Sitting of 19 June 1996

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

  POINT OF ORDER
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I tabled two motions in the Table Office last night, about the North Wales police. Neither has appeared on the Order Paper this morning.
  Madam Speaker: I am not aware of the activities of the hon. Lady last night in relation to the Table Office, but of course I will be glad to make inquiries to find out what it was all about.

  Further Education (Scotland)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
  9.35 am
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate on the very important matter of the funding of Scottish colleges of further education. Perhaps a better title for the debate would be "The underfunding of Scottish colleges of further education", because the underfunding is so serious that some colleges are rapidly approaching a crisis.
  Many of the problems stem from 1993, when the Government removed Scottish colleges of further education from local education authority control. Before 1993, there was a strong element of local control and accountability, and local education authorities were able to take decisions to improve the funding of the further education colleges, taking into account local circumstances and priorities.
  However, since incorporation was introduced in 1993, the 43 colleges have depended almost entirely on central Government instead of local government for funding. Since the financial year 1994–95, there has been a cut of grant in aid from £241 million to £230 million, with a further planned reduction to £211 million by the year 1998–99, making a total reduction at 1994–95 prices of £30 million or 12.5 per cent., yet there has been an increase of 23 per cent. in full-time equivalent student numbers since incorporation and an increase of 50 per cent. in students taking higher education courses in FE colleges. The Minister may tell us later that the revenue element for the current financial year increased compared with that for last year, but the extra revenue was funded by cutting the capital element.
  Twenty-eight of the 43 colleges have suffered real cuts in income this year, and although the cut for any individual college has been limited to a maximum of 5 per cent.—
  794
  about 8 per cent. after taking inflation into account—there is no guarantee that there will be such a limit next year. The consequences for many colleges have been very serious. Twelve colleges suffered the maximum cuts, including some of the largest colleges in Scotland, such as Bell, Dundee, Fife and Inverness, as well as some of the smaller colleges, such as Coatbridge and Thurso. Another victim of the maximum cut is the Jewel and Esk Valley college, which suffered such a bad cut last year that the management resorted to compulsory redundancies.
  The underfunding has been exacerbated by the fact that Scottish Enterprise is also cutting its training budget, which in effect will reduce the income to colleges that participate in training schemes funded by local enterprise companies.
  Responsibility for student bursaries has been transferred from local education authorities to the colleges, but despite the increasing number of students the total amount for bursaries has been frozen at £45 million a year for the next three years. As a result, many students will inevitably suffer considerable hardship.
  It is ironic, too, that at a time when the number of students is increasing the number of staff in many colleges is decreasing. Last year saw the first ever compulsory redundancies, and more jobs are threatened if the underfunding continues. At Falkirk college in my constituency, the college authorities have apparently run out of volunteers opting for early retirement; and the Scottish Office pension scheme for early retirers is limited to employees over the age of 50. Since incorporation, more than 100 employees, including teaching and support staff, have left Falkirk college. The financial restrictions imposed by the Government also have a limiting effect on salary negotiations. That in turn has an adverse effect on staff morale.
  Education is not, however, simply a job for teachers and lecturers. Teachers' jobs are very important, of course, but what is even more important is the valuable service that teachers provide by improving the educational, training and job opportunities of students—including the 200,000 students who attend Scottish colleges of further education. If there is a significant reduction in the number of teachers, that could lead to larger class sizes, and it could have an adverse effect on the quality of education.
  There is also a danger of some entire courses being discontinued, and even of the scrapping of whole areas of the curriculum. Specialist courses will be available in fewer colleges, so students will be obliged to travel further and colleges may feel obliged to drop courses whose cost per student is relatively high—for instance, in construction and engineering.
  The Government have also frozen the intakes to higher education courses in FE colleges and have stopped the introduction of new higher national certificate, higher national diploma and degree courses. Yet Ministers tell us that they agree about the need to increase the number of people who are educated and vocationally trained to high standards.
  This country does not compare well with our major industrial competitors in the proportion of our work force with full craft and technician qualifications. The FE colleges have a key role in providing such qualifications, which are essential to our economic and industrial regeneration. It therefore does not make economic sense to deprive the colleges of the resources to do the job.

  795
  The cuts also affect buildings maintenance and equipment, and students will find it difficult to reach their full potential if they are in oversized classes, in overcrowded classrooms or ill-equipped workshops. Later, the Minister may refer to the private finance initiative, but the PFI will not be enough to renew or replace dilapidated buildings or obsolete equipment; and some colleges may be forced to cut recurrent expenditure in order to fund essential capital projects.
  The reason for the crisis facing many colleges is not just the inadequacy of the total grant in aid from the Scottish Office. There are also allegations about the unfairness of the formula used to allocate to each college its share of the grant. The total grant is divided up according to SUMs, or student units of measurement, generated by each college in the previous financial year. A SUM is defined as 40 hours of teaching delivered to a student.
  Although some other factors are also taken into account, there is considerable concern that the formula does not take sufficient account of the diversity of the 43 college system. Some colleges are large, others are small. Some are in urban areas, others in small towns or rural areas. Some are polytechnics, others are virtually monotechnics. Some may have stronger community links than others.
  The larger colleges complain that all 43 colleges receive the same amount of "institutional factor", irrespective of size. The institutional factor currently amounts to about £250,000 a year, which can be as much as 10 per cent. of the budget of a small college, compared with only 2 per cent. of the budget of a large one. The polytechnics complain that the formula discriminates against them because they have a greater proportion of higher education courses—for example, higher national certificate courses—which are more expensive to operate but which attract less money than further education courses under the existing formula. Yet the skills gap in this country is mainly at HNC or SVQ III and IV levels, which—ironically—are the worst funded courses in Scottish FE colleges.
  The formula also discriminates against colleges in areas with low potential for assistance from the European social fund or the European regional development fund. This could amount to a difference of as much as £1 million a year between the amounts of help available for colleges of similar size.
  There are also complaints about the fact that the funding is based on past student numbers, thereby limiting the opportunity to fund future developments, especially if high capital investment is required for new proposals. Such projects at Falkirk college would include biotechnology, food technology, petrochemical plant and mechatronics. The college management has set the laudable objective of becoming mid-Scotland's polytechnic by the year 2000, but Government underfunding will make it more difficult to achieve that objective.
  The volatile operation of the funding formula has also been criticised. It tends to produce some large annual variations in the budgets of some colleges, so that it is quite possible for a college to make people redundant one year and take on additional staff the following year.
  796
  Obviously, that does not help with continuity or planning. Such volatility could be alleviated if the funding formula were based on the numbers of full-time equivalent students—a methodology already used by the higher education funding councils. If the core funding for each college were supplemented by development funding, that would also help with planning.
  Moreover, the Government should stop the capping of higher education in those colleges, and should end the unfair anomaly that higher education courses in FE colleges attract less funding than further education courses. The funding of higher education courses should be the same in the FE colleges as in the universities, and the Government should look at the possibility of making the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council responsible for the funding of all higher education in Scotland, both in universities and in colleges of further education.
  Finally, the Government should give further consideration to strengthening the links between colleges and local education authorities by decentralising the funding process. I realise the Government's unwillingness to turn back the clock, but perhaps some contractual arrangement between the colleges and the local education authorities for the funding of further education courses would enable the different characters of the colleges to be recognised and would enable the colleges to retain the benefits of incorporation while giving them an element of local control and accountability.
  In any event, the Government must give urgent consideration to the serious problem of underfunding of the colleges. The further education colleges have made an important contribution to increasing the participation of people in education, particularly young people. By 1998, the total number of 17 and 18-year-olds will have increased by 12 per cent. since 1995. The Government have set a key target for 2000—that 70 per cent. of young people will have at least an SVQ III qualification. However, last year only 51 per cent. of young people had that qualification—19 per cent. short of the target—and last year's figure was lower than that for 1993. The colleges have an important role in meeting the key targets for 2000.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The hon. Gentleman referred to young people in our colleges. Does he accept that further education colleges also have a significant role for women whose families have grown up and who wish to return to college to undertake courses? One of the difficulties that these women face is that some of the colleges charge for creche and nursery facilities. This aspect should be looked at in depth. Women should be encouraged back into employment.
  Mr. Canavan: I agree with the hon. Lady. Many of the courses that appeal to women may be discontinued if the Government do not provide adequate funding, which will severely limit education opportunities for many women throughout Scotland.
  The colleges have traditionally played an important part in Scottish life, enabling many people to continue their education—whether it be for their individual development and enlightenment or for the acquisition of the types of vocational qualifications that are so essential for industry, commerce and the economy. If the colleges are to continue their excellent work, they must be given sufficient resources.

  797
  The Government must face up to their responsibilities. They introduced incorporation, so they can no longer pass the buck to local education authorities. The Government must provide the resources now. More expenditure on the colleges should be a top priority: it is an investment in education, an investment in training, an investment in people, and therefore an investment in Scotland's future.
  9.53 am
  Mr. William McKelvey: Good morning, Madam Speaker. I congratulate my learned Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on securing this important debate and on covering it so eloquently. He has left little for other hon. Members to say, other than to mention important issues that concern the colleges that he did not mention, such as Kilmarnock college.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is there a precedent for a colleague saying good morning to you?
  Madam Speaker: No, I do not think that there is. In four and a half years, I do not think that anyone has ever said good morning or good afternoon to me—which is why I appreciated it this morning, after a rather late night.
  Mr. McKelvey: Madam Speaker, the point that you raise is valid: late nights and early mornings sometimes mean that we lose our sparkle.
  Kilmarnock college is in my thoughts at the present time because of the Government's proposal to decrease the overall amount of funding for further education over the next two years. The proposal flies in the face of the success of all the colleges that have been mentioned, such as Kilmarnock college which is in my constituency. Evidence from Government reports has identified the need for a well trained and well educated work force, particularly at technician level in industries such as electronics, textiles, food and drink, and engineering.
  All those industries are well represented in Ayrshire, particularly in Kilmarnock. In fact, the area used to be even better represented by these industries, before the loss of Massey Ferguson and almost 1,800 jobs at the stroke of a pen. That was some time ago. No multinational company of that size ever came back to Kilmarnock or to many other areas of Scotland. However, the small firms have done extremely well and we hope that their success continues.
  Kilmarnock college has an effective working relationship with Enterprise Ayrshire and local authorities to deliver innovative training schemes. Kilmarnock college is working with small and medium-sized engineering companies, offering work-based training in a flexible, multi-skilling project. One has to ask why—at a time when ambitious national training targets have been set—are the Government squeezing the very organisations that are making the greatest contribution to achieving their targets?
  Why are the Government reducing funding to further education colleges when, at the same time, they are producing competitiveness documents that indicate the need for Scotland to have a well trained work force to compete in European and international markets? Electronics, textiles and engineering are the industries in
  798
  which we need to have a highly skilled and well qualified work force. These industries are already in Ayrshire, but why have the Government reduced the amount of money available to further education when an increase is needed?
  At the same time, I see no logic in allowing colleges to expand their full-time provision at higher national certificate and higher national diploma levels in areas where there is a proven need for engineering, science and technology. The Scottish Office further education funding unit should be working much closer with colleges to allow growth in areas that are vital to our local economies, particularly in engineering and electronics. They are holding at current levels the courses in soft areas, such as arts and social science. I am not a critic of holding the places in those so-called soft areas.
  I am concerned that further education colleges do not have the necessary modern buildings and equipment to provide the appropriate courses to meet local needs. Some of the buildings are modern, but they have proved to be totally inadequate for the Scottish climate, particularly those that have flat roofs. Kilmarnock college has to spend some £500,000 on roof repairs at its Kilmarnock campus and some £250,000 on roof repairs at its Irvine campus.
  I would have expected the college to receive a generous capital allocation from the further education funding unit so that it could tackle the problems. There is no point taking people into a building if the roof is likely to fall in at any time. Roofing repairs cannot be put off until next year so far as capital expenditure is concerned—they have to be done now. What did the further education funding unit give Kilmarnock college to tackle this pressing problem? Nothing.
  It is also important that colleges are able to purchase modern equipment that allows relevant and appropriate training to take place. In engineering, computer-aided design and manufacturing equipment, electronics equipment and science equipment are essential if we are to keep up the struggle with the competition in Europe and beyond. Electronic equipment and science equipment are vital, and my learned Friend the Member for Falkirk, West covered those points very well. However, they are worth underlining and I want to hear what excuse the Minister will give for not providing the funding necessary to purchase that equipment.
  Unlike the higher education sector—universities have diverse sources of funding—further education colleges struggle to provide such equipment. As I have said, the Scottish Office allocation to Kilmarnock college this year is zero. How long can that be allowed to continue? It must not continue and I hope that the Minister will announce today if not a solution to the whole problem, at least some capital funding that will enable Kilmarnock college to begin to repair its roofing.
  Like us, the Government must recognise the importance of further education to the economic and social well-being of our local economies and our communities such as Kilmarnock and Loudoun and other areas of Ayrshire and supply adequate funding so that colleges, including Kilmarnock college, can provide adequate further education within the terms of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992. The Act states that the Secretary of State has a duty to make adequate further education available throughout Scotland and I think that he and the Minister are in danger of defaulting on their duty in that regard. The Secretary of State is also in

  799
  danger of failing in his duty to the people of Kilmarnock, of Ayrshire and of Scotland as a whole. I look forward to hearing the Minister confirm today that not only is he seriously concerned about the issues that hon. Members will outline but that he has immediate plans to reverse the trend.
  10.1 am
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: I congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on his choice of subject for debate. While there has been considerable concentration on nursery, primary and secondary education due to the Government's interference and bungling in those areas and upon university education due to massive under-resourcing, the further education sector has been left out of the limelight. This debate gives credit where it is due. I know from my time as a senior lecturer at Angus college and at Dundee college the massive value of further education and the range of subjects that are taught at FE level.
  Further education colleges have always been at the innovative and the pioneering edge of the education system. The hallmarks and the strengths of the FE sector are flexible courses, staff who are willing to adapt and reflect changing needs and the ability to cope with a wide range of demands for different courses—from the practical to the out-and-out academic. I enjoyed teaching in further education and I witnessed at first hand a period of growth at Angus and Dundee colleges which showed the FE system in its best light.
  More than 200,000 students participate in either full-time or part-time further education—an increase of more than 50 per cent. since 1993. There is certainly a demand for further education. It has always been particularly important in the Scottish context as a provider of education and employment. According to the McNicholl report, further education colleges generated an estimated £600 million and 19,000 full-time equivalent jobs for the Scottish economy in 1993–94. They sustain many Scottish communities as both employers and education providers. I believe that we should invest in the sector—greater investment will be repaid handsomely in the future.
  Under Government policy, which has consistently attacked local authorities, the right to award bursaries has been removed and the colleges are now funded directly by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The move to a new funding methodology was established through the use of a formula which directly links the level of funding to the volume and quality of learning. The key criteria in formula funding are student recruitment and retention. It represents an abrupt change from historic funding and has caused major difficulties for individual colleges.
  While grant allocations are based entirely on the number of students at respective colleges, the Government have sought to encourage the growth of private finance initiatives. I believe that the loss of control associated with the development of PFIs undermines accountability. The Government have cut capital grants assuming that PFIs will step in, but the lack of proper investment has hit developments in science, engineering and technology. I am told that there are no funds to prepare for and implement "Higher Still" in 1998. I hope that the Minister will address those problems directly.
  800
  Some £11 million was axed from the Government's previous funding plans for further education colleges in 1995, despite a projected increase of 12 per cent. in the number of young people aged 17 and 18 in the period 1995–98. Thus the success of further education colleges is leading to their being penalised. The cuts also ignored the fact that the Government are already under-performing in terms of their training targets.
  The effect of the cuts has been twofold. First, the need to make savings has caused huge staffing problems. The hon. Gentleman underlined that point admirably when he pointed out that Falkirk college of technology was forced to save £670,000, which is equivalent to 35 jobs. Lecturers at Coatbridge college have not had a salary increase since April 1994, which led to a strike by Educational Institute of Scotland members.
  Secondly, there has been an attack on the national character of further education colleges, as increased funding for one college reduces funding for another. Simple numbers of students is a crude means of evaluation, which ignores special needs and the importance of the continued existence of a diverse choice of colleges at a time when increasing numbers should be a prime objective. FE colleges contribute greatly to the Scottish economy and we should build on that strength.
  The Association of Scottish Colleges has offered some possible solutions to the problem and I recommend its suggestions to the Minister. They include an increase in the overall recurrent grant, a relaxation of capping, stronger policy support for vocational training, support to implement "Higher Still" in 1998 and more capital funds to bring buildings and equipment up to modern standards. Instead of greater investment, the Government propose further cuts in resources.
  I note with despair that grant aid to colleges will be reduced by £15 million in the next three years—a cumulative reduction of 12.5 per cent. Those cuts are not sustainable without hefty redundancies of staff and a loss of quality and/or range of teaching—which is the strength of the FE sector. The PFI certainly cannot renew or replace dilapidated buildings or obsolete equipment. There is a danger that funds for bursaries in vocational further education will be frozen and that there will be a shortfall in key training targets.
  The Government are failing the further education sector which would amply repay the extra investment that it needs. I have worked in further education and I know its strengths and the immense benefits that it offers across society. I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing): some of the best students I taught were women with families who returned to education. Many of them went on to university and they now have degrees. They are a credit to the further education sector, and their progress should be developed rather than hindered by a lack of investment.
  Young people relish the further education atmosphere. Mature students who are given a second chance at education are faced with a dazzling range of courses that meet the needs of individuals and industry. I believe that further education is an asset that the Government are failing to resource properly. In so doing, they are making a major mistake.
  10.8 am
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I say amen to the considered, well argued and well informed speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), who knows and cares a great deal about the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) and the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) also made important speeches and raised many issues which deserve answers. I hope that the House will forgive me if I stick to a wholly local issue: the proposed relocation of West Lothian college to Livingston.
  I am not casting aspersions on the motives of those who have made the proposal. I do not doubt their good faith and I understand perfectly well the attractions of a college under one roof on a single site rather than the difficulties that inevitably arise with an institution based on two separate sites, although it may not be such a serious problem to have two sites for a further education college which, by its very nature, would be concerned with full-time learning rather than part-time courses. But any such move would tear the heart out of the proud town of Bathgate.
  Those of us in the area of Bathgate have accepted that the police headquarters, the council headquarters and a number of other important institutions should move to the new town, but at some point we must ask questions about the centres of old boroughs. The Minister should take it from me, as the local Member of Parliament and a local person, that the removal of that college from Bathgate would be a serious matter for the town and for that part of West Lothian. I therefore have five questions to ask.
  First, what are the responsibilities of the board of management of the college to the Scottish Office? Perhaps I should know, but I am not the only one who is not clear about that. Secondly, the proposal has leaked out, but has the Scottish Office been consulted—it may not have been—and, if so, what did it say? Thirdly, what has the Scottish Office advised about staff and resource requirements? As my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West has said, there is a desperate shortage of resources and so many other urgent priorities. Has the Scottish Office been consulted about the proposal as a priority for the use of scarce resources and, again, what has it advised?
  Fourthly, what consideration has been given to the proposal by planners in the Scottish Office? West Lothian council has not been consulted about the rebuilding—if there is to be rebuilding—or new building on the St. Mary academy site and on the land above the college which, as far as we know, is free land on which major building work could take place. Has consultation taken place about that proposal?
  Fifthly, as I understand the current proposals—I am open to correction—the builders are to erect a new building on the Livingston site. In return, West Lothian college proposes to give—I repeat, give—the current buildings and land to the builders, though not the old academy, which I believe is listed, because it belongs to the people of Bathgate. We are uncertain about who the people of Bathgate are in that respect, other than the successors to the old West Lothian county council. That is a grey area. As I understand it, West Lothian college will then lease—I repeat, lease—the new building and equipment from the builders. If I have understood it right,
  802
  and if other people have understood it right, that arrangement raises a few eyebrows. What does the Scottish Office think about the leasing proposal?
  The issue is the future of the town of Bathgate. I ask those questions, in gentle tones, because I genuinely do not know the answers. I do not want to jump to any conclusions until there has been a proper discussion.
  10.14 am
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I wish to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on obtaining this debate on the subject of further education. The subject has been much neglected in debate in the House and it is high time that further education, especially Scottish further education, got a thorough airing. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) spoke about equipment and facilities for people undertaking skills training and I fully support all that he said.
  I wish to raise an aspect of further education that has always been neglected—the wider general education of students in further education. Everyone who has ever worked in further education knows, as the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) will confirm, that there is not only a long-standing lack of appropriate funding, but sometimes a problem, unfortunately, with the attitudes of the traditional craft teachers, who regarded any time spent on general education as a waste of students' time. It has always been a struggle to provide appropriate general education for students who come straight from school and spend some years on day release or block release.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West mentioned the fact that teacher numbers in FE were dropping, he filled me with alarm. I taught in FE for some years and I remember what happens when there are not enough teachers to serve the students' needs. Teachers get landed with timetables that have far too many class contact hours and they cannot get through timetables of that size without using devices to overcome the problems, such as doubling up classes; that is not good for the students, but it is one of the strategies that teachers are forced to adopt when they have marking or preparation to do for other classes.
  Teachers are also asked to teach subjects that they are not qualified to teach. I recall my first week in FE. I had spent several years acquiring an honours degree in economic history, with English as my second subject, but I was given a timetable that included four periods of chemistry. I went to the head of department and said that there must have been a mistake. He said that the students were only studying chemistry at a low level and that I need be only one chapter ahead of them. I refused point blank to teach chemistry because I had not spent all those years acquiring my qualifications to end up teaching a subject that I could have taught equally badly when I left school. I failed science in my third year at school and never attempted it again.
  It is nonsense that teachers can be asked to teach subjects that they are not qualified in, but it happens. I was able to resist the request because I was in a full-time, permanent post and I had a union that could back me up if necessary. But now, when so many people have short-term, impermanent posts and contracts, they find it difficult to resist such nonsensical suggestions.

  803
  Such problems will lead to a failure to educate young people in further education so well as they could be educated.
  Another problem is the discontinuation of courses because there are not enough staff to teach them. Another danger, which has not yet been mentioned, is the requirement that a course must have a certain number of bodies in the classroom to be taught. If a small number of students genuinely want to do a course and are appropriately qualified for it and keen to get started, they might be disappointed unless the number of bums on seats can be increased.
  What happens is that people for whom that course is not really appropriate are persuaded by unscrupulous persons to enter that course, which might not be right for them because it is either beyond or beneath their capacities. It might not be a suitable subject area for them. In some instances students will be directed to the course merely to get it started. If they later fall by the wayside, too bad. Some will say, "At least the course was started." We must avoid such nonsense taking place in further education. We know, of course, that they arise because of shortage of funds.
  I should like to know—the Minister will probably not be able to tell me when he replies, but the information could be set out in a written answer—what is spent per head on further education and higher education students. We know that HE necessarily costs a great deal of money. We have seen the results of underfunding in FE, however, which can be grotesque. I spent several years in a business studies college, which was virtually asked by the local authority not to use so much paper. That was a nonsensical request of a business studies college. We were not making paper aeroplanes. Paper was being used for work.
  Anyone who has taught general education in an FE college will recognise the Wilt syndrome. Tom Sharpe wrote about the experience of a general studies teacher staggering from block A to block D with 20 copies of "Shane" in his arms. Tom Sharpe was not exaggerating and he was not joking. Students do not have the funds to enable them to buy their own books. I remember ancient and battered copies of texts that we had to cart from room to room, or even block to block, so that we might give work to students. We had constantly to spend time devising our own materials or finding them because there were insufficient funds. That time could have been spent on teaching. Those are examples of what happens when there is underfunding in further education.
  The market has been brought into further education and, as a result, colleges are competing with one another for courses instead of adopting a more sensible planning approach to ensure that colleges play to their own strengths and teach the subjects which are traditional to them and which they are accustomed to teach. A planning approach would ensure that students' needs were better met than at present. Students now are even more disadvantaged than they were 20 years ago when I was involved in FE.
  I look forward to the day when we have a Scottish Parliament. At long last we shall have a dedicated and elected body that will take the interest in FE that is now sadly lacking.
  10.23 am
  Mr. James Wallace: I shall speak only briefly because the debate takes place on the firm foundation provided by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), who covered almost all the ground. It was tempting to say, "Let the Minister reply to that." The hon. Gentleman made all the key points.
  I take up the final remark of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). I, too, look forward to the day when there is a Scottish Parliament. If it works as those who are involved in the constitutional convention foresee, it will use committees and have a greater involvement in consultation. As a result, the further education and higher education institutions will have a close link with the Scottish Parliament. When it makes decisions that affect FE and HE, and other education sectors, they will be informed ones. I have no doubt that it will legislate accordingly. There will be good and close links between the Scottish Parliament and those involved in the various education sectors.
  When the Government took legislation through the House to take FE colleges away from local authority control, the proposal was met with considerable resistance, and naturally so. There is considerable concern when Government have the opportunity to centralise. They follow up that process with direct controls over funding, which is really the substance of the debate.
  In a local context, I appreciated the fact that the Scottish Office gave proper recognition to the fact that the FE colleges in both Orkney and Shetland were closely integrated with the secondary schools on both islands. Since structural changes have taken place, it has been pleasing to watch the development of FE facilities on both Orkney and Shetland. I had the great pleasure last year of opening some splendid new facilities for the FE college on Shetland. I know that on Orkney considerable efforts are being made to establish the FE college in its own right. I believe that we shall see it moving away from its integration with the secondary school.
  What we have achieved locally on the islands echoes one of the calls made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West. There should be a way of establishing better links with the local education authority and FE colleges. It is important to establish a link between the community and its FE college. That is something that we have achieved on Orkney and Shetland because of our slightly different status.
  It is important to develop—I am sure that this is not exclusive to FE colleges in the highlands and islands—distance learning techniques. A considerable amount of education is now delivered by that means, and I am sure that the technique will be developed still further in years to come. Many FE colleges will play an important part in the development of the university of the highlands and islands. It is thought that the university should not be concentrated in one place and instead should be a multi-campus institution. I am sure that FE colleges have a considerable and important role to play in that context.
  We have heard that, since the incorporation of FE colleges, there have been considerable achievements in terms of increasing numbers of students and efficiency gains, which last year were assessed as 4.2 per cent. As has been said this morning, however, we cannot go on and on increasing numbers and expecting efficiency gains to be achieved. Increasing numbers pose their own

  805
  problems in terms of providing accommodation and ensuring that proper staff time is made available to students.
  The cry that is coming from the debate is that it must be recognised that we cannot continue to reduce funding year upon year. There is a predicted reduction in funding of about 4 per cent. in real terms, year on year, from now until 1998–99. That will lead to a reduction in the quality of the education provided, and it is bound to have an effect on staff morale, especially if there are redundancies to meet lower budgets. Reduced funding will also have an effect on students.
  Those engaged in FE, and the nation as a whole, face a considerable challenge. It is clear that FE is an important resource and an important opportunity for the 60 per cent. of young people who do not wish to enter HE. It is an important sector in which the skills of our young people can be developed. When we consider the targets that have been set by the Government and the Advisory Scottish Council for Education and Training, we realise how far we are still falling behind. One of the most alarming targets is that 60 per cent. of the work force should have SVQ III qualifications by the year 2000. We had reached 47 per cent. by 1995, and the position was static. Given the trends that have been discussed this morning, it is difficult to see how the gap can be bridged satisfactorily in the four years left to do it.
  Everyone—the Government and the Opposition, the Confederation of British Industry and the Scottish Trades Union Council—agree that it is important to improve the skills and training of our young people. As the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) rightly reminded us, it is not only young people and women returners who are to be considered. We must increasingly recognise that in a rapidly changing world the skills that young people acquire at the age of 18 or 19 may not be the skills that they need for employment or employability when they reach the age of 35 or 40. We shall increasingly see people returning to colleges to update their skills, and the FE colleges in Scotland will have a significant role to play.
  We must maintain a network of FE colleges which achieve high standards. That can be done only if it is accepted that there must be the funding and resources that go with producing the quality education that our country and especially our young people so desperately need.
  10.29 am
  Mrs. Helen Liddell: I join my hon. Friends in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on securing this important debate, as further education has become very much the orphan of the education system, which is regrettable, as it is a tremendous window of opportunity for people and, indeed, the economy.
  I hope that such an experienced parliamentarian as my hon. Friend will not consider it amiss if I—as an inexperienced parliamentarian—echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and pay tribute to the considered nature of my hon. Friend's speech, much of which was obviously the result of considerable thought and experience. I listened to it with interest and will read it tomorrow with even greater interest, as he gave us some pointers to the future that merit detailed consideration by my hon. Friends and me,
  806
  and also by the Government. Many of my hon. Friend's points about the future of higher education funding and the relationship with further education funding are important. The key point he made is at the root of the debate—the paucity of funding for further education in Scotland, which is of considerable importance to Scotland.
  Since taking over the education brief, I have had lengthy discussions with representatives from further education colleges. Indeed, I have a constituency interest, as a further education college is adjacent to my constituency. In the House today are representatives of the further education colleges, who have travelled all the way from Scotland at considerable inconvenience and expense, so it is with regret that I see that on the Government Benches the Minister sits isolated with only the Whip for interest. Do none of his hon. Friends represent areas with an interest in further education? Further education is at the heart of the education system in Scotland, and it is regrettable that Conservative Members have not taken more interest in the debate, given that all the Opposition parties in Scotland have been represented and a number of significant points have been made.
  The extent of the funding cut affecting colleges—half the colleges have suffered quite a severe cut—is causing grave concern to all of us who are concerned about the future of further education in Scotland. The point has been made repeatedly that there has been a continuing quest for efficiency on the part of the Government, not recognising that year-on-year quests for efficiency, with student numbers increasing, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) pointed out, are not the route to efficiency but are the route to reducing quality. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). I shudder to think what I would have done if I had been asked to teach chemistry. I referred in Committee yesterday to the lengths to which I went to get a higher in Latin, which involved learning Latin off by heart to get through the exam. I should add that I was successful and now have a higher in Latin, but do not ask me to translate any of it.
  This is the European Year of Lifelong Learning, and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), in his capacity as Scotland's Education Minister, took part in its impressive launch at the new conference centre in Edinburgh just few months ago, in the presence of Mrs. Edith Cresson. Is it not ironic therefore that this year we are cutting the resources to one of the key elements of lifelong learning—further education?
  My hon. Friends and the Minister will recognise that I have a specific interest in this in relation to the career of my personal assistant, Mr. Frank Roy, who was a Ravenscraig shop steward and was made redundant as a consequence of the closure of that plant. The closure had a devastating effect on the economy not just of Lanarkshire but of all Scotland. With the help of Motherwell college, he got his highers, and with his own determination he got a degree from Glasgow Caledonian university. He now works for me, which is a bit of a dip in his prospects, but in the next few months my hon. Friends and I look forward to welcoming him to the Labour Benches as the Member of Parliament for Motherwell and Wishart. [Interruption.]

  807
  I have a limited sense of direction, but I am sure that my hon. Friend, as he will be at that time, will be a great help to a Labour Government, given his wide range of skills and his common sense. Common sense is lacking in the Government's attitude to further education in Scotland. It is common sense to build up the skills base of our economy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) pointed out, what is the point of competitiveness White Papers when we are slipping to 35th place in the world list of educational qualifications? We are cutting the very means by which people can acquire skills throughout their career.
  Those of us who are in our prime left school, but the opportunity was there to pursue further or higher education and to look forward to a reasonable spread of careers, until the Conservative Government took over in 1979. Now our children will probably have to change careers three or four times in their working lives, not just as a consequence of the policies of the Conservative party Government but because of industrial and technological change. One key way to ensure change in the skills base is through an adequate system of further education. My party pledges itself to a strong and vibrant further education sector.
  I have taken on board a number of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West, which are extremely interesting. I have also taken into account one of the significant points made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland regarding asset targets. We recognise that, if we are to have a viable economy in future, we must increase the skills base. I pay tribute to the work carried out by the advisory committee on education and training in Scotland, which has done a tremendous amount of work in identifying the weaknesses in the skills base.
  I was particularly impressed with some of the points made by the Association of Scottish Colleges, which I had hoped to meet on Monday. Because of parliamentary business at the Scottish Grand Committee in Perth, however, I was not able to do so. That association and the Educational Institute of Scotland pointed to the shortfall in meeting the asset targets in Scotland. To an extent, that is because Ministers refuse to accept ownership for the targets and refuse to accept responsibility for the funding of further education to ensure that we meet them.
  In another part of the House, we have discussed in the past few weeks the establishment of a single examination board that will take into account the Scottish Examination Board and the Scottish Vocational Education Council to ensure that the examination structure in place for the introduction of "Higher Still", which is a radical change in post-16 education in Scotland. One important element to secure changes in post-16 education in Scotland is to ensure that our further education colleges are equipped to prepare themselves for "Higher Still", and they are limited as a consequence of the decisions that the Government have taken on funding.
  How many colleges began this year with a deficit? Further education colleges have been under pressure not just because of the impact of incorporation but because of the policies that the Government have adopted. One of the positive consequences of incorporation is the involvement of local businesses in further education.
  808
  Many business men and women are appalled at the way in which the Government have conducted further education funding: they continually move the goalposts. They insist on efficiency savings whenever they are not prepared to make resources available, and they fail to recognise the crying need of local industry for a well-skilled work force.
  I listened with great interest to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, who pointed out the difficulties that Bathgate is likely to experience as a consequence of the decision to centre his further education college in Livingston. I do not wish to go into specific constituency points, but my constituency is adjacent to Bathgate and I recognise the extent to which a college can give some vibrancy, life and hope to a community. My constituency is adjacent to Coatbridge college and I recognise the significance that it brings to the local community. I know from my local employers how important it is to have the college nearby, one with which they can co-operate and get a ready supply of skilled workers.
  The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), who has worked in further education, made an important point about the availability of resources. He also spoke of the need for a diverse range of courses. We in Scotland pride ourselves on the diversity of our education system, which must be extended and maintained in further education. The point was amplified by my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill, who referred to her own experience and made an interesting point about the quest for improved general education standards in Scotland. That relates to the availability of general education in further education colleges for those pursuing craft courses.
  If we are to have multi-skilling, and if new skills are to be available for the future, people must have the self-confidence that will enable them to change skills. That may not seem important, given the self-confidence of my hon. Friends, but increasing people's confidence is difficult in Scotland, partly because we have experienced generations of high unemployment. Our education system is very sound on the basics, which gives us the edge, but we lose out through not giving people enough self-confidence. That is one of the great things that educational qualifications can provide, because achievement in the further education sector is recognised.
  It is regrettable that we have had to have this debate. It would have been much better if we had gathered here to examine the opportunities for further education in Scotland. As we approach the turn of the century, new industries and opportunities will emerge. I hope that that will happen under a Labour Government.
  Those of us who represent Lanarkshire constituencies are very conscious of the impact of inward investment and companies such as Chunghwa Picture Tubes, and of the need to provide the diversity of skills that that company will require. The same position is replicated throughout Scotland. Another important part of Scotland's economic future is tourism. Many of our colleges provide courses in hospitality, which are vital to the improvement of the service that we offer the tourist industry. They, as well as the many science and technology-based courses of which we have been so proud in the past, are important in Scotland.
  I cannot understand the reasoning of the Scottish Office. I hope that the Minister will be good enough to give us a clue to why he is selling not just the family

  809
  silver but the future in refusing to fund our colleges adequately. It is not necessary to travel far to find colleges that are doing sterling work in deplorable conditions. There will be no sustainable future for those colleges if there are to be hefty staff redundancies, and a lessening of the quality and range of teaching because of the pressures put on teachers who must work in dilapidated buildings with obsolete equipment that the private finance initiative cannot renew or replace.
  The only form of growth that has taken place is the granting of responsibility to colleges for the allocation of bursaries. We shall be discussing that elsewhere in the House of Commons in the next few days, but is it not ironic that the Government, while trimming and fiddling at the edges, are ducking the key issue? If we are to invest in the future of the Scottish economy and the confidence of our young people, and secure the place in the world economy which I believe we are capable of securing rather than languishing where the Government have put us, the investment that we make in education is crucial.
  I commend the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West. He made valid points that summed up the issues that people in Scotland are currently discussing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun pointed out, in investing in further education we are investing in training, education, our people and our country's future.
  This morning's debate shows the nature of the issues that a Scottish parliament will address. It will be in tune with the demands of the people of Scotland, and will provide a degree of co-ordination and commitment that I consider important. I hope that the damage that the Government are doing to further education will not have dug in so deep that it will be too difficult for us to address in the early days of a Labour Government.
  10.44 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on securing the debate. It has been a good debate, and, although I may not have agreed with everything—indeed, anything—said by Opposition Members, I do not doubt their sincerity for a moment. That applies both to the specific constituency cases cited by the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) and for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and to the more general points that were made.
  Mr. Canavan: Did I hear the Minister say that he did not agree with anything that had been said by Opposition Members?
  Mr. Robertson: I did not agree with everything, and perhaps with anything, but the hon. Gentleman may agree with some of what I say. As I have said, I do not doubt Opposition Members' sincerity, although part of what was said by the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) seemed unnecessarily strident.
  The debate is important because of the vital role that our colleges play in meeting the skills needs of the Scottish economy. I hope that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West read the article in yesterday's edition of The Herald, which said that substantial growth in the uptake of Scottish vocational qualifications was being
  810
  stimulated throughout Scotland by the further education sector. That flies in the face of one of the central points of the hon. Gentleman's speech.
  No one disputes the fact that we need a highly competitive and skilled work force in an increasingly competitive global economy. The role of colleges, and their success—for I believe they are successful—is not mentioned often or loudly enough. Today's wide-ranging debate has highlighted some of those successes, but, unfortunately, it has also misrepresented the dynamism of Scotland's FE sector to a great extent. I welcome the opportunity to make clear the Government's support for the colleges, and to describe what we have done and will do in the future.
  I am personally committed to that, having visited nine colleges in virtually as many months. I did that because I wanted to see at first hand what they were doing and how they were doing it. I was impressed by the enthusiasm and commitment of the management, staff and students whom I met, and I pay tribute to them.
  In the period since April 1993—which, after all, was only just over three years ago—colleges have built on earlier strengths and, through that liberating process, have achieved some remarkable advances. Incorporation has assisted college responsiveness by devolving decision making to local level, and has led colleges to look critically at their structures and systems to ensure that they are appropriate to a dynamic environment.
  The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun asked why a college in his constituency had received a nil capital allocation for this year. Capital works in our colleges are increasingly being funded successfully from the private finance initiative. What the hon. Gentleman did not mention was that Kilmarnock college had received 5.12 per cent. additional funding this year, and last year had received a capital grant of more than £500,000. I was concerned by much of what the hon. Gentleman said, however, and I shall be happy for my officials to meet representatives of the college as a matter of urgency to see whether the issues that he raised can be explored further.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned the relocation of West Lothian college from Bathgate to Livingston. The college has not yet assessed the financial and other implications of the option to relocate the entire college. In reaching its conclusions, it will have regard to the best interests of education and training in the West Lothian area as a whole, and we shall study those conclusions carefully.
  The hon. Gentleman asked five specific questions. If he does not mind, I shall reply to them fully in writing.
  Mr. Dalyell: Obviously such a reply is much better than an immediate response, but will the Minister assure me that the officials will sit down with all concerned and discuss the position before any final decisions are made?
  Mr. Robertson: I do not hesitate to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
  As the hon. Member for Monklands, East said, colleges are also involving employers, as major stakeholders, in what they do. That involvement takes place at many levels: on the board of management to ensure strategic vision, with the local enterprise company to collaborate in the local achievement of education and training targets and with individual

  811
  employers to meet their specific needs. What characterises 0the 220,000 students who attend colleges is the differences between them, and that is the strength of those colleges. About a third of college activities are undertaken by part-time students, with 5 per cent. of students studying by open or flexible learning. In recent years, much of the growth in Scottish higher education has occurred in colleges.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) spoke of staff numbers being in decline. That is not true. In October 1992, there were 6,850 teaching staff, but since incorporation the number has risen, to just under 7,000 in 1994–95. The increases in the volume of student activity in 1994–95 over the previous year were as follows: art and design, up 14 per cent.; social studies, languages and communication, up 9 per cent.; and special needs programmes, up 17 per cent.
  Mrs. Fyfe: If the Minister cannot answer my question now, perhaps he will write to me, but what is the student to staff ratio now compared with five or 10 years ago?
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Lady has asked a number of specific questions and I shall reply in writing.
  Mr. Wallace: The Minister said that staff numbers have increased. Are his figures for full-time equivalent staff?
  Mr. Robertson: Yes, they are.
  Mrs. Fyfe: Will the Minister give a written answer on how many of those staff are in permanent posts and how many are on short-term contracts?
  Mr. Robertson: I shall write to the hon. Lady. If she wants me to write to her again, perhaps she will write to me and we may make some progress.
  We funded growth, but, following rapid expansion, it has proved necessary to hold full-time numbers to their current record levels, although colleges are being encouraged to continue to expand the number of students on part-time higher education courses.
  Such provision is not capped. Just under half of all students are over 25, reflecting the range of innovative programmes on offer and the colleges' commitment to lifelong learning. Increasingly, colleges provide training for employers on their premises, often to Scottish vocational qualification standards. I want to encourage these trends, with colleges increasing student participation further, particularly by introducing more part-time provision and open and flexible learning opportunities in partnership with employers.
  The goal of increasing student participation has been one of our major objectives since incorporation, and we are meeting the objective. In the academic year 1994–95, student activity increased by 6 per cent. Colleges will continue to increase activity this academic year and in future. That growth is being stimulated by the funding of colleges and by the way in which funds are distributed.
  Listening to some hon. Members, one would think that colleges do not have the resources to fund that expansion. Since incorporation in April 1993, recurrent funding for
  812
  further education has increased by 14 per cent. In each year, the recurrent funding made available to colleges has increased. In 1996–97, £233 million will be available. That has been possible despite the need to maintain downward pressure on public expenditure.
  The hon. Member for Monklands, East, in a wide-ranging and well-crafted speech, said that the Government were underfunding further education. I assume that she missed out the page in her speech that stated by how much we are doing so and how quickly and how much an incoming Labour Government would put into Scottish higher education. I give her the chance to rectify her mistake, which she made when she turned over two pages in her speech instead of one.
  Mrs. Liddell: I was aware that a number of colleagues had made the point and I did not wish to be unnecessarily repetitive. However, £45 million less is available to colleges than employers say they need simply to maintain 1995 service levels.
  Mr. Robertson: No, it was not that page but the one that states how much a Labour Government would invest in their first year in office.
  Mrs. Liddell: I recognise that the Minister is practising for being in opposition, questioning the next Government. We will adequately fund Scottish further education. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has published wide-ranging proposals that will ensure that our young people get the skills and training that the Government's funding of further education is limiting.
  Mr. Robertson: I hope that all those from the colleges who are watching the debate and those who will read it later heard the hon. Lady refuse to give any commitment on how much an incoming Labour Government—that will not happen—will spend.
  The challenge for now and for the future is to maintain and improve standards while increasing efficiency. We have set the colleges challenging targets, delivering efficiency savings of 4 per cent. each year. I am pleased to say that the colleges are achieving that, and there is no reason why they cannot continue to do so.
  At the time of incorporation, the costs of providing further education varied enormously throughout Scotland. In some colleges, it cost about twice as much to teach comparable subjects. Colleges were not funded coherently or systematically. We have therefore gradually phased in a newer and fairer approach to allocating funds, based on student activity achieved by colleges. This aims to ensure that a reasonable balance is struck between resources that colleges receive from the taxpayer and the need to encourage them to deliver value-for-money increases in student participation and high standards, which they are achieving.
  I make no apologies for the new funding formula, requiring high-cost colleges to find efficiencies to bring them closer to the average. The wide variation in colleges' cost efficiencies could not continue. We are assisting colleges to make the necessary adjustments by restructuring funds—£4 million in 1995–96—for retraining or enabling staff to take early retirement. This is not all about shedding staff; restructuring must reflect

  813
  the changing pattern of demand for courses. Many colleges are recruiting staff to meet the changing and growing demand in new areas, as the hon. Member for Falkirk, West said, such as mechatronics.
  Our decisions on college funding reflect our view that, increasingly, the private finance initiative will replace capital grant funding. It is an important policy in bringing together a new partnership between the private and public sectors. Despite Opposition Members' comments, colleges are enthusiastic about it.
  Mr. Canavan: We do not doubt colleges' enthusiasm, but it would be greater if they received sufficient resources to do the job. The figures that I quoted were given to me by the Association of Scottish Colleges, which in turn were extracted from the Scottish Office's plans. Taking revenue and capital expenditure into account, in real terms, there will be a 12.5 per cent. reduction in the amount that the Scottish Office gives colleges from 1994–95 to the financial year 1998–99. How on earth can the Minister justify such a massive decrease in assistance to colleges?
  Mr. Robertson: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to me. I am glad that he accepts that colleges are enthusiastic about the private finance initiative.
  Two projects—a new campus for Falkirk college in Stirling and a new campus for West Lothian college in Livingston—are at an advanced stage. The PFI is not the only public and private partnership that is under way. By operating more efficiently, colleges are freeing resources to improve their buildings and equipment, both directly and through the freedom to borrow. There are examples all over Scotland.
  Among the best is the new multi-million-pound campus at James Watt college at the waterfront development in Greenock. Perth college has attracted £2 million of support from the Gannochy trust for a new library and study centre, which will put it at the forefront of the use of new technology.
  814
  I was pleased to inaugurate the construction of that building, where I announced a grant of £200,000 to assist with equipment. The policy document "Training for the Future" announced an allocation of £500,000 to equip colleges generally with new technological equipment. We have also invested substantially in upgrading college buildings since incorporation, with capital grants of £46 million. Hon. Members who visit colleges will see the transformation for themselves.
  The list of achievements is long: the multi-million-pound project at Edinburgh's Telford college, whose refurbished north campus opened on Monday; Cardonald college, where investment of £4 million has been made; and Langside college's business school, which I recently opened.
  If we are to face future challenges, a partnership approach is important. I should like briefly to identify what they will be. We must strive to provide better guidance, raise participation and improve success in achieving qualifications. We are working with colleges in these areas.
  The "Higher Still" reforms, which will be implemented in academic session 1998–99, will provide a unified programme of academic and vocational learning, leading to certificates on a subject or group basis.
  Information technology opens up an exciting new way of responding imaginatively to the needs of students and employers. Colleges need to facilitate that process, and we have the excellent example of Fife college, which demonstrated to me the use of telematics to support training in small and medium-sized enterprises. Information technology will also provide a way of delivering much of the teaching and learning at the new university of the Highlands and Islands. I am confident that further education colleges in Scotland will have more students studying more subjects with more staff and money than ever before. That is a tribute to the Government, and it is unfortunate that Opposition Members cannot see that.

  Defence and Security (Europe)
  10.59 am
  Mr. John Wilkinson: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of Britain's role in Europe's defence and security policy and to address issues of the utmost topicality and importance.
  The outcome of the first round of the Russian presidential elections last weekend has demonstrated how finely balanced are the political forces in the Russian federation. The emergence of General Lebed, with his background as former commander of the Russian 14th army in Moldova and of operational experience in Afghanistan, as national security adviser to President Yeltsin has more than domestic significance.
  At the European summit in Florence on Friday, it is possible—if the beef crisis permits—that there will be discussion of Europe's common foreign and security policy. It is certainly a theme for the intergovernmental conference, and Britain's views should be more influential than most. The United Kingdom is, with France, one of only two nuclear powers in Europe, so the UK's strategic weight is disproportionate to its military manpower. We are the sole nation within NATO, apart from the United States of America, to have troops permanently stationed outside its national territory in Europe, and beyond—for example, in the Falklands and Hong Kong. Also, with principal NATO subordinate commands—Allied Forces North West at High Wycombe and Headquarters Eastern Atlantic at Northwood—Britain is the cornerstone of Europe's defence and security architecture.
  With major US military facilities still located in Britain, the UK is crucial for the projection of American power to Europe and the maintenance of a balance of forces and security on the continent. In defence terms, the UK has long been at the heart of Europe. It would be even more so if it had persuaded the rest of the Western European Union to allow the other organs of the institution to join the council located in London, by offering County hall as the headquarters for the whole organisation, instead of succumbing to the European impetus towards Brussels, which seems so fundamental these days.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so early in his speech, but does he not realise that if the WEU is to be an effective European pillar for NATO, it is essential that liaison and co-operation between those organisations has practical and real significance? That prospect will be enhanced if the WEU is situated in Brussels, where there can be regular personal and other forms of contact.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I totally understand the point, but I was thinking about Britain's influence in defence affairs. As ours is an Atlantic nation, that influence should be important. The concomitant risk of locating the WEU in Brussels is that it could be over-influenced by the European Union and its aspirations to take over much of the WEU's role, but I do not dispute that there is considerable validity in the hon. Gentleman's argument.
  From 1945 to the end of the 1980s, the artificial division of Europe by Soviet force of arms dominated defence debates in the House, and the necessity for deterrence of potentially aggressive Warsaw pact forces through the doctrine of flexible response determined the
  816
  character and scale of the military dispositions of the western alliance and its nuclear-based strategy. Paradoxically, the division of our continent remains the greatest challenge for Europe's security policy and overall strategy.
  In the days of the cold war, the imperative was the perpetuation of the artificial division of Europe through the containment of the potentially aggressive Warsaw pact along the iron curtain. Today, inclusive initiatives are emerging to hasten the end of the political divisions that plagued our continent for so long. Those initiatives are crucial in extending to fellow European nations which were denied democracy for four decades after world war two the fruits of political and economic liberty, underpinned by collective security arrangements that offer genuine defence guarantees and no provocation to any neighbouring state.
  NATO's post-cold war adaptation has been rapid and remarkable. The rationalisation and reorganisation of its integrated command structure to reflect the lower level of its assigned forces have been impressive. NATO's continuation as a defensive alliance after the former Soviet forces had gone home from central Europe was fully justified by the organisation's decisive role in bringing the Bosnian war to a halt when the United Nations, WEU and European Union had between them failed. NATO's implementation force in Bosnia, which even contains contingents of non-NATO countries, has kept the peace in that country and provides the security necessary for economic reconstruction and, hopefully before too long, for successful democratic elections.
  In the Gulf war, the coalition of western and Arab nations that successfully defended Saudi Arabia and liberated Kuwait was made possible by the long experience of the western allies' armed forces and military commanders of working together in NATO's integrated military structure. NATO has, through the North Atlantic Co-operation Council and the partnership for peace programme, shown commendable initiative in adapting to the realities of contemporary Europe, which is mercifully no longer imperilled by hostile ideology or aggressively configured forces.
  Instability in the Russian federation, as in Chechnya and the sovereign republics on its southern flanks, provides risks and unpredictable contingencies. NATO's new Balkan involvement is supposedly limited to the end of this year, but could prove longer lasting. The impact of militant and fundamentalist Islam from Turkey to Morocco poses a new orientation to Europe's security arrangements and a real danger in the Mediterranean basin. Nuclear and chemical proliferation allied to ballistic missile transfers to aggressive regimes challenges the processes of arms control and demonstrates the need for NATO in Europe to acquire its own ballistic missile defence.
  NATO's defensive credentials are impeccable, and the democratic nature of its member states unquestionable. There is no reasonable cause for delaying NATO's expansion to the east. By what justification should the genuine democracies of central Europe and the Baltic states be denied the security guarantees previously extended by NATO to Turkey, Greece and Portugal when those countries, for a time, did not have democratic Governments?

  817
  Why should Russia have a veto on the purely defensive security arrangements of sovereign democratic states? This is particularly so when the example of Norway showed that it could be—throughout the cold war, as a full NATO member—a good neighbour of Russia, with a common border and a sensitivity to the Nordic balance, which made it wholly appropriate that neither NATO nuclear weapons nor NATO foreign troops should be stationed on Norway's soil in time of peace.
  Today, the Norwegian model has relevance for the full and early NATO membership of the Baltic states. The cost of Russia's interventions in Afghanistan and Chechnya have shown the Russian people and the Russian military how bloody was their denial of legitimate self-determinations and how high was the cost to the Russian armed forces—a lesson that General Lebed has never forgotten.
  There has never been a qualifying contribution for NATO membership. Luxembourg has been a welcome member with only one battalion of troops, no air force and, certainly, no navy. Iceland has no armed forces at all. Importantly, through the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, there is now—there was not previously—an over-arching instrument for crisis management and for better understanding across the European continent. Through the partnership for peace there is also, of course, an experience of military dialogue upon which to build.
  In the cold war, the European Community—which in those days was a purely economic organisation—never offered security guarantees or kept the peace. It was an example of free enterprise principles jointly applied for the common good. Today, the European Community—I use the word advisedly—could, as a community, be a unifying force for the new Europe rather than a potential source of division, which it promises to be as a political entity.
  The objective of ever closer union via the chosen path of economic and monetary union, as laid down in the Maastricht treaty—to which the Government fatally subscribed in the fullest sense, committing themselves not only to the end of Union, but to the financial means of bringing the European Union about through the ever larger budgetary contributions agreed at the Edinburgh summit in 1992—is incompatible with the much more important goal of swift enlargement to include all the democracies of eastern and central Europe, and not only the Visegrad three.
  Our deliberations in the European Standing Committee have revealed the huge additional cost of extending the common agricultural policy, on enlargement of the European Union, to the acceding countries to the east, especially to Hungary and to Poland. It is small wonder that the European Commission is now talking of admitting only the Visegrad three in 2002, with no firm date for equally eligible states such as Estonia. Why should those countries be in only the second division of applicant countries?
  Applicant nations regard their accession to the European Union as an element in their overall security policy. Are western-oriented democracies to be left out in the cold? Procrastination over their entry will feed resentment among their people and their political classes, especially since the European Union is denying them access, through its tariffs, to its market for their cheap
  818
  agricultural produce and, in some instances, dumping on them surplus food over-produced by European Union farmers through the munificent operations of CAP subsidies.
  It is a similar tale with the Western European Union, to full membership of which central and eastern European countries reasonably aspire. If one takes contemporary rhetoric at its face value, the WEU is either the European defence identity or the European pillar of NATO. The recent NATO council in Berlin enhanced further this apparent status by affirming the assignment to WEU of combined NATO joint task forces. Those NATO formations are, in the first instance, for performing the St. Petersburg tasks of peacekeeping and humanitarian relief, but conceivably—by implication—they are ultimately for military operations when the United States does not want to invoke its security guarantee, including a nuclear option, or when it might not wish to imperil its good bilateral relations with the Russian Federation.
  My hon. Friend the Minister knows that the House of Commons Select Committee on Defence was very sceptical about the efficacy of the WEU as a military organisation. However, the ministerial council of the WEU—in its Birmingham communiqué in May, to which the Government subscribed—called the WEU
  "the defence component of the European Union".
  As such, applicant countries take it very seriously. They do not deserve to be disappointed in their desire to join the WEU as full members.
  There are two elements to Europe's defence and security policy that are of intense interest to the United Kingdom, and upon which Britain has direct influence. The first is the ambition of the European Union to arrogate to itself a military competence through armaments co-operation. The Franco-German armaments agency, which the United Kingdom has recently joined, might be the first stage in that process. If so, I believe that it will be a retrograde step.
  If the purpose of the agency is to predispose the participating nations against the procurement of equipment from the United States, it could diminish the operational effectiveness of the British and European armed forces, which need to be able to buy the best equipment, or the most cost-effective equipment, from whatever source. It could have the adverse effect of excluding European industry from lucrative American programmes, recent examples of which include the C130J Hercules, the AH64 Apache, potentially the Orion 2000 and many others.
  In my judgment, an imposed and unnecessary bureaucratic and managerial superstructure will not enhance cost-effective European arms procurement. The NATO management agency and the NATO Eurofighter management agency, for the Tornado and the Eurofighter programmes—to provide only two examples—were bad enough. Where would such an agency be located? How would it be staffed? How would its programmes be funded? Would it not merely duplicate the work of NATO's committee of national armaments directors, which is already experienced in seeking to harmonise operational requirements and to maximise equipment standardisation between member states?

  819
  The main impetus to collaboration should be commercial rather than political. This is particularly true in a world in which there is a diminishing market for armaments and in which defence equipment exports are crucial for the prosperity of defence companies.
  There is a final aspect of Europe's defence and security policy to which Britain can make a key contribution. The Sunday Telegraph of 2 June reported that the Foreign Affairs and Security Committee of the European Parliament had proposed in a draft report that the EU take over the nuclear weapons now owned by Britain and France. The draft report is alleged to say that, without them,
  "the European Union will never be able to adopt a common foreign and security policy".
  Apparently, the report was adopted, and Marlene Lenz, a German Member of the European Parliament, was reported in The Sunday Telegraph as saying:
  "If we have a union, and we need a strong union, there should be a military capability to it—and nuclear weapons would be part of that".
  That would circumvent the basic law of the Federal German Republic that forbids nuclear weapons, and as French sources have suggested that the French nuclear deterrent should be held in trust for the European Union, it is important to take those dangerous aspirations seriously—for dangerous they are.
  A nuclear European Union would in effect be a super-power, incapable of fulfilling, as Britain must urge that it does, its nobler destiny, which is to transform itself into a genuine community of sovereign independent states—a community whose objectives are free trade and friendship, which would be an instrument for reconciliation and harmony within a reunited continent.
  11.20 am
  Sir Russell Johnston: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on securing a debate on this important issue, but it was a pity that his Euro-scepticism so coloured his speech, especially towards its conclusion, when he spent some time on the common agricultural policy. His political attitude to the Union, which is very different from mine, means that he found himself in a way contradicting his own knowledge of defence questions, and adopting what in my view are unrealistic positions.
  Co-operation and yet more co-operation is the name of the game. That has long been argued by Liberals both in the House and elsewhere; it is not a new position. I remember vividly that almost 20 years ago, in 1977, in the European Parliament of which the hon. Gentleman is so disdainful, my noble Friend Lord Gladwyn was responsible for producing a trail-blazing report on common weapons procurement in Europe. We have come some way since those days, but not far or fast enough.
  As recently as 13 June, the Institute for Public Policy Research produced a document called "About Turn, Forward March with Europe". I shall quote briefly from the press release that accompanied the publication of the book, which was edited by Jane Sharp, the director of the defence and security programme at the IPPR. Apparently the document
  820
  "asserts that Britain can no longer afford, either politically or financially, to pursue a foreign and defence policy separately from her major European partners."
  That contradicts what the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood said. The press release continues:
  "Britain must integrate more deeply with France and Germany at all levels of defence planning and procurement.
  The link with the United States in NATO remains vital but Britain has to recognise that the special relationship with Washington is over. Britain can best influence world events in future as part of a strong and cohesive Europe.
  The book is critical of much conventional thinking about defence",
  and so on. That is a good basic position, very different from that outlined by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who speaks on such matters for our party, expressed the same feeling a couple of years ago in the Defence Industry Digest, succinctly and with the clarity that his legal mind gives him:
  "The European Union consists of many middle-ranking powers none of which can really afford"—
  again the word "afford" is used—
  "to maintain a full range of capabilities but which collectively form an extremely formidable alliance. Burden sharing, force specialisation and common procurement are all areas that should be examined. Once the CFSP has developed there may be scope for greater equality in expenditure on security among member states. Britain and France, which"—
  as the hon. Gentleman said
  "provide most of the capability, should be recompensed by those who spend less."
  The German position, which the hon. Gentleman also touched upon, is changing and will continue to change. It has already changed, when Germany sent troops into former Yugoslavia, and it will change further. It will not remain static. The Franco-German Eurocorps and the British-Dutch marine force have developed slowly, but I think that those exercises point in the right direction.
  I do not know whether the swear word "Maastricht" passed the hon. Gentleman's lips, but it certainly hovered in the air above him, so it might be useful if I remind the House exactly what the Maastricht treaty said when we passed it. As I recall, the Minister of State was most active at that time. The treaty called for the European Union to develop political co-operation, in particular through the implementation of
  "a common foreign and security policy including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence".
  The language is cautious, very likely because of the United Kingdom's reservations, but the intent is clear. The treaty both sets an objective and recognises technical and financial realities.
  The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood said that the Western European Union was possibly over-influenced by the European Union, partly but not entirely because of its location in Brussels. I believe that he said that it was subject to the risk of dread diseases by being stationed there. I am not sure whether I know what he means by the idea of "over-influence". The EU is not a monolith apart from the United Kingdom; the United Kingdom is part of it. The hon. Gentleman may not be happy about that, but it is a fact.

  821
  The United Kingdom's aim must be to work within the WEU, NATO and the EU. We must sit down with our colleagues there and work out political objectives. In our view the main flaw in previous defence reviews has been the fact that they have often been Treasury driven, rather than our having sat down and asked what we are capable of doing, who we are doing it with, how the activity should be shared out together, what we are prepared to undertake and what we are not prepared to undertake.
  For example, we were prepared to undertake to try to control the situation in the former Yugoslavia, but if there were a widespread repetition of the Chechnya conflict in the Soviet Union I do not think that we would endeavour to intervene, because we do not have the capacity to do anything about such matters. We must draw lines, too.
  I shall conclude by referring to the former Yugoslavia, because the hon. Gentleman touched on arms control at the end of his speech. I find the lifting of the arms embargo, which I believe took place yesterday, worrying. I do not think that it contributes much to the safety of our troops there, and I am sure that the French would agree with me. I should like to know what the Government's position is.
  According to The Guardian today:
  "The Bosnian Serbs will face the most radical cuts in the region"—
  the lifting of the embargo is based on concomitant cuts—
  "leaving them with 500 artillery pieces and 137 tanks, nearly halving their present force. The poorly-armed federation would have to acquire significant amounts of new equipment to reach its new ceilings of 273 tanks and 1,000 pieces of artillery."
  Then cometh the crunch:
  "However, much will depend on verification procedures and these must rely on trust, a rare commodity."
  It is indeed a rare commodity, which is still, sadly, virtually absent in the former Yugoslavia. Considering the risks that we and other western European countries—notably France and the Netherlands, as well as, of course, the Americans—have taken on ourselves to try to sort out a dreadful position, opening the floodgates to more arms entering the region is a mistake.
  11.30 am
  Mr. Edward Garnier: I am grateful to be called and particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) for choosing this subject for this morning's 11 o'clock debate. I do not think that we have debated a more important subject in the past few weeks. The importance of it is highlighted by the fact that it takes place in the interim between the first and second rounds of the Russian presidential elections. Whether my hon. Friend chose today and the subject for his debate knowing that that might be the backdrop or it was simply a gift from the Prince of Serendip does not matter. I congratulate him on the subject and the timing of the debate.
  I agree wholeheartedly with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said—in fact, almost 95 per cent. of it. Before we came into the Chamber, my hon. Friend confessed that he was going to make one or two generalisations. On the contrary, he made a highly detailed, well-argued and tightly constructed speech, which would have done the Europeans great credit. When I say the Europeans I mean
  822
  those in the 16th and 17th centuries who created those wonderfully detailed tapestries in the low countries. My hon. Friend's speech was excellent and taught us much.
  It is regrettable that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood and I are the only Conservative Back Benchers present—he to make the speech and I to listen to it. Parliament is diminished and those whom we represent are less well served when such speeches are listened to only by those who have to be present and one or two others who feel it of interest to be present. I trust that what my hon. Friend said will be reported widely and digested with pleasure.
  Not only those in my party have failed to attend this debate. I note that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) is wearing a very tasteful blue shirt, and I am particularly delighted that he has found time away from his duties in Scotland and elsewhere to be with us to represent his party. He always speaks with great learning and experience on foreign and defence policy, and although his speech—I hope that he will not think me rude—did not marry entirely with what my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said, it was worth listening to. I hope that it will be digested—perhaps not quite so comfortably—by the great British public when it is read.
  I look across the Chamber to the official Opposition. It is always a personal pleasure to see the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) because she speaks with great intelligence and sincerity. It is a pity that, behind her, the massed ranks of new Labour are notable for their absence rather than their presence. I am not blaming anyone, but it is worth observing that the Chamber is empty and it is a pity that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood has been listened to with such poverty in the numbers of the audience.
  Ms Ann Coffey: Come on, get on with it.
  Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood, who I know is a keen critic of Europe, devoted some of his speech to the common agricultural policy. I draw his attention to the fact that the European Union donates huge sums to—I think—the Greek economy to subsidise its tobacco farmers. One could not put a cigarette paper between what my hon. Friend said and what I, eventually, will get round to saying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—on Britain's role in European defence and security policy. I fear, however, that we could put a complete cigar box between what the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber said and what my hon. Friend and I have to say.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): Not much tobacco is grown in Harborough.
  Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend is quite right. We do not grow much tobacco in Harborough.
  My hon. Friend the Minister may be able to form a bridge—in so far as one is necessary—between my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood and myself, but I fear that the gap between Inverness and Harborough is unbridgeable.
  There are important lessons to be learnt not only from what my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said but from the wider political scene in

  823
  Europe. We cannot understand Britain's role in Europe's defence and security policy without bearing in mind the Russian elections and what is going on there. There are three dominant themes at the centre of Russian politics at the moment. First, there is the continuing need for reform of the social and economic structure of that much-troubled country. Secondly, there is a desire for protection.
  Over the past 10 or so years, there has been severe dislocation in Russian society—not only since the collapse of the iron curtain but before it. Millions of Russians see themselves as victims. They are homeless, poor and out of work and fear that they will not have a home, get a job or have the domestic security that they believe was their right. During the presidential elections, demands for the people of Russia and particular sectors of Russian industry to be protected were advocated.
  The third theme that ran through the Russian elections was nationhood. Now, 25 million ethnic Russians live outside the borders of the Russian Federation. The Russians, whether they live within or without the Federation, have a deep and sometimes melancholic sense of nationhood. General Lebed, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood referred, and who came third in the presidential elections, is the author of "The Dash to the South". I understand that he is now the new ally of President Yeltsin, which leaves Zyuganov as the second-placed presidential candidate—the communist—and his only hope of victory lying in the hands of Zhirinovsky. That must have a profound and direct consequence for us and the way in which we look on our defence and security role in Europe.
  Sir Russell Johnston: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman so early in his speech, but surely it was a matter of encouragement that support for Zhirinovsky fell by—I think—3 per cent.
  Mr. Garnier: It was encouraging that Zhirinovsky got 4.8 per cent. or thereabouts—
  Sir Russell Johnston: Five point five per cent.
  Mr. Garnier: It was a relatively small amount but none the less significant when it comes to tactical voting in the second round. I do not want to become too bogged down in the detail of Russian politics in the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood has initiated.
  What is important to us is how the new, developing Russia will regard its near abroad after the shenanigans in Chechnya. How will it regard our desire for an enlarged NATO? Will it want to expand not contract its armed forces, especially its navy, to satisfy domestic concerns and protect what it sees as its expanding capitalist economy as it looks to new markets overseas? How does that touch on us? I suggest that it affects us directly and most vitally.
  Politicians of all parties—including the two main Opposition parties and those outside the House—may whip themselves into a lather over local government spending, social security spending and its consequences for future tax breaks, and the BSE crisis which, of course, are all greatly important, but they shrink into
  824
  insignificance when one considers the matters that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood has addressed this morning. Another world exists outside Britain. It is changing and we ignore it at our peril.
  Defence matters to us in a world where Russia is politically and economically unstable and unsure of its future and of how it is regarded by the rest of the world. Defence matters when the politicians and bureaucrats of western Europe are talking about closer integration, while our experience of eastern Europe, the Balkans and the former Soviet Union is of disintegration. Some of it, happily, has been peaceful, such as the split between the Czech and Slovak republics. Other experiences of the disintegration in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have been profoundly violent. We need look no further than the former Yugoslavia to see an example of that.
  One also needs look no further than the former Yugoslavia to see Britain's importance as a European military power with a significant and influential role to play. The work of our forces there is an example of our co-operation with our European allies, our NATO allies, those in the WEU and across the Atlantic as well as within the main continental bloc. I am glad that others have found time this morning to praise and draw attention to the work of our forces in that troubled country.
  Defence matters in a world where the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the huge economic strains that that has caused has brought about huge economic migration from the eastern bloc into the west and where economic pressure has forced the peoples of northern Africa to move into southern Europe. It matters in a world where each country wishes to take a more or less aggressive stand against those who wish to move into it for economic reasons as opposed to reasons of racial, political or religious persecution.
  Defence matters in a western Europe that will be failing if it refuses to look outside the confines of the European Union and to recognise the need for a strategic global overview, encompassing the transatlantic link with the United States and Canada. Europe must also recognise the importance of fostering relations with Japan and the other democracies of Asia and Australasia, not just commercially but militarily as well. An inward-looking, exclusive European Union that tries to hammer a wish list into a prefabricated mould of politically correct Europeanism, including a European standing army, a European Union foreign and security policy that takes no account of intergovernmentalism, national co-operation and the need for practical answers to questions of practicalities and which wishes to translate the WEU into the European Union and fails to see the continuing need for NATO right across our continent would be damaging and contrary to the interests of this country.
  My criticism of those who advocate such policies is not to deny the need for unity of purpose or to say that this country has no place in the security picture of the European continent—far from it. We certainly need to be part of it. We have experience on the world stage as members of NATO and WEU and as one of the two European members of the permanent five on the UN Security Council. We also have military capability in manning and planning and good intelligence services.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood read a passage from the European Union report published earlier this month about a desire to bring the nuclear

  825
  capability of individual member states such as France and the United Kingdom within the competence of the European Union machinery. That is deeply disturbing and misunderstands the needs of the future development of the European military scene. It misunderstands our natural desire to maintain an independent nuclear deterrent.
  All the experience and skills that I have mentioned, our equipment, both nuclear and conventional, our will to protect our national interests wherever they are threatened, within or outside Europe and our determination to back our words with actions suggest that the British approach to the security of Europe is better and more realistic and will work.
  Since our policy commands respect beyond the limits of the European Union, on the wider continent of Europe, in the United States and, at this juncture, in the Kremlin, it is the policy that should be preferred. Although I sincerely respect the views of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, I suspect that the Liberal Democrats' views on co-operation mean something rather different from those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood and me. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reject them out of hand.
  11.45 am
  Ms Joyce Quin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on his success in securing this Adjournment debate and on his choice of subject. This subject is often lost in wider defence debates or wider debates on the European Union such as the one that we will no doubt be having in the Chamber tomorrow. The debate has provided an opportunity to focus specifically on the hon. Gentleman's choice of topic. The choice of subject is timely because of the United Kingdom presidency of the Western European Union and because of the discussions taking place within the intergovernmental conference.
  When I saw the subject for debate today I wondered whether a Defence Minister would represent the Government rather than a Foreign Office Minister. I hope that the fact that it is attended by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office means that the Secretary of State for Defence is temporarily silenced after his disgraceful speech the other evening. He should go back to his history books and remember that it was a Labour Government who helped to set up NATO. We need no lessons in patriotism from him. I was rather relieved to see that the editorial in the Daily Mail described his speech as one puffed up with "patriotic bombast". That described it nicely.
  The speech of made by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood was interesting and was perhaps less strongly marked than usual with his suspicion of anything to do with the European Union, although there was a little bit of that, particularly in his exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall).
  The hon. Gentleman made many valid points. One which I strongly endorse was that about the protectionist impulses in economic policy which some European countries are showing to countries of central and eastern Europe and to Russia. That is completely unacceptable. We have an economic duty to the countries of central and eastern Europe to be as open as we can. I believe strongly that it is in our long-term interests to be generous and to help create that large pan-European market that is capable of benefiting all the countries involved.
  826
  I shall comment on the Opposition's position on some of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman and others. The Labour party has a strong commitment to NATO and see it as the cornerstone of our defence policy. Active membership of NATO and participation in it is an essential part of our defence strategy. Obviously, we agree with the comments made this morning about the fact that NATO is now, self-evidently, operating in a different European and world climate and that its role has to be re-evaluated in that respect while building on the co-operation and achievements that it already has to its credit.
  Obviously, enlargement of NATO will be an important subject for years to come, and we very much welcome initiatives that have already been taken, through the Partnership for Peace programme, with many countries of central and eastern Europe and many countries who were formerly viewed as enemy countries and well outside any co-operative framework with NATO. Such Partnership for Peace programmes are important, as will be eventual enlargement of NATO, but we want enlargement of NATO to take place in a way that does not create new divisions in the European continent. We must consider that important aspect at every opportunity.
  That does not mean giving Russia or anyone else a veto over any one country's application for membership, but it does involve ensuring that we work for and build a stable and peaceful European continent for the future. It is an especially difficult time for Russia, as many hon. Members have said. Obviously, we are glad that the elections in Russia took place on schedule, and we are keen, as I believe is everyone in the House, to support the continuing reform process in Russia, to help underpin democracy and to create economic relationships that will be vital for the future.
  The WEU was mentioned by all participants in the debate. We welcome recent moves to strengthen the WEU as the European pillar of NATO. We welcome France's decision to reintegrate itself into NATO and to play an active part in the WEU, to which it has always been strongly attached, as it has been to NATO. We welcome the initiatives of the combined joint task forces, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood, and we welcome the initiatives regarding the Petersburg tasks—which he also mentioned—of peacekeeping, humanitarian relief and so on. We believe that there is room for the WEU to take several important initiatives and act in a distinctively European way, but in a way that does not cause political tensions in the transatlantic relationship. I do not envisage any significant danger of that happening. We want the WEU, not to duplicate NATO activities, but to be able to supplement and enhance the work of the wider alliance.
  In terms of the role of the European Union in this process, we feel that the common foreign and security policy should remain a separate pillar in the pillar structure as we know it, and that decisions in the common foreign and security policy should be taken by unanimity. We do not see the European Union as taking over the Western European Union, and obviously there are question marks concerning the future development of a defence role for the European Union, which make progress in this area very difficult.
  The 15 countries of the European Union have somewhat different defence traditions. Some have a neutral status, although the type of neutrality of countries

  827
  that profess neutral status varies case by case, naturally, because of the history of the countries concerned and their different traditions, and sometimes their different international links or geopolitical situation.
  That means that, especially during the intergovernmental conference, it is unlikely that the position regarding European defence co-operation will change dramatically, but it would be interesting to hear from the Minister some more details about the discussions between European Union countries in that area.
  We have all had an opportunity to read the report of the reflection group, in which the Minister of State participated, but that document is often very unsatisfactory in that it says, "Some countries thought this, some countries thought that," so we must rely on press leaks to find out what countries said and which countries committed themselves to specific policies. Perhaps, in the interests of openness in the European Union, the Minister might give us a few more details this morning about the breakdown between countries on the key issues of how the European defence identity may or may not develop in future, and what different countries in the European Union regard as the respective roles of the European Union and the Western European Union.
  As the wider common foreign and security policy was mentioned, especially by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), perhaps the Minister will tell us something about the continuing thoughts of the Government about appointing a European Union foreign policy representative. I understand that the Foreign Secretary favoured that proposal but many of his hon. Friends did not.
  I strongly support what was said by Opposition Members about the institutional links between the Western European Union and the European Union. We want closer relations between the WEU and the European Union; Brussels, which has been the home of NATO and the European institutions, would be an obvious place for that liaison to occur.
  I am glad that there are now contacts between the WEU Assembly and Members of the European Parliament, especially the security and disarmament sub-committee of the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee. It makes sense that those Members of the European Parliament who are especially involved in examining that aspect of policy within the European Union framework are able to discuss regularly with their parliamentary counterparts in the WEU Assembly. I pay tribute to the work of my colleagues here on the WEU Assembly and to the Labour Members of the European Parliament who are involved in that liaison process.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Often a false antithesis is made between the advisory Parliamentary Assembly of the WEU and the European Parliament; there are reports from the European Parliament of a sort of takeover. Does the hon. Lady agree that, even if WEU becomes more integrated into the European Union, that is no reason necessarily to abolish the advisory Parliamentary Assembly, which offers a useful outlet for national Parliaments to speak on defence matters in Europe?
  Ms Quin: I agree. In any case, I do not envisage the abolition of the WEU Assembly, and I believe that
  828
  national parliamentarians who have built up expertise in that regard need to have a close dialogue with Members of the European Parliament, who come at it from a slightly different angle but who have an equal interest in parliamentary and public scrutiny of the matters being considered.
  More generally, it appears that, despite the fears that some Members of the House occasionally express about competition between the European Parliament and national Parliaments, there is a great deal, especially in the short term, that can be done to improve joint scrutiny by both national and European Parliaments of many of the issues that are important in the eyes of the public, but are not publicly debated as much as we should like.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I wish to add a further point to that made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). Is it not the case, though, that, as long as national Parliaments have responsibility for voting budgets for national defence, and as long as national Defence Ministers are answerable to those Parliaments—indeed, in some European Parliaments, the Defence Committees have very important roles—the purpose and function of the Assembly of WEU will be central to the formulation of a common European view on defence? That is not to say that there is no merit in Members of the European Parliament taking an interest; increasing interest in, and intelligent inquiry about, matters of defence, at whatever level in Europe, is all to the good.
  Ms Quin: Obviously the budgetary aspects are important, but that does not undermine the importance of the institutional links between the two bodies, which are now more necessary than ever before and which need strengthening.
  We also believe in the idea of back-to-back sessions between the WEU and the relevant institutions of the Council of Ministers, as offering more co-ordination and better dialogue between the WEU and the European Union. That would make a great deal of sense.
  The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood also mentioned arms procurement. The Opposition can see important advantages in collaboration between European countries in arms production and in improving competition, but we have doubts about the way in which the system works at present. If a country is to have a 10 per cent. involvement in a project, it has to have 10 per cent. of the economic activity involved in the arms effort in question. That often seems to work against the interests of competitiveness and open tendering. Given the efficiency of some of our arms industries, we should bear this in mind when planning for the future.
  Finally, I believe strongly that the end of the cold war presents us with enormous opportunities. Because of the growth of nationalisms and xenophobia in many parts of the EU—the latter is not always absent, unfortunately, from the United Kingdom—there is always a danger of renationalisation in this important area of defence and security policy. Labour does not want that to happen. We want the end of the cold war to be put to good purpose, by building on the achievements of the international co-operation that we already enjoy in defence and security matters. Based on our European and international commitments, we must try to build towards a wider, more peaceful, stable and prosperous European continent.
  12.1 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): Our debate takes place against the background of some important developments in the European security landscape. In Bosnia, British troops are playing a leading role in the success of IFOR—the NATO implementation force—which is the largest military operation in NATO's history. In NATO itself, important work on enlargement and the changes needed to adapt the alliance to new strategic realities is under way. There is also the intergovernmental conference, the agenda of which includes European security and defence.
  I therefore congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on his choice of subject and I welcome the debate which, for these reasons and for others that my hon. Friend outlined, is especially timely.
  All the speeches in this debate have been of a high quality. Although I do not agree with everything that has been said, hon. Members have put their arguments cogently. I must tell my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) that building a bridge between him and the Liberal Democrat spokesman on this subject is beyond my meagre abilities—although, as he remembers, I have spent some time bridge-building with him in the past.
  Because the debate is so timely, some of the issues it covers are highly sensitive, so I shall choose my language with care today, for reasons that the House will understand. I might add, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin), that I am responding to the debate because, quite apart from its European dimension, my responsibilities cover international security, including NATO; the Western European Union; and nuclear weapons. There is no hidden agenda behind my appearance.
  The term Europe's defence and security policy carries the risk of misinterpretation. Like many of the other catch-phrases—such as the European pillar of the alliance—it is something of a misnomer. I say that because our defence is not a purely European concern. It is primarily to NATO, a transatlantic organisation, that we owe the peace that we have enjoyed for the past 50 years, so when we consider Britain's role in European security and defence, it is right to start with our contribution to NATO.
  That contribution remains substantial. On any measure, Britain more than pulls its weight. For example, our contribution to IFOR involves about 11,500 personnel—a much greater effort proportionate to population, gross domestic product or the size of our armed forces than any other nation has been able to make. We can all be rightly proud of the work of these service men and women. The shared values and interests on which the alliance was built remain as strong as ever. As Bosnia has shown, the American presence in Europe continues to be an essential contribution to security.
  The end of the cold war does not mean that we no longer need to be ready to defend ourselves and to keep the Atlantic community together. For the British Government, a strong NATO remains the key; it informs everything that we do.
  The experience in Bosnia has also shown that a greater European contribution is one of the most effective ways of keeping NATO strong. Two thirds of IFOR' s personnel
  830
  are European. France is fielding a substantial contingent—testimony to the strength that NATO will draw from France's welcome decision to participate more fully in the alliance. European countries outside NATO—Finland, Sweden, Russia and nine central European countries—are also making significant contributions.
  The challenge that we face with IFOR, with future NATO operations and at the intergovernmental conference is to allow the widest possible range of European countries to contribute to security, but that must be done in a way that strengthens the Atlantic alliance. That, I believe, was the thrust of my hon. Friend's speech this morning.
  The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) asked me a question about Bosnia. The United Kingdom is committed to keeping the balance of armaments at the lowest possible level consistent with regional security in that part of the world. The parties have committed themselves to agreed levels of armaments. The agreement was signed in Florence at the Bosnia review conference on 14 June. The NATO-led implementation force has agreed to verify compliance with the agreement, so compliance will not be, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to imply, voluntary. Verification will be done in conjunction with Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe arms control experts, leading to a verified reduction in the armaments held by some, particularly the Bosnian Serbs. Some room will be left for rearming by the Bosnian-Croat Federation, however.
  Sir Russell Johnston: The fact that General Mladic is still at large and confident enough to go to Belgrade without being arrested—and still in charge of the Bosnian Serb army—leads many of us to doubt whether he will co-operate in any large-scale reduction in armaments.
  Mr. Davis: I will not be drawn any further on this—nor would the hon. Gentleman expect me to be. My point stands.
  Britain is leading the way towards the new flexibility goals in three key areas. First, the Atlantic alliance has not stood still as the world has changed around it. The end of the cold war and subsequent regional instability have changed the strategic environment radically. Since the fall of the iron curtain, Britain has played a key role in moving NATO towards the more flexible structure that is now required. The landmark decisions taken by NATO Ministers in Berlin on 3 June were a mark of our success. They pave the way for reform of NATO's command structure, allowing it to respond quickly and effectively to future regional crises such as the one that occurred in Bosnia.
  Agreement on the combined joint task force concept will allow NATO headquarters facilities to be deployed systematically for operations involving NATO and non-NATO countries. The decision to build a European security and defence identity within NATO will allow the Western European Union to provide political control and strategic direction for European operations drawing on NATO assets, capabilities and planning.
  The last point is of fundamental importance. It means, in effect, that a European identity can be built in partnership with NATO, using common structures. It also means that NATO will be able to draw strength from the desire of Europeans to do more for their security—both

  831
  in operations involving all the allies and, more rarely, when the United States does not wish to be directly involved in European operations under WEU political control. This ends the prospect of any European Union identity competing with NATO—that is an important point.
  Secondly, no one would claim that the Western European Union has been a central player in European security during the past 50 years, important though its actions have been. It gained useful experience in operations in the Gulf and in Yugoslavia. It will need more experience, and robust machinery for control and direction of operations using NATO assets, if it is to fulfil the role accorded to it at Berlin.
  That role will not involve operations of the scale and complexity of IFOR. Such tasks must continue to be carried out by European countries working together with our north American partners. The Western European Union should be able to carry out smaller peacekeeping and humanitarian tasks, working closely with NATO and the European Union. Giving the WEU the necessary operational capability to do just that has been the top priority for the British presidency of the WEU in the first half of this year.
  We have made considerable progress over the past six months. This is summarised in the declaration of the Western European Union Ministers at Birmingham on 7 May, a copy of which has been deposited in the Library. In short, we have developed working links with NATO. The conclusion of a security agreement between the two organisations last month means that the WEU will be able to receive classified NATO intelligence and information in the future.
  We have promoted practical co-operation between the WEU and the EU where it makes sense for the two organisations to work together, such as in relation to evacuation planning and Mostar. We have established within the WEU a situation centre and an intelligence section, both of which are vital if the WEU council is to have the up-to-the-minute information that is needed to make operational decisions.
  We have made it easier for the widest possible range of European countries to contribute to the work of the WEU by agreeing to procedures for the participation of neutral countries in WEU operations, by allowing the central European associate partners to play a greater role and by strengthening relations with Russia and the Ukraine. I am grateful for the recognition that all these measures received in the Defence Committee's recent report on the WEU, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood referred.
  These developments, and the decisions taken by NATO Foreign Ministers at Berlin, are of fundamental importance for the intergovernmental conference—which is the third area that I intend to address. Defence is one of the issues that Maastricht agreed should be reviewed at the IGC. In our view, there is no urgent need to rewrite the provisions of the Maastricht treaty that deal with defence. The IGC is not central to the future of European defence—the success of IFOR and NATO adaptation is much more important to the evolution of what is sometimes called the European security architecture. The
  832
  IGC must avoid decisions that are driven by institutional theology rather than operational logic—that is an important point.
  Arrangements for European security and defence must respond not only to a desire for bureaucratic or institutional tidiness, but to the real security challenges that we face in the years ahead. That is why we will continue to oppose proposals that aim at an eventual merger of the EU and WEU, or subordinating the WEU to the authority of the EU. Those approaches are simply not practical—they would be a recipe for less effective, not more effective, European action.
  Not all members of the EU are full members of the WEU. It would be wrong for countries that do not share obligations to defend each other's territory as enshrined in article V of the Washington treaty and to have an equal say in decisions on defence binding those who do. The Berlin Foreign Ministers' communiqué makes quite clear that NATO assets and capabilities are to be made available on a case-by-case basis for European operations under the control and direction of WEU.
  It is not realistic to expect allies to make these assets available if the EU ultimately gives the orders. The EU has neither the expertise nor the purely intergovernmental structure necessary for the life-and-death decisions that are needed during military operations. There can be no question of the Government allowing the Commission, the European Parliament or the European Court of Justice a say in decisions affecting the safety of British forces; the IGC can complement the progress already made in NATO and the WEU towards effective and credible arrangements open to a wide range of European countries.
  Last year, the Prime Minister set out in the House our approach to defence at the IGC. He made clear that keeping NATO strong as the bedrock of European security would be our first priority. That remains the case, and it will always remain the case. He underlined our determination to develop European defence co-operation in the WEU as a means of strengthening NATO. He proposed a reinforced partnership between the EU and an autonomous WEU so that the political, economic and military elements of European crisis management could be properly co-ordinated.
  I shall now address some of the specific points that hon. Members have raised during the debate and, first, I refer to co-operation in defence equipment procurement. We play a full and active part in the western European armaments group, which is the main forum for the discussion of issues related to European armaments co-operation. We are also exploring with France and Germany the conditions for cooperation within the armaments structure that they have pioneered. Both countries have agreed in principle to United Kingdom participation. This is good news for British industry and for the British taxpayer. Discussions with France and Germany are at a preliminary stage at this point. We hope to start work soon on an intergovernmental memorandum of understanding that will define in more detail how the armaments structure will work.
  We believe that intergovernmental decision-making remains the correct approach to this and to all other policy areas related to defence, but we have no desire for a "Fortress Europe" to develop. We value our transatlantic defence trading relationship and we will continue to conduct business with the United States where that best

  833
  suits our requirements. We remain committed to value for money and to competition in our procurement. European protectionism is a recipe for stagnation, as the hon. Member for Gateshead, East said.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood raised the question of a specifically European nuclear deterrent. I see no advantage in addressing this issue outside the transatlantic framework. Nuclear deterrence is bound up with the defence of our territory and that of our allies. Collective territorial deterrence is a matter for Europeans and north Americans working together in NATO. No Government are seriously suggesting that that should change—we certainly are not.
  I agree that to give the EU military responsibilities for which it is not equipped would impede the task of extending stability and prosperity to the east. It would create a new obstacle to EU membership for central European countries and it would unnecessarily provoke Russian fears—a point that was touched on by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough and by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood.
  The developments in NATO and in the WEU that I have described today reflect the considerable progress we have made, but more can be done in the EU to improve the working relationship with the WEU. The Maastricht treaty already provides for the EU to request action from the WEU, and access to NATO assets and capabilities will put it in a much stronger position to respond to such requests in future. However, the habit of practical co-operation that we have been encouraging over the past six months must be built up if the two organisations are to work together effectively in such cases. We have proposed back-to-back arrangements from the highest level down to facilitate that.
  There is sometimes a tendency in Europe to mistake pragmatism for a lack of vision. That could not be further from the truth in this case. Our approach to the IGC is based on a clear view of the defence and security policies that are needed to preserve peace and prosperity in Europe. It is underpinned by an ability and a readiness to deploy military force when circumstances require it. That ability makes our voice in the debate an influential one and it ensures that Britain will continue to play a leading role in Europe's defence and security policy.

