derives its funds from two different sources. The primary source is the reduction in pool betting duty,
1746
which was announced in the 1990 Budget and restricted to the professional side of football. Its object is to implement the recommendations of the Taylor Report, in particular the need for all-seater stadia. Sadly, the National Lottery has affected that part of our income very badly and has resulted in a significant reduction in receipts from that source.
That part of our funds and the way in which we use it is not relevant to today's debate because the Sports Council is specifically excluded from providing grants to professional clubs; that is left to the Football Trust. However, I wish to stress one important point for the future. Should the needs of spectator safety and comfort in sport in general in the country become eligible for lottery support, I hope that the Sports Council will wish to draw on the expertise and experience of the Football Trust and the Sports Grounds Initiative which it administers.
The trust's second source of income comes historically from what was once the Pool Promoters Association's spotting the ball competition. In the past the trust received approximately £14 million annually from that source of income. It allocated that partly to safety requirements at professional clubs which were not eligible for reduction in pool betting duty grants and, most importantly in my opinion, to helping the grassroots of the game. Unfortunately, the result of the National Lottery is that income from that source, which now comes from Littlewood's spot the ball competition, has been reduced from £14 million to £4.5 million. That is a serious reduction. Of what we have available, three-quarters must be allocated to safety and improvement work at professional clubs, because in 1990 we agreed with the Government to devote that amount to that purpose. That leaves us with just over £1 million in our budget for the 1996–97 financial year, for the many worthwhile and important projects which we have hitherto been supporting at grass-roots level. We have had to withdraw funding from many worthwhile schemes which were often run in collaboration with the Sports Council. Those include, for example, funding for local authorities, dual use of educational facilities, football in the community projects, boys clubs, YMCAs, the Divert Trust and other admirable amateur bodies which would normally be worthy of our support. We are now in a position of having to advise those bodies which received grants from us in the past to look for their assistance in the future to lottery money from the Sports Council.
I am happy to see that the Sports Council has so far awarded £220 million in grants and I understand that of that amount, some £25 million has been given to football projects in the United Kingdom. I am sure that that is good news. If we are to find the good players, which we know we need so desperately, at the top of the tree, it is essential that we nurture the roots.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as a shareholder in the Littlewoods organisation and as a director of Everton Football Club, the relevance of which will become apparent.

1747
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, for initiating this debate. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that it is impossible not to be impressed by the benefits brought by the National Lottery. I do not dispute that the National Lottery has brought many economic and social benefits, but in the euphoria that its supporters have managed to generate, we tend to lose sight of a number of detrimental consequences which I believe we ignore at our peril which I shall highlight briefly in my allotted time. It is clear, for example, that the effect on charities and voluntary organisations has been mixed: some may have gained, but a great many others, particularly those which depended for a large part of their income on small lotteries, have been hit hard.
We do not yet know what will be the social consequences of unleashing a dramatic stimulation of gambling demand. Fifty years of consensus, in which all parties agreed that the gambling industry should be tightly regulated, and people were not encouraged to gamble more than they could afford, have been swept away, with no proper regulatory machinery put in its place.
The rÔle of Mr. Peter Davis as director of Oflot has been much discussed. Apart from the reservations about his fitness for office which have been widely talked about, it is obvious that there is an inherent contradiction in Oflot's terms of reference. On the one hand the director general is supposed to consider the national interest and only license games which do not encourage excessive play; but on the other hand, his job is to encourage Camelot to make as much money as possible, under the guise of maximising the return to "good causes". This has meant that he has the strongest interest in stifling competition, and we have the extraordinary situation whereby the operator, Camelot, effectively has a veto over the licensing of fresh games by competitors. Consequently no Section 6 licence for instant games has been granted to any organisation other than Camelot.
Now that the British lottery has established itself as the largest in the world, and is making profits of over £1 million a week, he has clearly met the second objective, but perhaps he has fallen down in his protection of the public interest. All that needs to be looked at urgently.
In that regard, I warmly welcome the assurance given by the Secretary of State for National Heritage that there will be no question of agreement being given to Camelot for running a second on-line midweek game. Mrs. Bottomley told the National Heritage Select Committee inquiry into the national lottery on 2nd April:
"there is no need at present to further encourage new games and initiatives."
I turn now to two particular good causes, which far from benefiting from the National Lottery, have been hit extremely hard by it. I refer to the Football Trust and to the Foundation for Sport and the Arts to which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, alluded. The Football Trust has been around for more than 20 years. It was originally set up by the pools companies, Littlewoods, Vernons and Zetters, to help British football with the implementation of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act.
1748
As your Lordships will be aware, we are now half way through the first week of the EURO 96 football championships—the greatest sporting event to come to this country since the World Cup 30 years ago. Had it not been for the Football Trust, this tournament would never have been awarded to England. The trust has been responsible for massive ground improvements at all eight stadia which are staging the matches. Perhaps the best compliment to the work of the Football Trust was paid by the chairman of the UEFA Stadia Committee, Mr. Ernie Walker, who said:
"It is quite clear to me that city for city England has the best football stadia in the world".
And speaking specifically about EURO 96, Mr. Walker added:
"The clubs with major help from the Football Trust have transformed these grounds in recent years. There will be eight splendid venues for what will be the biggest and potentially the best ever European Finals."
In addition to transforming the football grounds, the trust has made a huge contribution to providing the funds to tackle social disorder associated with football. For example, for the EURO' 96 tournament, the Football Trust paid £150,000 for the provision of eight new photophone stations for use by the police to catch known football hooligans and prevent them from gaining access to our football grounds, and a similar sum towards new closed circuit television cameras at Wembley. Both are measures for which the Home Secretary has been quick to claim the credit. It was indeed the trust—under the inspired chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare—that pioneered the introduction of CCTV at British football grounds. That is the measure regarded as the most important by far in the war against hooliganism.
Its main responsibility, however, is to provide the finance to enable smaller clubs to fulfil the requirements of the Taylor Report, notably new grounds, new stands, seating and roofing. None of that expenditure is eligible for assistance from the lottery.
Half way through the Taylor implementation timetable, grants totalling more than £140 million have been made to new stands and new grounds costing more than £437 million. Those completed included the award-winning new stadium in Huddersfield, and a host of other new grounds in places as far apart as Millwall and Middlesbrough, Northampton and Livingston. New stadia are now going up in Oxford, Sunderland, Bolton, Derby and Stoke-on-Trent.
In 1990, when work on implementing the Taylor Report began, the minimum cost over the agreed 10 year timescale was estimated at £600 million—£60 million a year. The trust would have met about a third of this bill, around £20 million a year. Since the lottery started in November 1994, the trust's income from the 1990 betting duty reduction has fallen by 45 per cent. and it looks as though it will be short of around £33 million from the sum needed to see the Taylor implementation completed, particularly in the lower divisions where the need is greatest. It is essential that the life of the betting duty reduction, which was introduced by the present Prime Minister when Chancellor of the Exchequer, is

1749
extended for at least another three years after the year 2000, if the job of implementing the Taylor Report is to be completed properly.
The Football Trust is therefore one extremely good cause which has not only received no benefit whatever from the lottery, but has suffered a huge drop in its income as a direct consequence of it.
The same applies to that second great good cause funded by the pools companies—the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. This phenomenally successful body, chaired by Sir Tim Rice, and graced by two distinguished members of your Lordships' House—the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, and my noble friend Lord Attenborough—has in the first five years of its life awarded 12,335 grants to sport and 433 grants to physical recreation, totalling £188,848,078 and 7,271 grants to the arts, totalling £91,964,140. The foundation was established by the Pool Promoters Association in July 1991 and funds from the foundation have gone to such good causes as the Liverpool Social Partnership in Drugs Prevention, the Drumblade Junior Band and the Aylesford Rugby Football Club.
I suggest that these are compelling reasons why steps need to be taken now to remove the many inequalities in the competitive regime governing the operation of the pools and the lottery. It is not a question of loading the dice in favour of the pools, but of ensuring that the two can compete on fair terms, and each contribute to the welfare of our country.
5.20 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I regret that I am unable to declare any interest today because, despite being a regular buyer of lottery tickets, I have failed miserably to gain one prize. My noble friend Lord Gowrie has given us the opportunity today to consider the lottery. The debate is extremely well timed, coming so soon after the publication of the National Heritage Select Committee report. Perhaps I may also congratulate my noble friend on his excellent maiden speech.
The National Lottery is a resounding success. We must be proud of its achievements, and ensure that it is as successful as it is now for the remainder of its licence period. Four out of five of its shareholders are British public companies and Camelot must be congratulated on its achievement. The lottery is the most efficient in the world and provides more to good causes than any other lottery in the world.
Perhaps I may start by looking at one of the issues which has concerned your Lordships' House—additionality. We have had a number of debates on the subject. The concern was always that the lottery money would allow the Treasury or, indeed, local authorities to cut their funding commitments. In fact what has happened, instead of a rather general principle of additionality, defined simply by saying that lottery funds should not support projects that were already in the planned budget—for example, money had been earmarked either by the Government or by government bodies—the distributing bodies seem to have been
1750
bound up by trying to define every possible scenario. I am afraid that there is rather a log jam of applications and certainly a bit of a muddle.
Additionality is a concept that protects the heritage from cuts in government spending; that is all. It is not a concept to do the opposite—to cut lottery spending. You do not have to define every scenario; that is not necessary. Even the Permanent Secretary at the Department of National Heritage, the guardian of the concept of additionality as departmental accounting officer, pleaded at the Select Committee hearing for simplicity and urged distributors and recipients alike not to try to complicate the issue.
My plea is for flexibility, and that also goes for endowment funding and partnership funding. There was never any intention that endowment funding should only be used in rare cases. What is needed is some funding to be raised by the applicant, because it does show that the project has backing, but again I believe that it is a mistake to be too prescriptive. Sometimes 50 per cent. would be right, sometimes only 25 per cent. or 10 per cent. and, perhaps in some cases, as little as 2 per cent. Without proper endowment funding some projects will fail. We must ensure that they do not. The huge amount of money now coming through has simply put too much pressure on private funds that are able to back lottery applications. As the sums increase there will have to be more endowment funding, not less.
I would like to see the distributing bodies encouraging more projects. I know that they are barred by the Secretary of State from "soliciting", and I am not asking my two noble friends to stand on street corners—although, if they did, that might make them eligible for a grant from the charities board. However, I urge them to ensure that they get their message across, particularly to smaller bodies.
Those of us who were involved in bringing the lottery Act into being always recognised that we were gazing into a crystal ball. None of us knew what would happen once the money started rolling in. Who would put in applications for funding? Would there be enough applications or, indeed, enough funding? What types of people or organisations would apply, and what kind of projects would they be for? As a result, flexibility was built into the Act, so that changes can be made by secondary legislation.
The National Heritage Memorial Fund was appointed, as a distributor, to support the heritage. But I am afraid that the majority of the built heritage is missing out. As the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, said, the private owner is not being helped. The reason for this is not the fault of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. It is prevented by the National Heritage Act 1980 from funding private owners. In its early days, the fund had about £10 million a year to distribute.
I believe that one of the main ambitions of the lottery grants must be to restore and upgrade our inner cities and town centres. They are currently often excluded as, for example, many of our historic squares and streets are owned partly by local authorities, partly by the private sector and partly by heritage organisations. The resulting mix of ownership excludes them from funding.

1751
Now that the NHMF has nearer £300 million a year, it is clearly wrong that two-thirds of our built heritage is being denied funding by an outdated clause in an Act that was designed for another purpose.
What can we do about it? I believe that there is a simple solution. The Secretary of State could by order appoint English Heritage as a distributor alongside the fund. English Heritage is already its adviser on built heritage applications. It has the expertise and the staff to do the job. The issue, then, that must be addressed is how that can help the private owner while, importantly, protecting the public interest. The principle is that public money should not be used to support private gain.
English Heritage currently assists private owners through Section 3a grants under the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953. Those conditions have protected the taxpayer since English Heritage was formed in 1984, and can be used in exactly the same way to protect lottery funds. So no charge of the use of public funds for private gain can be made. Of course, the principal conditions include means testing, there also has to be public access and, indeed, owners have to maintain their properties. But, most important of all, English Heritage assesses what would be the risk to Britain's heritage if the building were to be put on the market.
Grants in the past have enabled buildings, their surrounding land and often their contents—that is to say, the historic estate—to remain in private ownership, so that future maintenance is no charge on the state and the public can enjoy them. We must remember that the majority of the built heritage also includes very modest buildings—for example, terraced houses, cottages and often offices—but all of importance.
Lottery funds must relate to the needs of all the people, not just to museums and the arts elite. While on elitism, I must say how very depressed I am by some of the large applications from our major museums. I am, I am afraid, going to distress the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, whom I admire enormously, but I appalled by the idea of covering the British Museum with something that can only be described as an inflatable condom. I am equally appalled by an attempt by the V&A to ruin the last vestiges of symmetry of the Kensington museums by wanting to erect a building which one can only describe, I suppose, as cartoon-type geometry—a sort of "Bent Bugs Bunny Building Blocks". Faced with those applications, the case for the restoration of our existing glorious heritage becomes, I believe, unarguable.
I recognise that my proposal may be considered disruptive by the National Heritage Memorial Fund so ably run by the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild. I must assure the noble Lord that I have nothing but respect and admiration for the way that he has operated the fund within the difficult constraints of the National Heritage Act 1980. I want to make his life easier, not curtail his ambitions. But what matters most is that the money, at the moment, is not going to support all the built heritage.
English Heritage was, of course, once considered as a distributor but, because it was thought that it was more likely to be an applicant, it was ruled out. In fact,
1752
English Heritage has not received very much lottery money because it has problems of additionality. The reason that I should like to emphasise my suggestion—and I realise that I am coming to the end of my time—is that the change can be made by order rather than the Act of Parliament which would be required to change the articles of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. When she comes to publish her paper, I hope that the Secretary of State will consider these issues very carefully.
5.28 p.m.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, for his initiative and prescience in introducing today's debate, I should also say that I enthusiastically agree with almost every word that he said. His few words in the area of economic theory momentarily tempted me to revive our debates of past years. But, even if there were time to pursue that, I should not want it to dilute my admiration for the noble Earl's other remarks.
I shall try to help your Lordships' House to catch up time by making a few very brief and, hence, disjointed points. I should, first, declare a number of pertinent interests as a director of English National Opera, a governor of the National Film and Television School and an adviser, director or shareholder of various film and cinema companies.
The funds available for distribution are as high as they are because of the success with which Camelot has implemented its franchise. With the benefit of hindsight perhaps a harder bargain could have been driven, but with the benefit of hindsight another franchise awarded by the Government—that for the Channel Tunnel—would perhaps never have been financed and completed.
The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, paid tribute to the Prime Minister for his success in setting up the lottery. I suspect that he may regret as much as I do that his right honourable friend (in abeyance), in the words of that politically correct and left-wing newspaper, the Evening Standard, has jerked the wrong knee in his intolerant and misguided remarks yesterday. I can understand why the previous Conservative director of communications-but-one resigned, citing the Government's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of its few victories such as the lottery.
I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo—and perhaps oppose the noble Viscount, Lord Astor—in his advocacy of ambitious, imaginative but always well controlled new buildings with which to go into the next millennium, in London as much as in Salford or Cardiff. I hope that, along with the proposed renovations such as those of the Royal Opera House, the Gallery on Bankside and even the South Bank Centre, London will see at least one significant and exciting new public building on a landmark site.
I also welcomed the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, about the issue of widening eligibility for lottery funds to current, not just, capital expenditure. So long as the principle of additionality can be enforced—the noble Earl's figures on the reduction in the Arts Council's grant-in-aid shows that this is a big "if"—it is

1753
clearly eccentric to draw this rigid distinction between capital and current items, particularly in the light of Her Majesty's Treasury's well known reluctance to do so in its own national accounts.
In passing I also wish to make one observation based on my experience as a director of English National Opera, which last year received a significant award from the Arts Council for a feasibility study in relation to its future needs and home. Even from a partisan point of view it was not immediately easy to feel comfortable with a seven-figure sum being devoted from the lottery to such an intangible purpose. One year on, with the study nearing completion, I am absolutely convinced that this expenditure will be paid back many times over in informing subsequent decisions. I hope it will be an encouragement to distributing bodies to continue such awards where appropriate.
Finally, I wish to add my support to the funding that the Arts Council lottery fund has been able to give the film industry. The wording of today's debate highlights the economic benefits of the work undertaken by the distributing bodies. I believe that there can be no area in which the direct economic benefits can be greater than in the film industry, if the support is wisely applied. I believe that the Arts Council is now considering proposals to move from financing single films to funding ongoing film business to help create mini studios. Although I suspect that this presents the council and its assessors with a smaller number of testing judgments rather than a larger number of merely difficult ones, I have no doubt that the economic and cultural prize of successfully implementing such a proposal could be substantial.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Crathorne: My Lords, first I wish to congratulate my noble friend on his maiden speech. We have been friends for many years and have been involved in the art world together in London and New York. I hope that now that he has "opened the bidding", as it were, he will speak frequently in this House.
The National Heritage Committee's second report on the National Lottery is a commendable and heartening document which states:
"All kinds of worthwhile and socially valuable projects have been encouraged and assisted when, without the lottery, they would have been ideas stifled at birth or never even born".
That puts the case succinctly and accurately. I was involved with the Heritage Lottery Fund in the first months of its life as I was a trustee of the National Heritage Memorial Fund until last August. Having seen the fund from both inside and out, as it were, it seems to me that NHMF was a good choice to manage the Heritage Lottery Fund. The complexities are enormous. For example, the fund deals with over 30 quangos—of which English Heritage is one—and covers the whole vast heritage field. Both enormous sums of money and small sums of money are involved, as are extraordinarily varied projects throughout the United Kingdom. I would not like to see that altered.
1754
As the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, mentioned, there is the question of private owners. However, there will surely be other ways of getting round that matter. Indeed, one of the recommendations of the National Heritage Committee report was that private owners should be helped, subject of course to there being proper public benefit from that.
The workload that the fund copes with is amazing. The chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, deserves all our thanks for the skill, energy and enthusiasm which inspire those who work with him.
A recent initiative mentioned by the noble Lord is the urban parks theme for which £50 million is being earmarked. This is a wonderful initiative. It is the first time that the fund has, in a sense, sought applications in any way. Sadly, in this country public parks have a low priority in many town halls and government offices. But experience abroad has demonstrated that fine parks can help to create flourishing cities. Let us hope that this initiative will restore civic pride in our parks.
I shall try to give a sense of what is involved in that sort of distribution of money. It is not simply a question of signing a cheque. Such restorations take a great deal of time and work, including researching the parks' history, design, topography, hydrology, vegetation, wildlife, ecology, archaeology, current and potential use, management and, last but not least, security. These things will not happen overnight. However, it is exciting that the lottery will make all this possible over the next few years.
I wish to refer to one case which is soon to come before the Heritage Lottery Board. I hope this case will be followed in other parts of the country. One of the great benefits of the lottery is that people can think not only big but on a broad scale. The example to which I refer is the cathedral city of Ripon, sited close to where I live in the north east. The Ripon Improvement Trust, under the chairmanship of Michael Abrahams, worked out ways in which the city could be restored and re-invigorated. It looked critically at the river and its environs, the approaches to the city, the main city square, the disused and dilapidated buildings and the museums. This involved discussions with the county council, the borough council, the city council, a large public company, several private companies, museum trusts, charities, voluntary organisations and private individuals.
To create the will and the unity of purpose for a themed townscape application to the Heritage Lottery Fund is a remarkable achievement. As I said, the bid is just about to be submitted. The whole complicated package involving all these organisations will be presented as one bid, prepared by the borough council helped by a steering committee. Initially the Ripon Improvement Trust went to the Heritage Lottery Fund simply to have the ground rules explained and to discover what was and was not eligible to enable it to put together a bid that made sense.
The next task was to look carefully at the planning issues, as the members of the trust felt that it was not enough simply to restore streets and houses and to make things attractive but that there should also be quite

1755
substantial economic benefits from the scheme. Once that was shown to be the case, the local politicians put aside political differences; and everyone involved has worked together to produce a scheme which, if implemented, will have great social and economic benefits for the area. It is an imaginative approach that I hope others will follow.
I conclude by mentioning two points made in the Select Committee report. The report calls for a more flexible attitude to partnership funding. In particular it makes a plea to respond to local conditions and needs. That is a very real point. It is easier to raise partnership funding in some areas than in others. The other point, which I mentioned earlier, concerns private individuals being able to benefit so long as there is some public good; and this must be a good idea.
The lottery has been going for only 18 months and we have heard about the enormous sums raised and distributed. Each year will generate more money for distribution. There is no question but that the social and economic benefits of the lottery are, happily, here to stay.
5.41 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I talked to the late Lord Houghton many times about animal charities being excluded from lottery funds. Were he still with us, I suspect that he would be on his feet telling us that it was about time these charities should now be included, and I would have to say that I agree with him.
I am delighted that the lottery is such a success. So many good causes have benefited. Funding has also been expanded to include revenue expenditure, for example the film industry, which is very welcome. Even the Treasury, I suspect, has done rather well.
One group of charities has not benefited. The public believes that 20p in the pound is given to charity, but in reality the amount is only about 5.6p. Since the introduction of the lottery, fund-raising for many charities has dropped. For example, at the Riverdale Shopping Centre in Lewisham, money collected in July 1994 for the RSPCA came to just over £1,000 but in July 1995, at the same centre, the amount came only to £424. That is quite a drop. Since November 1994, the number of people buying animal charity raffle tickets has fallen from about 30 per cent. to 20 per cent. and street collections are down too. I do not think there is any doubt that the lottery has had quite an impact on the traditional methods of raising money for charity for this group. However, charities other than animal charities can benefit directly from the lottery and in many cases are more than able to make up any shortfall that they may have.
Animals play an enormous part in our lives. Most of us have grown up with them. There is no national health for animals. For those who are unable to pay for treatment from a veterinarian, charities like the Blue Cross, RSPCA and PDSA, to name but three, come to the rescue. They keep their doors open for 24 hours a day. No one is ever turned away and in many ways they act as a community centre too, particularly for the elderly. I certainly saw this when I visited the Blue
1756
Cross Hospital in Victoria a few weeks ago. The National Canine Defence League spent around £300,000 last year on neutering campaigns alone to reduce the number of unwanted dogs. All that has to come from charitable funds which, of course, have to be raised from the public in the first place. If the public were to continue to cut down the amount they donate for the foreseeable future, then many of the smaller animal charities will disappear altogether. They also produce educational literature to promote the care and welfare of animals, often going to schools and talking to children. There is a great deal of inter-activity, and all of it on a voluntary basis. If these organisations were not around, who could do this invaluable work? As I have said, there is no NHS for this group.
While some charities are able to benefit from our lottery, it seems unfair that there should be discrimination between one group and another. After all, both kinds fill an enormous need and relieve pressure on the public purse. Can I appeal to the Minister today in the hope that at some time in the near future our animal charities will also be able to benefit from what so far has been an extremely successful lottery?
5.45 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, it is likely that the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, and I, will be the only two speakers in the debate today to deal with the question of animals and animal charities; and I thank her for cajoling me to speak in this debate.
We have heard today that by any measure of performance the National Lottery must be considered an outstanding success, helping a range of institutions, large and small, in the media, the arts, sports and so on, all of which can be said to benefit the economic and spiritual aspects of life in this country.
However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, said, one area which has a direct relationship to the social and economic issues of the country has failed to convince the distributing body—the National Lottery Charities Board—that it is indeed of national importance, in particular in the social aspects of life. I refer to animal welfare, and the societies and charities which do such sterling work in supporting the animal welfare side of life in this country.
Indeed, I understand that the distribution board has previously resolved to give animal welfare a low priority. Animal welfare appears to have been linked with animal protection and this may well be why it is given such a low priority. But to categorise it under the rubric of "animal protection" would be wrong. Animal welfare embraces the companion animals, welfare of stray animals, supporting medical aid to animals owned by people who cannot afford veterinary fees, and so on. It also covers farm animals, horses, and wildlife.
With respect to companion animals, your Lordships may be aware that there are some 11 million dogs and cats in this country in about half of the 22 million households. They play an important role in the social life of the country.
I do not make the claim or the complaint that the animal charities have suffered unduly as a result of the lottery although there are claims that their income has