  River Claw (Pollution)
  12.20 pm
  Miss Emma Nicholson: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this subject, and I am glad that I have been called to introduce it a little earlier than I or the Minister expected. I raise an important matter regarding an incident that is crucial for my constituents. Although the Environment Agency and the farming family concerned have acted speedily and efficiently, the Minister may like to consider some points about the incident in planning for the future.
  On Sunday 9 June, the Environment Agency received a telephone call from a member of the public who had been walking her dog along the banks of the River Claw near Holsworthy. Farming in that area is particularly difficult because most of the land around Holsworthy is classified as grade 4—the lowest ranking of land for agricultural use in our ranking system. Land categorised as grades 1 or 2 may be used to grow grain, but land graded 3 or 4 is much more difficult to cultivate. In the Holsworthy area, we are very grateful for funding for culm measures related to a rare form of wild grass that grows in the heavy clay. I am told by local bank managers that farmers in the Holsworthy area never borrow money as they cannot repay it. That demonstrates how slender farmers' incomes are.
  The incident involved a local farm. A member of the public noted that five miles or so of the river had been turned a dark brown colour by slurry, which is poisonous. The Environment Agency later described the contamination as a category 1 incident. Its senior water quality officer called it a "very serious and regrettable incident". The source of the contamination was a small family dairy farm, and I pay tribute to the way in which the farmer reacted to the problem. He is anxious that I should not name him, and I shall not do so. The farmer had done the right things and he had the appropriate insurance cover. His waste management system was maintained to a high standard and was checked recently by the National Rivers Authority and identified as being 100 per cent. effective.
  However, there was unusually high rainfall over the weekend of 7 June. As the water level in the farm's dirty water tanks rose, the automatic sprinkler system was triggered and the water seeped into an old, unidentified drainage pipe in a field. It then leaked into a tributary of the Claw. The clean-up operation continues. Thousands of gallons of a poisonous slurry and silage mix have entered the river, starving it of oxygen and resulting in the sad loss of trout, stone loach, salmon and bullheads.
  I suggest that the incident represents a major test for the new Environment Agency, which began its operations on 1 May this year. Its handling of the clean-up has been good—even though the incident is far more serious than first thought. My main concern today is to ask the Minister: if such devastation can be caused by an otherwise well-maintained waste system, what are the chances of such devastation occurring again not just in Devon, but nationally? For example, is the Environment Agency working closely with South West Water, which must have known that the drainage pipe existed? The contamination was classified as a category 1 incident, which is the most serious. However, there have been five such incidents in the six weeks or so the agency has been up and running. That is a worrying statistic.

  835
  The Minister will no doubt refer to the decline in agricultural pollution in the south-west region. The record shows a welcome improvement in that regard. In 1995, there were 975 incidents—a decrease of 50 on the previous year. That represented 21 per cent. of total pollution compared with 24 per cent. in the previous year.
  Farming is the main industry in my constituency and I represent in this place the views of just under 4,000 farmers. I try to protect their quality of life and their incomes. The low pollution figures are excellent, as food production, processing and distribution are very important to my constituency.
  The considerable losses that dairy and beef farmers in my constituency face as a result of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crises may spread to the wider sphere of food production, processing and distribution. That trilogy forms the mainstay of the local economy and of productivity in my constituency. The Government have so far focused correctly on the plight of farmers, slaughterers and renderers, but perhaps they could look more closely at the needs of manufacturers.
  One firm in my constituency, CPC (UK) Ltd., is concerned about the way in which several of the beef-related products across its wide brand portfolio have been affected by the crisis. For example, several countries are refusing to accept exports of Bovril. I would be grateful if the Minister would consider that matter and inform his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  In my great farming constituency, farm pollution represented a lower proportion of the total pollution in Devon last year than in the previous year. That is an excellent result. The figures were due perhaps to an exceptionally dry summer and to the fact that in 1994 and 1995 dairy farming enjoyed a period of relative prosperity which allowed farmers to invest in farm pollution control. It is proper that the polluter should pay, but I draw the attention of the House to the fact that many farmers in my constituency have small net disposable incomes at the end of the financial year—some as low as £1,500.
  Unfortunately, we cannot always rely on good weather to ensure environmental safety. There is now a real danger that, as dairy and beef farming incomes go into reverse as a result of the BSE crisis and its many ramifications, many farmers will find it increasingly difficult to afford that crucial investment. I do not suggest that the large numbers of cattle that are backed up on farms awaiting disposal are adding significantly to the present pollution load—after all, they are mostly out at grass. However, if significant numbers of cows are still awaiting disposal in the autumn, the incidence of environmental pollution from slurry will increase dramatically. That adds to the importance of speeding up the necessary disposal of cattle.
  A matter that relates directly to the Under-Secretary's portfolio is Government support for waste water schemes. The current difficulties of the beef and dairy industry are compounded by the withdrawal of Government support for farmers who install waste water systems. The grants were originally 50 per cent. of the cost of an effective storage and control system for dirty water from farms. They were reduced to 25 per cent. and then abolished completely. Those grants were not intended to boost
  836
  farmers' profits, slender though those are in my constituency, but were for the sole purpose of environmental clean-up. If the Government wish environmental clean-ups to continue, surely those grants should be reinstated.
  I seek an assurance from the Government that they will not sacrifice environmental concerns in a quest to cut costs. My concern over the lack of Government resources allocated to protecting the environment also applies to the Environment Agency. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution said in 1995 that it could find the staff for fewer than three out of five necessary site visits to ensure compliance with regulation by the industry. Staffing levels have not been increased in the new Environment Agency. The chief executive has pointed out that he has 1,200 fewer staff than was expected when plans were drawn up for the agency two years ago.
  Surely those staff are essential if we are to ensure that waste storage systems are maintained and used properly and that regulations are understood and enforced. Perhaps the Under-Secretary should learn the lesson and understand the importance of ensuring compliance, especially if he looks sideways at the Ministry of Agriculture and the way in which the BSE crisis has been handled since 1985.
  The Government's stated concern for the environment is also qualified, unacceptably, by a cost-benefit analysis laid down in the Environment Act 1995, under which the costs of actions by the agency have to be justified before they are implemented. It is therefore possible for someone to make a legal challenge on the costs and benefits of an agency decision that he should install expensive pollution equipment. That situation will lead to what is known as paralysis by analysis. The position is further complicated by the fact that non-financial benefits are difficult to measure against straightforward financial costs. Respect for economic effects of environmental protection is right and proper, but not to the extent of interfering with proper monitoring. I ask the Under-Secretary to consider that point.
  A former Member of the House, Lord Crickhowell, who is also a former chairman of the National Rivers Authority, provided a forewarning of the problem when he said that there must be
  "a mechanism for discovering what those costs are and for putting values on the environmental benefits. If that mechanism is not provided there is a real risk that almost all the Agency's decisions will be challenged to appeal, or worse, in the courts."
  I ask the Under-Secretary to comment on that point also.
  The Government's promises on the environment, as they affect my constituency, are laid bare by a reluctance to provide the proper resources and are riddled with qualifications. The farmers in my constituency, especially the farmer to whom this unfortunate incident occurred on 9 June, and I need reassurance from the Under-Secretary today that everything is being done that can be done to prevent such incidents from happening again. At present, to me at least, the evidence for that seems uncertain.
  12.33 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I can give the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson) assurance on the points that she raised. I shall set out the important issues implicit in

  837
  the incident and, especially, our understanding of the cause of the incident on the River Claw; the remedial and other measures that were taken by the Environment Agency in its aftermath; whether any longer-term effects will arise from the incident; what action may be taken as a result of the incident; and our policy on minimising the risk of water pollution from agricultural sources.
  I should, however, like to begin by thanking the public-spirited member of the public, to whom the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon referred, who brought the incident to the attention of the Environment Agency and thereby allowed action to be taken at an early stage. I understand that the alert was given using the 24-hour free emergency pollution hotline which the agency operates and which was introduced by the National Rivers Authority in 1993. Last year, the hotline handled more than 30,000 calls, all of which were intended to allow prompt action to be taken to help protect the water environment. Once again, that initiative has shown its worth.
  The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon gave a description of the River Claw, which is a tributary of the Tamar. The catchment is predominantly intensively farmed grassland, used for stock rearing. The origin of the incident appears to have been a stock farm in the upper reaches of the Claw near Holsworthy. The cause of the pollution, which the hon. Lady described, seems to have been liquid farm waste that contained some slurry. The hon. Lady called the liquid "poisonous" and I will describe its effects later, but it is important to clarify that it was liquid manure.
  Slurry is organic waste. It is polluting not because it is persistent or contains toxic substances but because it has a high biochemical oxygen demand—in other words, it depletes oxygen levels in waters which it enters because micro-organisms have to absorb additional oxygen to break down the organic material. The biochemical oxygen demand of cattle slurry may be up to 12,000 mg per litre compared to perhaps 50 mg per litre for treated domestic sewage. Thus it has a severe, if relatively short-lived, impact. That is why we have measures in place to require slurries to be stored in a safe manner—measures to which I shall return later.
  In the incident on 9 June, a large quantity of liquid waste appears to have drained from a store to a "low rate" irrigation system used for disposal of dirty water by sprinkling to land, as the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon mentioned. As a result, the polluted water was spread on to land by the irrigator and then entered the land drainage system and the river, resulting in the incident on Sunday afternoon 9 June.
  Spreading dirty water to land to dispose it under controlled conditions is generally an acceptable method, but in this case the effects were disastrous. I understand the points made by the hon. Lady, but at this stage it remains unclear to the Environment Agency why the polluting matter drained from the store to the dirty water disposal system and why there was such a rapid loss of liquid from the store. It seems that the irrigator itself may have been operated in a manner that does not accord with the guidance given in the Government's code of good agricultural practice.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: The farmer's waste management system had been cleared 100 per cent.
  838
  favourably by the NRA only weeks previously. I remind the Under-Secretary that, of course, in normal circumstances slurry is not poisonous to humans, but at the time of the BSE scare we have to be especially careful with all waste products from animals that may be cull cows.
  Mr. Clappison: I am sure that the hon. Lady will accept that I was trying to be precise when I described the exact effects of slurry. The important point, as I am sure she will agree, is the effect of slurry on fish and other wildlife. The hon. Lady's description of the incident is based on the information she has, but the matter will be subject to further investigation and I will describe that later. I hope that the hon. Lady will understand if I am somewhat circumspect in my remarks about the incident.
  Whatever the cause, the effects of the entry of the polluting matter were severe. Oxygen levels in the Claw fell from 88 per cent. saturation, which is about what would normally be expected, to zero. About 3 km of the river turned dark brown. As a result, there was considerable fish mortality in the stretches affected before remediation began. The agency estimates that between 2,500 and 3,000 fish may have died, of which perhaps about 400 were brown trout.
  The agency took remedial measures and initially focused on providing information to other relevant bodies and assessment of the polluting impact of the incident in order to concentrate remedial action in the most effective manner. The closest abstraction point for potable supply is about 45 km from the incident, so there was no threat to drinking water supply.
  One of the main strands of remedial action was to save as many fish as possible. That was achieved with considerable success, I am pleased to say. About 1,700 fish were saved, of which over half were either trout or juvenile salmon. These fish were transferred to waters downstream of the incident. The second strand was to remove the polluted water from the river through pumping. Again this proved successful. The third was to re-oxygenate the river as rapidly as possible. This was achieved through the insertion of a mechanical whisk in the polluted stretch that re-aerates the water, as well as the use of other aeration equipment at other strategic sites in the Claw, to assist re-oxygenation. In addition, hydrogen peroxide—it is a strong oxidising agent—was used to introduce oxygen at strategic sites.
  These remedial measures were undertaken between 9 and 12 June. By 12 June the oxygen levels in the Claw had recovered to the standards before the incident and remediation ceased. The incident was declared closed by the agency on 12 June.
  The longer-term effects of the incident will be of concern. Slurry is biodegradable and the pollution was therefore primarily transient. The Claw is categorised as a class 2 river under our river ecosystem classification system, which requires, among other things, a dissolved oxygen level of better than 70 per cent. saturation. It is unlikely that there will be any longer-term diminution in the high quality of the river as a result of the incident. The agency will, however, be monitoring the manner in which the river recovers from the incident.
  The main longer-term effects will be in relation to biological communities in the river. It may take up to 12 months for the invertebrates to recover. For fish, the

  839
  recovery period will be even longer. The agency will be considering whether there is a need to improve spawning grounds to assist the development of fish populations. An alternative would be to introduce new stock to the river. As I have said, the incident had no consequences for any public use of the river, including drinking water supply.
  The agency made use of its powers under section 161 of the Water Resources Act 1991 to undertake remedial work. It is now open to the agency to seek to recover the costs that it has incurred from any person who may have caused or knowingly permitted the polluting matter to enter the river, so that the polluter pays for the costs associated with his actions. I understand that the agency intends to take such action. I noted the hon. Lady's support for the important principle that the polluter must pay.
  The agency has been gathering information that might be used to support a prosecution for an offence of polluting controlled waters under the 1991 Act. A decision on whether to take such action will be a matter for the agency. It is, however, the agency's policy to prosecute major pollution incidents where there is sufficient evidence and it is possible to do so as the person concerned can be identified. For the reasons I gave following the hon. Lady's intervention, I do not wish to say any more on that subject. I have set out the general legal framework that applies to this incident and to all others.
  It has long been an offence under water pollution law to cause or knowingly permit the entry of poisonous, noxious or polluting matter to fresh waters. This approach has been successful in ensuring that those who undertake actions that are potentially polluting do so in the knowledge that they are liable for the consequences to the water environment of their actions. We should all recognise, however, that, although it is important to be able to take action where pollution has occurred, it is better to prevent that pollution in the first place.
  Accordingly, in the agriculture sector, the Government have adopted an approach that employs both regulatory controls and advice and guidance to farmers and growers on how to carry out their activities in a manner that reduces the risk of water pollution. That is important. The guidance is found primarily in the code of good agricultural practice produced by the Ministry of Agriculture, which is being revised. The code has proved highly successful in setting out for farmers, their staff and contractors who handle, store, use, spread or dispose of any substances that could pollute water, the causes and results of water pollution, how best to minimise the risk of such pollution through their operations and what to do in an emergency.
  The code includes extensive guidance on the principles of storing and applying livestock wastes and other organic wastes to land as well as the storage of slurry and the operation of dirty water systems. The guidance supports the regulatory requirement which we have introduced for the storage of slurry via the control of pollution regulations of 1991. The regulations specify that slurry must be kept in a reception pit or slurry storage tank, whether this is a pit, lagoon or above-ground store. They set out minimum requirements for the design and construction of such facilities.
  840
  We have recently consulted on changes to the 1991 regulations, but none is concerned with the basic standards that are applicable to the stores in question. For example, bases must be impermeable. Bases and walls must be protected against corrosion and must be capable of withstanding characteristic loads. The storage tank must have a life of at least 20 years. Failure to comply with these regulations is an offence.
  I am pleased to say that the measures to which I have referred have led to some considerable successes. Farmers are certainly among those who are most concerned about the environment. They are naturally anxious to do all that they can to avoid polluting incidents.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: I am glad to hear the Minister's description of the code of conduct. He knows, however, that farmers are subject to many different Government guidelines and, possibly, grants to assist them. Will he consider suggesting to his colleagues, or putting in place himself, a one-stop shop for farmers, to which they could turn to obtain advice on improving their land, on environmental matters and on available grants? It is difficult for a farmer, who is a one-family man these days, to be able to plug into all the different rules and regulations to gain proper advice and grant assistance without a one-stop shop.
  Mr. Clappison: I note what the hon. Lady says. In context, the important issue is that advice has been made widely available to farmers. There is clear evidence, to which the hon. Lady adverted, that the process has been successful. The number of incidents has been falling. There is an improving picture of pollution from the sources that we are discussing. The total number of substantiated pollution incidents reported in 1995 reflected a fall of 8 per cent. Within that total, the number of incidents attributable to agricultural sources fell by 18 per cent. The number of agricultural incidents was the lowest since the formation of the NRA in 1989. Moreover, the number of major agricultural incidents—that is the highest category showing a serious effect, such as substantial fish kill—fell from 239 in 1989 to only 32 in 1995.
  That is a pleasing development that reflects the efforts that the NRA and now the agency have been making in visiting farmers and undertaking anti-pollution campaigns. I know, for example, that the agency has been working with farmers in the upper Tamar on how to manage farm waste to reduce the risk of pollution. I am sure as well that it is a good reflection on farmers in the area which the hon. Lady described.
  The proportion of major pollution incidents attributable to agriculture has fallen from 36 per cent. in 1989 to 17 per cent. in 1995. There is still room for improvement, but considerable strides have been taken in the right direction. As a recent agency report on pollution incidents concluded:
  "This has been achieved by a combination of publicity, pollution prevention, regulations and farm waste grants. It clearly demonstrates that the risk of pollution can be significantly reduced if a sufficient co-ordinated approach is taken."
  It should be clear from my explanation of the incident and from the background of our general policy that the Environment Agency should be congratulated on its prompt reaction, which averted some of the worst consequences of a major incident. The hon. Lady accepted

  841
  that the agency had performed well. The incident is now over, in the sense that oxygen levels in the river have returned to normal, but the agency will consider whether further action is needed to assist the recovery of fish populations.
  I hope that this explanation puts into context the results of what seems to have been a failure to comply with requirements and guidance that, generally, have been successful in limiting pollution by slurry and other farm wastes. There is still room for improvement, but such incidents are, thankfully, very much the exception rather than the rule. I am sure that the hon. Lady and the House will join me in hoping that improvements will continue and that the number of such incidents will continue to fall.
  I listened carefully to the wider points that the hon. Lady made about the costs and benefits implicit in the approach of the Environment Agency. She will know that the agency, which was the product of the Environment Act 1995, was widely welcomed and supported. I imagine that the hon. Lady herself would have supported the Environment Bill, which applied well-established principles, including that of best available techniques not entailing excessive cost, which has been successful and widely welcomed. Some measure of the success of that principle can be seen in the fact that it has been adopted implicitly in European directives covering this subject, and that our system of integrated pollution control has also served as a model for such directives.
  On those issues, we are on the right lines, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will join me in hoping that the improvement in the reduction in the number of incidents of agricultural pollution will continue.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): As the Minister who will reply to the next debate is not present, the sitting is suspended until 1 pm.
  12.52 pm
  Sitting suspended.

  Highways (Trenchless Technology)
  On resuming—
  1 pm
  Sir Roger Moate: Essentially, this is a debate about holes—millions of holes in our roads, causing delay and disruption to millions of motorists and costing the United Kingdom millions of pounds each year. It is about the digging up of our roads so that public utilities and cable companies can lay or renovate pipes or cables. According to one estimate, the resulting disruption costs £1 billion a year—and that does not include the cost to the frazzled nerves of road users, not to mention Members of Parliament.
  There is ample evidence, however, that much of the dislocation is unnecessary and avoidable. Many of the holes in our roads would not be needed if Britain made fuller use of the trenchless technologies—the underground moling techniques—that are apparently used more extensively abroad. Much of the technology is, in fact, British. Why are we so slow to use it, and to insist that roads are not dug up when moling would often be quicker, cheaper and better? Should we not always be obliged to ensure that this new technology is used wherever it might be seen to be better, and to ensure that repairs and installations are tested against its availability?
  Nationally, we face a massive programme of repairs to underground services. Let me shamelessly borrow a quotation from a paper prepared by Mr. Nick Taylor of Aegis Survey Consultants Ltd., which does underground survey work. He quotes Rome's water commissioner as saying:
  these numerous and extensive works have a natural tendency to fall into decay and must be attended to before they call for large appropriations".
  That was said in AD 97, but I expect the same to be true in 1997. Like, I suspect, many other hon. Members, I have encountered an increasing number of problems as a result of necessary repairs to leaking underground water pipes. The problem is acute: it is the same problem as existed in ancient Rome, but it is on an even larger scale now.
  The purpose of today's debate is to try to ensure that, in future, all works are carried out, wherever it is practicable and sensible, with the use of no-dig techniques. I understand that, in 1993, of all utility installation work—I am told that it involves about 8,000 holes a day—only 5 per cent. was carried out with the use of trenchless construction methods.
  There is a large and growing industry described as the no-dig industry. I have had contact with that industry through a company in my constituency called Powermole International. Some time ago, it put me in touch with the International Society for Trenchless Technology. The society has an impressive magazine called No-Dig International. There are international conferences and exhibitions, attended by a surprisingly large number of national and international companies specialising in work of this kind.
  I have received information from such companies. It is remarkably interesting to learn about the fast-developing range of new technologies that are available for installing, repairing, replacing and mapping underground services; yet people still seem reluctant to use those techniques wherever possible in the United Kingdom. According to

  843
  the feedback that I receive, there is still a resistance to the use of trenchless technologies, or to ensuring that work is tested against their availabilities.
  According to a letter from an international company that operates in Europe, the middle east and Africa,
  "the present levels of No Dig activities throughout these territories are currently strongest in the Middle East where micro tunnelling is an established means of installing pipelines under many of the cities and the highways … although there are several contractors in the United Kingdom who are using micro tunnelling, only about 2 per cent. of the current installation market uses such techniques. The reasons for this are probably largely down to ignorance or indifference."
  Let me illustrate the point from my own experience. The company that I mentioned earlier—Powermole International in Sittingbourne—produces compressed air-powered tunnel borers, ranging from very small to very large machines. I understand that the gas industry is one of the most extensive users of the technology. I shall not venture a criticism of that industry, but even it needed a gentle nudge from the local Member of Parliament to persuade it to tunnel under the busy A2 near Faversham when installing a major new pipeline across the countryside. Had it gone ahead and dug a trench across that busy road, my constituents would have suffered serious traffic hold-ups for a long time. Full marks to the gas company: it did the right thing and tunnelled—but that should have been automatic. The nudge should not have been necessary.
  I saw another demonstration in Sittingbourne high street in my constituency. A gas main was replaced in a day; had the work been done by conventional means, as is so often the case, the road would have been up for a week. The same company ran two large steel tubes under the fearfully busy A249, ramming 17 metres of tubing under the road at a rate of five minutes per metre. It was done in about 85 minutes, while the massive amount of traffic that was passing overhead continued undisturbed. Conventional means would have cost five times as much, and would have brought chaos to the road.
  That company is selling its products abroad, but, although they are clearly world-class products, it seems much harder for it to achieve success here in the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that other national and international companies all over Britain will tell the same story. I hope that the House will not mind my referring to the company in my constituency; I do so to illustrate the importance of the whole industry, and the need for our country to harness these resources. No doubt other hon. Members could tell the same story about companies in their constituencies.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, the Transport Research Laboratory commissioned a study, completed in 1993, of the potential for reducing costs resulting from the installation of utility services under our roads. The report identified the direct, indirect and social costs, and clearly spelled out the importance of reducing disruption and dislocation. I believe that it provided the figure of about £1 billion in disruption costs. I understand that it also mentioned the importance of using trenchless technology at the planning and design stages of work.
  844
  What steps have been taken since? The study suggested that the Department of Transport should ensure that highway authorities throughout the United Kingdom examined, on every occasion, the possibility of using trenchless technology.
  No one is suggesting that trenchless technology is a panacea. There will be many occasions when it will not be appropriate and holes will have to be dug—it does not magically do away with the need to dig holes. It could substantially reduce disruption, however, if the utilities and highway authorities insisted on no-dig techniques where possible.
  I do not think that that would require a change of legislation—indeed, I gather that I am not allowed even to call for a change of legislation in an Adjournment debate—but perhaps the Department of Transport could toughen its codes of conduct and guidelines and demand that any contractor carries out all works in a non-disruptive fashion. Perhaps a legal obligation could be placed on those who dig the road to ensure that they minimise disruption and check the best techniques.
  Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister should commission a further study into progress in reducing unnecessary road digging and into the extension of the use of no-dig techniques. There are many advantages in avoiding extensive, traditional trenching, such as the prevention of immense damage to trees and plants and the cutting of roots.
  Holes and trenches create road safety hazards, and, when access to premises is disrupted, interfere with commerce and industry. Vehicles that are needlessly stuck in large traffic jams cause environmental pollution. Trenchless methods do not create large quantities of spoil and backfill, so they are environmentally friendly and cleaner, and cause less dirt, dust and pollution.
  Trenchless methods are perceived as more expensive. I have seen no evidence to support that and I doubt that it is true, particularly when disruption costs are taken into account. I wonder whether there is an inertia factor, because many contractors or subcontractors would prefer to use their existing equipment and labour force, but how sad it would be if Britain were to continue to operate an old-fashioned and inefficient method when the alternatives are readily available and could be used rapidly, to the great benefit of road users and the economy.
  The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 was designed to reduce unnecessary digging and to create a register. I should be grateful if the Minister would say whether the register is in operation, and, if it is, whether it is working well. If it is not, when will it be, and what do we hope it will achieve? As a result of the Act, has there been a reduction in unnecessary and repetitive road digging by the public utilities? If there has been, it is not obvious to me as a road user.
  Other countries have tougher legislation. American utilities do not have the statutory rights that our companies have, and tougher legislation may prove necessary in the United Kingdom. But how much better it would be if we could encourage a change in national attitude, so that all public authorities simply and forcefully demand that preference is given to the use of trenchless technology. That will happen only if they have clear guidance from Government. We ask this not necessarily for the sake of the companies concerned,

  845
  small or large—although I say, good luck to them all—but to provide a better deal for the British road user and taxpayer and for the environment.
  1.13 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Steve Norris): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) for introducing what might at first glance appear to be a rarefied subject—trenchless technology—but one that is extremely important.
  My hon. Friend rightly suggested that we cannot afford to ignore this issue. Trenchless technology is a generic term for techniques that essentially allow equipment to be installed or replaced under the street without breaking the surface—the no-dig concept. One example of this technology is a mole that can bore a tunnel between shafts that may be some distance from the street.
  There is no doubt that such technology can be useful in reducing traffic disruption from street works. My hon. Friend rightly said that, even now, a number of industry experts believe that the full benefits or potential benefits of trenchless technology are not as well understood as they might be. That is a matter not just for the Department and local authorities but for those who sell the technology and develop it commercially.
  The Department is clear that, as an alternative to open-cut trenching, trenchless methods have considerable advantages, the principal of which is that it generally costs less. For example, there is no doubt that they will be significantly less expensive for running a cable under a road—a classic application. Disruption on the surface is minimised: my hon. Friend gave a valid example from his area that could be replicated throughout the country.
  Trenchless tunnelling is safer for operators and for the general public, and it improves relations between the utilities and the general public, because nothing more irritates the general public and upsets their relations with, for example, the gas or electricity boards than endless disruption of local streets.
  Reduced environmental and social costs are associated with the technology. My hon. Friend gave some specific and graphic examples, and the effects of fully or partially closing a road, thereby severely restricting traffic flows, are quite serious.
  There are, however, some disadvantages to trenchless technology—it is not necessarily a panacea in each case. I am advised that there are limitations on the use of the technology in certain ground conditions, and there is still the prospect of failure during operations, which can be extremely disruptive. The accuracy range of the technology is limited, and operators must be highly skilled.
  The Department does not formally promote the use of the technology for street works, but disruption of the highway has become an increasingly important issue in recent years, not least because of the advent of the cable companies and the tremendous explosion in information technology that has resulted in countless new cables being laid, along with the expansion and upgrading of the sewerage system, and the supply of electricity and other services to new industrial areas.
  In response, the New Roads and Street Works Act was deliberately designed to improve the co-ordination of works by local authorities, because it was felt, quite
  846
  rightly, that they should be in the driving seat, if hon. Members will excuse the pun, of such development. They have an incentive to encourage undertakers to consider trenchless technology wherever possible. Specific statements to that effect appear in the 1991 Act's code of practice, in the context of traffic-sensitive streets where the avoidance of disruption is particularly relevant.
  In 1989, the Transport Research Laboratory was commissioned to undertake a project on the use of trenchless technology, to indicate the extent to which it could be used to avoid road opening. The resultant report, "Trenchless Construction of Pipelines", was completed in 1993, but has not been published. It suggested that new technologies could considerably reduce the social cost of traffic delays.
  My hon. Friend cited some spectacular figures, but I have no reason to disagree with his conclusions. The report's findings may supply key evidence for the use of the reserve powers in the 1991 Act or for an extension of that legislation, if that proves necessary, whereby undertakers can be charged for unduly prolonged occupation of road space.
  My hon. Friend would be the first to accept that it would be difficult to require the use of a particular technology as the only one available, given the myriad number of applications under the 1991 Act. We must take account of the fact that it may be necessary on occasions to allow a different methodology. However, if the utilities are provided with a real incentive to complete work in a timely fashion and with minimum disruption—using the obvious technique of charging for unduly prolonged road occupation—that might provide a spur.
  We have not yet gone that far, because there has been a considerable improvement in street works co-ordination since the introduction of the 1991 Act. When a new computerised system is implemented that will enable utilities to notify local authorities more quickly and accurately than at present—allowing them to exercise their co-ordinating role to the full—further benefits will derive from the 1991 Act.
  Further support for the use of trenchless technology came from the Street Works Advisory Committee report that was submitted in July 1995. It contained the specific recommendations that highway authorities should encourage the use of trenchless technology where appropriate, and that the codes of practice published under the 1991 Act should adopt a more positive approach to technology progress. Those recommendations were accepted by the Government, so we will consider amending the codes to reinforce the value of trenchless technologies.
  My hon. Friend's interest in the subject is no doubt stimulated, quite properly, by a company in his constituency, but I am grateful to him for drawing attention to the subject. There is tremendous scope for improving efficient completion of necessary works, which might bring benefits much more far-reaching than those enjoyed by utilities and local authorities.
  1.26 pm
  Sitting suspended.

  Driving Licences (Medical Conditions)
  1.30 pm
  Mr. George Howarth: I should first like to express my gratitude for the opportunity to have this debate today. The Minister will be aware that, on 12 July 1994, I introduced the Unfitness to Drive on Medical Grounds Bill under the ten-minute rule. The purpose of the Bill was to place a statutory obligation on medical practitioners to report cases to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency when they considered a patient to be medically unfit to drive. As is usually the case with ten-minute Bills, mine did not receive a Second Reading.
  My reasons for introducing the Bill arose from the tragic death of a young constituent, Paul Scarisbrick, in a road traffic accident on the M62 in Liverpool. The circumstances of Paul's death illustrate my argument. The accident occurred because a 73-year-old man, Mr. Abrams, who was suffering from Alzheimer's disease, took the wrong turn and ended up driving the wrong way along the M62. The outcome was that his vehicle collided with Paul's vehicle, and Paul was killed.
  It emerged at the coroner's inquest that Mr. Abrams and members of his family had previously been advised by a consultant at Mossley Hill hospital that, given his condition, it was unsafe for him to continue driving. Unfortunately, that advice was ignored. Equally unfortunate was the fact that the medical practitioners concerned took the decision—the consequences of which were appallingly visited on Paul and his family—not to inform the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of their concern.
  It was the practitioners' view—it is a view held by many medical practitioners—that their greater responsibility was to preserve the doctor-patient confidentiality aspect of their relationship. It logically followed that public safety considerations were of subsidiary importance.
  I received a letter from the corner who conducted the inquest—Mr. S. R. Barter MBE, a respected Liverpool district coroner—who said:
  "I am in no doubt in my own mind that the existing law should be changed by statute. Once a doctor has made a clinical judgment, following full investigation, that a patient is suffering from a disease which makes him a danger to himself and the public if he continues to drive, then he should be under a statutory obligation to inform the DVLA of his opinion."
  That point of view should be taken heavily into account.
  There have been further developments since I first raised the issue in the House two years ago. I have received a great deal of encouragement from members of the public and from a wide variety of organisations to continue pressing this issue, and I have been encouraged greatly by Mr. and Mrs. Scarisbrick, Paul's mother and father, to continue the campaign.
  I received a letter from a person in Crewe. I do not have her permission to use her name, and so she shall remain anonymous. She said that she had heard about my Bill on BBC news, and went on to say:
  "My father suffered a stroke four years ago and lost the use of his left hand, and movement in his left leg was severely restricted. He applied to have to his licence renewed stating that he had been ill. A new licence was sent to him and no further checks were made. My father was 74 at that time and extremely anxious to drive. As he is a widower and I am the only child I felt responsible and
  848
  consequently wrote to DVLA to explain his condition, they then cancelled his licence that they had just issued. This action by me made the relationship between my father and I very awkward as he still thinks he would be all right to drive."
  That letter is an example of the dilemma faced by family members who feel that an elderly parent who is in some way infirm should not be driving, and who take action. The decision clearly creates difficulties for their relationship with their parents or elderly relations.
  On 29 July 1994 I received a letter from a solicitor, Mr. Bernie Rowe, of Lyons Davidson solicitors, in Bristol. He said:
  "My firm deals with several thousand road traffic accident claims each year, and each year produces its 'crop' of cases, nearly always involving relatively serious road accidents, where serious injury or death has resulted from drivers who have continued to drive despite health problems which would suggest they should not be behind the wheel.
  As an immediate past chairman of the Motor Accident Solicitors Society, I know of many other solicitors throughout the country who will have a similar experience to my own. I had not been aware of your initiative on this matter until today, but as a result of reading the article in The Post, I have asked the Motor Accident Solicitors Society administrator to add to the next management committee's agenda details of your initiative."
  He went on to mention my Bill, which he supported.
  That is some of the evidence. I have files full of evidence, but selected only those two examples because I think that they make useful and significant points.
  Some 12 months ago, with Mr. and Mrs. Scarisbrick, I met the Minister, who was kind enough to arrange a meeting in his office. We all felt that it was a constructive and useful meeting. I thank the Minister for the helpful and sympathetic approach he has taken to this case and to the issues that it raises.
  The Minister's position then was that, while he sympathises with the aims of my Bill, he has been advised by the lawyers concerned that it would be difficult to introduce an acceptable procedure for policing statutory obligations on medical practitioners. I think that that is still his position.
  In a letter to Mrs. and Mrs. Scarisbrick, dated 13 May 1996, the Minister said:
  "I would be sorry if you had the impression that progress had not been made in responding to the problem. When I wrote to George Howarth on 8 June, I included a copy of extracts from the document which the General Medical Council had recently agreed, advising doctors that they should be prepared to notify DVLA of cases of this sort, in certain specified conditions. This guidance has since been officially promulgated, publicised in national press and circulated to every doctor in the United Kingdom. Our Chief Medical Adviser has recently discussed the matter again with the GMC, and they will be undertaking some fresh publicity."
  I am grateful for the action that has been taken.
  So far, so good, but I remain unconvinced that those new arrangements, although very much an improvement over the previous system, provide any sanctions against medical practitioners who choose to ignore them, whether from misguided ethical considerations or from sheer negligence. Ideally, I should still like the arrangements to be put on a statutory basis. However, I realise that that is not a likely probability, at least in the short term.
  I propose that the Minister enters into a consultation exercise with the General Medical Council, and with other interested parties, to discover whether it would be possible to develop a voluntary scheme that will be policed professionally rather than statutorily.

  849
  If the idea is to succeed, it must have three vital components. The first and most important criterion is that there must be a clear commitment to the reporting of such cases to the DVLA as a matter of routine, not as an exception. If a medical practitioner feels that somebody is unfit to drive, he must immediately report that fact to the DVLA. A separate set of procedures, which are extremely fair and do not make any prejudgments, is then pursued. The decision is subject to an independent medical examination.
  Secondly, a clear sanction should be applied to medical practitioners who neglect to carry out that responsibility. If it could be made to work, I should have no objection if that were to be a professional sanction rather than a legal sanction under the criminal or civil law. If, when the Minister consults the General Medical Council, it can come up with such a way of dealing with the problem, I would be happy to see that go ahead, and to see whether it could be worked out without the need for statutory regulation.
  Thirdly, Mr. Scarisbrick is keen, especially with progressive diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, that we should take into account the need for clear thought about how to determine at what point, in a general sense, a patient is liable to become unfit to drive for medical reasons. I know that that is a difficult concept to pinpoint, and that doctors are wary of applying generalised arguments to specific cases.
  However, Mr. Scarisbrick has a point, because it is predictable that someone suffering from a degenerative disease is likely to become unfit to drive at some point. If the prospects cannot be easily determined, cases must be monitored and patients re-examined on a regular basis, to establish when they have reached the point at which they should no longer be driving.
  Mr. Scarisbrick also asked me to raise four points, and I shall do so briefly. If the Minister wants to take more time to consider them, that is fine by me. I am sure that he will write either to me or to Mr. Scarisbrick about them. First, Mr. Scarisbrick feels that some progress has already been made, and he is grateful for that. Secondly, his main aim is to ensure that, once a person has been discovered to be suffering from an illness such as Alzheimer's disease, that person should not be allowed to drive. I covered that point in a slightly different way earlier.
  Thirdly, Mr. Scarisbrick has noted that there are more and more reports of accidents involving older people, especially in cases involving motorway driving, in which the risks are often far greater—I believe that the Minister mentioned another such case in his letter of 13 May. Fourthly, Mr. Scarisbrick feels that, perhaps for a limited number of cases, there should be some process of medical certification when people apply for the renewal of insurance policies.
  I know that the Minister is sympathetic, and equally that he is aware that, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Scarisbrick, I have a fixed commitment to making further progress, so that the chances of another accident as horrific as that involving Paul are drastically reduced. I urge the hon. Gentleman to respond positively to my suggestion; if he wants to take it away and think about it, that is perfectly understandable. I believe that there is more progress to be made, so I hope that he will join me in that endeavour, so that we can try to reduce the possibility of any such thing ever happening again.
  1.43 pm
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: I shall speak briefly in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth). I feel a strong sense of involvement with the case, for several reasons. First, the M62 motorway passes through my constituency at the point where the tragic accident happened. Secondly, although Mr. Scarisbrick and his family are now my hon. Friend's constituents, after the boundary changes they will become my constituents. Most importantly, their late son was a close friend of my children and their friends; they all went to school together, and I know how devastated that small community of decent young people was by the accident.
  I endorse all that my hon. Friend has said, especially the three points that he raised at the end of his speech. People in my constituency, especially those closely involved with the tragic accident, cannot understand why the medical profession does not already have a statutory duty enforceable by sanctions. They certainly cannot understand why medical opinion cannot be brought closely to bear on the problem. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to what my hon. Friend has said.
  1.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Steve Norris): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) for raising this important subject. As he said, I met Mr. and Mrs. Scarisbrick when they came with him to see me last year, and we had a meeting at which useful progress was made. I welcome the further opportunity given by today's debate, because this is a problem to which at least part of the answer lies in publicity, whereby doctors and the public at large will become aware of the issues and be able to act more appropriately.
  There are two things to say at the outset. First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I very much sympathise with the Scarisbricks in the sad loss of their son in an accident caused by a driver suffering from Alzheimer's disease travelling in the wrong direction on a motorway. That is a dreadful human tragedy that no words of ours can mend. Secondly, we greatly appreciate the way in which the Scarisbricks have pressed us to take measures to reduce the likelihood that further blameless drivers will suffer in a similar way in future. If they feel that, in some way, some good may come out of the terrible tragedy that befell them, I entirely share that sentiment.
  Let us examine the legal position and consider recent developments, and then I shall say a word about the hon. Gentleman's proposition about doctors being liable—a suggestion endorsed by the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara). All drivers are under a statutory obligation, when applying for a licence, to declare whether they are suffering from relevant or prospective disabilities. They must also notify the licensing authority if they subsequently become aware that they are suffering from such a disability.
  The licensing authority has the power to refuse an application or revoke a licence, and can require a person to give consent to the provision of such medical reports as are necessary. Ultimately, it is the licensing authority's decision, not that of a patient's doctor, whether an

  851
  individual is fit to drive. Problems of the sort that we are talking about today arise when a driver is not aware of his incapacity and does not accept advice from his doctor, or indeed, from his family and friends, that he should notify the DVLA, but continues to drive.
  Last year, the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention issued a revised guide entitled "Medical Aspects of Fitness to Drive", edited by the former chief medical adviser at the Department of Transport, Dr. John Taylor. That guide, which is available to all doctors, addresses those issues, and I have sent the hon. Member for Knowsley, North a copy.
  It is important to underline the fact that, in his introduction, Dr. Taylor picks out for specific attention the problem that we are discussing, and refers to the unhappy case of Paul Scarisbrick. He advises doctors:
  "where a patient's disorder makes him manifestly dangerous as a driver and his condition renders him incapable of taking advice that he must inform DVLA, or where he refuses to do so, practitioners have a civil law duty to immediately inform DVLA medical staff."
  That is a statement of the law as it stands today. The doctor is under a civil law duty to inform DVLA.
  Confidentiality is a fundamental principle on which patient-doctor relationships rest, but the guide recognises that there are circumstances in which it is right that doctors should breach that confidentiality in the public interest if the result of not doing so would be to place someone else, or, indeed, patients themselves, at risk of serious harm or death. Such circumstances do not arise often, but cases involving patients with Alzheimer's disease might well be among them.
  Since the issue of the guide, the General Medical Council has amplified its guidance to doctors, emphasising that, where patients continue to drive against advice when medically unfit to do so, doctors should pass information to medical advisers at DVLA without delay. The guidelines set out in some detail the steps that a doctor should take. Where the patient cannot understand the doctor's advice—for example, because of dementia—the doctor should inform DVLA immediately.
  Where a patient understands the advice but refuses to accept it. doctors should suggest a second opinion, and if that does not do the trick, approach the patient's next of kin. If those efforts of persuasion fail, the doctor should pass the information in confidence to DVLA. Those guidelines, which were approved by the General Medical Council about a year ago, give doctors clear guidance on their responsibilities—both to their patients and the public at large—when faced with such circumstances, which are often very worrying.
  The hon. Member for Knowsley, North made an extremely important point when he mentioned the family who were upset because they had to advise an elderly member of the family that he should not drive. There is no doubt that that is precisely the sort of circumstances in which relatives are extraordinarily diffident. Friends, too, are diffident about insisting that someone—perhaps with whom they live—should give up a facility from which they derive great practical benefit, which represents a final sign of aging or of suffering from a particular ailment that is unlikely to improve. That is a traumatic and difficult time.
  There is clear advice from the GMC that, if relatives' efforts of persuasion and second opinions fail or advice is understood but simply not taken, the doctor personally
  852
  should pass the information in confidence to the DVLA. It has been put to me very clearly by a doctor with whom I recently discussed the matter that, bluntly, that is what doctors are there for. In such circumstances, they have to be clear where their duty lies.
  The hon. Member for Knowsley, North has suggested—his private Member's Bill incorporated the suggestion—that there should be a specific statutory obligation on doctors to refer cases to the DVLA when they believe that a patient is unfit to drive, which would go beyond the principles that I have described and, in a sense, apply a sanction to a doctor who was deemed not to have made a suitable notification. I understand that there is such legislation in north America, but our research suggests that, in practice, it has not been effective. The reason is fairly straightforward.
  It would certainly be very difficult to frame legislation that avoids a potential effect on the confidential doctor-patient relationship, but, more importantly, there is a risk that such a statutory provision would discourage patients from taking their problems to doctors. It is entirely predictable that patients whose condition varied would, if they did not feel particularly well on the day that they were due to be examined by their doctor, find some reason for cancelling the appointment and present themselves only when they felt that they were at their best. Doctors would rapidly develop a risk aversion, which would not be helpful either to them or to their patients.
  I know of at least one case of a patient being examined by a doctor who came to the conclusion that, on balance, the patient ought to be allowed to drive. That patient subsequently caused a death due to dementia or psychosis that rendered him incapable of driving, yet the doctor had exercised his judgment and there was no suggestion that he did it with other than total responsibility and professionalism.
  My Department and I have taken the view that, in such circumstances, it is intolerable to expose doctors to the risk of penalty or litigation when, in effect, the law is exercising that marvellous commodity known as 20:20 vision hindsight. On that basis, and bearing in mind the strong advice that I have described, we have so far remained unpersuaded that legislation such as that suggested by the hon. Members for Knowsley, North and for Knowsley, South is desirable.
  Mr. George Howarth: The difficulty that I have with that concept is that, for whatever reason, some doctors will take what I consider a misguided ethical position on doctor-patient confidentiality. Although that is one problem, I must be honest and say that some doctors are so hard-pressed that they take the line of least resistance. There must be some compulsion on doctors in such circumstances so that they feel that, on balance, it is better to take the decision than, on balance, leave it on one side.
  Mr. Norris: I entirely understand that point. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and I are at odds on what we want the outcome to be. We want doctors clearly to understand their duty. The hon. Gentleman would introduce a legal constraint on them. I have said that, although I quite understand the merit of that argument, there would be a prospect of some serious disbenefit to doctors who are simply trying to do their best. As I have

  853
  said, there is very clear guidance, which, if I may paraphrase, says to doctors: "Be under no illusion. Your confidential relationship with your patient is extremely important but it cannot be more important than the life of an innocent bystander or another driver such as Paul Scarisbrick, or, indeed, patients themselves. In those circumstances, your duty, general practitioner, is entirely clear."
  I will not, of course, close my mind or say that the Department's mind is closed on the matter, and I shall look at the idea of incorporating declarations on medical insurance forms, which may have some merit. Without any prejudice, I am happy that we should do so.
  854
  The main message should go out very clearly to doctors, and I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North for giving us the opportunity to send it. It is very simple: if in doubt about the ethics of disclosure, rather than whether the patient is fit to drive, be in no doubt. In fact, there is no doubt that there is a very distinct obligation to report. The judgment on suitability is of course a matter for doctors themselves.
  It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to discuss developments in manufacturing industry at the next meeting he attends with his European Union counterparts. [32107]
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Lang): My colleagues and I meet regularly with our European Union counterparts to discuss a range of industrial issues. Later this afternoon I shall be meeting the Swedish Minister for Industry and Energy, Mr. Anders Sundstrôm.
    Mr. Griffiths: I thank the President for that reply. Given that the occasional paper on United Kingdom investment performance shows that manufacturing investment is lower now than in 1979, and the latest output figures show that we are technically in recession, does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Chancellor that our poor manufacturing record could be made worse by the antics of the Tory Europhobes who, even now, could be scaring off inward investment?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman might need to be reminded that under this Government total investment has risen six times faster than under the Labour Government. Manufacturing investment in plant and machinery is up 12 per cent. since the beginning of the recovery and up 10 per cent. last year alone. The hon. Gentleman is painting a somewhat misleading picture. I am encouraged by that strength of investment, which will lead to greater output and better export figures in due course.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: When my right hon. Friend next meets his European counterparts, will he remind them that Britain is more competitive today than it has been for decades? Will he remind them that between a third and a quarter of all inward investment in the past 10 years has come to this country rather than to the rest of the European Union? Above all, will he remind them that whereas Britain is creating jobs—we have more people in work than ever before—the rest of Europe has 18 million unemployed and that figure is rising?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That inward investment is a measure of our increased competitiveness. As a result of our policies, overseas companies, many of them European, are flocking to the United Kingdom. When the Leader of the Opposition was in Germany yesterday, I wonder whether he reflected on the fact that, last year alone, 58 German companies decided to locate in Britain, fleeing from the sort of stakeholder economy with which Labour wants to saddle us.
    Mrs. Beckett: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that investment in manufacturing is lower in real terms than when the Government came to power and that, far from what was just said by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), in manufacturing output we are seventh out of 15 in the European Union? Will he
    856
    acknowledge that we are not even in the top three for unemployment, investment or inflation, and that we had the largest total trade deficit in Europe in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and almost certainly in 1995? Is it not the case that, far from being the enterprise centre of Europe, under this Government Britain has slipped from 13th to 18th place in the world prosperity league?
    Mr. Lang: The right hon. Lady is talking nonsense and giving a totally misleading picture. She seems to have forgotten that since 1980 the United Kingdom has had the fastest growth in gross domestic product—equal with Germany—the fastest growth in productivity bar none, the fastest growth in manufacturing output, the fastest growth in investment, the fastest growth in private consumption and the lowest tax burden. The right hon. Lady should give a fairer and more accurate picture of what is going on in this country.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the President of the Board of Trade agree that sometimes the opposition to investment in the United Kingdom comes from some short-sighted British firms who object, for example, to the Europe Tool Company from South Korea investing in Northern Ireland? Some of those firms are actually purchasing tool components from Korea that could be manufactured in the United Kingdom by British industry.
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the economy of Northern Ireland has benefited enormously from inward investment into this country. I believe that most of those decisions are taken for long-term reasons, because countries throughout the world can identify the improvement in productivity and competitiveness in this country, and therefore in their manufacturing plans for the global market they regard the United Kingdom—including Northern Ireland, obviously—as the best base for exporting into the European market and beyond. The dramatic success that the United Kingdom has had in attracting inward investment is a tribute to the progress that has been made under the present Government.

    Mining Industry
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to meet those in the mining industry responsible for (a) production and (b) health and safety. [32108]
    The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): My ministerial colleagues and I meet representatives of the coal mining industry as appropriate.
    Mr. Skinner: When the Minister next meets Richard Budge, who since privatisation is the principal owner of most of the mines in Great Britain, will he tell him that it is pretty clear to most people in the mining industry that Mr. Budge is cutting corners on safety in order to make massive profits to the tune of £173 million in the first year of privatisation and to line his own pockets to the tune of £661,000? Is the Minister aware that accident rates have increased by more than 50 per cent. and falls of ground by more than 80 per cent.?
    Will the Minister order Richard Budge to ensure that, as in the old days, the National Union of Mineworkers and other trade unions will have the right to meet at properly

    857
    instituted safety committees? If Mr. Budge will not allow that to take place, independent inquiry should be set up into the escalating accident rates in underground mining.
    Mr. Eggar: When I next meet Mr. Budge, I shall congratulate him on the fact that, in 1995, deep-mine production has increased by 10 per cent. on that of 1994. I shall congratulate him on the fact that, despite the best efforts of Mr. Scargill and his cronies, including the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), there were no strikes in the coal mining industry last year, for the first time since records began.
    On safety, I shall not hesitate to point out to Mr. Budge that, sadly, the record in the last nine months of 1995 was as high as 8.18 accidents per 100,000 man shifts. I shall also point out to him, however, that that compares extremely favourably with the accident rate in 1979, which was almost 12 times higher, at 94.6 accidents per 100,000 man shifts. I might also ask him to suggest that the hon. Member for Bolsover apologises to the House and to the miners of this country for so misconstruing the position.
    Mr. Luff: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what he has just said could be summed up as "Britain is producing more coal more safely"? Is that not a direct tribute to the wise policies of privatisation that he has personally pursued so energetically in the House? How would that compare with the continued policy of nationalisation so slavishly advocated by the doctrinaire and dogmatic members of so-called new Labour?
    Mr. Eggar: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Back in 1994, the hon. Member for Bolsover said that he wanted renationalisation of the coal industry without compensation and the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, said:
    "I would be astonished if our plans to rescue the coal industry after the next election did not involve public ownership."—[Official Report, 23 March 1994; Vol. 240, c. 313.]
    I notice that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has been completely silent on that issue.

    Electricity and Water Companies
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received regarding the ownership of the electricity and water companies. [32109]
    Mr. Eggar: My Department has received, and continues to receive, various representations about the ownership of electricity and water companies.
    Mr. Prentice: Does the Minister agree with his friend and colleague the prince across the water, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who believes that electricity and water do not mix and, indeed, said as much in The Times on 1 June? Does the Minister further agree with his colleague that British utilities are becoming the adventure playground of corporate capital, that the Government are paralysed by indecision, that there is no clear policy framework and that the Minister is responsible for chaos and confusion throughout that vital part of British industry?
    Mr. Eggar: I always give the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) the attention that they deserve.
    Mr. John Marshall: May I ask my right hon. Friend not to pay too much attention to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who was such a disaster when he led Hammersmith council? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, since the water industry entered the private sector, there has been a massive increase in investment, which has led to better quality water supplies?
    Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is also fair to point out the significant real fall in electricity prices for domestic and industrial consumers.
    Mr. Battle: In the face of the ad hoc restructuring of the United Kingdom electricity industry, with its daily bids and takeovers, is not the Government's confused for-and-against response simply generating more chaos? On the same day as the Secretary of State overruled the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and blocked PowerGen and National Power's takeover bids, he allowed Eastern to buy some of the generators and form the sort of vertically integrated company to which he says that he is opposed. Will the Minister confirm, as is well known, that he was opposed to that decision by the Secretary of State?
    Why is there still no sign of a clear Government strategy or direction? While the mania for bids and takeovers means quick cash for speculators and directors, customers are increasingly becoming a mere afterthought as a result of the Government's approach.
    Mr. Eggar: Typical customers are benefiting from a reduction in their electricity bills, this year and next, of about £90. That is a clear benefit of privatisation, and there are many others associated with it: improving standards of service in the electricity sector, and doubled investment in the water sector following the massive under-investment under the Labour party in the mid-1970s.
    Mr. Congdon: Is not the most significant aspect of the ownership of those industries the fact that they have been transferred from the dead hand of state ownership to the dynamic private sector? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proof of the pudding is in the fact that the old nationalised industries cost the state £50 million a week but now benefit the state to the tune of £55 million a week?
    Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

    Council of Ministers (United Kingdom Veto)
    Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those European Union agreements relevant to UK industry that have been delayed as a consequence of the Government's decision of 21 May to use the UK veto at the Council of Ministers. [32110]
    Mr. Lang: The principal measures relevant to industry where Ministers have withheld agreement following the Prime Minister's announcement on 21 May—[Interruption.]—concern legislative simplification and administrative co-operation, accounting standards [Interruption.]—an action programme for EU industry and certain agreements concerning trade relations with third countries.
    Mr. Marshall rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. There is too much talking going on. I want to hear the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Mr. Marshall: I know that you, Madam Speaker, could not hear the Secretary of State's response any more than I could, so I shall have to pretend that I did.
    Madam Speaker: Indeed, I could not hear it either.
    Mr. Marshall: When will the President and his fellow Cabinet members realise that the Government's position on Europe, far from progressing a solution to the beef crisis, is hindering a solution to it and harming Britain's competitive position? Will the right hon. Gentleman estimate the cost to British industry of the blanket veto that this country is currently exercising on EU business?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman may have his own opinions about the effect of the veto, but the Government took the view that it was necessary to bring to the attention of our partners in Europe the great importance that we attach to a solution to this problem, and the need to have in place a framework for lifting the ban, which was not scientifically justified and was imposed without being backed up by scientific evidence. The cost will be very low indeed if the ban is lifted soon and we can resume business as normal, but the cost to British industry if the ban remains in place will be considerable.
    Sir John Cope: Before anyone gets too worked up about the backlog of EU business, will my right hon. Friend confirm that, the moment agreement is reached on beef, all outstanding matters can be quickly put through any available ministerial Council in 24 hours, as what is known in the jargon as an "A point"? What matters is reaching an agreement on beef. The veto has simply put beef back at the top of the European Community agenda, which is where it should be.
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: once the matter is resolved, the United Kingdom will be as keen as any other participant in the European Union to make speedy progress on the other matters that are being held up.
    Dr. Howells: Will the President of the Board of Trade say whether he will be attending the Council of Ministers a week from tomorrow to reverse the Government's previous policy on the Post Office? Will he be casting his vote behind the Commission's proposals to liberalise direct mail services and thus threaten the future of the Royal Mail by sneaking through, by qualified majority voting, a privatisation measure that the House rejected last time it was debated?
    Mr. Lang: The Labour party seems to be in a muddle about its policies on competition and on the Post Office. No, I will not be at the Council myself.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that a significant section of British industry is represented by companies such as Anglo-Dutch Meats in my constituency, where some 350 jobs are under threat as a result of the wholly unlawful worldwide ban imposed by the European Union? Does he agree with me and with many of my constituents that until our European partners choose to approach this matter on the basis of science and not from political or commercial considerations, the British Government should continue to use their veto wherever they think appropriate?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right, and he emphasises the importance of having the matter resolved quickly. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear precisely when and where our veto will be exercised. We hope that the matter will be resolved soon, that a framework will be in place for the lifting of the ban, and that business will return to normal.

    Industrial Development (Maryport)
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next intends to visit Maryport to discuss matters relating to industrial development. [32111]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): Although I have no immediate plans to visit Maryport, I have made regular visits to the north-west since becoming a DTI Minister and I am well aware of the issues in Maryport.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State, who is sitting next to him, whether he is prepared to call in on Maryport, which is in my constituency, in the next few weeks on his way home to his own constituency in the Borders? The visit would give him the opportunity to discuss with Maryport town councillors the escalating difficulties of the town. It would also give him the opportunity to explain why we cannot have back the development area status that we lost some years ago, a loss which is now costing us dearly.
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman can take some comfort from the fact that unemployment in his constituency is now falling by 8 per cent. He will remember debating these issues with me in an Adjournment debate on 4 March. I remind him that Maryport is an assisted area, and any investment proposals that create or safeguard jobs will be considered for support. West Cumbria is also an objective 2 area and eligible for European funding for business support measures, training and reskilling.

    European Regional Development Fund
    Sir David Knox: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the value of grants allocated to England from the European regional development fund since its inception. [32113]
    Mr. Eggar: It is £7.1 billion in 1996 prices.
    Sir David Knox: That is a significant figure. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the grants are playing an important part in strengthening the British economy? Does he believe that the British people are aware of the nature and scope of these grants? If not, what is he doing to publicise them?
    Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the grants are an important part of assistance to the appropriate regions. As my hon. Friend knows, his constituency is in the midlands uplands area, which is eligible for objective 5b assistance and it received a programme allocation of £10 million. Assistance through the regional assistance programmes of the European Union is an important contribution to the successful economic growth not only of this country but of the European Union as a whole. This is just another example of the tremendous benefits that we gain from being part of the European Union. It is assisting us to establish ourselves as the enterprise centre of Europe.
    Mr. Pearson: Does the Minister believe that the shambles of the current European regional development fund round is due to non-co-operation among Brussels officials, incompetence in Government regional offices, or both?
    Mr. Eggar: There have been delays in taking decisions about a number of structural funds and much of the responsibility for that lies with Brussels. Government officers and I have been trying to speed up the decision making on those grants. Above all, we must ensure that we get good value for the money that is disbursed. That is why we introduced the regional challenge programme and why the private sector is able to benefit from European regional development funding. That decision has provided a further £800 million in joint funding. We must continue to improve the speed of disbursement and the quality of disbursement decisions.

    Innovative Technology
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what new proposals he has to improve innovative technology in industry. [32114]
    The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): The information society initiative, the crusade for biotechnology and the LINK programme are key departmental initiatives. Business links is appointing innovation and technology counsellors.
    Mr. Flynn: Is not a principal reason why Britain has slumped from 13th to 18th in the world prosperity league table the fact that the average British company spends twice as much on dividends as it spends on research and development, while the top 200 companies spend three times as much on research as they spend on dividends? As the tiny country of Taiwan registers more patents than Britain and a single Japanese company registers more patents than all of British industry, are we not doomed to slump even further in the world prosperity league as we become a nation of branch factories for innovative, successful Pacific rim companies?
    Mr. Taylor: The Government's policies have encouraged greater business expenditure on research and development in the past few years. However, I do not disguise the fact that I would like to see even more investment in that area. I am concerned about the level of investment in research and development among British companies, which do not compare well—I exempt the pharmaceutical industry, of course—with world-class companies. The hon. Gentleman should remember that a patent alone is not a guarantee of success: it is the exploitation of ideas that is important. There is a considerable movement in British industry and in the science base to try to ensure that we exploit ideas that are generated in both industrial and university laboratories.
    Mr. Fabricant: In contrast with the negative comments of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), is it not a fact that the crusade for biotechnology has encouraged major British firms to experiment and to develop products in that area? Is not the largest pharmaceutical company in the world a British company and based in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. The crusade for biotechnology, which was launched by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and me yesterday, is a remarkable effort across Government Departments to highlight the importance of that sector to the United Kingdom. There are several measures which show our determination to support new British companies that are emerging in the biotechnology area, to support the science base, and to encourage the spin-out of ideas and the protection of intellectual property. The move was warmly welcomed by a number of leading biotechnologists from large and small companies and also by leading academics.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: If we exclude the pharmaceutical and chemical industries, does the Minister agree that there has been an 11 per cent. fall in manufacturing investment in research and development since 1986? Is he considering the request from the Select Committee on Science and Technology that the Government review fiscal incentives for research and development so as to improve our appalling performance?
    Mr. Taylor: Fiscal incentives as such are a matter for the Treasury. We always keep under review what is occurring in other countries. The most interesting point about the fiscal base in this country is that it is often cited as a factor by companies wishing to invest here. I welcome the increasing number of research and development projects that are coming to this country as a result of the Government's overall economic management. That is a key factor and, allied to our excellent science base, I am sure that the hon. Lady will join me in welcoming the increase in research and development which is often encouraged by overseas investors in this country.

    Balance of Trade
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the United Kingdom's trade balance with EU countries in the last quarter for which figures are available. [32115]
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Anthony Nelson): During the first quarter of 1996 the United Kingdom had a deficit in trade in goods of £994 million with EU countries.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. What action does he believe British industrialists could take to improve the level of exports to the Community? Does he agree that the Community is either a common market or nothing, and that there is no need for us to go deeper into a political union with Europe with a common currency and funding common defence and foreign policies?
    Mr. Nelson: We still have a long way to go to take full advantage of the single market, which we pioneered and which we still have an obligation to see through. Undoubtedly, however, our exports have seen exponential growth there, characterised by a large number of small to medium-sized companies that employ many people. Exports are not important in themselves, but in the employment to which they give rise. The Government's policies of low inflation, low taxation, low interest rates and low non-wage costs—all distinctively British and Conservative—have resulted in high exports and substantial growth of small to medium-sized businesses in Europe. We should welcome all that.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Why is the Minister being so modest when the President of the Board of Trade revealed on 20 February that Britain has the worst deficit in the European Union apart from Greece, whose most memorable export achievements are the Elgin marbles and Nana Mouskouri? When Italy, Germany and five other neighbours have trade surpluses and we have a deficit, is it any wonder that the Conservatives have relegated this country in 18 years to 18th place in the world prosperity league?
    Mr. Nelson: I thought for one shocking moment that the hon. Gentleman was about to break ranks by not asking a dismal and despondent question putting Britain down, but of course he fell into line. The truth is rather different.
    Mr. Griffiths: Explain the decline since 1979.
    Mr. Nelson: I will. Many of the figures that are given for deficits relate to trade in goods and do not necessarily take account of trade in services, and we are one of the few countries in Europe that has a surplus on that account. We have seen tremendous growth, which we should all welcome, in our exports to Europe, characterised by manufacturing exports. The picture is much brighter and the hon. Gentleman does his party and the country no service by trying to paint it otherwise.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will my hon. Friend confirm that Britain exports more per head than the USA, Japan and our main European competitors? Does he agree that that is because this country is unfettered by the social chapter and the minimum wage?
    Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend is right. This country has an outstanding record on exports, not only in absolute but in comparative terms. Much of that record derives from
    864
    the fact that we have not imported high wage costs and non-wage costs from the European Union in the social contract. We must ensure that the difference between the parties on that issue is brought into sharp relief for the country and the electorate, because it is a key component of job creation and exports for this country.

    University Research Equipment
    Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the equipment needs of UK universities for research purposes. [32117]
    Mr. Jon Taylor: Research equipment and other needs of the science budget are assessed with advice from the Director General of Research Councils. The research councils are currently administering an equipment fund with the higher education funding councils.
    Mr. Hughes: Has the Minister seen the recent survey, commissioned by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals with the higher education funding councils of England, Scotland and Wales, which concludes that four out of five university departments are unable to conduct critical experiments due to lack of funding? The survey also points out that the situation has deteriorated since the previous survey in 1987. In view of those facts, will the Minister abandon the folly of cutting university funding by half over the next three years and instead re-inject capital funding, as has been requested by the academic, business and industrial communities?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is selective in his quotation from the report. It also shows that 80 per cent. of universities consider that their equipment is better or at least adequate. That is an important factor. More than 52 per cent. consider that their equipment matches well with that of their international competition. The report is complex, not least because 91 universities responded, not all of which we would regard as being at the forefront of research. The figures must be examined closely.
    We recognise, however, that universities have equipment problems which have an effect on research. That is why the Department of Trade and Industry, through the research councils, is administering a joint equipment budget, and why I have asked my officials to discuss with the vice-chancellors ways in which we can solve long-term problems, including a better way to allocate equipment between universities, a second-hand market and attempts to obtain bulk purchases. More details will be revealed when I am satisfied that we have got to the bottom of the problem.
    Mr. Ingram: I do not think that that answer will satisfy anyone who is interested in our science and research base, least of all the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the higher education funding councils. Is the Minister prepared to accept that their assessment, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) referred, points out that there is a crisis in our science base and that cuts in research funding and equipment have seriously damaged our international competitiveness? If he is not prepared to accept that, I accuse him of indifference to what is happening to our

    865
    science and research base. If he accepts the finding, it is not long-term solutions that are needed but immediate and quick ones to recover what has been lost.
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman should read the reports with a good deal more consideration. It is a simple fact that 25 of our universities receive 70 per cent. of the total equipment budget. That means that they are the excellent universities in categories 4 and 5 in the research assessment exercise. We are keeping a close check to ensure that our research is up to standard and of the quality required.
    There are many complicated factors. If we analyse the reports, we find that about 147 magnetic spectrometers are required by universities throughout the country. There has been no discussion to ascertain whether they are all required, whether there should be bulk purchase, or whatever. Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that, in those circumstances, a more rational approach to the long-term problem of funding equipment in our universities is required, which is precisely what I have already worked on with my officials. Indeed, I have talked to Professor Gareth Roberts, the vice-chancellor of Sheffield university.

    Pyramid Selling
    Mr. Rendel: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to make the regulations covering pyramid selling more restrictive. [32118]
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The Government fully support the provisions of the Trading Schemes Bill, which has just had its Second Reading in another place. The Bill will extend the application of existing controls on pyramid selling to money circulation schemes. As and when it becomes law, we will introduce revised regulations.
    Mr. Rendel: Does the Minister agree with me in welcoming the proposed changes and agree further that anyone who becomes involved in such a money-changing scheme is ill advised? Does he agree also that the public would be well advised to avoid such schemes like the plague?
    Mr. Taylor: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I remind him of what Sir Richard Scott said in the High Court about a recent case, and one that the hon. Gentleman knows about. He said that it was
    "highly unsatisfactory, highly suspicious and thoroughly undesirable".
    The hon. Gentleman is right to warn his constituents, and
    I mine.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister will be aware that in some instances 400 or 500 people at a time are being enticed into crazy schemes that require them to put up large sums with no visible return of any sort. Will he therefore make his views public so that people throughout the country are aware that the schemes are a straightforward scam? As soon as the law becomes operational, I hope that many people will find themselves in the courts.
    Mr. Taylor: I accept the hon. Lady's sentiments entirely. My most immediate opportunity to make my views public is now. I remind the House that, in the past
    866
    24 months, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made 13 applications to wind up companies promoting money-making pyramids. There are other applications in the pipeline. The applications have led to 12 orders to wind up. One case is pending.

    British Energy
    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the sale of British Energy. [32119]
    Mr. Lang: Good progress continues to me made on the sale of British Energy. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy announced last week, the final date for registration is 24 June and the UK public offer opens on 26 June.
    Mr. Smith: The Minister for Industry and Energy recently dismissed the independent report produced by Dr. Sadniki on the liabilities associated with the sale of the nuclear power industry as absolute garbage. As the Minister failed to justify that assertion in yesterday evening's debate, would the President of the Board of Trade attempt to do so today?
    Mr. Lang: The report is so full of misconceptions and inaccuracies that it would be impossible to do so in an answer to an oral question. There are a number of misconceptions and the figures do not relate the accurate position. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the prospectus.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of the nuclear industry in being able, in effect, to return most of the non-fossil fuel levy to consumers means that people's bills will rapidly become smaller? Is it not a complete con on the public for Opposition Members to suggest that they could raise £3 billion out of utilities such as electricity without once more increasing energy prices?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The fall in the levy from 10 to 3.7 per cent. will be worth about £15 to £20 off the average household bill. He is also right to draw attention to the wide difference in approach between the two parties. Our view is that the benefits that come from privatisation should continue to go to the consumer, as they are doing; whereas the Labour party wants to impose windfall taxes, which would penalise consumers, impose a new tax burden and strongly discourage precisely the competitive approach that is so improving the service of utilities in this country.

    Manufacturing Output
    Mr. Olner: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the output of manufactured goods in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries (i) in 1979 and (ii) at present [32120]
    The Parliamentary Under—Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): Since 1979, the share of manufacturing in total output has fallen by a quarter in both the OECD as a whole and the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Olner: The Under-Secretary has obviously put the best spin he possibly can on those figures. Will he confirm that, since 1979, 2.76 million jobs have been lost in manufacturing industry, and during that period this country slipped from 13th to 18th place in the world prosperity league?
    Mr. Oppenheim: In the unlikely event that the hon. Gentleman finds himself standing in the position I am in now, I suspect that he would also try to put a good spin on whatever figures are fed to him. I suspected that he might quote the Institute of Management Development report rather than the World Economic Forum report, which showed Britain's position rising from 18th to 15th place. In a totally non-partisan spirit, however, I am happy to stick to the IMD report that he quoted and point out that the countries that it shows have made the most improvement over the past decade are Hong Kong—the free market capital of Asia—and Chile and New Zealand, which perhaps have made even more progress over the past decade than this country in deregulating and opening markets. That is hardly an endorsement of Labour policies, whatever they may be today.
    Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the aerostructure industry plays an important part in our manufacturing output? On that basis, does he agree that overseas success is dependent on a strong home base? Will he make representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that, when the Nimrod replacement or refurbishment programme is determined, British Aerospace at Prestwick gets a fair look in?
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is, as ever, a good advocate for his own constituency. He is right to point out that two high-tech industries that have done well in Britain over the past 17 years are pharmaceuticals and aerospace. Close to my own constituency is Rolls-Royce plc, which was almost written off as a basket case in the 1970s but which has since trebled its share of commercial aero-engines and is now a successful, profitable company.
    Mr. Hoon: Does the Minister agree that, notwithstanding the Government's extravagant claims about the current state of the British economy, the 0.3 per cent. decline in manufacturing output in April compared to March and the fall in manufacturing output in each of the previous two quarters means that the British economy is in recession?
    Mr. Oppenheim: No, I do not agree, not surprisingly. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that, in the past quarter, manufacturing in Britain rose at a time when it is stagnant or falling in the rest of Europe. I ask him, because I know that he has an expansive mind, to look at the big picture. During the 1980s and 1990s, Britain's manufacturing productivity growth was the fastest of all the major economies in the world. Our manufacturing output has grown faster than that in all the other major
    868
    European Union countries. I also remind him that, when his party was last in power, our manufacturing productivity growth was bottom of the league of major nations and our manufacturing productivity output actually fell.
    Sir Michael Grylls: Does my hon. Friend agree that the biggest contribution that any Government can make to help manufacturing industry is to maintain a stable economic climate and, above all, keep inflation down? The Government have been very successful at that. I really wonder how the Opposition, with their appalling record on inflation, which destroyed jobs in manufacturing industry, have the impertinence even to question this.
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is right. Not only was the record of the great macho men of manufacturing on the Opposition Benches one of falling manufacturing output and stagnant bottom-of-the-league manufacturing productivity, but hundreds of thousands of jobs in manufacturing were lost every year under the previous Labour Government. Perhaps that is why the report that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) quoted showed Britain's competitiveness above that of France and Italy, while the World Economic Forum report showed it above that of Germany as well.

    Manufacturing Trade
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the balance of trade in manufactured goods in the latest quarter. [32121]
    Mr. Nelson: There was a deficit of £2.5 billion on trade in manufactured goods in the first quarter of 1996.
    Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister aware that the United Kingdom's trade balance in manufactured goods went into deficit in 1983 for the first time since the industrial revolution, and has remained in deficit ever since? Given that this country has a worse trade balance than any other European Union member state, how on earth can the Government claim that they are making Britain into the enterprise centre of Europe? The truth is that the President of the Board of Trade is the captain of a team that is at the bottom of the European league.
    Mr. Nelson: That is another extremely depressing analysis, completely unrelated to the facts. Since the Conservative party came to office, the number of manufacturing exports has doubled. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman referred only to manufacturing exports. We have a £5.5 billion surplus on our services account.
    It is necessary to look at the whole picture. Like so many of his hon. Friends, the hon. Gentleman is highly selective and extremely deprecating about our trade performance. Much is going well. He would do better to concentrate on success stories such as that of Exabyte in his constituency, which has created 200 jobs—and what about Walter Alexander, also in his constituency, which has sent £20 million-worth of exports to the far east and created another 200 jobs? Those are good jobs, created by the policies of a Conservative Government.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Talking of competitiveness, is my hon. Friend aware of the revised World Economic Forum global competitiveness league? The United Kingdom has moved up in that league: we are now No. 3 in Europe, at 15th place, while France and Germany have been relegated to 22nd and 23rd. That suggests that we are indeed becoming the enterprise centre of Europe.
    Mr. Nelson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting the record straight. He is right to point out that our trade and export performance has been moving up the league in both absolute and relative terms. All that reflects the implementation of Conservative policies in practice and in government. Those are the policies that will create lasting jobs in this country.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister speaking, or even perhaps listening, to the Confederation of British Industry and our leading exporters, all of whom are saying—certainly to Opposition Members—that they are very concerned about the Government's policy on Europe? The current activities and divisions in regard to interference with decisions by the European Commission lead them to fear that the Government's commitment in their major trading area is weakening. Do not the CBI and our global performance—based here, but global—need the assurance of a strong commitment to Europe that they are not gaining from a party that is riven by divisions on where it is going in Europe?
    Mr. Nelson: Of course I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's conclusion. Conservative Members assert that there is no incompatibility between fighting our corner hard in Europe and being strongly in favour of the ambitions and objectives of the economy that Europe can create by acting in concert. This party in government will always stand up for our interests, but it will always play its part in Europe. The hon. Gentleman, the CBI and everyone else should be left in no doubt about that.
    Mr. Forman: Can my hon. Friend confirm that our balance of trade in manufactured goods in some of the fastest-growing markets in the global economy is healthy and improving? Are there not encouraging examples in, for instance, our trade with parts of Asia and the Pacific rim?
    Mr. Nelson: There are indeed. I pick out countries such as Indonesia and India—[Interruption.] Even if we do not take into account some of the military equipment to which Opposition Members have referred from a sedentary position, our exports in key sectors such as power generation, construction and water infrastructure have been outstanding. They are in surplus, and there is every prospect of their increasing further.

    Computer Equipment (Libya)
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the conviction of McNeill International in the USA on a charge of exporting educational computer equipment to Libya. [32124]
    Mr. Oppenheim: No.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does the Minister recollect that, shortly after leaving the Department, the right hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Needham) made a characteristically candid statement, expressing his exasperation with the Foreign Office for having put spokes in the wheel of trade in vehicles between Bedfordshire and Libya? Are we quite sure that we are not once again being taken for a commercial ride by the Americans? Libya is our traditional market; the decision makers were trained in Britain and not in the United States.
    Will the Minister look carefully at this case, because some of us think that the Americans have quite cynically scapegoated Libya, that the Libyans were not responsible for Lockerbie, that it is doubtful that they were responsible for the murder of Yvonne Fletcher, and that it is doubtful that they were responsible for the La Belle discotheque incident, which caused the bombing?
    Mr. Oppenheim: I always genuinely listen to the hon. Gentleman carefully, but it strikes me as odd that he and some of his colleagues always kick up a fuss—sometimes understandably—about equipment exports from Britain to other regimes that they find distasteful, such as Burma, yet want us to export to the more distasteful, authoritarian and, in many ways, vicious regime of Libya. It was not British goods being exported to Libya and stopped but American goods, which the Americans stopped a British exporter indirectly exporting to Libya via a third country. The Americans have their own rules on exports to Libya, and in this instance they asked for our assistance in helping to prevent their laws from being broken on their soil. We gave that assistance and would expect it to be reciprocated if the situation were the other way around.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that McNeill International could be prosecuted for exporting radiographic equipment to Libya? Libya is about the only country in the world that is denied treatment for cancer simply because of what seems to be a rather mad policy. In view of that and of the fact that, on 26 May, a citizen of Lebanon was arrested, extradited and brought to trial in Germany for the Berlin bombing, which we and the Americans used as the excuse for bombing Libya, might there be a case for reviewing a silly, cruel and heartless policy?
    Mr. Oppenheim: I cannot comment on the individual case, unless my hon. Friend gives me the details, but we have a policy of strictly adhering to United Nations sanctions on exports to Libya. The Americans have their own rules, which go further. If the Americans decide that they do not want to export certain goods to Libya, that is their business. Where it becomes our business is if they try to claim extra-territorial rights, by claiming that they have some say beyond the UN sanctions over what we or other countries export to Libya or other countries.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is a lot more to this, and I hope to raise it on the Adjournment.

    Deregulation
    Dr. Spink: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the impact of deregulation on inward investment. [32125]
    Mr. Oppenheim: Our deregulated business environment is recognised as one of our key strengths by inward investors. It is one of the many contributory factors that have made the United Kingdom the No. 1 location for inward investment into Europe.
    Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if this or any Government followed the European model or, indeed, the socialist model on regulation and interference, inward investment would fall?
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is right, and I will give him one good example of where our policies of deregulation and open markets have led to more inward investment. We were leaders in deregulating and privatising telecommunications. We were opposed at every step in liberalising telecommunications by scare stories that were published and peddled by Opposition Members. We were told that telecom engineers would be electrocuted up telegraph poles, that little old ladies in remote communities would be cut off and that telephone boxes would disappear from high streets. We have seen instead the most rapid improvement in telecommunication services coupled with falling prices and an increased number of telephone boxes of any major industrial country, which has helped to attract business to Britain and jobs for British people.
    Mr. Purchase: Will the Minister admit that about one quarter of all inward investment has been for the purpose of purchasing British companies, and that the cumulative total of capital exported from this country on the same basis is far in excess of the sum invested in Britain? Does that not show that Britain's so-called deregulated economy is less attractive to investors than so-called regulated economies elsewhere?
    Mr. Oppenheim: Either the hon. Gentleman is one of the new Labourites who believe in the open market or he is not. If he does believe, as his party apparently does, he should accept two-way investment flows. The Germans, who have a more regulated market than ours, invest more in Britain than we do in their country. Conversely, we export more to France than the French invest in Britain. That is the nature of a modern global economy. Perhaps the Germans know something that the French do not.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: As Britain attracts more than 40 per cent. of US and Japanese investment in Europe, does my hon. Friend agree that that might have more to do with an observation made last week by George Simpson, chief executive of Lucas Industries, who is to be the new chairman of GEC? He commented that, in 30 years in business, he could not remember a time when economic policy was managed in such a way as to produce a better competitive environment for British industry.
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That state of affairs is in stark contrast to the position that we inherited. I remember a trade union leader saying that he would only buy a Ford car made at one of the company's German plants. In the 1970s, General Motors and Ford were falling over themselves to push investment out of Britain and did not export any cars from this country. Today, GM, Ford and the Japanese companies
    872
    Nissan, Toyota and Honda are exporting vast numbers of cars from Britain. Even Rover, which manufactured international jokes such as the Allegro and the Marina when Labour was in power, is successfully exporting no less than half its output.

    Electricity and Water Companies
    Mr. Chisholm: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received regarding the ownership of the electricity and water companies. [32126]
    Mr. Eggar: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).
    Mr. Chisholm: The Minister made no attempt to answer earlier questions on the subject—perhaps because of his disagreements with the President of the Board of Trade. Will the hon. Gentleman lay down even one principle in place of the confusion and chaos that currently typify Government policy? Will he acknowledge that consumer interests should take precedence over takeover and dividend mania? Will he be more ready in future to refer bids to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
    Mr. Eggar: I agree with the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), who is all in favour of competition. I detect from the questions of the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) and for Pendle that they do not entirely agree with the hon. Member for East Kilbride.

    Research and Development
    Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Government's policies in encouraging British businesses to increase their investment in research and development. [32127]
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Evaluations of past research and development support show that it enhanced the amount and scope of the R and D undertaken and enabled firms to complete projects earlier. Support for collaborative R and D has improved interaction between industry and the science base. The recent "forward look" publication shows business expenditure on research and development is increasing in real terms.
    Dr. Jones: If Britain is to become the enterprise centre of Europe, does the Minister agree that it must improve its performance in research and development—which, with the honourable exceptions mentioned earlier, lags way behind that of more successful economies? Last week's White Paper showed that, while dividend pay-outs have inexorably risen, investment in R and D is not even back to the pre-recession level. Will the Government stop dismissing the importance of fiscal incentives to encourage profit retention for investment over dividend pay-outs?
    Mr. Taylor: The trouble with the Labour party is that it is increasingly giving the impression that it opposes dividends, which shows a fundamental lack of

    873
    understanding of how financial systems work in this country. Dividends are a vital part of growth in the value of pensions. However, I accept—as I have done earlier today—that British companies should pay more attention to the percentage of their sales spent on research and development. That is a matter of considerable importance, and I shall say more about it when the latest research and development scoreboard from the DTI is published next week.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response, in which he implied that we are not investing enough in research and development—as we are not investing enough in industry generally. Will my hon. Friend make further proposals to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Treasury to enhance investment, not least in research and development, using fiscal measures that encourage success?
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend, who is a great champion of manufacturing industry, knows that investment plans in industry are best prepared against a background of low inflation, low interest rates and stable economic management. We are delivering those things, which is why we are increasingly receiving the enthusiastic support of inward investors and of UK industry. However, I am always on the lookout for measures that might stimulate research and development.
    I repeat that there is absolutely no way in which British companies will be able to compete into the next millennium if a much greater effort is not made in research and development by British companies in relation to the best companies worldwide. More chief executives should pay attention to the rate of change of innovation and the rate of change in how products are introduced to the market.

    Takeover Provisions
    Dr. Wright: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to alter the takeover provisions affecting UK companies. [32129]
    Mr. John M. Taylor: We have no plans to alter the current takeover provisions.
    Dr. Wright: Does the Minister accept that firms that live in permanent fear of takeover are unlikely to put long-term investment before short-term returns? Does he accept that British firms are peculiarly vulnerable to takeover, especially to foreign takeover, because of the laxity of our takeover rules? Is it not time to revisit the rules by which British firms must live and—too often—die?
    Mr. Taylor: On the first point, takeovers play an important part in ensuring that companies are run efficiently, which is in the interests of shareholders and consumers alike. If managers want to retain control of their firms, they must run them as efficiently as possible. As for foreign shareholdings, few countries enjoy more overseas corporate control than the United Kingdom. Inward investment is a two-way street, and it is very welcome.
    Mr. Salmond: The Minister seems to be telling us that successful companies do not get taken over. Given the profitability, success and strategic importance of the Royal Bank of Scotland to the Scottish economy, does the Minister welcome the fact that the takeover threat to the bank appears to have receded in the past two weeks?
    Mr. Taylor: The existing merger control provisions in this country are satisfactory at the statutory level and at the non-statutory level. Each case is examined on its merits. As for a merger of a particular bank in Scotland, that is a commercial decision for the parties. The necessary statutory and non-statutory issues would be brought into being only if competition issues arise subsequently.

    University Research Equipment
    Mr. Chidgey: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of the effect of reductions to the education budget on the funding of equipment for research in universities. [32130]
    Mr. Ian Taylor: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) a few moments ago.
    Mr. Chidgey: Is the Minister aware that, as a direct consequence of the lack of funding for equipment, universities are now unable to undertake critical experiments, and that multinational firms are consequently switching their research programmes from British universities to universities overseas? Does he accept that there is an urgent need for the Government to support universities' budgets, particularly the current £474 million shortfall for priority equipment alone—which is five times the amount that they have had available to spend in previous years? Does he accept that the Government must take some action to help on this issue?
    Mr. Taylor: I do not accept that our best research universities are in the state that the hon. Gentleman describes. Nothing I see as I go around all those universities suggests anything other than the excellence of the research that is being carried out. We must be careful about spreading stories about the top universities in this country having such difficulties.
    I do not deny that the forefront of research requires the forefront of equipment, which presents particular problems as the pace of change impacts on our research base. However, it is for the vice-chancellors to manage their affairs properly. It is evident that in not all cases have universities properly allocated money for research equipment in accordance with the ambitions that they publicly discuss.
    I need much more information from the vice-chancellors to enable me to see what is going on. I underline the fact that, judging by the citations and the articles now being published, British universities are producing excellence, and inward investors welcome the accessibility and excellence of that research base.

    Political Donations
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will enter into discussions with the Confederation of British Industry over donations to political parties. [32131]
    Mr. Lang: I see no reason to do so.
    Mr. Winnick: There is every reason to do so. Does the Secretary of State not realise how scandalous is the fact that those in industry who donate to the Conservative party are, in the main, the same people who receive the peerages and the knighthoods? Since November 1990, when the Prime Minister arrived at No. 10, of the five
    876
    peerages and 53 knighthoods given to industrialists, more than two thirds have gone to people involved with companies that have given millions of pounds to the Tory party. The situation is scandalous, and certainly needs reviewing. I hope that the Secretary of State will understand the concern that it causes.
    Mr. Lang: If anything is scandalous, it is the Opposition's sour and mean approach to such matters. The fact is that directors have a legal duty to act in the interests of their companies, and all companies must disclose in their company accounts contributions for political purposes of more than £200. The beneficiaries must also be disclosed. That is a fair and sensible way forward.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Did you notice that I have been sitting quietly during Question Time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Unusual."] Yes, very unusual. I have been observing the questions being asked, and twice as many Opposition Members as Conservative Members have spoken. Often no Government Back-Benchers at all sought to ask supplementaries on the important subject of trade and industry. When we discuss the pay of Members of Parliament, may we discuss some aspect of performance-related pay, Madam Speaker?
Madam Speaker: That will be a matter for the hon. Gentleman to put to the Leader of the House tomorrow. However, I must tell the House that I am gratified to see that today we have reached a total of 20 questions plus supplementaries. I congratulate the Board of Trade team and Back-Benchers, who have, in the main, been speedy in their questions and answers today.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Further to the point of order that I put to you this morning, Madam Speaker. I understand that Mr. Speaker Weatherill's ruling of 17 February 1992 blocks the early-day motions that I attempted to table last night relating to the North Wales police and child abuse. I should be grateful if you would reconsider the position, because it now seems that one cannot table a motion or a question for oral or written answer; one cannot speak in a debate or, probably, even introduce a Bill drawing on the experience in Clwyd. One cannot raise the issue in a Select Committee or a Standing Committee either. A wall of silence will surround the passage of the Government motion later tonight.
I cannot defend that in my constituency. My constituents were involved, and there are things that should be done before that motion is passed. We should have had a debate in the House on child abuse, and the Secretary of State for Health should have made a statement on the Utting review. This morning a Welsh Office Minister tried to convince me that the Jillings report was defamatory. That is rubbish. What are they trying to hide?
Finally, I want to expose the fact that 25 years ago there was a report on Bryn Estyn, one of the homes involved in the Clwyd child abuse case, but it was never published because the Home Office suppressed it. We cannot close down debate in the House of Commons on an issue as important as child abuse.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have a ruling. I am quite prepared. I have carefully considered the points of order that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) raised yesterday, to which I replied, as well as this morning at 9.30 am, and have looked at the two proposed motions that she has attempted to table. I am satisfied that one of her motions breaches the campaign rule, to which she referred and to which my predecessor referred in a ruling that he gave on—the hon. Lady is correct—
878
17 February 1992 at column 21. As the hon. Lady, I understand, has now been informed by the Table Office, I am content that the other motion be tabled.
Obviously, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley is aware, however, that this motion, along with the three other early-day motions that she tabled on Monday, will be withdrawn automatically as a result of the operation of the House's sub judice rule—that is the House's sub judice rule, not a ruling of the Speaker—if and when the motion setting up a tribunal of inquiry is agreed to by the House. If she is seeking a statement from a Minister or a debate on the matters before that motion is passed, she should ask questions of the Leader of the House tomorrow. She should deal with her Front-Bench team about having the subject placed on the Order Paper. Of course, she will be aware, as the House is aware, that in raising her voice in objection to the motion, which is now on the Order Paper, the setting up of the tribunal will be delayed.
Mr. Tim Devlin: Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker, raised by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on performance-related pay. Like him, I sat quietly through Question Time—
Madam Speaker: Order. Performance-related pay is not a matter for me. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Devlin: The point of order is simply that, if we were to be paid on that basis, and given that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley represents only 55,000 constituents whereas I represent 80,000, would he be paid five eighths of my salary?
Madam Speaker: If our pay were performance-related, I would say that I spend more time here than anyone.
Mr. Phil Gallie: As the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) observed Members rising to speak in Question Time, I observed the hon. Gentleman never at any time attempting to get to his feet. Does that suggest that he has no interest in trade and industry?
Madam Speaker: I think that we have had a good exchange on the matter.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that the Select Committee on Health is undertaking an extensive inquiry into all aspects of children's health and well-being. Will you clarify whether the ruling that you have just made means that the Select Committee cannot take evidence on Clwyd?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady has given me no notice of her point of order and I am not aware of how far the Select Committee has proceeded. I would certainly have to look at the matter before I could give a ruling. I would want to be absolutely clear about it.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Over the years, it is inevitable that many Speakers' rulings have raised proverbial eyebrows,

879
but none more so than that given by Lord Weatherill in 1992 on campaigning to which you referred. Who makes the judgment on whether something is a campaign? Who initiates it—the Government, the Speaker, or other Members? Such decisions seem to come out of thin air, when the matter is inconvenient.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. Such rulings do not come out of thin air. They come out of very deep consideration of the precedents of the House. Those precedents are sometimes changed. I am prepared to change them if it is common sense and for the convenience of the House. I have looked very carefully at the campaign ruling, especially on this issue, and have given rulings that I think are in the best interests of the House at the present time.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. You have certainly been extremely helpful. Will you clarify a matter for me? Yesterday, the Government also announced that there would be a review of the care and abuse of children and of children's homes and residential accommodation throughout England and Wales. I am particularly concerned about problems that have been encountered in Cheshire, which is also very much in the news. Will you confirm that there are no restrictions on Members who want to take matters forward in respect of England and Wales, but especially in respect of Cheshire?
Madam Speaker: As far as I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is quite correct. There will be no restrictions. The Government's announcement was perfectly clear and it is being interpreted correctly by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have gone as far as I can. I have answered four or five points of order on this issue and I can go no further now. If the hon. Gentleman has anything to say to me, I will be pleased to see him to discuss it.

Water (Supply Pipe Responsibility)
3.39 pm
Dr. Tony Wright: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to impose a duty upon water companies to maintain and repair domestic supply pipes.
It is appropriate on a fine day in the middle of a fine June for the House to consider the matter of water. When I asked one of my colleagues if he would sponsor this Bill, he was moved to observe that, although he knew that new Labour was characterised by a desire to extend responsibility, he was surprised to learn that the extension of that responsibility now embraced water supply pipes. Let me explain.
A few weeks ago, an elderly lady came to see me. She brought her water bills with her, which, like so many others, she was worried about not being able to pay. She also brought with her a leaflet that she had just received from the South Staffordshire water company about which she was even more worried. It was seeking to sell her an insurance policy and was accompanied by dire warnings of the consequences that would befall her if she did not take up the offer—an offer that she could not afford.
The leaflet is now being distributed across much of the country and I shall read from it because it explains what my proposed Bill is about. Under the stark heading
"They thought they were covered", it says:
"As a home owner, you probably already know that the underground water supply that runs from the main external stopcock to your home is your responsibility. What may surprise you, though, is that in the event of a flood caused by a burst pipe, it is unlikely that any standard home insurance policy will cover the cost of repairs … and these repairs can be expensive—a burst main in your garden, for instance, may well mean the hire of heavy digging equipment."
Examples are given of the expense and trauma experienced by householders who suffered such a fate before they saw the light and bought the company's insurance scheme. One person is quoted as saying:
"I had to have all my underground pipes and drains removed. I wish the scheme had been invented earlier, as the work was very expensive."
Another person said:
"What prompted me to get the scheme was a burst pipe—it was a very traumatic experience".
We then have a plumber who says:
"Before the Home Service Scheme, I used to dread presenting customers with the bill at the end of a job."
I hope that the House will understand why my constituent and many like her suffer such anxiety when addressed in this way. She was already worried about her ability to pay her water bills and was then further worried by the prospect of huge repair bills and an insurance policy that she cannot afford. That is the situation that my Bill seeks to tackle.
It is neither sensible nor fair that householders should be responsible for the supply pipes that run underneath their gardens. Similar arguments apply to sewers. I have a constituent whose garden is currently awash with unpleasant emissions from broken sewers—not his—for which nobody will assume responsibility. However, my Bill starts with water supply pipes. The time has come to transfer responsibility for supply pipes from householders to water companies, and that is what the Bill would do.

881
The old water authorities had come to the view that that was sensible. Before privatisation, the Government consulted on whether the new companies should be responsible for supply pipes. In relation to the problems of leakage and contamination, the Government's consultation paper said, rightly:
"Whilst the water industry has no direct responsibility for these pipes, those problems are likely to remain unresolved."
In the event, and no doubt influenced by the imperatives of privatisation, the Government decided not to proceed with a transfer of responsibility. That was a major missed opportunity. It is now time to put it right.
Not only would that be fair, but there would be other considerable advantages and benefits. It would help us to tackle the problem of water leakage, which currently and scandalously accounts for between a quarter and a third of all the water put into supply in this country. About a third of that leakage comes from supply pipes, for which the water companies can at present disclaim responsibility. That surely makes no sense. Water companies alone have the expertise, equipment and resources to tackle that problem; householders do not.
If responsibility for pipes through to the internal stopcock were transferred to the water companies, it would offer the opportunity for concerted action on leakage. It would also make it possible to dispense with all the troublesome valves and joints that are currently required because of the need to police the boundary between company pipes and consumer pipes. The potential benefits in terms of leakage reduction are considerable.
A recent article in the journal Utility Week made the following assessment:
"Put simply into numbers: if companies are twice as efficient as individual customers at managing pipes and leakage, then around 17 per cent. of leakage would be saved simply by this change of responsibility and management, at no net expense to anyone. More sophisticated figures are needed, but this would be a similar order of saving of water resource to that of the whole of the government and Ofwat's metering plans, without any of the social welfare loss and extra costs they are said to involve."
What is true of leakage is also true of lead, where it is only the companies that can do what has to be done, especially in meeting the tougher targets of the new drinking water directive in promoting public health.
Above all, my proposal is fair. The present position is scandalous, anomalous and indefensible. Other utility suppliers—gas, electricity and telephones—are responsible for what they supply right up to people's homes. Consider the consequences that would follow if that were not the case. Yet water remains an anomalous exception, and the effect of the anomaly is to burden householders with a responsibility that they are unable to discharge and to remove responsibility from the water companies for essential repairs that only they can realistically undertake.
882
As recently as a few days ago, the Director General of Water Services wrote to all the water companies to ask them how they proposed to discharge their newly acquired duty to promote the efficient use of water. I have a copy of that letter. One paragraph is headed "Customer supply-pipe leakage". This is what it says:
"Companies claim that leakage from customers' supply pipes is a major source of waste. They have powers to issue waste notices which require customers to mend their pipes and, if necessary, to repair the pipe themselves and bill the customer. Many have been reluctant to do so, because of the uncertain financial impact on the customer or house-owner. Companies, however, have a financial interest in the reduction of such waste in that water treatment distribution costs are saved."
The letter ends:
"Companies' plans should include their approach to supply pipe leakage, including services and assistance they offer. Some companies have introduced a free leak detection service to encourage the detection of leaks. All companies should consider this step, and how they might help their customers with the costs involved—for example by providing a low cost repair service. In certain situations, in particular, in areas affected by company water-use restrictions, companies should consider providing a free detection and repair service."
There we have the regulator telling the companies to get to grips with the issue of supply pipes, yet because of the statutory position there is no coherent approach. Some companies are doing very little. Others, led by South Staffordshire, are trying to sell profit-making insurance policies. Severn Trent Water Ltd. has a flat-rate repair scheme. North West Water Ltd. is offering free repairs for a year.
That cannot be satisfactory. A basic responsibility of that type should not depend on where one lives. That is why, as the industry's consumer service committees are starting to say, the time has come to make the companies directly responsible for supply pipes.
My final observation is designed to be helpful. Last night we irrigated Holland, and we all feel a lot better for it. Today, the water companies could make us feel better still by voluntarily assuming responsibility for people's water pipes. Their tarnished reputations would instantly be enhanced by truly Venables proportions. They do not need to wait for the legislation that I am proposing to do the right and sensible thing.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Tony Wright, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mr. Richard Burden, Mrs. Jane Kennedy, Mr. David Hanson, Mr. Jeff Rooker, Ms Estelle Morris, Mr. David Jamieson, Mr. Paul Tyler, Mr. David Nicholson, Mr. Frank Field and Miss Kate Hoey.

WATER (SUPPLY PIPE RESPONSIBILITY)
Dr. Tony Wright accordingly presented a Bill to impose a duty upon water companies to maintain and repair domestic supply pipes: 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 155.]

Sentencing Proposals
Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I have also had to limit all Back-Bench speeches to 10 minutes.
3.50 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move,
That this House supports the proposals set out in the White Paper `Protecting the Public' to introduce automatic life sentences for serious violent and sex offenders; mandatory minimum prison sentences for persistent house burglars and drug dealers; and to introduce greater honesty into the sentencing process.
The first duty of any Government is to maintain law and order, to ensure that their citizens can walk the streets in safety and sleep safely in their homes. I shall refer this afternoon to a coherent series of policies which add up to a central theme that gives the White Paper its title, "Protecting the Public". This is the objective that I have put at the top of my list of priorities since I became Home Secretary over three years ago. It is a continuing programme, building on real achievements.
This week alone has seen the announcement of new funding for local projects to tackle crime, the opening of the new crime prevention college at Easingwold, new proposals for dealing with sex offenders, and a White Paper published today on the future development of the criminal record system. If we maintain this impetus, real progress can be made.
Recorded crime in England and Wales has fallen for three consecutive years since 1993. Over this short period there has been a reduction of nearly 500,000 recorded crimes—the biggest fall since records began. We cannot be certain of continuing that trend with every set of figures, but it is a massive reduction that reflects great credit on the police, who lead the world in the use of new technology such as closed circuit television to deter and detect crime.
The White Paper records progress in our strategy. Partnership is developing. Only last Friday I saw an excellent example of partnership working in Plymouth, where the police and local people have developed a concept of community policing. Each ward has its own team of police officers who liaise regularly with community representatives.
We have given the police the powers and resources that they need to fight crime. We have increased spending on policing by 100 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79, to £7 billion. The figures for 1996 will show an increase of 16,000 police officers since 1979. There are now 17,000 more civilians to support the police, and there will be funding to allow the recruitment of 5,000 additional police officers over the next three years.
We have not hesitated to provide additional powers—not just the new public order powers in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, but new powers for the police in relation to bail, such as the power to attach conditions to police bail and the power to arrest defendants who breach bail.
Mr. William O'Brien: Chapter 9 of the White Paper to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers concerns fairness in sentencing policy.
884
I recently wrote to the Home Secretary about the murder of one of my constituents, Wayne Margrave, who was run down and killed. The car driver also severely injured a young lady who was caring for my constituent. The man responsible was sentenced to four years, but if this document is implemented he will be out in two. When I asked that the matter be referred to the Court of Appeal, no assistance was forthcoming from the Government. In the context of fair sentencing, will the Minister give that case serious consideration?
Mr. Howard: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's constituents who are victims of that dreadful crime, but he needs to put the case with a degree of accuracy. He will know that there could not have been a conviction of murder in that case, because, if the conviction had been of murder, the sentence would have been life imprisonment and not four years' imprisonment. He has written a letter about the case. The case was considered by the courts. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the White Paper that we are debating today proposes a new approach to offences of serious violence. I hope that he will give voice to the concern that he has expressed by supporting the proposals in the White Paper.
Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The Home Secretary, in his opening remarks, has painted a picture of a beautiful land in which crime levels are decreasing all the time. That situation is not recognisable to most people who live in our towns and cities. What is he doing about the astronomical rate of vehicle crime and the appalling recovery rate of stolen vehicles? We have had nothing but complacency from his Department in this regard.
Mr. Howard: I am most interested in the example that the hon. Gentleman cited. Vehicle crime is one of the categories of crime that has shown one of the biggest reductions in recent years. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on the Labour Front Bench has just laughed. If he thinks that people do not report the fact that their car has been stolen, he is living in cloud cuckoo land. The recorded figures show that there were more than 80,000 fewer instances of vehicle theft over the past two years. That is a genuine figure. Everyone reports the fact that their car has been stolen. Labour Members refuse to accept the facts and they refuse to accept the figures that are self-evidently correct.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I have been the subject of three offences in the past four years. The first instance was a theft that occurred in the House of Commons, but no action was taken; the second instance involved someone attempting to interfere with my credit card, which I reported to the police in south London, but no action was taken; and on the third occasion someone broke into my vehicle. What did I do on that occasion? Nothing—it is a waste of time. Millions of people throughout the country agree with me. The figures are fraudulent, they mean nothing and the public know the truth.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has manifestly failed to deal with the precise point that I made: no one fails to report the fact that their car has been stolen. Over the past two years, there have been more than 80,000

885
fewer recorded instances of vehicle theft. That is a clear demonstration that we are making progress in the fight against crime. Of course we have not eliminated crime and of course, alas, hon. Members and others will still be the victims of crime. I am addressing—in the White Paper that we are debating today and in the other steps that we are taking to fight crime—the Government's strategy to make further progress in the fight against crime because it needs to be made.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Home Secretary agree with me that one of the reasons—perhaps a significant reason—for the decline in reported crime is that there are currently 1 million fewer young men aged under 25 than there were 20 years ago? Most crime is committed by young men under the age of 25.
Mr. Howard: No, I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Government have looked at the extent to which demographic changes of that kind might have contributed to the fall in recorded crime over the past three years. Any effect that that might have had is small when compared with the more than 8 per cent. reduction in crime that we have seen over the past three years. I am happy to write to the hon. and learned Gentleman with the precise figures.
I must now make some progress. Before that series of ill-timed and ill-considered interventions, I referred to the additional powers that we have given to the police. In addition to those extra powers, the police should soon have the new powers of arrest relating to knife carrying provided by the legislation introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), which is currently passing through Parliament with Government support.
However, I believe that the public need greater protection from serious, dangerous and persistent offenders. That is what the radical new proposals set out in the White Paper are designed to achieve. The proposals are targeted at rapists, persistent burglars, dealers in hard drugs and other criminals who time and again commit offences that are of particular concern to the public.
The sentencing measures are part of a wider package. Earlier this week, I announced proposals for better ways of safeguarding the public—especially children—against sex offenders. Today I am publishing a White Paper, "On the Record", which sets out our proposals for new arrangements for accessing criminal records in England and Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will bring forward similar proposals for Scotland.
The police currently carry out more than a million checks each year, of which 600,000 are for child protection purposes. Extending access to checks under the current arrangements would mean not only increasing the burden of work on the police but taking valuable resources away from core policing activities. We therefore propose to establish a criminal records agency which will relieve the police of much of that work. The agency will be self-financing on the basis of fees paid for checks. Individuals will be responsible for meeting the cost of any check undertaken of them, and charges will be kept as low as possible.
In future there will be three different types of checks. The first will be in a new criminal conviction certificate which will be available only to the individuals concerned.
886
It will show any convictions that are held at a national level and are not "spent" under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
The second is a "full" check. It will be available for those who are in occupations that are exceptions to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, such as doctors and teachers. Both the individual and the employer will receive information as a result of that check. The information disclosed will include those convictions that are "spent" under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and any cautions that are recorded at a national level. Employers who wish those checks to be undertaken will be required to register with the agency and to agree to abide by a code of practice that will ensure that proper procedures are followed in handling criminal record information. We shall consult about the contents of the code of practice.
The third type of check is an "enhanced" check. It will be available only to those who work on a regular, unsupervised basis with children under the age of 18 and to those who apply for gaming, betting and lottery licences. In addition to a "full" check, it will include a check of local police records for minor convictions, cautions and any relevant non-conviction information about the applicant. We have given particular thought to the issue and we have decided that, on balance, it is right to continue to provide non-conviction information. However, we have recognised the need to have clear guidance about both the information and the circumstances in which it can be disclosed.
The latter provision will cover information that can be fully substantiated by the police and will be released only on the authority of a senior police officer. It will be given to the individual as well as to the employer and the employer must decide its relevance to the post in question. The only time that an individual will not be told about any information that is released to an employer is when it might prejudice a current police investigation.
The White Paper proposals place no new requirement upon any employer to seek a criminal record check, and checks will be mandatory only when there is an existing statutory requirement—for example, in cases of licensing. I believe that the proposals will play a valuable role in our strategy of protecting the public from crime.
Ms Ann Coffey: The Home Secretary referred to provisions for employers. Has he considered the case of voluntary organisations which do not employ their volunteers who often work in very sensitive areas with young children and other vulnerable groups? Will he extend the access provision to such organisations so that they may check on their volunteers?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention, and there is a strong case for extending the checks in the way that she suggests. Before I leave that point, I should add that the proposals in the White Paper that we have published today have been warmly welcomed by the police. I have just received a press release issued by the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales, which welcomes the measures and says that they
"may even deter criminals who will be aware that they will not be able to hide their criminal activities from potential employers and is therefore another measure which puts victims first put and underpins the commitment to protecting the public."

887
[Interruption.] I note that the views of the association are apparently a subject for ribaldry for Opposition Back Benchers.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I welcome the enormous and good work that my right hon. and learned Friend is doing and I also welcome the fact that non-conviction information will be carried for certain individuals and organisations who look after children. What right of appeal will there be for an organisation that is refused information by a senior police officer if it feels that that information is crucial, although it does not involve convictions, for an applicant who may be employed to look after children in its care?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The question of appeal is mentioned in the White Paper and the details of that important matter are set out there.
Mr. Jack Straw: Before the Secretary of State leaves the subject of criminal records, will he confirm that the White Paper contains no proposals to implement the Home Affairs Select Committee's unanimous recommendation for the proper regulation of the private security industry, and that the effect is to create a huge, gaping loophole in the arrangements? The proposals, as I read them, may allow private security employers to weed out the crooks who work for private security firms, but they will do nothing to weed out the crooks who own and operate some of those private security firms.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Select Committee's proposals on the private security industry are still under consideration. The measures set out in White Paper today will be of considerable assistance and relevance in the context of that industry, and not merely in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The proposals will enable firms that are not involved in the industry, but which employ people for security purposes, to carry out checks, and that will be a considerable safeguard. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that.
I turn now to our sentencing proposals. They are under three main headings. The first is "Honesty in sentencing". The public are outraged when someone sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment is released after four or five years or when someone sentenced to seven days' imprisonment is released after one night. I agree with the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, who recently said that those arrangements
"have the appearance of a charade with everyone engaged in a calculation of how much less than the pronounced sentence will actually be served".
I therefore propose that the sentence served should bear a much closer relationship to the sentence passed by the court.
Prisoners who behave well and co-operate should be able to earn up to 20 per cent. off their sentence. Everyone else will have to serve their sentences in full. That will create an incentive for prisoners to behave well while in prison. Governors will retain the power to take away time
888
earned as a sanction for disciplinary offences—the Opposition's Front-Bench spokesman in another place, in the debate on 23 May, was quite wrong to suggest that governors would be, as she put it, stripped of that power.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The Home Secretary has selectively called in aid the views of the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor. Has the Home Secretary also considered the broader view taken by the Lord Chief Justice of his White Paper, when he said that grave consequences would follow if the main proposals were put into effect? The Home Secretary mentioned one sentence from the Lord Chief Justice, but does he accept the broad attack on the totality of his proposals?
Mr. Howard: I do not think that it is a secret that, on the other proposals in the White Paper, the former Lord Chief Justice and I have different views. Similarly, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting that I was attempting to conceal that from the House or the world. It may be of interest to note that in this instance the former Lord Chief Justice and I are happily in agreement.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is it not arrogant to introduce the name of the former Lord Chief Justice in such a way when the Home Secretary knows that many of us have come to the Chamber to listen to what he has to say? It is our first opportunity to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman respond to the final speech of the former Lord Chief Justice in another place, during which he more or less said that he had no confidence in a Home Secretary who should introduce such measures based on such "flimsy and dubious research".
Mr. Howard: I am coming to the rest of my proposals, if the hon. Gentleman will contain himself. I will deal with them in detail. The hon. Gentleman has misquoted the former Lord Chief Justice, but there is no secret that the former Lord Chief Justice—[Interruption.] He criticised the proposals but he did not—
Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Home Secretary says that I have misquoted the former Lord Chief Justice. He said in column 1025 of the Official Report of another place on 23 May
"that never in the history of our criminal law"—
Madam Speaker: Order. It is not a point of order if the hon. Gentleman merely repeats what he said earlier. He should contain himself and make a speech later.
Mr. Howard: I shall come to my other proposals and to the evidence for them. I hope that today we shall have rather less equivocal language from those who occupy the Opposition Front Bench than we have had so far.
First, I shall deal with honesty in sentencing. The White Paper makes it clear that the courts will be expected when passing sentence to take account of the abolition of parole and changes in early-release arrangements. That could be achieved either by a practice direction, if the Lord Chief Justice decided that it would be appropriate to issue such a direction, or by specific statutory provision. The Government therefore do not intend or expect the proposal to result in a general increase in sentences actually served. Its purpose, as I have made clear from

889
the outset, is to introduce greater honesty and clarity into the sentencing process and to restore credibility to the sentence passed by the court.
Mr. Alex Cathie: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Howard: I have already given way once to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have no doubt that he will be able to make his speech in due course.
The second key element of my proposals is that anyone convicted for the second time of a serious sexual or violent offence should receive an automatic life sentence unless there are genuinely exceptional circumstances. The offences covered by this proposal would include, among others, rape, attempted rape, attempted murder, manslaughter and the most serious woundings. The purpose of the proposal is to ensure that no one who comes into the category will be released until an assessment has been made of whether he or she still poses a risk to the public.
Life imprisonment is, of course, already the maximum penalty for serious violent and sexual offences such as rape and attempted murder. In 1994, however, 217 offenders were convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence having previously been convicted of at least one similar offence, and only 10 of them were sentenced to life imprisonment. Again in 1994, about 40 violent or sexual crimes were committed by offenders who had already been convicted of two such offences. The Government's proposals mean that in future such offenders would be released if, and only if, there had been an assessment that it was safe for them to be released. Those who are released will remain on licence and subject to recall for the rest of their lives.
The third element of our proposals is that the courts should be required to impose a minimum prison sentence on offenders who are convicted of domestic burglary or dealing in hard drugs who have two previous convictions for similar offences. It is proposed in the White Paper that there should be a minimum sentence on third conviction of three years in the case of domestic burglary and seven years in relation to drug trafficking offences. The courts will have discretion to set aside the mandatory penalty in genuinely exceptional circumstances and to impose a higher sentence than the mandatory minimum in appropriate cases.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Home Secretary agree that, in dealing with burglaries, attention should be directed on those who habitually receive stolen goods and thereby encourage others to burgle?
Mr. Howard: I do indeed agree with the hon. Gentleman. The fact that a particular offence does not come within the very precisely targeted category that has been selected for mandatory minimum sentences does not, of course, mean that the courts should pass a life sentence in those cases. The hon. Gentleman has correctly identified a category that will no doubt receive the attention of the courts where appropriate.
Persistent burglars and drug dealers are a menace to society, and they should know that if they continue to offend they will go to prison for a long time. In too many cases, non-custodial sentences or very short prison sentences are imposed on burglars who have numerous
890
previous convictions. It just cannot be right that burglars before the court for their seventh or subsequent conviction are getting average sentences of 19 months—serving perhaps 10 months. That is only a few months longer than the 15 or 16 months—serving perhaps eight months—of first offenders who are sent to prison. Stiff minimum sentences will provide a real deterrent to persistent offenders and ensure that those who continue to offend receive the punishment that they so richly deserve.
I do not accept that these proposals encroach improperly on judicial independence. It has always been Parliament's responsibility to set the statutory framework for sentencing, and for judges to exercise their discretion within that framework.
It has been argued that mandatory sentences will not work because it is the certainty of conviction that deters offenders, not the severity of sentence. But improving detection rates and imposing stiffer sentences are not alternatives, they are complementary. The most effective deterrent is to have both. The police are taking action to improve detection rates in a number of ways, for example, by targeting known and persistent offenders. The Government's proposals will back that up. Bringing persistent burglars back before the courts time and time again is useless if the sentence imposed is one that they can regard as a minor occupational hazard in their chosen career.
Ros Burnett of Oxford university, in a study entitled "The Dynamics of Recidivism", found on the basis of interviews with prisoners that
"Avoidance of imprisonment was the most frequently mentioned reason for not wanting to re-offend".
Under our proposals, persistent offenders will know that they will get a stiff sentence if they persist in offending.
The public rightly expect protection from serious, dangerous and persistent offenders. The proposals that I have outlined are carefully targeted at crimes of particular concern to the public—serious sex and violent offences, domestic burglary, and dealing in hard drugs. The Government believe that urgent action is required to provide a real deterrent to such offenders; to punish severely those who continue to offend regardless; and above all to protect the public from their activities. The White Paper "Protecting the Public", and our new proposals for sex offenders and for making better preventive use of criminal records, are further steps towards protecting the public in that way.
I now deal with the position taken by the Opposition parties. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is deputy leader of the Labour party, is not present for the debate, as his ambitions to become shadow Home Secretary are famous, and this would have been the perfect opportunity for him to size up the Home Affairs portfolio and to learn from the many mistakes of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
The hon Gentleman's approach to policy making consists of a four-stage process typical of the manic depressive. The first is the manic phase. He hears about someone else's idea. "That's a good one," he says, skipping excitedly around his room. During the second stage there is a frenzy of activity. He does not need anything more than Snopake, a photocopier and a fax machine—the usual tools of trade of the

891
bottom-of-the-market plagiarist. The third stage consists of panic as the plan unravels. Another Straw fiasco is complete. That leads to the final stage—deep depression.
Let us take the teenage curfew saga as a classic example. President Clinton makes a speech on teenage curfews. The hon. Gentleman gets to work within hours. This is a golden opportunity. He can see the headlines now: "Straw to crack down on kids". "Tony will be pleased,' he says to himself. "My job in the shadow Cabinet is safe after all."
The trouble is that the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), had already condemned the idea as "utter and complete nonsense", and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said the following day:
"I'm not sure that a curfew would be a workable solution."
They were not alone. The chief constable of Gloucestershire, speaking as the representative of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said:
"I think there are some huge practical difficulties."
In the face of that barrage, the hon. Gentleman back-tracked rapidly.
Mr. Donald Anderson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Given your traditional role of protector of the House, would it be appropriate for you to remind the Home Secretary that he is not at a Conservative party conference now?
Madam Speaker: That is not really a point of order for me. I am sure that the Home Secretary is well aware of where he is at the present time.
Mr. Howard: I understand the discomfort of members of the Labour party. I know that they do not want to hear all this. Let me remind them, however, of what the hon. Member for Blackburn told the Sunday Times. He said:
"The age groups affected could be people up to age 16."
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman stands by that quote; perhaps he will enlighten us now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] I understand why the hon. Gentleman does not wish to enlighten us. The next day, the line was completely different. "We are not thinking about the under-16s," the hon. Gentleman said. He told The Guardian:
"We are thinking about the under 10s possibly being off the streets by 9.00 pm".
What had started as a war on teenage crime ended as an attempt to protect the under-10s from themselves, all in 24 hours flat.
The hon. Gentleman tried one last desperate throw. We want to hear more about this: we want to hear the answer. A nationwide search was undertaken to identify a police force that might he willing to undertake a pilot scheme, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) was recruited to the cause. The Guardian reported that the West Midlands police were willing to start a pilot scheme; that was in The Guardian, so it must be true. A meeting was to be held between the police and the hon. Member for Yardley, after which the details would be announced. The meeting took place on 12 June, but for some unaccountable reason nothing has been heard
892
from the hon. Gentleman or the hon. Lady since. Could that be because no plans for a curfew were agreed after all, or because there was little or no support for the hon. Gentleman's ideas? I think we should be told, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal with that point when he replies.
Mr. Don Touhig: As the Home Secretary is quoting from newspapers, may I ask whether he saw a piece in The Independent last week which said that the measure that he is describing was really an attempt to regain the initiative as a result of Labour's efforts? Is the Home Secretary, in fact, trying desperately to paper over the cracks in the Conservative party?
Mr. Howard: I will leave the hon. Gentleman to take what comfort he may from The Independent.
Mr. Straw: Perhaps the Home Secretary would also like to take some comfort, from someone whom he has already quoted—the president of the Police Superintendents Association, Mr. Brian Mackenzie. The Home Secretary may have missed it, but Mr. Mackenzie said of our proposals:
"Police superintendents have been complaining bitterly over the last few years about juveniles running wild and causing problems. The proposals from Jack Straw are one of a range of measures well worth considering. I am delighted that responsible authorities are looking at it."
Mr. Howard: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was unable to answer either of the specific and direct questions that I had put to him a few moments before. I doubt very much that, when the president of the Police Superintendents Association referred to "juveniles", he was referring to the under-10s. He may have been misled by the report in the Sunday Times. He probably did not appreciate that, within 24 hours, the hon. Gentleman would back-track and change his proposals for dealing with the under-16s to a proposal to protect the under-10s from themselves.
There has been a great deal of debate about my proposals on sentencing since I first outlined them last October. Strong views have been expressed both for and against those proposals. The Labour party's reaction has been instructive.
Mr. George Howarth: The Home Secretary referred to an article in The Guardian about an initiative taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) and asked what had become of it. He might be interested to know that I was with my hon. Friend when she met West Midlands police. We met a group of local residents in her constituency. West Midlands police said that our proposals for under10-year-olds were perfectly plausible and that it would work with the local authority to introduce them in a particular part of her constituency. That is what became of the proposal. Perhaps the Home Secretary will tell us whether he thinks it is a good thing for children under 10 to be out on the street late at night.
Mr. Howard: Of course I do not. If the police find youngsters on the street in need of protection, they already have powers to take the youngsters to a safe place. The

893
hon. Gentleman did not tell us is whether the pilot scheme that he and the hon. Member for Yardley asked West Midlands police to carry out in Yardley is to take place.
Mr. Howarth: Yes.
Mr. Howard: Instead of making sedentary comments, will the hon. Gentleman state from the Dispatch Box that a pilot proposal will take place, because that is not the information that I have received from West Midlands police.
Mr. Howarth: I repeat that we held discussions with West Midlands police.
Mr. Howard: Is a scheme going to take place?
Mr. Howarth: The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me to answer his question, so perhaps he will be courteous enough to allow me to do so. Discussions have subsequently been held with Birmingham city council. The police and the council are now working on a proposal for a specific part of the Yardley constituency to see whether a pilot curfew for under-10s could be made to work. I understand—I have no reason to believe otherwise—that there is every reason to believe that the pilot project will go ahead.
Unless the Home Secretary has some evidence to the contrary, perhaps he will explain why the local residents, police officers and members of the local authority we met did not feel that the powers available to the police and local authority were sufficient to stop young children under 10 being out on the streets to no useful purpose late at night. If he cannot explain that, we must assume that he supports under-10s being on the street late at night.
Mr. Howard: I have just explained what powers already exist. The hon. Gentleman has manifestly failed to repeat from the Dispatch Box the words that he was using from a sedentary position a few moments ago. He and the hon. Member for Yardley told The Guardian that a pilot scheme would take place. We have heard nothing since. My information from West Midlands police is that no pilot scheme will take place; the House will draw its own conclusions from the hon. Gentleman's intervention from the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am sure that the Home Secretary will forgive me if I take him back to the subject of the debate. Has he had an opportunity to study what the senior judges, including Lord Justice Taylor, have said about the dangers inherent in life sentences being imposed in the manner proposed by the White Paper—the dangers to the victim himself or, more probably, herself?
Mr. Howard: Of course I have studied that, but I do not accept the views that have been expressed, because the arguments advanced in another place are arguments against any life sentence. If the hon. Gentleman accepts those views, perhaps he will tell the House whether he is against any life sentence. If that line of argument is accepted, there is an incentive for the offender to take more serious action and even to kill.
894
The truth is that, when someone commits a rape, he is most unlikely to be in the state of mind that will lead him to make a cold and calculating decision about what his next act should be. If he is in that state of mind and makes such a cold and calculating decision, he will know perfectly well that, if caught and convicted, when the judge fixes the tariff part of the life sentence, it is likely to be a different tariff for rape than for murder. That will be something to be taken into account in planning his behaviour. If he behaves in that cold and calculating way, which is extremely unlikely, he will know that there continues to be a deterrent against further serious criminal conduct.
When I announced my proposals, colleagues of the hon. Member for Blackburn rushed to condemn them one after another. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) called them "daft". The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth called them a "farce". Labour's Front-Bench spokesman in the other place called my proposals "deplorable" and hoped that the next Session was sufficiently curtailed to make it impossible for my proposals to become law. Last month, Lord Williams of Mostyn, another Labour Front-Bench spokesman in the other place, called minimum sentences "a perversion of justice". Those statements could not be clearer.
As Labour is root and branch opposed to my proposals, why does the hon. Member for Blackburn find it so hard to echo that aggressive rhetoric in the House? Why does he confine himself to such weasel words? I will tell the House why the hon. Gentleman has thus far been so muted—because he is under orders from the Leader of the Opposition to avoid any headline saying "Labour opposes tough action on crime". I serve notice on the hon. Gentleman that his tactics are transparent and will fail.
At least the Liberal Democrats are honest. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said that I should be ashamed of my proposals. Let me answer him directly. I shall never be ashamed of proposing greater protection for the public from dangerous criminals. I shall never be ashamed of proposing tough deterrent sentences for career burglars and hard-drug dealers. I shall never be ashamed of bringing greater honesty to the sentencing process. The police overwhelmingly support those proposals, and so do the public. I warn the hon. and learned Gentleman that his parliamentary candidates will regret his remarks, even if he does not.
The Labour party opposes statutory minimum sentences for burglars and drug dealers, mandatory life sentences for dangerous violent criminals and the ending of automatic early release from prison. Labour will not support our proposals in the Division tonight and will do its best to stop them becoming law. We will make sure that the public understand that a Labour Government would not introduce those proposals. Only this Government can be trusted to do so. Only this Government genuinely believe that tough action is needed to protect the public. Only this Government will take that action. The White Paper provides for that, and I commend it to the House.
4.32 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move, to leave out from House to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
`notes that given the doubling of crime since 1979, the record of Her Majesty's Government on crime is the worst of any British administration since the war and the worst record of 16 western

895
countries surveyed by the Home Office; further notes that the proposals contained in the White Paper "Protecting the Public" (Cm 3190) represent a complete reversal of the sentencing policies of Her Majesty's Government as contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1991; and believes that the comprehensive proposals of Her Majesty's Opposition to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime will be far more effective in tackling crime and disorder in England and Wales, and in ensuring tough and appropriate sentences for serious or persistent criminals within a proper framework of justice.'.
The Home Secretary spoke for 42 minutes. The House has listened to one of the most puerile and pathetic speeches ever from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, which demeaned his high office. Of those 42 minutes, the Home Secretary devoted fewer than 10 to the ostensible subject of the debate. He devoted the rest of his speech to a White Paper published today, so that he could avoid publicity about proposals that are so embarrassing to him, and to making insults of the kind we are so used to hearing from the Home Secretary.
This is Crime Week but, under this Government, every week is crime week for the British people. So far this week, the British public have been the victims of 150,000 criminal offences—50,000 a day, according to Home Office estimates in the British crime survey.
There was a time when crime happened to someone else. In 1971, The Times commented how, after six years of Labour Governments, crime had simply dropped off the political agenda. Today, however—when the Conservative party has been in power for 20 of the past 25 years—crime, the fear of crime and the experience of crime has affected almost everyone in the land.
Crime has fractured communities. It has forced people to change the way in which they live, and it has forced up the cost of living. Insurance premiums for cars and homes have rocketed far above the rate of inflation since 1979.
The Government's record on crime is the worst of any British Administration since the war, and the worst of any western Government. Crime under the Tories has risen twice as fast as it did under Labour. Between 1987 and 1993, crime in England and Wales rose further and faster than in any of 16 western countries surveyed by the Home Office.
People are not troubled only by specific recorded crime—they are troubled by disorder, loutish behaviour, graffiti, criminal damage and anti-social behaviour by neighbours. In 1994–95, incidents of disorder recorded by the police rose 12 per cent. in a single year.
Recorded crime has doubled in the past 17 years, yet, for all the bluster we heard from the Secretary of State, the system for catching, punishing and deterring criminals in that 17 years has gone into reverse. The number of people convicted or cautioned was lower in 1995 than it was in 1979.
Mr. Walter Sweeney: In view of the hon. Gentleman's loud concern about the crime rate, does he still think that he was right to vote against allowing the Attorney-General the power to appeal against soft sentences?
Mr. Straw: Opposition Members will take no lectures from the Conservative party, which has presided over record increases of crime. Nor will we take any lectures on voting records, as the hon. Gentleman voted to prevent
896
many victims of crime from receiving decent compensation and, in 1988, the Secretary of State voted against a ban proposed by the Opposition to prevent youngsters under 16 from purchasing knives.
Mr. Clive Soley: The Home Secretary ducked that issue in his speech. Not only did he vote in 1988 against restrictions on the sale of knives to those under 16, but the previous Home Secretary and the Minister under him also objected to an Opposition proposal that would have restricted the sale of arms and imitation firearms by post.
We note that, at Dunblane—I hope that the Home Secretary is listening—the guns were obtained by post. We were pointing out that possibility—following Hungerford—in that proposal. The real question for the Home Secretary is, why did the Government oppose those measures then, and why did they specifically vote against restricting knives for 16-year-olds?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is of course right. In the debates during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, in which my hon. Friend took such an important part, there were many occasions on which Ministers either opposed what we were doing or complimented us on the improvements that we had made to it.
For some of the most serious criminal offences, the way in which the gap has widened between crimes committed and offenders convicted since 1979 has been alarming. In 1980, almost four in 10 recorded rapes resulted in conviction. By 1994, the proportion had dropped to just one in 10. In 1980, 9 per cent. of domestic burglaries resulted in conviction. By 1994, the proportion was down to 3 per cent.
In the space of five years, between 1989 and 1994, the number of violent crimes rose by a quarter, while the number of convictions fell by a third. Even when someone finally gets to court, the sentence they receive may depend as much on the chance of where they are tried as on the severity of the offence. The proportion of indictable offences tried in magistrates courts that lead to a prison sentence varies by a factor of 10. In the Staffordshire, Moorlands court, one in six defendants end up inside; but in the Maidenhead court the proportion is one in 66.
The lack of consistency between courts is matched by a lack of progression in sentencing. The fact—according to parliamentary answers given to me by the Secretary of State—that someone imprisoned for domestic burglary is given the same term of 15 months on the first, second or third conviction is bizarre. Even odder is the fact that, according to the Government's own figures, the prison term for a third conviction for drug dealing, at 30 months, is two months shorter than that for a first offence.
As the public's concern about crime has risen, and public confidence in the Government's ability to do anything about it has fallen, so the Government's response has been a blizzard of legislation on criminal justice. There have been 33 separate measures for England and Wales since 1979—more Bills on criminal justice in the past 17 years than in the previous 50.
It would be one thing if each of those Bills had been carefully prepared and they were consistent one with another. Instead, some have signalled sudden lurches in policy that, far from advancing the fight against crime,

897
have made it more difficult. As the outgoing Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, commented in his King's college lecture in March:
"the proper balance between continuity and change is in dire danger … the criminal law should not be subject to arbitrary change by the powers that be, or to the vagaries of fashion".
Overall, not least as a result of that torrent of legislation, the criminal justice processes in this country are now in chronic crisis, with rising costs, increasing delay and plummeting public satisfaction.
This year, the Secretary of State told readers of The Sun that the current sentencing system and criminal justice process
"is a farce and makes a mockery of the courts."
The figures that I have produced today show that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was right about that, if about little else.
The question is: who has been responsible for that "farce" and that "mockery"? Was it the Lord Chief Justice and his judicial colleagues who devised the system? Was it the Labour party, or the Liberal Democrats? Or was it someone else? Even today, a Conservative candidate writing in The Times says that the people to blame for the mess are "officialdom", as though each one of the Secretary of State's predecessors as Home Secretary, such as the present Chancellor of the Exchequer or the distinguished former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), had been mere putty in the hands of his civil servants.
It is not the officials who are to blame, nor the judges, but this Government, this Prime Minister and this Secretary of State. The current sentencing system is less than five years old. It was laid down by the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which was pushed through the House by Conservative Ministers. The very people who now claim that the system is a mockery and a farce were the architects of that system in the first place.
How dare the Secretary of State blame others for the farce and the mockery of the current sentencing system, when it is he and his ministerial colleagues who are principally to blame? It is they who are the guilty men and women, and it is they who should admit that the White Paper represents a rejection of almost everything that the Conservative party has done on sentencing in the past 17 years.
The Secretary of State now calls for honesty in sentencing. What an admission that is about the past 17 years of sentencing policy under the Conservatives.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Would it be fair to characterise the Home Secretary as the Pol Pot of British politics, always pretending to return to "year zero" at successive party conferences, although to find out the truth we have only to go back as far as the White Paper of 1990 and the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which is now being totally erased? We are not in year zero; the buck stops with the Home Secretary.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend asks whether it would be fair to characterise the Home Secretary in that way. It may not be fair, but it would certainly be true.
Mr. Peter Butler: If the hon. Gentleman is right to claim that the present proposals reverse the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and he opposed that, why does he also oppose the reversal of it?
Mr. Straw: Well—[Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman is, I know, a difficult man, and I did not quite follow the logic of his question. What he should worry about more when he talks to his constituents is the fact that he too voted to cut compensation for victims, and also the fact that recorded crime in his constituency since 1979—not since year zero—has increased by 141 per cent., one of the largest increases anywhere in the country.
Mr. Sweeney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. I need to turn to the other important White Paper, which the Secretary of State published today.
As I said, it is quite remarkable that, given the slackness of the parliamentary timetable and all the days and weeks that the Secretary of State could have chosen in which to publicise, to great effect for himself, the White Paper "On the Record" about the Government's proposals for access to criminal records, he chooses to do it today and hijack his speech about another White Paper, "Protecting the Public", on which he managed to spend only 10 minutes.
When the House, at the Opposition's instigation, debated the private security industry, there was widespread demand from Members on both sides for arrangements for access to criminal records to be reformed. It is clearly necessary for employers to be aware of the criminal records of those they seek to employ in positions of trust, and crucial that the greatest possible protection is available in respect of children. In the area of child sexual abuse, there is a conflict between the needs of children and the civil liberties of suspected abusers. In our judgment, where there is a serious risk to children, their needs must always prevail.
For those working outside such sensitive areas, we must ensure that any system balances the needs of employers, and through them the public, with the rehabilitation of offenders. As the Government said in their Green Paper on criminal records in 1993:
"common sense suggests that an ex-offender with suitable work is less likely to reoffend than one who is unemployed".
We shall examine the White Paper very carefully to ensure that it achieves the proper balance.
As I said in an intervention on the Secretary of State, the White Paper is seriously deficient in its proposals for dealing with the private security industry. In its 1995 report, the Select Committee on Home Affairs was clear that the vetting of potential employees was not enough to protect the public from totally unregulated private patrols or other private security companies which
"prey on the fears of vulnerable people."
The Government must accept the arguments of the police, the overwhelming majority of companies in the private security industry—they are desperate for proper regulation because of the way in which their reputations are besmirched by the crooks—the Home Affairs Committee and the Labour party, and legislate to regulate the industry.
I have here a copy of the Carlisle News and Star, which I understand circulates in the constituency of the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean).
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I never buy it.
Mr. Straw: The Minister would do better if he did buy it, because he might learn something.
An article in that paper is headed "'Gangster' is Security Man—City crook a security guard on homes site". The article talks about Aaron Giacopazzi, one of the city's best known criminals, who has been taken on by Lowther Construction to guard a building site. The deputy managing director of the company says in the article:
'"It isn't our normal policy to use convicted criminals."
The Government's proposals provide huge loopholes for people such as Mr. Aaron Giacopazzi. The security firm might be perfectly legitimate. If that were so, his record would be vetted and he would not be employed by it. But there is nothing to stop that man, who is a great entrepreneur and building a £1.5 million development with who knows whose money, setting up his own security firm. He would certainly not vet himself.
Mr. Eric Martlew: Does my hon. Friend realise that Mr. Giacopazzi has since been arrested on a drugs charge but that the company, being very generous, now employs his father? [Laughter.] And his godfather!
Mr. Straw: That makes our point very strongly.
Mr. Howard: What is the point?
Mr. Straw: The point is very simple. Members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which is chaired by the Home Secretary's very close friend, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), unanimously recommended that the private security industry—employers as well as employees—should be properly regulated by statute. Ministers, because of their obsession with deregulation, have persistently refused to do so.
The other White Paper that we are debating today, "Protecting the Public", contains three principal proposals: for so-called "honesty in sentencing"; for indeterminate sentences for repeat rapists and perpetrators of serious violence; and for automatic determinate sentences for persistent burglars and drug dealers. I shall deal with each of those in turn.
As I have already made clear, we support the principle of honesty in sentencing. The public have a right to know what is being done on their behalf. On the question how the proposal should be put into practice, I have already suggested that courts should give details of the minimum and maximum period that could be served under the term they hand down, and the earliest release date. In that way, what is now called a four-year sentence would, in future, be described more correctly as a two to four-year sentence. Transparency would be introduced, without having to turn the rest of the system upside down.
The Home Secretary proposes a more complicated change to arrive at the same result, while asserting that he does not expect his proposals
"to result in a general increase in the period of time that offenders serve in prison".
We can examine the details of the alternative proposals in Standing Committee if and when a crime Bill comes before the House during the rest of this Parliament.
It already appears—I should be glad if the Minister would deal with this in his reply—that the Secretary of State's preferred arrangement might have one perverse
900
effect, which is that some prisoners may be subject to supervision after their release for much less time than under the present regime.
We also support in principle the proposal for indeterminate sentences for repeat rapists and others convicted of serious sexual offences. Of all crimes, apart from homicide, serious sexual offences can do the greatest long-term harm to the victim, both psychological as well as physical. Those who offend often have a high propensity to reoffend, and, as I pointed out in a detailed paper on sentencing that I published in March, an official committee—the Butler committee—looked at the issue of serious sexual offenders 21 years ago and concluded that there should be available a system of indeterminate reviewable sentences for such repeat sexual offenders.
The Secretary of State proposes that all repeat rapists and serious sexual offenders should receive an indeterminate life sentence. Since "life" is not intended by the White Paper generally to mean life in those cases, there might be advantage in having a separate sentencing regime for those people, unless the court, for particular reasons, gave out a life sentence. That matter can be examined in Committee in due course.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Butler committee was saying that there should be mandatory reviewable life sentences? Does he not think it sufficient to give judges the power to sentence to life imprisonment and the encouragement of knowing that those sentences would be effective?
Mr. Straw: We have to disagree about this. The Butler committee recommended that there should be a system of indeterminate, reviewable sentences—
Mr. Carlile: Not mandatory.
Mr. Straw: No, I will come to that. The committee said that they should be available for first offences as well as for second or subsequent ones. As I recall—I have read the report—the committee said that there should be a presumption in favour of an automatic indeterminate sentence where there was a second conviction.
What we are proposing and what the Government are proposing for serious sex offenders amount to the same thing: that, because of the danger of reoffending, which must be patently apparent when someone has already offended twice, a decision to release the individual should be made only when it is safe to do so.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I have been listening to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, which, as I understand it, is that he accepts the principle of honesty in sentencing and the principle that there should be indeterminate sentences for repeat offenders involved in serious sex offences. If that principle is right for England, why is the Labour party opposing it in Scotland?
Mr. Straw: Of all the people to ask that question it is the Secretary of State for Scotland. I have with me the Scottish Office White Paper dealing with crime and punishment. I have read this—it was only a cursory glance, and I am open to correction—but I cannot find

901
any reference to automatic minimum sentences for drug dealers and repeat burglars. Have I missed something? Perhaps the Secretary of State could tell me.
Mr. Forsyth: The question that I put to the hon. Gentleman was about the Labour party's policy—[Interruption.] I will happily deal with the hon. Gentleman's point in exchange for him answering my question. I asked about the Labour party's policy. If its policy is that the principle of honesty in sentencing is right and that the principle of indeterminate sentences for repeat offenders is right, why should that principle be different north of the border?
This is a fundamental issue, and I cannot for the life of me see why it should be different north and south of the border. As far as the Government are concerned, on both these matters, these principles apply throughout the United Kingdom.
Mr. Straw: I was right in the conclusions that I drew from a cursory reading of the White Paper. The huge inconsistency is not between our hon. Friends who represent Scotland and those of us who represent England and Wales; the inconsistency is between these two Secretaries of State. As far as I can see, the Secretary of State is making no proposals for automatic minimum sentences for drug dealers and for burglars.
Mr. Forsyth: I was listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I was agreeing with him about the matter of principle. If he is saying that the Labour party accepts the principle of honesty in sentencing and the principle of mandatory sentences for repeat sex offenders, he is in the same position as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I. We agree on these matters. It is the Labour party that has split north and south of the border. Why are the principles on these matters different north and south of the border?
Mr. Straw: This is pretty desperate. I have offered the right hon. Gentleman two chances.
I have had the benefit of reading the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) in Scotland on Monday. He said:
"Labour is committed to tough sentencing for those who commit serious crimes. We are committed, to progression in sentences and to a licence system for sex offenders."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 17 June 1996; c. 36.]
The Secretary of State may not have noticed, but there are two different legal systems—that in Scotland and that in England and Wales.
Mr. Forsyth: The principle.
Mr. Straw: If there is a principle, I have just read it out. The Secretary of State has signally failed to explain why there is a difference of principle—as there obviously is—between him and his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary when it comes to automatic minimum sentences for repeat burglars and drug dealers.
The proposals for indeterminate sentences for serious sexual offenders are acceptable to us, not only because they directly address the paramount need to protect the public but because the term actually served will be determined by reference to the nature of the offence and
902
of the offender. The judge will still be required to set a tariff proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. Thereafter, the offender will not be released unless and until the parole board is satisfied that it is safe to release them.
So justice, above all for the victim but also for the offender, is built into this system. These considerations mean that this proposal is wholly different in character and effect from the third of the Home Secretary's proposals, for automatic determinate minimum sentences of three years in the case of domestic burglars on their third conviction, and seven years for drug dealers on their third conviction.
In my response to the Home Secretary's statement on 3 April, I said:
"We do not argue with"
the Secretary of State's
"purpose … for victims and offenders alike—that people who persistently burgle or deal in hard drugs"
should
"receive … tough, deterrent … sentences."—[Official Report, 3 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 393.]
The issue is not whether such persistent hardened burglars or drug dealers should receive such tough deterrent sentences, but how that should be achieved.
The problem with the Secretary of State's proposals is that, the more they are exposed to scrutiny, the more it becomes clear that they will not work as he intends. It is a mark of how ill thought through was his original proposal that he has already made one fundamental change from what he told the Conservative party conference in October 1995. Then, at least what he said had the merit of clarity, however crude and impractical the policy might have turned out.
Then, in right hon. and learned Gentleman's desperation to upstage the Secretary of State for Defence in his appeal to the Tory right, the Home Secretary was emphatic. He told the party faithful:
"I've got a simple answer to burglars and dealers in hard drugs who offend again and again and again. If you don't want the time, don't do the crime."
But where are we now? A mere two months later, the Home Secretary had to admit that such a wholly automatic slot-machine system of justice would produce manifest injustice.
So, by December, he had to concede, in an interview in The Law Society's Gazette, that the answer to these drug dealers and burglars would not be as simple as that which he had presented to the Tory party conference, and there would be an escape clause. The clarion call about time and crime had by then become, "If you don't want the time, don't do the crime—save where the courts exercise a discretion to waive the minimum sentences in exceptional cases."
Here we see the central element of the Home Secretary's proposals unravelling, because of the belated acknowledgement that they cannot apply in all cases. What is more, the escape clause to the simple answer that he told the Tory party conference he had has changed again twice. The White Paper shifted from the words that the right hon. and learned Gentleman used in the Law Society's Gazette interview, and now speaks of "genuinely exceptional cases"—as if the adverb "genuinely" adds any clarity to what he means.