1757
decreased. Nor do I make the claim that because many people who contribute to the lottery are also owners of companion animals they therefore should have the right to have their animals considered on some preferential basis by the lottery board. No, I do not make that claim. The plea is simply that applications from animal charities should be examined alongside others on their relative merit and should not be positively discriminated against or set aside because of any specific categorisation.
The needs addressed by the animal welfare societies have been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton. Therefore I shall not go over them again. But although animals play an important role in our lives, there are obviously major problems with companion animals and others in our society which need attention. Those charities give attention to such problems.
I hope that the Minister will give some consideration to these issues. I repeat: it is not that those bodies should be given any priority. My plea is that their applications may be considered on the same basis as any other application. My plea is for an overall widening of the basis of consideration.
5.49 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, fond as I am of animals, I wish to return to the built heritage and in particular the significant group who, I believe, have drawn the short straw in lottery heritage funding. I refer to the owners and managers of the privately owned historic houses and tourist attractions. My wife and I are among them. After 15 years in the front line of opening a house and garden to the public, I feel quite strongly that the Government need to pay more attention to that sector and to the smaller owner in particular.
The smaller attraction receives fewer than 10,000 visitors a year, which in our case works out as an average of about 40 or 50 on a sunny day and only three in the thick West Dorset sea mist. There is, of course, a Fawlty Towers element in this which provides constant amusement to others and rather less to those immediately involved. Small owners are quite literally running between the front-door to let one group into the house and the back-door to help another group find the nearest WC. They are struggling, often with diminishing energy and small amounts of capital to match public with private benefit.
But there is a more serious aspect. Fundamentally, the public enjoys the smaller attractions simply because they are on a human scale and they prefer the owners to be visible. They find a remarkable tranquillity there which is not always present in the well-known stately piles. And yet the irony is that the smaller owners are bound to be disadvantaged because, while in most cases they cannot command the same visitor numbers, they do not have the administration to obtain regular access to funds and their human and social costs are proportionately higher.
We know from the Historic Houses Association that about half (44 per cent.) of all the 2,000 or so historic buildings open to the public are in private ownership.
1758
The figures we do not have are the number of attractions which are heavily subsidised by private owners for reasons that only they can explain or the number of attractions which change hands fairly frequently because their owners cannot afford to maintain them. That includes my own family home in Huntingdon, rescued by the local authority to become a comprehensive school. It is, of course, hard to estimate the proportion of public and private benefit. But what I do know is that private enjoyment can and does diminish in proportion to the responsibility which the owner has to the public.
It is an acknowledged fact that many houses have suffered because their owners are not wealthy; they are people who may have inherited them and have put a lot of their energy and time into them. The question is not, can the nation afford country houses and gardens? But, can the nation afford to lose any more of those owners who are preserving the heritage by putting in their own free time and spare money, and often selling their possessions, to do so? Without the good will of private owners, how would the Government be able to support the other part of the heritage which is in private hands? The noble Lord, Lord Hindlip, in an excellent maiden speech, mentioned the in lieu arrangements, and I hope that they will be strengthened.
As other noble Lords have pointed out, there is a concern that the Government have not fully appreciated the position of the private owners. It is high time the rules were changed in their favour. It is no good Ministers saying that houses can be turned into charities. That is simply not feasible for the majority of owners. I know that the National Heritage Select Committee has made a very welcome start, as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and other noble Lords have mentioned. That is thanks largely to the efforts of the Historic Houses Association. In supporting its recommendation to the Secretary of State—which is that the National Heritage Act 1980 be amended—I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments. I also submit that the case of the private owners deserves closer examination when the lottery bodies come to look at the matter.
I wish to make one final remark on charities. As the right reverend Prelate said, not all charities are enthusiastic about the lottery because of its adverse social effects. I can understand that and I hope that the Minister will give a full reply to the right reverend Prelate. However, there is a positive side, and as one concerned about awareness of world development issues, I was delighted to hear that the Development Education Association received a grant yesterday for its youth work. That is welcome compensation for a neglected area of education suffering from cuts in both the public and the private sector. I congratulate the Charities Board on its decision.
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, it is illegal to promote a large lottery; that was under the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976. Under laws dating back to 1898, all lottery notices, correspondence, offers or tickets are judged as illegal imports and must be destroyed. That was the law in Britain until November 1994. It was clear that Britain was in danger of being swamped by lottery

1759
tickets from abroad and foreign lotteries making huge amounts of money by exploiting Britain's untapped market—and what a huge market that proved to be. As 1992 approached, it would become more critical, with the removal of restrictions brought in by the Single European Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, proposed in your Lordships' House on 28th November 1990 that there should be a national lottery. There were fierce arguments for and against. We have heard a few of them again today. The history of national state lotteries goes back as far as Ancient Rome. In Britain, the first national lottery was run in 1569 and it became an annual event from the mid-18th century. Funds for the building of the British Museum were raised that way. It ceased in 1826 because there was widespread illegal betting on its outcome.
There can be no doubt now that the lottery figures have exceeded people's expectations and wildest dreams. It is the most successful lottery in the world. Great credit must be given to the Government and to the Prime Minister not only for having set it up but for having set it up so carefully and diligently. There were possible land-mines wherever they walked.
What were those possible land-mines? I detect two: first, the independent framework set up for choosing the company to run the lottery. The decision to award the lottery to Camelot was strongly underscored by the National Audit Office. What a huge success Camelot has made! It is not an easy job—lotteries are not always success stories. As we heard from my noble friend Lord Inglewood last week, the lottery organisation in Arizona had its licence withdrawn after six months, as the operation was in shambles. Camelot is still in competition with other forms of gambling so it is still at risk. No one is obliged to buy a lottery ticket. The driving force behind the lottery is the jackpot itself. Because of its great success, millions have benefited. Imagine a voluntary sum of money paid out, of which over 28 per cent. is given to good causes. That means £1,400 million, a vast sum that is not even distributed by the Government. I find it difficult to understand why people are still whingeing.
A second possible land-mine is that in the framework set up for distribution, there are five bodies. I shall mention only two in my short time: the National Heritage Memorial Fund and the National Lottery Charities Board. Sadly, we often make the mistake in this country of criticising success or quality or something that is superbly run. We hear murmurs of elitism. But, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, twice as many people went to the opera as watched the Football League Cup. More people go to the ballet than go to Rugby Union football. I am a tremendous supporter of sport and am pleased that one of the five bodies is the Sports Council Lottery Panel, described so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. However, more people go to museums and art galleries than watch sport.
If he will forgive me, I wish to add my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, as my noble friend Lord Hindlip said so eloquently in his maiden speech. We hear today so many stories of sleaze and new restrictions
1760
from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan. But he would not have needed to produce any report if there were more people like the chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. The noble Lord, a Cross-Bencher, unpaid, chairs a voluntary distinguished body spending hours of dedicated time. I recommend that noble Lords study the list of grants to see how many varied causes have received help all over Britain, not just in England, large and small, built heritage and open spaces, and parks, which the noble Lord mentioned in his speech. It is done with firmness, fairness, courage and great style. There are always criticisms and people wanting to encroach on other people's competencies. But here we have an example of pure professionalism with a human face and with no ulterior motive. That is true service. It was an inspired choice on the part of our Prime Minister. He should be given credit, too.
There are few areas that I should like to mention. One is a booklet that was produced by the National Heritage Memorial Fund, and which has not been mentioned, on advice on how to apply for funds. This was always the hardest information to obtain in the European Parliament. I am afraid that the EU is a maze of dreadful, complicated bureaucracy. I even agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, on the subject.
Sadly, in the short time available, I cannot go into detail on different projects: the Royal Naval College at Greenwich; Somerset House, which was mentioned; and the lighting of outstanding buildings, which not only brings new beauty to so many but has an important social side in that it greatly reduces crime. Another aspect is computerisation for museums. This has an exciting future.
The National Lottery Charities Board, with another outstanding, dedicated chairman, Mr. David Sieff, announced its awards yesterday. There has been some criticism. I have to declare an interest, having been a member for many years of the British Red Cross Society. Over the past two years the society has raised more money than ever before. It is not alone among the charities.
At this late stage in the debate many points have been covered. However, I repeat one or two because I feel it necessary to emphasise them. The first is the possibility of diminishing Government responsibility, the dreaded additionality so clearly mentioned by my noble friend Lord Astor. Secondly, we must not forget the importance of people—a source of great wealth. And thirdly, I support the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, regarding historic houses and churches. I am grateful for the positive debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Gowrie.
I mentioned the terrible dangers, a few of which did not occur. Most well-organised charities have not suffered. People have not become addicted or insane. Why should people not be allowed to indulge in a harmless dream that is even doing good? We do not need less of it, as some noble Lords said, but a good deal more in this troubled world. Art, heritage, charity and sports are perhaps all that we have between us and barbarism. You do not need a degree in fine arts or to come from a privileged background to enjoy Mozart. All you need is a soul.
6.3 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am one of the few people who voted against the lottery when the Bill came before this House. As an unreconstructed old Puritan, I still feel that it is a pity that we are encouraging more and more gambling, which is what we are doing. Seeing what the British people, untempted, will do in the way of gambling, there is no occasion to encourage them—they can do it very well without any further encouragement.
However, that said, when a charity with which I was connected received over £300,000, it did not even occur to me that we ought to send the money back. We are making extremely good use of it in terms of doing something about rural crime. Noble Lords will be the first to recognise that the needs of rural areas are frequently overlooked, and such areas are likely to benefit very considerably from the lottery. It is very difficult to get money for them from other sources and so money from the lottery is very welcome indeed.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate that we have to live in the real world. People are prepared to put up money to buy lottery tickets in the futile expectation that they will receive several million pounds. The odds against it are such that you would think that, even given the present state of arithmetical ability, most people would be able to work out that their chances are, to put it mildly, rather low. That being so, the money is coming in, and that I welcome.
I join with those who said that it is of the highest importance to guard against additionality. We all say that. But I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who will reply, what safeguards there are, if any, against additionality. Frankly, on the subject of additionality, those of us who have had dealings with the Treasury and the European Union do not trust the Government. I should like to know how we can be sure that the Government are not going to give less because the lottery gives more. That was not what was intended. It would be disastrous, and indeed a betrayal of the country, if that were to be so.
I also echo the remarks of my noble friend Lord Addington about leaving the lottery boards to get on with the job, not telling them from outside what they ought or ought not to do. Anybody in the country, from the highest to the lowest (if one is still allowed to use that shorthand term) is free and entitled to criticise what the lottery boards do and how they distribute money. In relation to a recent outburst from Downing Street, I say only that I was very glad to see David Sieff's temperate but firm rejection of the criticism made. The money is not there for the Government to decide what should be done with it. It is handed over to separate boards to deal with it, and they should be left so to do. People can criticise as much as they like, but there must be no suggestion whatever that the Government will have any say in how the money is used. Inevitably, in the distribution of so much money there will on every occasion be ways in which it is used which will upset somebody. Let people complain as much as they like, but let them not interfere.
1762
As I said, the moneys are extremely welcome. I very much support a remark that I believe was made by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. With so many speeches, it is not always easy to remember who said what, especially as some noble Lords repeated what others said—which I am also certainly doing. It is most welcome that money is going into sports grounds. I very successfully avoided organised games at school. I have always hated them. But if I had the power to do so I would pour money, for both social and economic reasons, into sports facilities in state schools. So many people of our age, and even those younger than some of us, forget how much aggression young males have to get rid of. If they cannot get rid of it in an organised and legal way, they will and do get rid of it in an unorganised and illegal way. It is just as simple as that. If young people cannot have proper training and proper opportunity to be violent in a limited fashion, they will be violent in a very unlimited fashion. There are those who are more knowledgeable about sport than I am, but I imagine that we shall never get a successful team in anything in this country until we spend more money on training youngsters in state schools. More money going in that direction would be very, very welcome.
For the time that remains I shall talk about money going to charities. They have taken the lion's share so far, and quite rightly. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, pointed out, charities receive only 5.6 per cent. of the money which goes to good causes; some 28 per cent. overall goes to good causes. It has been a theme this afternoon to praise—I do not say excessively, but without any undue control—what Camelot has done. Camelot has run a very successful lottery and we agree that, in a way, that is a good thing. But Camelot is getting a great deal of money from the lottery and surely more than 5.6 per cent. of the total money could go into charities. We ought to be pressing to look again at the amount of money going to Camelot and see whether more money cannot be siphoned to the charities which need it so badly.
There has been much discussion as to whether the charities are better or worse off as a result of the introduction of the lottery. According to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations—I am sure that almost every Member of your Lordships' House will have had its briefing and so I need only remind the House of what it says—the verdict seems to be that the big, well-known charities are not losing out. That has been confirmed by other speakers this evening. They are the kind of charities which benefit from planned giving and receive money from well-known trusts of companies. I gather that they are just as well off as ever they were. Those which are not so well off are the very small charities—the struggling little groups which are run locally and which depend on those eternal jumble sales and raffles and the odd garden party. But, those are a very important part of the charities and the social life of this country. They are particularly important because they are local community efforts in a world in which local communities are often threatened and being weakened. We do not want to see those small organisations lose out because of the success of the lottery grants.

1763
When one looks at the way in which the National Lottery Charities Board has been distributing its money, I am grateful and glad to see that it has in fact distributed a great deal of it to just that kind of group. Some of the money has gone to charities which have income as low as £1,000 a year. Much of the money has gone to small community groups, trying to develop good schemes in local areas. That must be good. We must all he grateful for the sensitivity and perceptiveness with which the National Lottery Charities Board has identified particular unromantic, unspectacular and not well-known causes that have been able to benefit. It will undoubtedly make a great deal of difference to their survival in many cases. I hope that it can not only continue but can be intensified with an even higher proportion going to charities of that order.
I wish to make just one other point in relation to the National Lottery Charities Board. Every charitable organisation of which I have ever heard or with which I have been connected has always been in trouble about core funding. It is often not too difficult to raise money for a particular project. But nearly every charity finds it extraordinarily difficult to obtain the limited amount of core funding which is essential to keep the charity alive and not force it to spend all its time trying to raise the moneys without which it cannot have some kind of central administration, however modest, and therefore cannot exist. Those charities cannot spend all their time raising money for that purpose rather than getting on with the work for which they were brought into being.
I wonder whether the National Lottery Charities Board would give its mind to thinking how that very real problem of core funding for the smaller charities might be dealt with. There are a number of ways in which that might be helped. It is a central problem for all charities but in particular for the smaller ones. I very much wish that particular thought could be given to that very real problem. It would make a great deal of difference to the continuation and competence of a very important social and economic element in our society.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I also begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hindlip, on his excellent maiden speech and thanking the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, for initiating this excellent debate.
We on this side of the House support the lottery legislation and its rapid progress. We welcome its efficient and successful introduction—though to some of us it seems rather generously rewarded—and the impressive list of beneficiaries that the noble Earl recited. But before this mutual appreciation debate becomes too triumphal, I must point out that in fact over 90 per cent. of the awarded money has still not reached the successful applicants and is therefore still unspent. So, much of what noble Lords are speaking about and praising is still almost hypothetical. I must ask the Minister whether that reflects bottlenecks in the distribution mechanism and how long those blockages will continue. Again, I stress that our basic position is supportive. If the emphasis of what I shall say concerns reservations and proposed reforms, it is because we want the lottery to work better.
1764
My first and central critical comment relates to the lack of any strategic vision at all for the arts or sports expenditure. We know that that is specifically excluded by the legislation, which presumably is a relief to the Department of National Heritage, since in fact there is little evidence that it has any strategic vision for the fields under its supervision. But the danger is that without strategic priorities the lottery may be spread thinly and piecemeal and be dissipated. I should like to see strategic priorities for the arts and for sport—emphasising, for instance, though others will have different views, new arts and sports, especially for the young; amateur rather than professional activities; access, especially for the disabled; and promoting music in schools by providing instruments, say; or promoting popular dance.
I turn from that general point to more specific issues, and I must immediately raise the question of matching funds. It is becoming very clear that the matching ratios—they differ for each distributary body—are probably too severe. It means that the applicants in most need have the least chance. Even some of the big flagship schemes may stumble when attempting to raise enormous matching money.
It is a particular problem for local authorities which play a very valuable role in co-ordinating local projects and where it is forecast that after the first flush of applications, many of which were already prepared, over half of all future projects will look to their local authority for matching funds. Yet those local authorities do not have the money to match. Specifically, their sources for lottery funding are the basic credit approvals—yet the Treasury this year stipulated and fixed that at zero; so there is nothing there—or usable capital receipts. But many, and especially the poorest areas, have no such capital receipts or potential for them. With others, there is a totally erratic distribution of resources. A striking example is the Scilly Isles, which, with £155,000 of available capital receipts, in fact has more than Newcastle, Sheffield, Birmingham, Gateshead and Bradford combined. So unless local authority funding in that area is alleviated—for instance, through supplementary credit approvals—many lottery projects will fail through lack of matching funding. I ask the Minister to comment on that central problem.
On the local dimension, I believe that we need to look for more devolution of some of the decision-making. I suggest the introduction of a network of local community chests under local community control to handle small grants, so that they do not go through the massive national bureaucracy.
On the delicate subject of additionality, the principle has already been severely breached and all the promises broken. Real expenditure on the arts has been declining since the lottery and nominal expenditure in the heritage area has been savagely cut.
Linking that to the question of grants from the revenue, I must warn the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, and my noble friend Lord Chandos (who made a brilliant speech) that the revenue grants will further breach the additionality problem and lead to substitution. Block revenue grants will inevitably become part of the

1765
permanent structure of the established institutions receiving them. It will not be possible to withdraw them because of the threat that that may bring disaster, and flexibility and novelty will be lost. The Treasury will then take the opportunity further to cut the normal sources of funding. We should never lose sight of the fact that the original target of improving the capital infrastructure was right.
The distribution bodies were set up in a great hurry—"on the hoof'—and we need to ask whether in practice they are sufficiently representative and accountable. There are bound to be controversial awards, such as today's from the Charities Board, and it is always better if those distributary bodies are seen to act transparently and accountably. Such decisions can then more easily be defended.
In relation to the National Heritage Memorial Fund, like others I particularly enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, and agree with everything he said. Despite the Churchill hiccup, which was one of presentation and not of substance, the NHMF is doing a good job. The plans he mentioned for Somerset House are particularly exciting and among the best to appear from any distributary body. I hope that after that the fund can tackle making Whitehall a heritage precinct and pedestrianising Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square. It will have our support for that. It is clear that the heritage remit is too narrow and we on this side support its widening.
We have already stated that we support the suggestion that private houses should benefit, provided they are subject to the public benefit tests.
We are sympathetic with what the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, said in regard to new technology. The question of intellectual property needs re-examining, and we must make sure that the fund can do whatever it wishes to do in that area. For instance, it is particularly sad that the Victoria County Histories, which was one of the marvellous products of a previous anniversary, cannot be helped. It falls in the gaps in between. I am unofficially informed that that is the case. I hope that it is not, but I fear that it is.
Turning to sport, I should like to praise the effective way in which the Sports Council administered the lottery funds. However, we still have some anxieties. It is clear that the richer and better organised sports are dominating application procedures. It would help if funds were allocated to the weaker governing bodies to help them in their applications.
In a similar vein, the smaller sports clubs suffer from the minimum size restrictions and we would advocate what we would call a small grants fast-track system. We need clarification—perhaps the Minister can help—on the distributary role, if any, of the new United Kingdom Sports Council. It could take a strategic overview and we should like to see it encouraged to do that. There is also the problem of children's play, which is excluded from the lottery remit; it does not come in anywhere. We believe that children's play, which was extremely important when I was on the Sports Council, should be brought back into the net.
1766
In relation to sport, I am also particularly concerned, as have been other noble Lords, with the losers. The lottery money is not extra magic money; it is taken from elsewhere. Among the losers is the Football Trust. I agree with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and my noble friend Lord Grantchester. Its income has been savaged by the lottery, as has that of the Foundation for Sports and Arts. And the Horserace Betting Levy Board's income was greatly damaged by the fall in betting, yet racing cannot apply for lottery funds. For reasons that escape me, the Sports Council does not recognise racing—one of the greatest of all sports—as a sport. That must be wrong. It means that racing cannot apply for funds to provide access for the disabled, as can any theatre. That is ludicrous. It is important to take drastic steps to repair the damage, especially to the pools groups and the levy board to make up for the damage done by the lottery.
The Millennium Commission appears to be in a mess. I hope it recovers. We may not have an exhibition for the millennium—perhaps the Government would like to delay its timing. Above all, it is important that the festival should provide a lasting monument of distinction and not some temporary and tacky theme park. Perhaps the Minister can say also what the Government are thinking of doing with that money when the Millennium Commission is no longer needed.
In conclusion, we welcome the lottery. We have comments to make on it. We should like to see more strategy, more public accountability, true additionality and visibility. The sustainability of the projects is very important. Finally, we must remember that it is the people's money and not the Exchequer's money. It should be seen to benefit the majority of people and respond to their issues of concern. I hope that the various refinements we have suggested will contribute to the even greater success of the lottery.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Gowrie triggered a stimulating and worthwhile debate on the achievements of the National Lottery. We have heard a large number of distinguished contributions, not least that of my noble friend Lord Hindlip, who made a memorable maiden speech. I have no doubt that we shall hear more from him in the future on topics about which he clearly has considerable experience and expertise.
What is clear from the debate is what a resounding success the National Lottery is. When the Government took the decision to set up a lottery nobody could have or did anticipate the scale of that success or how it would become such a central part of our national life within such a short period. This debate is about success and some of the welcome problems, if that is not tautologist, that success can pose.
The National Lottery—in an initiative strongly supported by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister—was set up to provide money for good causes and has raised an amount significantly in excess of our and others' predictions. As the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, said, last Monday, only about a

1767
year-and-a-half after the start of the lottery, the amount contributed by Camelot to the National Lottery distribution fund passed £2 billion. That money will be spent on arts, sport, heritage, charities, and on projects to mark the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium. Those are areas that are important for the quality of life for everyone in Britain but which have never had a priority call on government expenditure—a point emphasised by a number of noble Lords and illustrated by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury.
As a social phenomenon, the lottery has captured the interest and enthusiasm of almost every household in the land. Camelot, the lottery operator, estimates that 30 million adults in the UK regularly play the lottery; and on double rollover weeks, 86 per cent. of adults take part in the jackpot game. That is a somewhat higher proportion of adults than voted in the last general election. Of course, your Lordships can participate in this exercise of personal decision-making, although I know of none of your Lordships who has won a significant prize. I look forward to the headlines in the tabloid newspapers if and when one does.
An innovation as successful as the National Lottery is bound to attract public and media attention and comment. In recent months, much of that comment has focused on the prize structure of the weekly draw game; and on the way in which Camelot works and the profits it makes.
The Government's objective in appointing a closely regulated private sector operator of the game was to ensure that the lottery was run efficiently and thus maximise the return to the good causes fund, subject of course to Oflot ensuring that the lottery is run with due propriety and that the interests of participants are protected. We believe that the profit motive is the most effective way of achieving this and our view has been borne out by Camelot's success to date. Indeed, I think some would say that if a similar approach had at the outset been adopted in respect of the British Library, it might have been a different story, and I might have answered a different Question from the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, earlier this afternoon.
The prize structure of the game was part of Camelot's winning bid to be the operator and was designed to produce the maximum possible level of public participation. It clearly meets the public's view of these matters. I would use this as evidence to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter as part of my response to some of the comments he made about the prizes. Camelot has been conspicuously successful. There has been some criticism of the size of the jackpot prizes, but it is worth remarking that most of the jackpot prizes are shared between syndicates or between more than one winning ticket, and anyway there is nothing wrong or immoral about scooping the jackpot.
The lottery has on occasions mistakenly been portrayed as a regressive tax. That view is incorrect on at least two counts. First, recent research by the Office of National Statistics shows that spending on the lottery rises with household income—in other words, it is not regressive. Secondly, the lottery is not a tax. The decision to play the lottery is entirely one for the
1768
individual. It is a game which is carried on under a strictly defined regime, controlled by Act of Parliament and by Oflot. It is right at the safest end of the gambling spectrum. I understand that real gamblers look for shorter odds than the lottery offers. The fact that such a high number of people choose to participate suggests that much of the criticism of the lottery is not based on the reality of what is actually happening but how they feel about it.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester raised the important question of scratch cards and under age play. Section 12 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 makes it unlawful for retailers to sell lottery tickets to children under the age of 16, and the director general has a duty to ensure that Camelot puts sufficient controls in place to comply with this regulation. Of course, children should be protected. We believe that sufficient controls are in place. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has directed the Director General of the National Lottery not to license any game which does not allow for sufficient controls to prevent those who have not attained the age of 16 from participating in the National Lottery. I hope that provides some reassurance.
The right reverend Prelate also raised the question of the effect of the lottery on charitable giving, a matter raised by a number of other Members of your Lordships' House. On the evidence available, which is not conclusive, it appears that in general the amount of income collected by charities and foundations shows that the voluntary giving that they have received is holding up. A number of particular aspects of the overall picture have been alluded to, but it is certainly not the case that the catastrophic decline in voluntary contributions to charities which was anticipated in some quarters because of the advent of the lottery has materialised.
My noble friend Lord Aberdare and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, raised concerns about the Football Trust and the Foundation for Sport and the Arts suffering from the lottery's impact on the pools. As I am sure your Lordships will be aware, the Government have introduced a number of deregulatory measures to assist the pools industry, including the lifting of a ban on television and radio advertising and a reduction by 10 per cent. in pool betting duty. In addition, a further 0.5 per cent. cut in pool betting duty, worth of the order of £3 million a year to the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, was agreed with the pools companies in the 1995 Budget.
The focus on Camelot and its profits, and on the direct economic effects of the lottery game, have perhaps overshadowed the great impact of the lottery in the wider world on the arts, sport, heritage and charity sectors, as my noble friend Lady Rawlings pointed out. The 11 lottery distributing bodies have, in just over a year, awarded more than £1.8 billion to more than 9,000 projects. As my noble friend Lady Young pointed out, many of these are small-scale, and they are no less valuable for that. If I may make a further comment to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter about large awards, it is right, we believe, that large awards are made to national institutions and to Millennium

1769
landmark projects which will benefit the entire population of the community. In simple terms, if we are going to have a national opera house in London, we have to do it properly and well. We want to have a good opera house. There is no point in doing these national flagship projects other than up to the highest standard. What has been happening is an extraordinary achievement by any standard and one on which all those who are involved should be congratulated. The impact of these lottery awards will be felt in every community and hence by everyone throughout the country.
More than 7,700 awards of lottery funds—some 85 per cent. of the total number—have been to charitable and voluntary bodies spread right across the country. A number of speakers have referred to the amount of the total disbursements that have gone to charities. What in this context it is important to remember is that a very high proportion of the disbursements in all the categories have gone to charities. The benefit that the charitable sector as a whole has received from the lottery is far wider than simply those who may receive money from the good causes distribution body. What we are seeing is the lottery providing a massive new source of support for charities.
This success also shows just how much hard work so many people in the public, private and voluntary sectors have put in to the preparation of applications for lottery funds. They do this to enable things to happen which they care about strongly and which otherwise might never happen at all.
One of the Government's aims in setting up the lottery was, as has already been mentioned, to transform the capital infrastructure of our arts, sports and heritage sectors—using those words in a general sense. Thus far, the distributing bodies have made almost 4,500 awards to capital projects for a value of 1.5 billion. The benefit to the recipients, when the partnership funding is taken into account, will exceed £2 billion. It is not only the value of the investment which matters; so far as new buildings are concerned, we want them to be well designed so that in themselves the structures created have a stimulating and positive impact as well as having sound functional characteristics. As the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, pointed out, we have in this country today some of the world's most distinguished architects who are in a position to be able to contribute to this process.
To deliver the amount of money that is involved in these sectors in the space of just over a year is little short of revolution, stimulating both economic regeneration and investment in the environment.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, emphasised his New Labour credentials by pointing out that the money could not be spent until it was received. The position in respect of what he described as bottlenecks is that many of the projects we are talking about are long-term and will receive funds only as they spend the money that they need. Many also have been given awards on condition that they raise partnership funds. Since that is
1770
sometimes easier to do with lottery funds than without them, it is necessary to get the guarantee in advance, if the noble Lord understands me.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, as the Minister defined my political position and it goes on record, I think I should make it clear that I am very old New Labour.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I always understood that the old ones were the best ones.
The noble Lord raised a number of other points. For example, he said that distributors should have strategic award plans. One of the characteristics of the lottery is that distributors cannot solicit applications. After all, this then ensures that the projects which might be funded will have the support of their local communities. However, the lottery distribution bodies are free to encourage certain types of application, such as the National Heritage Memorial Fund's urban parks programme, of which mention was made earlier, or the Sports Council's efforts to encourage applications from deprived areas and from schools—to go to a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
Perhaps I may respond to another point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, about the United Kingdom Sports Council. Initially, the United Kingdom Sports Council will not be a lottery distributor. Its role will be in advising the home country councils on projects which have United Kingdom significance, for example, the British Academy of Sport. At present we see no need to have a fifth lottery distributor for sport although my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will want to look again at that once the United Kingdom Sports Council is formally established.
The aim of the Department of National Heritage (set out most recently in the departmental report) is to enrich people's lives, through encouraging high quality and diversity in creative activities; to safeguard existing creative achievements and promote understanding of the past; to extend opportunities to enjoy and appreciate rewarding leisure activities; and to promote the contribution which all of the department's sponsored sectors make to national prosperity and prestige.
The introduction of the National Lottery has effortlessly fitted into those objectives. In the areas of sport, arts and heritage, the lottery is building on work which has traditionally been done by our non-departmental public bodies. It is also providing us with the opportunity to celebrate the new millennium in a number of different ways and, following the transfer of responsibility for charities and the voluntary sector from the Home Office, is supporting and focusing our thoughts on what can be achieved in these areas. In the coming months, my department will be seeking discussions with a wide range of voluntary groups and organisations to listen to their perspective on the system of making applications and awards. In this way we hope to ensure that the maximum benefit possible will accrue to these areas.
The lottery has had direct effects on local communities across the country. As my noble friend Lord Gowrie pointed out, in many respects it is doing what was done in the Victorian and Edwardian eras by

1771
private philanthropy. Perhaps I may return to a point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester and say that although this may be a change in the way in which things are done, it is part of a longer evolution. For example, in Scotland, in Clackmannanshire, lottery money has been used to repair an early 19th century iron bridge which had fallen into disrepair; and in Wales, in South Glamorgan, conservation work is to be carried out on Llandaff Cathedral to help to preserve it for future generations.
Perhaps I may respond to a point that was raised initially by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and later by others and say that funds can be made available for churches.
I have a personal anecdote to tell. I am personally familiar with a project in Keswick, where the Cumbria Theatre Trust Ltd. has been awarded a grant of up to £3.1 million to build a new theatre. Before the advent of the lottery, those running the old theatre which these funds will help to replace dreamt of a scheme such as this. More than a decade ago, I recall going to meetings in the backroom of a pub called "The Packhorse" to try to help bring forward a scheme and feeling very daunted and depressed by the financial problems it posed. Now it is going to happen. It is an excellent example of the way that the lottery has provided an opportunity for people to use their imagination to come up with worthwhile and innovative projects and see them realised.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is there any money for endowment in that Cumbrian project? The great Victorian philanthropists, and even Lord Nuffield in our time, always saw to it that there was an endowment as well as a building.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, no endowment comes with that project, which involves a new theatre building for an existing organisation.
The lottery is also helping the disadvantaged and the less well off through the National Lottery Charities Board, the programmes of which have so far focused on poverty, health, disability and care. Future grant programmes will focus on improving opportunities, the living environment and community involvement.
In thinking about those distributions, it is important (for the long term well-being of the lottery) to ensure that particular disbursements command a wide degree of support. The noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, and my noble friend Lord Soulsby raised the question of animal charities and whether they can benefit from the lottery. Although animal charities have not been eligible for grants under the first two grant rounds of the National Lottery Charities Board, the board has had discussions with a number of such charities. I understand that they will be able to apply for funds in the grants round covering the physical environment and the social fabric of communities which will be launched later this year.
Lottery money has also been used to help the disabled—not only in ensuring that buildings built with lottery money must provide access for disabled people and be accessible to them, but also in helping them to participate in activities such as sport and the arts.
1772
The lottery is helping urban regeneration. For example, the Tate Gallery of Modern Art will help to regenerate Bankside in this city; and the Lowry Centre in Salford will bring huge benefits to the surrounding area. The Millennium Earth Centre in South Yorkshire will provide a world-class educational, research and business centre for sustainable development.
The lottery is also bringing benefits to rural communities. Many awards from the distributing bodies have gone to rural areas and the Millennium Commission has set up a scheme designed specifically to help to preserve and build village halls which, as those who live in the country like me will know, are very important.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, underlined the importance of the lottery to film. That point was echoed by the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos. Their comments entirely accord with what I have been told by those in the film industry whom I have met.
As I have already said, sport is important. In addition to the lottery, Sportsmatch is doing what it can to try to provide improved sporting facilities for the very people to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred.
The lottery is creating jobs. It is estimated that the Tate Gallery of Modern Art will create 650 permanent jobs in its immediate locality, and perhaps 2,500 throughout London. The Millennium Commission award of £46 million to the new National Stadium in Cardiff should also provide more than 700 permanent jobs. In addition, it is likely that that redevelopment will have a substantial and durable wider economic effect. Another Millennium Commission award, to create an international maritime arena at Portsmouth Harbour, will generate temporary employment for around 5,000 architects, designers, construction workers, electricians and people in associated industries; and when completed is expected to provide 2,100 new jobs.
Less directly, the lottery has also provided an important boost for shopkeeepers. Retailers received a total of £265 million in commission in 1995–96, an average of just under £9,000 each. Many will also have employed extra staff to cope with the public's great demand for lottery tickets.
Tourism is now one of this country's most important industries. The lottery is enabling us to improve the attractions and infrastructure needed to attract visitors in an increasingly competitive marketplace. Grants such as those to national theatres and museums will, in addition to making this country a better place for us to live in, also attract more visitors from other countries and thus trigger additional money entering the economy. In East Anglia, for example, £6.5 million of lottery money is being used by the Imperial War Museum to create a major attraction to be designed by Sir Norman Foster which will commemorate war-time links with the United States Air Force.
The lottery is also providing money for projects which will enhance the environment. For example, the RSPB has been awarded £675,000 of lottery money to recreate fenland feeding habitat of reedbeds and meres

1773
in Suffolk. This sort of award can bring tourism benefits as well as meeting a recognised need to preserve our natural environment.
The lottery is a means of encouraging national pride—for example, through flagship projects such as the Welsh National Stadium, Hampden Park, and the Tate Gallery. All these projects have an impact on the entire population of the country, not just in the locality where the new facilities are built. In addition, the lottery is also having a similar but perhaps more narrowly focused impact on local communities, through awards to smaller organisations such as local sports clubs and play groups.
My department is not resting on its laurels. It had always been anticipated that the lottery would evolve over time—and it will. The framework for the distribution of lottery funds is kept under continuous review. We very much value the kind of constructive comments and suggestions that we have heard this afternoon, and I am grateful for all that has been said—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I may be wrong, but I do not think that I heard him use the dreaded word "additionality". I thought that he was going to explain to us how we could be sure that there would be no additionality.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Baroness has just beaten me to it by a whisker. My next paragraph addresses that very point. Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, raised the question of additionality and said that the principle of additionality should be maintained. The Government have repeatedly made it clear that money raised by the lottery should be a new and independent stream of money for good causes. We are committed to this principle and, along with the distributing bodies, will monitor developments to ensure that it is maintained.
On 1st April of this year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced the introduction of new directions allowing revenue-only funding in the arts and sports to sit alongside the existing capital directions. The new directions allow a particular focus on developing the creative abilities and sporting talents of young people and on encouraging access and participation in the arts for all people. The distributing bodies are now coming forward with specific proposals under these new directions. This investment in people as well as buildings will help to transform the quality of life for everyone in the country.
The lottery is also helping us to preserve the past as well as invest in the future. For example, the Secretary of State has also announced changes that will allow building preservation trusts to benefit from lottery funding, widening the range of projects and initiatives that can benefit from what the lottery can offer. The National Heritage Memorial Fund is currently finalising the details of this scheme.
A number of noble Lords raised the question of whether the National Heritage Memorial Fund should be able to provide revenue funding and to fund private owners. In answering these questions, I declare an
1774
interest as the owner of a Grade I listed building. The National Heritage Act 1980 prevents us from making changes to allow the National Heritage Memorial Fund to make revenue awards under the themes of helping talent, or increasing access or to allow funds to go to private owners. The Government are considering amendments to the Act which would, if brought forward, provide the National Heritage Memorial Fund with more flexibility. We shall be considering whether the applications and award system is easy for people to use and understand so it is open to people everywhere in the community to take advantage of these new changes. A related aim is to ensure that as many good applications as possible come forward for schemes which will help young people who represent our future. The lottery provides an unprecedented opportunity to improve the social, economic and cultural fabric of the country. The framework that the Government have set for the distributing bodies has let organisations across the length and breadth of the land grasp this opportunity and to do things they want to do where they want to do them.
Perhaps the most fitting remark with which I can end my speech this afternoon is that with which my noble friend Lord Gowrie concluded his opening remarks. They are the words of the National Heritage Committee of another place, who concluded the foreword to their recently published report on the National Lottery with the words:
"let us praise something which has been done well and has gone right."
6.53 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am gratified that the Motion has attracted such a pertinent and interesting debate. Your Lordships' new and unprecedented succinctness gives me some time in which to sum up the debate, but I think that that might be to tax the patience of the House. The Minister has done it very well. Where matters are of direct concern to the Arts Council I will ensure that I write to noble Lords.
I should like to make three short points in as few a minutes. I begin by endorsing, now that I have actually heard it, all that has been said about the special and authoritative maiden speech by my noble friend Lord Hindlip. Most of your Lordships have expressed the wish that my noble friend will spend more time helping us here. I believe that I have good commercial grounds for hoping that the noble Lord will be more or less constantly in his seat. I certainly look forward to hearing him again.
There may be a need to clarify the effectiveness and propriety with which the Arts Council operates, given the benefits of having experts on the council and its advisory panels and that most of us, either directly or indirectly, are or have been involved in publicly funded arts all over the country both at professional level and as unpaid trustees. As I said in my intervention to the remarks of a former fellow arts Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney—which I followed most closely—if one wants to people one's quangi with those who live and work in the cultural or sporting arena, as distinct from wholly disinterested or detached

1775
mandarins, one faces a difficult issue. I can assure your Lordships that those among us on the Arts Council who are, or who have recently been, involved in organisations making lottery bids always absent themselves from discussions relating to those bids, not simply the discussions when the matter is finally voted upon.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, with whose remarks I was in general agreement, said that he would like to see the Arts Council devote more attention to new and amateur projects—we already fund an enormous number of amateur activities—new talent, new audiences and accessibility. I wholly agree with him. We urged an addition to the Secretary of State's directives. She responded magnificently. The noble Lord will find that his wish will come true late this year or early next year.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, may have slightly misinterpreted one remark that I made. I am wholly opposed to the lottery providing core funding. Here one refers to the issue of additionality or substitution, as it is sometimes called. What I sought to demonstrate was that the Exchequer was not merely failing to maintain our grant but that it was cutting it in real terms, and that this caused widespread cynicism, muddle and dismay. I know that my noble friend the Minister will be a trenchant fighter in getting that corrected, not least because it was my right honourable friend the Prime Minister who said in a public speech, "Treasury, please note". I hope that that point will be underscored.
With reference to delays in money reaching the coal face, all bodies have asked us to commit money where we are able to do so in advance as a method of helping them raise their matching funds. Although I agree with what has been said about the need for greater flexibility in matching funds, so far in toto we are coming out with more than we require in aggregate in matching funds. We must treat that issue quite cautiously.
Finally, I extend my gratitude to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and to the Minister for his robust reply. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Transport Infrastructure: Private Provision
6.58 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever rose to call attention to the role of the private sector in the provision of transport infrastructure and services; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted to highlight the success of the Government's privatisation programme in the provision of transport infrastructure and services. We forget too easily how burdensome the nationalised industries were. By the end of the 1970s they were costing the taxpayer £50 million a week. Now privatised, they contribute £55 million a week in taxes to the Treasury. Competition and independence have improved them out of all recognition, forcing them to
1776
become more efficient and to treat consumers as customers. I believe the railways will be touched by the same magic, with staff committed and dedicated to the success of their operation to the benefit of passengers and shareholders. The railway network was after all built by private companies. The glories of the Great Western Railway and St. Pancras Station were funded by shareholders. Public ownership, by contrast, has been characterised by closure and dilapidation. Privatisation offers the industry a chance to break out of this spiral of decline.
New owners are pioneering schemes to lure passengers back to rail, including linking bus and train timetables and tickets, better marketing and park and ride schemes. It is clear they want to run more services, not fewer. From 1999, Midland Main Line will carry 42 additional trains a day from London.
The new operator of the Gatwick Express has pledged to put on more early and late trains, and produce the kind of service standards which we are used to seeing on the airlines. South West Trains has an eight-coach stand-by train fully crewed at Waterloo Station during the evening peak, should the unexpected occur.
Operators have assured me that clean trains are a priority, as well as more secure stations and car parks, more Sunday and off peak services, provision of easier access for the disabled, and provision of passenger lounges. Punctuality will be improved and overcrowding and train cancellations reduced.
Prism, which bought Britain's most hated railway, the Southend "Misery" Line, will begin next year to phase out the line's unreliable "slam door" trains, to be replaced by a fleet of new trains. Not surprisingly, its spokesman told me:
"We quite naturally want people to stop calling it the misery line".
Britain should enter the next century with a dramatically improved and cheaper rail industry. Of course there will be horror tales of failure. But when those erupt, we will do well to remember the system's shabby record under state control; the dirty, crowded, delayed or cancelled trains and Luddite unions.
Wisconsin, the new owners of British Rail's heavy haul freight operations, believes that it can reverse the decline of rail transport—now down to just 6 per cent. of the freight market in the UK—by improving the quality of service. Where BR went wrong, according to many customers who abandoned rail shipments, was in its centralised approach, its lack of flexibility and its inability to provide speed and reliability.
The privatisation of domestic freight services will encourage as many freight operators as possible to come on to the track, and off the roads. Now that freight can be managed as a separate business, it will have managers with a strong commercial motivation to make it work. I am also delighted that the Government have decided that Railfreight Distribution—British Rail's loss-making Channel Tunnel freight business—will be offered for sale.
The privatisation of British Rail should provide the springboard for those operators to acquire railway operations elsewhere in Europe, as countries implement