903
Only last month, the Home Secretary's very close and noble Friend Lord Mackay, the Lord Chancellor, treating these proposals in the White Paper like a piece of stinking fish, said that the precise terms on which the exception will be framed would be a matter for Parliament to determine.
So where is the simple answer now; indeed, where is the complicated answer? The Secretary of State and his colleagues cannot even make up their minds about that. We await the Bill with interest. Who knows what its terms by then will be?
One of the Secretary of State's most trusted colleagues in the House of Commons is the hon. and learned Member for Burton, Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee. I am very sorry that he cannot be present today—perhaps this debate was arranged explicitly with that in mind—but, like other members of the Select Committee, he is in the United States examining American penal policy.
When the issue of minimum sentences was debated at length in the House in February 1991, the hon. and learned Gentleman made this wise observation:
"I do not like minimum sentences. They reduce the discretion of the courts, and all who practice in or know anything about the courts realise that human life spans an enormous width and that there are many degrees of blameworthiness … Speeches calling for minimum sentences have always been resisted over the years. The Government have resisted the idea of going down this slippery slope, because if one case is allowed as an exception it becomes difficult to refuse other cases"—[Official Report, 20 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 311–2.]
What a slippery slope it will be! This proposal from the Secretary of State will undoubtedly result in more guilty professional burglars and drug dealers walking free from court. In the United States, the jurisdictions with automatic determinate sentences are jammed up with not-guilty fights—two and a half times as many of them as where the courts have a discretion. More not guilty pleas mean more acquittals.
The Government's White Paper of 1990 said that such a system of minimum determinate sentences
"would … result in more acquittals by juries with more guilty men and women going free unjustly as a result"—
a point repeated by the former Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), when he was a Minister of State at the Home Office.
Today, the Home Secretary quoted some research by an academic at Oxford. It is unusual to hear him quoting research by any academic, let alone one from his own constituency, but we shall leave that aside. He said that the research showed that the avoidance of prison was the greatest deterrent that any system could establish.
We do not need research from Oxford to tell us that. Those of us who have had dealings with criminals know only too well that, on the whole, they do not like being in prison. One of our major complaints about the chaos in to which the Conservatives have plunged the criminal justice system is that not enough serious criminals are being put in prison—
Dr. Robert Spink: Come off it.
Mr. Straw: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that, since 1979—year zero for the British public—the number of recorded crimes has doubled, while the number of people
904
convicted and cautioned for those crimes has dropped by 6 per cent., and the number convicted of any crime has dropped by 33 per cent.? No wonder people are up the wall about this Government's record and complacency.
Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the difficulty of securing convictions, why did he vote against our proposals to allow the courts to draw an inference from silence—proposals deliberately designed to increase the number of convictions of the guilty, which are having precisely that effect?
Mr. Straw: We shall take no lectures from the Secretary of State. He voted for the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which he now says makes a mockery of the sentencing system. If he reads the record, he will find that we suggested alternative, constructive proposals based on recommendations made by the royal commission on criminal justice which he and his predecessors established.
The simple fact is that nothing we have heard from the Secretary of State today or at any time since he made his proposals last October has challenged the wisdom of the conclusion reached by the Government in 1990—that automatic minimum determinate sentences would result in more guilty people walking free.
Then there is the issue of timing. What is clear from the White Paper is that the Secretary of State has been deserted by the Chancellor, himself a former Home Secretary, and by most of his other colleagues on this issue. Automatic minimum sentences for repeat burglars will add hugely to the prison population, which is already rising fast. Far from gaining the extra cash needed for this prison expansion, the Secretary of State got rolled over in the last public spending round; and the prison budget is to take a cut in each of the next three years.
Reading the small print of the White Paper, one finds that this much-heralded policy of gaoling repeat burglars will not come into force at all until October 1999. The relevant convictions will not start until after commencement of this part of the Act. So, on the most optimistic assumptions, a prolific burglar may not be affected by the proposal at least until the year 2000.
By now, that notorious clarion call about time and crime, with its "simple answer", should read: "If you don't want the time, don't do the crime—save where the court exercises its discretion to waive the minimum sentence in genuinely exceptional cases, and in any case not until the start of the next millennium." That is hardly what the public would call honest or straightforward.
The public cannot wait another four years for an effective sentencing system that ensures proper consistency and progression. We need a criminal justice system that is swift, efficient and consistent, and that ensures proper progression for all repeat offenders—not just drug dealers and domestic burglars.
The way to achieve that is, as Labour has proposed, by imposing a clear duty on the Court of Appeal to lay down clear guidance for all the main categories of offence, and to consult widely on draft proposals before they are made operational. Such a proposal would work; it would be just; it could be brought into operation swiftly—next year, not next century. It would properly protect the public.
It is significant that it is exactly this latter proposal which the Secretary of State for Scotland—I am not surprised that he has fled—is advancing in his White Paper for Scotland, in place of the proposals for automatic minimum sentences for repeat burglars and drug dealers.

905
It is the first duty of any Government to ensure that their citizens can leave their lives in freedom, free from fear and insecurity. In that first duty this Government have failed.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: No, I am coming to the end of my speech.
Britain today is a society disrupted and disfigured by crime and disorder, led by a Government who, on their own admission, have reduced the criminal justice system to a farce and a mockery. Under this Government, there is more crime, and more criminals are getting away with it. The British public need a criminal justice system that works, acting to prevent crime and its causes, dealing effectively with juvenile offenders, getting tough on criminal and anti-social neighbours, ensuring the proper protection of the public, giving effective backing to the police and real dignity to victims, and dealing effectively with persistent criminals.
Those are the answers to the epidemic of crime and disorder over which the Government have presided. The Secretary of State and his friends have had 17 years to get it right. They have failed. They have lost the trust of the British people. Where the Tories have failed in that first duty of Government, Labour will succeed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind hon. Members that the 10-minute rule is now in operation.
5.9 pm
Sir Peter Lloyd: The Labour party's amendment is one of brazen vacuity. The words
"tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime"
appear in the second half of the amendment—they are well-known words and they trip familiarly off the tongue. They would make the kind of slogan for which advertising men receive prizes from other advertising men at seaside resorts every so often. However, the words remain devoid of any real meaning—even though the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has ostensibly addressed himself to them for the past 35 minutes. They may not have a clear meaning, but they have a clear purpose: to ingratiate the Labour party with readers of the Daily Mail and The Guardian at one and the same time—the Labour party hopes that the readers of each paper will notice only the half meant for them.
The Government have gone the other way. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has the admirable virtues of clarity and courage but—as he just said; it is no secret—he has, alas, upset the judiciary to the extent that one noble Lord remarked that relations between judges and the Executive were now at their lowest ebb since James I.
The way that people on both sides of the argument have reacted to the other side of the argument has allowed the impression to get about that the row is little more than a top people's demarcation dispute. It is far more important than that. I believe that dissension between judges and the Home Secretary damages both sides, and the respect in
906
which the criminal justice system is held. It should have been avoided. The critics of the White Paper's sentencing proposals—I leave out the rest of the White Paper—have a powerful case. I agree with a number of the points that were made by the hon. Member for Blackburn.
I shall deal first with honesty in sentencing. There is a real problem for the public when they hear that a criminal who has been sentenced to three years is released after serving only 18 months. The judge and the professionals know that three years means 18 months in prison, plus any added days for misbehaviour, and 18 months at risk in the community—time that he will serve in prison if he commits another offence before the three years expires, in addition to the sentence for the new offence. The solution to this is simple—it does not need legislation. The judge should spell out in full what he and everyone else in the criminal justice world knows he is doing when he sentences, so that everyone else can know too.
By a strange irony, the change proposed by the Home Secretary will lead to different charges of sleight of hand. The Home Secretary wants the courts to take into account the change to serving full sentence so that there will be no general rise in the prison population. If the judges oblige, the prisoner who would have had three years will not serve three years as the public expects—he will still serve only 18 months, as the judge always knew he would. Moreover, because there will be less time after release when he will be at risk of serving the balance of the longer nominal sentence if he offends again, there will be less protection for the public.
Similarly, the loss of parole for more serious cases is not adequately replaced by earned remission. Earned remission has the merit of encouraging good co-operative behaviour in prison, which makes running a prison easier, but that is not quite the same thing as providing an incentive to prisoners to demonstrate that they will not be a danger again on their release and to make realistic preparations for that release. If the sentences remain the same, as the Home Secretary wishes, and parole disappears, the public will again be less well protected.
Secondly, where minimum sentences are concerned, I fear that the White Paper proposals are too sweeping. They will certainly lead to injustice. There are plenty of third-time burglars who should do more than three years and there are plenty of drug traffickers for whom seven years is too short—but there will be quite a few cases where such sentences will be visibly unjust and counter-productive.
For example, young drug addicts who sell small quantities of drugs to other addicts will get the same sentence as professional drug pushers. They will not come under the disclaimer in the White Paper because they have to be genuinely "exceptional" cases. They will not be genuinely "exceptional", and they will not be "unforeseeable". The same applies to opportunistic inadequates stealing from the homes of other people getting similar sentences as career housebreakers, as the Home Secretary just called them.
That will occur if the judiciary does not lengthen all sentences to maintain differentials. Perhaps, when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State winds up the debate, he will tell us about the Government's expectations in this regard. I fear that those minimum sentences will not do very much for deterrence, but that they will succeed in driving up the prison population.

907
Gaols will be filled with too many young drug addicts who ought not to be there and with the inadequate and immature for whom prison does not do much good, and does much harm if the education, training and diversionary programmes are not there. With a rising prison population and a reducing budget, such programmes will not be readily available. Perhaps the Minister will also refer to that in his winding-up speech.
Surely the right way to deal with sentences that are too short is to extend the prosecution's powers to appeal against them. The judiciary can do quite a lot more to achieve consistency, to demonstrate appropriate severity when needed and, most particularly, to explain to the public the principles on which it works in what is a complex and demanding task.
Thirdly, I am in complete sympathy with what the Home Secretary is seeking to do with mandatory life sentences for serious violent and sexual crimes. It cannot be right to release a violent offender back into the community when he is highly likely to attack again. In one sense, I would prefer to go further than the Home Secretary and find a means of detaining a violent first-time offender after the expiry of his determinate sentence if he shows signs of repeating it.
However, I do not feel that a mandatory life sentence is the right approach. It should be the unique and special penalty for the most serious of all crimes: murder. It is not right or wise to dilute it with a range of other very nasty but lesser crimes. The White Paper says that the judge will be responsible for the tariff and will presumably set one similar to, or perhaps below, the sentence that he would have given anyway. The public would quickly see that such a life sentence means even less than usual—so much for honesty in sentencing.
I would much prefer to see a new indeterminate sentence for violent or sex crimes that do not justify life but where the judge believes that there is a serious risk of violent reoffending. Previous violent offences would provide the strongest presumption for that. In the past, the judiciary may have underestimated public concern about violent reoffending. I hope that it will carefully consider the new sentencing powers that it needs to deal with violent reoffending more effectively.
Indeed, I hope that, in the next few months, while legislation is being prepared, there will be some serious rethinking all round—not least in the Home Office. If that happens, the White Paper will have had a positive effect on the safety of the public, and that, both the Home Secretary and the shadow spokesman have said, should be the overriding concern of penal policy.
5.18 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Secretary of State for the Home Department has embarked on a futile task. He has lost all credibility on law and order—no one believes a word. The whole criminal system is collapsing. Hon. Members do not need to take my word for it—they need only visit a housing estate anywhere in the United Kingdom, talk to the people and listen to their expressions of anger. The people on the front line know precisely what is going on.
The whole legal system—legal aid, the arrangements for criminal investigations and the Crown Prosecution Service—is in deep trouble. Our constituency case loads
908
reflect the reality. A case in my constituency encapsulates the problems with the system. It reveals inadequacies in both police investigations and CPS prosecution decisions and it has implications for sentencing. I shall draw it to the attention of the House today.
The case concerns a woman, Elaine Steele, who lives in my constituency. She was charged with murder—the charge was subsequently amended to manslaughter—over the death of her 23-month-old baby. She was accused of shaking the child violently and causing her death. On the basis of a highly questionable police investigation and a number of medical reports, the CPS decided to prosecute. The case collapsed within hours of arriving in court.
Many medical reports were produced in the Elaine Steele case, all of which I have read. On the basis of those reports, it is hard to see how anyone in his right mind would wish to prosecute Elaine Steele. One professional involved described her as "very competent" at feeding her child, who had been born prematurely, and another said that she was "brilliant" with her child. A third professional said that she
"provided for her daughter and endeavoured to give her daughter the more intensive care and attention that a premature baby would require. Mrs Steele appears to have coped with the various difficulties of being a single mother."
Many statements supported her and her ability to look after her child.
The House must ask how such a woman ended up in the criminal system on a manslaughter charge. Why was the state prepared to use precious resources pursuing an innocent woman through the courts? The answer is that all reasonable lines of inquiry were never pursued. In October 1992, after she and her boyfriend had been interviewed about the circumstances surrounding the death of her child, Elaine Steele was not told that the police were treating her as the prime suspect. During two hours of questioning, she was not afforded the protection offered by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. She was later charged with murder.
Following her remand on bail, information began to surface about the activities of her boy friend. He was interviewed subsequently by the police, and soon afterwards the charge against Elaine Steele was reduced to manslaughter. Repeated questions have been asked about what occurred during the interview with her former boyfriend and during the wider investigation. Cases such as this undermine the credibility of the entire legal system.
The police officers concerned are well respected. Nevertheless, they have been the subject of serious allegations as to the procedures that they adopted. There are allegations that an attempt was made to cover up a lack of police professionalism. It has been alleged that the police sought to change their evidence and that they failed to pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry.
Thankfully, a diligent Workington solicitor was not satisfied with the police investigation. He rejected the "shaking" theory as an explanation of the child's death. He sought the advice of pathologists throughout the country and, in the end, he was able to challenge the established medical interpretation of events. A professional who dealt with the case stated:
"I do not think that anyone with a modicum of knowledge would ever believe that the Prosecution were not acting deliberately in a manner which was not investigative, which did not seek justice, which did not seek the truth, and merely sought a conviction. The

909
Prosecution even applied to amend the Indictment at the beginning of the case in a forlorn attempt to enhance their opportunities for convictions. The case fell at the first hurdle, (on the evidence of her boyfriend) … and by 1.30 in the afternoon she was acquitted."
The problem is that a poorly conducted investigation combined with an irresponsible decision to prosecute has had unfortunate repercussions for Elaine Steele. An able young reporter on the local evening newspaper submitted an accurate report of the prosecution's opening case. However, the case collapsed after the paper's lunchtime deadline. Sadly, the damage caused by that report of the prosecution's case affects Elaine Steele to this day.
The local evening newspaper—which is an excellent publication—is deeply concerned about what happened. It reported the collapse of the case and the subsequent clearing of the mother on the following day. The tragedy is that, when Elaine has been out in Workington, she has been verbally abused. That is deeply distressing both for her and for her hard-working and respectable family, who have also been ostracised by the community.
I asked another lawyer, who was unconnected with the case, to review the papers. I shall quote—with the names removed—what he said about the investigation. He stated:
"There are a number of aspects of the case which cause me concern. The Police sought to entrap a distraught mother by avoiding the requirements of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. The Police subsequently tried to brush that particular episode under the carpet by blaming a typist"—
Mr. Sweeney: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance as to whether the hon. Gentleman's speech bears any relation to the matter that we are supposed to be discussing—sentencing.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will explain how his speech relates to the debate, which is fairly broad.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I know that the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) has not been in the House for very long, but I remind him that this is the highest court in the land. Debates such as this provide the opportunity to raise issues in Parliament. I hope that I have not lost time through that intervention.
The lawyer continued:
"The Police subsequently tried to brush that particular episode under the carpet by blaming a typist for making a typing error and supplying two further statements of the two Detective Constables involved. The Police agreed to that typist being interviewed, on behalf of Elaine's solicitor, although a Detective Chief Inspector sat through the interview. It was he however who refused a further interview with the typist when it became apparent that she had more to say.
It is against all normal custom in criminal investigations for an officer who is involved in the case to be present at such an interview let alone make the decision that there should not be a further interview."
Many strong words have been uttered during this affair, but one must read the evidence—particularly the statements—to realise why people have such strong opinions about the case. The truth is that Mrs. Elaine Steele had nothing at all to do with the death of her child: she is totally innocent. The court found her innocent and her friends know that she is innocent. The person who should have been interviewed in depth about what happened was never properly interviewed. Elaine Steele is the victim of a failing system.
910
I feel very strongly that an injustice has been done. Elaine Steele may not have been sentenced by the court, but she has certainly been sentenced by some in the community. It was not sufficient to find her innocent in a court of law. She is the victim of a poorly conducted police investigation and of a stupid decision to prosecute by the Crown Prosecution Service. As a result, and due to some difficult publicity, she feels rejected in her own community.
I ask the people of Workington—particularly those who live in the local community—to look into their hearts and to realise that the injustice must end. I ask them to support Elaine Steele with warmth and with friendship. It cannot be right for an innocent person to be regarded as guilty and to be victimised after all that she has suffered.
5.28 pm
Mr. Peter Butler: There is some agreement on both sides of the House that there are flaws in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. I, together with many of my colleagues, came to the House determined to reverse those injustices. Apart from the unjust and unworkable unit fines system, which quickly brought the criminal justice system into disrepute, the Act contained two other major flaws. The first was the argument in section 1 that people could be sentenced for up to two offences and no more, no matter how many they had committed; and the second was the requirement that previous convictions and failure to respond to previous sentences must be ignored, so that every offender was treated as a first-time offender for sentencing purposes. Both provisions were palpably absurd.
Although the present Parliament has repealed those sections properly and promptly, it sometimes seems as though too many sentencers wish to apply the principles that were embodied in the Act. How else can one explain the statistic that, in the Crown court in 1993–94, those convicted on a first offence of burglary of a dwelling received an average sentence of 16 months' imprisonment, while those who were convicted of their seventh or subsequent offence of burglary of a dwelling received only three months more on average?
Some 28 per cent. of those convicted in a Crown court of a seventh or subsequent burglary of a dwelling received a sentence which did not involve imprisonment. For magistrates courts, the figure was 61 per cent. So someone being tried in a magistrates court for a seventh, 10th or 30th burglary of a dwelling house was 60 per cent. likely not to go to prison and nearly 30 per cent. likely not to go to prison if tried in a Crown court. That is absurd, set against the background of a maximum sentence of 14 years for that offence.
The criminal justice system is there not to serve the voluntary offender but to protect the involuntary victim. I share the objective of the sections of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 that I mentioned, to the extent that the intention of those sections was to reduce the prison population, but I want to reduce the prison population by having fewer people commit crimes, not by leaving in the community those individuals who want to rob, burgle, attack, steal from and terrorise that community.
I shall give one example of the effect of prior legislation. A constituent suffered an unprovoked attack by a man armed with a knife. The attacker was sent to prison. In the interim period before he was convicted, he

911
had played every trick in the book—many hon. Members are well aware of them—to delay the day of reckoning and to serve his time on remand. The result was that, on the first weekend after his conviction and sentence, my constituent saw her attacker walking up the street in which she lived. She fled inside, locked the door and rang the police to say that he had escaped. It turned out that he had not escaped but was on weekend leave. That is what I mean by terror, and my constituent felt terror in that instance.
One of the excellent proposals tucked away inside the document that we should be debating this afternoon is a change that means that the judge will have to specify the date on which a sentence starts to run and may disregard for that purpose the time spent on remand that is due to the defendant's manipulation of the system. That reform is long overdue and welcome. It will help to reduce the terror that those people can bring to law-abiding members of the community.
We must try to avoid the trap of mentioning, for example,
"a second serious violent or sexual offence"
or
"a third or subsequent burglary of a dwelling"
only to forget about such offences thereafter and discuss only policy and criminological theories. We must remember that that is the standard structure of a speech in mitigation, the objective of which is to minimise awareness of the offence, let alone its effect on the victim. It does not bode well for us if we fall into that trap. We owe a duty to our constituents to protect them, and our starting point must be to remember the effect on them of such serious crimes. Our duty is prevent them from becoming victims, not to accept that they might become victims and then to deal with offenders.
The public believe, rightly, that more could be done to prevent crime and that what has been done has not prevented dangerous criminals from being released back on to the streets, even in circumstances in which criminologists, probation officers and prison officers are convinced that those criminals will offend again; they will seek new victims whose lives could and should have been spared such tragic interference.
I agree with the Home Secretary and the White Paper that automatic early release enrages victims. The current system does not provide any method to ensure that criminals known still to be a threat can be detained. I therefore welcome the proposal that earned remission, and earned remission only, can reduce the sentence. Good behaviour will no longer be assumed but will have to be demonstrated.
Conservative Members want to reduce the number of offenders and that view must be shared by all right hon. and hon. Members. That will mean fewer people to punish, but the measure of success is not the number of criminals: it is reductions in the number of victims. That is usually translated to mean a reduction in the number of offences, but that is the only point on which a criminal justice system can claim success or be accused of failure. To reduce the number of victims, it is necessary to deter offenders from choosing to offend. That is to state the obvious, but the obvious is always worth stating in the House, as elsewhere.
912
I am pleased to see that prevention of crime and effective policing are the largest sections in the document. In some ways, even in most ways perhaps, they are the most important sections. Let us be clear that the main purpose of sentencing is the prevention of further crime. The person most likely to offend is the one who has demonstrated his willingness so to do in the past. He must be persuaded to make a different choice in future, but—this is one of the premises of the proposals—if he will not allow himself to be so persuaded, society is justified in securing its safety by removing his liberty and his opportunity to offend again.
Too often, sentences do not seem to serve the public adequately. It is the public whom sentences should serve, not the criminal justice system or those employed by it. In my judgment, mandatory minimum sentences have been proven to work, and I pray in aid the mandatory minimum disqualification period in offences of driving under the influence of excess alcohol. That has been an effective deterrent to the dangerous practice of driving after drinking too much, although it is, of course, subject to an exceptional circumstances exemption. The fact remains that people do not drink and drive, because they know that, if caught, they will lose their driving licence. The change from the possible loss of one's licence to a mandatory loss by law was marked by a significant reduction in such offences, which has continued. Therefore, the mandatory minimum sentence is not just theory; it has been proven to work in practice.
Opponents claim that the proposals constitute an attempt by the executive to usurp the power of the judiciary, to take power away from judges and to give it to politicians. That is at best a false, simplistic argument and it is also wrong. To expose that, I shall make two brief points. First, we should ask from where the judges' power comes. Apart from some vestigial common law powers, their power comes from the people by way of Acts passed in the House. They have no other powers. Why would it be interference to prescribe a minimum sentence when it is not interference to prescribe a maximum sentence? I would be happier to hear judges complain about being restricted by a 14-year maximum sentence for repeat burglars who enter people's houses than to hear them complain about a proposed three-year minimum sentence. If it is interference to propose a minimum, it must also logically be interference to propose a maximum.
Secondly, let us follow the judges' argument to its logical conclusion. If it would be wrong to fetter a judge's discretion through mandatory minimum sentences, the same argument must apply to anything that fetters that discretion. That is the path that leads to the sentences for all offences being described as "such sentence as the judge considers appropriate in all the circumstances of the case", or words to that effect. That is the inevitable conclusion of that approach. I do not think that that is a reasonable proposition and we should not be persuaded to accept the first step towards it.
I do not accept the argument, which is always brought out of retirement and dusted down on such occasions, that the issue is not the sentence but the probability of arrest and conviction. That is sophistry. A 100 per cent. certainty of being fined 1p would deter nobody, nor would a 1 per cent. chance of imprisonment for life deter many. There must be a balance and, arguably, the lower the likelihood of conviction, the harsher the prospective sentence needs

913
to be to deter. We are beginning to see a rise in the likelihood of conviction and we must couple that with proper minimum sentences.
The Government's proposals are a means to ensure that the most dangerous criminals are not let back out on to the streets and that criminal behaviour is deterred through balanced, well-defined punishments that carry great certainty. That will further restore the confidence of a public fed up with crime and the morale of police officers tired of often working in vain.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
5.37 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: The speech by the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) should be required reading in the Home Office. It was an excellent critique of the Government's proposals. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's experience in the Home Office and what he has said today will be considered fully by the Government before they introduce any legislative proposals.
The White Paper "On the Record", published this afternoon, deals with access to criminal records. Broadly speaking, I and my party would support proposals that would ensure that employers and voluntary agencies, in appropriate circumstances, can have access to criminal records if they are relevant to the employment in question. However, in appendix B of the White Paper there is a new piece of theory which rings alarm bells and, I suspect, will be the subject of much criticism. It would reduce acquittals to the status of unproved convictions and would enable information to be given to employers, even about an acquittal, on the basis of the opinion of police officers.
I say to the Minister, partly on the basis of my 26 years of experience at the Bar, that police officers' opinions are often extremely reliable, but they are sometimes extremely unreliable. It would be an outrage to introduce a power to disclose an acquittal as information relevant to someone's employment unless a counter-balance were introduced to enable the subject to challenge the disclosure of that information. Without that counter-balance, we would be proceeding down a slippery slope where rumour came to have the force of law. That would not be acceptable.
I make two preliminary points on the main substance of the debate, one as a question and the other as a statistic. First, the question: how do the Home Secretary and the Minister of State account for the fact that, in 1991, contrary to the advice of the judges, they supported proposals that were designed to secure that fewer and fewer people went to prison, when today they support proposals that are designed to secure that more and more people go to prison? The House is entitled to logical explanation, if one be available, which I doubt, of that change of mind.
As an adjunct to my question, I ask the Minister to tell the House honestly and for the first time that the Government are now asking judges to pass shorter sentences. Is that not right? If there is not to be a significant increase in the prison population, as I think the right hon. Member for Fareham was implying, it is inevitable that judges will have to pass shorter sentences.
914
If they do, by doing the will of the Government they will be passing shorter sentences for burglary, robbery and offences of actual bodily harm.
Mr. Butler: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Carlile: It is a short debate and I shall not give way. There is not much time.
Is it not a fact that the Government intend judges to pass shorter sentences? Is that the way in which they intend to send out the message that they will deal with crime?
The fact to which I wish to draw to the attention of Ministers—it is intended to deal with the canard that the Government can claim credit for the reduction in reported crime—is that most crime is committed by young men aged between 13 and 25. That is statistically proven. In the past 20 years, there has been a 13.6 per cent. reduction in the proportion of young men under 25 in the population. It would therefore be expected in the ordinary way that there would be a reduction in reported crime for that very reason alone. Let us lay the ghost of any credit that the Government can claim for a reduction in reported crime. The answer lies in a demographic fact.
Following my intervention, the Home Secretary offered to write to me on the reduction in reported crime. I look forward to receiving his letter. I shall be interested to examine the Home Office research that he claims to form the basis of what he is saying. I do not believe that such research exists. Having mentioned Home Office research, I express my sympathy for the high-quality research department within the Home Office. It used to be used as the locus classicus for legislative change in criminal justice. It is now the last place the Home Secretary looks for changes in criminal justice policy, despite the fact that the department continues to produce research of the highest quality.
The Home Secretary claims that prison works. It works as a cupboard in which we put people for a period so that they cannot commit crime. For the most part that is true, and self-evidently so. But surely prison really works only if, as a result of imprisonment, those who have been incarcerated do not repeat crime after release.
Young men commit small burglaries to buy drugs. Perhaps they buy drugs for less than £100. They share them out among their friends, and thus they are suppliers. They then commit another small burglary to obtain drugs. Again, they share them out among their friends. Next time, it is then three and out. As the right hon. Member for Fareham said, that will cause manifest injustice. What on earth is the interest—[Interruption.] I wish that the parliamentary private secretary, or whatever the hon. Gentleman is, would stop grunting behind the Minister of State.
If there is to be manifest injustice, what on earth is the Government's interest in introducing minimum sentences? Judges can, and do, pass severe sentences for serious crime. If the Government think that judges are not passing sufficiently severe sentences for serious crimes, it is open to the Attorney-General to appeal to the Court of Appeal against those sentences. I would be the first to concede that, because the prosecution's right of appeal has been exercised carefully and responsibly, it has worked reasonably well since its introduction.

915
It is proposed that there should be mandatory life sentences for offences other than homicide. I face with terror, as do many others, including Lord Taylor of Gosforth, the former Lord Chief Justice, the consequences of mandatory life sentences for rape. What will happen? I ask Ministers to listen, which they failed to do in 1991. Their failure to listen caused them to have to unwrap the 1991 legislation and change it.
I beg Ministers to listen for once to people who hear evidence in the criminal courts and who sentence people—in other words, the judges. Ministers should listen for once to those of us who in practice have to deal with cases in the criminal courts, whether as prosecutors, defenders or police officers. Many police officers who carry out the real inquiries do not support the Government. The same can be said of probation officers and, especially, the families of victims of crime.
I shall tell the Minister of State what will happen if mandatory life sentences are introduced for rape. People will be murdered because offenders will know that, if they are caught, they will be sentenced to life imprisonment for rape in any event. The Minister of State shakes his head. He does so against a weight of authority, which includes the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Donaldson, and Lord Justice Rose, whose practice was not in esoteric areas of the law. Lord Justice Rose, as he now is, came from Manchester to the High Court and the Court of Appeal. He has applied a wealth of practical experience. The Minister shakes his head against almost every criminologist in the country and, I believe, against the views of the researchers within his Department.
Mr. Maclean rose—
Mr. Carlile: I shall give way briefly.
Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I merely wish to say that I have the weight of evidence from the Home Office research department on my side when I shake my head in response to the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument.
Mr. Carlile: The right hon. Gentleman may claim that there is some evidence on his side. I should like to see it. I do not understand how the right hon. Gentleman can claim to have evidence on his side that overwhelms Lord Taylor, Lord Justice Rose, David Faulkner and all the other authoritative figures who have ranged themselves against the Government's proposals. If the right hon. Gentleman goes to Oxford university, which the Government hold so dear, and listens to the criminologists there, including David Faulkner, Sir Stephen Tumim and Roger Hood—there is a bevy of them—they will tell him that what the Government are saying about minimum sentences, and especially mandatory life sentences, is utter and absolute nonsense.
Prison works? It works as a way of paying builders for building prisons. That is the only way in which it works. Are the Government, who reduced the prison budget by 13 per cent., making prison work? They removed every probation officer from our prisons. Is that making prison work? They are cutting prison education, which enables
916
young men and women who are illiterate when they enter prison to leave literate and able to obtain jobs. Is that the Government making prison work?
In taking the actions to which I have referred, the Government, at the same time, are proposing to spend between £600 million and £1 billion on creating new lock-ups so that we can have a far larger prison population than ever before. The Minister should take account of the experience of the United States, where they imprison far more people than we do. He will find that prison does not work there. The prison population of the United States, which, proportionally, is far in excess of ours, has not decreased. Violent crime in the United States has continued to increase. The Government seem to rely on an American experience that is a failure.
I shall say a few words about boot camps. The Minister cites evidence from the Home Office, but I suggest that he look at the Home Office research on what happened during the unhappy period of the short sharp shock. Two things happened: one group of prisoners were bullied; the other group took it like the easy medicine it was for fit young men, who came out more fit to commit more crime of the sort that they had committed before they went in.
The truth is that the Government have not begun to tackle the reasons why young people commit crime. I saw a sentence in a Home Office press release about the possible introduction of drug courts. That is the sort of idea that the Government should consider seriously and to which they should devote their attention—breaking the spiral of drug misuse that turns young people in this country to crime.
The Government should pay more attention to the prevention of crime by ensuring that hard messages are delivered to schools and colleges by police officers and others who understand and can explain the consequences of offending, but we see little about that. It is time the Government concentrated on the reasons why people commit crime, and did not simply devote themselves to the rhetoric of retribution. I fear that the Government are doing a grave disservice to this country by misrepresenting the criminal justice issues in the rhetoric of retribution.
A democratic representative in the United States, Mr. Bobby Scott, was quoted in The Economist last week as saying:
"When you call for more incarceration, you do not have to explain yourself; when you argue for effective alternatives, you do."
The Government have simply decided that they can profit electorally from that simple message. The Government cannot explain themselves; but those of us who believe in sensible, constructive sentencing that will reduce the incidence of criminal behaviour believe that we can—and we shall not fear to criticise the Government's simplistic approach before the electorate at the appropriate time.
5.51 pm
Mr. Walter Sweeney: I welcome the Government's proposal to abolish automatic early release from prison. Hon. Members who have experience of representing defendants in criminal proceedings will be aware that everyone involved in the court system—particularly old lags who have done time before—make an immediate mental calculation when the sentence is handed down of what it really means after allowing for

917
the appropriate discount. Some people would argue that we already have realism in sentencing, because even the general public know enough about the law to know that an automatic discount applies.
I believe that the present system brings the law into disrepute. The public are entitled to know that the sentence when passed is the sentence that will be served, subject to a small discount that will have to be earned through good behaviour. It is in the interests of the smooth running of prisons and of rehabilitation that inmates should have an incentive to maintain good behaviour throughout their sentence to maximise the discount earned.
There has been speculation about whether honesty in sentencing would lead to a big increase in the prison population. Judges will, of course, be able to reduce the sentence to achieve the intended net objective. If judges choose not to reduce the nominal sentence passed, on the face of it the prison population will increase, but there would be an increased deterrent effect if effective sentences were seen to be longer. That would, I hope, reduce the number of defendants coming before the courts.
I warmly welcome the proposal to introduce automatic life sentences for people over 18 convicted for a second time of a serious sexual or violent offence. Such a measure would ensure that it is possible to prevent such offenders, who remain a danger to the public, from being released. The need for such a measure is demonstrated by statistics that show that 10 per cent. of offenders released after serving a sentence for serious sexual or violent offences go on to commit similar terrible offences again.
I also welcome the proposal that persistent dealers in hard drugs should receive an automatic minimum prison sentence of seven years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) was worried that this might involve people who were not serious offenders receiving a mandatory seven-year sentence. My answer to that is that they should think of that before they commit the offence. The imposition of such a significant minimum sentence would ensure that offenders received their just desserts, particularly the most serious offenders, who, morally, should receive the death penalty or, failing that, a life sentence for the terrible despair, pain and loss of life that they produce in exchange for personal gain.
The proposed automatic minimum prison sentences for persistent domestic burglars are also welcome. It is outrageous that a professional burglar convicted of seven or more burglaries spends little more time inside than they would for a first conviction. Any professional criminal weighs up two things in deciding whether to commit a particular offence: first, the risk of getting caught; secondly, the severity, or otherwise, of the likely sentence.
So far as certainty of detection is concerned, the Government have rightly increased resources for the police. In my constituency, some two dozen extra police officers have been appointed in the past few months—and very necessary they are, too. The police are targeting known and persistent burglars and are increasing detection rates. The success of Operation Bumblebee, launched by the Metropolitan police in 1991, has been emulated by other forces. As every person with any common sense knows, it is no good catching criminals unless they are convicted and given an appropriately severe sentence. A
918
minimum sentence of three years for persistent burglars will help to persuade them that crime does not pay and that they would be better off earning an honest living.
There are, of course, do-gooders on the Opposition Benches who question the value of prison sentences. In the past three and a half years, the prison population has risen by 25 per cent. and crime has fallen by 8.5 per cent. In my opinion, that is no coincidence. In 1995, 468,000 fewer crimes were recorded in England and Wales than in 1994—the largest ever continuous fall in the number of annually recorded crimes. When criminals are behind bars, they cannot commit crimes against the general public. About two thirds of all crimes are committed by one fifth of offenders, so it is common sense that the number of crimes falls when persistent offenders are out of circulation. Home Office research suggests that between three and 13 offences could be prevented when each domestic burglar is imprisoned for a year rather than given a community sentence.
Mandatory sentences are nothing new. They already exist, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) pointed out, for drink-driving. Who can doubt that it is the certainty of losing their licence if caught and convicted that has deterred many people from drinking and driving?
Prison sentences do not only prevent offences; they deter offenders. The police and the public clearly believe that. As the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Mr. Jim Sharples, said on BBC Radio 4's "Today" programme on 14 October 1995:
"people who commit serious offences should expect long custodial sentences. Minimum sentences do have a role in our view in playing a part in deterrence".
Recent research has also shown that prison has a deterrent effect. For example, Burnett's 1992 study, which was based on interviews with prisoners, found that, for the whole sample, avoidance of imprisonment was the most frequently mentioned reason for not wanting to reoffend.
Those who argue against prison sentences say that they make bad people worse. The facts do not bear that out. The latest reconviction rates, published in February 1996, show that 51 per cent. of prisoners reoffended within two years of release, compared with 55 per cent. of those who were given community service orders. Given that offenders sent to prison are higher up the tariff than offenders given community service, prison is even more successful than those bald figures suggest.
It has been suggested in some quarters that it is somehow wrong to risk upsetting judges by creating minimum sentences. There is nothing wrong with Parliament legislating to impose maximum, minimum or mandatory sentences. Indeed, Parliament would be failing in its duty if it did not continue to address the issue of excessively lenient sentences.
5.59 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: Ministers should find it enlightening and humbling to read the record of a debate that took place in the other place on 23 May. Indeed, that debate is important to all of us, including the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney). In that unprecedented debate, the Lord Chief Justice issued a comprehensive critique of the Government's proposal. What was unprecedented was the fact that a direct criticism of the Home Secretary was

919
made by the most senior lawyers in the country and by former Home Office Ministers. Indeed, a former Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), spoke today. That should give the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan and others at least cause for reflection and consideration. They should take account of the words of those who have had to make decisions about individuals and policy in connection with a very complex issue.
In the other place, there was also a comprehensive mauling of the way in which the Home Secretary had used statistics in the White Paper, making them less and less credible. Phrases such as "flimsy and dubious evidence", "partial and tainted", "shallow and untested" and "highly misleading" were used by figures such as Lord Donaldson and the Lord Chief Justice. That should give the Home Secretary and other Home Office Ministers cause to reflect.
Rather in the style of Mark Antony, those who spoke in that debate said that they were not aiming directly at the Home Secretary's bona fides, because the Home Secretary was an honourable man. The message was clear, however: everyone considered the White Paper on sentencing to be a highly partisan exercise, unrelated to the needs of criminal justice. The Home Secretary has, uniquely, managed to array against him and his policies the senior judges in the country and the great majority of practitioners.
The Home Secretary may say that that does not matter: that the editorial writers of the tabloids are on his side, and that he is confident that public opinion—or, perhaps, the electorate—is also on his side. It is true that the public are anxious about the doubling of crime over the past few years and the decline in law and order, but it is wrong for politicians, particularly Home Secretaries, to pander to that opinion, pretending that they have the answers and implying that judges cannot be trusted to impose the appropriate sentences.
Although the immediate response of many individuals—the person in the street—is "Yes, sentences should be more severe," that was not reflected in the only major test involving people who had followed cases through and observed them at first hand. I refer to the research of Professor Zander, carried out for the Runciman commission. Of nearly 10,000 jurors—average citizens—only 15 per cent. thought that sentences in cases that they had heard should have been more severe and were surprised that they had not been.
Why is such a wide array of criminal justice practitioners so profoundly hostile to the Home Secretary, his proposals and his practice? Partly because they see the White Paper as just another partisan initiative from this most political of Home Secretaries. He is all too ready, for example, to rely on examples from the United States, as if that country were a paragon of success in criminal justice. We know that, per head of population, the United States imprisons far more people than any other developed country.
The practitioners see the proposals as part of an election manifesto, or as a man trap for the Opposition, rather than a serious attempt to deal with real problems. They know that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) pointed out—the proposals cannot come into
920
effect until the year 2000, although the Home Secretary could deal with the problem immediately if he wanted to, either by revamping the means of referral to the Court of Appeal's criminal division or by way of a sentencing council. They cannot see how the prison population will not escalate—and explode—as a result of the Home Secretary's proposals, unless judges are in effect told to pronounce shorter sentences, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said in his excellent speech.
The practitioners consider the proposals unnecessary, because judges now have the power—in rape cases, for example—to impose life sentences. Moreover, there can be a referral by the Attorney-General in respect of lenient sentences. Above all, those with experience of the criminal justice system see the proposals as unjust, as an affront to basic constitutional principles and as removing judges' discretion to do justice in individual cases.
The right hon. Member for Fareham gave a good example in respect of young people in drug cases. Burglaries are another instance. A young man may go into the private area of a public house and take an ashtray as a first offence; he may put his arm through a window—which is technically a burglary—as a second offence; and he may do something relatively minor as a third offence. In effect, the judge has no discretion in cases of that kind.
We need consistency and openness in sentencing. I would agree with the introduction of sentencing bands, so that a judge could make it clear what a sentence meant in practice—although, as has been pointed out, most criminals can estimate what a sentence will mean in their case. However, we should pay attention to the anxieties expressed by the public. The key role of the criminal justice system is to protect the public—that should always be the starting point—but the policy makers should then act, not in a partisan spirit, and not as if they were delivering yet another speech to their party conference, but after cool appraisal and on the basis of respectable research that is accepted in the profession as a whole.
Senior judges, including the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Donaldson, cast clear aspersions on the validity of the research on which the White Paper was founded. Policy makers should also listen carefully, and with respect, to practitioners who know the problem of applying complex considerations to the infinite variety of individual cases.
6.7 pm
Mr. Tim Yeo: The voice of what might be described as the producer lobby in the criminal justice system has been well aired this evening, not only by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) but by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I believe that we have allowed policy to be influenced excessively by that producer lobby, in the sphere of criminal justice as in so many others. It is the belief that the views of judges, lawyers and others who derive their living from administering or working in the criminal justice system should always hold sway over the general public's views that put the country in the terrible state that it was in in 1979.
This is the first occasion on which I have spoken in a criminal justice debate. I do so because it is impossible to ignore the profound concern in my constituency about the level of crime—a concern that exists despite the welcome

921
fall that has taken place over the past couple of years. As we know, it is not just the level of crime but the fear of crime that blights the quality of life, and many more years of falling crime rates will be needed before that fear is removed.
Having represented a largely rural seat for 13 years, I am conscious that the fear of crime has increased substantially in the countryside. There is a strong and widely held perception that police resources, especially manpower, are targeted on towns, and that crime prevention measures such as closed-circuit television are most effective in urban areas. The facts may tell a slightly different story, but perceptions are important, and they take a long time to change.
On behalf of all my constituents I give the warmest possible welcome to the proposals—especially the sentencing proposals—in the White Paper, "Protecting the Public". In particular, my constituent, Martin Crawshay, and his colleagues on South Suffolk law and order committee, with whom I have worked closely for several years, are glad that some of the concerns that were voiced at our meeting last year with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State have been listened to.
Let me express my appreciation of the much-improved Home Office funding of Suffolk police for 1996–97. I observed their excellent and effective work at first hand on night patrol a few weeks ago with officers from Sudbury, under the command of Inspector Mark Cordell.
Well-resourced police, backed up by co-operative and law-abiding members of the public, are only part of a successful strategy to combat crime. We also needs courts whose powers and procedures facilitate rather than impede justice. Once convictions have been obtained, we need sentences that deter criminals and protect the public.
It is his approach to sentencing policy for which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary deserves particular congratulation. Almost single-handedly, he has reversed the drift of post-war penal policy. For far too long, sentencing policy has appeared to be driven by the interests of criminals, by the capacity of the prison system or by cherished experiments of prison and penal reformers—by anything except the interests of the law-abiding citizen.
The title of the White Paper—"Protecting the Public"—is a welcome departure from past thinking. It acknowledges that one of the most basic duties of the Government is the protection of their citizens. I should like to tell my right hon. and learned Friend that, since some of his proposals on sentencing have come under attack by senior judges and other representatives of the producer lobby, I have not met a constituent of any age, occupation or background who agrees with the judges' criticisms or disagrees with my right hon. and learned Friend's approach. For the first time for several generations, it appears that common sense rather than wishful and woolly idealism is to be the basis of our policy.
Rising crime figures—happily, at least partially reversed but still far too high—suggest that previous sentencing policy provided neither a deterrent to criminals nor protection for the public. It was, and is, high time for an alternative approach that may or may not be successful. I listened carefully to the reservations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd). We do not know whether the new approach will succeed, but, my goodness, it is at least worth a try, given the proven and complete failure of the system in the last half century.
922
Where convictions of persistent or violent offenders are followed by longer sentences, at least the criminals cannot reoffend while they are in prison. A few more citizens may sleep a little more safely in their beds. Indeed, the only criticism that I have heard of the White Paper's proposals that has any resonance is that they were not introduced sooner. It is a matter of surprise and regret that it has taken 17 years of a Conservative Government to introduce this element of common sense into sentencing policy.
I have a few constituents, however, who, despite all their experience, are influenced by opinion polls, and for that reason they are interested in the Labour party's approach to the subject. They will have listened in vain today, as on many other occasions when the subject has been debated, for any expression of regret by the Labour party for its opposition in the House to all the measures taken over many years designed to help the police to track offenders and to maintain order. They will have listened in vain for any expression of regret from the Labour party for its opposition to measures that improved court procedures so that guilty people could be brought to book. They will have listened in vain for any expression of regret by the Labour party for its resistance to measures designed to introduce stiffer sentences.
Fortunately, there is still time for the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), to say, "We in the Labour party were wrong year after year to oppose all these measures. We now apologise to people whose homes have been burgled or who have suffered physical violence at the hands of criminals who might have been behind bars if our delaying tactics in the House had not prevented the swifter passage of Conservative legislation on to the statute book."
There is still time for the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to say that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), whose approach to sentencing when shadow Home Secretary was indistinguishable in every respect from old Labour, was as wrong on that issue as he was on privatisation, industrial relations reform, tax, public spending and the nuclear deterrent throughout his political career.
Now, at the eleventh hour, in a shameless and unprincipled opportunist attempt to win office, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield claims to believe the opposite of what he argued for over many years—the opposite of what most Labour Members and most members of the shadow Cabinet secretly, or not so secretly, argue for.
There is still time for the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to tell my constituents—who will be very interested to hear him; if he remains silent, they will draw their own conclusion—that all the past policies of the Labour party were wholly wrong, and to apologise for them. If he fails to do so, the House will know that nothing has changed and that Labour party policy remains to shed crocodile tears over the plight of the victims of crime while resolutely refusing to support measures likely to make life tougher for the criminal.
6.15 pm
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I welcome the proposals of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and I know that many of my constituents and many people throughout our great county of Yorkshire will join me in that welcome.

923
We now have the toughest Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers that we have had for many years. That is widely welcomed, certainly outside the House, if not in the Chamber this evening. Many people in the United Kingdom want to see the White Paper's tougher measures put into operation as quickly as possible.
The Government have a duty to protect their citizens and to ensure that they can go about their normal lawful business and not be locked up in their homes when criminals are on the loose. Criminals should be locked up in prison, away from decent, law-abiding people.
We have heard much about young people on our streets—even young people under 10. What about parents? No one has mentioned the responsibility of parents to look after their young people, particularly those under 10, who should not be on the streets in the evening.
The punishment should always fit the crime, and persistent serious violent criminals should get stiff sentences. Early release should not be automatic; it should be earned, and I am pleased to see that that is now proposed. Prisons work—of course they work, because they keep people locked up, and when they are locked up, they are not committing more crime.
We have heard much about what Parliament and the Home Secretary should or should not do in making laws. Parliament makes laws, the judiciary implement them, and from time to time there will be discussion between the two. Offenders sentenced to under four years in prison are released once they have served half their sentence, and that cannot be right. Such early release enrages victims and their families, as many hon. Members will understand.
In 1994, 217 offenders were convicted of a second serious sexual or violent crime such as rape or attempted murder. All could have been given a life sentence, but only 10 were. Unless they get a life sentence, they must be released once they have served two thirds of their sentence, even if it is well known that they are still a danger to the public.
Under the Government's proposals, anyone aged 18 or over who is convicted of a serious sexual or violent offence for the second time will automatically get a life sentence. I have listened to what many of the professionals in the House have said about that, but I believe that it is right. Such second offenders would be released only when they no longer posed a danger to the public.
In such cases, the trial judge will determine the minimum sentence to be served by way of retribution and deterrence. The parole board can then decide whether it is safe to release the offender. Individuals who continue to pose a danger to the public would remain in prison—indefinitely, if necessary. All cases need careful assessment. Many criminals are released early, only to reoffend quickly.
The former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, said recently:
"I believe public confidence in the system is ended when convicted criminals are seen to walk free from prison after serving rather less than half their sentences, however good their behaviour may have been in the interim."
He was right.
924
Many of my constituents will welcome the proposal that the average sentence for a third conviction of dealing in hard drugs such as heroin or Ecstasy should be more than four years. Many of us believe that even that punishment is not sufficiently severe, but we welcome tougher sentencing of individuals who not only take drugs but deal in them, and affect the lives of many young people. In the past 12 months, we have seen the deaths of several young people who would be alive today were it not for the availability of drugs on our streets.
The proposal for stiffer sentences for persistent burglars will also be welcomed. While a burglary may only take the form of an entry on a court list, that cannot reflect its effect on the victim—who may be an elderly person living alone.
In 1993–94, the average Crown court sentence passed on a first-time domestic burglar was 16.2 months, but for offenders with seven or more convictions, it was only 19.4 months—which is nonsense. Almost 30 per cent. of those offenders were not imprisoned, but returned to the community to continue their nefarious activities. I am pleased that it is proposed that any person aged 18 or over convicted of domestic burglary and with two or more previous convictions for similar offences will automatically receive a minimum three-year sentence.
Many professionals have said that the Home Secretary's proposals are unrealistic and will not work, but many people outside the House want tougher sentencing and longer terms of imprisonment, to prevent reoffending. The public welcome the decrease in crime, but they also want to go about their business and not have to lock themselves into their homes early in the evening because of the number of criminals who are released from prison to stalk our streets.
6.23 pm
Ms Ann Coffey: I have a deep sense of anger and frustration at the problems experienced by many of my constituents every day of their lives. I will try to control myself and not use unparliamentary language—although I doubt that anything I might say could match the comments made to me every day of the week.
The Home Secretary did not address disorder—neighbour nuisance, harassment, abuse, anti-social behaviour in the street, vandalism and graffiti. I was looking forward to seeing whether "Protecting the Public" would address those problems. Paragraph 3.41 states:
"It is vital that the law should be adequate to enable the police to maintain public order."
Excellent—but the paragraph goes on to cite
"travellers who invade rural communities"
and
"illegal open air raves".
Neither applies to my urban constituency.
Paragraph 3.42 states:
"The Government believes it is intolerable that trespassers should be allowed to ruin people's enjoyment of their own property or their legitimate business activity."
Although that is correct, do not the Government consider it intolerable that people should be allowed to ruin their neighbours' lives and to make life a misery for the public on the streets? If the Government think that, why are they not addressing those problems? At present, the only

925
redress is an injunction in the civil courts, but the cost is a deterrent. It is time the Government gave those problems more serious attention than does the White Paper.
I was not surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) mentioned a 12 per cent. rise in public disorder complaints. I receive letters and telephone calls every week from constituents in various states of depression, anxiety and frustration.
The Home Office has commented that public disorder leads to high levels of avoidance behaviour. People are afraid to go out at night. Pensioners remain in their homes, terrified. Women will not contemplate going out at night because they fear that the streets are unsafe. The term "avoidance behaviour" is a pretty way of describing the absolute terror felt by the people who adopt it. Initiatives such as Homewatch and Streetwatch are attempting to address public disorder, but they will not be successful unless such disorder and its causes are properly addressed.
After a surgery, I often have to write to the chief superintendent about matters raised by my constituents. That correspondence has increased over the past year. The Stockport police have always been responsive and helpful within the limits of their resources and existing law.
I will cite a typical, not abnormal case that came to my attention last Saturday. One of my constituents suffers from angina, spondylitis and epilepsy—and his wife suffers from cirrhosis and is taking anti-depressants. The couple's 12-year-old daughter and 11-year-old son are terrified of going out on the streets. That family live on a council estate, but they have no chance of being transferred, because the level of harassment that they are suffering—windows being smashed and targeted burglaries—is normal for that estate. That couple would have to suffer more to be placed on the transfer list.
The council does its best. The only power at its disposal is eviction, but that relies on evidence. People are unwilling to give evidence, because they will end up suffering more harassment without protection. It is not enough for the council to rely on civil remedies. The law should make it easier for the police to intervene and control the environment.
In another part of my constituency, a public meeting was held after several months of anti-social behaviour by youths on the street. It was attended by 150 residents and police representatives. The residents vociferously expressed their problems. Such public meetings are held all year round. As soon as one public meeting and a problem is sorted out in one part of the constituency, the problem moves to another part, and we then have to have another public meeting to sort it out. The police are very helpful with short-term strategies, but we cannot go on like this. We have to have a proper strategic view to deal with this type of disorder.
A strategic view seems to be missing. I am not surprised that such a view is missing, as the Government are not paying any serious attention to it. They have not even mentioned it in their document, "Protecting the Public".
Another document that perhaps illustrates the problem is the Greater Manchester policing plan. Under a heading of "Public Reassurance", they state that the national objective is
"to provide high visibility policing so as to reassure the public."
That reassurance is exactly what the public are asking for, which is a reflection of the public's concern that no longer is there law and order on the streets.
926
Greater Manchester police state that their target is:
"To achieve a 50 per cent. satisfaction level with levels of foot and mobile patrols."
A 50 per cent. satisfaction level would be an enormous rise in satisfaction, because currently there is no public satisfaction with police visibility. I do not blame the police for that, because they have to put their resources where the Home Office asks them to.
The Greater Manchester police have recognised the their difficulties with the public over disorder and have set a local objective, which is
"to co-operate with young people, schools, parents and residents to promote community harmony."
That is an excellent objective, but I doubt whether the Home Office will give it any recognition or the necessary resources to accomplish it. There must be a great deal of resourcing if community policing is to be performed effectively. It takes up a lot of police time.
Mr. Howard: Is the hon. Lady aware that we have increased spending on the police by 100 per cent. in real terms since 1979? Is she aware that the country is rapidly getting fed up of Labour Back Benchers giving speeches in every debate in the House and outside, in which they complain about resources and ask for more money, while the shadow Chancellor and the shadow Chief Secretary go round the country saying, "You don't need to worry about your taxes because Labour will not spend any more money on anything"?
Ms Coffey: I am sorry that I annoyed the Home Secretary, but the truth is very painful. Whatever figure he gives about increasing police resources, ultimately the public are extremely fed up and very angry about the levels of disorder they have to put up with. The Home Secretary really should stop worrying about what Labour Back Benchers are telling him, and start worrying about and taking some note of what the public are trying to tell him.
The causes of disorder are very complex, and there are no simple solutions. We must have a short-term and a long-term strategy. We must ask what is the cause of disorder, particularly among young people. We must examine problems in the provision of leisure facilities and youth facilities, and listen to young people.
Perhaps there are other preventative measures that the Home Secretary could take. As he is probably aware, I am the co-chair of the British parliamentary lighting group. We have long been requesting the Home Office's acceptance that improved street lighting decreases crime levels and the fear of crime. That does not seem to have been accepted by the Home Secretary, although he accepts the effectiveness of closed-circuit television cameras in shopping centres—which are effective, but they are not appropriate for residential areas.
The Home Secretary must ensure that the police have the time to support crime prevention, such as the homewatch and streetwatch schemes. Many people are very willing to enter into partnerships and do what they can to make their neighbourhoods safe, but they need support. Police time is not available, because they have to deal with the enormous amount of crime.
Madam Speaker: Order. I regret having to call the hon. Lady to order.
6.33 pm
Sir Jim Spicer: Madam Speaker, I gave you an undertaking that I shall be five minutes, and five minutes I will be—because I know that you will not allow me any longer.
I was delighted to hear the view of the Liberal party expressed so clearly by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I noted two points that he made: prison does not work; and we are looking for retribution. Yes, we are; and prison does work. Those are two points.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has been under some attack. He has very broad shoulders. I should like to tell him: by all means listen to the public, and also listen to the police.
I should just like to read a letter sent to The Times last week by my chief constable, the chief constable of Dorset. He said:
"Dear Sir,
"The Lord Chief Justice's condemnation of minimum sentencing (Times May 23rd) was a revealing insight into the workings of a very senior judicial mind.
"Having recognised the Home Secretary's determined attempt to respond to wide public concern for which the Lord Chief Justice acknowledged there is considerable support, he then goes on to state his preference for the allegedly unanimous, but opposite, views of those who 'work in the system' rather curiously omitting any reference to the police. We do have a little experience in these matters, but to ignore or dismiss the feelings and perceptions of the ordinary person in the street is much more serious.
"His comment that 'certainty in sentencing can only be achieved by sacrificing justice' is I believe altogether too sweeping. The new proposals are not aimed at first time offenders, crimes of passion or foolishness but to persistent offenders who are not being deterred by the criminal justice system at present. Anyone who has had 'cheek by jowl' contact with persistent criminals over the years knows that the one sentence they hate more than any other is prison. Despite their displays of bravado when questioned on the subject most would sell their grannies to avoid it. However the courts regularly save them that inconvenience by allowing them to 'beat the system' even when convicted.
"In my view unlimited judicial discretion in sentencing burglars in particular, is robbing the criminal justice system of its deterrent value and undermining the delivery of justice in the eyes of ordinary law abiding citizens. The Lord Chief Justice in defence of his sentencing discretion suggests that 'the value of the theft, the lapse of time between arrests, how many offences have been committed, whether it was drunken opportunism and the effect on the victim should all be considered'. This is precisely where the delivery of 'Justice' is going wrong, it is focusing too much on the circumstances of the offender and not enough on the victim.
"Who is to judge the 'value' of a theft? How many times is it suggested than 'drunken opportunism' be regarded as tolerable? Should the persistent offender benefit from some mitigation in sentence because he didn't manage to steal very much or because he has evaded arrest for months or years, or because the hapless victim has often bravely carried on their life without outward sign of injury? This just does not make sense, any more than the referral to the cliche 'that what really deters criminals is the certainty of arrest and detection'.
"Detection and arrest alone for the regulars are no more than a temporary irritation, without the certainty of a deterrent sentence and that means prison. If the American experience is that they are all pleading 'not guilty' then discount the sentence to encourage a 'guilty' plea but ensure that they still go to prison!
"Finally I am astonished at the way that his Lordship has misdirected himself in relation to the relevance of the burglary detection rate, which he quotes as 3 in 20, and then seeks to use as evidence to invalidate a 'minimum sentencing' policy because so few offences come to court. This is a complete misunderstanding of the crime figures.
928
"It is now well established that a small percentage of persistent criminals commit a disproportionately large amount of crime. So reference to the number of offences that come to court completely misses the point. Modern police investigation techniques target known and active criminals and they are being caught and prosecuted over and over again, but for only a fraction of the offences they commit. Unlimited judicial discretion which is over-focused on the offender is not providing deterrent sentences. The system really must stop patronising criminals with misplaced sympathy and talk of rehabilitation when they chose to commit crime for greed, excitement and peer group status. Treat them as adults with minds of their own and make them, not the victims, understand the fear and consequences of crime.
"Yours faithfully,
"Chief Constable."
That, Home Secretary, is the message from the people of this country. Ignore the waffling that we always get from the Opposition, which I have had to listen to for 24 years.
6.38 pm
Mr. Alun Michael: In that case, it is obvious that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir J. Spicer) has not listened to or understood a great deal while he has been sitting here.
This has been an extraordinary debate. Not only did the Home Secretary try, by publishing another White Paper, to distract attention from the White Paper that he had chosen to debate, but he was joined on the Government Front Bench by the Secretary of State for Scotland, whose published proposals on sentencing are quite different from those of the Home Secretary. What a way of running what was supposed to be a crime week, intended to regain the initiative from the Labour party.
Crime Week has been a disaster for the Home Secretary. That was bound to happen, not only because he seems to get everything wrong, but because the difference between the two parties is that the Labour party is serious about tackling crime. The country knows that, and will see it when we are in government.
We have heard the White Paper torn apart by the former Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), who said that the Home Secretary's proposals would be visibly unjust and counter-productive, would not do much for deterrence, and needed sensible rethinking.
From the criticisms both inside and outside the House, it is clear that, although the Home Secretary has now woken up to the problem on which the Labour party has focused for a considerable number of years, his White Paper is less robust than the proposals that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the shadow Home Secretary, has already published, and does not stand up to the same scrutiny.
Indeed, the Home Secretary was so concerned not to give credit to my hon. Friend that he put himself into the absurd position of defending the presence of eight and nine-year-olds on the street well into the night. He tried to wriggle out of it by saying that the police already have the power to act, but he is wrong, except in very specific and limited circumstances. Anybody who has come across the problems in practice knows that that is not the case.
One police superintendent said that he supported
"proposals aimed at keeping vulnerable youngsters off the streets at night and away from potential criminal activity".

929
He agreed, as many youth workers have, about encouraging and enabling parents to take proper responsibility for the care and control of their children, and continued:
"We are happy to discuss the curfew proposal, but some form of legislation would be required before we had any power to impose such a blanket measure and extensive consultation with the community would also be needed".
That is precisely what my hon. Friend proposed, which is in general a sensible way of tackling a real problem.
During the debate the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) gave loyal but misguided support to the Home Secretary. But the hon. Gentleman does not take crime in the community as seriously as did his predecessor, and we look forward to the return of John P. Smith at the general election.
I share with the hon. Gentleman the police division of the Vale of Glamorgan, and I am pleased that we now have extra police on the streets. However, it was the Secretary of State for Wales who for several years denied the South Wales police the cash they needed, so it is foolish for a Conservative Member to draw attention to the Government's failure in that regard. It is also foolish for Conservative Members to talk about the Government's record on police numbers, as the Home Secretary did when he intervened desperately on my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), despite the short time available to her, because he did not seem to have confidence in his Minister of State.
In the run-up to the 1992 general election the Government promised an extra 1,000 police officers, but what has happened since March 1992? By 30 September 1995 the number of police officers had decreased by 860. What a record. The Home Secretary has nothing to be proud of in connection with police numbers and with his support of the police.
The hon. Members for Vale of Glamorgan and for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) were both signatories to the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee which demanded statutory regulation of the private security industry. I am surprised that neither of them has been consistent enough to demand its implementation in the debate.
Today's White Paper would allow employers access to criminal records. That is sensible, especially with violent offenders and sex offenders who might wheedle their way into working with children. But the police and the private security industry, as well as the Labour party, have demanded statutory regulation to protect the public against rogue crooked employers too.
By bringing in only half the prescription, the Home Secretary will allow crooked employers, about which we have already given evidence, access to the records of those whom they seek to employ. The Mafia would be delighted with such an arrangement. We keep being told that the Home Secretary is still considering the Select Committee's report, but when the Home Office gave evidence to the Select Committee, its representatives said that it was not really interested, and did not support the idea of statutory regulation. Is it not true that the Home Secretary is unwilling to provide, or is prevented by his Cabinet colleagues from providing, the statutory regulation needed to protect the public?
Anyone who has followed the events or the long-drawn-out investigations in north Wales knows, even if the full report does not reach the public domain, that
930
paedophiles plotted and planned the systematic abuse of children. To allow people in positions of influence as employers in the public or private sector to know details about sex offenders, without themselves being investigated, is surely a recipe for disaster.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) feared that listing acquittals would allow rumour to have the force of a conviction. That is a difficult area, but the level of conviction for child sex offences is very low, and the fact that so few offences come to light is a scandal. We need to do more to protect children against the predators. Yet in recent weeks the Conservatives blocked a Bill to establish a register of paedophiles.
Given the overwhelming evidence that paedophiles are the most devious and cunning people in the world, as well as the most despicable, and given the evidence from "The Cook Report" that most child sex offenders expect to reoffend on release, and use their time in prison reflecting on past abuse and planning future abuse, it is an absolute scandal that only last week the Home Secretary led Conservative Members into the Lobby to defeat amendments to the law which would have helped to protect children by preventing witness statements and photographic evidence from circulating in prison as a stimulus to future offences.
Belatedly, the Conservative party has woken up to the disastrous level of crime, to its impact on ordinary people, and to the fact that Conservatives are no longer believed by the public. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) condemned the Government for taking 17 years to get round to tackling crime. He was right, but he then went on to make a total fool of himself by trying to blame the Labour party for the failures of the past 17 years.
We shall take no lessons from that hon. Gentleman, who by his own admission has not taken an interest in law and order debates for many years. We shall take no lessons from a Conservative party that has yet to apologise for the introduction of the poll tax. As somebody who has been a magistrate since 1972, and has worked successfully for many years on projects to reduce crime in my constituency and in the rest of my area, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I did not discover crime and the need for clarity of punishment when I entered the House—and nor did many of my hon. Friends.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman and his constituents this: the leader of the Labour party was right to promise to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. Under a Government led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn as Home Secretary, that will become a national strategy rather than a mere promise by the Labour party, and it will be welcomed by the police and the public alike.
The Conservative party is condemned by its own record. The level of crime is twice as high as when the Conservatives came into office; only one offence in 50 leads to punishment by a court; only one in 750 leads to a punishment involving a custodial sentence. We need the practical and comprehensive policies of the Labour party to nip young offending in the bud, to tackle violence, to deal with nuisance neighbours, and to introduce consistency of sentencing in a way that will work, instead of doing as the Government do when they have to amend their own legislation every other year—and indeed, sometimes almost in the course of a single year.

931
The Home Secretary said earlier that it was the first duty of Government to maintain law and order, and to allow citizens to walk the streets in safety and to sleep securely in their beds at night. Yes, but the Conservative Government have failed to provide that safety and security. Since they came into office they have presided over not only a doubling in the level of recorded crime, but an increase of 151 per cent. in crimes of violence and an increase of 448 per cent. in robbery. They have no right to claim virtue in relation to law and order.
The Government have failed, yet they continually seek to pin the blame on the Labour party, which, although it seems to have escaped the Home Secretary's notice, has not been in office for the past 17 years. They seem to find refuge in a mantra of inaccuracies provided by Tory central office. But, if one reads the record that we published this week, one will see that on occasion after occasion, it is Labour that has come forward with constructive proposals, Labour that has supported the Government when they are right and criticised them when they are wrong, and Labour that will be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime when in office.
6.49 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I am glad that the debate was ended by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) in the same farcical mode as his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) began it. Labour Members have made some extraordinary comments today. They are not quite sure which way to turn, whether to keep up with the rhetoric of being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime or to condemn some of our proposals and support some colleagues in the other place. They just do not know what way to squirm. We shall find out in 10 minutes what Labour will do about our proposals.
At one point, the hon. Member for Blackburn implied that he was worried that the longer prison sentences that we propose would not be brought in soon enough. Does anyone seriously believe that the Labour party, which does not believe in the private finance initiative or building prisons more rapidly, will build prisons faster than the Conservative Government would to enable that policy to be implemented more speedily? It is so farcical.
Mr. Michael: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maclean: No, I will not.
Mr. Michael rose—
Mr. Maclean: Sit down.
I turn to criminal injuries compensation. I am not going to lecture the Opposition, I merely want to inform my hon. Friends, in case they were worried or were taken in for a moment by the hon. Member for Blackburn, who said that the criminal injuries compensation measures on which we voted a few months ago could have led to cuts in such compensation. Here are the figures for the past five years: in 1990–91, £109 million was paid out, in 1991–92 the figure was £143 million, in 1992–93 it was £152 million, in 1993–94 it was £165 million, and in 1994–95 it was £175 million.
Mr. Michael rose—
Mr. Maclean: No, I will not give way. Now, the year of cuts—
Mr. Michael: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister ignores the fact that there were £700 million-worth of cuts in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order. He is being very mischievous.
Mr. Maclean: As I said, Labour Members are squirming tonight and will go for any sort of abuse.
I say to my hon. Friends, what about the year of cuts? In 1994–95 we paid out £175 million, but last year, the Government paid out £183 million to the victims of crime: the highest and most generous compensation scheme of any country in the world except the United States.
I listened carefully to the thoughtful speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd). He said that he was worried that some drug addicts and burglars might be imprisoned after their third offence and there might be some unfairness on occasions. Such people will have two chances beforehand. They will not receive a minimum sentence for the first conviction.
Some people might share the view that it would be a little unfortunate if those who are simply passing on a cannabis cigarette or whatever were sent to prison, but we are not dealing with cannabis. Drug dealers who will be liable to a minimum sentence are those who are dealing in class A drugs. If someone is convicted for a third time for selling crack or cocaine, I have no sympathy for such a person being sent to prison. Have we not heard of so many tragic occasions in the past few years of people dying through drugs—not because they got them from professional dealers but because they bought a tablet from a so-called friend? On resources, I refer my right hon. Friend to chapter 13 of the White Paper, which sets out the details.
I agree entirely with the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler), who pointed out the tremendous success in deterring driving and drink-driving offences. The threat of imprisonment through the totting-up procedure has worked wonders. He gave excellent support for the Government's proposals, and I totally support what he said.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) knows that I cannot comment on the details of the constituency case that he mentioned, but I sincerely hope that his constituent will find some comfort from his public support of her today. If a Member of Parliament can publicly support her, I hope that others in his constituency will have the courage to do likewise.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) promoted what my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) described as the producer view. I must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Criminal Justice Act 1991 was not designed to stop people going to prison but to ensure that prison and proper tough community sentences were given equal consideration and that each was used when and where appropriate. He was worried about shorter sentences. Let me tell him, we

933
already have shorter sentences, but they are dishonest. They are not what is pronounced in court. The prisoner does not serve that. We are merely trying to bring in some honesty.
There is a myth that rapists will find no option but—
Mr. Straw rose
Mr. Maclean: I want to conclude this point. The hon. Gentleman had 35 minutes and failed to make his points. He is not going to steal my remaining seven or eight minutes.
Mr. Straw rose—
Mr. Maclean: I will not give way.
A myth has grown that rapists may as well kill the victims. It is still a myth even if great men repeat it. As soon as the Lord Chief Justice made that point, I checked with experts in the Home Office research department and asked them to trawl the literature on the subject. From the literature that we have studied, there is no suggestion whatever that that is the likely course rapists will take in future because it would require a perfectly calm, logical rapist, who in the moment of rape took a legally correct decision to kill the victim. We have looked at the available research—much is American—but can find no research whatever to suggest that rapists are more likely to kill their victim.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) made a good point that community sentences have higher reoffending rates than prison. That point needs to be made very clearly. One of the myths that has grown over the years is that prisons are universities of crime. The real universities of crime are the street corners, where the practicals can be carried out immediately.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk congratulated the police on their excellent funding settlement in Suffolk and elsewhere.
The Opposition today could quote only some of their Lordships in the other place who come to their rescue as their allies. I find it extraordinarily rich that, in a debate on law and order, the Opposition can rely only on support from some of their Lordships in another place, which the Opposition propose to abolish if they are ever elected to form a Government. Our proposals are supported by people the length and breadth of the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset made clear. It is the first time that I have heard a chief constable's speech in this House and I would like to hear more of them.
It is quite clear that today's debate has highlighted the divide between the Conservative party and the Labour party. We have set out clear, considered and concrete proposals, which will help to protect the public from persistent and dangerous criminals and have the wholehearted support of the police. Over there on the Opposition Benches sit members of the Labour party—a party totally opposed to our proposals, but too frightened to openly and honestly admit it. The hon. Member for Blackburn has ducked and dived and dodged and weaved today in a pathetic attempt to avoid alienating either his Back Benchers or the public—hence the extraordinary Opposition amendment on which we shall be voting in a few minutes. Opposition Front-Bench Members will be reassuring their hon. Friends that they are voting against the Tory proposals. At the same time, the spin doctors are reassuring the press that the Labour party really does support the Home Secretary's proposals.
934
The Labour party has tried to debate anything other than the proposals set out in the White Paper. Their so-called strategy for crime is not worthy of the name. I reckon that Labour Members must pray that smoking is never banned because, if it is, it would deprive them of the fag packets on which they need to work out their future policies.
The Labour party talks about crime prevention and about a six-year old report which proposed giving local authorities a statutory duty to undertake crime prevention. While Labour talks, we have been empowering local partnerships up and down the country to install closed circuit television and to promote neighbourhood watch. Labour talks about promoting and supporting the police. We heard the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth say that he was worried about the number of police officers since the last election. We now have 2,000 more constables than we had before the last election. When we came to office in—
It being Seven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion, pursuant to Order [7 June].
The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 278.

Division No. 153]

[7.00 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Corbyn, Jeremy

Ainger, Nick

Cox, Tom

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Cummings, John

Allen, Graham

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Alton, David

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Dafis, Cynog

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Dalyell, Tarn

Armstrong, Hilary

Darling, Alistair

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Ashton, Joe

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

Barnes, Harry

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Barron, Kevin

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)

Battle, John

Denham, John

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Dewar, Donald

Bennett, Andrew F

Dixon, Don

Benton, Joe

Donohoe, Brian H

Bermingham, Gerald

Dowd, Jim

Berry, Roger

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Blunkett, David

Eastham, Ken

Boateng, Paul

Etherington, Bill

Bradley, Keith

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Fatchett, Derek

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Faulds, Andrew

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

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Burden, Richard

Fisher, Mark

Byers, Stephen

Flynn, Paul

Caborn, Richard

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Callaghan, Jim

Foster, Don (Bath)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Foulkes, George

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Fraser, John

Campbell-Savours, D N

Fyfe, Maria

Canavan, Dennis

Galbraith, Sam

Cann, Jamie

Galloway, George

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Gapes, Mike

Chidgey, David

Garrett, John

Chisholm, Malcolm

Gerrard, Neil

Church, Judith

Godman, Dr Norman A

Clapham, Michael

Godsiff, Roger

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Gordon, Mildred

Clelland, David

Graham, Thomas

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Coffey, Ann

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Cohen, Harry

Grocott, Bruce

Connarty, Michael

Hain, Peter

Corbett, Robin

Hanson, David

935

Hardy, Peter

Mowlam, Marjorie

Harman, Ms Harriet

Mudie, George

Harvey, Nick

Mullin, Chris

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Murphy, Paul

Henderson, Doug

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Heppell, John

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

O'Hara, Edward

Hinchliffe, David

Olner, Bill

Hoey, Kate

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hood, Jimmy

Parry, Robert

Hoon, Geoffrey

Pearson, Ian

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

Pendry, Tom

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

Pickthall, Colin

Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

Pike, Peter L

Hoyle, Doug

Pope, Greg

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Illsley, Eric

Purchase, Ken

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Raynsford, Nick

Jamieson, David

Reid, Dr John

Janner, Greville

Rendel, David

Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Johnston, Sir Russell

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Rooker, Jeff

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Rooney, Terry

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Jowell, Tessa

Rowlands, Ted

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Sheerman, Barry

Keen, Alan

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

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

Short, Clare

Khabra, Piara S

Simpson, Alan

Kilfoyle, Peter

Skinner, Dennis

Kirkwood, Archy

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

Lewis, Terry

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Soley, Clive

Litherland, Robert

Spearing, Nigel

Livingstone, Ken

Spellar, John

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Steinberg, Gerry

Loyden, Eddie

Stevenson, George

McAllion, John

Stott, Roger

McAvoy, Thomas

Strang, Dr. Gavin

McCartney, Ian

Straw, Jack

Macdonald, Calum

Sutcliffe, Gerry

McKelvey, William

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

McLeish, Henry

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Maclennan, Robert

Tipping, Paddy

MacShane, Denis

Touhig, Don

Madden, Max

Trickett, Jon

Maddock, Diana

Turner, Dennis

Mahon, Alice

Vaz, Keith

Mandelson, Peter

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Marek, Dr John

Wallace, James

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Walley, Joan

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Wicks, Malcolm

Maxton, John

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Meacher, Michael

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Meale, Alan

Wilson, Brian

Michael, Alun

Winnick, David

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Wise, Audrey

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Worthington, Tony

Milburm, Alan

Wray, Jimmy

Miller, Andrew

Wright, Dr Tony

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Morgan, Rhodri

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Mr. Eric Martlew and

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Mr. Eric Clarke.

936

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Alexander, Richard

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Amess, David

Evennett, David

Arbuthnot, James

Faber, David

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Fabricant, Michael

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Fishburn, Dudley

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Forman, Nigel

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Baldry, Tony

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Forth, Eric

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Bates, Michael

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Batiste, Spencer

Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Beggs, Roy

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Bellingham, Henry

Fry, Sir Peter

Bendall, Vivian

Gale, Roger

Beresford, Sir Paul

Gallie, Phil

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Gardiner, Sir George

Body, Sir Richard

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Booth, Hartley

Garnier, Edward

Boswell, Tim

Gill, Christopher

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Gillan, Cheryl

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Bowis, John

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Gorst, Sir John

Brandreth, Gyles

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Brazier, Julian

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Bright, Sir Graham

Grylls, Sir Michael

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Hague, Rt Hon William

Browning, Mrs Angela

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Burt, Alistair

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Butcher, John

Hannam, Sir John

Butler, Peter

Hargreaves, Andrew

Butterfill, John

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Hawkins, Nick

Carrington, Matthew

Hawksley, Warren

Carttiss, Michael

Hayes, Jerry

Cash, William

Heald, Oliver

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Hendry, Charles

Churchill, Mr

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Clappison, James

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Horam, John

Congdon, David

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Conway, Derek

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Couchman, James

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Cran, James

Hunter, Andrew

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

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Jack, Michael

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Day, Stephen

Jenkin, Bernard

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Jessel, Toby

Devlin, Tim

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dover, Den

Kirkhope, Timothy

Duncan, Alan

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Duncan Smith, Iain

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Dunn, Bob

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

Durant, Sir Anthony

Knox, Sir David

Dykes, Hugh

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

937

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Leigh, Edward

Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Smyth, The Reverend Martin

Lord, Michael

Soames, Nicholas

Luff, Peter

Speed, Sir Keith

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Spencer, Sir Derek

MacKay, Andrew

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Spink, Dr Robert

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Spring, Richard

Madel, Sir David

Sproat, Iain

Maitland, Lady Olga

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Malone, Gerald

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Marland, Paul

Steen, Anthony

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Stephen, Michael

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Stewart, Allan

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Streeter, Gary

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Sumberg, David

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Sweeney, Walter

Merchant, Piers

Sykes, John

Mills, Iain

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Moate, Sir Roger

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

Temple-Morris, Peter

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Thomason, Roy

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Nelson, Anthony

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Neubert, Sir Michael

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Nicholls, Patrick

Tredinnick, David

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Trend, Michael

Oppenheim, Phillip

Twinn, Dr Ian

Ottaway, Richard

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Page, Richard

Viggers, Peter

Paice, James

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Walden, George

Patten, Rt Hon John

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Waller, Gary

Pawsey, James

Ward, John

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Pickles, Eric

Waterson, Nigel

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Watts, John

Porter, David (Waveney)

Wells, Bowen

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Whitney, Ray

Powell, William (Corby)

Whittingdale, John

Rathbone, Tim

Widdecombe, Ann

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Wilkinson, John

Richards, Rod

Willetts, David

Riddick, Graham

Wilshire, David

Robathan, Andrew

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Wolfson, Mark

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Wood, Timothy

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Yeo, Tim

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Sackville, Tom

Tellers for the Noes:

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Mr. Simon Burns and Mr. Sebastian Coe.

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Amendment accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House supports the proposals set out in the White Paper `Protecting the Public' to introduce automatic life sentences for serious violent and sex offenders; mandatory minimum prison sentences for persistent house burglars and drug dealers; and to introduce greater honesty into the sentencing process.