1777
an EU directive intended to force European state railways to break themselves up in a manner similar to rail privatisation in Britain. In trying to introduce that system, Neil Kinnock delivers a slap in the face to his party back home. That may represent a betrayal of his party's values, but should be welcomed by passengers all over Europe, who have had to deal with overstaffing, inefficiency and debt in their railway services for decades.
I was in France last week with a parliamentary delegation, and French MPs to whom I spoke were filled with envy at our rail privatisation. French railways have a 200 billion franc debt, a 50 billion franc annual deficit, and only a 70 billion franc income. How lucky we are! Before privatisation, the bus companies were a shambles. It is 10 years since the start of the bus industry's process of commercialisation following the Transport Act 1985, which required the privatisation of the National Bus Co. and enabled local authority-owned bus undertakings to be privatised voluntarily by their owners. That process has opened up the opportunity to provide public transport more closely tuned to the needs of the market place and has been coupled with substantial cost reductions. In the nine years to 1995, costs per vehicle kilometre have fallen by 57 per cent.
Through privatisation, deregulation, and removal of subsidies and grants, the Government have encouraged the growth of an efficient ports industry, based on sound commercial practice, technological investment and greater commercial freedom: 60 per cent. of the tonnage handled in UK ports is now dealt with by private sector ports, many of which are world leaders in their field.
We are now seeing the first compulsory trust port privatisations under the 1991 Act. I hope that in due course privatisation of the port authorities at Ipswich and Tyne will offer new opportunities for innovation and entrepreneurial development to the benefit of port users and the local communities.
The power and strength of British Airways have created one of the finest examples of privatisation seen anywhere in the world. BA is a national asset; the UK can justly be proud of it. Privatisation gave British Airways the freedom, and the incentive, to become a world beater. It set out to become a global leader and has successfully imprinted its stamp of British quality on markets all over the world. Its investments and alliances with other airlines demonstrate, in marked contrast to some of its government-owned competitors, how a company freed to market forces can bend and adapt to take best advantage of prevailing circumstances.
Even this week, in yet another show of remarkable and exciting enterprise, BA has announced with American Airlines an alliance which will keep it at the forefront of world aviation, spell good news for the thousands of people who all own a part of it, and provide consumers with even greater choice.
I would urge the Government to consider the similar alliances forged elsewhere in Europe with major US carriers and to expedite discussions with their American counterparts to enable that deal to go through quickly.
1778
Already we hear the voice of disaffected parties in Europe and the USA who dislike the aura of success that surrounds British Airways; let us not be sidetracked by them.
British Airports Authority has experienced enormous advantages since privatisation. The amount of money invested into high quality airport facilities has increased dramatically, helped by BAA's freedom to tap the capital markets without government restrictions. The financial expectation of the market has to be met, and to that end there is a strong incentive continuously to examine the efficiency of the company in every area. Since 1991, staff productivity has improved by 45 per cent. in terms of passengers handled by each member of staff.
Over 90 per cent. of passengers expect and want shopping facilities at the airport and retailing has been revolutionised since privatisation.
These are exciting times in transport infrastructure, and the private finance initiative is taking root and growing as everyone involved gains experience. PFI offers a prospect of higher levels of investment, even while public spending remains tight. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link, by far the largest yet taken forward under PH, should open in 2003. An exciting international private-sector enterprise, London and Continental Railways, will take on a variety of roles, both as builder and operator. It will raise the bulk of the finance, produced the detailed design and own, operate and maintain the new line, reserving a substantial amount of track capacity for domestic services.
Other major projects announced or under construction include the Jubilee Line extension, the Heathrow Express and Thameslink 2000. London Transport will benefit from the Northern Line PFI and the Central Line upgrade. Roads are vital for the future health of the British economy and PFI has greatly helped that. I beg to move for Papers.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Astor, on tabling the Motion. While listening to his review of transport in this country it occurred to me that it would make a wonderful contribution to the Conservative Party's election manifesto. It is a wonderful example of what he hoped has happened, and sometimes it has. However, I wish to return to the real world.
I do not want to get into a debate on public versus private—public sector good, private sector bad—because the private sector has done many excellent things for transport. As an example, the noble Lord, Lord Astor, mentioned French Railways. According to yesterday's Financial Times, it has agreed to split the infrastructure from the operations and—surprise, surprise, as has happened on many occasions—the French Government are picking up the debt from the infrastructure. However, the problem is one of the structure—separating the private finance from the restructure and deregulation—and I wish to cover more than railways.

1779
Perhaps I may look at a few of the pros and cons of private finance, which is what I hope we shall be able to talk about tonight. Some of the pros include the availability of private finance to substitute for or supplement the public sector, as less and less public sector money is available. The private sector can take the risks in expectation of future rewards. The Channel Tunnel is an example, as is bus deregulation, new rolling stock, Railtrack's new investment, ports and airports. Some projects are successful but there is a big question mark over others.
It is said that better management and more flexible labour are involved. I am sure that that is true, but sometimes that results in the demotivation of staff, who occasionally begin to wonder who they are working for. Are they working for the customers and passengers or for the shareholders? That is why I believe that we need stronger regulation to look after the customers' interests in many of those examples.
Against private finance is the loss of the public service ethos. Many may say that it never existed. But it has not always improved. There is a serious loss of what I might call "network benefits". British Rail's break-up is a classic example; for instance, through-ticketing and alternative routes are not available. The attitude of staff in booking offices to inquiries about other franchisees is in many cases still lamentable. Perhaps, quite rightly, they have been told to look after the shareholders' interests, whereas they should be getting passengers on to railways, where the competition is with roads and air and not with colleagues on the next-door line. As regards buses, privatisation may be seen to be a great success but the deregulation outside London has caused chaos. Bus mileage has increased dramatically but passenger numbers and passenger mileage are dramatically down outside London.
There is also the lack of government control—let the market decide—and the loss of public accountability. It is becoming more and more difficult to get questions answered by Ministers rather than chief executives of the various agencies. Many people have a fear of turning a public but accountable monopoly into a private but unaccountable one. I am not sure whether the problems that I have identified come down to whether the business is privately or publicly financed; or to the problems of deregulation; or even more to the lack of policy or direction, changes of government mind; or weak or non-existent regulation; or just plain dogma.
I turn now to private finance and the risks which go with it. The private sector is good at taking risks which it understands. However, in many cases the Government have tried to get the private sector to take inappropriate risks. I refer to risks against changes or decisions which are in the Government's gift, new legislation or even new competition where the private sector expected a controlled monopoly, as in one of the early rail rolling stock sales. If the private sector is to be involved it needs clarity and some certainty that a project is going to go ahead.
Perhaps not all noble Lords realise that the cost of tendering or submitting proposals for such schemes is enormous and it is growing. In 1986 the document of
1780
inquiry from the Government for the Channel Tunnel, in which I declare an interest, was three or four inches thick. I believe that the documents for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link inquiry eight years later required a forklift truck to lift them. There may be reasons for that, but a great deal of work is involved.
Another example is motorway tolling. The Government have asked companies to come up with ideas and testing schemes for tolling motorways. The problem is that the contractors will be competing with each other, and there is no indication that any of the projects will go ahead. Indeed, I believe that the Government have subsequently poured cold water on any idea of tolling but appear to be surprised that three of the five contractors pulled out before starting work. It is almost as though the Government are looking for a free consultancy.
Furthermore, there is the interesting question of ongoing Treasury commitments to the organisations which have been privatised. Much privatisation requires the commitment of government funding to continued rental, subsidy or contributions—whatever one likes to call it—lasting longer than the standard Treasury forecasts of one, two or three years. For example, the London Underground Jubilee Line rolling stock has a 10-year pay back period commitment from the Government. As regards Thameslink 2000, the Government have made a commitment to Railtrack for the new capital works required lasting 14 years. Of course, some BR franchises through the Franchising Director last 15 years. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister how firm those commitments are. I suspect that the private sector believes that in practice they are firm, even if there is some small print. But I wonder whether the Treasury goes along with a commitment 15 years hence.
Finally, privatisation, fragmentation and the occasional lack of policy sometimes cause the Government to forget that for large projects there needs to be a mechanism for deciding and debating, first, whether a project is desirable and in the national interest. We debate that subject occasionally. Secondly, it must be decided whether the proposal is the most economic way of providing the service or whether there is a better alternative. Sometimes we do not quite get there. Thirdly, it must be decided what constraints must be put on promoters to ensure that the national interest is safeguarded.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, mentioned the rail link. That is being considered by a Select Committee of this House. Stratford Station and the connection north of London is there. I believe that that is good but it was not in the original proposal. A public inquiry is taking place into a possible Terminal 5 at Heathrow. But there is little discussion about whether the expansion should be there or at other airports in the south-east and what public transport should be provided to enable the passengers to get to and from there.
We shall shortly be debating Central Railways. That is a new project arising under the Transport and Works Act procedure. I am sure that we shall wish to ask questions about that. Lastly, the west coast main line

1781
has been the subject of long-running discussions on its upgrading. The last that we heard from the Franchising Director is that the argument may last for 14 more years. That almost brings it to the time at which it will need its next upgrade but one.
Private finance has a major role to play in providing for the future transport needs of this country. But at present the uncertainties, changes and delays probably caused the promoters to price in additional risk and possibly to enjoy personal corporate rewards subsequently considered to be excessive, as we have seen, while possibly not providing the service which customers expect. The solution is a clarity of policy, roles and responsibilities and commitments to all parties. There should be no changing of the goalposts and, most importantly, there must be consistency of regulation.
I conclude where I started, with buses. London buses are privatised but they are regulated. The passenger numbers are up and if the bus lanes were sorted out—they are not yet but they should be—it would be a great success. But, as I have said, the situation is completely different in relation to provincial buses. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues travel frequently and incognito on some of the different types of transport to see the difference. I welcome privatisation, but it requires proper regulation in order to put the travelling public first.
7.22 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, on his most interesting introduction to this timely debate.
I have had a long interest in railways, mainly nostalgia-based, I now realise, and I hope that my understanding of public transport issues has improved by participation as a parliamentary commissioner in the Strathclyde tram inquiry, which concluded a fortnight ago after 39 days. Noble Lords will have to make up their own minds about that.
I shall focus my comments on public transport provision in Scotland. That allows me to start with the political difficulty that Scotland has with the private provision of a public service. I believe that the broad desire is that government, through taxation, should provide what Scotland needs. It is a consequence of the Act of Union that other political ideas are practised in Scotland from time to time.
A transport debate which did not touch on the Skye Bridge would be inadequate. That symbol of private enterprise, constructed by the Miller Group, raises a number of issues, not to mention a number of uncollected tolls. The principal complaint against the private provision of that bridge must be that it is set in a remote area and, as a bridge with an expensive toll charge—more than £5 for a single journey—will do nothing to open up the economic viability of the Isle of Skye and the Outer Hebrides. A toll-free bridge would have assisted in that economic development.
Secondly, there is an absence of an alternative route to Skye at Kyle of Lochalsh. I believe that that contravenes the spirit of the New Roads and Street
1782
Works Act. I acknowledge that Skye can be accessed by ferry at Mallaig, to Armadale and in the summer months, from Glenelg to Kylerhea. However, those two are not practical alternatives at Kyle of Lochalsh.
Thirdly, the refusal of the Scottish Office to allow Caledonian MacBrayne to continue with the vehicle ferry service to Kyleakin constitutes, in my opinion, an inhibition of competition.
Fourthly, the highest toll in the United Kingdom contravenes the Act of Union which lays down that tolls must be equal in England and Scotland. To be fair, I conclude this part of my remarks by accepting that the Skye Bridge keeps better hours than the old ferry and can operate in worse weather. But it is the lost opportunity for economic development which is the most significant argument in relation to the Skye Bridge and its tolls.
I turn now to the proposed use of shadow tolls, of which I approve. Your Lordships will be aware of the proposed conversion of the A.74 Glasgow to Carlisle road to motorway by means of a design-build operator-maintained contract. It is proposed that the successful contractor will be paid a toll by the Scottish Office on the basis of vehicle usage. Vehicles will be counted electronically on the move. That approach achieves the combined aims of funding through taxation and value for money through competitive tendering.
There is an element of risk-taking for the successful contractor because the use of the new M.74 might decline, but I find that unlikely.
I turn now to urban public transport and the more difficult topic of reduction of congestion in urban areas. The current policy is that bus transport is provided privately and that rail and ferry services are subsidised. I acknowledge that Scottish local authorities and the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive can subsidise bus services on social grounds—typically, late night bus services and country routes. On the face of it, that does not seem to be a level playing field, but examination of private bus provision shows that although bus operators must be able to pay their way and buy new buses through the fare box, they are not paying the full cost of road provision, bus stops or bus stations, but only a contribution to that through the vehicle road licence fee. In the light of that, the subsidisation of rail services begins to level out the playing field.
Some conflict exists when rail services are promoted by increased subsidy on routes already served by bus and hence, in competition with bus operators. It costs £100,000 per year to operate a bus. Co-ordination of public transport is needed rather than wasteful competition.
I believe that a broad strategy is required to deal with the reduction of congestion. Easing people out of their cars is essential but difficult in a democracy. Car restraint measures must be draconian, verging on coercive. I believe that urban car parking needs to be charged at rates which are reasonable for up to two hours but which are positively unpayable at eight hours.
That alone would stifle economic development unless it were mitigated by the provision of increased bus and train services and park-and-ride facilities. It is essential

1783
to have a dedicated transport service with priority to the urban centre from the park-and-ride site. That service must be absolutely reliable and run at considerable frequency.
Security measures are essential at the park-and-ride sites but I suggest that users will not pay that additional cost. Park-and-ride can be given the kiss of death very easily by unreliability, poor frequency and lack of security. For example, I met someone very recently whose car was taken from a park-and-ride site and wrapped around a lamppost.
Also, I recently sampled the park-and-ride operation in Aberdeen, from Bridge of Don. I found that the £1.50 park-and-ride car park ticket also gave me up to five bus tickets for passengers. The bus service is run at a seven-minute headway in peak hours, reducing to 15 minutes offpeak. On Saturdays, the service has a 10-minute headway.
Such schemes have considerable user and non-user benefits and must be set up and marketed with determination. The political will must be found to implement unpopular measures of parking restraint and bus priority. Subsidy will be necessary to provide park-and-ride facilities. The result will provide the non-user the benefits of reduced congestion, reduced accidents and improved air quality.
I conclude with some further thoughts about urban public transport. First, suburban rail services with car parks should be encouraged. Secondly, bus priority lanes should be engineered into urban streets, and junctions redesigned to give greater priority to buses. Thirdly, in extreme cases, "bus only" roads should be arranged. Fourthly, bus stops should provide electronic real time information, and have their kerbs arranged for modern buses. Fifthly, private bus operators should be grant aided to purchase the latest high-tech city buses, which have stepless low floors, suspension lowering or "kneeling" facilities and some seats left out to provide space for wheelchairs, prams and shopping bags.
Sixthly, to improve city centre air quality, by-laws should be introduced, insisting on the use of ultra-low emission natural gas engines in buses. All those features are now available, but at higher cost which will be difficult for a private operator to afford. A bold public transport planner would wish to implement all those measures, and so would grant-aid private operators to enable them to purchase this superior equipment. It would be expedient to do so in the public interest.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I wish to add my thanks to those already expressed to my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever for initiating today's important debate. I see the problem of nationalised industries as being comparatively simple. I believe that the lack of ownership over years causes stagnation and lack of vision.
In the area of transport services we have the stark example to which my noble friend referred. British Airways was privatised in 1987, since when it has been transformed. Prior to that time the company had a chequered career and was viewed with suspicion by the
1784
travelling public. Frequent strikes, inefficiency and the lack of customer care were indicative and, I have to say, expected from a nationalised industry. Now, some nine years later, we have an airline to be proud of and one that is recognised as a world leader. Travelling with BA is a pleasure: the well-trained cabin crew are courteous and care for the passengers. The financial turnaround has been remarkable.
The success of British Airways draws attention to the inefficiency and failure of other airlines, such as Air France and Iberia International Airlines which receive huge subsidies from the European Union. We are told that there is always a good reason for yet one more and final subsidy of millions to assist those ailing companies. The sooner those airlines are in the private sector the better. It must be very galling for BA to witness such vast handouts to its competitors.
I am sure that we can all agree that the private sector brings innovation to transport provision as it really is better than the public sector at responding to the needs and wishes of people. The Government understand that and encourage the private sector to be involved whenever possible. Exciting initiatives have developed and individuals have been willing to back their ideas with their own personal investment.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to risk taking. It is a factor in any new business and one which a nationalised industry never has to face. State employees do not have to take home the worries that entrepreneurs often do. But, of course, neither do they have the sweetness of success. However, it is to be hoped that business success will not in future be seen as a dirty word and something to be despised.
It always seems strange to me that footballers, rock stars and other high earners never seem to suffer the same fate if they are successful. We should not forget that it is the risk-taking entrepreneurs who provide the services that we need and the employment of millions of people across the country.
The Railways Act 1993 opened the way to reverse the trend of decline in the numbers of people and the amount of freight travelling by rail. Travelling by train had become frustrating, with trains not running to time. dirty waiting rooms that were a disgrace and shabby carriages, together with a feeling that you as a passenger were just a necessary nuisance. What a challenge! But many of the railway franchises have been awarded and already we learn of new ideas that will come into play in the coming months. One that has not been mentioned so far which I particularly like is the idea of a children's play carriage to assist with the boredom of long journeys.
The mere fact that someone or some people and not the state own a business can change the atmosphere dramatically, improving services and attracting new investment. It can also help to liberate the operating structures, which may be necessary to give private sector initiatives the opportunity to respond to the demands and expectations of the customer. Major transport projects today require huge sums of money. It is therefore very welcome to see the private finance initiative delivering investment into many projects.

1785
There is another way whereby private finance can be injected. At this stage I wish to declare an interest. My younger son is working with the Community Transport Association, which is the UK's representative body for non-profit-making transport operations. It is a registered charity with a trading arm. There are 1200 members, including voluntary and community groups, local authorities, the NHS and other public bodies. It is mainly concerned with transport needs which are not met by other forms of transport, particularly for the elderly, the disabled, children and people in rural areas.
The trading company of the association generates income from organising training courses and publications. There is also a free advice and information service. It receives other funding from the Department of Transport and grants from Help the Aged. A most interesting project was launched yesterday. It is known as the Asti project and involves the use of electric and gas-powered mini-buses. There will be experimentation with satellite tracking to improve vehicle efficiency and other aspects of environmental management. Funding for the project has come from the European Union, the DTI and 12 business partners, including British Gas, Sainsbury's, PowerGen and London Electricity.
The injection of private finance by funds or services is to be welcomed in imaginative innovations of that kind. People with reduced mobility must have their needs met and the creative role of the voluntary sector is recognised as pivotal to the development of services to meet the needs of an ageing population, in addition to the needs of handicapped people. Many of them, without the support and care of groups like the Community Transport Association, would lose a precious part of their independence and quality of life.
It is good to see the public and private sectors working together, pooling their expertise and harnessing enterprise and innovation. Of course it is important for the public to have a choice of transport, but at the same time people should be aware of its effect on the environment. Good services provided by rail, coach or bus will attract people away from their cars, but only if the services are reliable, comfortable and give value for money. We have seen what has happened to the bus and coach services. They are cheap, frequent and have given millions of people an opportunity to travel around the country and further afield—an opportunity that previous generations were not able to enjoy.
Commuting by car on a daily basis can be a frustrating, unhealthy experience, as people sit in their cars, nose to tail, mile after mile, taking hours to travel a comparatively short distance. There must be a better way. For some the answer may be another form of transport or a combination of services but for others the car may be the only option. It is therefore pleasing to see private finance being brought in to the maintenance and extension of major roads. I believe that we are at an exciting stage in transport development. According to the advertisements on TV the future is orange. I say the future is green as the public and private sectors put their minds to creating the best possible infrastructure and services for a green and clean environment.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, before I came to your Lordships' House today I had the pleasure of driving 150 miles through lovely English country. I remember the days many years ago when in my MG I could get from the Landuggertrow in Bristol to a pub in London, having downed many pints of beer, in under two hours. When I lived in Newbury I could get to London on a steam train two minutes quicker than I could today.
What has changed in transport? I was brought up in that world because my father spent all our family money on motor racing. In those days one ordered a car from Lagonda and drove it around Epsom Downs before one dashed off to Le Mans. If one were racing and a competitor crashed in front, one used to stop, get out and see whether he was all right. The man behind would say, "You were two minutes ahead. We will give you two and a half minutes' start". In those days transportation was perhaps more gentlemanly. What went wrong? Suddenly all the great Victorian iron bridges—the designs of my hero Brunel—disappeared, and we did nothing. We did nothing for years. In fact we closed everything down. There were more and more deaths on the road. The number of deaths soared, but suddenly today one no longer sees those headlines on a Monday, "Black Sunday" or "Keep Death off the Roads".
Over 30 years ago I was an economist. I was supposed to be a rather bad economist, but I became a transportation economist and was appointed by British Rail to advise it how to get traffic off the roads. We considered containers. We talked of the liner train. The Department of Transport asked us to advise on the economics of death on the roads. How much is a life worth? If you straighten a corner and save one life and prevent three hospitalisations a year, what are the economics of that? I became interested in the economics of transportation.
When I served at the Council of Europe I became the rapporteur for a strange body I had never heard of before called the European Council of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) which was responsible for the standardisation of transport. We discussed the heights of bridges and the size of bogey couplings. Then we became interested in bridges. A bridge over the Bosporus was mentioned. In Sicily I met some strange men who thought that a bridge in Sicily should only be constructed with private sector finance. We looked at the Channel Tunnel link. My civil servant friends from the OECD pointed out to me that that was not a good idea for the British as the tunnel would run from one of the poorest parts of France—where everyone wanted it—and would arrive in one of the richest parts of England where no one wanted it. If only it could have arrived in Newcastle!
I began to think more and more about the economics of transport. A few years ago the CBI pointed out that the amount of money lost through people spending longer periods of time on the roads and losing that time at work was enormous. If only the Treasury would cost that out, it would discover that greater investment in transport infrastructure would pay for itself. I wondered