Northern Ireland
7.15 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 4th June, be approved.
Once more I need to come to the House to seek authority for the renewal of the current provisions for the government of Northern Ireland by direct rule. I regret that this is needed. These arrangements are far from what is ideal in a democracy, but there is as yet in Northern Ireland no broad enough base of agreement for any other system, including any system founded on greater local responsibility, so we must renew direct rule.
At last, however, after long endeavour, a process of inclusive political negotiations has begun. It moves us closer to the goal of establishing a sufficiently agreed system for the future. In the House tonight there will be as strong a wish that these negotiations shall succeed as there will be recognition that direct rule must continue until they do.
No less strong, I reckon, will be a universal desire to express our outraged condemnation of what was perpetrated in Manchester on Saturday, which is directly relevant to this debate because it took place after the negotiations had begun. Those were negotiations that Sinn Fein could have entered, to sit with other political parties, for which the electorate had voted. They could have sat down with the rest on 10 June. But there was no renunciation of violence by the IRA, with whom they are so inextricably linked; no restoration of a ceasefire that should never have been abandoned, so they excluded themselves, just as they separately absented themselves—by their own decision—from the elected forum last Friday.
Instead, there was from the IRA a calculated declaration of their mind set. They declared on Saturday that their route to political change is the violent, not the democratic, route. The political process did not reject them: they rejected it. They showed that they have as yet no stomach for the disciplines of democracy. Therefore they tried to get what they want by denying random members of the public their most fundamental human rights. And, of course, they threaten more of the same, in Northern Ireland no less than in Great Britain.
That is exactly the kind of duress that this House and this Government, together with the Irish Government, have set our faces against.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Secretary of State, based on his experience, accept that the concessions gained after atrocities have been an incentive to Sinn Fein-IRA to continue along the same path as they have adopted in the past? Does he agree that the deliberate murder of a member of the Garda was, in effect, a Harvey Smith signal thrown at John Bruton in the Republic?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree, of course, with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. It was a wicked and wholly unjustified action. I do not doubt that it was intended to convey the message that the hon. Gentleman has described.

939
I recognise no concessions to the IRA. Both Governments have made it clear that, through their political party, the IRA have to demonstrate that they are wholly committed to peaceful and democratic means. Until that comes about, there can be no participation for their political party in the negotiations. I acknowledge that the Government, in response to representations from numerous quarters, have changed their position on matters that have not concerned principle. We have done so in order—as we hoped—to demonstrate a sensible flexibility, not a willingness to move on points of principle.
I was saying that the IRA have tried to get their way by denying the most fundamental human rights to random members of the public—a kind of duress against which this House, the British Government and the Irish Government have made it clear that we will set our faces. We will not sit opposite people who imply there is more where the Manchester bomb came from unless we deliver across the table what they want.
That is why, after the South Quay attack on 9 February, we jointly declared that, for Sinn Fein, as an elected party, to enter negotiations, there had first to be an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994. After 9 February, numerous further attacks have been made, culminating last Saturday at Manchester. But our rejection of duress stands, and it is, if possible, fortified.
We are not going to be satisfied with some tactical remission of violence. A purported restoration of the ceasefire last Monday, for example, anticipated by many commentators, would have been seen across the world as a cynical and callous ploy.
Mr. David Wilshire: I am reassured to hear my right hon. and learned Friend suggest that an unequivocal ceasefire is necessary, but will he tell the House what exactly he means by unequivocal and, on this occasion, what exactly he means by ceasefire?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I offer my hon. Friend a definition that I offered in this House some time ago. Unequivocal means of no other interpretation. For our part, we endorse the words of Mr. Bruton, whose support we gratefully acknowledge. It is for Sinn Fein and the IRA to find the words and the deeds to convince us, and the world, that violence is over: not tactically, not temporarily, but totally, over. I reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House yesterday:
"If the IRA and Sinn Fein wish to have any future interest in this process, they will clearly need to declare an unequivocal ceasefire. They will need to declare it immediately. They will also have to show that that ceasefire is credible and lasting, and is not just a tactical device to enable them to enter the talks until such time as it is convenient for them to leave. It is now up to them to demonstrate their credibility; it is not up to us or anyone else. They must demonstrate their credibility—but the talks will continue."— [Official Report, 18 June 1996; Vol. 279, c. 680–81.]
They have mightily increased the difficulty of that task, if indeed they really wish to set their hands to it.
The Government, however, are not going to give Sinn Fein the satisfaction of saying that in no foreseeable circumstances could they succeed. We still do not believe that to be the case. The position remains as it has been:
940
Sinn Fein have not been excluded; they exclude themselves. They must find words and the deeds to let themselves in, to convince the rest of us that violence is over for good. It is for them to establish such confidence in any ceasefire statement that they may make.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Are we not moving back to August 1994, and the arguments that told us that violence was over for good?
Would it not be more effective now to take a more political path? Twenty-one years have passed since this sort of legislation came into being. Twenty-one is usually regarded as the time when people come of age and take responsibility. Is it not time the House began to take responsibility for governing Northern Ireland in the same way as it governs the rest of the United Kingdom? We need not wait for the Scots to make up their minds how they want to be governed.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I said at the beginning that we have to renew direct rule because there is no sufficiently agreed basis for any other system, including any system involving greater local accountability. One possible foreseeable system is the type to which the hon. Gentleman has just alluded—sometimes called a wholly integrated system of government. That is not excluded from the ambit of the talks that are now commencing. But for any alternative to direct rule there needs to be a broad enough basis of agreement to make it stick.
Meanwhile, I wish to urge that it is of the highest importance that the old cycle of retaliation violence be not resumed. I pay tribute to the restraint and wisdom of those described as the combined loyalist military command for not allowing themselves to be provoked into abandoning their own ceasefire. In consequence, the loyalist parties have not excluded themselves from the negotiations, where they are now participating valuably and fully and thereby fulfilling the wishes of those who voted for them on 30 May.
I shall give a brief account of our stewardship in the past year. The first duty of any Government is the protection of their citizens, so I turn first to security policy. Since the ending of the ceasefire, a prudent guard was kept up, but security measures were adjusted to meet a reduced threat of violence. There is no doubt that this has improved the amenities of life for people in Northern Ireland enormously, but nothing was taken away that could not very soon be replaced.
Accordingly, yesterday, and again today, as a direct consequence of the IRA's terrorist threat, there was massive disruption of traffic in Northern Ireland and doubtless great inconvenience caused to the public. But I know that the people of Northern Ireland will always desire and expect the security forces to make whatever precautionary checks are needed, and to take all other steps within the law that the threat of terrorism may show to be needed.
For what my experience in Northern Ireland—four and a quarter years of it—is worth, I think nothing is going to induce any slackening of people's resolve within Northern Ireland to face down the obscene duress of terrorism. Therefore, so long as terrorism remains a threat to Northern Ireland's stability, the Government will meet it with a fully robust security policy. We shall base ourselves upon the excellent co-operation we enjoy in

941
security matters with the Irish authorities, and where possible we shall seek with them to enhance it. As in Great Britain, so in Northern Ireland, we shall be ready to adopt all lawful measures that new circumstances may require.
I want to express our gratitude to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and to the other security forces who support them, for their work. It is demanding and incessant. Over the past year, terrorist units have remained intact. Targeting, training, researching weapons and violent intimidation have all continued. There is continuing evidence of paramilitary involvement in drug dealing and racketeering. Murders have been carried out by terrorist organisations under the veil of action against drugs. Punishment beatings have been carried out regularly, revolting in their nature and extent. They have been carried out by both sides, and the number of victims has risen during the year.
All that will continue to be resolutely countered. If I were so advised, the third battalion, which was relocated after the ceasefire, would be returned to duty in support of the RUC in the Province. There will be no let-up—instead, many discontinued measures may have to be restored. As hon. Members would expect, neither cost nor the financial stringency that may result in other quarters of the administration of Northern Ireland will be allowed to impede the effort against terrorism.
As for economic progress, there is clear evidence of a further improvement in the performance of the Northern Ireland economy over the past year, even in comparison with the excellent performance of Great Britain. Over the year, unemployment has fallen to its lowest level for more than 14 years, employment has reached an all-time high and manufacturing output has continued to rise. Exports by Northern Ireland manufacturing firms have out-performed the United Kingdom as a whole, and inward investment is rising steadily. Tourism has reached a record high.
There are good grounds for confidence in the economic future of Northern Ireland. Political progress offers the prospect of yet more attractive developments. There is enormous potential in Northern Ireland for economic growth and for broadly shared prosperity. In the past year, part of that potential has been realised—the best is yet to come.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I received a response from the Northern Ireland Office that there had been 30 objections to the possibility of the Europe Tool Company investing in Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is rather strange that British companies that purchase from the parent company in South Korea object to British people manufacturing the equipment? It would be a wonderful investment for the United Kingdom economy, particularly in Northern Ireland.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Member for Belfast, South is his usual charitable self in saying that it is rather strange.
I refer now to political progress. Intense efforts have been made to secure the beginning of political talks on an inclusive basis. As hon. Members know, the talks began, on schedule, on 10 June. The Government welcome Senator Mitchell's assumption of the chair at the opening plenary session, and the appointment of General de Chastelain and
942
Mr. Holkeri as chairman of strand 2 and the business committee and alternate chairman respectively. I express our deep appreciation of the selfless willingness of these distinguished gentlemen to help.
All nine parties presently participating in this political process have formally affirmed their commitment to the six principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the report of the international body that had been chaired by Senator Mitchell. However well the participants' democratic credentials were already established, I believe that it was an important step for them to reaffirm those principles—and they have done so. We would require the same of Sinn Fein if it succeeds in lifting its self-imposed exclusion.
I believe that these talks can succeed. We have come a long way already, but we must go a great deal further. There have been significant shifts in thinking in recent years among many of those present in the negotiations. The participants arrive at the negotiations with a mandate from their electors to take part to the full in the process. There is clearly a deep wish among the population of Northern Ireland—and, indeed, among all the people of these islands—after years of conflict, for a lasting peace and for consolidation of all the advantages and opportunities of which we have had a foretaste since the ceasefires.
The process commands much international support—I believe that there is much to welcome and nothing to suspect in that. As we have repeatedly made clear, the way forward lies in the hands of the participants. However, it bodes well for Northern Ireland, in the context of any future settlement, that there is such a high degree of positive international understanding. In looking back to the enthusiasm and delight with which the visit of President Clinton was greeted, I believe that the people of Northern Ireland understand that.
An important complement to the talks will be the elected forum, which had its first meeting last Friday—14 June. As has been made clear, it has no authority over the negotiations—it is a purely deliberative body. We see its usefulness lying in its ability to debate ways forward in the development of dialogue and understanding between the communities in Northern Ireland, and more broadly. It can do this with the benefit of the views of a wide range of interests that might be invited to address it—many of whom may be outside the political sphere. I am most grateful to Mr. John Gorman for agreeing to take on the sensitive role of the forum's interim chairman, and I wish it well.
I have set out our hopes for the negotiations and for the future well-being of Northern Ireland, which in many ways turns on them. We are likely to have months of discussion ahead—indeed, I hope that we do. It is unlikely to be a rapid process, and it may often be a rough and uncomfortable one. The rewards of the process are potentially great for all sections of the community in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the welfare of people in both islands is intimately bound up with the settlement that we hope to reach and to put to the people in a referendum.
There is a great responsibility on all of us who are involved in the negotiations. Sinn Fein could have been a part of the negotiations, had the IRA not abandoned its ceasefire. Sinn Fein could have joined the negotiations last week, but the IRA chose not to restore the ceasefire and to bomb the people in Manchester instead. The talks

943
will continue—with or without Sinn Fein. The IRA can destroy the prospects of Sinn Fein—the other side of its coin—being a part of the talks process, but the IRA cannot destroy the talks process.
I hope that we shall soon have a more satisfactory basis for administration in Northern Ireland. Until then, however, we must renew the current arrangements. I commend the draft order to the House.
7.37 pm
Ms Marjorie Mowlam: Tonight, we have come to the House to renew the Northern Ireland Act 1974 at a time when many of the Northern Ireland Members of Parliament are working in Belfast, trying to move the talks process forward. We have come here in an atmosphere of sadness and grave disappointment. Our thoughts must be with the victims, and their families, of Saturday's sickening terrorist attack in Manchester. We commend their courage, and the courage of all the people of that town, as they continue the huge task of clearing up after the devastation of the IRA bomb.
When the Secretary of State sums up this evening, it might be helpful if he would tell us about any special arrangements or compensation that might be available to those who live and work in and around the Arndale centre in Manchester.
The Labour party has nothing but outright condemnation and contempt for the callous individuals who mounted this attack and for the cowards who sanctioned it. Had it not been for the professionalism of the police in clearing the area and for sheer good fortune, dozens of people could have lost their lives.
Those who carried out this act must be brought to justice swiftly. We are delighted with the response from the public in support of the police in their investigations. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said on Saturday:
"If the IRA think they can shift the resolve of any Government with this action they are cruelly mistaken."
After the bombing in Manchester, it is up to Sinn Fein to convince us that it has a commitment to the peace process. It is up to Sinn Fein to say and do whatever is necessary to restore what confidence it can in its shattered credibility. It is a tribute to the determination of the leaders of the loyalist community that its ceasefire has been maintained.
When the bomb exploded at Canary Wharf on 9 February, killing Ivan Bashir and John Jeffries, the two Governments pledged their determination to continue the search for peace. Their concerted efforts produced the communiqué of 28 February, which detailed the route to the all-party talks on 10 June. Not everyone agreed with that route—we understand why—but everyone followed it.
The agreed stance adopted by the British and the Irish Governments demonstrated its worth once again this week. We welcome and fully support the two Governments' determination to continue the talks process. In view of the public anger about the appalling murder of Garda McCabe in the Republic of Ireland, we acknowledge the Irish Government's decision to keep under review their official level contacts with Sinn Fein. They are asking very important questions, to which we all want a response.
944
The optimum result is a peace process that is as inclusive as possible. Although that is impossible at the moment, we must keep alive the possibility of inclusive dialogue at some point in the future. Following the important and welcome progress today, I hope that the talks in Belfast will continue with those parties who demonstrate, day in and day out, their commitment to peace and democracy. If Sinn Fein cannot do that, as the Secretary of State said this evening, the process must continue without them.
This annual debate has often taken place in exceptional circumstances—as it does again this evening—but it is concerned primarily with the Secretary of State's stewardship of Northern Ireland affairs in the past 12 months. In the absence of a new agreed settlement, decisions continue to be taken at a distance from the people of Northern Ireland in a manner that is not accountable. The absence of an agreement in Northern Ireland means that the centralisation of decision making in Westminster persists. When a policy is mistaken or when the Government mishandle a situation, people and businesses in Northern Ireland suffer, but their influence is limited.
For an example, we need look no further than the chaos and confusion surrounding the current beef crisis. Northern Ireland farmers should compare favourably with their counterparts in Britain if the framework before the European Union is accepted. Some 90 per cent. of the herds in Northern Ireland are grass-fed, there is a low incidence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, and a traceability system is in place. I have not read the details of the agreement announced on the news this evening, but it appears to be very general. It seems as though reference must be made to the veterinary committee every time the process moves forward. I do not think that it will make a big difference to the beef farmers in Northern Ireland, many of whom face disaster.
The privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity is another case in point. The current level of profits and prices are against consumer interests in Northern Ireland. A Monopolies and Mergers Commission referral is long overdue and the Government must account to the people of Northern Ireland for that delay. Furthermore, this year's Budget contained a nasty sting for training providers. Groups face cuts of between 25 and 40 per cent. after the adult community employment reductions. The Government pulled a further £2 million out of the hat, but only after sustained pressure.
Given the appalling level of unemployment in Northern Ireland—which costs taxpayers more than £300 million per year—it is economically and socially short-sighted to cut training schemes, especially when alternative plans, such as the community work programme, are struggling to get going. The Government's misplaced priorities are affecting key services in Northern Ireland.
Mismanagement has also proved a problem in the past year with the rise and rise of bureaucracy in the health service. Budget cuts are plunging the Northern Ireland health trusts into crisis only three months into the financial year. Northern Ireland's hospitals are gearing up for a summer of chaos. Hospitals such as the Royal Victoria in Belfast or Musgrave Park face theatre closures and cuts in the number of beds and jobs. Patient care will suffer and bureaucracy will escalate—that is the outcome of the Government's health policies.

945
When ideology triumphs over common sense, services suffer, money is wasted and the concerns of local people—citizens, consumers, business people and community representatives—are ignored. Sadly, that problem is not exclusive to the Government's stewardship in Northern Ireland—far from it. It is a symptom of a deeper malaise throughout the United Kingdom of a Government who are distant from and out of touch with the people.
Unless there is an agreement between the parties and consent is granted for a new settlement, the order will come before the House in the same form next year. A general election will intervene between now and then. If no agreement is reached and if a Labour Government are proposing the renewal of the order, we shall implement different policies from those that we are reviewing this year.
Labour has made it unequivocally clear that there can be no change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland without the consent of a majority of its people. It seems clear to me that an acceptance of that principle of consent means that Northern Ireland will continue as part of the United Kingdom for a long time into the future. There is clearly not consent among Unionists for a united Ireland and it is equally clear that Northern Ireland's existing status does not command the consent of nationalists. That is why we need new arrangements and structures that both communities can support. As we have said on previous occasions, Labour wants to see reconciliation between the two communities and between the two parts of Ireland—north and south—on the basis of consent.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I press the hon. Lady on that point. First, talk about two communities is often interpreted as division on the grounds of religion, but can people with opposing nationality claims share the same objectives? Secondly, the costs of generating electricity in Northern Ireland are a real problem and I understand that the contract will remain in place until 2002. Is the hon. Lady giving a commitment on behalf of her party that a Labour Government would reduce electricity generation costs in Northern Ireland?
Ms Mowlam: As to the hon. Gentleman's last point, the nature of those costs will be put before the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the contract extends until 2002. However, we shall refer it to the MMC and, we hope, it will be dealt with. As to the hon. Gentleman's first point about the two communities and those with different national identities reaching some kind of agreement, he and I and the House should address that issue together. The hon. Gentleman's views and his ability to find ways to co-operate and to build consensus between the two communities are a crucial part of the equation.
Reconciliation between the two communities need not, as he suggests, be rooted in territory, in flags or in domination. It must be based on respect and therefore on an acceptance of each community's allegiances to Ireland or Britain and to Europe. That involves building agreement around institutions that all can share and that fully respect people's sense of allegiance to one nation or another.
That approach embraces the principles of the joint framework document which—together with the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Downing Street
946
declaration—Labour recognises is a milestone on the road to peace. They are a testament to the commitment of the two Governments to work closely together in order to make progress in the search for peace. Labour would continue that work with the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland parties in order to reach a balanced settlement through negotiation and agreement.
If any party believes that it will get a better deal from Labour in the negotiations—assuming that we will be prepared to bully or to pressure a particular community in order to reach a settlement—it is badly mistaken. We support and uphold the principle of consent. We repudiate and reject the politics of threat and coercion. We will continue the talks, given the chance, in pursuit of agreement. We will uphold Labour's principles, which are, in essence, about justice, fairness and common sense.
We will also apply those principles in other parts of policy, such as policing. Our proposals improve significantly on those from the Government. For example, we have suggested the election of representatives to the police authority; assigning responsibility for implementing change; and progress in changing the composition of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
Our principles of fairness and justice will apply to anti-discrimination and fair employment proposals. We have made a detailed submission to the review of fair employment being undertaken at present by the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights. There is also a clear Labour commitment on human rights. We have made clear our commitment to the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into law in Northern Ireland, as in Britain, and we will work with the parties—which I hope will be working together already—to develop and introduce a Bill of Rights.
We will complete our consultations and introduce policies that will have a real impact on the day-to-day lives of people in Northern Ireland in areas such as the economy, welfare changes and nursery provision. After the vote in another place earlier this week, we hope that the nursery vouchers scheme, which would destroy chances of nursery education, can be stopped in time to provide decent places for three and four-year-olds.
One sensitive subject, proposals on which should be considered and debated more fully, is that of marches and parades. I have spoken and written often to the Secretary of State on that matter. Obviously, there are no simple answers, but we believe that the Government could give their view on the proposals that have been made by ourselves and others in recent weeks. The proposals include the establishment of an independent advisory group to inform the Secretary of State—not to dictate to him—of possible steps to reduce tensions and meet community concerns; the possibility of prescribing guidelines for the conduct of parades in disputed areas; and a system of prior planning permission, as has been recently proposed. It would be interesting if the Government would respond to those suggestions this evening.
I have said clearly tonight that no one should wait for Labour to make a difference in the negotiations. I hope that I have shown, by our criticisms of the Secretary of State's stewardship in the past year and by our policy commitments, that, given the chance, our policies would make a difference to people's lives in Northern Ireland. We believe that the practical policies that I have outlined

947
tonight would make a difference to all communities in their day-to-day lives. For now, we support and encourage the Government in continuing to try to take the talks process forward. We will do all that we can to help and support them in that task.
7.52 pm
Sir James Molyneaux: I owe it to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) to follow her on the key phrase she used—"the principle of consent". On the one word "consent", all else that we will consider tonight turns. It is the crucial term and, in some ways, is the only issue that should concern us in coming days.
My respectful advice to the hon. Lady would be that, if we seek consent in the political sense, we should not start with a high-wire act. The media of the world are orchestrated by Mr. Adams who has now become a television producer, given the way he managed and choreographed the photographs at the gate, which was not barred or locked, and the rehearsal that produced those magnificent pictures from the gullible news industry. I dismiss the mistaken idea that, when seeking to achieve consent, one should start with a blaze of glory and a tooting of trumpets on the high-wire act, because, instead of making progress, one falls off.
The fact that I am a modest man with much to be modest about teaches me that the only way to make progress is to go down the scale of options until we find the lowest level at which consent can be maintained. When we have done that, we can then start patiently building on the consent thus obtained, but right hon. and hon. Members should not imagine that we can do it the other way around.
Had this debate been held a week earlier, it would probably have been difficult for any hon. Member to express honestly held views about the farce of what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has termed the 21st annual interim period extension device, which we are debating tonight, and how it could be replaced by some practical, permanent method of governing one of the four components of the United Kingdom. We would have been told a week ago to hold our horses, not to stir the situation or to reach for the impossible because devolution is just around the corner. The events of the past seven days have swept away all the inhibitions of two decades. We cannot now be silenced by exhortations to give peace a chance; to win the battle for hearts and minds; or to turn a blind eye to perceived concessions to terrorists in the expectation that those terrorists would be placated by perceived instalments of their ultimate aim.
Over two decades, the majority of right hon. and hon. Members have had reservations, but understandably they have felt that perhaps experiments should be put to the test. We now know the result, and the rescue brigade should not come to the aid of terrorists by insulting our intelligence with suggestions that contacts should be maintained and doors should be kept open to enable Mr. Adams and his friends to regain credibility for an utterly dishonest campaign which is as transparent as that waged by Hitler in 1939 and 1940, when he trampled all over eastern Europe and, at the same time, proclaimed himself a man of peace. I suggest that no public figure will want to forfeit respect by allowing himself to be conned yet again.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be wrong to follow the line of those in the media who misunderstood TUAS to mean a tactical use of the armed struggle instead of the total use of the armed struggle, which Hitler adopted and which Gerry Adams adopts?
Sir James Molyneaux: My hon. Friend knows the news industry well enough by now to know that, dedicated as it is to the ever-lasting search for soundbites as opposed to substance, it is not surprising that the news organisations fed off each other, brainwashed each other and came to a shallow conclusion without a shred of evidence. I hope that my hon. Friend will not feel that that is too harsh a stricture on the news industry, but I feel that it has a lot to answer for.
Another ceasefire or promise to disarm might spark some interest in the minds of some and might possibly provide material for chat shows, but would not be relevant now. The only real issue is the principle of consent, as the hon. Member for Redcar has said. It is not in the nature of terrorists anywhere to accept the democratic principle of consent. The rest of mankind takes it for granted, but consent exists in the terrorist vocabulary only for the purpose of calculating how a democratic people can be terrorised into consenting. For them, democracy will always have a low priority. The bomb and the gun have to be retained, not as a fall-back position, but as the driving force and the engine to extract concessions that will lead to surrender to ultimate terrorist demands.
Against that sober background, I appeal to the current Irish Government and any future Irish Government not to continue reiterating demands for concessions to republican requirements. That justification has disappeared now that the destruction of democracy is the asking price for a cessation of violence. No Irish Government should contemplate paying that price, even by instalments. Nor should a Dublin Government try to pressurise any British Government to consider such folly. The democratic structures of the United Kingdom must not be mutilated when it has been proved that such a course would achieve precisely nothing in return.
The main purpose of the recent election—the forum and the so-called peace talks—has been obliterated. The Secretary of State's curious requirement—as it is not original, I am not blaming the right hon. and learned Gentleman for inventing it—that there should be all-party support for any structure or option effectively rules out the possibility of devolved government in the foreseeable future. That being so, I shall stop beating my head against that brick wall.
Why does the Secretary imagine, or in what circumstances does he imagine, that the House would require all-party backing for arrangements for Scotland, for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South has said? Why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman imagine that in the current talks he is likely to achieve results, when he knows, as I know, that, despite our determined efforts when he chaired the strand 1 talks in 1992, we were unable—two Governments and four parties were involved—to achieve agreement? Why is it thought possible now, with two and a half Governments involved—the half being the Government across the Atlantic—and nine or 10 parties, that they will be any more successful in achieving results?

949
It is to be hoped that the Government, given that the purpose of the election—the forum and the talks—has been obliterated in its main purpose, or main published and alleged purpose, would consider it possible to come to the House for consultation on possible future roles for the structures so recently established.
Soon, I know, we shall have predictable bleatings about the imaginary vacuum, which would probably be not all that much greater than in Scotland and Wales or the regions of England; but I have a duty to counter any anxiety about a possible vacuum, and in doing so I enlist the aid of the business managers and other parties in both Houses of Parliament.
With Northern Ireland ministerial co-operation, we can make fuller use, for example, of Wednesday morning sittings. We must press on with the aim of expanding the role of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee with provisions for sittings in Northern Ireland, in line with its Scottish counterpart. We can encourage Northern Ireland Members, in addition to those who are nominated, to attend legislative Committees of the House and to participate in debates.
In Northern Ireland, we can make more effective the scrutiny of proposed legislation by providing councillors with specialist knowledge with opportunities to discuss all important legislation with Ministers or heads of Departments at post-consultative stage.
As you will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a week ago we touched on ideas for an economic committee based on both Houses of Parliament to buttress the excellent work of the Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Denton, along with that of her Department and the Industrial Development Board. There may have been the usual objections from the vaults of the Northern Ireland Office, but the grounds for such rearguard action have now been conclusively removed. We must start making progress in streamlining the system of governing the United Kingdom, including the Northern Ireland component, which my colleagues and I represent.
The resumption of violence will become a deterrent to investors, and that must be countered. The creation of a new all-party committee, based on both Houses, will do much to give confidence to overseas investors, and I hope will be of great assistance and support to the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office.
As the debate is focused on constitutional matters and not on security, I shall refrain from tendering in public my suggestions on security. It is, as the Secretary of State said this evening, for the Government to decide what new measures are required to defend the Queen's subjects wherever domiciled from terrorism from whatever quarter.
I trust that we have not entirely forgotten or dismissed the suggestion made by the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), for a supremo without ministerial burdens to co-ordinate a counter-insurgency strategy within the United Kingdom and Crown territories. We should not underestimate the benefits to the IRA of its tactical lull in terms of training, targeting and re-equipping over the past two years of the so-called ceasefire.
I believe that there is an urgent need for the Government to consult other European Governments to discover how those Governments completely eliminated the scourge of terrorism from their territories. I do not
950
doubt the capacity of the security forces and the police throughout the United Kingdom to meet the challenge, but the morale of the general public in Northern Ireland in the main and—I say this from experience of moving about this island—that of the general public here is in urgent need of repair. The public need to be convinced that the 20-year retreat is over and that the Government are convinced that any perceived concessions will merely prolong the agony and encourage murderers to do even more.
In conclusion, and in short, the Government must let it be seen that they now intend to take sides and support the 85 per cent. of people who flatly refused to vote for Sinn Fein-IRA on 30 May.
8.7 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: It is a privilege to take up the remarks of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux). Not for the first time, and I am sure not for the last, I find that I substantially agree with the greater part of his speech. I detect, however, one area of disagreement, with which I shall deal later. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not take exception to what I shall say.
As for the substantial business of the evening, the issue is somewhat academic. There is no alternative. Indeed, there are no options. The Northern Ireland Act 1974 must be renewed. When we debate the other hardy annuals, the emergency provisions and prevention of terrorism legislation, hon. Members sometimes make the point that they wish different circumstances would prevail and that the day would come when renewal would no longer be necessary. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks, the same argument applies to the measure that is before us.
We look forward to the day when there need no longer be direct rule in Northern Ireland. We look forward, of course, to the time when the democratic deficit can be addressed positively by the establishment of acceptable forms of government in the Province. Whatever our analysis of the present situation in Northern Ireland, and whatever our personal future agendas on Northern Ireland, we can agree that, for the time being, there is no alternative but to renew the 1974 Act.
As for the present situation, from one point of view, as the saying goes, it is a case of "I think we'll have to think it out again"; it is time to go back to the drawing board. The bomb last Saturday certainly brought destruction to Manchester. It also blew apart many of the illusions that had dogged the so-called "peace" process for many months.
As I see things, we are, in a manner of speaking, back at base. In effect, we are starting out again. In that context, I shall make just three brief observations. I shall state them simply and then expand them. First, in prevailing or foreseeable circumstances, the Provisionals' participation in the process has come to an end. Secondly, the talks should continue without the Provisionals. Thirdly, we should revise our priorities; security issues should now share equal prominence with the search for political agreement between the constitutional parties.
First—regarding the Provisionals' participation in the process—it is, I contend, self-evident that the Manchester bomb has underlined and reinforced Sinn Fein-IRA's self-exclusion from the process. Both in prevailing and in

951
foreseeable circumstances it seems that that self-exclusion is now absolute. The leader writer in The Independent on Monday made the point when he wrote:
"The whole point of this process as originally envisaged was that it included Sinn Fein and the IRA. It is very hard to see how they can be brought back for a long time."
The leader writer in The Guardian on the same day made precisely the same point:
"There is no evidence that they"
Sinn Fein—
"can deliver peace, and plenty of evidence that they intend to continue with war. Unless and until that changes, there is no point in talking to them in the current process."
After the Manchester bomb and after the shooting of the Garda officers in the Republic, there should be no illusions. There is no place in a civilised society for Sinn Fein-IRA, let alone in negotiations seeking to create in Northern Ireland new relations based exclusively on non-violence and democracy. It beggars belief. In Northern Ireland, they have threatened, intimidated, tortured and murdered. In England, they bomb shoppers on a Saturday morning. In the Republic of Ireland they shoot policemen. At the same time, they have the audacity to claim that they want peace and to take the gun out of Irish politics. There is no place for such people in negotiations, and there never can be while that mind set prevails.
Mr. Adams says that he will not be deflected from the search for peace. Of course, if he is serious, he can begin immediately. He can unequivocally and unreservedly condemn those who planted the bomb in Manchester and those who murdered Garda Officer McCabe. He can publicly renounce, denounce and repudiate the IRA, but he will not do that. Unless he does, talk of "unauthorised" IRA operations and divisions within the Republican movement count for nothing, and Sinn Fein-IRA's self-exclusion will remain absolute.
Moreover, the renewing of a so-called "ceasefire" at some point in the future as the key to entry into negotiations is surely now woefully inadequate. The first point is that the Provisionals are out; we can regard their self-exclusion as absolute. The second point is that the talks must go on. Faced with the Provisionals' self-exclusion, there is a choice for the two Governments and the other parties: either to call it a day, pack their bags and go home, or to continue without Sinn Fein.
I strongly reject the argument that talks without Sinn Fein are not worth the candle. I welcome the Government's decision to press on, and I understand that that is the decision of the other parties as well. First, the primacy of importance that some commentators and politicians have hitherto given to Sinn Fein's participation has been misplaced. It is highly questionable that an agreement involving Sinn Fein was ever achievable. It is even more questionable now.
I do not believe that the Provisionals have ever been interested in compromise, and they are not interested now. They are not prepared to accept anything short of what can be sold to their supporters as a transitional package leading clearly and inevitably to a united Ireland; an irreversible step on the road to that united Ireland, regardless of the wishes of the majority of the people of
952
Northern Ireland. It is self-evident that such a transitional package would be unacceptable to all Unionists, both on the mainland and in Northern Ireland—and rightly so.
Secondly, talks without Sinn Fein are effectively a revival of the three-strand talks, the so-called Brooke initiative of 1991—I refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke)—which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State resumed in 1992. On this, I have a slight difference of understanding from the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley, as I do not believe that the exercises were fruitless. He made a point about the breakdown on strand 1 issues. My understanding is that agreement was well and truly in sight but the Social Democratic and Labour party—I regret that no member of it is here to correct or answer me on this point—changed its position, to the surprise of others, at the last moment. I believe that it was possible during those talks—I believe that it is possible now—dimly to discern potentially promising areas of common ground and common thinking between Unionists and nationalists. I believe that it is worth exploring that ground again.
Sir James Molyneaux: I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. I was not implying that the talks were a complete failure, because, as he said, much ground work was done. The phrase used at the time, as the Secretary of State will remember, was that they were "banked". They are still there. The only difference between the hon. Gentleman and me is that I was far too delicate to apportion the blame to my neighbours from the SDLP, who are not here at the moment.
Mr. Hunter: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification.
I was listing the reasons that I believe that negotiations, talks, without Sinn Fein should be pursued, and the last reason I have for holding that position is my belief that an agreement reached by the representatives of 85 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland is better than no agreement at all. The resolution of Northern Ireland's "democratic deficit" is highly desirable. Moreover, an agreement by the 85 per cent. on the form of Government within the Province and on the structures for communication and co-operation with the Republic would further isolate the men of violence. I argue that it is not unreasonable to hope that Unionists and constitutional nationalists can find substantial areas for agreement through negotiations. My second point, then, is that negotiations should proceed with Sinn Fein.
My third and final point is this. I believe that we should revise our priorities in an important respect. That is not a thought that I have previously shared with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, but I do not think that he will consider it heretical, because he alluded to much of what I believe in his opening remarks.
The reality is that the IRA is at war with the British and Irish people. Since 9 February, IRA active service units have planted no fewer than seven bombs on the mainland, and more can be expected. They have murdered two people, and they could have murdered many more. They have injured more than 300 people—I fear, scarring and psychologically traumatising some for life. The cost of repairing the damage by those bombs is in the region of half a billion pounds, and this campaign has not been as intensive as some in the past.

953
The IRA safely stores the greater part of its arsenal of weapons and explosives in the Republic of Ireland.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he means when he says that the IRA "safely stores" its arms in the Republic?
Mr. Hunter: We have reason to believe that the overwhelming majority of those arms remain undetected. Therefore, by definition, they are safely stored. The Garda have made a number of discoveries, and have caught IRA personnel in transit moving a minute proportion of the arms and explosives; but the greater part are safely stored, undetected.
There, in the Republic of Ireland, the IRA maintains various echelons of its command, or parts of them; it recruits and trains volunteers, as it does in Northern Ireland. Through robbery and other means, the IRA is raising funds in the Republic. It uses Irish ports to transport men and materials to this country. Most recently, it has murdered one Irish police officer and wounded a second. That state of affairs cannot be tolerated in either country, and it must not be tolerated. It calls for thought and action.
I stress that I do not advocate the proverbial emotive, knee-jerk response to terrorist activity or terrorist violence. That could be unwise, and could prove counter-productive. I do, however, advocate a fundamental review of security, which should receive as much detailed attention as is given to the search for political agreement between the constitutional parties. The review should be conducted jointly by the two Governments, because security measures are most effective if they are undertaken in that way. In the light of the common threat to the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland posed by the IRA, ideally we and the Irish Government would have a common security policy and a common security programme.
The right tone and tenor of such a security review would be assured if the two Prime Ministers led, as they have on political matters. In short, I believe that there is a case for a security summit, from which a common security policy and a common security programme could flow.
I certainly do not claim to be an expert on these matters, but I am aware of some areas in which, in the past, the Army, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and others have felt that improvements could be made. By that, I mean the conditions governing hot pursuit across the border from both sides; special operations within the Republic; cross-border communication between the respective police forces and armies at a tactical level; our use of Irish air space; and the gathering and exchange of intelligence, which is the ultimate weapon in the battle against terrorism. No doubt there are other areas of concern. I believe that they should be addressed as a matter of urgency. A fundamental review of our security could also consider that range of other measures that have been deployed against the IRA from time to time, such as the broadcasting ban, internment and a strategy for border crossing points.
The essential point, however, is that sovereign Governments must assure themselves, and must be able to assure their citizens, that everything possible is being done, first to protect people and property, and secondly to
954
enforce the rule of law. In the prevailing circumstances, it must be restated that security is our equal highest priority—hence the argument for a security summit to achieve maximum co-operation and joint action with the Irish Government.
Let me summarise my argument. The situation has changed, but it should not cause total despair. We now know where we stand. In prevailing and foreseeable circumstances, the Provisionals' self-exclusion from the process is absolute. The talks must go on, and hopefully an agreement can be reached. An agreement reached by the representatives of 85 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland is better than no agreement. We must revise our priorities, and refocus attention on security issues. In the context of an agreement between the constitutional parties, joint security measures could probably be implemented more effectively. Meanwhile, we must live with the Northern Ireland Act 1974 for a little longer.
8.26 pm
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I speak as a Labour member of the Northern Ireland Select Committee.
The nature of what we are discussing, and the inevitability of it, have already been mentioned, but I feel that particularly in the aftermath of the Manchester bombing and the murder of Garda McCabe, it would be useful for a Labour Back Bencher to describe the fury that is felt about those events. We have never supported, sympathised with or even hinted that we see any justification for violence. These latest terrorist atrocities are just the latest in a long line, but the timing is especially unfortunate. Everyone had hoped that we were heading towards a constitutional settlement in Northern Ireland at last, and hon. Members are particularly angry for that reason.
Direct rule is not the answer, as all hon. Members know, but it will be inevitable for as long as the present situation continues. The IRA maintains that it is fighting for a united Ireland and that it holds out the hand of friendship to Northern Ireland's Unionist population, but, as has been pointed out, what it did in Manchester poses a particular threat to investment. The IRA's threats of violence endanger the future economic development of Northern Ireland.
How can the IRA pose as the arbiter of an all-Ireland arrangement when it is damaging the very country that it professes to wish to unite? Let me put it in a more human way. Each person that the IRA kills or maims in Northern Ireland creates a group of people who are then not prepared—understandably—to listen to overtures of so-called peace from it. The IRA has created pools of bitterness by attacking and murdering people in Northern Ireland: that is its legacy. It aims to create a united Ireland, yet its actions are creating deeper divisions and are turning people against its cause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) and my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party have the complete support of Labour Back Benchers when they say that the threats, intimidation and violence of the IRA will make no difference to how we conduct ourselves, not only in opposition but, I hope, in a year's time when we are in government. That isthe message of not only Labour Front Benchers but Labour Back Benchers.

955
The loyalist paramilitaries are setting an example of maturity and discipline. Men of past violence are now committed to the democratic process and have signed up to the Mitchell commission's six principles.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux), in yet another thoughtful speech, mentioned the principle of consent. The majority in Northern Ireland do not favour leaving the United Kingdom. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman and to my other friends on the Unionist Benches that, too often when they make speeches about consent, they leave out another aspect of the matter: that, if we are to have a system in Northern Ireland that has the broad consent of the majority of the people, the Unionist community must have the broad consent of the nationalist community to institutions and organisations in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar recognised that point in her speech.
The Unionist community has the strength of being in the majority, but I should like to see it take the high-profile position of being seen to offer the nationalist community consent and consensus, not just by rhetoric but by its actions. The Ulster Unionist party, the majority party representing the Unionist community, should be more open in extending the hand of friendship and negotiation to the nationalist community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar made a point that I have made repeatedly in the past: the flashpoint of parades must be addressed. We broadly support the Government's stance, but I regret the fact that efforts have not been made to establish community consent for parades. The two communities in Northern Ireland recognise the desirability of parades, but it would help if there was a mechanism that allowed the communities to agree. I do not see the point of any organisation parading through an area where it knows that it is not welcome. The Secretary of State should establish some mechanism to secure consent in the communities for parades.
The position in Scotland has been mentioned, but it is different. Although there are differences of opinion on devolution or a Scottish assembly, there is no organised violence, and each side recognises that there are political differences. I agree with the principle of devolution.
I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Government on the co-operation and understanding that they have reached with the Irish Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar said, we make progress in the Northern Ireland-Ireland peace process when the British and Irish Governments take the same course, taking all political parties with them.
I have been mildly critical of the Ulster Unionist party, but I congratulate it on its professional and constructive attitude to the forum and the talks. Its example of being prepared not to surrender a point but to negotiate is a good one. It has reflected well the aspirations of the community it represents.
Another problem is the so-called punishment beatings, of which some loyalists are as guilty as the IRA. Who do these people think they are that they can be police, judge and executioner? They must be stopped.
The IRA's action in Manchester was a betrayal of the mandate it received in last month's elections. It sought a mandate on the basis of its participation in the peace process. As soon as it got that mandate, it betrayed it and returned to violence.
956
I do not agree that the IRA is a monolithic organisation with no nuances within it. There are differences of opinion; it is not quite as straightforward or simple as some folk say.
The House should send the message that violence and intimidation will not work, and will make no difference to the negotiations. If the IRA is genuinely seeking to represent its people—albeit only 15 per cent. of the population—it must declare a ceasefire and return to the peace process.
Everybody must know that the atmosphere in Northern Ireland during the ceasefire was first-class. People relaxed and felt that they could live a little without the fear of being killed. If the IRA wants a united Ireland, in the sense not of uniting bits of land but of two communities opposing violence and talking to each other, it should abandon violence, sign the six Mitchell principles and recognise that there is no future in its continued violence.
8.38 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said that the original legislation that gives rise to tonight's order imposed temporary direct rule on Northern Ireland while a new way forward was sorted out. More than 20 years later, we are marking the passing of yet another 12 months and being asked to approve a further extension. It is not putting too fine a point on the matter to say that that is extremely depressing.
Some of us, sadly, also find it extremely predictable. I have a sense that things are worse rather than better. If we are ever to break that apparently never-ending sequence, we must take stock of the peace process. I share the belief of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) that things are fundamentally different since the Manchester bombing.
Where are we one year on, as we renew yet again this inevitable order? Direct rule is still with us, and I see no sign of it going away before we observe this ritual again next year. Local government in Northern Ireland is still virtually powerless, despite all-party co-operation being a daily fact of life in the council chambers of Northern Ireland.
If my right hon. and learned Friend cannot make progress with constitutional matters, he may find it worth while to examine local government powers as a one-off way of showing that democratic and peaceful co-operation between parties that believe in working with each other can deliver results. Progress in that direction need not be so controversial that it would bring the house down around us.
One year on, the peace process is still alive, but probably only just. In a strange way, that process may have been given a chance by the Canary Wharf and Manchester bombings rather than totally ruined, for one particular reason. Those two bombings, particularly Manchester, finally brought all democrats to their senses. Those two atrocities proved to me beyond doubt that one-sided concessions do not lead to permanent peace, and will never lead to justice. The bombings showed also that appeasing evil is not only degrading but achieves nothing.
We must compare the achievements of the British and Dublin Governments and Sinn Fein-IRA. That is an uncomfortable task, but essential if we are to understand

957
our position and make progress. I regret having to say that the British Government's achievements over the past 12 months make the most dismal reading—although I do not blame them. The most noticeable features that come to mind are £100 million of damage and a death at Canary Wharf and at least £100 million of damage in Manchester.
The Dublin Government have made significant progress of the sort that is deeply damaging to UK interests. During the past year, Dublin has established an effective veto over what is left of the peace process, as shown in the discussions leading to the all-party talks, and in the wrangling over Senator Mitchell. Now, the UK must obtain the agreement of a foreign Government before we can make any progress with our peace process, which appals me.
Regrettably, the achievements of Sinn Fein-IRA over the past year have been huge and—in their eyes at least—impressive, but in my eyes they are a total affront to the people of Northern Ireland. Over the past 12 months, Sinn Fein-IRA have bombed a date for talks out of the British and Dublin Governments. They have retained every one of their guns and every ounce of their explosives—apart from those used for tactical reasons. Sinn Fein-IRA have managed to drag an American president into a UK domestic matter, which has always been their aim. They have managed by their pressure and menace to foist on the people of the UK a foreigner as the chairman of all-party talks.
That is not all—not by any stretch of the imagination is that half of it. The worst thing is that, during the past year, and the year before, Sinn Fein-IRA have been able to re-equip, train, recruit and target the innocent virtually unhindered. When we started the peace process two years ago, Sinn Fein-IRA were demoralised, well and truly infiltrated, and effectively contained by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the British Army. As I read it, at that time they were suing for peace. Two years later, Sinn Fein-IRA are revitalised and have reorganised. I say clearly and simply that we should be ashamed of ourselves for having allowed that to happen.
We must first admit, if we are to make progress, that we have been conned by Sinn Fein-IRA. Somehow—for reasons that commentators have tried to explain—we managed to persuade ourselves that Sinn Fein-IRA were willing to accept democracy and to fool ourselves that they had halted their violence and called a ceasefire. I totally agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke in his brave and deeply impressive speech.
Where is the evidence that Sinn Fein-IRA have become democratic? Only yesterday, Adams refused to say whether he is pressing his co-terrorists for a ceasefire. Only yesterday, Adams refused to repudiate an armed struggle. Only yesterday, Adams refused yet again to condemn the murder of a policeman in the Republic or the Manchester bombing.
It is crystal clear that Sinn Fein-IRA hold democracy in contempt. They always have. They have continued to do so during the peace process, and they always will. Where is the evidence that Sinn Fein-IRA have ever halted their violence or called a real ceasefire? The grisly list of mutilations and murders has continued growing day by day throughout the past year. The Canary Wharf and Manchester bombings confirm that the so-called ceasefire was nothing but a cynical and tactical ploy. The British
958
and Dublin Governments, never Sinn Fein-IRA, said that the ceasefire was permanent. We kidded ourselves into believing that, because we wanted to believe it.
Now that we know the Sinn Fein-IRA definition of a ceasefire, I sincerely hope that we finally understand that, if Sinn Fein-IRA were to reinstate their so-called "ceasefire", it would be nothing short of a sick joke. I sincerely hope that no one will ever again fall for that ploy. We must realise that another cynical declaration is far removed from what must happen if Sinn Fein-IRA are ever to be allowed to sit down with genuine democrats.
The second thing we must do when deciding where we go from here—in addition to being conned in the past year, and vowing that we will not let it happen again—is to realise that we are still trying to do the same thing. We are still trying to kid ourselves, to make ourselves feel a little more cheerful. I still hear people saying that they want to believe, and that they do believe, that Sinn Fein-IRA are made up of different organisations.
A few moments ago, I heard the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) suggest that Sinn Fein-IRA are perhaps not as organised as they might be. I still hear people wishfully thinking that there is a split in the IRA. But those are very dangerous fallacies.
Mr. McAvoy: For the record, I did not say that the IRA was not organised; I said that it was not monolithic. There is a difference.
Mr. Wilshire: I accept that. I was trying very hard not to suggest that the hon. Gentleman was necessarily caught up in some of my criticisms, but he gave me an opportunity to say that there are people who think in that way. I entirely accept his correction.
If anyone still doubts that Sinn Fein-IRA are other than one and the same, I invite them to consider the list of Sinn Fein-IRA representatives on the forum. Let us consider just three of them.
Sinn Fein is represented on the forum by a Mr. Gerry Adams. He is none other than the man who was a member of the IRA delegation that met Viscount Whitelaw. Mr. Adams—the Sinn Fein member of the forum—is none other than the Mr. Adams who has twice been interned for membership of the IRA.
Then there is his crony, Mr. McGuinness, who is another member of the forum representing Sinn Fein. We would do well to remember that Martin McGuinness was imprisoned in the Republic for membership of the IRA, and that, at his trial, he very proudly told the court that he was indeed proud to be the commander of the IRA's Londonderry battalion.
The third person on the list is Mr. Kelly. A Sinn Fein representative on the forum, he is none other than the Mr. Kelly who has served two life sentences for IRA bombings. Mr. Kelly was involved in the bomb attacks on the Old Bailey and on Scotland yard, and played his part in killing one person and injuring 250 others.
Those are the representatives of the so-called "different organisation"—Sinn Fein. Those three people were and remain members of Sinn Fein-IRA; the facts, the evidence and the their actions prove it. I hope that no one remains in any doubt about the reality of that organisation.
Sinn Fein-IRA will continue to portray themselves as two different organisations, and one has to accept that that is a very clever tactic. During the past year that tactic has

959
paid enormous dividends. As Sinn Fein, these killers have managed to obtain dozens of one-sided concessions from the peace process. Then, acting as real killers, these people—in the guise of the IRA—have obtained dozens more concessions by the tactical use of the bomb and the bullet. It is a clever tactic. It is a deliberate tactic. If we allow ourselves to be fooled, it will continue to work.
Where is the evidence for a split in the IRA? If anyone believes that there is a split, in my judgment, they base their belief on Sinn Fein-IRA propaganda, some of which we have recently heard. The callous murder of a policeman in Adare was by an IRA "rogue element", said the IRA. That is palpable nonsense. If the IRA murderers of that policeman were a rogue element, the police in the Republic would have found their corpses by now. They have not found any corpses because the murder was planned and executed properly, thoroughly and deliberately by the IRA. There is no split.
There are those who say that the Manchester bomb proved a split. The Manchester bomb was a tonne and a half of home-made explosives. It was not an impromptu expression of frustration by a few deranged people, and it was not done by breakaway people who are out of control. The Manchester bomb was carefully planned and part of a positive, deliberate and calculated policy. That policy has but a single objective: a united Ireland, on Sinn Fein-IRA's terms at any price.
The truth of Manchester is quite simply that, while Adams was posing for his propaganda photographs outside the gates of Stormont, his friends were busy putting a tonne and a half of fertiliser through a food mixer. That is not done in a few days; it takes a long time. While Adams was posing for his photographs, he knew that they had already planned to bomb on a Saturday morning in Manchester. It was callous, it was deliberate, and it proves that there is no split.
The third thing we must do when we decide where we go from here is to stop pandering to these evil people. The time really has come to call a halt to our dealings with Sinn Fein-IRA. That goes for the Dublin Government as well as for us. I must tell the Dublin Government that their rhetoric since the shooting of the policeman and the Manchester bomb has been fine. I applaud their rhetoric, but their decision to keep in touch with Sinn Fein-IRA is an affront to the bereaved and to the injured. I hope that the House deplores that decision.
The only message that Dublin should send to Sinn Fein-IRA, and the only message that we should send, is quite simple. It is: "No more talks; no more meetings; no more leaving doors open; no more keeping in touch, unless and until you in Sinn Fein-IRA renounce violence for ever, unless and until you show some remorse for your hideous crimes and unless and until you surrender—I say `surrender' not 'decommission': let us not mince our words—unless or until you surrender all your arms and explosives you, Sinn Fein-IRA, are outcasts, and the only contact you will now have with either of the two Governments, with any of us as politicians, or with the huge majority of decent ordinary people in Northern Ireland, is with our police and our armies as they track you down."
960
I agree wholeheartedly with the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. A crackdown is necessary. One can deal with evil only by confronting it.
Clearly my main argument is that we need to come to our senses with regard to Sinn Fein-IRA, and to exclude it. But that in itself is not enough. I know that some of my colleagues would go even so far as to say that members of Sinn Fein-IRA should be instantly locked up, but I would not support that. Even if I did, that in itself would not be enough, either.
As well as coming to our senses and cracking down on Sinn Fein-IRA, we must have a positive policy for the future. We must make it clear that we know where we are going. That is why I support all the calls from both sides of the House and from all the other people who say that the peace process must continue. We must press ahead with talks between all genuine democrats, and with good will we must thrash out an agreement to which the Unionist parties and the SDLP can both sign up.
While we do that, we must take care to avoid three dangers. While making that progress, we must understand that the framework documents are non-starters. They are wholly unacceptable to the majority in Northern Ireland, because they represent a green agenda; they will not be entertained.
Secondly, those who participate in the talks over the coming year must understand that, in Northern Ireland, there remains and will remain a big majority who want to remain within the United Kingdom, so a united Ireland must not be on the agenda.
The third thing that must be understood both by the British Government and by the Dublin Government is that, at the end of the talks process, no solution can ever be imposed either by IRA violence or by Government coercion. There is no way in which a solution can be imposed without the wholehearted consent of the people of Northern Ireland.
I accept that securing that agreement will not be easy or quick. In my judgment, it will not be helped by Senator Mitchell or other foreigners interfering in our internal affairs. I fear that it may be accompanied by more violence. To those who may be tempted to suggest that what I say might all too often encourage violence, I reply that whatever way forward is chosen—be it the way that I advocate or the way that anybody else advocates—if it is a way that does not give in to terrorism, it will surely produce more violence. That we must accept and confront—but we must and can reach an agreement.
When we do, we must put that agreement to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum. I believe that, if the Unionist parties and the SDLP back such an agreement, it is sure to secure a huge majority in a referendum. When we have that, we can legislate to end tonight's annual ritual.
If, when we have done all that, Sinn Fein-IRA continue with their violence, Dublin as well as the British Government will have a justification for interning their members, and that is what will have to happen. Having gone through the process of agreement. referendum and legislation, we shall be able to demand and expect that world opinion support us.
I believe that the people of Northern Ireland deserve better than never-ending direct rule. They deserve to feel confident that we have ended our attempts to appease

961
terrorists and to do deals with the devil. Above all else, they deserve to know that we in the House have a clear policy for giving them what they want above all else, which in my view is peace, justice and prosperity—three things that they have waited an enormous length of time to enjoy.
9.3 pm
Rev. William McCrea: I am delighted to be able to follow the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). Many of the things that have been brought to our attention tonight are worthy of our most earnest consideration.
I entered the House in 1983, and since then, we have undergone the annual ritual, as we are once again this evening, of debating the interim period extension of the Northern Ireland Act 1974. Since 1973, I have served in local government in Northern Ireland, and I am still a member of a local district council. Unfortunately, we realise that the powers of such councils are practically nil. Consultation in reality means very little. The word "consultation" should never be included in any agreement if anyone wants it to mean something, as we have seen from the reality of consultative processes in Northern Ireland over the past 24 years.
Since entering the House in 1983, I have had the privilege of representing the constituency of Mid-Ulster, which has endured much due to terrorism. In recent days I have been delighted at the good news of the creation of 300 new jobs in Cookstown. I therefore express once again my appreciation to Baroness Denton, who has responsibility in the other place for economic development in the Province. She has put herself out there at the front in trying to gain employment for the people of the Province and I respect her for so doing.
Unfortunately, yesterday evening, after the good news of the 300 jobs in Cookstown, the town was closed off due to the threat of terrorism. That is the tragic reality. The people of my constituency have been held to ransom for many years because of terrorist thugs who have no intention of being part of society—except they rule it. They have no intention of entering the democratic process. Those who represent IRA-Sinn Fein on district councils insult democracy. One of them sat in the chair of the council on which I have served for 23 years and of which I was chairman last year, yet, up to this moment, never once has he condemned one act of terrorist violence by the IRA. Never once did he condemn the blowing up of our main street and economic centre in our town and district. Yet he has the cheek and the brass neck to take the post of chairman and try to project an image. What is the image of? It is an image of carnage, destruction, murder and vile atrocity. That is not what I believe that our district or our Province have a right to expect.
We are gathered here under the shadow of the gun and the bomb. We must face the reality of a police officer in the Irish Republic paying the ultimate sacrifice simply for being a member of that state's police force. I have no doubt that he played his part in seeking to bring peace to his community with diligence and excellence. I certainly join those who have sympathised with his wife and family circle.
Once again the people of Manchester on the mainland have endured the vile atrocity of a bomb. While it is true that one can put back together the buildings, having come
962
through such an experience with my family and in my home, I know that it will take longer to put back together the pieces of the people who have endured such a tragedy. On behalf of my constituents and the good people of Northern Ireland, I wish the people of Manchester godspeed in their recovery, and trust that not only the scars on their bodies will heal but the scars that are much deeper.
No one in the House can understand the devastation, heartache and heartbreak unless they have experienced the hurt and the pangs of suffering of those who have gone through the nightmare of terrorist violence. I thank God that most hon. Members have not known that experience, and I trust that they never will. The heartache being endured by those families is not diminished when they see representatives of murderers walking in the corridors of power across the world, accepted as if they were democrats.
I condemn and express my contempt for those who have carried out these dastardly deeds in the Irish Republic and, in recent days, in Manchester, but I wish also to commend the professionalism of the police. I trust that they know that their professionalism is deeply appreciated throughout the United Kingdom.
We must ask why the terrorists do this. It is difficult for anyone to enter the twisted mind of a terrorist or a terrorist organisation, but I do not believe that this could be called mindless terrorism. I do not believe that there is such a thing as mindless terrorism. There is a purpose behind their activity. There is an aim and an objective. We must ask what sort of objective there could be in the mind of anyone in a sane society for carrying out such dastardly, devilish and heinous deeds, whether at Canary Wharf or in Manchester?
I think that the Provisional IRA believes that it can shift the resolve of Governments to rule justly. I think that it believes that because it was a former Prime Minister who said of the Anglo-Irish agreement, that she signed it because she
"could not allow the violence to continue."
Therefore, without the violence, there would have been no Anglo-Irish agreement.
Following that agreement we had the Downing street declaration and then the framework document. If ever any document gave cheer to the enemies of Ulster and the United Kingdom it was the framework document. They believed that they were progressing in a certain direction and that Governments listened to the bomb and the bullet. No matter how one tries to dress it up, it was a green and Republican document. It is resented by the vast majority of law-abiding and decent people in Northern Ireland. Anyone who does not believe that should ask the people and allow them to give their answer.
After 25 years of carnage, murder and destruction, what will the IRA have to do before it is dealt with effectively or told that there is no place in a civilised and democratic society for the bomb and the bullet? The IRA has received concession after concession. Despite that, the South Londonderry brigade of the IRA—it calls itself the South Derry brigade—made a statement at the weekend. It said:
"The British Government have failed to deliver and have palmed us off for 20 months with schoolboy concessions."
I can assure the House that those who have watched those concessions being delivered to the provisionals on a silver plate do not believe that they were schoolboy concessions.

963
In fact, many in the republican movement jibed at the Unionist elected representatives and said—I quote one of them:
"When will your English overlords know that you can't buy us off?"
What was termed a peace process, and the announcement, and the glitter and media attention of a ceasefire, was nothing but a cynical farce—but of course it achieved much for Adams. It got him into the United States. Senator Mitchell was one of those who signed the document to get him there. It even got him into the White House. He sat down with the leader of the western world, and there was Adams—a terrorist, a representative of murderers—sitting, dining with Presidents.
Those who have dined with Adams and McGuinness should be ashamed of themselves, because, instead of their gaining peace, Adams gained a certain respectability and was taken in, walking the corridors of power, paraded across the world—and all the time it was a farce.
There were those who realised it—realised that the leopard had not changed its spots. Gerry Adams would never have been known of, if not for the power of the bombs and the bullets of the IRA. Who would have listened to Gerry Adams? What would he have been? It was not his authority in speech or his oratory in delivery; it was the power of the weaponry of terrorism. Because of it, Adams was received. Although he was carrying out a totally dishonest campaign, Adams and McGuinness and the republican hierarchy led democratic Governments a merry dance.
They are still doing it. Mr. Clinton is keeping his contacts open. The Prime Minister of the Irish Republic is keeping his contacts open. They must be maintained. That is an insult to democracy.
We are currently witnessing, on one hand, the pressure exerted by the terrorists, and, on the other, Adams working and using the media to project an image as though he were the dove. Some Members of the House may be gulled, and why not? Were they not conned when they walked him into this, the Palace of Westminster, stood on platforms with him and presented him as though he were some democrat who had fallen out of heaven, while he represented a cold-blooded murder machine that murdered many of my constituents?
Although we may con ourselves, the provisional IRA are recruiting, restocking and retraining at this moment. Yet we were told, "All it will take will be a ceasefire; the doors of Stormont buildings will magically open, and in, sweeping through the gates with his republican entourage, will be the acceptable Gerry Adams."
I say on behalf of my party that Gerry Adams was unacceptable last year, he was unacceptable last week, before the bomb, and he still is unacceptable after the bomb. Gerry Adams has not changed; Martin McGuinness has not changed, either. In a previous but similar debate, I mentioned the names of those who comprise the army council of the IRA. I should like to know what action has been taken against them. Since that debate, several television programmes have openly named them, too, and described the positions of authority on the army council that they hold. Are these people—whether in the Irish Republic or the United Kingdom—above the law? Are
964
they beyond the law? Why cannot they be lifted and brought to justice? Many of them have carried out the most heinous crimes imaginable.
Now the talks have begun, and I have been elected both as a negotiator and as a member of the forum. Many people in Northern Ireland do not understand why representatives of a foreign Government parade up the steps to those buildings day by day. The elected representatives of the Province have in the past had much in common. During the previous set of talks a sub-committee was set up, comprising the SDLP, the Ulster Unionists, the Democratic Unionists and the Alliance party. It was charged with looking into a way of administering the Province by means of devolved government, to deal effectively, justly and fairly with the day-to-day affairs affecting all the people of Northern Ireland.
The papers describing those meetings have not yet been released, but I can tell the House that the parties reached an agreement—or nearly did. Many have applauded the leader of the SDLP in recent times, but it was he who prevented an agreement from being reached. He alone of all the delegated members would not allow that body to succeed. He should be condemned for that.
At the beginning of the current talks we were told that we had to accept Senator Mitchell—whether one likes it or not, he is a foreigner—as chair of the opening plenary. He was imposed on the elected representatives there because the SDLP and the Irish Government would not allow anyone else to chair the session. It appears that no one else in the world would be acceptable to them. The reason, of course, is that Senator Mitchell is Clinton's envoy. He signed the papers allowing Gerry Adams into the United States; now he is Clinton's man, sent to get Gerry Adams into the talks.
The principle of consent has been mentioned in the debate. On this occasion, no consent was sought and no consent was given by the elected representatives of the community to Senator Mitchell's acting as the supremo among the independent chairmen.
I believe it important that the talks succeed, but only if the outcome is freely negotiated among the parties.
When one looks at the documents that were presented as a basis for the inter-party talks, one notes that the Union was mentioned as a matter worthy of discussion, but that articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution were missing and not mentioned. The IRA has used the obnoxious and immoral articles 2 and 3 as one of its main planks and justifications for the murder and destruction of the people of the United Kingdom.
I make an appeal to Her Majesty's Government: the people of Northern Ireland want to see our Government championing the cause of the Union, of the United Kingdom, across the world. Northern Ireland is a vital part, and it ought to be a vital part, of the Union. The Government should fight tooth and nail to ensure that Northern Ireland remains a part of the United Kingdom—just as Scotland and Wales remain a part of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) mentioned a united representation in relation to the beef crisis. There was a special case for Northern Ireland in that crisis, and I regret that it was not presented as a special case in Europe. Northern Ireland could have led the United Kingdom out of the morass in relation to the BSE crisis.

965
The hon. Lady referred to the bureaucracy in the health service. I inform the Secretary of State that the community is concerned about the 3 per cent. cash reduction in health service finances—and this reduction occurred after 14 years of cuts and cash reductions. Efficiency savings cannot continue without damaging the service to the people. Therefore, I appeal to Her Majesty's Government to reinstate the cash that has been taken away from the health service budget and to allow the health service to be an excellent service, as it has been in the past.
The hon. Lady said that a Labour Government would raise the issue of the police. I have talked to many members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. She said that we must deal with the make-up of the RUC. There is no reason why members of the minority communities are not represented in the RUC—it is a fair and efficient force. The door is open for all applicants, and it would serve the Church leaders and the politicians of the minority community better if they encouraged their people to join the RUC.
One thing concerns my constituents in relation to changing the make-up of the RUC. Those who have served in the RUC to this present moment may be from one community, but we must remember that they have faced 25 years of the most horrific violence. They have had courage when no one else has had courage—they stood in the gap when no one else had the courage to do so. They find it rather insulting that, after they have fought the battle, and after—God willing—the battle has been won, they are going to be told, "Thank you for your courage, thank you for your determination, thank you for your sacrifice, thank you for the lives of some of your colleagues, but it is thank you and goodbye." If a Labour Government were to pursue such a policy, I assure hon. Members that it would be opposed and resented by the vast majority of the good people who have been served by an excellent police force during very difficult times.
9.29 pm
Mr. Tony Worthington: I shall deal immediately with the point raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). He addressed his comments about the police to my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam). If he had read our consultation paper, he would know that we do not say any such thing. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will admit that he has read the paper and that we do not make the remarks he alleges about the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
Rev. William McCrea: I have read the paper and listened to the debate tonight. I cannot understand how a Labour Government would dramatically change the make-up of the Royal Ulster Constabulary without sacking many of its serving members.
Mr. Worthington: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging, in his own way, that we do not say what he alleged in our consultation paper. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman could not have admitted it more graciously.
Sadly, tonight's debate has been dominated by the horror of the Manchester bombing. Many people have been scarred for life, both physically and mentally,
966
because they made the simple mistake of being in Manchester city centre at the wrong time on Saturday. I extend our sympathy to those who were the innocent victims of zealots.
We must judge the events not just by their consequences, but by their intentions. It is simply miraculous that we are not today expressing anger and grief at the loss of dozens—perhaps hundreds—of lives in the past few months. The Canary wharf bombing could have resulted in many more deaths than two and the Hammersmith bridge and Manchester bombs were intended to kill and to cause disruption on a massive scale. The IRA must be judged by its intentions—to kill many hundreds of innocent people in the past few months.
I congratulate the police and other services on reducing the intended carnage. I congratulate them also on the early progress that they have made in detecting those responsible. In the days and months ahead, it is crucial that the British and Irish Governments present a united front in responding to the challenges posed by the bombings. The business of keeping the British and Irish Governments together will not be assisted by the disparaging use of words such as "foreigner".
The killing of an Irish policeman sent shock waves around the Republic of Ireland as people realised that those who claim to be fighting for Ireland have a horrible and different vision of what Ireland would be. The Labour party rejoiced in the recent visit of President Robinson—I cannot think of anyone less deserving of the description foreigner. Her response to the weekend's events had more force for me than any other. She said that the bombing had left her "shocked, sickened and numbed." She said that she felt angry that it had been done supposedly on behalf of
"an Irishness that has nothing to do with the Irishness that I stand for as President of Ireland".
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) referred to the questions that have been put to the IRA. He should have added that those two brutal, straight questions have been put by the Irish Government. They asked, first, whether Gerry Adams had asked the IRA for a restoration of the ceasefire and, if not, why not. What politician for peace could not answer that question immediately? Secondly, the Irish Government asked whether Sinn Fein continues to support the "armed struggle" of the IRA.
It is totally unconvincing for Adams to say that he accepts the Mitchell principles on behalf of Sinn Fein while failing to condemn the Manchester bombing. As John Bruton has said, the hypocrisy must end and the straight talking must begin. If the two countries, the two Governments and the two Parliaments stand together, we may eventually solve the problems in a peaceful and democratic way.
I listened with respect to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) when he talked about security. He talked sense about the necessity for the two Governments to take a joint view of security and to act jointly against terrorism, but we will not achieve what is in effect a cross-border institution, which is what the hon. Member urged upon us, unless we manage to keep the two Governments together. Such a cross-border institution would be of infinite value if it provided a joint attitude to the holding of arms and to terrorism.
If it had not been for the bomb, we would have debated more fully tonight the events at the all-party talks and the forum. Those taking part in those talks and in that forum

967
have a huge duty to demonstrate to the people of Northern Ireland that democracy can and does work. Every time posturing and grandstanding is displayed before us, we know that the only beneficiaries are the enemies of democracy. I found it much more encouraging today to read in the Belfast Telegraph about the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) praising the recent contribution of the Democratic Unionist party to the talks. The hon. Member is quoted as saying:
"I think we are seeing a significant shift in the way things are being done."
It is also encouraging to read the words of the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office—I fully understand why he is not in his place tonight—who said:
"We've had a most constructive engagement over the last few days. That engagement is producing results and I find progress that's being made encouraging."
It is crucial that all the people involved in those talks encourage the thought that progress will be made by democratic means. The Opposition believe that a solution is attainable, but it requires good will and trust, and those who seek verbally to destroy good will and trust condemn Northern Ireland to a restless and disturbed future.
The Opposition want to end direct rule. Everybody who has spoken has said that we must end direct rule, and we are all uncomfortable with the present situation. The way in which legislation for Northern Ireland is processed in the House is an affront to democracy that we wish to end. At the moment, we simply do not do justice to the people of Northern Ireland who wish to live in a free and open society where major issues of public policy are debated and consulted upon and are subject to the democratic will of the people of Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar mentioned issues such as agriculture, electricity and employment, and other hon. Members have mentioned health. I would add to that list the area that is my sphere of responsibility—education. Government policies for education are not being presented or examined coherently or fairly, and perhaps cannot be in the framework of direct rule. The people of Northern Ireland lose through that. First, the education and library boards face a funding crisis that is affecting the quality of the education of the children of Northern Ireland.
As a consequence of Government decisions and the allocation of resources, about 300 teachers were made redundant last year. I found that figure by ringing round the education and library boards and the trade unions. I should have been able to find that figure by asking the Government but, unbelievably, in response to a parliamentary question, the Minister could not tell me how many teachers were made redundant in a Province of 1.6 million people. We can imagine the anger in an English or Scottish local authority of similar size if the chair of the education authority did not know the consequences of his policies.
This year, the situation threatens to be even worse, as the Government try foolishly to cut education for tax cuts that may not be delivered. The Southern board forecasts that its schools cannot survive without further redundancies in the current year. It will seek to release 60 to 70 teachers through redundancies. The North Eastern board received an increase in its block grant of a mere
968
1.62 per cent., which is well below the rate of inflation. The consequences for 1996–97 will be 85 redundancies, of which 13 have already been made compulsory. In addition, much capital building work has had to be abandoned. Maintenance work has had to be curtailed to the extent that, in the board's words, it is "virtually non-existent". There are already larger class sizes and increases in the pupil-teacher ratio. Special needs services have been curtailed.
We must ask the Government why that has happened. It is a sign of the inadequacy of direct rule that we must use the Chamber as a forum for discussing such matters.
In the relatively small further education sector, 229 full-time lecturers' jobs have been made redundant since 1990. That is an average of 13 full-time staff per college. We should remember that the Government's skills audit of last week revealed that, in the FE sector, the entire nation was deficient. That, of course, includes Northern Ireland. Why do we continue to retrench and make cuts in an area where we are competitively at our weakest?
Another area in which the Government are not serving the needs of the people of Northern Ireland is nursery education. The Government, if time does not run out on them, will impose the voucher initiative. Northern Ireland desperately needs good-quality nursery education that can help boost a child's achievement throughout life, but that is not what is proposed through the voucher initiative. It will not buy good-quality education. The system will be of most use to a well-off person seeking a subsidy for private child care. It will be of least use in a deprived area where there is not enough money to provide extra spaces in the local primary school.
Extra resources should go first to those most in need, but the Government break that rule. The people of Northern Ireland, including teachers, have made it clear when talking to me that they want first-rate nursery education, not second-rate vouchers. There is no scope within direct rule to insist that Northern Ireland enjoys first-rate nursery education.
There is another area of education in which the Government are imposing dogma. The FE colleges of England, Wales and Scotland have been incorporated. Three years later, without any rationale to support the move, without any policy document and without any proposal setting out what the role of FE should be, the colleges in Northern Ireland are to be incorporated.
My experience of FE in Northern Ireland is that it is in a sad and leaderless state. At the same time, the Government's skills audit suggests that FE colleges should be playing a leadership role in Northern Ireland.
In England, Scotland and Wales, education and employment have been brought together. That has not happened in Northern Ireland. No rationale has been put forward to explain why it has not occurred. If colleges are to be incorporated, is there to be a funding council for FE, one for FE and higher education, or no funding council at all? Nothing has been said about that. What is to be the mission of FE in Northern Ireland? What is supposed to be the relationship between the Training and Employment Agency, FE and the Department of Education in Northern Ireland? Again, not a word has been said about that. That is not adequate.
We all hope for peace, and are perhaps willing to take a risk for peace, but in other respects we could be doing better. To do so, the Government must get on top of the issues that require attention.

969
Direct rule will be continued today with a heavy heart. We are all aware of the quality of government and political life in Northern Ireland. I feel almost apologetic for raising issues such as education in this place. In terms of Northern Ireland, the House is dominated by talk of bombs and constitutional matters. Over about 20 years of direct rule, real politics have receded. People have stopped talking about education and health issues. They have stopped talking about the very matters that impact on people's everyday lives in Northern Ireland.
We must find a way forward. Over the next few months, and perhaps years, we have a duty to find a way in which the quality of public life in Northern Ireland can be improved so that we in this place do not have to meet in these regrettable circumstances every year. When I meet the people of Northern Ireland, I am convinced of their wish to live together under a mutually fair society. It is our duty as political leaders to make that possible for them.
9.44 pm
Sir Patrick Mayhew: The quality of the debate has justified its extension to three hours. Last year, we had only an hour and a half. The debate has been wide-ranging and has been both general and particular. The easiest way for me to attempt to do justice in summing up the debate in the 15 minutes or so that remain to me is to concentrate on general matters and then deal with particular matters. I shall try to deal with each of the speeches that we heard.
I take great encouragement from the fact that no right hon. or hon. Member who spoke did other than express support for the process of political talks. Everybody who spoke wished to see the process of political talks to be a success. It is true that some thought them more realistically ambitious than others. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) believes that it is right to begin at a low level, not on a high wire—a phrase with which those of us who count ourselves his friends are well familiar—and work upwards, and much can be said for that.
Nobody has said that the future can be determined other than by the process of talking and reaching an agreement.
Rev. McCrea indicated assent.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I see the hon. Gentleman nodding in his place as I say that.
Again there has been—I suppose that it is a corollary of the same point—total agreement that a solution cannot be imposed. The record of British Governments, English Governments over the centuries seeking to impose solutions on the misguided affairs of Ireland and Irish people—as they seemed at that time—is not particularly encouraging. I take heart from the common position that emerges from the debate.
There was another common position: the total condemnation of what has occurred; of what happened in Manchester; and of the notion that a Government of a democracy can be made to change their policies by the threatened use of violence.
I listened with particular care to what my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said and was sorry to hear him say that he looked back over the past two years and the attitude of the Government—who from
970
time to time he has supported—with shame. I feel that he failed to recognise some of the facets of the problems that have faced us, which are important.
It is true that Sinn Fein-IRA are different sides of the same coin, as the Prime Minister said yesterday. It is true that our ambition to see Sinn Fein as an elected party with a substantial vote, able to be represented and taking a part in the talks process has been disappointed. It has not removed its self-exclusion, and that is disappointing. It was our hope that it would. But I do not think that there is any ground for shame at all in Her Majesty's Government having sought to help it to achieve that.
I acknowledged, in response to an intervention by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) at the beginning of the debate, that, in some respects, the Government's position had changed during the past 18 months, particularly on decommissioning. I acknowledged that, not on a point of principle but on a point of management. I realised that that would expose us to the charge of appeasement. That is not a charge that I believe to be justified, but I do not think that it is a ground for shame.
Let me say to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne that, if we had to have a Manchester attack—of course, we did not—I would think it advantageous for that attack to result in Sinn Fein-IRA's being condemned without any qualification all around the world. I have heard no one say, "Of course it is reprehensible, but you must see that they have some legitimate grievances." We have all heard that in months and years gone by. It has been said time and again: "If only you had understood the difficulties—if only you had not been such wooden-headed English, so ignorant of Irish nationalist sensitivities." I ask right hon. and hon. Members who are present tonight if they can identify a single person anywhere who has said, "You have to understand it. The British Government could have avoided it."
That has been, as it were, the negative objective that Her Majesty's Government have had. We have, of course, had a positive objective: we have wanted the process of talks, which every hon. Member who has spoken supports, to be truly inclusive of all parties with a democratic vote or mandate. That has been the positive objective, for the obvious reason that, if we are to carry the process through to an agreement which, in turn, will be put by referendum to the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic respectively and separately, it will have a better chance of sticking if it has the support of all parties.
I have not, however, been so unrealistic as to underestimate the prospect of failure. Against that event, Her Majesty's Government have had the negative objective of peeling away from those who rely on violence to secure their political ends any support that they have previously had for violence in a democracy.
I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) for the two Governments' insistence on the restoration of the ceasefire. Manchester last Saturday showed the wisdom of that. I also welcome her recognition that, if the talks cannot be fully inclusive, they should at least retain the objective of inclusivity.
Let me diverge for a moment to the speech of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley. He took us to task for supposing that it was necessary in all circumstances to have all-party support for any outcome of the talks. That is not our position. Of course such an outcome is

971
desirable, but we have always taken the view, and take the view today, that in any talks process it is the participants who are the masters of the proceedings. If the participants in the process that has now begun conclude that there is a measure of agreement, or any proposal less than unanimity that shall be acceptable, it is well within their remit so to decide, and for agreement to be implemented.
I must exercise confidentiality, but I have good reason to suppose that parties who object to a particular policy within that process would, as good democrats, accept the outcome. It is not a question of saying that everything must be supported by everyone participating in the talks. That would be unrealistic, and would impose a virtually unsustainable condition in many instances.
I must be selective in choosing which parts of hon. Members' speeches I shall deal with. The hon. Member for Redcar mentioned marches. In a democracy, people have the right to parade, demonstrate or express views publicly and peacefully, and I know that she recognises that. In the same way, people have a right to show what they think if they disagree, provided they do so peacefully. The issue of parades is a difficult one, as are so many things in the contemporary scene in Northern Ireland.
We are constantly seeking ways of reducing the prospects of confrontation, but there must be a spirit of compromise. In many instances, what one might describe as the loyalist institutions have shown that willingness to compromise and take a different route. The willingness to compromise has not been evident in Sinn Fein, which organised opposition to the parades and marches. We must be careful not to undermine the Chief Constable's operational responsibility for maintaining law and order, which is why it is not quite the simple proposal that people suggest when they say, "Surely it would be better to have a nice advisory committee." There are many difficulties, but we keep the matter under review. I have it much under review with the Chief Constable and the Deputy Chief Constable, Mr. Flanagan.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley spoke of the principle of consent underlying everything. That must be right in our democracy; it must be central to the viability of any outcome to the process. I welcome what he said: that the principle of consent exists in terrorists' vocabulary only as the kind of consent that people can be terrorised into giving. We are not in the business of permitting terrorisation; genuine consent must be the basis of everything.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley spoke of a new all-party committee of both Houses of Parliament to bolster the work of my right hon. Friend Lady Denton, and I acknowledge that he has been urging this for a long time. He raised the matter in the House as recently as last week's appropriation debate. My right hon. Friend the
972
Minister of State will write to him about it, but the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, which I wish to see extend its jurisdiction and capabilities, and the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs are available to discuss economic matters generally.
Although the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley made many enticing remarks on which I should like to comment, in the interests of time I must move on to speeches that followed. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), in a most interesting speech, said that it is time for a fundamental rethink and for a security summit. There is much to be said for a review of security co-operation by the two Governments. I said in opening that we shall base our position on the excellent security co-operation that we have at present.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke mentioned four matters: hot pursuit, co-operation, Irish air space and the sharing of intelligence, all of which should be addressed. There was much merit in his comments, which I shall refer to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and no doubt much will pass between the two Governments in seeking to improve the already excellent co-operation.
My hon. Friend said that the situation should not cause total despair. I do not want to be pedantic when I say that it should not cause any level of despair at all. It should cause renewed analysis, clarity of analysis and, if possible, greater resoluion.
I very much agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) about the influence of terrorism on the economy because of the jobs that are damaged. The other side of the coin is that the more jobs there are, the less opportunity terrorists have to lure young people in particular into their toils.
I will move quickly over the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, much of which I could agree with—but I have disagreed in particular with the analysis that he offered. I have also addressed the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster.
I will invite the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who has responsibility for education in Northern Ireland, to write to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on some of the matters that he raised. We have five education and library boards in a Province that has a population of 1.6 million. When we propose reducing that number to four, our ears are beaten about by people who say, "How dare you do such a thing?" That is a little obstacle to saving some money. This has been a valuable debate—
It being 10 o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [7 June].
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period) Order 1996, which was laid before this house on 4th June, be approved.

TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY (EVIDENCE) ACT 1921
Motion made, and Question put,
That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, the abuse of children in care in the former County Council areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd.—[Mr. Burns.]
Hon. Members: Object.

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

COMPANIES
That the Companies (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1996 (S. I., 1996, No. 1444), dated 5th June 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th June, be approved.—[Mr. Burns.]
Question agreed to.

BUILDING SOCIETIES
That the draft Building Societies Act 1986 (Continuance of Section 41) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 5th June, be approved.—[Mr. Burns.]
Question agreed to.

Environmental Information
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
10 pm
Mr. Matthew Taylor: This is not the first time that the importance of ensuring that the public have access to environmental information has been discussed in the House. The Government have previously indicated their agreement, at least in principle. The European Union directive on freedom of access to information about the environment has been implemented by means of the Environmental Information Regulations 1992, but a major deficiency is that they lack a specific enforcement mechanism.
More than three years ago, in July 1993, the Government's command paper on open government promised to introduce a new statutory right of access to health and safety information modelled on the regulations. It was suggested that the new right could be enforced by a tribunal and that it could deal also with complaints made under the regulations. Although there have been three Queen's Speeches since the publication of the White Paper, and although the legislative programme has not been onerous on the Government, there has been no sign of implementing that proposal.
The matter was re-examined during the passage of the Environment Bill in 1995. Last March, Viscount Ullswater stated in the other place:
"I fully agree with the wish … to make sure that people have adequate rights of redress under the regulations. Indeed, that is specifically required of member states by the directive."
The EC directive on freedom of access to information on the environment—to which the Government have signed up—states:
"It must be possible for the applicant for environmental information to appeal against the public authority's decision."
Viscount Ullswater added:
"Powers to create an environmental, health and safety tribunal would be included in legislation to create the health and safety access right, when parliamentary time is available."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 March 1995; Vol. 562, c. 516.]
In Committee on the Environment Bill, I introduced an amendment to allow for the creation of a specialist tribunal that could hear disputes over the provision of the access to environmental information. The Minister anticipated
"soon being in a position to create a dual-purpose tribunal that will be included in legislation to create the proposed health and safety access. Of course there is the caveat of parliamentary time, but I understand that work is now under way to deal with some of the difficulties that have been considered … It is well in hand."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 13 June 1995; c. 667.]
Given that the Minister insisted eight months ago that work was well in hand, perhaps the Under-Secretary replying tonight will explain whether we are any closer to establishing an environmental information tribunal. The answer appears to be no.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was questioned about the delay when he appeared before the Select Committee for Administration in January. He replied:
"A commitment was given, a promise was made, we have not delivered it so far and I want those promises honoured."

975
It appears that the Government are happy to agree that an environmental information tribunal is needed, and are happy to give assurances that one will be created as soon as possible. But they are less happy to give a firm timetable as to exactly when a tribunal will be established, let alone accept my amendments to create one.
In the meantime, the public are denied access to a proper enforcement mechanism under the environmental information regulations, and to health and safety information. It is important to understand that, because the Government have said that the proposed right to health and safety information will not apply retrospectively, information that is now being gathered will not be accessible even when—or if—the new legislation is enacted. The longer the delay, therefore, the more information that may be withheld permanently from the public.
It may be asked whether there is reason for concern at the delays, and it may be suggested that it is not important that the delay is occurring. The fact is that the privatised water companies have refused to provide information, and British Gas has refused to provide information about contaminated lands. Railtrack even denied that the regulations applied to it, even before privatisation.
The Government have so far refused to issue further guidance, and they insist that it is for the courts to decide who is covered by the regulations. In the absence of a tribunal, that is essentially forcing people to go through expensive and possibly lengthy court proceedings—during which time the information loses its value—if they are to get any further.
An example from my own area are the efforts, with which I have occasionally helped, of the south-west solicitors Toller Beattie. They have asked for information and correspondence received from South West Water to the Department of the Environment. That information related to the delay to four bathing water schemes in the south-west and to the process under which the provisional list of sensitive areas was reduced while the list of less sensitive areas was increased—an extremely sensitive issue in the south-west.
The Department of the Environment gave a formal refusal, on the grounds that much of the information that was sought related to the confidential deliberations of the group that worked out which areas were sensitive and which were less sensitive under the urban waste water treatment directive. Further correspondence that was later produced showed that the information held had not even been considered by that group.
Surely the public have the right to know on what basis an area of bathing water has been declared sensitive, and therefore whether it may or may not be cleaned up. Surely a water company that may or may not be polluting that water should not have the right to withhold such information from the general public whom it serves.
So is there an effective alternative to a tribunal—something already in existence? The fact is that getting environmental information is difficult, and success is by no means guaranteed. There is an internal review, and internal reviews have a useful role to play in some circumstances. However, there will always be cases in which someone requesting information is thwarted, particularly if the
976
release of information might be embarrassing to the people holding it. That is why an internal review can never be a substitute for a truly independent tribunal.
The ombudsman may also have a role, but the post of ombudsman was created for the purpose of investigating maladministration, and the ombudsman may not rule in cases in which legal rights are under consideration and there is recourse to the judicial process. Even when examining maladministration, the scope of the ombudsman is limited by statute.
Moreover, the ombudsman currently has jurisdiction over only a limited number of organisations, only has discretionary powers of review rather than a duty, he conducts investigations in private, his decisions are not legally binding, and there is no set time period for review. That is a situation which is likely to lead to delaying tactics by those holding information against those who are quite justifiably seeking that information, particularly when making it available quickly may be at the root of the issue at hand.
It is true that the courts may provide an alternative, and, in a few instances, it may be possible to argue that there has been a breach of statutory duty. It is not clear, however, whether that remedy is available in all cases. Any plaintiff in such an action will probably need to show that he or she has suffered some kind of damage, which could be exceptionally hard to demonstrate if denial of information is the issue. If one does not have the information, how can one show the damage?
There are also limitations on the right to bring an action for breach of statutory duty—for example, where actions are brought against Ministers. In such cases, the only means of compelling a public body to comply is by judicial review, a remedy that is too expensive and time-consuming for ordinary citizens, and too time-consuming for it always to be useful even to many who could afford it.
Moreover, judicial review is an inappropriate remedy for many of the complaints that arise under the regulations. It is not an effective means of challenging whether an authority has wrongly withheld information under one of the discretionary exemptions in the regulations—if the information is commercially confidential, for example—because the court will not substitute its discretion for that of an authority.
The truth is that the only suitable forum for solving such problems would be an environmental information tribunal. The Government have conceded the advantages of a tribunal for that purpose, and have said in the past that they have no objection in principle to creating one. However, those statements must be thrown into doubt by their lack of action, which is already making a material difference to those who seek such important information.
The advantages of a tribunal set up specifically to ease the flow of environmental information, and incidentally to ensure that this country meets its international obligations, are clear. First, it would be a truly independent body, favouring neither side in a dispute. Information could be reviewed in camera, and the independent body could decide whether it should be withheld on grounds of commercial confidentiality. That is an important point.
As an example of what happens as things stand, in one case the Health and Safety Executive responded by saying that it would
"have to accept the manufacturer's view"

977
that information requested about the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984 might be confidential. Such an attitude leaves it entirely in a company's hands to decide whether the public can have access to environmental information that it holds, which may be extremely important to those individuals.
Obviously there should be a requirement for cases to be reviewed within a specified time scale, which would mean that the timing of the release of information could not be manipulated to limit its impact, and delaying tactics could no longer be used with impunity. Decisions would, of course, be binding, and subject to appeal only within the current court system on a point of law. A body of precedents would eventually be established,, which would help to increase the flow of information to the public.
An environmental information tribunal should also have discretion over the payment of costs in particular cases, which should include the possibility of some cases being publicly funded, in the public interest.
The central point of the debate is that the Government have agreed that in theory there is a legal right to information, guaranteed under the EC directive on freedom of access to information on the environment, which the Government say they support. The public now have a theoretical right of access to environmental information, yet in reality, as we have seen with South West Water and several other bodies throughout the country, they can effectively be denied information about pollutants that may be affecting them personally.
The only remedy that I can think of is an environmental information tribunal, and I believe that Ministers have accepted that fact. I hope that tonight we can take a step forward, looking perhaps towards the Queen's Speech in the autumn. I hope that the Minister will now give a firm commitment and a fixed timetable for establishing such a tribunal.
As the Government have already revealed their sympathy for the idea of such a body, and as the concept has broad support, surely there is no reason to procrastinate further. We know that, unless they intend to announce a change of mind tonight, the Government support the idea, and we understand that Ministers are sympathetic to it. Indeed, through our international obligations, they have already signed up to the idea of the tribunal. So where is it?
10.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I should make it clear at the outset that the Government have a commitment to openness and making environmental information available to the public. We have a good record over many years of doing just that.
National legislation has created more than 50 statutory public registers containing environment information. The Department of the Environment has listed them in a booklet, "Environment Facts: a guide to using public registers of environmental information", which was published in 1995. Public registers are a helpful way in which to provide access to environmental information. Potential users are made aware of what information is available and where it can be inspected, and they are not charged for it.
The Government also provide a wide range of more aggregated information in a variety of publications about the state of the environment and the factors that
978
impinge on it. The Department of the Environment publishes an annual "Digest of Environmental Statistics", which brings together a wide range of information drawn from a large number of more detailed reports. That is supplemented by a periodic publication, "The UK Environment", which is broader in coverage, less technically oriented and aimed at a wider audience, especially schools and further education establishments. The next edition will be published in 1999.
This year, we are also introducing a new pocket-sized booklet that provides key facts about the environment. A pilot edition was produced for internal use in 1995. I shall let the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) have copies of it and a number of other publications that I am sure he will find interesting.
In March, the United Kingdom became one of the first countries to publish a set of indicators of sustainable development, which illustrates changes over the past 20 years or so in some 120 key issues and objectives. They are a preliminary set of indicators, on which we want to obtain views so that they can be developed further. In the longer term, we intend to use them to highlight key messages and monitor our performance against our stated objectives in the sustainable development strategy.
The indicators have been widely welcomed at home and abroad as a manifestation of our commitment to open reporting. It may also interest the hon. Member for Truro to know that, later this year, we intend to add the indicators of sustainable development to the Department of the Environment's world wide web site. Increasingly, information is being published in electronic form as well as on paper.
The Government's commitment to openness goes wider. In 1992, they enacted the environmental information regulations, which give the public a right of access to environmental information held by central and local government and a large number of bodies under their control. As with all freedom of access regimes, the right of access is sensibly restricted on a small number of occasions.
It is now more than three years since the regulations came into force. Although records have not been kept of the number of requests for environmental information, there is no doubt that the regulations and the Government's code of practice on open government have resulted in a large increase in the supply of environment information to the public.
The Government have actively promoted their policy of openness. For instance, in 1992, the Department of the Environment published "Green Rights and Responsibilities", which promised the citizen a right of access to environmental information. A pamphlet explaining the new access rights under the regulations was produced in 1993, and about 190,000 have been distributed to citizens advice bureaux, libraries, local authorities and other bodies, and directly to members of the public who have asked for a copy. That was followed in 1994 by a model local environment charter, "Your Council and the Environment", which detailed, among other things, the citizen's rights to environmental information from local authorities.

979
I have described some of the measures that the Government have taken to disseminate environmental information to members of the public. We are not complacent, and are open to suggestions about the way in which dissemination can be improved. As I said, I shall send the hon. Member for Truro some of the publications that I mentioned.
The hon. Member drew specific attention to the solicitors Toller Beattie. I am of course aware of the correspondence in which he has been involved, and the considerable correspondence in which the firm has been involved. I am aware that that firm has made very many requests of my Department for environmental information over the past two years. I understand that it has similarly requested environmental information from other Departments, the Environment Agency and local authorities.
Its requests of my Department have been addressed to a number of different branches and directorates. As the hon. Member for Truro said, the firm has particularly requested information on water pollution policy. One section alone of my Department's water and land directorate has dealt with almost 90 letters that have been addressed or referred to it in the past 21 months. I concede that not all those responses have been within the time limit specified within the regulations. That is perhaps regrettable, but there has been a large volume of correspondence. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that only comparatively rarely has information been refused, in accordance with the legitimate exceptions provided for in the regulations.
I understand that my Department has offered to hold a meeting with Toller Beattie to discuss its requirements for environmental information. I think that that would be a
980
sensible way to proceed. I appreciate that Toller Beattie is seeking information on bathing waters, to which it may or may not be entitled.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Truro would be interested, as would his constituents—I am not sure whether Toller Beattie would be—in the most recent statistics relating to bathing water quality in the south-west. Speaking from memory, I think that the statistics show a picture of improvement. The hon. Gentleman is not dissenting, so that suggests that that is the case. His constituents, and possibly Toller Beattie, have something to welcome there. I will let the hon. Gentleman have information relating to that.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I hope that the Minister will feel able to respond to the question of the information tribunal.
Mr. Clappison: I am afraid that, for somebody seeking more information about the environment, the hon. Gentleman's Adjournment motion was not a good start. It did not contain the necessary information. It states that the hon. Gentleman wished
"to raise the subject of the availability of environmental information."
The hon. Gentleman mentioned tribunals during his speech, which I will read with interest. I will also read the interesting and complex legal arguments that he advanced. From what he said, I think that he has had his answer already in another place. Perhaps, on this occasion, a better start could have been made to seeking environmental information.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Overcrowding
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the 10 prisons with the highest levels of overcrowding in the last year. [30496]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Barry Sheerman, dated 19 June 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question requesting a list of the ten prisons with the highest levels of overcrowding in the last year.
  Details of the ten prisons with the highest levels of overcrowding during 1995–96 are given in the attached table.

  Table 1

  Prison

  Peak overcrowding in year (percentage)

  Month peak occurred

  Average for year percentage

  Leicester

  83

  April 1995

  58

  Shrewsbury

  74

  January 1996

  63

  Exeter

  71

  November 1995

  57

  Chelmsford

  65

  February 1996

  53

  Durham

  54

  March 1996

  47

  Canterbury

  53

  November 1995

  42

  Swansea

  53

  March 1995

  44

  Preston

  53

  October 1995

  41

  Birmingham

  50

  April 1995

  39

  Lincoln

  50

  February 1996

  36

  Overcrowding has been calculated by dividing the population by the in use certified normal accommodation for each establishment.

  At the end of May 1996, 15.5 per cent. of the population were held two to a cell designed for one, compared to 21 per cent. in April 1992.

  'Trebling' (the holding of three prisoners in a cell designed for one) was eliminated in March 1994 and has not occurred at any time since then.

  Prison Assaults
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average assault rate in each prison for the financial year 1995–96. [32352]

  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.
  460
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 19 June 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the average assault rate in each prison for the financial year 1995–96.
  The attached tables show the annual rate of assaults, proven at adjudication per 100 population, in each Prison Service establishment between April 1995 and March 1996. Copies of the tables have been placed in the Library.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were imprisoned following non-payment of the television licence fee in each year since 1990; and what was the average length of sentence for those imprisoned. [33318]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Michael Brown, dated 19 June 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about people who were imprisoned following non-payment of their television fee for every year since 1990; and what was the average length of sentence for those imprisoned.Information on the number of fine defaulters received into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for the years 1991–1994, by offence group is published in "Prison statistics, England and Wales" (Table 7.3 of the 1994 edition, Cm 3087), a copy of which is available in the library. No information is available prior to 1991 for non-payment of fines for using a television without a licence because the offence was not separately identified in the prison statistics. Provisional information for 1995 shows that some 730 persons (500 males and 230 females) were received into prison for defaulting on a fine after conviction for using a television without a licence. The average time imposed was 10 days for males and 9 days for females.

  Asylum and Immigration Bill
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost to small firms of implementing the measures contained in the Asylum and Immigration Bill. [32112]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Clause 8 of the Bill is the only provision which will involve costs for business. Details were set out in the reply to a question from the hon. Member for Homsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) on 21 May,Official Report, column 97.

  Liquor Licensing
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the organisations his Department involved in the consultation process on(a) apprenticeship schemes in the drinks industry and (b) proposed changes to the liquor licensing legislation to extended permitted hours. [33384]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Table A lists the organisations which were consulted or which offered comments on allowing 16 to 17-year-olds on approved apprenticeship schemes to work in bars.
  461
  Table B lists the organisations which were sent the 30 May consultation paper about extending licensing hours. Comments from any other organisation or individual would be welcome. The consultation lasts until 30 August.

  Copies of the tables have been placed in the Library.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judicial Review
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions in each Session since 1991–92 legislation has been introduced into Parliament by his Department, with the purpose of(a) removing the effects of a judicial review decision or (b) implementing a judicial review decision; and if he will list the relevant legislative provisions. [33589]

  Mr. Streeter
  No such legislation has been introduced.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many decisions by his Department were challenged by way of judicial review in each Session since 1991–92; and if he will list in how many cases(a) the Department's decision was upheld by the court, (b) the court found for the applicant, (c) the Department submitted to the judgment and (d) the Department appealed successfully against the judicial review decision. [33573]

  Mr. Streeter
  Excluding applications for judicial review of decisions of courts and tribunals, and of bodies exercising a judicial discretion such as the Legal Aid Board, there were three applications for judicial review in the Session 1992–93, one in 1994–95 and two in the current Session. One of the applications this Session has been stayed; all others were dismissed.

TREASURY

  Customs and Excise Investigation
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if(a) Metta Trading Ltd. and (b) Metalchem International Ltd. are the subject of current investigations by HM Customs and Excise; [33298]

  (2) on what occasions (a) Metta Trading Ltd. and (b) Metalchem International Ltd. were the subject of investigations by HM Customs and Excise between 1991 and 1996. [33299]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is not the normal practice of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to reveal, other than in the course of legal proceedings, details of whether particular companies or individuals are, or are not, the subject of investigation. Provision of such details might be both unfair to those caught up in customs inquiries and prejudice current or future investigation.
  462

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for 1979 and for each year since 1986,(a) gross domestic product at current factor cost (b) gross domestic product at constant factor cost and (c) gross domestic product per capita for (i) Merseyside and (ii) each region of the United Kingdom. [33287]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The latest county estimates of gross domestic product at current prices for the years 1989, 1991 and 1993, and regional estimates for 1984, were published in the March 1996 issue of "Economic Trends". This publication, as well as data for earlier years, are available in the House of Commons Library. Estimates of regional and county gross domestic product are not calculated at constant prices, as there are no regional price deflators available.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the rate of VAT or comparable tax for each of the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. [33339]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The standard rates of VAT in the member countries of the OECD which apply VAT are set out in the table.

  Rates of VAT in OECD member countries

  Country

  Standard rate (per cent.)

  Austria

  20

  Belgium

  21

  Canada

  7

  Czech Republic

  22

  Denmark

  25

  Finland

  22

  France

  20.6

  Germany

  15

  Greece

  18

  Iceland

  24.5

  Ireland

  21

  Italy

  19

  Japan

  3

  Luxembourg

  15

  Mexico

  15

  Netherlands

  17.5

  New Zealand

  12.5

  Norway

  23

  Portugal

  17

  Spain

  16

  Sweden

  25

  Switzerland

  6.5

  Turkey

  15

  United Kingdom

  17.5

  The two remaining member countries of the OECD, Australia and the United States, do not have VAT. Australia levies a wholesale tax, WST, on certain Australian manufactured goods and certain imported goods. A wide range of goods are exempt from WST, and those which are taxable are subject to different rates. The majority of goods are taxable at the rate of 22 per cent., although there are also rates of 12 per cent. and 32 per cent. In the United States, the majority of states impose a retail sales tax, RST, which

  463
  generally applies to sales of goods to final consumers within the state's jurisdiction. Rates of RST vary according to the state concerned.

  Taxation
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of national income is currently taken in taxation; and what was the figure in 1979. [33361]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Budget estimate of total taxes and national insurance contributions as a percentage of gross domestic product, GDP, in 1995–96 was 36 per cent. In 1979–80, the comparable figure was 35½ per cent. An outturn estimate for 1995–96 is not yet available.

  Since 1979, public sector borrowing has averaged 2½ per cent. of GDP. Under the last Labour Government, public sector borrowing averaged nearly 7 per cent. of GDP. If Labour had kept borrowing down to the same level that this Government have achieved, taxes would have been higher under Labour by an average of nearly 3 per cent. of GDP.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the population were men under the age of 25 years in each of the last 20 years for which figures are available. [33185]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 18 June 1996]: The information is given in the table.

  England and Wales: Males aged 0 to 24

  Mid-year

  Thousands

  As percentage of total population

  1974

  9,451.5

  19.1

  1975

  9,404.9

  19.0

  1976

  9,358.3

  18.9

  1977

  9,300.7

  18.8

  1978

  9,245.8

  18.7

  1979

  9,225.3

  18.6

  1980

  9,216.0

  18.6

  1981

  9,191.4

  18.5

  1982

  9,145.8

  18.4

  1983

  9,111.5

  18.3

  1984

  9,071.7

  18.2

  1985

  9,044.8

  18.1

  1986

  8,999.7

  17.9

  1987

  8,943.4

  17.8

  1988

  8,881.2

  17.6

  1989

  8,807.1

  17.4

  1990

  8,748.6

  17.2

  1991

  8,701.5

  17.0

  1992

  8,636.0

  16.8

  1993

  8,575.6

  16.7

  1994

  8.521.6

  16.5

  Research and Economic Performance
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of the report on the "Relationship between Publicly Funded Basic Research and Economic Performance" submitted to his Department by the science policy research unit at the university of Sussex. [33380]
  464
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 18 June 1996]: The Treasury intends to publish this report shortly. I shall arrange for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Millennium Commissioners
  Mrs. Clywd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) on which dates, to which location, for what purpose and at what cost, the millennium commissioners have visited areas of the United Kingdom outside London; [32432]

  (2) on which dates, to which location, for what purpose and at what cost, the millennium commissioners have visited Wales; [32431]

  (3) on which dates, to which location, for what purpose and at what cost, the millennium commissioners have visited countries outside the United Kingdom. [32433]

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

  British Library
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what she estimates to be the final cost of the new British library building at St. Pancras. [33972]

  Mrs. Virgina Bottomley
  The final outturn of the project will not be known until all final accounts have been settled. Our estimates is that this will be at least a year after practical completion, which is targeted for December 1996. However, the latest estimate of the outturn for the project is £511.1 million, which represents a 3 per cent. increase over the present ceiling of £496 million. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has agreed an increase to the project ceiling to reflect this.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Chessington Computer Centre
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make an announcement on the progress of the sale of Chessington computer centre. [33837]

  Mr. Freeman
  I informed the House on 15 May of the identity of the three organisations that had been invited to submit final offers for Chessington computer centre. Final offers were received on 12 June. I have now considered these offers, and have selected a partnership comprising the Chessington management and employee buy-out team, Integris UK and financial backers as the preferred bidder. Detailed discussions with the partnership will now commence with the intention of reaching final agreement for an early completion of the sale of the business.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the arrangements for printing statutory instruments. [33838]
  465
  Mr. Freeman
  Some of the printing of statutory instruments has been contracted out by HMSO for over 30 years as the most cost-effective way of producing them. A careful examination has recently been made of the legislation which refers to HMSO and the Queen's printer. This has revealed that while the Queen's printer can contract out the printing of statutes, this may not be the case for statutory instruments. The Queen's printer is currently also the controller of HMSO. After privatisation, the Queen's printer and controller will remain in the public sector responsible for residual HMSO.

  HMSO's records show, for as far back as they are available, that statutory instruments were being printed by commercial contractors in January 1965. It is likely that the practice is somewhat older. Currently, around half the printing work for statutory instruments is contracted out at an annual cost of some £200,000. In order to put the validity of this practice in relation to statutory instruments beyond doubt, the Government intend to legislate before the summer recess. The legislation will be retrospective in effect in order to cover existing statutory instruments printed for, rather than by, HMSO.

  The privatisation process, subject to meeting the safeguards required by Parliament, will continue as planned with completion during the summer and on the basis that the Queen's Printer would be able to print all statutory instruments. Meanwhile, HMSO will enter into no more external printing contracts for statutory instruments.

  Information Superhighways
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement regarding the ethical issues relating to information superhighways. [33013]

  Mr. Freeman
  The development of information superhighways and the growth of multimedia applications raise a number of issues which are relevant to the responsibilities of several Government Departments and other bodies. The CCTA in particular has been working on research which has made an important contribution to consideration within Government. Since questions of information superhighways regulation bear particularly strongly upon the responsibilities of the Department of Trade and Industry, I have agreed with my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology that his Department will take the lead in any Government statements in this area. On 21 May 1996, my hon. Friend made a speech to the Internet Service Providers Association setting out the Government's views on these matters. A copy of the speech has been placed in the House Library.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he is proposing at the EU intergovernmental conference to promote deregulation. [32621]

  Mr. Freeman
  Making less, but better EC legislation remains a priority for the Government. As we made clear in the IGC White Paper, we will continue our efforts to achieve this both inside and outside the IGC.
  466

  Ministerial Relationships
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the rules or guidance which govern the relationship between Secretaries of State and junior Ministers. [33111]

  Mr. Freeman
  "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" describes the roles of Ministers in charge of Departments and Ministers outside the Cabinet. The distribution of ministerial responsibilities is published in the "List of Ministerial Responsibilities".

  Century House
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to the answer of 16 February 1995,Official Report, column 805, what has been the cost of maintenance, including figures for fees and VAT payments, of Century house since 16 February 1995; and what plans there are for the building. [33383]

  Mr. Freeman
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to Property Advisers to the Civil Estate, under its chief executive, Mr. Neil Borrett. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. N. E. Borrett to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 18 June 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to reply to your question about Century House.Since 16th February 1995 the cost of maintenance, including fees and VAT, has been £146,140.A planning application for conversion to residential use has been made. Following the grant of planning permission, it is proposed that the property will be sold in the open market for conversion to residential use.

ENVIRONMENT

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local government contracts subject to compulsory competitive tendering have been awarded(a) in-house and (b) to private companies. [33286]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Information is not held centrally by the Department but the latest Local Government Management Board survey shows that the private sector currently has 24.8 per cent. of contracts by value, in-house teams have 73.3 per cent. and the other 1.7 per cent. are held by a management buy-out companies or joint venture companies.

  Judicial Review
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many decisions by his Department were challenged by way of judicial review in each Session since 1991–92; and if he will list in how many cases(a) the Department's decision was upheld by the court, (b) the court found for the applicant, (c) the Department submitted to the judgment and (d) the Department appealed successfully against the judicial review decision. [33566]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Information is not held centrally in a form which would enable the Secretary of State to answer this question without incurring disproportionate cost.
  467
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions in each Session since 1991–92 legislation has been introduced into Parliament by his Department, with the purpose of(a) removing the effects of a judicial review decision or (b) implementing a judicial review decision; and if he will list the relevant legislative provisions. [33585]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  There has been one instance in which legislation has been introduced into Parliament with the purpose of partially reversing a decision of the court in a case of judicial review against a local authority. This was the case of R. v. London borough of Ealing ex parte Lewis, where it was held that the local housing authority did not have power to include certain expenditure on sheltered accommodation in its housing revenue account. Sections 126 and 127 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 were introduced to change this effect of the decision. Parallel provisions were introduced for Scotland in sections 149 and 150 of that Act.

  There have been no instances of legislation introduced to implement a judicial review decision.

  Joint Nature Conservation Committee
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many core posts there were in the Joint Nature Conservation Committee in1994–95 and (ii) 1995–96; and how many are projected for 1996–97. [33320]

  Mr. Clappison
  The average number of permanent posts and fixed-term appointments assigned to the JNCC in the financial years in question is:

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Permanent

  53

  49

  43

  Fixed term

  44

  34

  34

  Mineral Sites
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) the mineral sites on the first lists of sites prepared by all mineral planning authorities in compliance with mineral planning guidance note 14 where the sites are wholly or partly within sites of special scientific interest and (b) the names of the sites of special scientific interest concerned. [33529]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is not held centrally. It can be obtained from individual mineral planning authorities who are statutorily responsible for preparing the first lists of mineral sites in their areas.

  Environmental Education
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made with preparing a strategy for environmental education. [33900]

  Mr. Gummer
  I commissioned Jennifer Jones, a secondee to my Department, to carry out a review of education, training and awareness about the environment. She prepared a report which made a range of recommendations to the key players in environmental education. We have drawn up a strategy for environmental 468
  education on the basis of this report which takes account of the recommendations in it, and provides a framework within which to consider how they should be taken forward.
  Government Strategy for Environmental Education in England Introduction Education is a central means of furthering the Government's commitment to sustainable development. Education can give people that capacity to address environmental issues which is vital to achieving a sustainable society. Education in its broadest sense includes not just formal study, but personal awareness, experience and interests developed over a period of time—at home, at school, college or university, at work, and in the wider community. This strategy therefore provides a general framework which encompasses the national curriculum, the 16 to 19 sector, further and higher education, training and informal education. It accommodates the scale and diversity of environmental education which is already taking place, and provides a focus for encouraging its further development.Objective To instil in people of all ages, through formal and informal education, and training, the concepts of sustainable development and responsible global citizenship; and to develop, renew and reinforce their capacity to address environment and development issues throughout their lives, both at home and at work.This will be achieved by continuing to promote and encourage environmental education and training through relevant programmes and policies and as part of the continuing dialogue with business and industry, local authorities, the education sector and non-governmental organisations.helping to ensure that appropriate materials for each phase of the education and training process are readily available;facilitating and supporting initiatives which promote sustainable development and responsible global citizenship to people in the course of their daily lives;continuing to ensure that the education process is alive to the needs of employers;establishing suitable arrangements to monitor and encourage progress in the application of sustainable development principles and the integration of environmental issues in education so that activities may be changed, redirected, or reinforced where necessary.Progress to date:Three exercises to facilitate environmental education through the national curriculum are nearing completion;references to the importance of sustainability and responsible global citizenship have been included in the Dearing review of qualifications for 16 to 19-year-olds;a report on the implementation of the recommendations of the 1993 Toyne report has been completed;work has commenced by the Department for Education and Employment, with cross departmental support. to oversee the preparation of occupational standards in environmental management;financial support for environmental education. This includes support for the Council for Environmental Education, the National Association for Environmental Education, Forum for the Future and environmental education projects, including some in schools, through the environmental action fund; the Centre for Research, Education and Training in Energy, the eco-schools programme and an energy efficiency award scheme for schools in partnership with British Gas;support for the going for green campaign and for local agenda 21.Future action:The Government will continue to encourage, promote, support and facilitate environmental education initiatives;469 the Government will establish suitable arrangements to monitor and encourage progress in the application of sustainable development principles and the integration of environmental issues in education. These arrangements will need to cover the nine Government Departments with an interest;the Government will also consider whether to convene an external panel, perhaps through going for green, including representatives from education and training, business and industry and environmental specialists. The panel's role would be to facilitate co-ordination of the activities of all the sectors involved, and to make recommendations to the key players;a seminar will be held for invited participants on the review of the 1993 Toyne report.
  Copies of the report on environmental education, training and awareness have been placed in the Library of the House, and are available from my Department on request.

  We shall consider how to respond to the detailed recommendations in the report in the context of implementing the strategy for environmental education.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to lay before Parliament a draft of the guidance that Ministers are required to give to the Environment Agency under section 4 of the Environment Act 1955. [33973]

  Mr. Gummer
  With my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, I am today laying before the House a draft of the guidance which Ministers are required under section 4 of the Environment Act 1995 to give to the Environment Agency on its objectives, including the contribution it is to make towards the achievement of sustainable development.

  We will also provide to the Environment Agency an explanatory document which sets the statutory guidance into context and offers a commentary on the agency's duty to take account of likely costs and benefits. Copies of this document have been placed in the Library.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on the payment of housing benefit to banks and building societies to meet the costs of housing association loans. [31982]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I have been asked to reply.

  Housing benefit may be paid by a local authority directly to a claimant's landlord in order to protect public funds. Regulations also provide local authorities with discretion to determine the appropriate method of payment which may result in payments being made directly into a bank or building society account. It is for landlords to decide how they wish to use these funds, which may include the repayment of a loan.

  Local authorities do not pay housing benefit to banks or building societies to meet housing association loans. It is available to help tenants meet their reasonable rent liability.
  470

PRIME MINISTER

  Honours
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Prime Minister what proportion of those recommended for honours were civil servants, members of the armed forces and Government employees(a) in each of the two years prior to the changes of 1993 and (b) in each year thereafter. [33051]

  The Prime Minister
  Figures for civil servants are not available separately. The proportions of state servants1 awarded honours in the new year and birthday lists of around 1,000 names each, are listed. The number of military awards2 shows the number of awards in the defence services lists, which are purely military, issued at the same time following recommendations to the Queen by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence:

  Year

  Percentage of state servants1

  Number of military awards2

  1991

  19

  533

  1992

  19

  527

  1993

  18

  475

  1994

  17

  424

  1995

  16

  320

  1996

  17

  315

  1 Figures are for state servants which include not only civil servants in headquarters, professional and local posts, but also those giving wider state service, for example in the museums and galleries field; to both Houses of Parliament; and as circuit judges.

  2 The numbers of military awards include members of the regular and reserve forces but exclude special lists for awards in a designated theatre (during the period from 1991 these have included Northern Ireland and the Gulf) Between 1994 and 1996, 56 meritorious awards were taken from the honours lists and were published separately in operational lists.

  Since March 1993, any automatic recognition to staff in particular posts has ceased. Awards for state servants are selected on merit, reflecting service beyond what might normally be expected.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what was the cost in each of the past five years of(a) sick pay and (b) compensation paid to employees of his Department or their families, or members of the public, as a result of (i) minor, (ii) major and (iii) fatal injuries related to the work of his Department, detailing incidents involving information technology and those involving expenditure of more than £5,000; [33482]

  (2) what was the cost in each of the past five years of rectifying working conditions that were the responsibility of his Department and its agencies, to bring them up to acceptable health and safety standards, detailing incidents involving information technology and those involving expenditure of more than £5,000. [33483]

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  471
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions in each of the past five years health and safety problems in his Department and its agencies have been reported via internal monitoring; and on how many occasions the Health and Safety Commission has become involved. [33480]

  Mr. Hanley
  Comprehensive figures are not available. Problems reported in the last three years by FCO and ODA staff working in the UK were as follows:

  1993: 27

  1994: 146

  1995: 161

  In addition, on-going training and workplace risk assessment programmes have identified other problems, but figures are not recorded centrally.

  The Health and Safety Commission has not become involved with any problems.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) minor, (b) major and (c) fatal injuries have been suffered by staff in his Department and its agencies in work-related incidents in each of the past five years, showing in each year how many were related to information technology and giving details of all incidents involving fatalities. [33481]

  Mr. Hanley
  Comprehensive figures for reported accidents suffered by FCO and ODA staff working in the UK are available for only the last three years. Details are as follows:

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Minor

  131

  131

  101

  Major

  19

  11

  12

  Fatalities

  —

  —

  —

  Information technology related accidents are included in these statistics, but are not separately identifiable.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the average time taken for vehicle crossings from(a) Gibraltar to Spain and (b) Spain to Gibraltar in each of the last eight weeks for which figures are available. [33242]

  Mr. David Davis
  Average delays are:

  (a) Gibraltar to Spain

  17–23 April: 90–180 minutes

  24–30 April: 90–120 minutes

  1–7 May: 90–12 minutes

  8–14 May: 45–90 minutes

  15–21 May: 45–20 minutes

  22–28 May: 60–80 minutes

  29 May–4 June: 80–180

  5–11 June: 10–20

  (b) Spain to Gibraltar

  17–23 April: 20–30 minutes

  24–30 April:45–60 minutes

  1–7May: 10–45 minutes

  8–14 May: 10–60 minutes

  472

  15–21 May: 0–60 minutes

  22–28 May: 0–60 minutes

  29 May–4 June: 0–30 minutes

  5–11 June: 10–40 minutes

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the European Commission in respect of delays in vehicle crossings between Spain and Gibraltar. [33241]

  Mr. Davis
  We have raised with the European Commission our strong concerns about these delays.

  Nuclear Materials
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy concerning a nuclear fissile material cut-off convention; and what assessment he has made of the impact of such a convention on international security. [33189]

  Mr. David Davis
  We supported the mandate agreed at the conference on disarmament in Geneva in March 1995 for an ad hoc committee to begin work on a treaty banning the future production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices—fissile material cut-off treaty, FMCT.

  Such a ban could be a significant contribution to non-proliferation and international security, provided that it enjoyed wide support including from those countries which have not yet signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We therefore continue to urge all members of the conference on disarmament to support an early start to negotiations to conclude a satisfactory and universally applicable FMCT.

  Visas (Russia)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for the issue of visas to Russian citizens to visit the United Kingdom were received by (i) the British embassy in Moscow and (ii) the consulate in St. Petersburg. [33436]

  Mr. Hanley
  The number of UK visit visa applications received from Russian citizens by our posts in Moscow and St. Petersburg in 1995 were.

  1995

  Moscow: 95,474

  St. Petersburg: 18,019

  Total: 113,493

  Haiti
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has taken part in about the future of the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Haiti. [33538]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The United Kingdom mission in New York has participated fully in Security Council discussions on the future of the UN mission in Haiti.

  Judicial Review
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many decisions by his Department were challenged by way of judicial review in
  473
  each Session since 1991–92; and if he will list in how many cases (a) the Department's decision was upheld by the court, (b) the court found for the applicant, (c) the Department submitted to the judgment and (d) the Department appealed successfully against the judicial review decision. [33565]

  Mr. Hanley
  This information is not held centrally. So far as I have been able to ascertain, six applications for judicial review have been decided in the period in question, in two of which the applicants were successful. The Department did not appeal in either case.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions in each Session since 1991–92 legislation has been introduced into Parliament by his Department, with the purpose of(a) removing the effects of a judicial review decision or (b)implementing a judicial review decision; and if he will list the relevant legislative provisions. [33586]

  Mr. Hanley
  None.

  Iran
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the National Council of Resistance of Iran; and if he will make a statement. [33714]

  Mr. Hanley
  It is our long-standing policy not to have any official contact with the National Council of Resistance of Iran. The NCRI is a coalition dominated by the Mojahedin-e-Khalq—MKO—Islamic group, which has a long history of involvement with Iraq.

  The MKO has been seeking western support by portraying itself as a "democratic" alternative to the present Iranian regime. It is difficult to reconcile this with the MKO's history of violence. Our European and US partners share our general approach to the MKO. We have no intention of recognising it as an alternative to the present Government in Tehran.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Postage Costs
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much her Department spent on postage in the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96; and how many items were posted during these periods. [32840]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Expenditure on postage in the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96 was £1,363,741 and £1,274,376. Figures for the number of items posted in 1994–95 are not available but the 1995–96 figure is approximately 4 million.

  GCSE Scores
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will provide (i) the percentage of pupils achieving a grade G or higher, (ii) the percentage achieving a grade C or higher, and 474
  (iii) the average point score per pupil in (a) GCSE English language, (b) GCSE mathematics and (c) both English language and mathematics; and if he will provide the same by gender in each case, for all 15-year-old pupils in the maintained sector of each local education authority area for 1992 and 1995, on the same basis as the DFEE school performance tables. [32954]

  Mr. Paice
  The data are contained in a number of tables, copies of which will be placed in the Library.

  The tables for 1992 and 1995 give (i) the percentage of pupils achieving a grade G or higher, (ii) the percentage of pupils achieving a grade C or higher, (iii) the average point score per pupil in (a) GCSE English, (b)GCSE mathematics and (c) both English and mathematics by gender of 15-year-old pupils in the maintained sector of each local education authority area in England. The average GCSE point scores are based on A* equal to 7.

  Statistics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which statistics her Department has discontinued(a) the collection and (b) the publication of since 1989. [32857]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Changes in the basis of compilation, presentation and publication of statistical series are made from time to time in response to the requirements of the Government and international organisations for statistical information. Others reflect changes in administrative systems on which some series are based, the developments of new statistical techniques and technological developments affecting the compilation and dissemination of statistical data. When such changes are made, they are fully documented in the relevant statistical publications. It would be disproportionately costly to identify all the changes in our surveys and publications since 1989, therefore this reply covers those regular surveys and publications which have entirely ceased.

  Exams

  The last school examinations survey, SES, which provided statistics on school leavers was conducted for the academic year 1991–92. Also discontinued at that time were surveys associated with the SES—the form 113FE survey, which collected information on the academic achievements (A-level and AS) of students in further education; and the advanced supplementary, AS, survey of entries and achievements of pupils in schools.

  Schools

  The security in schools and ethnic monitoring of school children surveys have been discontinued since 1989. The ethnic monitoring survey collected information about ethnicity, mother tongue and religious affiliation. Ethnicity is still collected via the annual schools' census, but mother tongue and religious affiliation have been discontinued.

  Teachers

  Data on the ethnic origin of teachers were collected on a supplement to form 618G from 1990 to 1993. Returns were incomplete and statistics were never published.

  475

  Higher and Further Education

  Shortly after the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, PCFC, was set up in 1989, some collection and publication of data on staff and finance for these institutions previously conducted by the Department through the annual monitoring survey, AMS, and the further education revenue account survey, FERAS was taken on by the PCFC. The Department continued to conduct these surveys for Local education authority-funded institutions, although FERAS was discontinued in 1992–93.

  Following the creation of the unified higher education sector in 1993 and the setting up of the Higher Education Funding Council for England, HEFCE, responsibility for the collection and publication of higher education statistics passed in 1994–95 from the Department and the universities statistical record, USR, to the Higher Education Statistics Agency, HESA. Similarly, the creation of the a new further education sector in 1993 and the setting up of the Further Education Funding Council for England, FEFC, led to the transfer to it of responsibility for the collection and publication of further education statistics from the end of 1994–95.

  Consequently, a number of surveys previously conducted by the Department were discontinued and replaced by systems introduced by HESA and FEFC. The surveys discontinued were the further education statistical record, FESR, the examination results and first destinations survey, ERFDS, the annual monitoring survey, AMS, the short course record, SCRS, and the return of students enrolled at the Worker's Educational Association—the AE2 return.

  Employment

  The confirmed redundancy series was discontinued after the publication of statistics for June 1992. After changes in the payment of rebates from the redundancy fund in 1986 removed the financial incentive for employers to provide the information, it was found to be seriously understating the number of redundancies taking place.

  Nursery School Inspections
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many inspections have been undertaken of registered establishments in the first two months of the current financial year; and what proportion of establishments these costs represent within each authority participating in the pilot scheme for nursery vouchers. [33271]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No inspections of private and voluntary sector institutions participating in the nursery education voucher scheme can take place until the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill has been given Royal Assent and has been commenced.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the qualifications required of the inspectors of under-fives establishments who have been newly recruited; and what proportion of these inspectors have each of the required qualifications. [33269]

  Mr. Squire
  In recruiting candidates for training to be registered nursery inspectors, the chief inspector of schools takes into account both relevant experience and qualifications as well as personal references.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many additional new inspectors have been recruited by The Office for Standards in Education in(a) February, (b) March, (c) April and (d) May to undertake inspection of establishments for nursery education. [33270]
  476
  Mr. Squire
  For phase 1, the chief inspector invited 100 candidates to be nursery education inspectors to attend training courses in May 1996, and a further 120 and 100 in June and July 1996.

  Science and Technology (Funding)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what criteria are used in the allocation of funding by the Higher Education Funding Council in the areas of science and technology; and if she will make a statement. [33169]

  Mr. Forth
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England allocates funds for science and technology research selectively to higher education institutions on the basis of competition. The main criterion is departments' relative strengths in research according to national and international standards, as measured in the periodic research assessment exercises. Other criteria include success in collaborating with industry and other users on research, leading to expertise and knowledge which can be used by higher education, industry and the community at large.

  Internet
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 4 June,Official Report, column 398–99, how many schools in Gloucestershire have made use of the guidance available from the National Council for Educational Technology on the use of the Internet. [33127]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Advice and training sessions on the Internet have been offered to all local education authority and grant-maintained schools in Gloucestershire through the school library service libraries of the future project which is supported by the National Council for Education Technology, NCET. During the project, 24 secondary schools, seven primary and two special schools in Gloucestershire took part in the sessions. In addition, four schools requested information sheets on the Internet from the NCET.

  Young People (Hemsworth)
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many young people with an educational qualification below national vocational qualification level 2 in the Hemsworth constituency (i) have been and (ii) are being trained by the Wakefield training and enterprise council. [33239]

  Mr. Paice
  I understand that, since April 1995, 157 young people in the Hemsworth constituency have attended courses organised by Wakefield training and enterprise council, leading to a qualification below NVQ level 2. Of these, 32 young people are being trained by the TEC at present.

  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many young people in the age range 18 to 25 years(a) resident in the Hems worth constituency and (b) in related travel-to-work areas have attained national vocational qualification level 2. [33238]

  Mr. Paice
  The information is not available in the format requested.
  477
  I understand that, since April 1995, (a) 102 young people resident in the Hemsworth constituency have attained NVQ level 2 or above through training organised by the Wakefield training and enterprise council, and (b) 240 young people in surrounding areas have attained NVQ level 2 through training organised by the Wakefield TEC.

  Other young people will have achieved NVQ level 2 or above as a result of education and training not organised by the TEC. Figures for this are not available at constituency level.

  Higher education public funding in England

  £ million

  Financial year

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Total HE public funding (cash terms)1

  3,560

  3,940

  4,530

  5,090

  5,690

  6,140

  6,350

  Real terms 1995–96 prices

  4,560

  4,670

  5,060

  5,460

  5,920

  6,280

  6,360

  As percentage of gross domestic product

  0.7

  0.7

  0.8

  0.8

  0.9

  0.9

  0.9

  Total HE public funding (cash terms)2

  3,030

  3,270

  3,680

  34,010

  34,390

  34,680

  3 44,820

  Real terms 1995–96 prices

  3,890

  3,870

  4,100

  4,300

  4,570

  4,780

  4,820

  As percentage of gross domestic product

  0.6

  0.6

  0.6

  0.7

  0.7

  0.7

  0.7

  1 Includes expenditure on student maintenance, including net student loans expenditure, for England.

  2 Excludes expenditure on student maintenance.

  3 Includes the dual support transfer to the Office of Science and Technology.

  4 Includes grant to the Teacher Training Agency.

  Planned public expenditure on higher education in England including student maintenance is £5,690 million, £6,140 million and £6,350 million in 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99 respectively.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) primary or infant and (b) secondary schools are now grant-maintained; how many applications in each sector are pending; and if she will make a statement. [33146]

  Mrs. Gillan
  As at 12 June, there are 457 grant-maintained, GM, primary and 646 GM secondary schools operating. Nursery schools are not eligible to become GM. A further 24 primary schools and 11 secondary schools either have published, or are due to publish, applications for GM status following ballots in which the parents voted in favour of the school becoming GM.

  St. Mary's School, Southend-on-Sea
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when her Department was advised of the proposal advanced by Church of England education authorities to transfer the St. Mary's school in East street, Southend-on-Sea to vacant premises owned by the Essex county council in Boston avenue, Southend; on what grounds her Department's permission is required for the change of location; and when she expects to come to a decision on the matter. [33553]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Secretary of State's approval is required for all proposals published under section 13 of the Education Act 1980 to transfer a school to a new site. The governing body of St. Mary's school published proposals on 12 January 1995, and we hope to reach a decision shortly.
  478

  Higher Education Funding
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the public expenditure on higher education in England(a) including and (b) excluding expenditure on student maintenance in (i) cash terms, (ii) real terms and (iii) expressed as percentage of United Kingdom gross domestic product for each financial year since 1989–90; and what is planned for 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99. [33344]

  Mr. Forth
  The information for 1989–0 to 1995–6 is as follows:

DEFENCE

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in each of the past five years health and safety problems in his Department and its agencies have been reported via internal monitoring; and on how many occasions the Health and Safety Commission has become involved. [33472]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost in each of the past five years of rectifying working conditions that were the responsibility of his Department and it agencies, to bring them up to acceptable health and safety standards, detailing incidents involving information technology and those involving expenditure of more than £5,000. [33475]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Information is not held in a way which would enable this question to be answered. Rectification of working conditions could cover a wide range of measures, including for example re-arrangement of office furniture, changes in working practices and major structural changes to buildings. Not all of these would be recorded and not all of them could be costed.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) minor, (b) major and (c) fatal injuries have been suffered by staff in his Department and its agencies in work-related incidents in each of the past five years, showing in each year how many were related to information technology and giving details of all incidents involving fatalities. [33473]
  479
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, a MOD-wide accident and incident reporting system is being developed and should be supplemented by April 1997. The system will enable information about accidents occurring from April 1997. The system will enable information about accidents occurring from April 1997 onwards to be recorded centrally.

  Civil Servants (Duties Abroad)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [32419]

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

  Statistics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which statistics his Department has discontinued(a) the collection and (b) the publication of since 1989. [32864]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Analytical Services Agency, DASA, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Paul Altobell to Mr. Mark Fisher, dated 19 June 1996:
  I have been asked to reply to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence Procurement about the collection and publication of statistics since 1989 as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA).The main vehicle for the publication of statistics about Defence is "United Kingdom Defence Statistics", formerly "Statement on the Defence Estimates Volume 2". Changes are made to the contents of the publication as the Department's structure and the issues facing Defence evolve. Changes to tables between the 1989 edition and the last published edition, for 1995, are as follows:

  "2.3 Analysis of the Defence budget by programme" replaced by "1.3 The Defence budget by budgetary area".

  "3.7 Directorate General Ship Refitting" discontinued following Departmental re-organisation and the abolition of the directorate.

  "4.1 Total MoD strength by area" replaced by "2.1 Regular Service and Civilian strengths".

  "4.2 Analysis of Service personnel by programme" replaced by "2.2 UK Regular Forces by budgetary area".

  "4.3 Analysis of Civilian staff by programme" replaced by "2.3 UK based Civilian personnel by budgetary area".

  "4.4 Strengths of UK Regular Forces" and "4.5 Strengths of trained UK Regular Forces" replaced by "2.7 Strengths of UK Regular Forces: training and untrained".

  "4.9 Strengths of Civilian staff employed in the Ministry of Defence; by type" and "4.10 Strengths of Occupational groups" replaced by "2.17 Permanent UK based Civilian personnel by grade equivalence".

  "4.11 Civilian apprentices: type of establishment" and "4.12 Civilian apprentices: location" discontinued as numbers covered continued to decline.

  "4.15 Recruitment of UK Regular Forces: by Service" and "4.16 Recruitment of male UK Regular Forces: by Category" replaced by "2.9 Intake from civil life of UK Regular Forces; by service and category".

  480

  "4.19 Recruitment and losses of UK based Civilian non-industrial staff by Occupational group" replaced by "2.18 Recruitment and losses of UK based Civilian personnel".

  "4.20 Outflow of trained Service personnel: major skill or trade groups" discontinued.

  "5.1 Social Expenditure in the Defence Budget" discontinued.

  "5.2 Strengths of uniformed medical staff of the UK Regular Forces" discontinued and replaced by separate publication (TSP24).

  "5.3 Service hospitals", "5.4 Sickness episodes of UK Regular Forces personnel: selected diagnoses", "5.5 Medical discharges of UK Regular Forces personnel" and "5.6 Deaths of UK Regular Forces personnel" replaced by "3.15 Health of the UK Regular Forces".

  "5.7 Selected qualifications obtained under Service sponsorship" discontinued.

  "5.10 Strengths of male UK Regular Forces and numbers married: by age" and "5.11 Strengths of male UK Regular Forces and numbers married: by rank" replaced by "2.8 Strengths of UK Regular Forces: by age and rank".

  "5.14 Service entertainment and welfare" discontinued.

  "5.15 SSVC Broadcasting division (BFBS)" discontinued.

  "5.16 Service pensioners" discontinued.

  "6.4 Expenditure on offshore tasks included in the Defence budget" discontinued.

  "6.6 Meteorological Office" discontinued. "6.7 Hydrographic services" discontinued.

  "7.1 Ethnic origins of applicants for entry to UK Regular Forces: summary" and "7.2 Ethnic origins of applicants for entry to UK Regular Forces: Regional analysis" replaced by "2.15 Ethnic origins of applicants and entrants to UK Regular Forces",

  "2.16 Ethnic composition of serving members of the UK Regular Forces" added.

  "2.19 Strength of casual Civilian personnel" added.

  "2.20 Defence Agencies: personnel numbers and operating costs" added.

  The Department collects and analyses significant amounts of data from its own administrative system for its own internal purposes. Changes to such collections and analyses arising from Departmental re-organisations since 1989 cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Postage Costs
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spent on postage in the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96; and how many items were posted during these periods. [32846]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency, DPCS under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from T. McG. Brown to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 19 June 1996:
  As Chief Executive of the Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency, I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence, the Rt. Hon. Michael Portillo MP, regarding postal costs.As well as those costs borne by this Agency many Individual units and establishments are responsible for their own postal expenditure. The costs in 1994/95 and 1995/96 was as follows:481

  £ million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  DPCS Agency costs

  0.744

  1.441

  Costs in other MOD areas

  7.288

  6,363

  Total

  8.062

  7.804

  I am sorry but MOD does not record separately the number of items posted. Indeed in the interests of economy we try to make the maximum use of contract postal arrangements, which do not necessarily depend on the number of items posted.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  METOP Satellite Project
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies he has evaluated in respect of his Department's involvement in the polar orbiting meteorological—METOP—satellite project; and what assessment he has made of the benefits of the project for United Kingdom industry. [33252]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department is evaluating reports prepared internally and by European Meteorological Satellite—EUMETSAT—and the European Space Agency—ESA—in respect of its involvement in, and requirements for, the METOP satellite project. The benefits to UK industry is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Armed Forces
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's forecast of the total manpower strength of the United Kingdom armed forces on 1 April 1999. [33187]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 25 March,Official Report, column 443.

  Future Large Aircraft
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his German counterpart concerning the future large aircraft programme. [33188]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has not recently discussed the future large aircraft programme with his German counterpart. However, when I met State Secretary Simon on Monday 11 March, the future large aircraft programme was among the subjects we discussed.

  Nuclear Weapons (Soviet Union)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance he has given to countries of the former Soviet Union to assist with the dismantling of their nuclear weapon stocks. [33190]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The UK has supplied the Russian Government with 250 armoured supercontainers, 20 heavy-duty vehicles and spares to assist with the safe and secure dismantlement of their surplus nuclear warheads. The cost of this programme to the UK has been approximately £35 million.
  482

  Bed-and-breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the estimated annual cost to his Department of providing bed-and-breakfast accommodation for service personnel and their families in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1994–95, (c) 1993–94, (d) 1992–93,(e) 1991–92 and (f) 1978–79. [33335]

  Mr. Soames
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Judicial Review
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in each Session since 1991–2 legislation has been introduced into Parliament by his Department, with the purpose of(a) removing the effects of a judicial review decision or (b) implementing a judicial review decision; and if he will list the relevant legislative provisions. [33583]

  Mr. Soames
  None.

TRANSPORT

  Runway Overshoots
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of overshoots at Gatwick and Heathrow airports for each of the last five years. [32786]

  Mr. Norris
  Statistics for runway overshoots for the whole of the period requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, figures are available for 1994 and 1995 and are as follows:

  Gatwick

  Heathrow

  1994

  332

  406

  1995

  355

  446

  Regional Airports (EU Funding)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what programmes he is putting in place to ensure that all UK regional airports can benefit from EU public service obligation funding. [32804]

  Mr. Norris
  EC legislation allows member states to impose a public service obligation on a scheduled air service to an airport serving a peripheral or development region in its territory or on a thin route to any regional airport in its territory, where the route is considered vital for the economic development of the region and the availability of other forms of transport is limited. A subsidy may be paid where no operator is able to provide a commercial service which complies with the terms of the PSO.

  In the UK, certain routes serving the western and northern islands of Scotland are regarded as lifeline routes. The operator of air services on these routes receives subsidy from the Scottish Office or local government. PSOs are progressively being imposed on the routes in line with EC legislation, and any subsidies

  483
  required will continue to be provided by the Scottish Office and the islands councils. At present, no PSOs have been imposed on mainland services.

  A249
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the expected date for the opening of the A249 Iwade bypass (M2 to Kingsferry Bridge); what is the latest estimated cost of the project; and what factors underlay the delay in the completion of the scheme. [33249]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Sir Roger Moate, dated 19 June 1996:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State about the expected opening date and the latest estimated cost for the A249 between the M2 and Iwade.Following earlier delays, construction is now entering its final phase which should see substantial completion by September. I will let you know the exact date when it is known.When I wrote to you on 29 November 1995 I described the reasons for the delays and I enclose a copy of the letter for you case of reference.The tender price of the project is £35,721,035. We are unable to give an estimate of the final cost without the risk of prejudicing discussions on the costs which are taking place.
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the studies that have been undertaken by his Department in connection with the preparation of the draft orders for the A249 Iwade to Queensborough corner improvement scheme including the second crossing of the Swale; what is the estimated cost of consultation and planning work leading to the publication of the draft orders; and what is the latest estimated cost of the project. [33248]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Sir Roger Moate, dated 19 June 1996:
  As you know, John Watts, the Minister for the Railways and Roads, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the A249 Iwade-Queensborough Improvement scheme.All the base ecological studies required for draft Order purposes have been completed. The Topographical Survey is due for completion later this month and the contract for the relevant Ground Investigation Survey will be awarded soon. Traffic surveys have also been undertaken.The latest estimated cost of the planning work leading to the preparation of the draft Orders is £1.85m. The latest estimated cost of building the scheme is £97m (this includes works, preparation and supervision and land).

  Traffic Area Offices
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by traffic area office, the constituencies within each traffic area boundary. [33296]

  Mr. Norris
  I have placed the information the Library of the House.
  484
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the total running costs for the traffic area co-ordination division within his Department. [33295]

  Mr. Norris
  The total running costs budget for 1996–97 for the traffic area co-ordination division—now the traffic area network unit—is £629,428.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of(a) heavy goods vehicles and (b) public service vehicles authorised to operate in each traffic office area. [33294]

  Mr. Norris
  The number of heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles authorised to operate in each traffic office area as at March 1996 is as follows:

  TAO

  HGVs

  PSVs

  NETA

  64,189

  13,104

  NWTA

  66,864

  12,853

  WMTA

  43,454

  7,203

  ETA

  67,621

  9,831

  SWTA

  17,120

  4,196

  WTA

  54,580

  11,089

  SEMTA

  51,658

  13,026

  SCOTA

  37,090

  10,332

  Operators' Licences
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by traffic area office the number of objections to the issue of an operator's licence received from the police for each of the last five years.[33297]

  Mr. Norris
  The numbers are as follows:

  TAO

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  North Eastern

  9

  5

  5

  6

  4

  North Western

  1

  0

  1

  2

  2

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Eastern

  2

  33

  22

  29

  29

  South Wales

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Western

  6

  12

  6

  7

  2

  South Eastern and Metropolitan

  38

  36

  26

  10

  10

  Scottish

  0

  1

  1

  0

  2

  Next Step Agencies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the areas of policy which have been devolved to next steps agencies since April 1992. [33362]

  Mr. Norris
  Ministers retain overall responsibility for policy and would be consulted on any major decisions. Officials of the Department's agencies prepare policy advice for Ministers where they are in the best position to do so. Two agencies have specific day-to-day policy development responsibilities within a framework determined by Ministers.

  The Marine Safety Agency, established in April 1994, has responsibility for developing and reviewing marine safety and pollution prevention policies and standards and to represent the Department's interests in those areas nationally and internationally.
  485
  The Highways Agency, established in April 1994, has responsibility for developing and co-ordination land and compensation policy issues across the whole Department.

  Vehicle Insurance
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the number of motorists who currently drive without vehicle insurance. [33556]

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Uninsured Drivers
  Mr. French
  To ask the secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has come forward with to tackle the problem of uninsured drivers; following his Department's consultation with the Association of British Insurers. [33557]

  Mr. Norris
  I am expecting a formal report from the Association of British Insurers soon. We will be deciding on the way forward after we have seen that report.

  Charter Flights
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has completed his review of policy on fifth freedom passenger charter flights. [33701]

  Sir George Young
  On 10 January this year, my noble friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping announced a package of measures relating to the safety of foreign-registered aircraft, one of which was a review of policy on charter flights from the UK by airlines from countries other than those they are serving, known as fifth freedom charters. We have now completed the review of passenger charter flights, following consultation with UK airlines, tour operators and brokers and other interested bodies. We intend to make a number of changes aimed at ensuring that fifth freedom charter services continue to be the exception to the normal rule that UK holidaymakers travelling by charter airline should be carried either on UK carriers or on carriers from the country of destination. The changed procedures will give UK airlines more opportunity to offer services, while continuing to allow some flexibility, in the interests of passengers, where they are not able to do so.

  The changes are as follows:-

  (a) he number of fifth freedom flights which any one foreign carrier can operate from the UK in any one season—apart from flights which are permitted under EC legislation or other international agreements will be limited to 10 return flights;

  (b) applications for permission to operate fifth freedom flights must normally be made at least six weeks in advance of the flight. Late applications will in certain circumstances he permitted provided they are made at least five working days in advance of the flight;

  (c)applications will be published in the Civil Aviation Authority's official record in order that any UK airline may object if it has a suitable aircraft available. Late applications will be circulated to airlines by telex for objections. All decisions on applications will be published subsequently.

  Fifth freedom flights will be permitted only where no UK airline is able to offer a suitable aircraft, and provided that the authorities of the foreign airline are prepared to offer similar opportunities to UK carriers and that the necessary certificates are presented to my Department.
  486
  The changes to the timetable for applications and the introduction of the published procedure will come into effect from the beginning of the winter season. The limit to the numbers of flights will be applied from 1 August this year. Applications received before this date will not count towards the limit for the current season.

  Road Tax
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to transfer the responsibility for the enforcement of road tax to local authorities. [33552]

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  London Airports
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to promote competition and consumer choice between the principal London airports. [32128]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government's response to the report of the runway capacity in the south east group stated that they wished to provide the opportunity for the less busy airports in the south-east to develop. Greater choice for consumers is also promoted by the Government's policies for liberalisation of air services. The RUCATSE response highlighted the opening up of Stansted and Luton for transatlantic flights.

  The Transport Select Committee report on UK airport capacity, published on 21 May, included a recommendation that, during the present quinquennial review of BAA, the Civil Aviation Authority and Monopolies and Mergers Commission re-examine whether BAA should remain the provider of services to the three main south-east airports, or whether Gatwick and Stansted should be owned and operated separately from Heathrow. The Government will be responding to the TSC report in due course.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Judicial Review
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) on how many occasions in each Session since 1991–92 legislation has been introduced into Parliament by his Department, with the purpose of(a) removing the effects of a judicial review decision or (b) implementing a judicial review decision; and if he will list the relevant legislative provisions; [33591]

  (2) how many decisions by his Department were challenged by way of judicial review in each Session since 1991–92; and if he will list in how many cases (a) the Department's decision was upheld by the court, (b) the court found for the applicant, (c) the Department submitted to the judgment and (d) the Department appealed successfully against the judicial review decision. [33575]

  Sir John Wheeler
  This information is not available.
  487

  Pharmacies
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of pharmacies in Northern Ireland by year since 1979. [33080]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is not available prior to 1983. The number of pharmacies in Northern Ireland in April of each year since 1983 is as follows:

  1983: 509

  1984: 511

  1985: 520

  1986: 523

  1987: 534

  1988: 527

  1989: 513

  1990: 510

  1991: 506

  1992: 506

  1993: 510

  1994: 508

  1995: 502

  1996: 504.

  Customer Charters
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list(a) the customer charters which are currently in use within his Department and its executive agencies and (b) the charters which have been withdrawn. [32834]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Eleven charters published by the Northern Ireland Office, Northern Ireland Departments and their agencies are currently in use. A list is given below.

  A Charter for Patients and Clients

  Social Security Agency Customer Charter

  Training and Employment Agency Customer's Charter

  The Parent's Charter for Northern Ireland (Department of Education (NI)

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive Tenant's Charter

  Northern Ireland Railway Passengers Charter

  Royal Ulster Constabulary Charter

  Ulsterbus/Citybus—Bus Passengers Charter

  Child Support Agency Northern Ireland Charter

  Courts' Charter for Northern Ireland

  The Charter for Further Education in Northern Ireland

  No Northern Ireland charters have been withdrawn.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  "The Growth of Social Security"
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish table 8 on page 16 of "The Growth of Social Security" updated to 1995–96. [32484]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is set out in the table.
  488

  Social security benefit expenditure in 1995–96 and 2000–2001

  Benefit

  1995–96

  2000–2001

  Retirement Pension— Basic

  27.9

  29.4

  Retirement Pension— Earnings-Related

  2.3

  4.6

  Widow's Pension

  1.1

  1.1

  War Pension

  1.2

  1.3

  Attendance Allowance

  2.2

  2.7

  Disability Living Allowance

  3.7

  5.9

  Unemployment Benefit/Jobseeker's Allowance

  11.1

  15.2

  Invalidity/Incapacity Benefit—basic—

  6.7

  5.1

  earnings-related

  1.4

  0.7

  Income Support— pensioner—

  3.8

  2.7

  non-pensioners

  12.8

  7.9

  Child Benefit

  6.3

  6.6

  Family Credit

  1.7

  2.0

  Rent Allowance

  5.4

  6.8

  Rent Rebate

  0.7

  0.7

  Council Tax Benefit

  2.1

  2.3

  Other Benefits

  3.5

  4.9

  Total DSS

  83.5

  89.9

  Rent Rebate Subsidy Element (RRSE)

  3.5

  2.9

  Total DSS and RRSE

  86.9

  92.8

  Non-central Government Housing Benefit

  1.9

  2.5

  Grant Total Benefits

  88.8

  95.3

  1. All figures are estimated outturn in 1995–96 prices.

  2. The table shows the latest long-term projections of social security benefit expenditure in a similar format to that used in table 8 of "The Growth of Social Security".

  3. The latest projections assume a constant unemployment level over the period.

  4. Projections showing the effect of falling unemployment have not been produced for the latest figures.

  1 Expenditure on jobseeker's allowance in 2000–01, covers contributory and non-contributory jobseeker's allowance and includes some expenditure classified as income support (non-pensioners) in 1995–96.

  Widowers' Pensions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those countries in the European Union where widowers currently receive equal rights in pensions and are paid a widower's pension; and if he will make a statement. [32752]

  Mr. Heald
  Information on entitlement to widowers' pensions in the European Union countries is contained in "Social Protection in the Member States of the European Union", published by the European Commission, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Postage Costs
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much his Department spent on postage in the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96; and how many items were posted during these periods. [32847]

  Mr. Burt
  Departmental expenditure on postage in the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96 was £74,705,828 and £77,484,449 respectively.

  The figure for 1995–6 is provisional.
  489
  The number of items posted with Royal Mail but excluding other carriers was 322,332,200 and 326,317,600 respectively.

  The figures for postal expenditure and volume include letters, packages and parcels but not the use of courier services for internal distribution, particularly the departmental courier contract.

  Judicial Review
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on how many occasions in each Session since 1991–92 legislation has been introduced into Parliament by his Department, with the purpose of(a) removing the effects of a judicial review decision or (b) implementing a judicial review decision; and if he will list the relevant legislative provisions. [33593]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. The legislation listed below has been introduced to restore the original policy intention following judicial review decisions:

  Session

  Number of judicial reviews

  Department's decision upheld

  Court found for the applicant

  Department submitted to judgment

  Department successfully appealed

  1994–95

  11

  8

  3

  2

  1

  1995–96

  11

  7

  4

  2

  1

  1 appeal pending

  Income Support
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans his Department has to review the current rules on the payment of mortgage interest to income support claimants in cases where it is aware that the home was obtained through illegal means; and if he will make a statement. [31893]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [holding answer 12 June 1996]: The issue of alleged illegality is a matter for the mortgage lenders to take such action as they deem to be appropriate in the circumstances. It is not a matter for this Department. If the mortgage lender obtains, having proved fraud in court, an order for possession or foreclosure, income support mortgage interest payments cease to be payable.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated number of families on income support receiving mortgage interest payments in respect of properties which his Department is aware were obtained through illegal means. [31892]

  Mr. Evans
  [holding answer 12 June 1996]: The information is not available.

HEALTH

  General Practitioners
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been commissioned by his 490

  1993–94

  The Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1994

  The Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 1994

  1994–95

  The Income-related Benefits Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 6) Regulations 1994

  The Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 1995

  The Social Security Benefits (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1995

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many decisions by his Department were challenged by way of judicial review in each Session since 1991–92; and if he will list in how many cases(a) the Department's decision was upheld by the court, (b) the court found for the applicant, (c) the Department submitted to the judgment and (d) the Department appealed successfully against the judicial review decision. [33576]

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

  Department into work-related stress facing general practitioners; and if he will make a statement. [32480]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department commissioned a study on stress in doctors which began in 1983 and is on-going. The aim of the study is to assess the levels and causes of stress in doctors, to explore ways to identify as early as possible those at risk, and to make recommendations on combatting stress. In addition, the Department has funded the Royal College of General Practitioners to support its work in this area.

  Acute Hospital Beds
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of acute hospital beds per head of population in each European country. [32559]

  Mr. Malone
  Comparable data on acute beds in European countries are not available because of variations in national definitions of acute care.

  Operation Waiting Times (Smokers)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has evaluated in the last five years into waiting times for operations for smokers relative to those for non-smokers. [32563]

  Mr. Horam
  None.

  Arachis Oil
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department is carrying out into arachis oil; what guidance his Department issues in respect of preparations for breast-feeding mothers containing arachis oil; and if he will make statement. [32755]
  491
  Mr. Malone
  The Department is carrying out no research into arachis oil. There is no evidence to exclude the use of arachis oil in lactating mothers. Guidance regarding use of medicinal products containing arachis oil is given in the manufacturers' product information for doctors and patients, which is authorised by the Licensing Authority, and in the British National Formulary which is sent free of charge to all doctors by the Department of Health.

  Statistics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which statistics his Department has discontinued(a) the collection and (b) the publication of since 1989. [32865]

  Mr. Horam
  Changes in the basis of compilation, presentation and publication of statistical series are made from time to time in response to the requirements of Government and other users of statistics. Other changes reflect changes in administrative systems on which some series are based and technological developments affecting the compilation and dissemination of statistical data. The statistical material sought by the Department from the national health service, family health services practitioners and local authorities is kept under review to ensure that the burden on respondents is fully justified by the uses to which the data are put.

  Since 1989, many changes have taken place as a result of the reforms in the health service and changes in legislation. Collections which have been discontinued have been announced in speeches, parliamentary questions, in guidance to the health service and local authorities and in relevant statistical publications. As well as discontinuing series which are no longer justified, the Department has introduced some new collections, for example to monitor outpatient waiting times and to support the patients charter.

  Private Patients
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 June,Official Report, columns 109–10, if he will list the number of private patients in NHS pay beds in 1994–95 whose treatment is recorded in the hospital episode system under each of the five most frequently used (a) operation and (b) diagnosis codes in relation to conditions of (i) the nervous system, (ii) the eye, (iii) the upper digestive tract, (iv) the other abdominal organs, (v) the heart, (vi) the arteries and veins, (vii) the urinary system, (viii) the bones and joints of the skull and spines and (ix) miscellaneous. [33304]

  Mr. Horam
  The information available centrally relates to finished consultant episodes. A table will be placed in the Library showing the number of completed first order episodes, by selected main operation and principal diagnosis.

  Elective Surgery
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many elective operations were performed in the private sector privately as a percentage of NHS elective surgery(a) by region and (b) nationally in the last five years; [33604]
  492
  (2) how many elective operations have been performed in the private sector (a) by region and (b) nationally in the last five years. [33605]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 13 May, column 322.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were waiting for in-patient admission in the NHS by region at the latest date for which figures were available. [33545]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on waiting times for in-patient admission is not available separately. Information on the number of people waiting for in-patient and day case admissions in all regions for the month ended 31 March 1996 is shown in the table.

  Provisional waiting time figure as at 31 March 1996

  Region

  0–11 months

  12–17 months

  18+ months

  Northern and Yorkshire

  144,077

  127

  0

  Trent

  95,970

  2,108

  0

  Anglia and Oxford

  109,768

  746

  0

  North Thames

  155,745

  934

  0

  South Thames

  152,238

  33

  0

  South and West

  124,170

  394

  0

  West Midlands

  82,330

  39

  0

  North West

  173,041

  0

  0

  All regions

  1,037,339

  4,381

  0

  St. George's Hospital NHS Trust
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members of the St. George's hospital NHS trust; indicating their qualifications and their outside interests. [33102]

  Mr. Malone
  A list of those appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to national health service authorities and trusts as at 1 April 1996, together with their occupation category, will be published later this summer and copies placed in the Library.

  Board members' relevant private interests are declared and entered in a register of interests. These registers are made available by NHS authorities and trusts for public inspection on request.

  Gelatine
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the name of the expert from the Medicines Control Agency who advised the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee concerning the use of gelatine produced from non-specified bovine offal material; and what are that person's qualifications and experience concerning the study of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. [33137]

  Mr. Horam
  It is not the custom or practice to give details of individual civil servants.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new information was available to the
  493
  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee by 25 March, concerning potential contamination of gelatine by BSE infectivity to result in the alteration of existing advice outlined in the British Medical Journal of 20 April, page 988, issued by the Committee on Safety of Medicines in 1989 and adopted by the European Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products; and if he will make a statement. [33138]

  Mr. Horam
  The article in the British Medical Journal of 20 April, page 988, reviewed the history and content of the 1989 United Kingdom bovine spongiform encephalopathy guidelines and the later 1992 Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products guideline, "Minimizing the risk of transmitting agents causing spongiform encephalopathy via medicinal products", and concluded the guidelines were effective.