1787
why we did not do anything. Then I became involved in railways and roads abroad. I also became involved in bridges including the Bosporus bridge. We managed to obtain a share of the trans-Gabonese railway. We did so with great difficulty and with the help of the Railways Industry Association which could not find a man alive who had built a railway. We had lost much of those skills and technology. At one time 74 per cent. of all steam locomotives were built on the Clyde. We had forgotten about tarmacadam. Basically we had forgotten how infrastructure was funded.
In those ancient days one factor made it impossible to fund infrastructure privately and that was inflation. One could not possibly fund something with a high level of inflation, rising costs and rising interest rates, in a way that one could today. Your Lordships may remember that when the state owned industries wanted to borrow money they had to apply to the Treasury. The banks wanted to lend them money but they had to join the Treasury queue which aimed to control PSBR and to stop money being spent. However, one cannot have good infrastructure without spending money.
My noble friend has said it all today. He mentioned virtually everything apart from trams. When I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I thought that perhaps there is no division amongst us as regards the requirement to build infrastructure. There is probably no division as regards how that should be financed. It can no longer be financed with government money through a levy on the taxpayer. The world has changed. With the remarkable decline in inflation it is now possible to fund longer-term infrastructure projects in a way that we never could before. There is nothing new about private finance. Many years ago the railways financed containers and wagons through lease mechanisms, and certain things were owned by the private sector. Money is money. We do not need to give it names. However, names started to be used abroad. There was the acronym BOOT, build, own, operate and transfer, or BOT, build, operate and transfer. It is funny that we almost reimported that idea over here. When contractors found life difficult they wondered whether, if the Government would not fund projects, they could fund them themselves.
I must declare an interest in that I am a director of one of the larger quoted contracting companies. We do not do a lot in the PFI sector. Before the debate today I consulted with many contractor friends, consultants, banks and others. I asked them why, if the initiative is to be private funding, this has not been carried out more widely? Where is the logjam? Noble Lords will be aware that there is not an awful lot of construction going on in the construction industry at the moment. Those whom I consulted told me that they were not greatly in favour of the private finance initiative to begin with as they believed it could work only for projects which stood alone such as the Skye bridge, the second Severn crossing or similar bridges. They believed that it could not work with the private sector on its own and that the state and the Government have a big part to play not only as regards planning but also in the ancillary infrastructure that may be necessary to allow a bridge to be built. I shall not go on about the railways. However,
1788
I was advised—I tried to pass this advice to the bank where I worked at that time—not to invest any money in the Channel Tunnel unless the rail link was built. I was advised that it would not be competitive until such time as a rail link was built. Yet, if that great tunnel had not been built at the time it was built, it probably never would have been built.
There are a few aspects of PFI which bother me. I believe that at the moment the logjam lies not with Ministers and not with Government strategy but within the Treasury structure itself. There is a need for a change of mentality—perhaps even in the Highways Agency—from an attitude of government procuring to government co-operating. The problems are fairly simple. Decision making processes are quite slow. The PFI unit in the Treasury has had three chairmen in eight months. There appears to be no clearly defined strategy. As has already been pointed out, the initial costs of trying to get something off the ground are enormous. Officials in the Treasury are not necessarily charged out by the hour, but the cost of trying to bid for a major infrastructure project, whether road, rail, port or anything else, is enormous. There is no certainty that those projects will go ahead. It has been suggested that there might be closer consultation, as is taking place at this moment, between those who wish to earn business from contracting, developing and consulting, and those who wish to see things built.
The Government have perhaps a greater role in this process than they realise. But those who take the lead must be those who wish to develop that infrastructure, and not necessarily the people who may wish to build it. Instead of BOOT we now have design, build, finance and operate but not own. The shadow tolls on roads is quite a good idea. Attitudes have changed and there is a willingness to go ahead. We could go ahead so much quicker now as costs are at such a low relative level and interest rates are so low.
In the venture capital field it was always said that an investor needed to get a 25 per cent. return because of the risk. I have many socialist friends who attack the Government's policies. A friend of mine told me that he sold his businesses and placed his funds on deposit with a bank that I worked for at that time. He told me that he had been successful and that after he had reared his children he could just about live on the interest. However, he told me that my party had brought down interest rates, and he found that he could not even live on the interest. He discussed it with his wife and said, "When you can't live on the interest any more there is only one solution. You have to invest".
With interest rates as they are, and possibly coming down, and inflation as it is at present, there is a great chance to attract more private funding into the infrastructure where there is a closer relationship between the people who use it, the people who build it and the Government who have a responsibility to ensure that it is under way.
7.50 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever for initiating the debate. I

1789
live near Winchester where the trains are run by South West Trains, now franchised to Stagecoach plc which also runs the largest bus undertaking in the area. We have already seen the first fruits of this common management. Even in the heyday of the railways, the town of Romsey was never served by a main-line railway. Now it is possible to board a bus in Romsey in order to join the train for London at Winchester and, significantly, to buy on the bus a through ticket from Romsey to Waterloo.
The city of Winchester is now served by a frequent service of small buses, extending to neighbouring villages which have not had a bus service for years, if ever. One of the first acts of Stagecoach on taking over South West Trains was to put up £1 million for the refurbishment of rolling stock only, depressingly, recently introduced by British Rail. It was a decision, I understand, taken in 15 minutes. I was assured by the South West Trains management—they are all of British Rail upbringing—that in previous days it would have taken a year.
Let it never be forgotten that the vast majority of employees and staff in the privatised sector are former employees of state undertakings. It is just that their enterprise and initiative have been released under the new environment. I have difficulty with the reference to lack of motivation in the private sector which has been mentioned. I certainly have not come across it with the bus or railway operators to whom I have spoken. It must involve other sectors.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, referred to trains waiting at peak hours at Waterloo. South West Trains is now contracted to run two trains an hour to Southampton; it runs three. It is contracted to run two trains an hour to Reading; it runs four. How is this achieved? It is simply with a cost structure to run a train off-peak at marginal cost, which under BR would have been an outright loss and quite impracticable.
It is wholly logical that the bus operators are heavily involved in bids for the rail operator franchises, for they have the confidence that they can bring to railway operation the flexibility and imagination that they have brought to bus operation. Let me give noble Lords one example. Bus operators have adapted the American airline system of hub and spoke; that is, the hub city served by feeder services. Passengers are conveyed to a central point. (The first one was at Bedford.) They then change coaches for a fast service running between major towns, which would not have been viable without the feeder services. Everyone benefits: the large towns gain an enhanced service and the small towns and villages gain a service which they might not have had previously. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, will be pleased to know that there is a similar successful operation running from Glenrothes as the hub city serving the outlying districts of Fife to Edinburgh and Glasgow. It is an interesting reflection that it was precisely this operation in reverse carried out by Dr. Beeching with the railways in the 1960s—the dismantling of feeder services—that spelt quite unnecessarily the end of many main-line railway services.
1790
The prophets of doom forecast at the time of deregulation that the bus operators, freed from regulation, would retain only the profitable routes and abandon the under-populated areas. All I can say is that there are many cases up and down the country, which have been referred to already in the debate, where operators work with local authorities on subsidised routes to remoter areas—for instance, night services. And, significantly, there is in many of those cases the option to take over the service fully commercially at some stage in the future, thus relieving the public sector of the cost of the subsidy.
I conclude with one statistic. In 1985 the town of Corby in Northamptonshire had the dubious distinction of having one of the highest taxi usages per head in England. At that time only 7,000 people travelled by bus, and buses had only 35 per cent. of the share of non-private transport. Ten years later, in 1995, 26,000 people per week travelled on buses and the buses' share is estimated to have risen to 55 per cent. That was achieved by a bus operator quite simply delivering to the public a good service at an affordable price. It is surely just what deregulation and privatisation are all about.
7.56 p.m.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I wish to concentrate tonight on private sector provision of transport services. Government strategy on transport has recently been spelled out in two quite large documents. The first, Transport Strategy for London, makes a clear statement. We are to maximise existing infrastructure based on existing money from all sources: from government revenue, users and PFI.
The second document, Transport, The Way Forward, seems more diffuse. It has a great number of wish lists but, in the summary of Chapter 11, nothing on infrastructure and investment, which seems to me to contradict the position set out for London.
If we have to improve our existing infrastructure using existing funds better, I must publicise a new acronym. ITS stands for Intelligent Transport Systems, also referred to as transport telematics—applications which include interactive communications between moving vehicles and the roadside and/or some central control room.
ITS is now an international acronym. There is ITS America, ITS Japan and, in the UK, ITS Focus, and I am its president. Noble Lords will not be surprised to be told that the USA, Japan and Germany are the UK's major competitors in this specialised field and that they show signs of pulling away.
There is no doubt in my mind that Intelligent Transport Systems should play a key role in the UK in maximising use of existing infrastructure with existing money. Government strategy documents certainly mention ITS but do not identify this as a major solution to the restricted strategy which I have outlined.
Transport, the Way Forward, reviews transport telematics in paragraph 14 of Chapter 10. In paragraph 15 it states that the Government will publish a statement later in the year. I would encourage my noble friend the Minister to consult widely before doing so.

1791
What is ITS really all about? Allow me to offer noble Lords a few simplistic headlines. First, there are urban congestion and incident management systems such as SCOOT, which is the London CCTV and traffic lights control system which has been in operation for some years now and is a world leader. Road tolling comes under this heading—an area where we have not done so well. I believe that all but two of the consortia offering to test motorway tolls have pulled out due to delays while the Government rejected trials in London based on its consultant which could say only that tolls had worked in smaller cities.
Parking guidance systems help to reduce urban congestion as does automatic incidence detection using cameras to monitor known areas of congestion.
Multimodal information and control systems can be found at present in the Southampton area as part of the EU's ROMANSE project. These include kiosks which allow the public to key in the start and end of a required journey and then offer the best route using either a mix of bus, rail and boat, or just car as per the inquirer's wishes. These systems also include variable message signs to drivers—either as road signs to drivers or as radio messages into the car, plus talkback facilities. We could have done with such a system the other day when the police had to close Sloane Square to all traffic and the underground trains did not stop there either.
Automatic highway systems have to do mainly with safety and vehicle density. The M.25 motorway trial of variable speed limits is designed to prevent the concertina effect of too much traffic and thus achieve faster overall journey times. Radar and cameras allow cars to he driven literally on a no-hands, no-feet basis. I know, I have been in one. That could be used as a safety device on motorways when drivers fall asleep or to allow more cars on the road through the use of reduced headroom between vehicles.
Dynamic Route Guidance requires the use of satellites—GPS or the EU's GNSS—which already exists in Germany and Japan. This country is still designing the maps of the UK which will appear on the car dashboard and currently Traffic Master, which monitors traffic speed from road bridges, is our only available application. Fleet Freight Management is a subset of dynamic guidance systems and includes electronic tagging of products and automatic vehicle location to allow operators always to know where the vehicle and/or product is located. I am told that just plain CCTV on suburban roads has reduced accident rates in some places by up to 30 per cent.
London Transport Buses makes a most interesting example of what can be done. It has Countdown, which shows the time to the next bus on an electronic sign at the bus shelter. One day we may also find the sign round the corner in the next feeder street without a bus stop. One day we may even be able to use our home PCs to learn such information before we leave the house.
London Transport Buses is also implementing Prestige—a charged contactless smartcard which, when passed over a reader, deducts the fare automatically and thus speeds up entry into the bus. Use of red routes and
1792
beacons that advise traffic lights to give priority to the approaching bus are other ways in which the public could he tempted to forsake the car and use the bus.
I am concerned that all these ways of maximising public bus transport are not sufficiently focused in London. The stick of urban congestion charging on cars, together with the carrot of buses, where all the benefits come together across the whole of London simultaneously, would do much more than leaving each part to progress in isolation. The interesting point is that all those ideas are low to medium in capital intensity and low in running costs, particularly when compared with building more roads—the alternative to making better use of what we have got.
Finally, I must remind the House that I am prejudiced—prejudiced in favour of the industry that I represent, an industry that believes that it has many of the answers to the Government's problems. ITS Focus is in the middle of a feasibility study to raise awareness of the value of transport telematics. I have, of course, been doing my part here this afternoon. I hope that some of the applications that I have mentioned were sufficiently intriguing for noble Lords wish to find out more. I hope that noble Lords accept that their awareness of what is on offer can only be good for advancing UK interests overall.
8.4 p.m.
The Earl of Cromer: My Lords, I am delighted to support my noble kinsman Lord Astor in such an important debate. I approve wholeheartedly of the Government's privatisation programme. The Government have successfully shown that privatisation will change the culture of an industry by bringing in competition and choice, as well as introducing private sector management skills, entrepreneurial ideas and marketing flair.
I shall detain your Lordships for only a short period, to speak on one of the most successful privatisations, British Airways, on which my noble friend Lady Seccombe touched briefly. We all know what the initials BA stood for in the airline industry before privatisation. But a few short years after the sale of the company in 1987, the "B" is still the same, but the "awful" has been replaced by "awesome". British Airways is now truly the world's favourite airline, carrying more international passengers than any other carrier, some 6 million more than its nearest competitor in 1993.
Privatisation created for the UK an airline which is strong enough to take on the world and win. British Airways' pre-tax profits of £585 million, announced three weeks ago, made it the most profitable airline in the world. What is more, it has made profits every year since it was privatised, through the toughest period in the industry's history, when most of its competitors have lost money. Compare its soaraway success with the financial plight of many state-run, state-aided airlines on the Continent.
BA has made the most of its freedom. Its recognised expertise and reputation for excellence have led to increasing third party engineering work which, in turn,

1793
has created hundreds of new jobs at new maintenance bases in South Wales, while its ever expanding global operation has led to the airline diversifying from London to set up new business and new jobs in the UK regions, including Newcastle, Belfast, Glasgow and Manchester.
I totally agree with my noble kinsman Lord Astor that the alliance that British Airways is seeking to form with American Airlines is another example of BA's strategic thinking and is, I believe, to be welcomed. I hope that the Government will support this new initiative in every way possible. British Airways, together with its partners, offers consumers top quality and a wide range of services, the best of British, and it is an example of privatisation at its best.
I worry sometimes that in this country success seems to be a dirty word. It is somehow not British to be seen beating the world and certainly not drawing people's attention to it. Yet many of us have a vested interest in the success of privatised companies such as British Airways or British Telecom. If not investors in our own right, we may well be members of pension funds which do invest in them. British Airways shares have gone up three-and-a-half times since privatisation, which is 120 per cent. ahead of the index.
We should be proud that privatisation created a climate in which so many British companies have been able to flourish, to the benefit of such a wide section of the populace as both investors and consumers.
8.7 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, some interesting statements have been winging around the Chamber and I ought to begin by saying that I and the Liberal Democrats have no philosophical objection to the introduction of private funding into transport infrastructure or services. We admit that some services may be better provided by the private sector: private infrastructure initiatives like Central Railway, or an Isle of Wight advanced monorail, or the activities of the privatised transport companies, or the PFI initiative, or the DBFO aspect of that initiative. All those may have a part to play in creating a more sustainable transport system which is our objective.
We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, for this interesting debate. Speakers dealt with something which so far I have not experienced. I should love to be the subject of the lures to get me onto the rail system of which the noble Lord, Lord Astor, spoke. All I can say is that in my neck of the south-west trains, there ain't much of it. Maybe it will come in the end. Dorking is not a mainline destination, we tend to be at the far end, as we were under British Rail. Nothing has changed in the distribution of goodies in the way of trains. We would have preferred to keep the rail track in public hands; we have never made a secret of that. However, we were in favour of at any rate some and even all of the services being privatised along that publicly-owned track. We wish to do that and at the same time to relax the Treasury rules so that Railtrack could borrow where necessary, to make investments and at the same time serve our objective of a more sustainable transport policy.
1794
I was also interested in some of the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford. Almost all the new and exciting methods of traffic control to which he referred are manufactured in the private sector but are almost always paid for by the public sector. Even the European Union is providing public funds for ROMANSE, not private sector funds. As a previous speaker said, there should be a partnership between the public and private sectors.
A major problem in depending too much on the private sector is the clash between the private sector's legitimate requirement for profit and the public policy requirement to transfer journeys to public transport, which may require lower user prices and therefore mitigate against profits. Better public transport access for passengers and employees to Heathrow would reduce pressure on the surrounding road network, generate an income stream to repay a private investor and incidentally release land within Heathrow which is currently covered with carparks for a more profitable use.
However, experience so far indicates that the private sector is interested only in the honeypots; it is not interested in providing the more difficult sorts of public transport; for example, in rural or suburban areas which currently do not have access to public transport unless they have been assisted by public subsidy or public assistance to a private bus company to provide those difficult services. Rural services and late or early services are nearly always provided with the assistance of the local authority. Even CrossRail may be delayed because of the Government's insistence on the PFI.
That leads me to another point; namely, some of the difficulties with the PFI are a result of the extreme difficulty in getting the whole thing under way. If we are to get the best out of the PFI, we must look very much more carefully at the regulations which surround it at the present time. The requirement to put every project into a competition, as it were, between public and private sector has made it almost impossible for the private sector to respond to the local government level at which that would be particularly useful. In other words, the private sector wants to handle only the big projects because of the difficulties and expense involved in making an approach to deal with a whole project. In the local sector, we are not dealing on the whole with enormous projects; we are dealing with modest-sized projects. If local transport authorities wish to go down that road, there are many difficult obstacles to be overcome. I am interested to hear the Minister's response on the subject of the regulations surrounding the PFI initiative.
The most important point is the contrast between the wish of public authorities—including the Government, who are moving in this direction—to achieve an overall policy strategy for transport and the private interest in achieving a profit. There is a danger of not knowing who leads the process—the policy makers or the profitmakers. To cite a recent Treasury Committee report, I, too, would,
"welcome the Treasury's view as to whether the prioritisation of projects should be the responsibility of Government and Parliament or those seeking to provide projects on a commercial basis".

1795
Again, I look forward to the Minister's response.
Another major problem is the question of additionality. Giving evidence to the committee, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said:
"The Private Finance Initiative is genuinely additional".
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
"The growing importance of private finance has helped us to find significant savings for the taxpayer".
It appears that cuts in the transport budget are almost exactly matched by a rise in PFI capital, which is not enormous. There must be a very real query as to whether the benefits of the PFI, the benefits from an injection of private capital, can be felt nationwide if it continues to be a substitute for public funding.
There is also a problem in relation to value for money. We are told that just by importing the private sector into projects we automatically guarantee improved value for money. Unfortunately, at the same time it is almost impossible to monitor whether or not that is the case, because the whole question of the involvement of the private sector is covered and surrounded by considerations of commercial confidentiality.
In the end we need to be shown that this new way of funding public investment, in infrastructure in particular, is more economical. It is already the case that all construction work, and much of the maintenance work, on our publicly owned road system is carried out, and has been for many years, by the private sector. It is hard to see from where the benefits of lower cost will come. They will not come from changes in employment practices, which was mainly where they came from in the first CCT rounds, which are already a long way behind us.
I hope that the Minister will respond to some of the queries I have raised. We do not oppose private investment in the infrastructure or the services. We believe that it has to be part of a partnership between the public and the private sector. We also feel that we need to consider relaxing the controls. We welcome the additionality which I believe is creeping into the situation so far as local government is concerned. We need to analyse a little further the proposals recently made by government, but I believe they are moving in that direction, which is very welcome. However, unless we can increase the total amount of investment in our transport system through the use of private finance, to my way of thinking, and in the view of my party, this will not be a useful initiative.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, on introducing this debate. He engaged in some panegyrics about privatised industry which went a little over the top. But I have learnt that, if he sees a top, he can hardly resist going over it. He was ably supported by the ever-charming noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe. Both thought that all public enterprise was bad and all private enterprise was good. That was simplistic in presentation. With respect, I enjoyed their remarks but I thought some balance was introduced by my noble friend Lord Berkeley and by
1796
the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, particularly in her comments on certain elements of privatised industry. I take the view that some privatised industry has been extremely good. There has been a great deal of praise today for British Airways. But I think even the Minister would recognise that there are some warts attached to it. He may have enjoyed those contributions, but they were a little illusory. It is not a situation where there are no clouds on the horizon, a sort of Ode to Joy. That is perhaps an appropriate anthem for them to sing at the present time. I only hope it brings some results in another context.
The fact of the matter is that one serious omission appeared in the noble Lord's introductory speech. There was not a word about the debt write-offs in relation to privatised industry. I wonder whether he knows how much it is. I shall give way to him if he knows the answer. It is in excess of £22 billion. He did not mention a word about it. Be that as it may, I do not want to talk too much about privatised railways and so on. We have had a series of debates on those matters. I want to talk about the PFI (private finance initiative) and the Labour Party's proposals in relation to public/private partnerships.
I believe that the Government's PFI has been rightly criticised by the CBI, the construction industry and the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, in his contribution tonight. The Government should not be complacent. They should recognise that people with a great deal of experience in this field know what they are talking about. I have had many discussions with the construction industry and indeed with many people involved in the PFI. There are serious criticisms to be made. For example, only the other day, on 23rd May, Bovis (which is one of the United Kingdom's biggest construction companies) decided not to tender for further privately financed motorway or trunk roads because of the high cost of bidding and slow progress in awarding work. That is a serious matter. Bovis cannot have done that without a very clear judgment having been made about the matter. Others go ahead; I recognise that. However, there are very serious defects in the scheme.
I do not propose to spend too much time on that subject. I want to talk about the Labour Party's scheme in that regard rather than talk about the outgoing government, though we can learn from the errors of the schemes that are being undertaken. I want to underline the rich potential for the construction industry, for transport users and providers that a redesigned scheme could offer to national, regional and local levels.
Our intention is for a national transport framework to be put in place at the earliest opportunity. That mirrors the cause of the CBI and Transport 2000 as well as many others who have perceived that the vision, targets and objectives of the new government are critically important after 17 years of transport policy without any strategy. We believe that the private finance initiative has to be given fresh impetus. I do not have time to mention all the ideas that we are putting forward to get the process back on its feet, but I shall mention some of them.