  The CPMP guideline states:
  "Given assurances of adequate collection and processing, certain materials and their derivatives are unlikely to present any risk of contamination. These include … skin and its derivatives, for example gelatin".
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has accepted the advice of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, issued on 25 March, in respect of the safety of gelatine from non-specified bovine material in pharmaceutical and medical devices; and if he will make a statement. [33139]

  Mr. Horam
  The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee is the expert committee set up to advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on all matters to do with spongiform encephalopathies. Ministers have always accepted their advice and take account of it when implementing measures to protect public health.

SCOTLAND

  Court of Session Judges
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the role of the Lord Advocate in the appointment of a Court of Session judge; with whom he consults; and to whom he makes the recommendation. [32286]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Judges are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Because the Secretary of State does not normally have personal knowledge of suitable nominees, he relies on the Lord Advocate, who submits names to him for his consideration. The current practice is for the Lord Advocate always to consult the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, before putting forward any nomination. On occasion, other senior members of the legal profession and judiciary are also consulted by the Lord Advocate.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, per constituency (1) the number of electors registered for a postal or proxy vote; [33064]
  494
  (2) the number of women on the current Scottish electoral registers. [33062]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Postage Costs
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department spent on postage in the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96; and how many items were posted during these periods. [32850]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The expenditure on postage and the number of items posted in the financial years 1994–95, and 1995–96 are as shown:

  Year

  Cost £

  Items

  1994–95

  1,243,098

  3,400,000

  1995–96

  1,214,071

  3,187,173

  Households
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of households in each Scottish constituency. [33063]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is contained in table H of the General Register Office (Scotland) publication "The 1991 Census: Monitoring for Parliamentary Constituencies in Scotland", copies of which are in the Library.

  Motorways
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by parliamentary constituency the location of the sections of motorway in Scotland that have overhead lighting; and if he will plot this information on a map and place a copy in the Library. [33039]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The following table lists the locations of overhead lighting on motorways in Scotland. This information is not readily available by parliamentary constituency and a map could be made available only at disproportionate cost.

  Motorway

  Section

  Location

  Lengths (miles)

  M8

  Hermiston Gate Interchange to Newhouse Interchange

  Hermiston Gate Interchange westwards

  1.00

  Claylands Interchange to Newbridge Roundabout

  2.50

  Dechmont Interchange

  —

  Baillieston Interchange to St. James Interchange

  20.00

  St. James Interchange to West Ferry Toll (including M898 Erskine Road Brige)

  Erskine Road Bridge Plaza

  0.25

  495

  Motorway

  Section

  Location

  Lengths (miles)

  M9

  Newbridge Roundabout to Keir Roundabout

  Newbridge Roundabout

  —

  Keir Roundabout

  —

  M73

  Mollinsburn Interchange to Maryville Interchange

  North of Baillieston Interchange to Maryville Interchange

  1.50

  M74

  Fullarton Road to Gretna

  Fullarton Road to Hamilton Interchange

  7.00

  Gretna Interchange to Guardsmill Interchange

  2.00

  M80

  Stepps Bypass

  Provan Interchange to Hornhill Interchange

  4.50

  M90

  Admiralty Interchange to Broxden Roundabout/ Barnhill Interchange

  Halbeath Interchange

  —

  Cocklaw Interchange

  —

  Kinross Interchange

  —

  Broxden Roundabout

  —

  M876

  Bankhead Junction to Bowtrees Roundabout

  Bowtrees Roundabout

  —

  Total

  38.75

  Fisheries Guidance
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications he has received since 1 July 1994 for financial assistance under the financial instrument for fisheries guidance from(a) Caithness and (b) Sutherland; how many have been approved; and what is their grant value. [32821]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Six applications have been received from Caithness: three were approved with grants totalling £539,589. Sutherland also produced six applications, of which five obtained grants totalling £199,844.

  Pharmacies
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of pharmacies in Scotland by year since 1979. [33083]

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

  Year

  Number

  1979

  1,124

  1980

  1,108

  1981

  1,118

  1982

  1,112

  1983

  1,121

  1984

  1,123

  1985

  1,135

  1986

  1,156

  1987

  1,145

  1988

  1,128

  1989

  1,130

  1990

  1,136

  496

  Year

  Number

  1991

  1,133

  1992

  1,137

  1993

  1,138

  1994

  1,136

  1995

  1,139

  Shotgun and Firearm Licences
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many semi-automatic and pump action shotguns have been certified as shotguns after being modified from section 1 firearms classification under the terms of the Firearms Act 1988 in each year since the Act came into operation. [32881]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday,Official Report, column 383, by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of State, Home Department.

  Judicial Review
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) on how many occasions in each Session since 1991–92 legislation has been introduced into Parliament by his Department, with the purpose of(a) removing the effects of a judicial review decision or (b) implementing a judicial review decision; and if he will list the relevant legislative provisions; [33592]

  (2) how many decisions by his Department were challenged by way of judicial review in each session since 1991–2; and if he will list in how many cases (a) the Department's decision was upheld by the court, (b) the court found for the applicant, (c) the Department submitted to the judgment and (d) the Department appealled successfully against the judicial review decision. [33574]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Cullen Inquiry
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library transcripts of the evidence given to the Cullen inquiry. [33836]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In response to expressions of interest, I have arranged for transcripts of the evidence prepared for the tribunal to date to be placed in the House Library. Further transcripts will be sent to the Library on a daily basis.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Rabies
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which recommendations of the Scientific Veterinary Committee in paper VI/1533/92-EN-REK1 formed the basis of the derogations in the Balai directive which establish a different system for the UK and Ireland from that in the remainder of the European Community. [32194]
  497
  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 10 June 1996]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to him on 24 April, Official Report, columns 211–12.

  The Scientific Veterinary Committee report confined itself to evaluating the risks of spreading rabies through the movement of rabies susceptible animals within the European Community and providing an opinion on how these risks might be reduced or eliminated. It did not discuss the detail of how to apply new rules on the movement of traded dogs and cats. The provisions in the Balai directive on the movement of traded dogs and cats into the UK and Ireland from elsewhere within the European Union are therefore not identical to any specific recommendations within the report. These provisions represent the safeguards which the Council of Ministers believed were necessary in the light of the risks which the report identified.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide 10 positive and 10 negative BSE urine samples to Mr. Harash Narang for research into BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease. [32911]

  Mrs. Browning
  We are in discussion with Dr. Narang on the supply of samples for validation of his urine test. One of the difficulties is establishing a baseline of BSE negative cattle for validating a test. This is not so easy as might appear at first sight and we are in discussions with Dr. Narang about arrangements for collecting urine from cattle in countries which have never had a case of BSE, so as to be absolutely certain that they are truly negative and that there can be no doubt about interpretation if any of the samples deemed to be negative test positive in his hands.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if grade 2 laboratories have the facilities to carry out cattle urine testing for BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease research. [32912]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.

  Containment level 2 laboratories, as defined in the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994, are suitable for work with material infected with or potentially infected with the agents of BSE and CJD, subject to certain specific additional precautions. In the case of OD, these are a requirement of the COSHH regulations. In the case of BSE, guidance from the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens advises that additional precautions be adopted where work is undertaken with material infected with or potentially infected with the BSE agent.

  Beef Exports Ban
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when(a) the USA. (b) Australia, (c) Canada and (d) New Zealand applied bans to United Kingdom beef exports; how many representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government about these bans to each of these countries in each year since the ban was imposed until 20 March; how many representations MAFF received from United Kingdom farmers and the United Kingdom beef industry about these bans before 20 March; and what was the total
  498
  value of United Kingdom beef exports to each of these countries in each of three years before the ban was imposed. [32531]

  Mrs. Browning
  The United Kingdom had not received any formal notification of a ban on British beef exports from any of these countries before 20 March 1996. The total value of United Kingdom beef exports—which includes all bovine material fit for human consumption—to the countries in question, for the years 1993 to 1995 inclusive, is provided in the table.

  Exports of Bovine material fit for human consumption

  Value £ thousand

  1993

  11994

  11995

  Australia

  7

  7

  41

  Canada

  208

  60

  109

  New Zealand

  0

  7

  70

  USA

  1

  105

  257

  1Provisional.Source:

  Business and Trade Statistics Limited.

  Notes:

  1. The table gives data for the export of carcass meat of bovine origin and all other products fit for human consumption, including offals and fully cooked beef products.

  2. Figures given are for total recorded trade in the Overseas Trade Statistics. Beef origination from outside the UK is not separately identifiable.

  Calf Slaughter Scheme
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many calves have been slaughtered to date under the calf slaughter scheme; and if he will make a statement. [32451]

  Mr. Baldry
  By 14 June 1996, 32,017 calves had been slaughtered in the United Kingdom under the calf processing aid scheme.

  Bovine Immune Deficiency Virus
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the breeds of livestock in which cases of bovine immune deficiency virus have been diagnosed; and if he will make a statement; [32906]

  (2) if he will list for each of the last four years, and for this year to date, the number of cases of bovine immune deficiency virus that have been diagnosed in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) other European Union countries. [32905]

  Mrs. Browning
  Bovine immune deficiency-like virus has not been confirmed in the United Kingdom this year or during the preceding four years.

  BIV is not a notifiable disease under EU legislation and it is not a condition that is included in either list A or B of the Office International des Epizooties code list. We do not therefore have information on the number of BIV cases that have been diagnosed in other European countries. The results of the first surveys carried out in France and Germany for BIV have been published in the last two years and they indicated that BIV was present in both countries.
  499

  Civil Servants (Companies)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 21 May,Official Report, column 168, on how many occasions each of the companies cited has been found guilty of civil or criminal offences in each of the last eight years. [32934]

  Mr. Boswell
  I have no information as to whether any of these companies has or has not been found guilty of any criminal offence. I will write to the hon. Member to set out the general position on offences committed by companies.

  Organo-pesticides
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on possible links between bovine spongiform encephalopathy, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and cancer and the use of organo-pesticides in agriculture in the United Kingdom. [33537]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 June 1996]: Epidemiological studies at the beginning of the BSE outbreak have revealed no correlation between the incidence of BSE in cattle and the use of chemicals in agriculture. Government is also aware that its independent advisory committee, the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, has considered a number of possible theories about the origins of BSE including one that it relates to the use of organophosphates in cattle treatment but has not recommended that the Government undertake any research in furtherance of this theory. The Government are also aware of experiments conducted by staff from the Medical Research Council toxicology unit which showed that there was no significant binding between an organophosphate molecule and the PrP protein thought to be involved in the disease BSE as predicated in the theory.

  Under statutory procedures for the approval of pesticides, data on the carcinogenic potential of all pesticides, including OPs, are required and evaluated by the regulatory authorities.

WALES

  Cattle Farming and Processing
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are employed in(a) beef farming, (b) dairy farming and (c) the rendering industry in (i) Wales and (ii) each parliamentary constituency in Wales. [31847]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The available information on the number of employees, excluding the self-employed, by industry, from the 1993 census of employment, is on the NOMIS database which can be accessed by the staff at the Library of the House. This source does not provide figures for beef and dairy farming separately.

  The table provides data for specialist dairy and specialist beef farming, including self-employment, from
  500
  the June agricultural census. Figures for parliamentary constituencies are not available.

  Numbers of people employed in specialist dairy and specialist beef farming

  Wales:

  1993

  1995

  Specialist dairy

  9,408

  10,105

  Specialist beef

  1,012

  1,110

  There are no rendering facilities in Wales.

  Figures are for main holdings.

  Steelworks (Ministerial Visits)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the steelworks he has visited in his official capacity. [32898]

  Mr. Hague
  I have visited British Steel's Port Talbot works and ASW's Cardiff rod and reinforcement plant.

  Statistics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which statistics his Department has discontinued(a) the collection and (b) the publication of since 1989. [32859]

  Mr. Hague
  Changes to the basis of collection, presentation and publication of statistical series are made in response to the requirements of users of official statistics. All statistical returns are subject to regular review and a number have been changed or discontinued in recent years to reduce the burden on respondents or because data were no longer required in the same form. In some cases, responsibility for data collection has transferred from the Welsh Office to another body, or vice versa. However, key statistics continue to be published in all subject areas. Changes to the range of statistics available are documented in the relevant statistical publications.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what further measures he proposes to assist beef farmers affected by BSE outbreaks. [32891]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  We have introduced a number of measures designed to help beef farmers, including prompt payment of beef special and suckler cow premiums and a compensation scheme related to market prices for beef cattle over 30 months of age which must be removed from the food chain. The Council of Ministers is considering a proposal to top up beef special and suckler cow premiums and to provide additional support to beef farmers who have been most directly affected by the crisis.

  House Building
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures for(a) housing associations, (b) private and (c) council house building; and what were the figures for 1979. [32893]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Completions by sector are given in the table. The numbers shown for housing association completions are based on local authority returns which may underestimate the level of activity.
  501

  Housing association

  Private sector

  Local authority

  1979

  1,016

  6,980

  3,010

  1995

  2,258

  6,518

  176

  Source:

  Local authority and National House-Building Council returns.

  Schools (Parental Choice)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) appeals and (b) letters have been made by parents on the grounds of non-admission of their child to the school of their choice for each of the last five years by each of the former counties of Wales. [33159]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision is made for teaching through the medium of Welsh in A-level courses in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [32543]

  Mr. Hague
  The medium of instruction in A-level courses in Wales is, as in other courses, a matter for individual schools. There were 1,300 entries for Welsh Joint Education Committee examinations at A-level through the medium of Welsh in 25 subjects in 1995, compared with 903 entries in 24 subjects in 1990.

  Judicial Review
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many decisions by his Department were challenged by way of judicial review in each session since 1991–92; and if he will list in how many cases(a) the Department's decision was upheld by the court, (b) the court found for the applicant, (c) the Department submitted to the judgment and (d) the Department appealled successfully against the judicial review decision. [33580]

  Mr. Hague
  The number of decisions made solely by the Welsh Office and challenged by way of judicial review in the sessions since 1991–92 are as follows:

  1991–92: 2

  1992–93: 4

  1993–94: 4

  1994–95: 5

  1995–96: 2

  The information that I have obtained thus far shows that the Department's decision was upheld in nine cases; the court found for the applicant in no cases; the Department submitted to judgment in eight cases and the Department appealed successfully against the judicial review it no cases.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions in each session since 1991–2 legislation has been introduced into Parliament by his Department, with the purpose of(a) removing the effects of a judicial review decision or (b) implementing a judicial review decision; and if he will list the relevant legislative provisions. [33597]

  Mr. Hague
  None.
  502

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Child Labour
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what restrictions are placed on the importing of goods produced by child labour. [32132]

  Mr. Nelson
  None. The Government deplore any exploitation of children and we press all countries which have signed labour conventions to meet their obligations. However, we believe improvements in labour standards are more likely to result from economic growth through trade than from unilateral trade restrictions which would simply damage those countries they seek to help.

  Objective 1 Funding
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the impact of European objective 1 funding on the United Kingdom economy; and if he will make a statement.[32133]

  Mr. Eggar
  The only UK objective 1 programme that is already completed covered Northern Ireland. It is estimated to have contributed an additional 3.6 per cent. to Northern Ireland gross domestic product and created an additional 10,000 jobs by 1993.

  Interim evaluations of the three objective 1 programmes which began in 1994, including that for the Scottish highlands and islands, are under way.

  Post Office
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his proposals for the future of the Post Office. [32134]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Government's plans for the future of the Post Office remain as set out in an oral statement on 11 May 1995,Official Report, columns 885–94 by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, then the President of the Board of Trade.

  Manufacturing Exports
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what contribution manufacturing industry is currently making to export levels. [32135]

  Mr. Nelson
  In 1995, the value of the United Kingdom's manufacturing exports was £127 billion, which represented 83 per cent. of our exports for that year. This is the highest percentage contribution of manufactures to exports for 23 years.

  Electricity and Water Companies
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received regarding the ownership of the electricity and water companies. [32136]

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).
  503

  European Space Agency
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to increase the United Kingdom's contributions to the European Space Agency. [32137]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I am at present reviewing space policy, including priorities and expenditure. We are holding a second UK space policy forum at Queen Mary and Westfield college on 25 June and plan to issue a UK space policy forward plan following it.

  I hope to make a further statement to the House around the time of the forum.

  Cyberspace Technology
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to promote British companies active in cyberspace technologies. [32138]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  My Department is both encouraging British companies to use the Internet and helping companies to supply products and services for the Internet. The information society initiative is the main vehicle, with a range of initiatives encouraging electronic commerce, multi-media demonstrators and product innovation in the creative industries. My Department is also encouraging industry to produce sector trade directories on the Internet so that customers across the world can be led, via cyberspace, to UK suppliers.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the initiatives he has undertaken to promote the United Kingdom steel industry in 1996. [32139]

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department, through BISPA, the British Iron and Steel Producers Association, is working on several initiatives aimed at enhancing the industry's competitiveness. These are as follows.

  Dust recycling benchmarking study;

  Electronic data interchange development project;

  Customer perception survey and best practice benchmarking project (phase I);

  Logistics/transit time performance study;

  Future competitiveness of the narrow strip sector;

  Productivity in the wire drawing sector;

  Steel training benchmarking club—phase II;

  Raw materials supply chains for the automotive components sector;

  Promotion of national vocational qualifications—NVQ—to steel industry small and medium enterprises;

  Health and safety NVQ module.

  Steel in the 21st century conference in July 1996.

  In addition, we have run two successful workshops aimed at transferring best practice in benchmarking and electronic commerce across the steel sectors.

  University Research Equipment
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the equipment needs of United Kingdom universities for carrying out research. [32140]
  504
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Research equipment and other needs of the science budget portfolio are assessed with advice from the Director General of Research Councils.

  The research councils are currently administering an equipment fund with the higher education funding councils.

  Manufacturing Industry (Wakefield)
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action his Department is taking to encourage manufacturing industries into the Wakefield area; and if he will make a statement. [32141]

  Mr. Page
  Through the work of the Invest in Britain Bureau, my Department promotes the UK as a location for inward investment generally. In the Yorkshire and Humberside region, the DTI provides most of the revenue for the Yorkshire and Humberside development agency, the specific job of which is the regional co-ordination of promotion work and the encouragement of inward investment to the region, including, of course, the Wakefield area.

  Wakefield is already strategically placed on the road and rail network, and my Department has enhanced its attractiveness to investors by granting the city DTI intermediate area status in 1993. Since January 1994, regional selective assistance of more than £2.4 million has been awarded to businesses, and almost 900 jobs have been created or safeguarded.

  Through the Government office for Yorkshire and Humberside, my Department is also involved in administering European funding under the objective 2 programme. So far, £4.4 million has been allocated to Wakefield for a range of projects, including the development of a channel tunnel railfreight terminal, which will assist manufacturing directly or indirectly. Wakefield will also benefit from the RETEX and RECHAR initiatives, which provide funds for regenerating former textile and coal mining areas.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the importance of research and development to the United Kingdom's competitiveness. [32142]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Harnessing the excellence of our science, engineering and technology and promoting innovation, including research and development, are essential to improving our competitive performance and are reviewed fully in the Government's competitiveness White Paper.

  Export Orders (South-west)
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what support his Department is giving to businesses in the south-west seeking to win export orders. [32143]

  Mr. Nelson
  The full range of the Government's overseas trade services is available to south-west businesses. The services can be accessed from any of the 23 business links outlets in the region.
  505

  Offshore Oil and Gas
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last discussed with the representatives of Scottish fishermen the implications of the regulations governing the dismantlement programmes for redundant offshore oil and gas structures and pipeline networks. [32144]

  Mr. Eggar
  My officials regularly meet representatives of the Scottish fishing industry to discuss a wide range of issues, including decommissioning offshore oil and gas installations.

  Small Firms and Higher Education
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he is taking to encourage links between small firms and higher education departments. [32145]

  Mr. Page
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has responsibility for ensuring adequate links between higher education establishments and all sectors of industry, including small firms. The focus of recent work has included assisting enterprises in recruitment and the use of graduate skills.

  For example, the higher education business partnership programme will help build on continuing employer-led partnership between higher education and the small business sector to support a more effective graduate labour market. Using graduate skills will develop strategies and tools to increase graduate recruitment by small businesses, and assist them in making better use of the graduates they recruit.

  My Department has links with higher education departments through a number of initiatives aimed at businesses of all sizes, to encourage innovation and expertise.

  The focus technology programme run in association with business links, aims to help research and technology organisations and higher education institutions improve the contact they have with small firms and the technological services they provide to them.

  In March 1996, my Department's innovation unit published a survey of university-industry research links. This is primarily aimed at encouraging universities to benchmark their own performance in the area. However, it records the presence of services relevant to small and medium enterprises—SMEs—and whether databases of expertise are available.

  The unit has also facilitated the production of a guide to issues for companies to consider when undertaking collaborative projects with universities. This was drafted by the Association for University Research and Industry Links, AURIL, and the Intercompany Academic Research Group, ICARG. It is a useful guide for SMEs considering entering such projects.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on forecast trends with respect to manufacturing output. [32146]
  506
  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out his latest estimate of manufacturing output in the summer economic forecast, which will be published on 9 July.

  Export Promotion
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to improve the promotion of exports; and if he will make a statement. [32116]

  Mr. Nelson
  Through the overseas trade services organisation, my Department provides the best ever package of information, advice and practical assistance to British companies.

  Civil Servants (Duties Abroad)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. [32417]

  Mr. Lang
  The cost of overseas travel for Ministers and their private secretaries in 1994–95 was £400,508 and in 1995–96 was £457,818. The cost of sending officials other than the Minister's private secretary on such visits is met from budgets delegated to the relevant units of the Department and is not recorded centrally. Recovery of past data would incur disproportionate cost.

  Post Office, Tiverton
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations have been made by his Department regarding the future of the Crown post office in Tiverton, Devon. [32937]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 17 June 1996]: Consultations about proposals to convert individual Crown post offices to agency status are undertaken by Post Office Counters Ltd. in accordance with the procedures agreed with the Post Office Users' National Council.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his assessment of the consequences to the local economy of the proposed closure of the Crown post office in Tiverton, Devon. [32938]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 17 June 1996]: It is for the Post Office, and not for my Department, to make assessments of the consequences for the local economy of converting individual Crown post offices to agency status. I understand from the Post Office and that the full range of post office services will continue to be available in Tiverton and that Post Office Counters Ltd. employees wishing to remain with the business will be offered alternative employment.

  Nuclear Privatisation
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 5 June,Official Report, column 455, what is the budget he has set for expenditure on advertising nuclear privatisation. [33268]
  507
  Mr. Eggar
  The revised estimated budget for total expenditure on privatisation in 1996–97 was published in the Supply estimates on 13 June.

  Business Links
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many businesses have received help and assistance from business links since their establishment. [32123]

  Mr. Page
  The number of different businesses using business links has more than doubled between April 1995 and March 1996 from 38,093 different businesses using business links at least once in the first quarter to 85,108 doing so in the final quarter. This means that more than 6,500 different businesses are now using business links each week. The figures for the final quarter are based on returns from 53 business link partnerships out of the 79 that are open.

  Prior Options Review
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library the reports made to his Department in the prior options review. [33381]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 18 June 1996]: I shall place in the Library of the House shortly memorandums, with supporting documentation, setting out the rationale underlying the decisions announced on 22 May on:

  (a) the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils;

  (b) the Institute of Arable Crops Research, the Institute of Grassland and Enviornmetn Research, the John Innes Centre and the Silsoe Research Institute; and

  (c) the National Weights and Measures Laboratory.

  Companies House
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets he has set the Companies House executive agency for 1996–97. [33970]

  Mr. Lang
  I have set Companies House the following targets:

  to continue to aim to process all documents within five working days, and specifically for 1996–97 to raise the proportion of documents processed within five working days to 95 per cent.;

  to achieve an average monthly compliance rate for accounts registered of 95 per cent. and for annual returns registered of 93 per cent.

  to ensure that a minimum of 90 per cent. of fiches provided to customers are error free;

  to ensure that the percentage of error-free work in current processing is at least 97 per cent.;

  to answer 90 per cent. of incoming telephone calls within six rings (20 seconds);

  to reduce real unit costs by 5 per cent. in 1996–97;

  508

  to achieve a 6 per cent. average annual rate of return based on an operating surplus expressed as a percentage of average net assets employed at current values;

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

  British Coal
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what change has been made to British Coal's external financing limit for 1996–97. [33971]

  Mr. Lang
  I have revised British Coal's external financing limit for 1996–97 from £104 million to £27 million. This reflects an overshoot of £41 million of the EFL for 1995–96, caused principally by the slippage into 1996–97 of certain asset disposals. The revised EFL also allows for higher proceeds from property sales.

  Bomb Bag Firecrackers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from West Yorkshire trading standards concerning the safety of bomb bag firecrackers produced by Lonestar, in Wetherby, Yorkshire; what steps have been taken as a consequence; and if he will make a statement. [33140]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department has received no representations from West Yorkshire trading standards service in connection with bomb bags supplied by Lonestar.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many(a) minor, (b) major and (c) fatal injuries have been suffered by staff in his Department and its agencies in work-related incidents in each of the past five years, showing in each year how many were related to information technology and giving details of all incidents involving fatalities; [33517]

  (2) on how many occasions in each of the past five years health and safety problems in his Department and its agencies have been reported via internal monitoring; and on how many occasions the Health and Safety Commission has become involved; [33516]

  (3) what was the cost in each of the past five years of rectifying working conditions that were the responsibility of his Department and its agencies, to bring them up to acceptable health and safety standards, detailing incidents involving information technology and additionally those involving expenditure of more than £5,000. [33519]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information is not kept centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

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

Shipping Accidents and Pollution
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the event of a shipping accident which may result in pollution of the coastline, the port authority with jurisdiction over the area concerned has overriding authority to direct salvage operations so as to minimise the pollution which may occur.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): No, my Lords, under Section 137 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 the Secretary of State for Transport has the overriding authority to intervene if this is necessary to minimise pollution.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that somewhat weak Answer. However, the Secretary of State is not present at the scene of the disaster. In repeating the Statement on the "Sea Empress" made by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, my noble friend said:
"The responsibility for the conduct of the salvage operation rests with the salvors … their proposals have to be considered and agreed both by the port authority and the marine pollution control unit".— [Official Report, 22/2/96; col. 1158.]
Does that not give every opportunity for delay at a critical moment in the salvage operations through having to get agreement from three different sources? How does the Secretary of State operate his ultimate responsibility? Is there someone who goes to the scene of the action, and if so does that person have full knowledge of the local geography and sea conditions at the relevant port?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I utterly reject my noble friend's assertion that I gave a weak Answer. I cannot see for the life of me how saying that the Secretary of State for Transport has the ultimate authority and has wide-ranging and stringent powers to intervene to direct persons involved to take certain action, or even to take control of the operation himself and possibly eventually sink or destroy the ship, could be described as a weak Answer. We certainly believe—we have planned for this through the national contingency plan—that it is better to make use of the resources of specialist knowledge that people such as the salvors have. It is certainly for the salvors to run the salvage operation themselves but they must have their salvage plans agreed by the marine pollution control
310
unit, which is effectively the Secretary of State's agent. That ensures that all the specialist knowledge is there and is used. However, if there is a failure and if the Secretary of State, through his agent, feels that this is not the correct procedure he can invoke his wide-ranging powers and take control of the operation himself.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I would normally agree with his noble friend in characterising the Answers we receive from the Government as weak? On this occasion, however, I think the description is wrong. As there has been reference to the "Sea Empress", does not the Minister consider it extraordinary that the Milford Haven Port Authority, which, along with others, is under investigation as to its role in that accident, should have taken upon itself a sort of pre-emptive strike by taking disciplinary proceedings or action against the pilot involved? Is that not unacceptable as the Marine Accident Investigation Branch is investigating the matter? Will the Government reconsider the reconvening of the Donaldson Committee to look into the wider implications of the accident—implications which involve his department and also environmental considerations affecting the Donaldson Report itself? Will the Minister reconsider that matter?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is right to draw attention to the fact that the MAIB is investigating the whole incident, both the original grounding and the consequent salvage operation. It will consider the command and control of the "Sea Empress" incident and the effect of current salvage law on the handling of the incident. We have rehearsed these arguments many times. The Government firmly believe that the MAIB, set up by Parliament to perform a specific function, is the correct body to take the matter forward. After its investigation the MAIB may make recommendations which could well require further work. We shall consider those issues when we have the final recommendations of the MAIB. That is why I would not want to comment specifically on the "Sea Empress" situation. With regard to the action taken by Milford Haven Port Authority, that is a matter for that authority. It has the ability to act under the Pilotage Act 1987 which governs such matters.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that at the heart of the matter is rapid reaction? Surely the public want a standard of reaction which matches that of the fire brigade.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to that fact. That is why we have a specialist marine pollution control unit dedicated to the task on permanent standby. It can go into action to combat pollution at very short notice. The national contingency plan must be put into action within 30 minutes of a report of a major oil spill. In the instance we are discussing, within four hours personnel had flown up from Southampton and were on the scene.

311
Early flights by reconnaissance aircraft had already taken place. The system worked very quickly. It remains our belief that rapid reaction is important.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, while a 30-minute reaction time is splendid, does my noble friend agree that some minutes are longer than others?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I shall have to reflect on that question. Apart from those minutes spent at your Lordships' Dispatch Box, the minutes I have come across have been of somewhat equal length. However, it is important that we react quickly, as we do. We have personnel on permanent standby to react for that very purpose. Those plans are put into place extremely quickly.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, is my noble friend convinced that pilots at Milford Haven are on board large ships early enough, bearing in mind that such vessels require a long distance in which to stop or turn? It may take three-quarters of an hour or more to stop. Is my noble friend aware that there are rumours that in a recent incident the pilot was on board only 10 minutes before the ship struck?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not wish to comment specifically on procedures that are under way at Milford Haven. They are a matter for the Milford Haven authorities. Just such matters are being investigated by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. If it makes recommendations we shall consider them extremely carefully when deciding future action.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, is the Minister aware that people at Milford Haven wish we would stop talking about the issue? The oil has been cleared from the beaches, and such talk is greatly harming the holiday industry.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. There was huge media coverage at the time of the accident, with predictions of terrible consequences. It was a very bad spill. We wish to take all measures to stop that occurring again. However, in the final analysis the oil was well cleared up. I pay tribute to those who performed that task. The beaches are now clear. The fact that Tenby North won a prestigious blue flag award—it was one of only four beaches in Wales to do so—is testament to that fact.

Police Injuries: Pay Arrangements
2.45 p.m.
Lord Milverton Lord Milverton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures are in place to prevent police officers suffering financial hardship as a result of long-term sickness or injuries received while on duty.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, chief officers have unlimited discretion to allow full pay to any police officer who is on long-term sick leave.
312
Where an officer is permanently disabled from performing ordinary police duties, he or she may be retired by the police authority on medical grounds with an entitlement to an ill health gratuity or pension payable immediately upon retirement.
If the officer's permanent disablement is the result of an injury on duty, his or her ill health benefits may be further increased by an injury award of a gratuity and an injury pension.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her helpful Answer. I understand that the Wiltshire Constabulary has an insurance scheme for hardship cases. Do other forces in the country have similar schemes? As regards ill health benefit, is it not unfortunate if police officers are left worse off in pecuniary terms if they suffer injury, disease or sickness in the course of duty?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I made the point to my noble friend that the sick pay provisions for the police compare favourably with those of other employees. The arrangement in Wiltshire to which he refers is run by the Police Federation. It is for individual members to join the scheme and for individual branch boards to run such schemes. I understand that many other federations have set up such schemes and their members are subscribing to them.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the Minister stated that if a serving police officer is on sick leave as a result of injury he receives his normal pay. Many police officers work regular overtime and, therefore, their earnings will be enhanced over their basic pay. Do chief officers have the authority to pay police officers on sick leave at the level of their previous earnings as opposed to their basic pay?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I think that that is taking compensatory payments too far. Such officers would be paid full pay for six months, half pay for a further six months, and, as the rules stand, no pay usually after 12 months. But chief constables have been given full discretion to pay full pay for the first six months, the second six months and beyond that 12-month period. It would be difficult to include a scheme which could make judgments about the overtime that might have been worked in the course of that period and compensate for the loss. However, the discretion given to chief constables is very wide indeed.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, adequate provision for injuries incurred on duty is necessary. However, is my noble friend aware of the widespread surprise at the huge amount of compensation awarded to police after the Hillsborough tragedy? Are police today selected and trained to cope with mental stress compared with 25 years ago, when a similar tragedy occurred at Ibrox, Glasgow, with some 60 deaths, or compared with other services, including the Armed Forces, which also have to be prepared to face horrifying situations?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I note what my noble friend said. The handling of the claims in that instance

313
was a matter for the South Yorkshire Police Authority and was not part of the scheme to which I referred today.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in her reply to the Question, the Minister gave detailed information on the present situation. It is that a police authority can pay a constable who is losing time at work through injury or sickness for an indefinite period. So far as I know from my experience in local government, no other people in the community enjoy that situation. They are the best terms that anyone receives. However, is it not expensive if it continues for too long? Some authorities sometimes tend to err on the wrong side and go too far. Is it possible to ensure that if a constable is injured in pursuance of his duties because of today's violent society, maximum consideration would be given?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting point. It can be expensive if the provisions are wholly indiscriminate and give the absolute maximum pay allowable to any policeman who has been injured on duty.
The reason we have given discretion to chief constables is that they are the best placed to make judgments about both the seriousness of the injury and the likelihood of the policeman returning to normal duties. Other decisions also need to be made about those who will not return to normal duties, and that will be a matter for the police authority.

Married Quarters: Sale of Estate
2.51 p.m.
Lord Vivian Lord Vivian asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that their proposals in the Defence White Paper for the sale of publicly-owned married quarters represent sound financial policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear, the sale of the married quarters estate depends upon reaching agreement on terms which satisfy the interests of the services and on a price which properly reflects the public interest.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's reply. However, does he agree that the proposed sale of married quarters is not in the interests of the Armed Forces, as it may reduce the availability of quarters? Does he further agree that if it is possible to sell off only the 20 per cent. of the vacant married quarters, funds would be provided for the refurbishment of existing married quarters? It would also provide income to the Treasury from the remaining rents.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe that I can reassure my noble friend on both counts. Our policy remains to provide the right housing in the right locations for all entitled personnel who wish to exercise that entitlement. This will continue to be the case after the sale of the
314
estate. We have planned the sale and release of surplus properties on the basis of very cautious projections of our future housing needs. We have built in a substantial management margin of vacant properties as well. I am confident that the availability of quarters to entitled personnel will not be affected.
As to the second part of my noble friend's supplementary question, the short answer is that the course which he proposes would not deliver the wider benefits of the sale. In particular, it would not deliver the investment needed for upgrading properties, nor the in-built discipline for disposing of surplus empty homes in an efficient manner.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, whatever the theoretical financial advantages of the sale, his department has been completely unable to convince those most closely connected with married quarters that for service families the outlook at the end of the sale would be anything other than bleak?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I recognise that there are real worries among service families about the Government's proposals. To a degree, I blame myself for not having reassured them sufficiently because I believe that many of the worries are misplaced. The only difference that a service family will notice after the sale goes through is the upgrading of those properties which badly need attention. In all other respects, families' lives should remain exactly as they are now.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will not the sale of the married quarters—
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I am always in the hands of the House and I know that the Question exercises a great deal of interest. If we proceed expeditiously on this side of the House first, we will have time to fit everyone in.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will not the sale of the married quarters have a bad effect on recruiting, at a time when service recruiting is causing difficulties anyhow? Will the Government therefore reconsider the decision?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not believe that my noble friend is correct. As I said earlier, the Government's policy remains to provide service housing to all those entitled personnel who wish to have it. That will not change. There should be no apprehension among those who wish to join the forces that they will not have such housing when they are entitled to it.
I stress again that wider benefits arise from the sale, most notably a means of correcting what, I am afraid, has been a poor record over the years by the Ministry of Defence of disposing of surplus empty houses. A much tighter discipline will be in place once the sale goes through, with the private sector in charge.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a different point of view is widely felt at present? Will the Government accept that there is an

315
enormous shortage of housing to let in the public sector? Is the minister further aware that local authorities and housing associations have expressed a wish for the ownership of the properties to be transferred to them, where possible, so that they can let them at the lower end of the market? What are the Government waiting for?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising an important point. He will be interested to know that we have sold or let over 5,000 surplus properties in the past four years, many to housing associations and local authorities. The sale will reinforce those efforts. We will commit ourselves to releasing thousands of surplus properties over the next 25 years. We have also looked after the immediate interests of the social housing sector by excluding over 1,500 quarters from the sale.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Earl will be fully aware of the resentment that has been caused by the Government's proposals. I understand from his first Answer that the price that the Government hoped to achieve would properly reflect the public interest. Is not Nomura Securities one of the bidders for the property? Would it not be a trifle odd, even for this Government, to sell the married quarters of service personnel to the Japanese?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: They will sell to anyone.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not prepared to disclose the identity of any of the short-listed bidders. I do not believe that we should object in principle to overseas investment. What interests us is not the source of the funding—a transaction of that size is bound to draw upon international capital markets, whichever way the funding is sliced—but the relationship we can expect with the future owners of the estate. Our position as tenants is safeguarded by the lease structure and, for day-to-day purposes, the identity of the new owner will make no practical difference whatever.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, will the Minister advise us whether any survey was made of the opinions of those in the Armed Forces involved with the new measure before the decision was taken?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the service chiefs have been involved at all stages and consulted along the way. Service families have also been kept in regular touch with the Government's plans.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, a moment ago the noble Earl said that the service chiefs had been consulted. Will he go a little further? Did they agree with Ministers and, in particular, the Secretary of State that this course of action was desirable?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the service chiefs have agreed that the policy represents the best way forward for
316
service families, bearing in mind the problems that I have identified, most notably the need to upgrade service housing.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, in spite of my noble friend's remarks, the sale and leaseback arrangement is fraught with dangers of all kinds. I hope therefore that he will act cautiously and prudently. Will he give the House assurances that those quarters that are leased back are those best placed to suit service families? Will he also assure the House that the new owners will not be able to interfere in any way at all with the tenancies and rentals that are entered into by service families with the Ministry of Defence?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I give my noble friend a complete assurance on that point, particularly as regards rents. The rents that service families will pay will continue to be set by the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body. Neither the Government nor the Ministry of Defence will have any say in that matter.
Baroness Strange: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question! Order!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, something tells me that we shall be returning to this question. I am aware that the noble Baroness has a fourth Question. I am sure that the House would like to give her a clear run.

Doctors: Training Finance
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to guarantee the necessary finance to train an additional 500 doctors by the year 2000 in view of the impact upon university medical schools brought about by the 28 per cent. cut in their funding over the past six years and the further 5 per cent. cut for teacher training imposed in the last budget.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the allocation of funds to individual universities for the training of doctors is the responsibility of the higher education funding councils of England, Scotland and Wales, and the Department of Education for Northern Ireland. The funding bodies are taking into account the target increase of 500 additional medical undergraduate students, having consulted universities with medical schools about intakes. The universities will be more than half way to meeting the target in 1996–97. The further increase of about 230 would need to be phased in over the following three years.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that there is grave concern in the majority of universities catering for the training of doctors? They feel sure that they will not be able to fulfil those numbers by the year the noble Lord mentioned. Funding is inadequate. There is a fall in student numbers because of the reduction in the amount

317
of money they can claim. Is it not diabolical that the Government are cutting back on the numbers of doctors to be trained to work in the National Health Service at the beginning of the next century?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I simply do not accept the noble Baroness's allegation that student numbers are falling. We have seen an increase in medical students of 11 per cent. from 4,470 to 4,970. That is well on course. As regards drop-out rates, the rates throughout the whole of higher education are relatively low. I have no evidence on drop-out levels for medical students. However, my advice from the CVCP and the Higher Education Funding Council for England is that they are probably lower than average.
As regards the concerns highlighted by the noble Baroness, being the Minister for Education in this House I am more than well aware of the concerns put forward by the CVCP and the higher education fraternity. We are listening very carefully to their concerns. We have set up a couple of working groups with them, and we will take into account all those concerns in the current spending round. However, the Government have to take into account the wider considerations, such as the burden on the taxpayer and the need to control public expenditure.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Calman Report includes a recommendation for a tremendous amount of additional training for medical staff? Although that will have financial implications, the Government are well set on the route of bringing in all that additional medical training.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for highlighting that point. We have seen quite a dramatic growth in the number of doctors working in the NHS over the past few years, from something of the order of 67,110 in 1979 to 82,680 in 1994.
Lord Winston: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in spite of what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, maintains, there is very serious worry throughout the medical profession, upheld by the various presidents of the Royal Colleges, concerning the level of medical staffing—particularly if the Calman recommendations are to be implemented? It has been calculated that we shall need a 30 per cent. expansion at consultant level if we are to train and also treat patients at the same time.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful that the alleged shortage of medical staff is not so severe as to keep the noble Lord away from this House today, yesterday and on other days.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Henley: Obviously, my Lords, I am aware of those concerns. But we have increased the numbers of trained doctors quite dramatically and are further increasing the number of medical students. We are well on target to meet the increase of 500 by the year 2000.
Lord Winston: My Lords, for the Minister's information, I am a university employee. Is he aware that, were it not for the fact that universities maintain so many people like myself, the National Health Service would collapse?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will take a bit of gentle teasing in good part. If he does not, I shall be more than happy to withdraw my remark. I am also grateful that he pointed out the contribution that universities make to the health service. That is why we fund the whole of higher education to the extent that we do. Some £7 billion of taxpayers' money goes towards higher education. That is a very considerable sum indeed.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am sure that we on these Benches accept that what the Minister said was in the spirit of gentle repartee, although at the time it did not quite seem like that. Does the Minister accept that those of us who have spent many decades in university work are aware that clinical academic staff in universities spend over half their time treating patients and are also engaged in research? Has he read the letter to Sir Michael Thompson, chairman of the CVCP Medical Committee, from his honourable friend, Mr. Eric Forth, dated 5th June in which he says that,
"the higher education budget funds the cost of teaching medical undergraduate students … In this sense there is not a direct link between the two. I understand that, to date, the Department of Health has not received any evidence from the NHS that patient care has been affected by recent unit cost cuts in higher education funding"?
Has the Minister ever heard anything more callous and unfeeling?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I totally reject the suggestion that the letter from my honourable friend was either callous or unfeeling. The noble Lord comes to this House with a great deal of experience of the higher education sector; others in the House have similar experience. Many put forward demands of a reasonable or less reasonable sort for yet further funding. As I made clear, in very difficult times we provide something of the order of £7 billion of taxpayers' money for higher education. That has to be considered in the context of £35 billion overall spending on public education in this country. Those are very considerable sums. Very difficult decisions have to be made about allocating them. We believe that the medical side of higher education receives its fair share.

Hong Kong (War Wives and Widows) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Willoughby de Broke.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Treasure Bill
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(The Earl of Perth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing Bill
3.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House again in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 142 [Allocation of housing accommodation]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 263ZAGF:
Page 88, line 29, leave out ("a secure or") and insert ("an").
The noble Baroness said: The first of the amendments in our alphabet soup of amendments today is Amendment No. 263ZAGF. We now turn to Part VI of the Bill, which deals with the allocation of housing accommodation. The amendment is quite a small one with which to start today's Committee stage of the Housing Bill. Nevertheless it is an important amendment. It seeks to delete from subsection (5) (on page 88, line 29 of the Bill) the provision that this part of the Bill applies to a secure tenant.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide that a local authority shall have a duty to give reasonable preference in its allocation scheme (under a clause to which we shall come later) to its existing secure tenants who may fall within priority categories—for instance, people who are living in unsatisfactory housing conditions.
Under the current allocation provisions which this Bill will replace, case law has stated that the duty to give reasonable preference in the allocation of tenancies extends to a local housing authority's existing tenants. Bearing in mind that one-quarter or thereabouts of households are in the local authority sector, concerning also the severe state of disrepair of many such dwellings and the fact that many existing tenants are living in overcrowded conditions and have been on the transfer list for many years, it seems unfair to deprive a large section of the advantages of the Bill while removing the rights that they already have.
Many authorities already operate transfer lists under the present provisions. Therefore, I hope that no problems will arise as a result of the amendment, which will effectively take that provision into the current Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As we start Part VI of the Bill, perhaps I should introduce it. It is concerned with access to social rented housing. In selecting new tenants, the provisions in Part VI will require local authorities to take into account not only the physical housing conditions experienced by applicants for social housing, but also their social and economic circumstances—the factors that are likely to contribute to a long-term need for a local authority or housing association tenancy.
Once within the social rented sector, applicants will have passed the test of "social need". Provided that they keep to the terms of their tenancy, they can expect to remain within the social rented sector for life, without the need for further tests of eligibility.
There are a number of good reasons why transfers of existing tenants should be treated separately from allocations to prospective tenants. In the absence of a test of "social need", what becomes paramount is the suitability of the household's accommodation. Some of the factors which may be relevant here may also be relevant to the selection of new tenants—for example, overcrowding. However, some factors which were relevant then, such as insecurity of tenure, will no longer be relevant.
Moveover, there are other, equally important factors which have more to do with effective housing management than with assessing housing need. One of the most important factors is the need to reduce under-occupation. By offering tenants incentives to move to a smaller property, an authority can increase its stock of larger accommodation; and that, in turn, can be used to house new entrants.
Transfers of existing tenants should not, in the overall scheme of things, put additional pressure on the amount of stock available for new applicants. Over 1½ million local authority properties in England are under-occupied; nearly half a million of those have two or more bedrooms spare. For every local authority tenant who needs to move to a larger property, there are eight who could move to a smaller home.
By seeking to bring allocations to existing tenants within the provisions of Part VI, the noble Baroness's amendment would force them to compete with people seeking to enter the system on grounds that were no longer relevant for the people already within the system. We believe that that would be unfair to existing tenants. Clearly, local authorities should balance the demands of existing tenants seeking to transfer against those of people wanting to enter the system; and in issuing guidance on the application of Part VI, we shall remind authorities of the need to do so. We believe that such a balance is best achieved by enabling authorities to deal with transfers outside the allocation scheme.
There is no reason why the provisions in Part VI should benefit existing tenants at the expense of people seeking social housing for the first time. I hope that,

321
with the explanation that I have given of why we believe that the words that the noble Baroness would take out should remain in the Bill, she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister has given the most splendid argument that we have heard during the passage of the Bill for increasing the stock of affordable accommodation. It was far better certainly than any that I have made on earlier provisions when we dealt with the right to buy. That, after all, is the issue. In saying that various groups have competing claims—all quite reasonable claims—he accepts the problem of shortage.
I did not understand a comment in the middle of the noble Lord's speech about it being unfair to existing tenants, but I shall read carefully what he said. He then said that it would be unfair to prospective tenants. I am afraid I do not understand either how that would interfere with providing incentives for transfer. I applaud the schemes that many local housing authorities are putting into place to encourage tenants to transfer to more suitable accommodation and to free up possibly larger units.
I am not terribly satisfied with the Minister's answer but perhaps I can come back at the matter from another direction when we have had further debates on this part of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): I must apologise to the Committee for the inordinate length of my speeches this afternoon. I call Amendment No. 263ZAGG.
[Amendment No. 263ZAGG not moved.]
Clause 142 agreed to.
Clause 143 [Cases where provisions about allocation do not apply]:
[Amendments Nos. 263ZAH and 263ZAJ not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 263ZAK:
Page 89, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) They do not apply where a local housing authority, in order to meet local priorities, offers assistance to registered social landlords and voluntary organisations providing temporary accommodation for single homeless people, by securing a quantity of nominations through its own housing stock or that of other registered social landlords which meets the assessed needs of single homeless people identified in the local authority housing strategy.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment has been tabled in my name and the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It is an amendment about the silting up—if I may use a slightly ugly phrase—of halfway houses within the homelessness procedure. As the Committee will know, local authorities are required to house those homeless people who are not intentionally homeless and who are also vulnerable. That is a tough test. Only about half of those who apply to local authorities saying that they are homeless come within the local authority's duty. Of those, somewhat less than two-thirds are families—people with dependent children—and the rest, well over one-third, are single people to whom the local authority has a duty.
Normally, single people would not be a local authority responsibility. However, they are such a responsibility if they are vulnerable or at risk. About whom are we talking? For example, there are children coming out of care; there are former alcoholics, former addicts and ex-offenders; there are those with mental or physical health problems; and there are those suffering disability. One-third of the women have been treated for mental health problems; another third are homeless because of marital dispute. A third of the men exhibit symptoms of schizophrenia according to the 1995 Salvation Army report, The Faces of Homelessness in London.
According to the DoE's own research, back in 1981, one half of such homeless people had spent some time in an institution. From there, too often they had gone onto the streets or into squats. But very many had come into hostels and been reclaimed into the mainstream. After building up their lives again, getting confidence and perhaps being able to secure a job for the first time, such people are ready to move on into independent life. The Salvation Army estimates that something like two-thirds of hostel dwellers are ready to move on into permanent housing and make a new start. But to do that they must be able to move from the hostel to a council flat. Otherwise, those hostels—those halfway houses—silt up (to use the phrase) and vulnerable people who are ready to come off the streets and go into hostels do not get a chance to do so, because those in the hostels do not move on into independent housing.
Many local authorities try very hard to be helpful and arrange for a modest quota of accommodation to be made available to such halfway houses, whether for battered women, ex-offenders, children coming out of care or those with mental or physical health problems. My own authority, Norwich, for example, makes 110 allocations a year to halfway houses—10 per cent. of its quota. Other local authorities act in a similar fashion.
This amendment would ensure that organisations which provide such temporary halfway houses for some of the most battered and knocked about people in our society could continue to do so. It would allow local authorities to help cope with the homelessness of the single and vulnerable by working in partnership with hostels to move such people, when they are ready, and to offer them the opportunity of an independent life. I hope that the amendment will commend itself to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: I should like to support the amendment. It is probably well known that at any one time there are some 50,000 to 60,000 children in care in England and Wales. What happens to those children when they come out of care leaves a great deal to be desired. There is no doubt that many of them later end up in criminal institutions and prisons because of the lack of suitable housing and employment.
In that context I am glad to say that the French system of foyers is beginning to be copied and adapted to the needs of this country. They are institutions where there is not only accommodation, but also opportunities for job training, learning skills and even directly for

323
acquiring employment. The amendment is well thought out and will operate so that there is better co-ordination between institutions, local authorities and other organisations.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Amendment No. 263ZAK seeks to provide that local authorities are able to offer permanent accommodation outside the allocation scheme and its priorities as part of a strategy to free up temporary accommodation for single homeless people. The noble Baroness used the phrase "silt up", which is rather inelegant but descriptive of the problem.
This matter was raised in another place when the honourable Member for Christchurch stressed the need to ensure that single people who were provided with temporary supported accommodation such as direct access hostels are able to move into permanent housing. If move-on accommodation was not provided, the temporary accommodation would quickly silt up. The Minister for Housing has already indicated his willingness to consider an exemption for that purpose; indeed, we had already proposed an exemption of that sort in a consultation paper in January this year. There are regulation-making powers in Clause 143 to enable us to make further exemptions to the provisions in Part VI of the Bill. I sense that the real question is why this provision should be provided for in regulations rather than on the face of the Bill.
The reason for using regulations is that there is a lot of detailed technical work to be done specifying and setting out the precise circumstances where the provisions of Part VI should not apply. We will need to be careful about the details, such as the reason for the exceptions, the extent of them, and the ability of the housing authority to control entry into its own stock. That is really best done in regulations, which would also allow flexibility to adapt the provisions as circumstances change and new special cases arise. We are fully alive to the important work done by the voluntary sector in providing accommodation for homeless young single people. Indeed, we support that heavily through the rough sleepers initiative and our Section 73 grants programme. We are also well aware of the need to support this provision and prevent the silting up by providing move-on accommodation.
I am not unsympathetic to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said and what they seek to achieve, provided it is kept within reasonable limits. But we believe that the problem is better tackled through regulations rather than in primary legislation. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, will be able to withdraw her amendment. We shall be reflecting further on the whole issue in the light of what has been said and also in the light of the consultation exercise I mentioned earlier.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do with the amendment, perhaps I can intervene. The Minister says that he is sympathetic to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord and perhaps a
324
little less sympathetic to my point. I shall restrain myself from repeating it whenever we come to the question of regulations.
This is not a Bill which came as a surprise to anybody; it was not drafted in a hurry. If certain exceptions are included on the face of the Bill and if the Government have the sympathy for others that they express—I do not mean to suggest that the Minister does not have that sympathy—then further progress to the detail of those regulations would have been welcome and appropriate. The Bill has gone through another place. It has been a matter of widespread discussion from the stage of the White Paper onwards in the housing sector.
While I understand the point made by the Minister, I want to register, at any rate once today, a protest that we will have to wait for regulations when clearly those regulations were anticipated by the Government.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before deciding what to do with the amendment I want to press the Minister on precisely the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. If the Minister turns to Clause 148, he will see that the Government specify in great detail on the face of the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, those people to whom reasonable preference should be given. There are six categories of people set out.
Clearly, the Minister can have no objection to precision on the face of the Bill as such because the Government's Bill carries that precision in Clause 148. We are saying that "reasonable preference" should also be given to groups of people who are single, vulnerable and living in hostels. Can the Minister say what is wrong with the amendment? Why should it not be on the face of the Bill? I can see why it may be convenient to come back later and include the provision in regulations; I can see why the Government may regard it as a bit of a macho test not to take suggestions from the Opposition Benches. But there is no difference of issue between us. We all believe that it is desirable that local authorities make available an appropriate portion of their permanent stock to such hostels. The Minister's only argument for it not being on the face of the Bill is that it is better in regulations. Yet other areas, which are technically more detailed, appear on the face of the Bill. So why not this?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I tried to explain the position. The subsection to which the noble Baroness draws attention, Clause 148(2), outlines the six principal priorities which we are advancing in the legislation. I see the argument of the noble Baroness. It could be pursued for the rest of the afternoon in respect of various categories and items which we believe are better treated by regulation rather than being included on the face of the Bill.
I hoped to indicate our willingness to bring forward the regulations. We are out to consultation. There will be a lot of detail in the regulations; we want to be sure that there is not a neat side door for people to get on to the list if it is not tightly drawn. Equally, as I am sure the Committee will appreciate, the categories can change as

325
different events happen over decades. It seems to us more important that we have the flexibility of regulation for something which may require a little tweaking and a little changing as time goes on. Primary legislation is not always so easy to get and therefore what goes into primary legislation ought not to require changing for some time to come.
I think that the argument between regulation and primary legislation is one that we shall continue to have during the day. However, by and large, if one were to put everything onto the face of the Bill that was in secondary legislation, Bills would be extraordinarily long. I should have thought that the Committee might agree with me that the Bill is quite long enough as it is.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: So far as I can gather, the Minister's reply is to be summed up in the sentence, "It should be done by regulation because I say it should be done by regulation". I do not think we heard an argument at any point. The virtue of putting the provision on the face of the Bill, as the Minister has accepted in Clause 148, is that it sends a signal to local authorities as to what the legislation is intended to deliver. However, it is clear that, every time the Minister has something that he proposes to do by regulation, we shall engage in this argument. I hope that in the course of the day the Minister will come up with a better argument than, "I believe it should be done by regulation and therefore it will be done by regulation". He has not given us an argument of any substance.
I am perfectly willing to accept that where, for example, there is an implication that the finances, because they draw on public money, may change every six months, that is properly done by regulation; or, if it is exceedingly technical, it is properly done by regulation; or if consultation is needed, it should be done by regulation. None of those three arguments applies. This is a perfectly straightforward and simple amendment which says that local authorities may house people coming out of hostels on a quota system in the same way as they give reasonable preference to everyone else. The Minister has not given one argument, apart from the fact that he does not want to, why this should not be on the face of the Bill. I hope that the Committee is treated to more substantive objections to subsequent amendments than we have so far heard this afternoon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 263ZAL:
Page 89, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) They do not apply where—

(a) an applicant to whom a duty is owed under section 172 (duty to persons with priority need who are not homeless intentionally) is entitled to be given reasonable preference in the allocation of housing accommodation by virtue of section 148 (allocation in accordance with allocation scheme) below, and

(b) in the view of the local housing authority the applicant would he likely, if this subsection were not to apply, to be allocated accommodation within six months, or such other period as the Secretary of State may prescribe in regulations.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to ensure that families who are near the top of the waiting list with points who become homeless should be eligible for rehousing. Most families who become homeless are already on council waiting lists. Seventy-five per cent. was the last figure I saw. They are in either private rented accommodation or they are sharing with family or friends. But, for a few of those families, the ability to wait in shared accommodation or in private rented accommodation breaks down when, perhaps, they have only a couple of months to go before they would be entitled to be permanently rehoused by the local authority. They may have waited two-and-a-half-years and if they could have held out for another three months they would have been housed in permanent housing. But for whatever reason—it may be the arrival of another baby which was the last straw to an overcrowded home—the arrangement has broken down and they become homeless. They have become homeless because they could not hold on for the last couple of months. Yet, under the Bill, such families, which are only a couple of months away from being rehoused in their own right, are required to be rehoused into temporary accommodation and then, three months later, would be rehoused back again into local authority permanent housing. The upheaval means that families with children might have two moves of school within as many months.
At Committee stage in another place the Minister agreed that that situation was nonsense. He agreed that local authorities should have the discretion to house someone who is near the top of the list rather than churn them through temporary accommodation for a couple of months. This discretion or flexibility for local authorities, which we think is sensible, was widely welcomed at Committee stage and outside the House. But the question then remains: how do local authorities deliver the discretion that the Minister has already conceded in Hansard? In the other place Ministers were pressed on how they could exercise that discretion at local level but they were not particularly forthcoming. We hope that the Minister will be more forthcoming today.
In any case, local authorities need some protection because they are apprehensive that, if they follow the Minister's advice and house someone near the top of the waiting list, as would be sensible and decent, but are not protected by wording on the face of the Bill, they will lay themselves open to judicial action from aggrieved people on the waiting list who see someone with fewer points than them going ahead of them in the queue. Local authorities may then be subject to judicial action for doing what Ministers have encouraged them to do but from whose consequences Ministers have not protected them by putting words on the face of the Bill. Hence we have brought forward the amendment.
It follows what the Minister suggested in the other place. It is, if one likes, a government-inspired amendment. I hope the Minister will agree. It makes it clear that local authorities have a legitimate flexibility to avoid pushing vulnerable families through the temporary accommodation system when they are close to being rehoused from the waiting list in their own

327
right. It is a slightly back to front amendment by excluding from the single list an allocation into permanent accommodation of people who are on the waiting list or are entitled to appear on the waiting list because they fall into categories.
The Minister may tell us that there is a more preferable way of enshrining this discretion in the law. We would be entirely happy with that. We are not hung up on these words. But clearly the Government, having made this statement in the other place, now have a duty to protect local authorities, which do as Ministers suggest, from laying themselves open to judicial action because they are not protected on the face of the Bill.
This may well be more appropriately regarded as a probing amendment, but if the words are not acceptable, I hope the Minister will undertake to come back with a more appropriate amendment at Report stage to put words on the face of the Bill to carry out the undertaking and commitment given at Committee stage by his honourable friend the Minister in another place. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: I was glad to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, mention the matter of children having to change schools. That can be extremely damaging to the whole educational process of the child involved. We know that the Bill is produced by the Department of the Environment. I hope that that department and its Ministers will consult with their colleagues in the Department for Education so as to try to minimise that adverse impact.
I wish to point out the difficult situation that arises in certain parts of London because of the concentration of temporary housing; for example, in Bayswater and certain parts of Paddington. There, numerous bed and breakfast hotels have been taken over or are mainly occupied by people put into temporary accommodation by a whole range of local authorities in the Greater London area. That places undue stress and strain on all social provision within the boroughs where that concentration occurs. If this amendment could be agreed to, it would go a small way to relieve that very unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have listened with interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The amendment raises an important point of principle and it touches on the basic question as to whether there should be one or two main routes into local authority housing. The noble Baroness seems concerned about the case of a household with nearly enough priority to be allocated housing but which is threatened with homelessness or becomes homeless and which is then rehoused by a local authority under the two-year homelessness duty. Because the householder's circumstances may well then have improved, the applicant could lose some priority for accommodation through the housing register. But, more importantly, I think that the noble Baroness believes that it would be more sensible, regardless of whether a
328
person was at that moment at the top of the housing list, if I can use that as my example, that that person should be housed. That is the point she is making.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I believe that is the point that the Minister himself was making in the other place.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: With a little patience I might get to that. Perhaps I may outline to the Committee what we are attempting to do here. The homelessness legislation is designed to prevent people reaching the stage where they are actually homeless. Only a fraction of all homeless applicants—about 2 per cent.—are actually without a roof over their heads when they apply for assistance. As soon as someone is identified as meeting the statutory definition of homelessness and likely to be in priority need, an authority is under a duty to secure accommodation immediately. Under the provisions in Part VII of the Bill, which we shall come to later, an authority will be required to ensure that suitable accommodation remains available for that household for at least two years, and if necessary, for longer.
The noble Baroness would wish to enable such people in such circumstances to be allocated long-term accommodation straightaway. By doing so, they would be bypassing other applicants who had perhaps waited patiently in unsuitable accommodation and who finally had an offer of a council house in sight. I wonder whether that is reasonable. They would also be leap-frogging applicants who had perhaps averted a housing crisis by finding accommodation themselves. Would that be fair on such households if people who had been assisted under the homelessness duty were offered accommodation ahead of them? It is that problem, which occurs at present, which has led the Government to bring forward this legislation in this part of the Bill.
The noble Baroness suggests that this route would only be available to applicants who would otherwise be made an offer of accommodation within six months. I am intrigued to know how this would be tested. For example, what would there be to prevent an authority from finding a way round the provisions of Part VI of the Bill by declaring that all households towards whom they accept a duty under Clause 172 are within six months of being made an offer? Who would be able to challenge that?
Conversely, who would be able to challenge an authority which simply decided that anyone who is made homeless is not within six months of getting to the top of the list? I believe that the purpose of setting out the principles of the allocation scheme in primary legislation, as it is in Clause 148, would be damaged and our desire to have transparency in the system would be undermined if the Committee were to accept the noble Baroness's amendment.
We want to ensure that the procedure for allocating housing is fair to applicants on the housing register, and is seen to be fair by all. The main principles for determining priority in allocations, which are contained in Clause 148, are intended to ensure that priority is

329
given on the basis of underlying need. These are important principles. I have no doubt that we shall return to them. I believe that the provisions in Part VI of the Bill will ensure that the needs of everyone on the housing register are assessed fairly, regardless of whether they have become homeless.
In fact, many local authorities provide assistance to people who are threatened with homelessness, either in order to help them find accommodation themselves or to enable them to stay where they are. Indeed, almost two-thirds of authorities operate what are called, "homeless at home" schemes, where they find ways to help keep a homeless person in the house they are in at the moment, in order to give them time to deal with their homelessness problem and reduce the need to provide temporary accommodation. Such schemes could be used, where appropriate, to delay homelessness until an offer of accommodation can be made through the housing register, if it is that near.
If there are compelling reasons why a household should get additional priority, then local authorities will have flexibility to deal with these circumstances. Local authorities can exercise discretion. I suggest that the noble Baroness looks just a little ahead at Clause 148(2) where the priorities are laid out; namely,
"As regards priorities, the scheme shall be framed so as to secure that reasonable preference is given".
The key wording for the purposes of this discussion is "reasonable preference". It is the same as the wording in Section 22 of the 1985 Act. We are not aware that that has been subject to much challenge. The noble Baroness suggested that it would be subject to challenge, but it is there in the 1985 Act and we are not aware that there has been a problem.
The Bill does allow a certain amount of reasonable flexibility to local authorities. I believe that is the proper way to proceed. Under these new arrangements local authorities will continue to be able to set up and operate schemes to meet their own circumstances, and within that framework they will be able to use their discretion in particular cases. But what it will not do is allow them to give overriding priority to anyone who has been accepted for assistance under the homelessness legislation, but who is not actually at the top of the list when it comes to receiving a council house. I do not believe that there is a great problem concerning this situation.
The argument was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that children might have to move school. They may have to do so anyway. That is an issue which is perhaps more properly debated in Part VII of the Bill which deals with homelessness and not allocations. We address the need for settled accommodation in the homelessness code of guidance. We shall be repeating that in the revised code which we shall issue after this legislation is passed.
Perhaps I may sum up. There are a number of ways in which a household accepted as being homeless can go straight into permanent housing, which is what concerns the noble Baroness. First, the household may already be on the register. Three-quarters of homeless applicants are already on the housing register. They may
330
have enough priority to be made an immediate offer of accommodation. They may have been made an offer, but they may be waiting for something better. Secondly, the social and housing needs of a household may be so acute that on being placed on the housing register they immediately gain enough priority to go to the top of the list. Thirdly—and perhaps this addresses the specific point—an authority may decide, in the case of a household with almost enough priority to be made an offer of permanent accommodation, to treat that household sympathetically on an exceptional basis. I have explained where the words may be found in the Bill that will give the authority a defence. I believe that this exceptional basis has become known in some circles as the "layered protocol". I hope that Members of the Committee will not ask why, but I understand that is how it is known. It will be for authorities themselves to decide whether to allow flexibility within their allocation schemes for decisions to he made on exceptional cases.
I hope I have explained that there is provision for these exceptional cases to be dealt with by the local authority but, equally, I hope that I have explained that to accept the noble Baroness's amendment with its six months' cut-off point, which would be difficult to define, would begin to run a coach and horses through the principles which we want to bring into the legislation via this Bill; namely, that all people on the housing list, whether they are homeless or not, ought to be treated in exactly the same way when it comes to being allocated the next available local authority house.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Can the Minister say whether he is stepping back from the statements made by his honourable friend in the other place, that it was sensible for local authorities to have the discretion, where someone was near the top of the waiting list but a few points short, to be given permanent housing rather than to be churned through temporary accommodation?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have given that assurance. It may be that I did not express the matter very well. I explained where the words can be found in the Bill, and that they were already in the 1985 Act. I also explained that those words could be used in the future, as in the past, to allow authorities to have flexibility in the operation of their allocation policies. I know that I am not allowed to read directly from what my right honourable friend Mr. Curry said in the other place, but it does not seem to me to be inconsistent with what I have said.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Nor is it inconsistent with what I have said. Therefore, there is some dispute between us. The Minister's statements in the other place—I hope that I express myself in a way that does not sound derogatory—were clearly regarded as a concession to the very real pressures facing local authorities. The Minister there was not merely discussing the current implications of the wording of the Bill. He was allowing that there were circumstances where it would be reasonable for local authorities to depart from the Bill. When pressed by my honourable

331
friends Mr. Raynsford and Mr. Betts on the point that that would lay local authorities open to action, it was agreed that the Government would seek to clarify, and to protect, the position of local authorities on the face of the Bill.
Clearly, we cannot pursue the point further at the moment, but I suspect that we shall want to return to it on Report. In the light of discussions today, and after consultation with his right honourable and honourable friends, the Minister may realise that in an amendment such as this we are seeking only to embody on the face of the Bill the understandings which the Minister gave in another place which, so far, the Bill does not carry. However, with the leave of the Committee—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I should not like the noble Baroness to leave the Committee with the idea that my right honourable friend in the other place made a concession from which I am now backing away. In fact, my right honourable friend did not make a concession; he made a clarification. The noble Baroness can find it in the report of the Committee stage that took place down the corridor. He used pretty well identical words to those that I have used: that an authority may on an exceptional basis decide to treat sympathetically a household with almost enough priority to be made an offer of permanent accommodation. Members of the Committee may remember that I said that that was sometimes called the "Laird protocol".
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We shall obviously want to revisit this matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 143 agreed to.
Clause 144 [Allocation only to qualifying persons]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 263ZAM:
Page 89, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) Any person to whom an authority owes a duty under section 172 (duty to persons with priority need who are not homeless intentionally) is qualified to be allocated housing accommodation by that authority.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, which stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 263ZAP, which also stands in both our names. The second amendment is perhaps a stronger version of the first.
The amendments have something of the thrust of the previous amendment, but are not the same. They are intended to give someone who is accepted as being unintentionally homeless the right to be included on the housing register either of the authority to which that person has applied or, if referred to another authority because he has no local connection with the first, on the register of that other authority. The first of the amendments seeks to give the right only to homeless applicants who have priority need; the second would extend that right to applicants who are not in priority need.
Homeless people are a distinct group to whom a duty of the highest order is owed morally and, I suggest, legislatively. It would therefore be appropriate to refer on the face of the Bill to people who are homeless and not leave them to be dealt with by way of regulation, with the natural concomitant that they may lose the right to be included on the register if the regulations were to change. It is appropriate that their housing needs should at least be considered alongside those of other applicants. That is what the amendments are intended to do. I believe that the Minister in another place undertook to consider the matter further, but I am not aware that any further proposals have appeared.
One purpose of the amendments is to find a way through the difficult situation when residential and other local connection qualifications restrict the right to appear on the waiting list. Such restrictions were one of the issues raised in the Government's consultation paper. Many authorities currently require that a person must have lived in its area for a certain time, often 12 months. That is one of the factors which give rise to the current list being thought of as a "waiting list", as if one had only to wait for a certain time, make one's way to the head of the list, and then housing would appear. Sadly, that is not the case.
Homeless people are protected by the present legislation because a local authority has a duty to consider their application. If the local authority finds that the applicant has no local connection, but does have a local connection with another authority, it is entitled to refer the applicant to the second authority. That means that some authority somewhere has a duty to provide housing. However, under the changes proposed by the Bill, homeless applicants could be excluded from any right to permanent housing in the authority to which they apply as homeless if that authority continues to operate a residence criterion. If the housing register is to be the route into local authority and other social housing, homeless people should not be denied access to the register.
I expect that the Minister may again refer to the inclusion of such groups in regulations. If that is to be the Government's approach, it would clearly be helpful to have a response to the wording I have proposed. That means that rather than waiting for the regulations, we can have the debate now as to whether this is the right way in which to refer to those two groups. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I support the amendment. As the Minister emphasised on the previous amendment, a local authority may house only those people on the housing register. That means that somebody who is not entitled to go on the housing register cannot get housed. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, the amendment would ensure that anyone accepted as unintentionally homeless may be placed on the waiting list. That is essential if homeless families or homeless people generally are to be eligible for local authority housing.
The amendment has another purpose. Many local authorities, particularly rural local authorities, exclude certain categories of people from being eligible for the

333
waiting list. A common test is requiring 12 months' residence in their area. Other authorities have age restrictions, such as requiring applicants to be over 21. I recall some authorities which required single applicants to be over 40 before they could go on the housing waiting list. Such restrictions mean that homeless people in those categories are not eligible for housing. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will support the amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, probably has in mind a similar amendment proposed in the other place by the honourable Member for Greenwich. His concern, like that of the noble Baroness today, was that without such a provision as this, a household to which an authority owed a duty to secure accommodation under the homeless provisions might be excluded from qualifying for accommodation through the authority's housing register. We would not expect this to happen as it would be in an authority's own interest to ensure that it was able to offer a long term tenancy through the housing register to households towards whom it might otherwise have a recurring homelessness duty.
I have some sympathy with the concerns that have prompted these amendments. With reference to Amendment No. 263ZAM, which relates to those with priority need, we are clear that such provision should be made by regulations under Clause 124(2) rather than in primary legislation. In January this year we issued a consultation paper discussing how the main regulation-making powers in Part VI of the Bill might be used. Paragraphs 8 to 14 of the consultation paper discuss this particular power. We suggested that as a minimum a household rehoused by a local authority under the new two-year homelessness duty outside that authority's area should have a right to go on the placing authority's register. That would discourage authorities from "exporting" families towards whom they owed a homelessness duty. We also discussed the case for extending this right to households who were owed a duty under the homelessness legislation. We received over 300 responses to the consultation paper. In the light of our consideration of those responses, we are minded to do a number of things. I hope that this answers one of the questions posed by the noble Baroness. We are minded to give every homeless person over 18 who is given housing under the proposed two-year minimum period of duty the right to have his application considered by the authority that has accepted the homelessness duty towards him. There is an appreciation that some authorities can impose a 25-year limit. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred to a 40-year limit. That is what we are minded to do in relation to the age problem. We are also considering whether to extend the entitlement more generally; for instance, to include everyone over 18 who meets certain minimum requirements relating to residence in the area and previous behaviour as a tenant.
334
One of the important points about regulations in this regard is that they will allow us to go into some detail and deal with various scenarios and, in addition, deal with any that come up in the future. If authorities believe that they have found a new way to limit access to the list, the power of regulation gives us the opportunity to address these problems without trying to find time to come back to both Houses of Parliament with primary legislation.
We believe that in general as wide a range of people as possible should be able to have applications considered, although we recognise that many authorities feel that some restrictions should apply. Any provisions that we make are likely to be detailed, and we will need to discuss these with the local authority associations. We also want to be able to react to anything that happens in regard to restrictions being placed on entry into housing lists in future.
I hope that in the light of that assurance and indication of the kinds of actions that we are considering through regulation, and our reminder of the consultation paper and the discussions set out in that consultation paper, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I accept what the Minister has said about the intentions of the Government. Taking the issue more broadly than my amendments, on the one hand I am reassured but, on the other, I have become less assured. The clause provides that the local housing authority shall allocate accommodation only to qualifying persons and provides that the Secretary of State can prescribe not only those who qualify but those who do not.
The comments of the Minister about criteria having to be met bothered me. They sounded almost equivalent to rights having to be earned. It is perhaps inappropriate to criticise too much without seeing precisely what the Government intend to do. I am about to break a self-denying ordinance by saying that if we were able to discuss the details of the regulations at this stage the debate might be more helpful. Having made that point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 263ZAN:
Page 89, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall render ineligible under this part any asylum seeker.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 263ZAN and to speak also to Amendment No. 263C. These amendments are similar, in that Amendment No. 263ZAN is narrower, covering asylum seekers; whereas Amendment No. 263C covers all persons who are not unlawfully in the United Kingdom. The aim of both amendments is similar. The aim is to prevent certain groups of people from being excluded from the housing register in order that they may become eligible for local authority housing allocation. I appreciate that some time ago we went over this ground in debating a different Bill, the Asylum and

335
Immigration Bill. But this puts the policy on a permanent basis and therefore is to be condemned even more so for that reason.
I refer first to Amendment No. 263ZAN. The amendment seeks to ensure that asylum seekers are not prevented from being covered by the housing register. The argument is very simple. These people are lawfully in this country. These people may be vulnerable and have no prospects of any other decent accommodation. It is a discriminatory measure which will impose—and, in so far as it has been applied under the other measure, has already imposed—on local authorities a difficult set of choices in terms of whether individuals, who by all other tests are in desperate housing need, will still be excluded from consideration because of the Government's new proposals, whether in this Bill or the other Bill.
My understanding is that at the moment when an individual goes on the housing list in some London boroughs it may take two years or longer for his turn to come up. It may take 18 months in some urban areas outside London. That is a long time. In order to start the process that person has to be accepted on the housing register under the new scheme. Even if an asylum seeker has waited perhaps a year or two to have his or her eligibility to stay here as a refugee settled by the Home Office, the individual has to start the process again, because only at that point will he or she be allowed to get on the housing register. It may take a very long time before people who are vulnerable, and who by all standards ought to be considered for local authority housing, can get into the process at all. Two years may be required to get into the process and there may be another year and a half to wait before any decent accommodation is provided.
I believe that this measure will make life very difficult for asylum seekers. What are they to do? Where are they to sleep? There is a limit to the number of night shelters that can be provided by organisations like the Refugee Council (for whom I used to work). There is a limit to the number of units of accommodation that can be provided by the churches in church halls and elsewhere. What are these people to do? These people have quite properly arrived in this country and applied for asylum and need some kind of accommodation. In other countries there are different arrangements. Hostels or camps may be provided. I do not say that camps are particularly desirable, but I can think of very few West European countries that provide neither hostel or camp accommodation nor the equivalent of public housing. We are saying to people who in other countries would be housed in one way or another—perhaps not very wonderfully—that we do not even consider it at all.
The Minister may say that when the Secretary of State makes the regulations he will provide some opportunity for those asylum seekers who claim asylum at the point of entry. We have considered this argument before. Perhaps that will be his answer for some asylum seekers, but he will be aware of the counter argument that it will still leave others equally in need who, on the basis of Home Office statistics, are more likely to be allowed to
336
stay in this country than those who claim asylum at the port of entry. Those people will still be denied any access to the council housing sector.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 263C which is the wider amendment. It states that,
"subsection (2) shall not exclude from the class of qualifying persons a person who is not unlawfully in the UK".
That will include asylum seekers and other groups of people, among them those who fail the habitual residence test, which this place has discussed on a number of occasions, and those who may fail the immigration status test.
More people than asylum seekers are affected, but the principle is the same. People who, by any test, would be judged to be in housing need will not be allowed to go on the housing register. That is wrong in principle; it will have undesirable social consequences. We as a country surely do not want people who fail the habitual residence test or who have come here as asylum seekers to be forced to sleep in the streets. Goodness me, one needs only to walk along the Strand or Tottenham Court Road during the early evening. I do not say they are asylum seekers. But we surely do not want to add to the number of people who already sleep in the streets. It is my contention that that will be the effect of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I find the amendments extraordinarily wide-ranging. They seem to include pretty well anyone who is not unlawfully in this country. That is a wide definition. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that in other countries hostels or camps are provided. That is something we tend to overlook. There are parts of this country where there is spare accommodation; there is no reason why an asylum seeker should have to go where there is an already overcrowded housing list. It may be desirable to have some way of directing them to where space is available.
I wish to ask the noble Lord a question on a point about which I am not clear. When he says asylum seekers, does he mean people granted asylum or just anyone who might apply? I understand that only a small percentage is granted asylum.
Lord Hylton: This country has a long and honourable tradition of accepting and welcoming people from overseas who have suffered persecution or are in immediate fear of it. It is highly desirable that that tradition should continue and continue to be honoured. The Government must make up their collective mind as to how that will be made possible. Either local authorities shall use their system, if not immediately, at least after the appropriate delay, to make accommodation available, or, if that is not to happen, central government will have to take the matter in hand and make provision. There is a choice. The amendments are important. They offer one way out, and I support them.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The Committee has had an admirable discussion of these amendments from the point of view of asylum seekers and persons who are

337
illegally resident in this country. I express some puzzlement about the drafting both of the clause and of the amendments as they have impact on the clause.
I say at the outset that I realise that my difficulty may be that I am not thoroughly conversant with the Bill, although the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has set me some homework on it, or with the asylum Bill. Having listened to the debates on the asylum Bill, it seems to me that the right to asylum has been abused. On the other hand, the way to deal with abuse is surely not by operation of the housing law.
I turn from that to the structure of the clause. Subsection (1) precludes the local housing authority from allocating housing to persons other than qualifying persons. I put it in the negative way. Subsection (2) gives the Secretary of State power to prescribe by regulations the classes of persons who are, or are not, qualifying persons. The baleful eye of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has understandably fallen on that subsection.
Subsection (3) provides that, subject to the regulations made by the Secretary of State, a local housing authority may decide what classes of persons are, or are not, qualifying persons. One then goes back to subsection (1). The local housing authority may only allocate to persons who are qualifying persons, but it should determine who are qualifying persons. That may be what is intended, but it is not a very neat way of dealing with the matter.
One then comes to the amendments. Amendment No. 263ZAM operates on subsection (1). Amendment No. 263C operates on subsection (2). But neither operates on subsection (3), although the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, may say that that is taken care of by the inter-relationship, which I have tried to describe, between subsection (1) and subsection (3).
The other difficulty is that the second amendment is not in the same terms. It goes very much wider, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, explained, than the first amendment. I suggest that what he has in mind could be much more neatly carried out by one amendment dealing with the whole situation. He may consider it desirable to withdraw the amendment, and proceed, possibly along the lines I have suggested, on Report.
The Earl of Sandwich: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 263ZAN in the form of a question to the Minister. Can he give an assurance that the asylum seekers of this country have not been excluded from this Housing Bill? Surely, under international law, under the UN convention, we have an obligation to house asylum seekers who are coming to this country for the time being or while they are applying for asylum under appeal. Can the Minister give an assurance that they are not regarded as stateless persons living on thin air and therefore not treated equally as citizens of this country?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Both amendments seek to serve a similar purpose. I shall not enter a discussion with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, other than to say that my advice to the
338
Committee is to save the noble and learned Lord a problem as to where the amendments should go by not accepting any of them.
Amendment No. 263ZAN would remove the Secretary of State's power to prescribe that asylum seekers are not entitled to be allocated housing. Amendment No. 263C would extend entitlement to anyone who is lawfully in the United Kingdom. If we have been around this particular course once we have been around it a fair old number of times. I shall resist the temptation to go back to basics and start the argument from scratch. Perhaps I may recommend to those Members of the Committee who missed my previous outings on the subject a visit to the Library and a reference to Hansard. That will remind Members of the Committee of what I have said on a number of occasions about the problem the Government have with asylum seekers and with the considerable growth in their number. They come to the United Kingdom from various parts of the world, many of them, in my view, perfectly sound and safe places in which to live. By comparison the number of asylum seekers in many of the countries of our European partners has diminished.
I shall not go into that matter in any great detail. Perhaps we shall address it on a number of occasions today and I have no doubt that we shall return to it in our Report stage discussions on the Asylum and Immigration Bill on Monday when we consider two similar clauses in that Bill—a Bill which already contains provisions removing the entitlement to social housing from certain immigrants. The regulations under Clause 144 will carry those restrictions forward into the new legislation and extend them to certain European Union nationals and persons failing a habitual residents' test.
It is our very firm view that social housing is a valuable asset which should go to those people with the greatest long-term needs. I emphasise "long-term needs". There is no case for saying that people who are in this country for a limited period—and on the understanding that they should have no recourse to public funds—should be entitled to such housing. That is the principle that I have stated on a number of occasions and it is the principle which underlines our position on the benefits arrangements.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that that is perfectly consistent with our international obligations. I refer to our international obligations as to how we treat asylum seekers from the point of view of the rules by which we arrive at a decision to grant asylum. If asylum seekers apply at the port of entry they will be eligible for benefit and eligible to be treated under the homelessness legislation. However—and this is the important point—they will not be eligible for access to long-term council housing. Frankly, we do not know whether they will have a long-term need. As my noble friend Lady Gardner pointed out, the majority are found to be neither genuine asylum seekers nor to justify being given exceptional leave to remain. Approximately 80 per cent. fail both tests. Therefore, it seems wrong to allow 40,000-odd people, which was the number last year, access to the housing list. It is not 40,000 people spread around the country; it is 40,000 people

339
concentrated principally around one or two airports and perhaps a few pockets around one or two sea ports. The number is heavily concentrated in London simply because of the international airports sited there.
The position is clear. We are saying to the Committee, as we are saying in other legislation, that asylum seekers registering their claim at the port of entry will receive certain benefits inside the UK. They will be eligible for social security benefits and they will be eligible to be considered under the homelessness legislation. That will continue until a first-instance decision is made by the Home Office. If they are granted asylum or exceptional leave to remain they will then be in a position to go on the housing waiting list because, clearly, they will have some long-term rights to be here and therefore some rights to be considered for long-term housing. It would be a little impractical if every asylum seeker were allowed to join the list immediately on arrival. The housing list would become cluttered. The position is clearer if we wait until they have established their long-term right to stay in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked where people lived while they sought asylum. He suggested that if we walked down any street in London—for instance, the Strand—we would be stepping over people sleeping out at night. Although he retreated a little, he appeared to imply that they would be asylum seekers. I believe that the rough sleepers initiative has been very successful in reducing the number of people sleeping rough in central London. On the last count—not a government count but a count undertaken by the voluntary sector agencies which work with such people—there were some 270 people sleeping rough compared with estimates of more than 1,000 before the initiative began. There is no evidence that those still sleeping rough in London include many, if any, asylum seekers. Many will be increasingly difficult to place and perhaps some do not want to be placed. However, there is no evidence that they are asylum seekers.
I believe that the position at which we have arrived as regards the benefits system and housing is perfectly fair to asylum seekers. What we are making clear today, and what the amendment would deny us, is that asylum seekers ought not to have the right of access to the list which leads eventually to long-term housing. We believe that that ought to be kept for those people with a long-term right to be here.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The Minister has helpfully proposed to resolve my doubts about the different widths and separate impacts of the two amendments by rejecting both of them. Would he care to comment about my other point which rests on the structure of the clause? I refer to the oddity of providing under subsection (1) that the local authority may allocate only to qualifying persons but providing under subsection (3) that subject to the regulations the local authority itself will determine whether or not a person is a qualifying person.
340
If the Minister believes that there may be anything in that point, will he be willing to discuss it with the draftsman with a view to tidying up if necessary at a later stage?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I always listen with care and some trepidation to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, when he makes such points. Of course I will discuss the matter with the draftsman. I may be subject to correction and it may be foolish even to try to give the noble and learned Lord my thoughts on the matter, but I would have thought that one might consider that subsection (1) is the principal provision and that subsections (2) and (3) are the subordinate provisions. However, that is the tentative view of a mathematician.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs: Perhaps I may first comment on the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in relation to the two amendments which interact with different parts of Clause 144. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that Clause 144 is somewhat circular, and it is difficult to insert amendments into a circle. Therefore, the two amendments deal with different points in the circle. I shall be interested to know what is the outcome of the Minister's mathematical deliberations about the circular argument in relation to subsections (1) and (3).
I turn to the substance of the amendments and what the Minister said. First, it must be stated that only a small minority of asylum seekers is ever eligible for local authority housing. That will be confirmed by one of the later clauses in the Bill. But even present practice will exclude the majority of asylum seekers—single people, couples without young children. That will cover the majority of asylum seekers and, therefore, we are talking about only a small number. The sweeping statements which the Minister makes about all these asylum seekers are at variance with the facts.
I was not making the point that asylum seekers are currently sleeping in the streets. But if they have nowhere else to go, that will be their only option. The fact that more asylum seekers are not on the streets today is because churches, voluntary organisations and other bodies have put themselves out to provide temporary accommodation. It is a tribute to the many groups up and down the country that we do not have asylum seekers, or perhaps only small numbers of them, sleeping on the streets at present.
The Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, asked why asylum seekers do not disperse themselves around the country, particularly to those areas where there is less of a housing shortage than in inner London, for example. Asylum seekers tend to go to those areas where there are other members of their own community. They may be organised through refugee organisations which provide support for them. In case any Member of the Committee is doubtful about that proposition, it should be remembered that when British people settle abroad, not as refugees but in other capacities, the tendency has been for them to congregate together because that provides support, social relationships and all the other factors which make life better.