1797
It must not be used—or misused as the case has been—as a way of disguising cuts in capital spending. The original intention, repeated on a number of occasions by the Chancellor himself, was that that would not take place. It was not a substitute. In November 1993, the Chancellor said that:
"The private finance initiative is now adding to spending in areas for which the public sector in the past has traditionally taken responsibility".
More recently, on 3rd February 1994, he said:
"We seek to increase both the amount and the quality of investment in the infrastructure of our public services by bringing in the private sector".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/94; col. 1012.]
There was no suggestion that it was to be used as a substitute.
We take the view that the Government have failed to develop a coherent strategy for delivering private capital to projects—which are required, in the light of what the noble Baroness had to say about our transport infrastructure. We take the view that the Government must set strategic priorities so that the private sector can see what it is expected to bid for. Projects which have the greatest potential for social and economic return for the country as a whole need to be brought forward. I do not believe that market forces should be allowed to be the sole arbiter of what is required. One cannot limit the scheme to those projects which are determined solely on what is viable in the narrowest financial terms.
Secondly, there have to be clear guidelines to cover the terms on which the private sector is required to submit tenders for PFI projects. They do not exist at the present time. I hope that the Minister has consulted the construction industry. I am sure that he has done and that those criticisms have been made to him to his face. They are not to be dealt with lightly.
My third point is that the PFI procedure has become extraordinarily bureaucratic and complex. It has resulted in a great deal of delay. We believe that the decision-making process must be streamlined and reformed. We propose the establishment of a task force to broker agreements between the public and the private sectors, to ensure that projects get off the ground as rapidly as possible. It requires the kind of intervention which I thought was implicit in the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon's remarks. The Government have tended to say, "Let's get on with the PH and leave the parties to it." Government have a role. I totally agree with what the noble Lord had to say in that regard.
There is also the question of risk allocation. That has been dealt with in the most unsatisfactory way under the present schemes. There is no clear set of principles to determine how risks and returns are to be divided. I believe that the Government have to establish clear guidelines to determine how risks and returns should be shared between the public and the private sectors. In projects where there is a greater strategic interest, the Government might be expected to take a greater degree of risk. The risk does not have to come in the form of cash; it might be in respect of the Government taking other risks—for example, planning uncertainty or policy changes which are frequently made.
1798
I should like to add something to what the noble Baroness said. It is very germane in terms of improving the present scheme. Like her, I believe that there needs to be greater transparency—that was a point made by my noble friend Lord Berkeley also—and greater accountability than exists at the present time. What we have too often is sheltering behind an alleged confidentiality. That is one of the secrecy elements of our society which we should do well to reform. Sometimes, of course, confidentiality is necessary. But I do not like the concept, underlined in the present PFI, that the man in Whitehall knows best. It is an unpleasant syndrome in relation to this matter.
We also believe—this is my fifth point—that local authorities should be able to invest more of their capital receipts in housing and infrastructure generally. We propose that a proportion of the cash should be used as seedcorn for new public/private partnerships, with local authorities working with private construction companies and businesses in developing inner cities and improving estates. That also has a relationship to transport requirements.
Those are just five of the ideas that we put forward for consideration. We shall listen to the construction industry and the financiers in order to hear whether our ideas are in need of improvement, too. We are in the business of discussing matters and listening to those who know. The Government have not done that. A better balance should be struck between the public interest and the enterprise that private suppliers are able to bring.
Much was said about the bus industry and I do not propose to refer to that. I wanted to mention air traffic control. It has been suggested that it should be subject to privatisation. The CAA do not like that idea and nor do the airlines. They believe that safety must be paramount. The private sector has articulated concerns that the present PFI is wrong for attracting private investment for that purpose. The Scottish Air Traffic Services Centre was delayed for several years by the imposition of PFI and could be developed with different technologies from its English counterparts, which cannot make sense.
We had an interesting debate the other day in relation to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. I do not propose to go into that. The Minister and I will not see eye to eye, but he knows that the Government have ploughed a great deal of public money into that enterprise, though they were reluctant to admit it.
This country must renew its transport infrastructure—our roads, railways, our bus industry, our ports and our airports. Industrialist after industrialist has condemned the PFI in a number of material respects. Adair Turner, Director General of the CBI, said in October:
"The pressure to achieve public expenditure cuts is ferocious, the capital expenditure budget looks an attractive target and the PFI is seen as justification for major cuts".
Andrew Buxton, Chairman of Barclays Bank, said in November 1995:
"The requirement of PFI testing has proved to be a recipe for delay. Companies have found tendering for PFI projects … to be a difficult, frustrating, and above all, costly process".

1799
Robert Napier, Chief Executive of Redland, the building projects group, said at the CBI conference last November:
"The PFI certainly won't compensate for the reduction in central government funding".
He continued,
"A budget which cuts transport spending and places too much emphasis, too soon, on the private finance initiative is not acceptable to business".
Those words need to be taken to heart. Projects need to fit in with national, regional and local priorities. They must be assessed on their merits and not as a clumsy device to get assets off the public books or to produce income tax cuts today which will be paid for by mortgaging the interests of future taxpayers. That is something which represents the wrong road and which we oppose.
8.32 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, today's debate has given us the opportunity to consider and discuss the major improvements to passenger and freight transport in this country which have come about as a result of the increasing involvement of the private sector in the provision of transport infrastructure and services. We are all in the debt of my noble friend Lord Astor for raising the subject of the role of the private sector and for giving us an illuminating introduction to it.
The noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Berkeley, suggested that my noble friend was giving a somewhat rosy picture of what had been the effects of the private sector's involvement. I do not believe that to be true. An illustration of that is that we do not see any serious commentators these days who are prepared to stand up and say: "We want to turn the clock back". As my noble friend Lord Cromer said, the world has changed. The very fact that we are having this discussion and that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, articulated a Labour Party policy in which it now recognises the role of the private sector in transport services, illustrates that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, began with what can only be described as a "Sheffieldesque" optimism to his interventions. We have seen a serious discussion of the private finance initiative and I should like to turn later to a number of points he raised and which were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas.
It is not an entirely unexpected observation from me that the Government believe passionately in involving the private sector as fully as possible in transport, as in other areas of the economy. The private sector has strengths and skills which the public sector does not. The private sector knows how to act commercially; it understands the marketplace and the need for competitiveness. It knows that, to be successful, it must not only respond to the needs of its customers, it must also strive constantly to improve its services.
We had a lot of discussion about risk. The private sector is also better placed to manage many of the risks traditionally borne by government. It has access to new
1800
sources of capital. With privatisation, contracting out and the provision of services and infrastructure still within the public sector, the private sector is truly in partnership with the Government in helping to ensure improved quality, faster results and better value for money for the taxpayer. Our debate today crossed all modes and provoked a discussion on almost every aspect of transport imaginable. I shall try to pick up some of the major points raised.
My noble friends, Lady Seccombe and Lord Cromer, were quick to point out the changes that have occurred in the aviation industry in this country. The airports, Heathrow and Gatwick, are respectively the first and eighth busiest international airports in the world. The UK led the way by privatising the BAA airports in 1987 and six formerly local authority-owned airports have since joined the private sector. With the remaining major airports restructured as companies operated at arm's length from their local authority owners, all are now more driven by the need to be responsive to their airline customers and the passengers. The success of that transformation is demonstrated by BAA's status in the world as an extremely successful airport group.
British airlines are successfully competing. That was a major point picked up throughout the debate. They are winning business throughout Europe and the rest of the world. The business is being won fairly and squarely without any subsidy from the Government. In 1987 British Airways was privatised. Today BA is one of the most successful and profitable airlines in the world. Indeed, the whole sector in the UK is highly successful, with new carriers such as Virgin Atlantic. I do not believe that anybody today would seriously suggest that BA should be taken back into the public sector any more than the 50 or so other airlines operating successfully out of the UK and competing for business.
On the subject of ports, my noble friend Lord Astor described the changes that have occurred since many ports were brought into the private sector and also since the abolition of the dock labour scheme. With those constraints removed, the ports industry in this country is now extremely efficient and doing very good business. The same goes for the shipping industry, which is entirely in the private sector and is lean, efficient and contributing to our national competitiveness.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will give way. Is he seriously claiming that British shipping is a success? Is he aware that even in the past few weeks British shipping has shown a further decline, whereas French, Dutch and Danish shipping have been re-attracted to their flags?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, makes much of good contacts with industry. I can only suggest to him that he talks to some of the extremely successful British companies that are involved in shipping. I suggest that he talks to the Chamber of Shipping, which is the representative of the industry; I suggest that he talks to P&O, which has had some success—as the noble Lord may recognise—in the cruising, ferry and container industries. There are many

1801
success stories and we would be wise to say where we are strong in the industry rather than endlessly concentrating on some of the difficulties that the industry has had to go through in the post-war years.
On the subject of buses, we heard a lot about the effects of deregulation and privatisation under the Transport Act 1985. That has been a success. Today 93 per cent. of all bus services in the UK are provided by privately-owned bus companies; 84 per cent. of all bus services in the UK are run commercially without subsidy. Bus operators are free to provide services wherever they wish on a commercial basis and local authorities have powers to subsidise necessary services after competitive tender. That has resulted in more bus mileage—up some 29 per cent. since deregulation—more flexible services, more operators and substantial investment in new vehicles, including minibuses and midibuses. Bus operator costs per vehicle mile have come down by more than a third in real terms and local authority public transport revenue support has more than halved in real terms.
Understandably, a number of noble Lords have concentrated on the issue of railway privatisation. It is a very large undertaking indeed. It is the major structural reform which the railway industry in this country so desperately needed. Most commentators would now recognise that the old railway was a monolithic, monopolistic nationalised industry which never had the opportunity or, I believe, the incentive to focus on the needs of its customers. The railway's basic problem was structural and not financial. We have now addressed these structural difficulties through the passing of the Railways Act and we are beginning to see the benefits of this strategy coming through to passengers. I listened with care to the comments we have heard from many noble Lords that the benefits that have flowed into the airline industry and into many other industries where the private sector has become involved will flow, and are already flowing, into the railway industry.
For the first time, key services are contractually safeguarded in franchise agreements. All seven of the franchises awarded so far will maintain the same levels of service as were previously operated by BR. In a number of cases, franchisees will be adding new services to the timetable.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, commented on networker benefits such as through ticketing. I strongly believe that these benefits are a key to the success of the railway industry in the future. The companies that are operating the services know that it is in their commercial interest to pursue commercial deals with each other, to offer attractive new pricing strategies, to work out innovative fare deals and so forth. Those are what companies do if they want to encourage—it is in their strong interest to do so—as many people on to the railways as possible. Part of that involves working with one's competitors.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware of the doubts that some people have about this matter? In Surrey one still cannot buy a ticket which allows one to go one way by one bus
1802
company and come back with another bus company—and not for lack of trying. I really do think that quite a lot of passengers have a good deal of scepticism about the Government's ability to introduce sensible networking. What can the noble Viscount say to allay some of that scepticism?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am very sad that for second time this evening the noble Baroness has put Dorking in Surrey into somewhere outside the modern world in terms of the developments we are seeing in transport.
It is clear that companies must do and will do everything they can to encourage people on to their services. That involves innovative park-and-ride schemes and looking at what are the basic elements that attract people on to their services. The key to doing that is to build those into their agreement. One comparison would be with package holidays, which are sold with various elements of transport, accommodation and so on included. People buy those because they can see that they are convenient and an economical way of going about buying holidays. We firmly believe that that will continue to flow in the railway system and within other areas of transport such as the bus network, which the noble Baroness highlighted. Network benefits like through ticketing and discount cards for elderly and disabled people are contractually safeguarded—for the first time, one might add.
The franchising director has already announced that, for the first time ever, key fares will be price capped. They will be held constant in line with inflation for three years, and then progressively reduced in real terms for the next four years.
This better, cheaper railway will benefit the taxpayer as much as the travelling public. In seven years' time, the seven franchises awarded so far will require less than a third of the grant paid to British Rail in 1995–96. I would say that that is an extraordinary statistic and it is one which bears careful consideration.
Rail privatisation is now a reality. More than 65 per cent. of the rail industry—worth more than £6.7 billion by aggregate turnover—has now been transferred to the private sector. Only on 20th May, dealing in Railtrack shares began. The successful flotation of Railtrack marked a major milestone in the transfer of Britain's railways to the private sector.
But that is by no means all. The three rolling stock leasing companies have been sold and more than 90 per cent. of the UK rail freight is now owned by the private sector. Twelve of the 13 infrastructure maintenance units and track renewals companies have also been disposed of, along with a large number of other former BR businesses, including BR telecommunications. I could go on about the other businesses—and a very large number of them there are—that have been transferred into the private sector, but a key development was the successful flotation of Railtrack.
In terms of investment, concerns have sometimes been expressed that investment under the privatised railways would not be given priority. Railtrack has already shown that this concern is misplaced. But the

1803
privatised Railtrack will receive income from franchise train operating companies through access charges and will have access to wider sources of private finance to fund infrastructure schemes. Railtrack has said that it intends to spend some £8 billion on the network over the next five years. It also expects to contribute to the project cost of Thameslink 2000 an estimated £600 million—an excellent example of a major investment project which will enhance the rail network, opening up new opportunities for through services north and south of the river. We have also heard about investment in rolling stock.
These are the hard facts of railway privatisation so far. The private sector is introducing tougher passenger's charter standards, with more generous compensation arrangements for its customers. It is improving the quality of waiting accommodation at stations and investing in measures to boost passenger security.
One could go on about the progress that has been made on rail privatisation, the commitments that have been made and the improvements that we are seeing. But I think it might be appropriate to move on to the private finance initiative, a subject on which a number of noble Lords have commented. Indeed, it was the central thrust of a number of contributions.
As I remarked at the outset, outright privatisation is by no means the only way of involving the private sector. The PFI represents a transformation in the way the public sector procures services and assets. In summary, the Government decide what services they need. The private sector is then challenged to come up with a bid which offers imaginative ideas and solutions to designing, building, financing and operating that scheme. Transport is a key within the PFI. Of the £4.8 billion of PFI deals agreed across the Government in the past financial year, the transport sector accounted for some £3.8 billion, which is some 80 per cent. PFI deals have been agreed across almost all areas of the Department of Transport. Only last week, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales opened the second Severn Bridge. This magnificent project was completed on time and within budget and financed entirely by the private sector at an estimated cost of £300 million. One could go on.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised the question of financial commitments under private finance deals and, as a read across, rail franchising as well. I can assure the House that such commitments are a matter of contract and therefore are legally enforceable. The Government stand firmly behind those financial commitments and will ensure that they are honoured.
Another issue that has been raised in connection with PFI is the question of transparency. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who wanted to see more openness. I am sure that the noble Lord recognises that some areas have to be kept commercially confidential. It is the Government's policy to be as open as possible and to release as much information as possible, although we must not prejudice future deals and we must have the interests of the taxpayer very much in mind. However, given those constraints, we want to be as open as possible.
1804
Another issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was the difficulty perceived by some companies in bidding, the length of time that it takes and the costs involved. I accept that bidding for PFI is inherently different from conventional procurement. The private sector is not bidding simply to carry out the design and construction of the project; it is undertaking to maintain and operate services over a longer period. I suggest that such a sea-change in the thinking behind the bidding procedure must be allowed to settle in. We are still in very early days. We are listening to what potential contractors and partners are saying and are very much taking their comments on board. We are alive to the issues that have been raised and continually bear in mind our approach to PFI in determining how future projects should be taken forward.
Some of the major PFI projects relate to DBFO roads and to the Channel Tunnel rail link. As we have heard, the Bill is currently before a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. As we had a very full discussion of the issue some two weeks or so ago, I shall turn instead to the issue of DBFO roads. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and my noble friend Lord Selsdon were interested in that new type of road provision. The new approach is at the forefront of the Government's PFI. It is a prime example of the Government working in partnership with industry to provide value for money for the taxpayer. The programme's capital construction value is estimated at over £1 billion and is expected to deliver 13 projects covering up to 43 schemes, harnessing private finance to fund both initial construction and long-term maintenance of DBFO roads over 30 years. I was intrigued to hear my noble friend Lord Selsdon recount the history of the various acronyms leading to DBFO and the other approaches that have been taken.
The fundamental PFI requirement, apart from value for money, is that the private sector genuinely assumes risk. It is our objective to allocate risk to whoever is best placed to manage it. The Government firmly believe that design and construction risks, and the balance between the quality of construction and future expenditure on maintenance and upkeep, can usually be best handled by the private sector. We bear that very much in mind.
Other PFI schemes are in the pipeline. For example, the preferred bidder for Croydon Tramlink was recently announced and it is hoped that this contract will be signed in the near future. London Transport has announced potential PFI deals in the field of revenue collection, power supply and communications. The Civil Aviation Authority is continuing to progress PFI deals for the New Scottish Air Traffic Control Centre and the Oceanic Flight Data Processing Centre. All told, we already expect to see at least a further £2 billion of transport deals agreed over the next three years.
In conclusion, we have heard about a variety of transport modes and about how the private sector has been involved. It is clear from all those who have contributed, including the Benches opposite, that it is now widely recognised and irrefutable that the private sector has a major role to play in transport provision in this country. There has been a revolution in the way in

1805
which we look at these things. I believe that my noble friend Lord Cromer was right to draw attention to the change not only in financing and not only in designing, building and operating services, but in our culture and in the fact that the passenger must now be at the front of everyone's thoughts. I again thank my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever for tabling the Motion, and all those noble Lords who have contributed to the debate.
8.54 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, this has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, I am delighted that so many noble Lords agree that privatisation has delivered real improvements in a wide range of transport industries. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed many important points at this late hour and my noble friend the Minister for his robust reply. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Trading Schemes Bill
8.55 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In concept, the Bill is simple. It widens the coverage of the existing controls under Part XI of the Fair Trading Act 1973 over pyramid selling and similar trading schemes.
Trading schemes are, or at least can be, an efficient form of retailing using a self-employed salesforce. The salesforce are members of the trading scheme. In some schemes the members may be franchisees, with a right to use, for example, the scheme's trade name or design.
Members of trading schemes earn a commission on their sales. These sales may be to the general public or in some schemes to other members. Sales to other members need not be only of goods for onward sale; they might, for example, be sales or recruitment aids or training.
In many schemes, members may also earn through recruiting more members to the scheme. For example, in some schemes members receive a payment for every member they recruit. In other schemes, members earn not only through their own sales and recruitment but get a commission on any sales made by members they recruited. In a number of schemes, a commission may be derived from on-sales made by members recruited by their recruits. Similarly, scheme members may benefit from their recruits recruiting more members; and even their recruits' recruits recruiting—and so on.
Trading schemes include many reputable companies. I am unable to put a figure on their annual turnover as trading schemes cover such a very wide range of operations. Many companies operating trading schemes belong to the Direct Selling Association. The association estimates that the total retail sales of its members was £948 million in 1994.
1806
While some members of trading schemes may be sizeable companies, the vast majority are individuals supplementing their income. But this is not a risk-free way of earning—and the risks can be very high—nor is every trading scheme reputable. Nearly 30 years ago there was a rash of trading schemes in which members lost considerable sums of money.
The initial problem appears to have been those schemes in which members were required to buy stocks of the scheme's products which in the event were virtually unsellable. At one stage it seemed as if garages and garden sheds across the country were jam-packed with shampoos and cleaning products that nobody wanted to buy. Many of the unfortunate owners of those shampoo lakes were trapped by contracts with onerous termination conditions. Unable to sell any of their stock to the public or back to the promoter, they concentrated their efforts on recruiting other members. Against this background, Part XI of the Fair Trading Act provided for protection to both members and potential members of trading schemes.
The most important protection, I believe, is that provided to potential members through the creation of recruitment offences. A payment is unlawful if induced by the prospect of rewards from introducing others to a trading scheme. It is unlawful to benefit from such a payment or to attempt to induce such a payment. These recruitment offences prevent payments for recruiting others being the main attraction of a trading scheme.
In addition, the Act provides for regulation of documents used to recruit members. So that the members of trading schemes are not unfairly treated, the Act provides power to regulate the contracts between the promoter of a trading scheme and its members.
The act does not provide a general definition of "pyramid selling" or "trading scheme"; rather, it defines which pyramid selling and trading schemes are subject to its controls. Unfortunately, this definition has proved to be too narrow. There are many trading schemes which are not subject to the Act's controls.
Not every scheme outside the Act's controls is disreputable. Indeed, I understand that many trading schemes have arrangements that comply fully with the Act's requirements even though these requirements probably do not apply to them. But, as was probably inevitable, there has been a proliferation of schemes that appear to have been devised to escape the controls.
At present the controls can apply only to schemes that have all the characteristics specified in the Act. These characteristics hinge on the provision of goods or services through the scheme. This is a loophole. Thousands of people have lost millions of pounds through schemes which do not involve the provision of any goods or services by the normal definition. In some schemes, commonly known as money-making schemes or money circulation schemes, little is provided other than money and promises of money.

1807
The Bill seeks to widen the coverage of the existing controls under Part XI of the Fair Trading Act. These controls are offences relating to recruitment and to breaches of the regulations over promotional material and contracts. The Bill does not change these offences.
The Bill replaces Section 118 in Part XI of the Fair Trading Act. This section determines which trading schemes are subject to the controls specified in this part of the Act. It is essential that this section has no loopholes. I fear that this has resulted in a section which is not easy to understand.
The Bill widens the coverage of the existing controls under Part XI of the Fair Trading Act. It does so by listing the ways in which members of trading schemes may earn income. It then applies the controls to all trading schemes in which members expect to earn income in one of the listed ways and goods or services are provided by the promoter, whether to members or to others introduced by members. It also provides, subject to the affirmative procedures, for regulations to disapply the criterion relating to goods and services. The only exception on the face of the Bill is trading schemes which are already subject to control under the Financial Services Act.
However, the Bill provides for regulations to exclude other schemes. In view of the many schemes that have been devised in order to avoid the present controls, it is clearly appropriate for the precise coverage of the controls to be determined through secondary legislation. The Government have already stated their intention to use this power to exclude two types of scheme: first, franchise schemes in which only one UK member can benefit from the activities of other members; and, secondly, simple chain letters.
The meaning of "goods" in the Bill is wider than that which generally applies. It embraces rights to property, and thus money.
The Bill also extends the existing power to regulate promotional material aimed at potential new members. At present the regulations can apply only to documents. The Bill makes it possible to regulate the issue, circulation or distribution of any form of promotional material. I understand that both audio and video tapes and even the Internet are much-used means of reaching potential members. With regard to the regulation of promotional material, the Bill removes the present useless distinction between "invitations" and,
"other information calculated to lead to someone joining a trading scheme".
The Bill provides transitional arrangements so that proceedings cannot be brought as a result of the widening of the coverage of the controls against someone who has neither connived in nor consented to the act constituting the offence. The Bill has the necessary financial provision. I am pleased to report that it is expected to reduce public expenditure. The Bill also provides for a commencement order so that the Act can be brought into force at the same time as its secondary legislation.
1808
While the Bill is simple in concept, it is not in itself simple. I hope that I have been able to give your Lordships a simple explanation of what it comprises. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Astor of Hever.)
9.8 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not being my noble friend Lord Peston who, in turn, apologises for not being able to be present. I preface my brief remarks, as always, on Private Members' Bills by saying that I speak for myself and not for my party, but it is my understanding that my honourable friends in another place did welcome the Bill. I share that welcome and I wish the Bill well.
It is only the Bill's history that makes me somewhat unhappy. The Bill is, after all, an amendment to the Fair Trading Act 1973. The problems of trading schemes, which the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, in his excellent introduction, made clear are sometimes reputable and sometimes far less than reputable, have been around for a very long time. My honourable friends in another place have been pressing the Government for a number of years now for action to deal with what is a considerable volume of unfair trading and exploitation of vulnerable and sometimes gullible people.
Successive Ministers in the DTI over the years have said in response to my honourable friends that they were prepared to legislate for the problems which are properly raised in the Bill. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, two years ago said that he was powerless to stop these schemes getting off the ground. We knew that. That is why we have been pressing the Government themselves to legislate for such a long time.
I am disappointed on behalf of Back-Bench Members of another place that what ought to be government policy and government provision in legislation is in fact being done by means of a Private Member's Bill. In this case I do not believe that any harm is done in terms of the drafting, since I am sure that it was done by the department. Nevertheless, Private Members' Bills are supposed to represent an independent input to the legislative process. I do not think that is the case here. I believe that this is merely a government Bill which has been pushed on to a Private Member. I bear no ill will to Sir Nicholas Scott or to the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, but I think that the Government should have done it themselves.
9.10 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the Government welcome this Bill which has already been passed as a Private Member's Bill in another place with Government and all-party support.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers, when Minister for Consumer Affairs, announced on 23rd November 1994 that the Government proposed to update the legislation controlling pyramid selling and similar trading schemes. The following year, the Government consulted widely over specific proposals, including one to widen the coverage of the existing controls.

1809
Before offering support for this Bill, the Government considered the responses we received to that consultation. We noted in particular the firmly held views of those who operate trading schemes already subject to this legislation. They consider that this legislation provides much-needed protection to the members and potential members of some trading schemes. They are concerned that that protection is presently available only to members and potential members of a restricted group of schemes.
Sections 118 to 123 of the Fair Trading Act 1973, comprising Part XI of that Act, were designed to provide protection for those who belong or are invited to belong to what were then popularly called "pyramid selling schemes" or "multi-level distributorships" or "network marketing". The Bill uses the less colourful term "trading scheme".
Since the 1973 Act was passed there has been a proliferation of pyramid selling schemes which are outside the Act's controls. At present there is little protection for those who join those schemes. This Bill updates the 1973 Act by increasing control over potentially undesirable trading schemes while not inhibiting bona fide schemes which enable people to be self-employed either full- or part-time.
Successful bona fide trading schemes depend on sales to the general public. Problems arise with schemes where there is little scope or incentive for the distributors, or members, to sell the product to the general public. Rather, in some schemes, it may be almost impossible to find anyone willing to buy the product, in which case the distributors may find themselves left with garages full of stock that they cannot sell.
Problems arise also when, as in some schemes, the distributors are encouraged to recruit more and more new sub-distributors who begin by paying a joining fee or buying some substantial starter pack. Such schemes are similar to the well known chain letter except that the promoter always receives a cut of the so-called investment. Like all chain letters, because of the rules of geometric progression, you soon run out of people to recruit.
That is where the main abuse of such schemes now comes from. The first problem I described—mountains of unsaleable stock—can already be addressed effectively by regulations using existing powers under the Fair Trading Act 1973. But this Act is no longer effective in providing protection from what I consider to be recruitment scams. Those are schemes where the main focus is on recruitment. The schemes are so structured that the rewards for recruitment of new participants, as distinct from actually selling the product, are amazingly attractive.
Section 120 of the 1973 Act provides that it is an offence to use the prospect of benefits from introducing others to a scheme to induce someone to make a payment. The penalties are set out in Section 122 and are currently a fine of up to £5,000 and/or three months'
1810
imprisonment on summary conviction. Enforcement is in the hands of the DTI, which has to bring charges within one year of the discovering of the offence.
Despite a proliferation of trading schemes using recruitment rewards to induce payments, prosecutions have been extremely rare. There have been none over the past 10 years. The lack of prosecutions does not reflect a lack of concern. It is because the recruitment offence only applies if the scheme in question has all of the set of characteristics specified in Section 118 of the Fair Trading Act. It is not difficult to devise a scheme that lacks one or more of these characteristics.
The reason for the present Bill is to widen the application of the existing controls over trading schemes and thereby increase the protection for the general public as well as for members or all such schemes. The principal control under the 1973 Act was intended to prevent pyramid selling schemes being focused on recruitment rather than on selling. It does so through recruitment offences.
It effectively makes it an offence to operate a scheme which meets the criteria of the Act if payments for recruitment are the inducement to join the scheme. It is not illegal to join the scheme or to make payments. It is illegal to benefit from an unlawfully induced payment or to attempt to induce such a payment. The coverage of this control is now too narrow. It does not apply, for example, to schemes which do not involve the supply of goods and services by members, even though in these schemes payments for recruiting other participants are the only reward for those who join.
It has been a source of considerable frustration that it has not been possible to prosecute the promoters of these schemes under the Fair Trading Act. The powers proposed under the new, replacement section will make it possible to outlaw these trading methods. As I have explained, we have used powers under other Acts to protect the public from the continuation of these undesirable if not fraudulent schemes, but these powers are themselves limited in their application. The Bill greatly extends the potential coverage of all these controls.
The powers under the 1973 Act are not only concerned with the recruitment offence. There are also regulations over the promotional material aimed at new recruits and regulations to ensure that participants are not unfairly treated by the promoters. Those regulations are still needed. They provide the framework within which both the promoters and the participants of bona fide trading schemes can flourish. The regulations do need improving. Following consultation last year, the Government intend to replace the regulations to provide more effective protection without increasing the compliance costs for promoters.
It is true that the Bill extends the coverage of the Part XI controls so that they can apply to any trading scheme which meets its criteria rather than the narrow criteria in the present Act. It is also true that there are many types of trading scheme which meet the Bill's criteria but for which the controls are not appropriate. An essential part of the Bill is that it provides the Secretary of State with power to exclude specified types of scheme from all the controls.

1811
The Government have already declared their intention to exclude two types of schemes: first, franchises in which only one person benefits from the activities of other participants; and, secondly, simple chain letters.
Views are already being sought on how best to achieve these intended exclusions and also on whether there are any other types of trading schemes that should he excluded from the controls. For example, it might be appropriate for the exclusion to take out any scheme where the members do not receive commission on other members' sales or receive any other kind of benefit from the activities of other members. I understand that such an exclusion would take out what are commonly described as "single level schemes", such as Avon, as well as most traditional types of franchise operation.
The key question is whether or not a type of scheme does or does not present the risks to the general public from which the Fair Trading Act is intended to provide protection. Some types of scheme do present risks. Such schemes should be subject to the recruitment offences and, if appropriate, regulations over their promotional material and participants' contract terms.
Trading schemes provide opportunities to hundreds of thousands of people to earn an income in the direct selling sector. Experience has shown that there is also a potential to exploit those who join such schemes. This legislation is intended to remove the scope for such abuse and thus leave the way clear for legitimate business to flourish.
The Trading Schemes Bill will ensure that protection is available to those who are considering joining, or might be induced to join, or who do join any trading scheme that meets its criteria. The Bill's criteria would make the protection much more widely available than at present. It seeks to remove the scope presently available to unscrupulous persons to devise schemes that avoid or evade these protecting controls.
On behalf of the Government, as I said at the beginning of this speech, I welcome this Bill and, like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, hope that it will soon become law.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords who took part in this evening's debate. This Bill has received all-party support and I hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading this evening.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Prisoners' Earnings Bill
9.22 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It is a short, practical and, I believe, eminently sensible Bill which is designed to help to motivate prisoners to get the most out of their sentences both for their own benefit and, perhaps more importantly, for the benefit of society in general.
1812
The Bill was introduced in another place by my honourable friend the Member for Finchley, Mr. Hartley Booth. It passed through all its stages there with the support of all parties and, therefore, I hope that it may commend itself to your Lordships.
Prison has two main purposes: first, it must punish the offender, and it does that by depriving him of his liberty; but, secondly, it should help the offender to lead a more useful and law-abiding life on his release from prison, which is more difficult, but the Bill aims to encourage that.
This is a short Bill and is rather technical in its terms but its purposes and methods are quite clear. The method is to authorise deductions from or levies on a prisoner's earnings when he is undertaking certain kinds of work to which I shall refer; and to provide for the way in which those deductions or levies should be applied for various good purposes.
The two aims of prison tend to work against one another. Prison is an artificial environment and many of the normal responsibilities and decisions of life are removed from the prisoner. If he is to be encouraged to live a law-abiding and useful life after release, prison life should increasingly be made to reflect the realities of the outside world as much as possible. The prisoner must therefore be encouraged to feel a sense of responsibility for his actions.
The Bill aims to contribute to that process of encouragement. It does so by providing the means by which, in return for the privilege—and it is a privilege—of earning substantially higher wages than they would normally do in prison, prisoners will contribute to their own upkeep and that of their dependants; they will contribute to crime prevention; and, indeed, to victim support schemes. That is greatly to the advantage of prisoners. It will also enable savings to be made by prisoners through their work which will then be repaid to them on their release.
Under the Bill's provisions, prison governors are authorised to make deductions from the wages paid to a prisoner participating in what is known as an enhanced wages scheme. That scheme is different from the ordinary run of prison labour for which prisoners receive a very limited amount each week. Alternatively, prison governors can make levies on the wages of prisoners who are working for outside employers for real wages. The Bill further provides that the deductions or levies must be used for the purposes that I have mentioned.
I should just mention that under the Bill, if a prisoner is not satisfied with the deductions made by the governor, he has the right to appeal to the Secretary of State. That is a useful safeguard. Then, of course, the Secretary of State must do as one might expect and either confirm the governor's decision or vary it.
As I have indicated, the Prison Service already has some schemes in place upon which the aims of the Bill can be based—the so-called enhanced wages schemes. Those schemes now cover 1,300 prisoners. There are 54,000 prisoners in prison in England and Wales, so the project has not got very far as yet; but it may do so. In

1813
addition to those prisoners, roughly 9,000 are employed in prison industries and on farms but without the benefit of the enhanced wages scheme.
Ordinarily, without the benefit of an enhanced wages scheme, a prisoner can be expected to be paid about £7 a week. However, under the scheme he or she can be paid from about £15 a week upwards, depending on productivity. I am told that the effects of the scheme on both output and motivation in the prisons where it has been practised have already been dramatically successful. In one workshop output trebled with the same number of workers.
The schemes are self-financing in that the extra pay is financed from the value of the extra output produced, and there is no extra cost to the taxpayer. Indeed, the taxpayer benefits from the scheme because the prisoner will be made—and this is one of the things that can be done by the deductions—to contribute to the cost of his being imprisoned.
There is also the pre-release employment scheme which enables some prisoners reaching the end of their sentence to work for outside employers at normal rates of pay on day release from prison. The Bill will provide a clear, legal framework for the deductions or levies which accompany those schemes.
I am willing to attempt to reply to any points that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, or my noble friend may raise on the matter. There is a great deal that I could say in introducing the Bill. Indeed, I could go through it clause by clause if your Lordships wished me to do so. However, as noble Lords have had the opportunity to read this short Bill, and bearing in mind the purposes which I mentioned and the method that I have described, I think that it might be better for me to leave any further comments that I have to my reply.
I should, however, just add this. Prison authorities will have to find more work for prisoners to do if the advantages of the Bill are to be obtained. It is crucial that this work should not be obtained at the expense of law-abiding jobseekers in the outside world and the wider community. That is why the Prison Service is increasingly looking for work in partnership with private sector firms rather than in competition with them. It is seeking out opportunities for import substitution or for particular processes or products where prison industries can meet a market need without affecting outside employment. In other words, there are some things that are needed in prisons which outside manufacturers just do not attempt to provide. There is an opportunity there.
With a prison population of over 54,000, if we can get a high proportion of them working productively, that will help in some small way to stimulate the economy and contribute to growth and hence to reduce unemployment. I hope your Lordships will agree that this Bill, though a small one, will have an all round benefit.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Renton.)
9.31 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as with the previous Bill, I preface my remarks by saying that Private Members' Bills are supported or otherwise in a personal capacity from this Dispatch Box. However, I have no hesitation in saying that I support the Bill and I welcome the initiative of the honourable Member for Finchley, and of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in bringing it before Parliament. I note that Mr. Hartley Booth paid tribute to the work of the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Penal Affairs Consortium in the thinking and preparation of this Bill. That encourages me even further to support it.
I was relieved to hear the noble Lord, Lord Renton, describe the purpose of prison as being punishment which he defined as being loss of liberty and rehabilitation. There have been those in the Government who have had rather more retributive ideas of imprisonment. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, adheres to the old, more liberal views of what prison is for. Of course it is undoubtedly true—everyone agrees with this—that the purpose of prison must be rehabilitation to a considerable extent. One of the best forms of rehabilitation—if we are to stop prisons being universities of crime—is for prisoners to have useful employment, and preferably employment which will be of value to them when they come out of prison. That, of course, is a particularly important element in prison employment and, as I understand it, in this Bill.
I am sure the noble Lord will agree that there are some constraints on what extra money can be earned by prisoners. I think most people would think it unreasonable if prisoners were able to earn more than those, for example, on job creation schemes, whose earnings consist of the dole plus a certain amount. That puts an upper limit on what it is possible to earn from prison earnings. There is also room for argument about the particular purposes for which the deductions might be used. Of course it is entirely reasonable that they should be used for victim support schemes, for example; but what about compensation to individual victims? It is usually assumed that prisoners do not have any resources to make compensation to individual victims. Would it not be worth considering whether the Bill should provide for compensation to individual victims as well as giving general support for victim support services?
The other constraint is that we have to ensure that those additional earnings are not used as a cost cutting exercise in the Prison Service. The noble Lord referred to the increase in the prison population in recent years. He will be as aware as we all are that in real terms the budgets of the Prison Service are being reduced to a considerable extent over the next three years; and we would not like to see prisoners' earnings used to cut costs in prisons. I do not believe that that is possible from the Bill. However, we should be clear that these are genuine extra earnings which are used genuinely for charitable or rehabilitative purposes.

1815
Allowing for those constraints on the possible effects, the Bill is not a panacea either for the budgets, the Prison Service or the costs of victim support services. However, it is a useful measure and it has our support.
9.36 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I intervene in the debate to assure your Lordships that the Government fully support the Bill. In doing so, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Renton on his excellent description of the Bill; and my honourable friend Dr. Hartley Booth.
Constructive work in prison can be shown to be helpful in reducing the risk of reoffending after release. It is essential to do what we can to improve the prisoner's prospects of getting a job outside prison. There is good research to suggest that work experience which leads to realistic job opportunities after release reduces reoffending rates. Along with having a stable home to go to, getting a job after release is the biggest single factor which separates ex-prisoners who avoid reoffending from those who do not.
But constructive work has the additional advantage for prisons that it actually brings income into the system. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, commented on costs. Costs and deductions will go straight into the consolidated fund. Such work also increases the amount of beneficial activity in prison. It enhances its quality, and, properly managed, it will reduce the cost of providing it.
The key is getting more prisoners to work, and getting prisoners to work harder while they are at work. Prisoners are required to work when it is available, but coercion alone cannot make them work harder or more effectively. Nor will it generate the will to work which is such an important aspect of the rehabilitative value of work in prison. But experience shows that prisoners will work harder if there is a reasonable incentive.
It cannot be left simply at that. Prisoners do not have the same living expenses as other people. It would be wrong to enable them simply to accumulate money; and it would be wrong not to take advantage of the rehabilitative potential that constructive work can offer: work which requires prisoners to show responsibility for themselves and their dependants, and for the consequences of their crimes. The Bill establishes a sensible framework, with appropriate safeguards, to maximise all the benefit of the enhanced wages scheme in prisons.
This leads me to the other reasons for Government support for this Bill. The first of these are those which my noble friend set out. It will benefit a wide range of people and organisations. It will benefit voluntary organisations dealing with the effects of crime. It will benefit society at large. It will benefit the prisoner while in prison and after release.
We also support the Bill because it reinforces the ability of the Prison Service to do what both the Woolf Report, the Learmont Report, and HM Inspector of Prisons also said it should: to provide active, busy prisons in which prisoners can do purposeful work.
1816
Thirdly, we support the Bill because it fits four square with what the Government believe prison regimes should be and do. We believe that prison regimes should not allow prisoners to be idle. They should make plain to the prisoner the value of hard work and working with others. They should enable the prisoner to make reparation to society. They should encourage the prisoner to take responsibility for his own actions, his own upkeep, and that of his dependants.
My noble friend asked about the number of people at present in the scheme. The suggested figure was 1,350. That is just the pilot scheme.
If it meets with your Lordships' approval, the Bill should go a long way towards achieving prison regimes of that kind. If I may say so, I believe that my honourable friend Dr. Hartley Booth has provided invaluable help to the Prison Service and the administration of justice by piloting the Bill so skilfully through its various stages elsewhere. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for the support which he has given to the Bill and I also appreciated his comments. I ought to answer him on two points that he made. First, he referred to the desirability of compensation to individual victims. I agree with him. The position under the Bill is that, when the court has made an order that a victim should be compensated by the accused, there will be a deduction from the earnings of the accused in order to help towards the victim's compensation. So that point is covered.
The second important point that the noble Lord made was that there should be constraints on the amount of money that may be earned. I can assure him that, even under day release schemes as the prisoner's sentence comes towards its end, the amount that the prisoner can earn must be decided by the governor. The prisoner will not merely be able to make a free bargain with the employer. I do not believe that we need worry about other employees' wages being undercut by prisoners. As I understand it, what the Home Secretary and the prison authorities have in mind is that the enhanced earnings and pre-release earnings must be earned on schemes where prisoners do not compete with labour in our own employment market. They compete with importers. That is rather different. Alternatively, when nothing comes in by way of import nor is anything produced in our own factories it produces goods which are needed in the prisons. One prison found it necessary to get prison mugs made and managed to find an employer who was willing to embark on that under the enhanced earnings scheme. So I hope that will set the noble Lord's mind at rest.
I ask that your Lordships give the Bill a second reading and, in doing so, I wish to say how grateful I am for the support that it has received.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Stalking (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
9.43 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill has had a somewhat tangled history in the sense that the issue of stalking and harassment of individuals by other individuals over a considerable time in various often painful ways has been before Parliament on a number of occasions. Most recently it was during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill in 1994. In another place Lady Olga Maitland sought to introduce a measure which would have provided for additional penalties against stalking, and would have amended Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and Section 154 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill as it then was. She was supported by Labour Members but opposed by the Government on grounds which the Government still use; namely, they support the principle of a Bill of this kind but are still consulting about the way in which it should be achieved.
Since that time there has been the abortive Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill, which achieved the support of this House but was ignominiously abandoned at the end of the last Session, and has only half been brought back in the Family Law Bill. It is not that that is on the same subject, but it provides very much the same kind of definition of an offence as is provided by the Bill I present today. The analogies are quite valuable.
There have been some improvements in the way in which the matter has been treated in the courts. Most recently, it was established that there is an offence of psychological grievous bodily harm. Anthony Burstow was convicted of grievous bodily harm to Tracey Sant and sentenced to three years' imprisonment for a series of very foul stalking activities towards her. He sent her soiled sanitary towels, he stole her underwear from lines and poured salt on her car. Generally speaking, he made her life impossible over a considerable period of time.
Some stalking does not consist of acts that are violent or offensive in themselves, but can consist of acts which in isolation might be perfectly reasonable, such as sending flowers or gifts, but which over a period of time, by repetition and often by including excessive phone calls and letters, can be exceedingly painful in total to the person being stalked.
I should make it clear that stalking is not only by men of women. Kingsley Martin, when he was editor of the New Statesman before, during and after the war was stalked for a considerable number of years by a woman who was described as elderly with thick glasses and grey hair, who used to appear at his home as he was about to leave for work, appear at work as he was arriving from home, appear when he went out from the New Statesman office, and appear on every occasion when, for example, he went to speak at public meetings. It reached the stage over a period of years where he would not leave his home or office without a member of his family or a colleague accompanying him. It was very painful. I believe he succeeded in getting an
1818
injunction from a judge in chambers to stop it. Apparently, the injunction worked on that occasion. This Bill is not purely about women being stalked by men. The offence can apply to anybody, although it is undoubtedly true that it applies mainly to women being stalked by men.
When the police are approached by people who are being stalked, they give various practical advice which I am sure is valid. They talk about having a mobile phone available and about panic buttons; and they refer from time to time to the possibility of action to prevent a breach of the peace. As was recognised by the Government as recently as 9th May, when Mr. David Maclean wrote to my honourable friend Janet Anderson, who introduced a Bill earlier this year, the Government are looking for a solution to the problem at the earliest opportunity. Mr. Maclean told Janet Anderson that the Lord Chancellor's Department was aware of the analogy of domestic violence legislation and was looking to see how that might be used as an analogy in seeking to solve the problem of stalking.
As I said, the problem is not that the Government do not recognise the importance of the issue, which affects very painfully and over a very long period of time a considerable number of women in this country, but that they do not know—or claim they do not know—what to do about it. This Bill may not be a perfect attempt, but it is certainly a serious attempt, to deal with the problem of stalking.
Clause 1 provides definitions of stalking and spells out a whole number of activities which will be called "stalking", provided that they are:
"reasonably likely to cause that other person to feel harassed, alarmed, distressed or to fear for his safety".
Clause 2 provides that stalking is an offence when defined in that way, with a penalty of up to five years' imprisonment; that a constable may effect an arrest without a warrant; but that a defence exists for the offence if the accused:
"did not know and had no reasonable cause to believe"
that his actions caused the other person to feel harassed, alarmed, distressed, or fear for her safety.
Clause 3 provides for prohibitory orders to be granted by magistrates on the application of somebody who is being stalked. There is provision for such orders to be granted without the appearance of the respondent; but the respondent may appear, and if he does, the issue is decided on the balance of probability. It does not mean, if a prohibitory order is given, that the respondent is guilty of a criminal offence. There is reference in the Bill to the possibility of counselling for the respondent. But the clause provides that there is an offence for breach of the conditions of a prohibitory order.
Clause 4, which is very brief, excludes those who are acting in pursuit of a statutory or other lawful authority.
Clause 5 is concerned with "Citation, commencement and extent".
A number of objections have been raised. Indeed, there was a News Release by the Home Office on 9th May which accompanied Mr. David Maclean's letter to Janet Anderson. It is necessary for me briefly

1819
to rehearse those objections and consider how far the Bill deals with them and how further work may be required in Committee.
First, it is argued that the definition of stalking is too wide. There are laws against stalking in other parts of the world. Laws exist in Canada, states of the United States and states in Australia. They appear to work. In this Bill we have taken the best and most workable definitions of stalking and sought to put them into British legislation. If they are too wide, it is up to Parliament to narrow them and be more precise about them when the matter comes to Committee.
Another objection is that journalists, in particular, might be constrained from their activities by a stalking law. Of course, the whole issue of what journalists may or may not do in pursuit of a news story goes very much wider than stalking. It is part of privacy law. The adequacy of the law of privacy and proposals for strengthening the law of privacy are of enormous importance and will have to be debated by Parliament at some stage, if only because it appears that the European Court of Human Rights is not satisfied with British legislation on this matter. I do not feel that I need pursue the matter here, except to say that there are defences provided in Clauses 2 and 4 of the Bill.
Then there is the objection that the Bill provides a combination of civil and criminal measures to deal with stalking. Frankly, I find that objection incomprehensible. I do not see why we should not use both the criminal and civil law to pursue what is patently agreed to be an offence. I do not see why we should not have one single Act of Parliament referring both to the civil and criminal law. There have been improvements in the powers of the civil law in regard to stalking. There is now more generally recognised a civil offence of harassment. A case as recent as July of last year in the Court of Appeal of Burris v. Azadan is an example of that.
We need not only a civil offence which is available theoretically, but also a civil offence which is available easily in a magistrates' court—which is what is proposed in the Bill. We need something which does not require legal aid; we need informal procedures; we need the issue to be judged on the balance of probabilities and we need what the Bill provides—that is, that the respondents should not acquire a criminal record as a result. It is no good leaving it to the common law because the common law does not provide adequate powers of arrest. I would argue that the combination of the criminal and the civil law is necessary to deal with this acknowledged offence and the acknowledged pain experienced by a significant number of people in this country.
I conclude by saying to the Government that I appreciate that their anxieties about the drafting of the Bill may be genuine. I am not saying that they are not real concerns being expressed by lawyers advising the Home Office or the Lord Chancellor's Department. But we have an opportunity in this House—and that is what this House is for—to consider a draft Bill which I put before your Lordships now; to consider it with the help of officials and draftsmen and to come up with something which Parliament can consider and approve.
1820
I challenge the Minister to say whether, if this Bill goes to Committee as I believe it should, they are willing to participate in the process at Committee; whether they are willing not only to comment on amendments that may be tabled by other people, but also to suggest improvements of their own. It is in all our interests that we should proceed as quickly as possible, consistent with good legislation, to deal with stalking. That is what, above all, the women of this country want. It is within the power of government and the Home Office to give them that help and that assurance. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
9.53 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I was interested to hear the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in introducing this Bill. He covered the ground far better and more thoroughly than I can. I totally agree with him that behaviour now identified as stalking is wholly abhorrent and unacceptable. One can only feel the greatest sympathy for anyone who suffers from that form of harassment.
I rise to speak for two reasons. First, I wonder whether this is the right Bill to deal with this matter. I have great sympathy with those who have the responsible task—it is a terrible task—of drafting a parliamentary Bill. I have to say that the intentions of the Bill, and therefore, of course, of those who drafted it, are entirely honourable. But what I can only describe as a "you know what I mean" approach to legislation simply is not satisfactory. There is also the question, to which I shall return, of how far a person who feels that they are being stalked can obtain redress under existing law.
Next, I shall quote from the Bill—and I hope I shall be forgiven for this—somewhat selectively. Clause 1 states:
"In this Act, 'stalking' shall mean engaging in a course of conduct whereby a person—
(a) follows, loiters near, watches or approaches another person".
I miss out paragraph (b) deliberately. Paragraph (c) states:
"loiters near, watches, approaches or enters a place where another person lives, works or repeatedly visits".
Paragraph (g) states:
"does any other act or acts in connection with another person so as to be reasonably likely to cause that other person to feel harassed, alarmed, distressed",
and so on. Clause 2(1) then states quite properly:
"A person who stalks another person is guilty of an offence".
Finally, Clause 2(3) states:
"A constable may arrest without warrant a person whom he has reasonable cause to suspect to have committed or to be about to commit an offence of stalking".
That is the wording of the Bill. We need to consider one or two situations. All the world is supposed to love a lover, or so it was said. But how many young swains have loitered for the chance of a glimpse of an unobtainable object of desire? I remember being 17, 18 or 19, once a long time ago. I accept that times have

1821
changed and a more direct approach, perhaps not to say a blunt approach, may have become the norm. But do we really wish to make that a criminal offence? The Bill does.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, the Bill provides in Clause 2(4):
"It shall be a defence to a charge under this section if the person charged proved that he did not know and had no reasonable cause to believe that his behaviour was likely to cause harassment, alarm, distress or fear".
I am sure that when the noble Lord was a lovesick swain he would have successfully pleaded that defence.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am well aware of the defence that is in the Bill and I will come to it in a few moments.
One could foresee other problems, and again one could say that these matters are to a certain extent handled by the latter parts of the Bill. But imagine an investigator looking for evidence in a case of insurance fraud. That could very easily be misconstrued if someone is watching someone else persistently. Consider, even worse, somebody trying to take or obtain evidence in a case of social security fraud. Again, he could very easily lay himself open to a charge of stalking. If we bring in this law as drafted that is what could easily happen. Even if the defence were accepted and so on, perfectly innocent individuals could be summarily arrested and have to talk their way out of what could be an exceedingly embarrassing situation. That may be meaningless, but they could be in that situation. We need to be aware of that in anything we finally put on the statute book.
Worse still, as drafted, you could be following a lady down a road on a dark rainy night and she could become very uncomfortable in that situation. I have seen this happen. She could run into a policeman who happened to have had a quarrel with his wife that morning and been bawled out by his son and therefore was in a difficult mood. Again, one could have a situation where instantaneous arrest was possible. One could talk one's way out of it but it could be exceedingly difficult and embarrassing. The only bit of imagination that needs to be stretched in that scenario is meeting a policeman on the street on a dark wet night, because, unfortunately, policemen are less and less often on their feet in the street nowadays.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out that sexual harassment is not only one way and stalking is not only one way. I have certainly heard of one case where a young man had his life made absolutely impossible by a girl. He was in serious fear lest she should set about charging him with rape. It is one thing to be charged with rape if you actually committed the crime, but entirely another, and exceedingly difficult, if you did not. As I have said, there are problems with the Bill as drafted.
I turn now to the defence to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred. Clause 2(4) states:
1822
"It shall be a defence to a charge under this section if the person charged proved that he did not know and had no reasonable cause to believe that his behaviour was likely to cause harassment, alarm, distress or fear for personal safety as mentioned in section 1 above, and the burden of proof shall lie upon the defendant".
I am a simple man and I have a simple mind, but I had always thought that it was a cardinal principle of British law that you are innocent until proved guilty. Therefore, I find this defence difficult to accept in that context.
I turn now to the protection offered by the existing law. I am indebted to my family solicitors for this advice. I more or less asked them the question: what would you do if somebody said that they were being stalked? There are two possibilities of remedy under Acts in the criminal code. First, the Public Order Act 1986 creates a criminal offence if a person,
"(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour".
or, in paragraph (b), "distributes or displays" to another person writing which is "threatening, abusive or insulting", or a person is guilty of an offence if he or she displays threatening or abusive behaviour with the intention of causing harassment, alarm or distress. That covers a large part of what this Bill is all about.
Next, the Malicious Communications Act 1988 makes it an offence to communicate with intent to cause distress or anxiety. Again, that aspect is mentioned in this Bill.
Because in this age divorce is common and family stress and division seem to be becoming—heaven help us—the norm rather than the exception, many actions of the sort we are discussing arise out of matrimonial tension and dispute, so the civil courts make possible many forms of action under family protection orders, exclusion orders or matrimonial injunctions that can be used to restrain the other party. Perhaps I may misquote a recent letter to The Times after the failure of the No. 1 Bill in another place and say, "The challenge for the courts is to use the existing law effectively".
In its present form, the Bill will not do. To quote from Yvonne Von Heusen's letter to The Times on behalf of the National Anti-Stalking and Harassment Campaign:
"Without consultation with us, Mrs. Anderson (the Bill's promoter) used our proposals yet provided an ineffective and unenforceable Bill".
Whether the Bill is beyond redemption I hesitate to say. What I am certain of is that we should be very cautious with the Bill as drafted or we could, as happened with the Dangerous Dogs Act, legislate in haste and repent at leisure.
10.10 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I shall not detain the House long at this time of night, but I wish to say a few words in support of the case for the Bill, so ably argued by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
Perhaps I may deal first with some of the arguments referred to by the noble Lord who has just spoken. He began by expressing sympathy for the victims of harassment. I understand that sympathy to be genuine. But he then pursued an argument which suggested that, as legislators, we should give our sympathy but not take any action. The conclusion was that this proposed

1823
legislation was not redeemable and so deeply flawed and had so many risks in it that there were grave doubts as to the wisdom of taking it forward. That is my understanding, but I shall willingly give way if that is incorrect.
I suggest that, equally, there are risks in not legislating speedily. I believe that there is a general acceptance that, although there is a panoply of remedies presently available in various situations, those remedies are disparate and many victims of this serious problem, given the despair that can be caused by this harassment, do not find them adequate.
I am afraid that here we are dealing with forms of behaviour that are far more sinister than the mooning of lovesick swains or the innocent following of women down dark, wet roads at night with no ulterior purpose; and we are dealing with a range of different forms of behaviour. That is one of the difficulties in definition and the reason for the breadth of definition that we must have in any legislation. The particular behaviour and its significance, given the context, are difficult to pin down but can be equally distressing for the victim. While it is absolutely correct to say that this is not an offence committed by one sex or the other, some of the most horrifying cases of harassment have gone unchecked, and the ones that have ended with rape and violent attack have been offences against women. I believe that women in the main feel particularly threatened by this range of behaviour.
My understanding is that there is general agreement that the harassment and molestation which cause distress to so many women need to be curtailed. I believe that there is a need for speedy legislation in the declaratory sense; that is, to indicate the seriousness with which these forms of behaviour are viewed and to grant some relief and remedy to those who find the current range of piecemeal legislation very unsatisfactory.
This Bill is by no means perfect. Seldom at Second Reading do we have a Bill that is perfect. However, it contains a sensible definition which, though wide, is based on international experience. It provides the protection through prohibitory orders which is lacking at the moment. I believe that it strikes a proper balance between the interests of complainants and respondents. The role of the magistrates' court, and the accessibility and effectiveness of that system, have an important role in bringing succour to victims.
It has been suggested that, while supporting the principle of legislation, the Government believe that the defects are such that we ought to wait and take a more considered view. I understand that there has been wide consultation on the proposals and that within them is a framework on which we can build during the Committee stage and so improve the Bill. Any necessary amendments could be tabled and argued in this Chamber and the Bill could be turned into a workable and effective measure.
There is, as I said, an urgency in this—an urgency that we as legislators should recognise both the scale of the problem and the distress that it causes, and an urgency to provide remedies for those already suffering
1824
and protection for those who are at risk from these forms of behaviour. I hope that the Minister will be able to give support to the Bill.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the actions which are known as stalking are a menace to our society. The actions of stalkers can have a devastating impact on the lives of their victims. The Government share the desire to do something to put a stop to that menace.
There are, of course, existing laws which can deal with the worst cases of stalking as recent prosecutions against stalkers for causing grievous or actual psychological harm demonstrate. It was interesting that the cases cited by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, were dealt with by the courts and that the offenders ended up in prison.
It is an offence, under the provisions of the Public Order Act 1986 intentionally to cause harassment, alarm or distress. It is an offence under the Misuse of Telecommunications Act 1984 to make indecent, obscene or threatening telephone calls and under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 to send letters of that kind.
But the Government have recognised that there is a gap in the present legislation to deal with situations where harassment, alarm or distress is caused but where intent to do so cannot be proved. We have been studying legislation against stalking in Australia, Canada and the United States, to see whether their solutions are relevant to the situation here in the United Kingdom. We have also been looking at the existing criminal and civil remedies in this country, to see whether we could build on those remedies to address this problem.
This is a difficult area in which to legislate, since many of the individual actions in which stalkers engage are, in themselves, quite harmless—walking up and down a street, or standing on a street corner, for example. Much of the activity which can be described as stalking can, in another context, be something entirely innocent done as part of normal activity.
We have to get this right. Any legislation in this area must be effective against stalkers and provide victims with adequate security and redress. But it must not inhibit people from going about their everyday business. The Government therefore consider that it is essential that we move forward in this area in co-operation and consultation with those who are seeking change, or who might be affected by new proposals.
When the honourable Lady who introduced a Bill on stalking in another place gave notice that she intended to do so, my right honourable friend the Minister of State agreed that she could speak to the Home Office, which was looking at this problem, so that she could be aware of our thinking and also of the difficulties which remained unresolved. My right honourable friend offered those discussions because he felt—rightly—that this issue was one in which a bipartisan approach was appropriate and achievable. The Home Office offered detailed advice to the honourable Lady on the shortcomings of her proposals, explaining that they did

1825
not address the complexities of the issue, such as the need to ensure that any criminal offence did not catch legitimate activities.
I understand that the honourable Lady also met the Lord Chancellor, who similarly pointed out that the scope of the proposals was too wide. It is a matter of regret, therefore, that, when the honourable Lady brought forward her Bill—similar to the one we are discussing tonight—it did not address the outstanding difficulties. The problems of drafting an appropriate provision in this area are considerable and more thought has to be given to the subject to get it right.
My right honourable friend recognised fully the intention behind the Bill, but came to the conclusion that the defects in the Bill could not be put right in Committee. I was therefore saddened that there were accusations that the Government did not support that Bill, or will not support this Bill, because they were introduced by members of an opposition party.
As I have said, we support the Bill's intentions. We want to get it right. We should like to see a Bill on the statute book. We believe that it can be done with all-party support. That is not the issue. The issue is that no responsible government should ever allow onto the statute book provisions which would make criminals out of ordinary citizens pursuing legitimate activities.
Let me make clear the reasons why the measures in the Bill under discussion today are unacceptable to the Government. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith set out some of those reasons most eloquently. The scope of the Bill is too wide. It would catch the legitimate activities of not only journalists—although there may be some who would regard that as no bad thing!—but also others going about their lawful business. It provides both civil and criminal remedies against stalking without any reference to the circumstances in which either remedy would be appropriate. There is no requirement to prove intent or recklessness in the criminal offence. And I do not believe that the Bill's proposal to reverse the burden of proof, a point so well made by my noble friend, so that a defendant would have to prove themselves innocent, is justifiable.
I think it worthwhile recalling the comments on the Government's attitude to the earlier Bill introduced by the honourable lady, made at the time by Dr. Evonne Von Heussen of the National Anti-Stalking and Harassment campaign, the leading voluntary organisation for the victims of stalking, and in campaigning for new legislation. I shall use a different quotation. She said:
"A bad Bill is worse than no Bill … You have to be able to defend legitimate activities such as debt collecting against the stalking charge. I think the Government is taking a genuine stance".
I believe that she was right. We need to do something about this serious problem, but we need to do it without sowing the seeds of future injustices.
I have to say that I am surprised that the Opposition has not taken note of her views or consulted other groups who might find themselves the innocent victims of the proposed new offence, particularly as measures in this Bill could prove a nightmare for innocent people
1826
branded as criminals for engaging in legitimate activity. They would also have the burden of proving their innocence.
I do not think either that it would be right to rush into decisions and try to amend this Bill in Committee. The Government believe, as I have said, that consultation is essential on measures of this kind. We therefore intend to publish a consultation paper as soon as possible. I cannot give a date for publication but it is being considered as a matter of urgency and I hope that it will be published shortly. We shall take note of comments on that paper so that effective measures can be introduced to combat this menace.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, referred to wide consultations on the present proposals. I am not aware of those. I know that consultations have taken place with officials in the department and that that advice was ignored. I also know that consultations have taken place with the Lord Chancellor and that that advice was ignored. We are not aware of consultations with Dr. Von Heussen. Indeed, in her letter to the Telegraph she stated that she would have welcomed consultation.
The noble Baroness also said that although there are a panoply of remedies they are far too disparate. I suggest that stalking itself can be pretty disparate both in the nature of the activity and in the range: from the wholly innocent, to the most sinister. The complexity and the nature of stalking is all the more reason why the Bill needs thinking through more fully. It is too complex and sensitive a subject on which to legislate on the hoof and speedily.
We need to consult with interested people because we must get it right. This Bill is not right. We do not believe that it should be amended in Committee unless we have had a proper, formal consultation with interested parties. Therefore, the Government cannot support it, although in keeping with the traditions of this House, I shall not oppose its Second Reading tonight.
10.25 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall try, so far as possible, to look for points of agreement rather than for points of disagreement. I acknowledge the spirit and the moderation in which the Minister responded to the Bill, although of course I am disappointed at her conclusions.
I acknowledge—and I should have said—that Janet Anderson was grateful to David Maclean and officials in the Home Office for the offer of talks which she took up and, indeed, for the opportunity of discussions with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. She felt that it was better to proceed with a Bill as drafted and deal with the points that were raised in Committee because she had hoped that the Bill would not be obstructed on Second Reading. That is a matter of opinion. She might have made a misjudgment about the timing but there was no disagreement about the value of the consultation which took place. There is disagreement only about the way in which we should proceed in order to get something effective on to the statute book as quickly as possible.

1827
There is no disagreement among us about the gravity of the offence or about the inadequacy about the present law. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, seemed to be saying that the problem was less than might otherwise appear because of the possibilities of the present law. But the examples which he gave and the examples which the Minister cited from the Public Order Act referred to acts which were, in themselves, harassment; in other words, acts which were offensive.
The whole point about stalking is that it often consists of acts which are not in themselves offensive. It is not offensive to walk up and down the road, to phone up and say, "I love you", to write love letters or to send flowers. I suppose that it becomes rather offensive at four o'clock in the morning. However, the point about the extension which is required to the law, which was recognised by the Home Office in the press release of 9th May, is that many activities which cause great pain are not in themselves harassment. They are innocent actions—in other circumstances they would be innocent actions. Therein lies the difficulty. I believe that we are all genuinely agreed about that.
I find it difficult to accept the Government's argument that this is legislation on the hoof. The issue has been before Parliament for two years since Lady Olga Maitland raised the issue and if, as I believe, she was right in raising it when the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill was before Parliament, then surely there has been plenty of opportunity for a determined government to undertake the necessary consultation between 1994 and now.
Janet Anderson has consulted. She has perhaps not done so as widely as the Home Office can but she has talked not only to officials from the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department but also to the Police Federation, the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, the National Anti-Stalking and Harassment Campaign and other interested parties.
The Minister is merely saying to us now that there will be consultation at some time in the future. We are in the last year of this Parliament. I am not going to give any undertaking about what legislation will be dealt with
1828
in the first year's programme of a Labour Government. But I am sure that your Lordships will understand that there are matters which have very high political priorities and it may be difficult to give priority to measures of this kind. But we have an opportunity now. We have an opportunity to build on the talks which have already taken place and which could be debated in Committee.
I have negotiated for a Committee stage which will take place on Friday, 28th June. I have tabled amendments which have been suggested by lawyers which I believe will improve the Bill. There are other improvements, some referred to by the Minister and some referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, which I shall consider very seriously and think about tabling amendments accordingly.
However, in Committee I wish to pin down the Government, if possible, so that they say exactly what is wrong with the Bill and what could be done to put it right. If anything can be done by negotiation as well as in Committee to achieve that, then even if we do not find time in the House of Commons for it in the course of this Session, we might have made some legislative progress towards a Bill which could get through in the next Session without unnecessary controversy. That is the purpose of this exercise. I appeal to the Government to assist it in any way possible. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

University College London Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at half past ten o'clock.

  EU Measures: UK Vetoes
  EU Measures: UK Vetoes
  UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
  UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
  Burma
  Burma
  Graphite Imports: Alleged Prison-made Origin
  Graphite Imports: Alleged Prison-made Origin
  Police Search Warrant: National Sporting Club
  Police Search Warrant: National Sporting Club
  Legal Services: Ombudsman's Annual Report
  Legal Services: Ombudsman's Annual Report
  UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Rockall
  UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Rockall
  Battersea Power Station
  Battersea Power Station
  Heathrow Airport: Collapse of Tunnels
  Heathrow Airport: Collapse of Tunnels
  British Rail: Sale of Companies
  British Rail: Sale of Companies