341
Because asylum seekers need help and support, in the first instance they seek it from members of their own community with whom they have an affinity because of language, religion and culture. Those are so important that it is members of refugee organisations who have been here longer who provide the support which reduces the responsibility on social services or voluntary organisations. That is why asylum seekers tend to go to those parts of the country where other members of their community happen to live.
In relation to the other question which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, asked, according to latest statistics, in 1995, 23 per cent. of asylum seekers were allowed to stay in this country, and in the year before it was 25 per cent. That is both with full refugee status or with exceptional leave to remain.
I was disconcerted to hear the Minister say that some of these refugees come from countries which he knows to be safe. The problem with that argument is that government Minister after government Minister makes decisions from the Front Bench in this Chamber or the other place about whether or not people are in fear of persecution without knowledge of individual circumstances. The UNHCR advises that asylum claims should be decided individually, not on the basis of some sweeping statement about which countries are safe. There are many exceptions and I regret that the Minister felt that he had to say that.
The Minister talked about people on the housing register being there because they have long-term housing needs. On the present basis, in view of the time which it takes for asylum claims to be decided and for local authorities to provide housing, accommodation would not be allocated until claims had been decided. But this amendment gives them the opportunity to be considered and treated on the same basis as anybody else. If it so happened that the Home Office speeded up the process of deciding claims, and in the unlikely event that the people involved had to leave the country because they were found to be ineligible, then the accommodation would be available for somebody else.
Finally, the Minister talked about people not being entitled to housing when they had no right to public funds. Surely that argument does not apply to asylum seekers. If asylum seekers come to this country and apply in the proper way, then the public funds argument does not apply, although I concede that it applies to other people to whom the second amendment may refer.
There is a different model for an approach to this problem introduced by the Government. When they agreed to accept in this country several thousand Bosnians, who had been detained in Serb camps, under a scheme which the Home Office introduced and which the Refugee Council and other organisations helped to implement on behalf of the Home Office those people were not even given refugee status, in the main, but granted limited leave to remain. Arrangements were made for them: temporary accommodation was provided, and temporary reception areas were made available before they moved into longer-term accommodation. That is a model of how people can be treated differently rather than having to take pot luck
342
and end up being rejected by local authorities because of what the Government say and being unable to afford housing in the private sector because of financial difficulties. The Government know how to achieve that because it has been achieved in relation to the Bosnians. That is a better way forward. I regret that the Minister feels that he is unable to accept those arguments. Perhaps he would like another opportunity to respond.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have had more than one opportunity to respond to this argument. But the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to the Bosnians. The situation in Bosnia was exceptional. As we know, many of the people who were given exceptional leave to remain came from Bosnia but are now beginning to return in the hope that they can settle in their own country. That is rather different from the generality of people who come to this country seeking asylum.
Many of the people who obtain leave to come here and obtain a visa do so on the clear condition that they will have no recourse to public funds. They state that both when applying for a visa and at the port of entry, if they do not apply for asylum there. Therefore, it is on that basis that we believe that they should not have access to the benefit system. It is our case also that they should not have access to local authority housing which is by and large provided by the same public funds, funds to which they have said they will not wish to have access. People cannot have it both ways in these matters.
Lord Dubs: I shall respond briefly because, as the Minister said, these matters have been debated already on the Asylum Bill. But I cannot allow what the Minister said at the end of his remarks to go unchallenged. He knows perfectly well that, because of the increasing demands for visas, it is virtually impossible for an asylum seeker to get here at all unless the visa is granted. It will not be granted if it is known that the person wishes to become an asylum seeker. Therefore, that places the asylum seeker in a catch-22 situation. He has to find some way of escaping, whether to Britain or to one of the other European countries where the arrangements are similar to those set out in the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act. The asylum seeker must apply for a visa and he must do so for a reason other than the main purpose, which is to seek safety and freedom from persecution. If that means that he is caught on the recourse to public funds argument that is an inevitable consequence of the other measures which the Government are introducing. I am afraid that that is an extremely unfair way in which to treat people who have no options open to them other than escape by means of a visa granted on the basis of being a visitor. That has happened for a long time. There is nothing new about that. It is the Minister's argument that is new. I see he wants to have the penultimate word.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I want to be clear about this. That may well be an argument which can be advanced about the visa, but it cannot be advanced about the port of entry where they could say immediately they arrive—as many do—that they have come here to claim

343
asylum. However, many of them do not do that; they enter the country first and some weeks or months later they decide to claim asylum.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: As the noble Lord will remember, we have debated all this during the proceedings of the asylum Bill. The point I made was that most of these people who arrive often have letters from friends or relatives here to assure the authorities that they will be totally responsible for those who are arriving, but when they arrive that is not the case.
Lord Dubs: As regards that final point of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, I think what she is saying is much more applicable to people who come on another basis of immigration than to people who come as asylum seekers. I concede that this Chamber has debated the issue. I think the Minister is wrong. I am sorry that he is not prepared to meet any of the arguments. However, as I said, the Chamber has debated this matter at length this afternoon, and on earlier occasions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 263ZAP and 263A not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 263B:
Page 89, line 42, at end insert ("and prescribe that no factors other than those relevant to housing need should be taken into account in the determination of the allocation of housing accommodation.").
The noble Baroness said: On a previous amendment, which I believe was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, we sought to stop exclusions from the housing waiting list for reasons unconnected with housing need. I think the Minister was supportive of the issue but thought it was more appropriately dealt with by regulation. I refer to issues such as age. This amendment is an extension of the same argument. It seeks to stop exclusions from allocation of housing—as opposed to access to the waiting list—for reasons unconnected with housing need. The problem here is less likely to be residency or age qualifications—which tends to be the waiting list problem—as financial irregularities.
Many local authorities bar permanent council housing to those who have a history of rent arrears or other financial debts, even where—as we discovered in yesterday's discussion—those debts may be due to delays by the local authority in paying housing benefit direct to the landlord. I am not saying that all tenants in arrears are innocent in this matter and that it is never their fault. Clearly it can be their fault and clearly the local authority has a quite proper concern in ensuring that rent payments are made.
Nonetheless, the CAB quotes a case in the North East where a client and wife and child were accepted as being in priority need under the homelessness legislation but were refused housing by the local council because they were held to have rent arrears with another local authority. The client disputes that there were any arrears. It appears that the problem lay with the housing benefit claim which had not been paid expeditiously by his previous local authority. Yet on those grounds that
344
person and his family were denied a home in the new authority to which he was attached. As the CAB rightly argues, it is unacceptable to use housing need as a lever to recover debts which are pursuable through other and recognised legal channels. It could even be a council tax debt, which has nothing to do with a council house as such. If, as the Government insist—as we heard last night—there will be introductory tenancies, the local authority ought not to be at risk from defaulting tenants in this regard. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to this amendment. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I doubt whether there is much between the noble Baroness and myself on the principal purpose of social housing, which is to meet housing need. However, merely making that general statement does not get us far. We have to define the term because housing need can mean different things in different circumstances. A definition of housing need—if we can call it a definition at all—will emerge through a local authority's allocation scheme. It will, by necessity, be an extensive definition, taking account of a wide range of factors and circumstances, and is not something one would expect to see prescribed in the legislation itself. We shall be talking later about the allocation scheme—I believe Clause 148 is concerned with that—when we discuss the principles which are being set out in legislation which should govern the decisions about priority and allocation.
The noble Baroness's Amendment No. 263B suggests that these regulations may prescribe that local authorities should address no factors other than housing need in determining entitlement. While I agree that the allocation of social housing should be made essentially on the basis of housing need, there may be some wider concerns which some local authorities might want to take into account when deciding who should have access to their housing registers. They may, for example, want to take account of the applicants' ties to the area, their age, or their behaviour. Last night the noble Baroness embarked on an interesting discussion about tenant behaviour. That is something about which we are all concerned. My noble friend Lord Lucas replied to that discussion for the Government and we concluded that that issue was extremely real but extremely difficult to resolve. I believe that local authorities ought to be able at least to take some account of behaviour when they allocate property. I do not honestly believe that the record of rent payment can be ignored by a local authority.
Many rural authorities are keen to impress on us the importance of being able to set some residency requirements in order to prevent local communities from being broken up. We acknowledge that such requirements could be harmful if taken to extremes. I have already mentioned that we have regulation-making powers—provided that the Chamber decides to give us those powers—to enable us to act against an authority or authorities which decided to take those matters to extremes. We believe that some flexibility is required in these matters.

345
As regards rural housing, we had a long discussion at an earlier point in the Bill about the sale of housing association properties. We all agreed that there was a serious argument to be made for rural areas being exempt from the right to acquire provision. That is why there is an exemption for rural communities with fewer than 3,000 in a settlement from the right to acquire provision. Earlier in the Bill we all agreed and signed up to the proposition that rural communities should have some protection as regards housing. I believe that the same argument applies to local authority housing and a council's attempt to try to address the requirements of its local community and those people who reside in it.
I fully accept that the noble Baroness could tell us some horror stories about authorities acting in an extreme way as regards the criteria for their "entry gates". If it is any help I should tell the noble Baroness that we shall be issuing guidance on those matters and on the element of discretion which local authorities ought to be able to have. If we suddenly find that some local authorities have found a clever wheeze to limit people whom we all feel should be on the list, we have the powers and regulations to do something about that. I explained earlier about the consultation paper we issued and about the kind of thoughts we had as a result of the consultation and our further considerations, as regards what we may include in the regulations.
Amendment No. 264ZE seeks to restrict housing allocation schemes to considering only housing needs. I think that most of the arguments I used with regard to the previous amendment I would use as regards this amendment. I believe that allocation schemes should focus on the characteristics and needs of the individual household, as set out in the consultation paper. We should not be prepared to go wider than that.
I fully accept that the noble Baroness might be concerned that a perverse authority might skew its allocation schemes by taking wildly irrelevant factors into account. I wondered this morning whether Scottish local authorities, which are not covered by the Bill, might decide, in the light of England's failure to keep out the Holland goal, that people from England should not be allowed on their housing lists! As time elapses, that might be seen as a perverse decision. While it may be jocular, I am sure that I could make up rather more serious racial and ethnic reasons why housing authorities could be tempted down a road of which none of us would approve. The power and regulation has to be in place to ensure that that does not happen.
In conclusion, there are issues, apart from pure housing need, which we believe local authorities should be allowed to take into account. We believe we can be confident that with the safeguards in the Bill and in the regulation-making powers available to Government, local authorities, as they almost inevitably do, will operate the system with a great deal of care and sensitivity.
Having heard my explanations, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Hylton: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may put to him that he is simply not comparing like with like when he attempts to equate the rural exemption
346
to the right to buy with access to the register of a local authority, which forms the starting point for an individual to be housed by a local authority.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord. The underlying argument that leads people to come to conclusions in both those cases is the same. The rural communities wish a certain amount of protection for their own community where there is a limited amount of housing. That was true on the right to buy and housing association property. It can also be true as regards local authority social housing. I may be missing some point in my logic, but I do not see that the arguments are all that different.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is entirely correct; I believe that they are quite different.
As regards the amendment, I suspect that there is little difference between the Minister and these Benches on the fact that housing which is in such short supply for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, gave earlier should go to those in housing need. The difference between us may be that the Minister appears more concerned about goals, in particular those scored by England or Holland. We on this side are rather more worried that he is allowing local authorities to change the goalposts, hence this amendment.
The Minister stated that local authorities might wish to take into account such issues as behaviour, loyalty, living in the locality or age. I had thought that we had covered those elements. A waiting list is likely to involve a period of a year, two years or more for a family, and perhaps longer for a single person. By coming through the list those persons have identified themselves as residents of the community. The Minister accepted that on a previous amendment. The Minister also accepted that local authorities should not restrict by age. He said that he would cover that by regulation.
The Minister is right: we believe that severe anti-social behaviour on estates should not be tolerated. It is the Minister who is pressing for introductory tenancies. They would ensure that no local authority would have to continue to house a tenant whose behaviour was severely anti-social, that anti-social behaviour having become apparent in the first year.
The Minister's objections to the amendment are not well founded. He either agrees with us, or his points are covered by his own legislation through introductory tenancies.
Given the remainder of today's agenda, this is not a major issue. The Minister says that he is happy to cover these points through guidance. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 263C and 263D not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 263E:
Page 90, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Russell, I beg to move Amendment No. 263D which deletes the subsection which provides that,
"An authority's housing register shall contain such information about the persons on it as the Secretary of State may prescribe by regulations".
I have not discussed the amendment with my noble friend. I imagine that he believes it appropriate to probe the Minister about what the regulations will contain. It seems a wide power. We have already heard the Government's view that housing need is not to be the only criterion. Therefore, perhaps the Minister will say that the information will enable the authority to apply the criteria which the Government will share with the local authorities when the Government bring forward the regulations. It will be worth hearing what is in the Government's mind. Can the Minister tell the Committee when the regulations will be published? When might they be implemented? I have already commented today on my concern about not seeing the detail of the regulations. There is an additional concern that the Government propose to "wait and see" before getting on with the regulations. I am not entirely certain what it is they wait to see. Perhaps the Minster will assure the Committee as regards timing. I beg to move.
Lord Monkswell: I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. The subsection is curious. It has the effect of preventing a joint tenancy for a husband and wife where one of the parties lived outside the area prior to marriage. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention. However, that is why we question the clause; that could be one interpretation. Newly married people often have difficulty in obtaining suitable housing. A subsection which debars them seems rather curious. In his response, perhaps the Minister will explain how the subsection would be used. We may need to consider how it can be redrafted to ensure that the scenario that I describe does not occur.
Baroness Hamwee: Having made that impassioned speech, and having asked a set of questions on the wrong clause, perhaps those arguments can be taken as read when we discuss Clause 145. The Minister may wish to answer the noble Lord. I shall not withdraw the amendment at this moment, given that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, has raised a point.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was a little puzzled. I thought that I had lost my place in my notes. Some noble Lords may think that that is not an unusual event.
If I am right in thinking that we are discussing Clause 144—I must establish fundamental principles in these matters—it establishes who may qualify to be allocated housing. It requires local housing authorities to allocate housing only to persons who qualify.
The second subsection allows the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations classes of persons who are, or are not, qualifying persons; and we have discussed that. Subsection (5) allows allocation to two or more persons jointly, provided that one or more of them qualifies.
348
I have not puzzled over the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, but I said that one or more may qualify. A man may qualify because he meets all the qualifications. If he marries a woman who does not qualify I imagine that a joint tenancy could be arranged. They fulfil the qualification that one or more can qualify. I hope that that helps the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I am in a muddle. I have called Amendment No. 263E, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, spoke. We now seem to be considering the question of whether Clause 144 should stand part of the Bill. Is that correct?
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may explain. My understanding is that we are debating Amendment No. 263E, which would delete subsection (4). The Minister referred to subsection (5), which appears to contradict subsection (4). The first subsection provides that two people may not have a joint tenancy if one is not eligible; the other subsection provides that two people can have a joint tenancy if one is eligible. The two subsections appear to be contradictory and perhaps the Minister needs to look again at the subsections.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was trying to be helpful to the noble Lord. However, rather than try to resolve his dilemma—if it is a dilemma—between the two subsections while I am on my feet, I shall reconsider the provision to ascertain whether there is a contradiction. I believe that I have given the noble Lord the answer.
I now turn to the amendment. When considering it one must ascertain what the regulations are likely to accomplish. I remind the noble Baroness that the regulations made under the clause can work in two ways. In either case, they would limit local authorities' discretion as to who may appear on the housing register. They can either give prescribed groups the right to go on a housing register or they can ensure that other prescribed groups cannot appear on the register. We have been discussing that. Subsection (4) and this amendment relate to whether or not the latter group may be granted joint tenancies.
I have explained specifically the position in relation to husbands and wives. In the terms of subsection (5) the Government wish to encourage joint tenancies. They are an important part of efficient housing management. But subsection (4) is important because, without it, a prescribed person from abroad could be allocated social housing via another member of his household. That would open a back door into social housing. It would be at odds with the Government's policy in relation to persons from abroad who are in this country.
The point to which we return is the problem of people who have no long-term right of residence in this country and whether they can qualify for consideration for a council house. That is a little different from the wife from the next parish.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Is the Minister saying that an asylum seeker while waiting for his case to be determined, may marry a British citizen in this country whose ability to be here is not in dispute? If the wife is on a housing waiting list and the husband is a prohibited person, does it mean that he prohibits her from being housed? Alternatively, if she is eligible can she include him with her on the housing list?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If I understand correctly, regardless of whether it is a man or a woman, if one of the partners is eligible he or she can be on the list. However, if the other partner is not eligible because he or she is from abroad and, for whatever reason, has no settled right to be here in the long term, then that person cannot be considered for joint tenancy. I made that point about a back-door method of getting on to the housing list someone who would otherwise not qualify because that person would be in a prescribed class. But that does not exclude the person from the next parish who has a long-term right to be here from becoming a joint tenant.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Is the Minister saying that in the example I gave the tenancy would rest solely with the person who is entitled to be here, although that person's husband or partner could live with them? It would mean that there would not be the customary local authority practice of a joint tenancy. The Minister indicates assent. I thank him.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I may have missed the point. Will the Minister explain why subsection (4) applies to subsection (2) but not to subsections (1) and (3)?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Not instantly on my feet. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to study his question and write to him.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: The case being put is that most local authorities put "Mr and Mrs" on the rent book, or other record of payment. Both parties are secure tenants and if the marriage breaks up the local authority has to find a home for the one who moves out, whether it is the husband or the wife, so they always have a joint tenancy. The case being put is of someone who was never a joint tenant because that person was not a husband or a wife.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not believe that that was the case being put. It was that they were husband and wife but, for the reasons I explained, one might not have been eligible to become a joint tenant. The noble Baroness is quite right that in most cases husband and wife can easily qualify to be joint tenants. Then if something goes wrong with the marriage, the problem raised by the noble Baroness arises.
Lord Monkswell: I wish to clarify in my mind what the Minister says. Is he saying that if someone eligible for social housing and on the housing waiting list—in other words a qualifying person—marries someone from abroad, the latter will be prohibited from being offered
350
social housing because it is the Government's intention that if a British citizen marries a foreigner they should not live together?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We are now getting into tangled territory. That is not at all the intention. The case concerned joint tenancies. People can live together without having joint tenancies. Indeed, these days they do so without even being married.
Baroness Hamwee: I apologise for having opened up the debate which was, perhaps, useful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 144 agreed to.
5 p.m.
Clause 145 [The housing register]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 263F:
Page 90, line 15, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: I spoke previously in support of the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Russell. I wish to ask for details of the information which the Government anticipate is to be prescribed by regulations. Will the Minister explain to the Committee, first, when the regulations which the Bill anticipates will be published; and, secondly, when they will be implemented? I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may explain what the regulations in Clause 145 are intended to do. I believe that that is what the noble Baroness wishes to ascertain via her amendment.
The information contained on the housing register is important, both for the authority and for the individual. The housing register is the document that records an individual's application and the priority accorded to him. Clause 147 provides that he is entitled to see the entry on the register relating to him. The regulation-making power would ensure that information is kept on the register in the first place, so that the applicant can then have access to it.
The regulations are likely to cover matters of detail: for example, the applicant's name and address and details of members of the applicant's household which it would not be appropriate to set out in primary legislation.
In the course of the summer we shall be consulting local authority associations and the housing profession about the form and content of the regulations in regard to basic information about the applicant and his position. We need to be able to do that by regulation. I believe—although I could be wrong, since earlier I confused this discussion with a previous one—that so far as these regulations are concerned, we hope to consult during the

351
summer, to produce the regulations in the autumn and, equally, that they will come into force in the autumn. I hope I am speaking about the correct regulations.
Baroness Hamwee: Is it therefore proposed that the various regulations may be implemented at different times?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure about that. I shall have to look into it. Logically, in regard to regulations which are tied together and which deal with largely the same matters I should expect us to attempt, if we can, to do the work at the same time. Clearly, as the noble Baroness has already said, there are a fair number of regulation-making powers in the Bill. I am pretty certain that the department will not introduce them all in one grand slam on the same day.
Baroness Hamwee: Will it be possible for the Minister to share with noble Lords before we reach Report the details of the proposed timetable? It would be helpful if we could know so far as possible what the timetable is likely to be. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 145 agreed to.
Clause 146 [Operation of housing register]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 263G:
Page 90, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) A local authority shall undertake an assessment of the housing needs of a person who is to appear on their housing register and where it appears that the person or a member of his household is vulnerable or in need of support, the local housing authority shall co-operate with the social services authority and, where relevant, voluntary organisations, to ensure that they have a comprehensive assessment of the person's housing and support requirements.").
The noble Baroness said: I hope that this amendment will command the support of the Committee, especially those who have a particular interest in what are loosely called special needs groups of people.
The amendment standing in my name and in that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would require a local authority to assess whether people on its waiting list are vulnerable and in need of support. The housing department of that authority should then co-operate with other relevant local authority departments, such as social services, and with local health authorities as well as with relevant voluntary organisations, to see that those needs are met. Such an amendment is especially important in relation to those housing authorities in district councils only for which, unfortunately, housing and social services remain splintered and for which there is a very real problem of co-ordination.
To whom are we referring? For example, there is a growing number of young people who are coming out of care but are still vulnerable. Social services responsibility may under certain clauses in the Children Act run until such young people are 21. They may enter local authority housing from the age of 18 or even earlier with social services support. We must ensure that such support is in place, and that the housing department
352
can expect it to be in place in order that such young people make a successful transition from institutional care.
Last night we discussed anti-social behaviour. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was anxious to protect the situation of applicants who, for example, had schizophrenia. He was concerned to ensure that any applicant who had physical or mental health problems or learning difficulties should be in a situation whereby he or she received support as well as having a roof over his or her head in order to ensure that conflict was not created with neighbours and other residents.
We appreciate that Section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 already provides for joint housing and social services assessment. But in practice the two-tier structure of local government means, regrettably, that too many vulnerable people are not recognised as having special needs. They are rehoused, sometimes without the support that they may need, and because of their somewhat eccentric behaviour they appear to be a nuisance to neighbours, who may then seek to have them evicted. I recall the example of the elderly man who crammed his flat full of newspapers, which then became a fire risk. Another example involved an elderly woman who turned her back garden into a menagerie for dozens of cats. That was regarded as a health risk to the neighbourhood. There was another gentleman with learning difficulties who did not always turn off the gas tap. These were tenants who should have received more support than was given to them in order for them to enjoy their home and allow others to enjoy theirs. Without such assessment, and without appropriate support, too often inappropriate behaviour can lead to pressures on the local authority for eviction and rehousing.
In replying to this amendment the Minister will tell us whether, as a result of physical or mental health problems, such people will be regarded as having made themselves intentionally homeless and will then find themselves living on the streets, perhaps reduced to being bag ladies or other people who are vagrant? Perhaps in that situation some of the hostels might then recover them; but clearly we should prefer that situation to be avoided in the first place. If the Minister could tell us that such guidance as he will be issuing will emphasise that point, that may begin to meet the concerns.
Will the Minister also respond to a very serious point raised in a debate last night? If a tenant has mental health problems which give rise to such bizarre behaviour that the local authority is required to seek his or her eviction, will that person be regarded none the less by virtue of mental health problems as making himself or herself unintentionally homeless so that the local authority will continue to have a duty of support? I should be grateful for the Minister's comments on both those points. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: In this amendment the noble Baroness seeks to require local authorities to

353
co-operate with social services departments and voluntary organisations in assessing the needs of vulnerable applicants.
Although I share the aims of the noble Baroness, I submit that these are not best achieved through legislation. I agree that local housing authorities should work closely with social services departments in addressing the needs of community care clients and vulnerable people. However, co-operation is a matter of good practice; it is not achieved simply by prescription. I am mindful of the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, in the Northavon case, who observed that the law is not the way to obtain co-operation. Co-operation is, by definition, a two-way process. What this amendment seeks to do is to place the burden of responsibility on housing authorities.
Such assessments may be more than is needed in the majority of general needs housing applications—that is, assessments by socials services departments. However, the Committee will be aware that Clause 148 requires local housing authorities to give reasonable preference to people with particular medical or welfare needs, and to give additional preference to households who could not reasonably be expected to find suitable accommodation for themselves. We would not expect local housing authorities to carry out those assessments in isolation. Where special needs are thought to exist the assessment is best shared with social service authorities, which have the expertise in this area. We will be advising authorities on the type of arrangements that may be appropriate in these circumstances.
I fully accept what the noble Baroness says: in some cases in England and Wales the same authority looks after both housing and social services. I understood from the flavour of her remarks that she thought that a good arrangement. She might just have told her colleagues in Scotland, who opposed the Government's reforms to Scottish local government last year which brought together the two authorities that were previously separate and dealt separately with housing and social services. Over a large part of urban England, the authority is the same authority. Division between the authority that deals with housing and that dealing with social services occurs more in the counties. Human nature being what it is, it does not necessarily follow that just because departments are in the same authority they work hand in hand together perfectly. Equally, I am sure it is the case that being in different authorities does not mean that they do not work hand in hand perfectly well. Or in both cases they may not co-operate as closely as we would wish.
There is guidance. I have it in my hand. It is a fairly detailed document: the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities. It was prepared in 1991, before the present Children Act came into being and before the care in the community legislation took effect. So we have to look again at the question of the guidance for co-operation between housing and social services that is issued. We shall therefore issue fresh statutory guidance that will cover this matter before the legislation is commenced. I hope that that will meet the noble Baroness's requirements.
354
At risk of speaking all afternoon, I could read out the paragraphs in the existing guidance which link housing and social security. Perhaps I should just read out the very first reference in the hope that it will give the flavour of the current guidance and therefore of the guidance that we shall write for the new legislation. Paragraph 1.3 says:
"The primary statutory responsibility for dealing with homelessness rests with local housing authorities. An authority still has a duty towards homeless people even if it owns no houses at all. The Code is designed for staff in local housing and social services departments and authorities who are responsible for policy on homelessness, or who deal with homeless people".
That is the start of the guidance. I can see from the index to the document that there are a fair number of references throughout to the way in which the two authorities will co-operate. I hope that that will reassure the noble Baroness that the guidance that we shall issue will deal with the need for co-operation that she rightly identified.
The noble Baroness asked me a particular question about someone who is mentally ill, creates a disturbance and is evicted. She asked whether he would be intentionally homeless. Such a person would probably be intentionally homeless. Such people have particular care needs and would look to social services departments for assistance. They might approach the housing department for assistance, but the housing department would certainly want to ensure that a proper care package was in place before it provided further accommodation. That is a good example of where the two authorities have to work together. It could lead to many problems for a housing authority if it housed someone who perhaps had a history of mental illness which led him (or her) sometimes to be a difficult neighbour, should there not be a proper care package in place from social services in order to try to deal with the difficulty that that person had so that it would not spill over on to the neighbours.
I hope that, with that assurance and answer, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Hylton: I very much welcome the Minister's comments about issuing guidance on the subject matter dealt with in this amendment. I wonder whether he could, if possible, ensure not only that his own department agrees the guidance but also that the Department of Health, the Department of Social Security, the Home Office—in so far as it has responsibility for children—and the local authority associations are all in agreement with what will be sent out.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Speaking in, my strange double capacity on this Bill, it is quite clear that the Department of Social Security is aware of what is in the guidance. The lead department is the Department of the Environment so far as guidance is concerned. But I imagine—I intentionally use the word "imagine"—that where it impinges on social services and health matters, which include care in the community, the department liaises with the Department of Health. I do not expect that much of this guidance will impinge on

355
the Department of Social Security, but for any that does, I suspect that what I might describe as the usual Whitehall paperchase will take place.
Lord Prys-Davies: May I ask the Minister what happens to the homeless person while the two departments are in liaison?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It is always somewhat difficult to deal with that kind of question when one does not have the case in front of one. So much depends on what the position is. I imagine that the social services people will have a role and responsibility in trying to help deal with the problem of such a person. Undoubtedly, it will talk to the housing department. As the noble Lord will know, later in the Bill—I just cannot remember the clause—we come to the question of an interim duty to accommodate. That interim duty to accommodate may come into play in such circumstances. I use the word "may" because much will depend on the circumstances of the individual case and its severity. If it is very severe, it may well mean that some medical care or hospital treatment is required. It is difficult across the Dispatch Box to make a judgment about a theoretical case.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Many of the homeless men to be found in large cities are "walking the country" (if I may use that phrase) and going from town to town. Originally, they might have been designated as homeless in, say, London. Then, they have gone on their tracks and might be picked up again in Coventry. At that point, the local authority that had designated them as homeless would have been another authority. Would Coventry—I just use that town as an example—have to agree to put them on its housing register because a London borough had considered that they ought to be on the security risk list of that authority? In other words, if those people are moving around—many of them are—whose is the responsibility? Very often, it is not even a problem for the social security department but becomes a problem of mental health and of the hospitals themselves. That responsibility needs to be quite clearly defined.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure that it can be all that clearly defined. It is difficult when one is trying to devise a theoretical model and another qualification on the theoretical model is added in order to bring me back to my feet. If, for example, we are talking about someone who used elegantly to be described yesteryear as having an unsettled lifestyle, then thanks to funding from the Department of Social Security there are a number of charitable and voluntary organisations around the country which provide quite excellent facilities for such men. I have been round a few of them because that is one of my departmental responsibilities. I should have thought that in the kind of scene that the noble Baroness has brought to our attention, such a person may well be directed by social services to one of the voluntary organisations which
356
provide the accommodation that he would need and, in the cases that I have seen at least, the support needed as well.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We all appreciate the Minister's helpful tone. I do not feel that there is any difference between us in recognising the problem. But, as the Minister's replies have gone on, I have become more and more worried by what I now understand to be the situation. I wonder whether he can think about this matter and come back at Report stage. There is now a real set of problems for some extremely vulnerable people and a gap opening up in front of us in the Bill.
It is clear that somebody, by definition of being homeless, comes on to the waiting list and because he exhibits other characteristics, such as mental or physical health problems, or has dependent children and the like, the local authority is required to give that person reasonable preference. That is found in Clause 148. Clearly, for someone to qualify for "reasonable preference" in that situation the local authority will have had to have assessed his mental and physical health. The Minister is right that in the case of someone who has, for example, recently come out of a long-stay hospital or whatever, the local authority would be very unwise (and, in my experience, would not expect) to offer an independent flat in a mixed community without being assured through the social services that that person was capable of sustaining himself or herself in that accommodation. That is all right. There is that protection on that route.
But the problem that is opening up is that when people are on the ordinary waiting list, there is no such review mechanism. Such people will serve their time, get their points and be rehoused. It would be bad enough if, in the course of one, two or three years or whatever, they exhibited bizarre behaviour and evictions resulted. But the Government have attached introductory tenancies to the provision, so that such a person whose bizarre behaviour may be due to physical or, more likely, mental health problems has no protection at court because under introductory tenancies the local authority has the right to gain repossession and—five minutes ago the Minister told us what was not clear last night—that person has made himself intentionally homeless and therefore the local authority has no responsibility to rehouse.
Therefore, somebody coming through the priority route will be reviewed and, we hope, treated suitably sympathetically and supportively. But if somebody coming up through the waiting list is found to have, for example, schizophrenia—that was the case we used last night—which reveals itself in the first year, the local authority can seek possession. The court cannot refuse. It cannot require the local authority to rehouse and, as the Minister said, the person will be deemed to have made themselves intentionally homeless so there will be no ongoing duty.
I believe that we have opened up a hole for some of the most vulnerable people, particularly in the first year of the tenancy. I am not saying that where there are good and supportive local authorities working together between the housing and social services divide, they

357
may not be able to overcome the problem. But when we put all the strands together—the waiting list without a review, introductory tenancies with no rights for the tenant and the fact that they would be deemed to have made themselves intentionally homeless so the local authority has no duty to rehouse them—we have a problem, particularly under community care packages where someone may be coming up through the ordinary waiting list.
I see the Minister has some notes from the Box. If they add to our discussion I shall be grateful. I am worried about the position. Some people with mental health problems are not always regarded as attractive neighbours in a settled street. There will be pressure on the local authority in that regard and we are trying to obtain a balance. If the Minister now says that the local authority has no ongoing responsibility because those people made themselves intentionally homeless, then they lose all rights. Perhaps the Minister can help us.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We must be careful. The noble Baroness has now moved us back into a different scenario from the one drawn by her noble friend Lady Fisher.
This debate illustrates the importance of doing things in guidance which can set out these matters in detail. For example, the current guidance contains seven or eight references in the index to mental illness or handicap. There is nothing between the noble Baroness and I in that we both wish to deal with these difficult problems, though they arise infrequently. We are looking at the guidance. We are talking to people about what to include in the fresh guidance, and if there are any cases that appear to fall between different provisions, then we shall certainly be interested in hearing of them. We can then consider what we need to do about them.
We will certainly reflect on the various points made this afternoon to try to make sure that they are either picked up in existing guidance and therefore carried forward or are picked up in the guidance that is to come. With the assurance that we will look at the kind of scenarios being portrayed and how we can resolve them, either in the current or future guidance, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw the amendment and allow us to proceed.
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps I may add that I have been listening with great care to the debate. I take the point made about the relevance to mentally ill people of what we are discussing.
What puzzled me from the beginning was that the amendment did not seem to provide a solution to the problem before us. What my noble friend the Minister said in relation to guidance makes a lot of sense, in which case there is no need for the amendment. There is a need to debate the issue. But the amendment does not achieve what is needed and the Bill, with the guidance, deals with the problem completely. It therefore does not need to be amended.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wish that were true. We will only know that there is a problem of the kind
358
I suggested when somebody faces eviction. The amendment would stop us ever reaching that point. It must surely be better to go for prevention of the problem—assessing someone's needs when he or she is about to be rehoused—rather than trying to see what needs should have been met at the point of eviction and, because that person's needs have not been met, he or she is now to be evicted. That is the difference between us.
The Minister says that the Government will look at the issue. Perhaps the Minister or his officials could consult the directors of social services as well as the local authority associations. The guidance will need to spell out the situation, particularly in the context of introductory tenancies and the protection of tenant's rights, and also the situation where medical evidence is discovered afterwards which should have suggested that support mechanisms should have been in place from the beginning but were not. The Minister indicated that he is taking these points very much on board and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 263H:
Page 90, line 31, leave out ("it appears to them") and insert ("they are satisfied").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 263H stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. It concerns the circumstances in which a local housing authority can remove someone from the housing register or, perhaps more accurately, the prompt for it to do so.
If a request is made, then the name will be removed. Under subsection 4(b) of the Bill as drafted, if it appears to the authority that the person in question is not a qualifying person, then it can remove his name. The amendment proposes to introduce a level of objectivity, suggesting that the local authority be "satisfied" that the person is not now and has not been a qualifying person, and to ensure that arbitrary decisions are not made by the authority.
The clause provides that the authority "shall remove a person" in the circumstances set out. There is no discretion available to the authority and yet the applicant must only appear to be non-qualifying. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that somebody could go on and off the register in an unhappy game of tag in those circumstances. I am concerned that the Bill does not provide, for instance, for it to be a decision reasonably arrived at by the local authority, though the Minister may assure me that that is implied.
The criteria for qualification and the bars to qualification are in many cases likely to be complex. There is a lot of potential for inaccurate decision making. As we have already discussed, immigration status and a decision whether somebody is in breach of immigration law are often complex issues. There is the possibility of bad decision making, with local authority housing officers, whose first responsibility is not immigration law and practice, taking different decisions. It is possible for them to misinterpret information contained in passports. The test of habitual residence will depend on a number of factors which can change

359
over a short period and be interpreted in different ways. It is possible, for instance, for there to be a refusal of income support on the basis of failing the habitual residence test but the award of housing benefit when the same test is applied by local authorities.
Those are but two examples of what may be a challenge for local authority housing officers. It is therefore appropriate that they be required to carry out proper investigations to satisfy themselves of an applicant's status before removing that person from the register. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: Would not the local authority be considered to be behaving unreasonably if it did not satisfy itself that the action it was about to take was correct?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If I may turn to my noble friend's rather brief question, I suspect that we may be discussing that point when we come to the next series of amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. They refer to the right of someone who has been refused admission to the register or been removed to request a review. Perhaps that is the point at which I might address my noble friend's question. The areas the amendments cover are reasonably close.
As I may be saying when we come to the next series of amendments, I understand the concern which has prompted this amendment. However, I think that it would place undue restrictions on an authority's ability to form its own view on the matter of whether someone is a qualifying person. It is important to ensure that, in admitting a person to the register, an authority is able to form its own view of his or her entitlement on the best evidence available to it. If the authority subsequently becomes aware of new information that leads it to revise its view, then it should be in a position to remove that name.
When the matter was discussed in another place, it was pointed out that the amendment would impose a stronger test for the removal of a name from the register than is required to place a name on it. There should be symmetry between the two processes. The noble Baroness has not, quite understandably, tackled that problem, but for the sake of symmetry the words used to govern getting on to the register ought to be the same and the test should be the same for being removed from it by the local authority. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment. We can then go on to discuss the question of the potential for review in the case of someone who is aggrieved at either not being put on or about being taken off.
Baroness Hamwee: I am all for symmetry where it is fair. I asked in the middle of my speech the same question as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, because one should understand whether reasonableness is implied by this provision. I think reasonableness should be implied generally in local authorities' decisions. We are left a little in the dark. I am content for the moment to leave the issue because, as the Minister said, we shall consider the question of review in a few moments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
360
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 263J:
Page 90, line 35, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) Where a local housing authority—

(a) decline a person's application to be put on the register, or

(b) remove a person from the housing register,

they shall comply with such requirements as to the right of the applicant to request a review as the Secretary of State may prescribe by regulations.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 263K which is a fuller version of the same point. As the Minister has already anticipated, this amendment seeks to create a right to request a review of a local authority decision to remove an applicant from the register or to refuse an application to go onto the register.
Authorities have wide powers to remove a person from or to refuse access to the register. Access to the register is access to housing. I believe that the powers should be open to scrutiny through some form of review procedure. A review procedure is proposed in the next part of the Bill for decisions about homelessness. I am suggesting that that should be extended to decisions on access to and removal from the register.
The register is the route to permanent affordable accommodation. Someone who is refused an application or is removed is denied access to housing. I should have thought that as a matter of justice and practicality it is right for an applicant to be able to request a review of the authority's decision and to require the evidence to be taken into account where the person concerned believes the authority has made a wrong decision. Some local authorities will have a review procedure as a matter of good practice. However, given the impact on the individual, it is right that all housing authorities should be directed to have one. It will also encourage better informed decisions and reduce the scope for arbitrary decisions. The more checks there are, the better the practice in the first instance, given the scrutiny that might follow. Housing authorities are publicly accountable bodies. It is right that their decisions should be scrutinised. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I support the amendment. The Minister has accepted that the Bill embodies a review procedure for decisions on homelessness in Part VII with regard to those whom the local authority should rehouse. But as the only route to that rehousing is via the waiting list, a similar right of review must apply there. If the local authority makes a mistake at the waiting list point and the individual applicant has no right to have that decision reviewed, he never, so to speak, gets to first base at all. If he cannot get onto the list, he can never be rehoused off it. He cannot make use of an appeal mechanism at the point of allocation of housing if he has not been able to get on the list in the first place and has not been able to have that decision reviewed.
When this matter was being discussed in the other place the Minister seemed to think that the amendment was unnecessary because he thought that "entitlement to

361
be on the register" was based on hard facts. He was quite right. Often that is so. But in quite a large variety of circumstances discretion comes into play; and even where it does not, there may well be faulty information. If a local authority has made a decision on faulty information and that cannot be scrutinised by review, the person will never be rehoused. Their immigration status and the habitual residence test are obvious examples. But someone who has been an owner occupier but is in the process of divorce and in the process of losing the matrimonial home may seek to go onto the waiting list. There may be a dispute again about the hard facts of the situation.
In the name of fairness we should encourage good practice to become required practice and ensure that any person who is not permitted onto the waiting list and will therefore never get access to housing should have the right of review.
Lord Monkswell: In speaking in support of the concept of review, perhaps I may suggest another argument for it. If there is no mechanism for review, the chances are that the applicant will be tempted to go to the law. The applicant will presumably get legal aid because he or she will almost by definition tend to be at the poorer end of society and will probably go for judicial review. I am sure it is not the Government's intention that there should be an explosion of legally aided judicial review cases to do with housing. There are probably enough difficulties with housing without introducing that element. It would be useful to have a review mechanism that would prevent the use by applicants of the courts.
Lord Swinfen: I support the principle behind the two amendments. Whether they are the best way of achieving this purpose I am not sure. This is another case where housing authorities can act in an arbitrary manner, as they can, as we were discussing yesterday, with the removal of an introductory tenancy from an individual whom they did not think was behaving properly. I feel that the Minister should look at this point seriously before we reach the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have listened with care and with a certain amount of sympathy to the contributions of the two noble Baronesses and the two noble Lords on this issue. The argument that they have put forward is that we should establish a formal procedure for requesting a review of a decision to refuse to put someone's name on a register or to remove it.
When similar propositions were made in another place they were to go further and establish a right of appeal to a county court against decisions about access to the register. It was very much with that in mind that my right honourable friend the Minister for Housing said that he could not accept the Opposition's amendments. I believe that the allocation of housing necessarily requires the exercise of discretion and that it would be unrealistic to give every applicant the unfettered right to test that in the county court. However, the noble Baroness has rather cleverly limited her proposal to a right to an internal review. I am grateful to her for that and for bringing out this very real problem.
362
There are a number of alternative avenues already in existence. For example, a person may go to their local councillor in respect of the decision-making process and not the decision itself. It is often that the process reveals a mistake; for example, perhaps all the facts have not been made available. When dealing with housing cases I often found that not all the facts had been properly addressed and accounted for in the points system that my authority ran. The matter can be taken to the local government ombudsman if the person feels even more aggrieved. The ombudsman handles a large number of housing allocation cases and generally does so very speedily and at little cost to either party. I suppose at the end, if the person feels really aggrieved and knows about these things, as the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, pointed out, he can go for judicial review. Despite there being those avenues which people undoubtedly pursue at present and which they will continue to be able to use, I would like to consider further the points raised by the noble Baroness and others.
In its present form Amendment No. 263J is unsatisfactory since it restricts the scope of the regulation-making power to matters concerned with the review. As drafted Clause 146(6) envisages the regulations extending to matters such as notification of removal of a name from the register. I believe we want that. I yield to temptation in saying that in this case the noble Baroness is quite keen to give me regulation-making powers. I understand the principle. One is happy for the Government to make regulation-making powers when one agrees with what they may do; one is not so happy if one is suspicious of what the Government may do and does not want them to have such powers.
Amendment No. 263K seeks to place on the face of the Bill the requirement to notify the applicant of a decision not to place him on the register or to remove his name from it. I doubt whether there is much between us on the need for a formal procedure for notifying unsuccessful applicants, but I believe that such provisions are better dealt with in regulations rather than by primary legislation. We may, for example, want to consider giving applicants a statutory period in which to reply before their names can be removed. We shall be discussing these matters of detail with the local authority associations.
I hope that the noble Baroness and others who have spoken will feel that I have responded in a positive way to their anxieties. I shall be reflecting on the further points she made. We shall consider bringing forward alternative proposals at a later stage of the Bill. With those reassuring remarks, certainly about the first amendment, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful for that response. I would prefer something that is important to be in regulations rather than not to appear at all. I was hoping to tempt the Minister to do something. Perhaps I may pick up a theme which has been running through the debates. If the Government do not feel that they can bring forward an amendment to appear on the face of the Bill referring to

363
a review, perhaps the Minister will give some indication before Report stage as to how the matter might be dealt with in regulations. That would be helpful.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am happy to give the noble Baroness that assurance.
Baroness Hamwee: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 263K not moved.]
Clause 146 agreed to.
Clause 147 [Information about housing register]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 263L:
Page 91, leave out line 6 and insert ("person without the prior consent of the applicant.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment deals with the divulgence of information on a register to people who have no real business to know it. Clause 147(2) restricts the information by saying that it,
"shall not be divulged to any other member of the public".
I am proposing that it shall not be divulged without the applicant's own consent. Information held on a register would otherwise be available to people who are not members of the public; for example, local authority employees, councillors and organisations which have access to the information but which are not involved in the applicant's case. Information is likely to be sensitive and should be treated as confidential unless there are good reasons to treat it otherwise. Its disclosure, through someone discovering it or inadvertently referring to it, might even put the applicant at risk. For example, an applicant may have fled a violent partner. Her safety—possibly his, but more usually hers—could be jeopardised if her whereabouts became known. I know of a number of cases where violent partners have pursued a person who has left in what seems to rational people to be an extreme fashion. It is not just a question of threats; sometimes extreme violence is suffered.
Another example is that an applicant's housing need may be based on HIV status. People who suffer HIV are subject to widespread discrimination. I do not believe that it is right for that information to be available, for instance, to members of a local authority. In another place the Government indicated that they were willing to reflect on this point. I do not believe that they have yet shared their reflections with others. I ask what they intend to do to safeguard confidentiality. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The amendment would allow information about an entry on the housing register to be disclosed to another person if the applicant had given his prior consent. By contrast, the clause prohibits disclosure to any other member of the public. There are two concerns which the noble Baroness has brought to our attention; first, that the wording of Clause 147 allows too wide a right of access to the information held on the register, and secondly, and conversely, that it narrows the matter down too much and
364
prevents, for instance, members of the applicant's family legitimately acting on the applicant's behalf. I know that the matter was discussed in the other place and that assurances were given then by my right honourable friend Mr. David Curry and in a letter to the honourable Member for Greenwich, and probably to other Members. If the noble Baroness has seen that correspondence, she is clearly not reassured by it. I hope to give her some of the reassurance that she seeks this afternoon.
I agree with the noble Baroness that applicants for social housing should be entitled to privacy. That is what the clause is about. That is why Clause 147 is cast in terms that would entitle only a person on the register to see his or her entry on it, and to be informed in general terms about the state of the register—to enable him to assess where he stands, in relation to others on the register, as regards priority for the allocation of housing. The question of how long someone might have to wait is a legitimate concern which people on the housing waiting list rightly raise.
There is deliberate intent behind the use of the words
"other member of the public".
We all agree that it is right that information on the housing register should not be disclosed to any old Tom, Dick or Harry, but it may be important that information should be disclosed to official bodies with a proper interest in it. These could include a social services department which is making a community care assessment, for example, or a voluntary body considering whether to refer an applicant to a housing department or a registered social landlord with whom the authority has a nomination arrangement or participates in a common housing register. I do not think that in those circumstances the applicant's consent should be needed to allow such bodies to look at the register.
The noble Baroness asked me a difficult question to which I do not know the answer, so I shall check. I believe that the noble Baroness appreciates that it is right that such bodies, as bodies, will be able to ask to see an individual's application on the register. However, she asked what would happen if a member of one of those bodies sought to do that as an individual. I think that that would make the person,
"any other member of the public".
I am pretty certain that that is the case, but the moment the noble Baroness raised the point I recognised that it was a good and legitimate question. I am sure that I am right in saying that if that person is wearing a "corporate hat", if I may put it like that, he or she comes within the provisions of the Bill. However, if that person seeks to see the register out of nosiness or whatever, I do not think that he or she would have the protection of a corporate hat and would therefore be considered to be
"any other member of the public",
and would not have access to the register. If I am wrong about that—
Lord Swinfen: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I wonder what would be the position of a doctor looking after a patient? There are still some doctors in this country who work on their own in a single-person practice rather than a group practice. I am sure that the Minister intends to cover doctors who are trying to help

365
individuals, but I am wondering about the rare instances when an applicant's GP may not be covered although he is trying to help that person.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I can now say that the answer that I have just given to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is indeed correct, and that the distinction between somebody asking to see an entry in his corporate role and doing so in a private role is as I have set it out. That person would be covered by the legislation if he was "corporate", but he certainly would not be covered by it if he was acting as an individual.
My noble friend goes a little further and asks me about doctors. I am not entirely certain about the circumstances in which a doctor might want to see the register but, as I suspected, I am now advised that when acting in his professional capacity the doctor would be covered by the definition that I have just given the noble Baroness. He would be able to see the register as a professional, but if he was acting out of nosiness, if I may describe it like that, he would not be entitled to see it. Do not ask me the next question, about how to distinguish between the two! I think that it is a pretty clear distinction.
To get back to the serious point, there may be other rare instances when we might all consider that a public body would have a legitimate interest in knowing who was on the register, for example, if that person had a history of child molestation and was seeking accommodation on an estate with a lot of young children, or if he had a history of violence against a former partner now lodged on the estate. Clearly, the social services department would certainly have an interest in such cases. I do not think that any of your Lordships would want to stop such departments having access to the register in such circumstances.
In considering an amendment of this kind it is important to bear in mind that the same kind of proprieties apply to the release to third parties of personal information held by local housing authorities about their tenancies. The Access to Personal Files (Housing) Regulations 1989 and the Data Protection Act 1984 are examples of legislation that is already in place to protect information about individuals.
On the second concern, which comes from the opposite direction—namely, the prohibition on members of the public, and the question of whether that would exclude a friend or relative from acting on behalf of an applicant—perhaps I may advise the Committee that because that person would be acting for the applicant, he or she would not be considered to be a
"any other member of the public".
Therefore, somebody acting on behalf of an applicant would be able to see the register and the entry for that individual. I hope that I have given the noble Baroness enough reassurance on both sides of the argument to enable her to withdraw her amendment and to leave in place the protection and the rights provided in Clause 147.
Baroness Hamwee: I find this a difficult issue. My instinct is that there should be complete confidentiality and that any information which is required to be
366
disclosed should be disclosed through other mechanisms. At the risk of being teased by the Minister, may I ask whether the Government have it in mind to give guidance to local authorities as to any undertakings on confidentiality that are to be signed by those who look at the register when wearing their "corporate hat", as the Minister put it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I can assure the noble Baroness that we intend to give guidance on Clause 147 and how it should be interpreted. I shall consider the point about how we can validate the hat that someone is wearing when they ask to see the register. Perhaps I may write to the noble Baroness on that.
Baroness Hamwee: I appreciate that the Government are well apprised of the need for a means of enforcing the restrictions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 147 agreed to.
Clause 148 [Allocation in accordance with allocation scheme]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 264:
Page 91, line 17, at end insert ("including disabled people occupying inaccessible or unsuitable housing").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the allocations criteria for priority in social housing includes disabled people living in inaccessible or unsuitable housing. The Bill sets out clearly in Clause 148 the priorities for local authorities when allocating social housing. Although the new system would give priority to some disabled people, it could result in many disabled people in extreme housing need receiving a low priority. The proposals would give "reasonable preference" to people in six different categories. The first group comprises,
"people occupying insanitary or overcrowded housing or otherwise living in unsatisfactory housing conditions".
Often, that provision would not cover the situation of a disabled person living in inaccessible or inappropriate accommodation. The general term "unsatisfactory housing conditions" covers issues such as disrepair and fitness of the property. Although some disabled people would receive priority under a later category concerning a need for settled accommodation on medical or welfare grounds, it is important that the particular needs of disabled people living in inaccessible accommodation are recognised. That is particularly so as the Government's original consultation document made it clear that the priority categories are cumulative and that the more criteria a person meets the higher the priority.
There must be some mechanism for making a distinction between a person who requires settled accommodation who is currently in reasonable accommodation and a person who requires settled accommodation who is currently in completely unsuitable accommodation. The inclusion of disabled people living in inappropriate housing in the first category would meet these concerns. As the allocation scheme is currently set out, a disabled person would receive reasonable preference only because he had a particular need for

367
settled accommodation. He would receive no greater priority because his current accommodation was inappropriate in view of his disability.
People in many other situations would have a greater priority because of the cumulative nature of these categories. For example, a non-disabled person living in temporary accommodation, who would have difficulty because of his economic circumstances to secure settled accommodation, would receive reasonable preferences under categories (b) and (f). Although he might well have considerable housing need, he would probably be given a higher priority than a disabled person who was living in permanent accommodation which was inaccessible. An example of this would be someone with limited mobility who was living on the upper floors of a property with no lift. That person would receive reasonable preference under (e) only if he had a particular need for settled accommodation on medical or welfare grounds. The additional difficulty of inaccessible accommodation would not be reflected in the allocation scheme for reasonable preference.
If reasonable preference is given to non-disabled people for a variety of reasons, including living in unsatisfactory housing conditions, the same preference must be given to disabled people because they are living in inaccessible housing. The amendment would ensure that the allocation system fairly reflected the needs of disabled people and that the present housing conditions of disabled people were adequately reflected in the priority system. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I support the amendment, or a version of it, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. The assumption behind anyone who goes on a housing waiting list, let alone anyone who goes through the homelessness route, is that he or she does not already have secure or settled accommodation. Therefore, one looks at the circumstances in which the accommodation occupied at present is inadequate by virtue of overcrowding, dependent children or the like. What is not covered either by access to the housing waiting list or by being given reasonable preference within it is the situation of owner-occupiers, particularly elderly ones. Their accommodation may well have been satisfactory in the past but perhaps their health has sharply deteriorated and they require different accommodation. If such a person sold his or her house—perhaps a very modest Victorian terraced property—it might not be sufficient for that person aged 60, 65 or 70 to buy a bungalow or a ground-floor flat that he or she needed.
At the moment, it is very unlikely that somebody who is an owner-occupier will have access to the housing waiting list; therefore he or she cannot come up through the register and be housed in that way. Equally, because such a person is in settled accommodation he or she will not have access through the homelessness route and be given reasonable preference. What does the Minister expect local authorities to do when an owner-occupier's health sharply deteriorates and he or she is physically disabled? The individual needs different accommodation from that presently occupied. The need may be acute.
368
He or she may be confined to one room downstairs and be unable to get upstairs, but there is insufficient equity in the property to enable that person to find suitable alternative accommodation. Perhaps the Minister can help us on this point.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend Lord Swinfen has, as always, spoken eloquently about the needs of people with disabilities for suitable housing. I fully understand his concerns and those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. It would be odd if any of my Bills went their whole length without my noble friend becoming involved. I should probably welcome him to this one. I hope to be able to persuade him that his fears are groundless and there is no need to add anything to Clause 148 to deal with the problems to which he has referred.
The allocation criteria set out in subsection (2) of Clause 148 are designed to ensure that the allocation schemes established under Part VI of the Bill take proper account of a whole range of housing and social needs. The particular criterion to which my noble friend wishes to apply his amendment is the first one which refers to people occupying insanitary or overcrowded housing or otherwise living in unsatisfactory housing conditions. He would then add the words as set out in the amendment. The words that we have are derived from Section 51 of the 1935 Act. Normally, they are taken to refer to physical housing conditions. Paragraph (e) of subsection (2) refers to priority being accorded to households containing,
"someone with a particular need for settled accommodation on medical or welfare grounds".
This criterion is intended to ensure that just the kinds of people whom my noble friend has in mind receive proper priority. My noble friend appeared to believe that the disabled would be accorded priority only on ground (e). I believe that they could also fall within ground (a). The words "unsatisfactory housing conditions" would cover a disabled person who occupied inaccessible or unsuitable housing. I believe that that answers the point raised by the noble Baroness. She referred to a person who occupied a house which was perfectly satisfactory in every way but, for example, the bedroom accommodation and the toiletry were on separate floors and the occupier could not get up and down; or perhaps the living accommodation was separate. In those situations the person would fall within both (a) and (e).
My noble friend indicated that it was an all-or-nothing priority. Most local authorities would seek to implement the clause via some kind of points system. Therefore, there will be differences of degree within each category. While somebody may well not qualify under very many of the headings (a) to (f), if his or her qualification under that heading is a severe one (if I may so describe it), the individual will perhaps accumulate the maximum number of points available under that heading. The problem posed by my noble friend is usually resolved by the local authority housing allocation points system working in that direction.
Conversely, it would be quite wrong—I am sure that my noble friend does not intend this—to give such priority to the group in which he is interested that people

369
with families and dependent children who occupied temporary accommodation on insecure terms would be placed in a comparatively poor position because the priority had been given overwhelmingly to another group. That is one of the good aspects of a points system. I do not wish to go into the merits of such a system. Although it may sometimes result in rough justice, it is the best kind of justice that I have come across as far as concerns the allocation of housing when the factors in play for one person are often quite different from those in play for another. One has to strike a balance between them.
I believe that many if not all housing authorities already make special provision for disabled people in the way that they run their housing allocation policies. The provisions in this part of the Bill represent a thorough overhaul of the allocation criteria, with the aim of ensuring that everyone with a real need for settled accommodation receives proper consideration wherever they live in the country. Because this represents a more comprehensive legislative framework for the allocation of social housing, later on in this clause we take powers to issue statutory guidance to local authorities on how they should apply the legislation. I can assure my noble friend Lord Swinfen that that guidance will draw the attention of local authorities to their responsibilities towards people with both physical disabilities and other forms of incapacity.
I hope that that assurance about the guidance, and my indication of how the six priorities will operate in favour of a disabled person in the kinds of circumstances presented by my noble friend, will enable my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, that most local authorities, especially the larger ones—I know Birmingham in particular—work closely with the housing association movement, which often specialises in one or other disability. I am involved with one which deals only with blind people. For that reason a local authority will normally operate a quid pro quo with the housing associations: "Will you take this one for us, because you have got that kind of facility? We will have one of yours". That goes on continually in the Birmingham local authority. If one is on a housing association list one is placed automatically on the council list. That obviates some of the problems faced by many disabled groups.
Lord Monkswell: Will the Minister address the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham? One of the points that we need to recognise about the housing market is that once a large number of people who lived in local authority accommodation could sensibly look forward to transferring to more suitable accommodation as they became older. For example, if they were in a three-bedroomed house there was probably a good chance of their being transferred to a ground floor flat or even a bungalow in the local authority sector as they became older or perhaps disabled. Because of the right to buy, many have bought their houses and become householders. They no longer have that route into local authority accommodation which is more suitable for their needs. Their houses may not be worth enough to enable them to sell them and buy suitable accommodation locally
370
to meet their needs. To include a specific category for disabled people within the allocation system would provide a route into the right sort of accommodation for their needs. At the same time it would free up their own accommodation which has probably become unsuitable. That would make that accommodation available for a young family.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thought that I had answered the question asked by the noble Lord's noble friend by pointing to paragraphs (a) and (e) and to the guidance that we intend to issue. His noble friend Lady Fisher explained the current position perfectly well. Where authorities agree on a voluntary basis between themselves and the housing association movement, a common register is one way to do it. The noble Baroness reminded me that the situation that my noble friend envisages will probably require specialised housing. It may be to the sheltered housing association movement or something similar, or to sheltered housing provided by the local authority, that the individual will be looking for housing accommodation. It all depends upon the individual's circumstances and the house.
We believe that paragraphs (a) and (e), especially paragraph (e), cater for and cover the situations which have been mentioned this afternoon. In addition, as I said, we shall be issuing guidance on this matter to local authorities. It is only fair to say that my experience of local authorities is that they are very understanding of such cases.
Lord Swinfen: I am well aware of the position set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, because I am associated with the John Groom Housing Association which deals specifically with accommodation for physically disabled people. Because of that I am fully aware, as will be my noble friend the Minister, that there is currently a shortage of some 330,000 wheelchair-accessible housing units nationwide.
I moved the amendment to ensure that disabled people are not isolated and left to live their lives on a desert island. However, I shall read with care what my noble friend said, and if I feel it necessary to come back at a later stage of the Bill, I shall do so. I said, "if I feel it necessary, I shall come back". My noble friend is looking thoroughly disturbed, as though he may have to listen to me once again. I bore myself at times as well as him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 264ZA:
Page 91, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) any young person aged 16 or 17.").
The noble Earl said: First, I must offer my apologies to the Committee, and especially to my noble friend Lady Hamwee and those other people who are interested in the business, for not having been here for a number of amendments which were down in my name. That is the result of attendance at a very prolonged meeting of a board of examiners. Attendance at that makes a three-line Whip look trivial. I must apologise also to the Minister, although he may be slightly less distressed by my absence

371
hitherto than I might have wished, for having put him to the trouble of preparing answers to amendments which in the event may not have been moved.
The amendment attempts to insert in the list of those to whom local authorities should give reasonable preference in allocating housing people who are 16 and 17. Before saying anything more on the subject, I should like to say how very much I regret the absence of the late Lady Faithfull who has had so much to say on this subject, who has indeed taught me so much about it and done so much to increase understanding of it in all quarters of this place. I miss her regularly, particularly now.
The Minister, I am sure, knows well enough my general opinions on 16 and 17 year-olds and could easily answer them in his sleep. So I am not going to begin by making my usual point. I am going to begin in a way the noble Baroness would have done if she had been here: with the problem of people leaving care.
It has been the general basis of government thinking that 16 and 17 year-olds ought to be at home. But of course people leaving care do not have a home to go to, and judging by what we have been reading in the newspapers recently, in some cases, even if they could go back, it would be the last thing in the world that they wanted. So, they are out on their own.
Practice among local authorities varies considerably. There is a responsibility under the Children Act for which we have to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but the actual administration of that is at present rather patchy. A good many local authorities have not been able to give the sort of priority to people coming to them under the Children Act at 16 and 17 that one might have liked.
So one finds, among any group of homeless people, in particular among those who come in at Centrepoint in central London, that large proportions of them are people who have formerly been in care. They are not people who are the best equipped with social skills. They are not the best people to be left unprotected on their own, and they are of course extremely vulnerable to exploitation. They must make a living in one way or another. When honest ways of making a living are not easily come by, there are sometimes others which can be come by which one would not wish them to be forced into. That is one part of the problem.
There is of course another part of the problem about people who have left home. It has been, since the days when the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was Prime Minister, a central point of government thinking that people who left home at 16 or 17 did so because they were adventurers trying to do something interesting. That does not actually appear to be the case. The Government's own MORI report published in 1991 shows that 65 per cent. of those who left home did so because they had been thrown out.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, in the debates on the Family Law Bill, waxed very eloquent on the subject. However, when one looks at what happens among animals perhaps moralism is not altogether the most useful reaction. The human being has an artificially
372
prolonged infancy. There have always been cases where parents, like birds putting fledglings out of the nest, have tended to believe that people are fit to fend for themselves perhaps a little sooner than they should. It is not all a problem of evil, wicked step-fathers. Much of the problem is that of a relationship being prolonged longer than in the past which is putting considerable strains on many families.
I refer to a case discovered by McCluskey, reported in a book published in 1994. The person was thrown out of the family home as a result of family breakdown. He ended up homeless, sleeping sometimes on friends' floors, sometimes rough and at times using a hostel. Eventually he became involved in drug using and theft. He did not like that much. He went to social services but was told there was nothing they could do.
I have met, passing through Charing Cross station to and from work, people who are in exactly that situation. Recently, one of them told me, "There's nothing I can do now. I'll have to hang around like this until I'm 17." He should not have had to say that. It would have been much better if he could have got a job. But, of course, we all know how difficult it is to get a job if you have nowhere to sleep. As my noble friend Lady Seear once said in this House, we should not expect people to go to job interviews in clothes in which a noble Lord would not garden.
If the Minister invokes the interest of the taxpayers, about which I am as concerned as he is, I say to him that the thing that is most in the interests of the taxpayers is to increase their number. That means that we shall probably do more for taxpayers by giving many of those people a chance to do a decent job of work, as they would like, rather than keep them on the streets where they cannot get up to any good. At best they suffer; at worst they may get up to anything. Giving them some reasonable preference—and reasonable preference is all I ask—in the housing market would give them a chance to get started in the world and become good and useful citizens, as most of them would like. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I welcome the noble Earl to the debate. I was not thinking anything as uncharitable as a feeling of relief that he was not here earlier today but I may change that view in two or three hours. We are discussing 16 and 17 year-olds in whom the noble Earl has taken a great interest. It is fortuitous that he should arrive among us just as we move on to this amendment.
The amendment is prompted by representations from organisations—the noble Earl is in contact with many of them—concerned with the welfare of young people who are forced to leave home. I hope that I shall be able to assure the noble Earl that we do not need the kind of provisions that he proposes and that the problems he raises can be dealt with between the legislation and the guidance.
In assessing priority for housing, local authorities should consider factors which can contribute to a need for a settled, independent home. The fact that someone is 16 or 17 is not in itself an indication of a need for an

373
independent tenancy. For the majority of young people, it would be better for them to live with their parents or with relatives where they can receive the shelter and support they need.
I am concerned that a provision of the kind envisaged in the amendment would do more harm than good. It might send the wrong signals both to local authorities and to applicants themselves and could risk creating false hopes among young people who believe that they might like to leave home, get on to a council's housing list and gain an independent house that way. If that were to be encouraged, other people in greater need might be pushed aside.
What should be at issue is whether a young person is in need of assistance in establishing a settled home. Local authorities should concentrate on helping the minority of young people who are vulnerable and for whom there are no better alternatives. But that is primarily a matter for the social services department. There is a duty of care on social service authorities under the Children Act until at least the age of 18. There is a duty on housing authorities to co-operate where reasonable. There is also provision in Part VII of the Bill for housing departments to secure accommodation for young people if they are vulnerable and become homeless unintentionally.
There are difficulties in providing a tenancy to a minor who neither has the capacity to enter into a contract nor can be liable for his debts. Many people at that age need ongoing support and assistance from the social services department. When we issue guidance on the operation of Parts VI and VII of the legislation we will address such questions. I know that the noble Earl was not in the Chamber earlier when I referred to the code of guidance for local authorities on homelessness which we intend to update. One of the reasons that it requires updating, in addition to the legislation before us today, is that it pre-dates the Children Act. However, even a document made up in 1991 contains a fair number of paragraphs referring to youngsters in exactly the position which causes the noble Earl concern. I do not wish to read out the guidance which exists, but perhaps I may refer him to it. I strongly suspect that he already has the document: he will find clear terms laid out in paragraphs 6.13 to 6.17.
I hope that my assurance that the new guidance will incorporate, perhaps in an updated form, what already exists will allow the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment. I hope that he will feel able to leave the matter to guidance, to a co-ordinated approach between housing and social services and to the fact that the Children Act lays an obligation on social services to deal with those children whom the noble Earl has in mind. I hope that with that assurance, and with my reference to the guidance notes which he can read, the noble Earl will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: One does not want to send out a signal to all 16 and 17 year-olds that they are eligible for inclusion on the housing waiting list and therefore for allocation. However, at present 16 and 17 year-olds are denied benefit, except those who are suffering severe hardship. I believe that approximately 14,000 youngsters are in receipt of severe hardship payments from income support on the grounds that they
374
are not living at home, are not gainfully employed, and are vulnerable, at risk and suffering hardship. Will the Minister consider including in any guidance that youngsters who are suffering hardship and who are at risk will be eligible for inclusion on the housing waiting list?
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps, before the Minister responds, I may ask a related question. How are these issues linked to the sentence at the end of subsection (2) which refers to someone who needs settled accommodation on welfare grounds? I may have missed a reference to that in his response to my noble friend, but it appears to be a wide provision.
Lord Hylton: It is possible that the noble Earl has tabled this amendment slightly too early in the Bill. It may be that something needs to be written in later on Part VII.
Nevertheless, he has raised some very important points which include in particular the situation of young people emerging from the care of local authorities. We know that the arrangements which exist for them at that point in their lives—when they cease to be in care—are extremely variable. Some are reasonably good. In some cases, voluntary organisations work in with local authorities and provide a kind of bridge into normal adult life. But that does not apply universally across the country.
The second case to which the noble Earl rightly drew attention is to young people who have been forced to leave home, very often because of domestic violence or abuse in their parents' or relatives' home. Those young people leave apparently of their own free will, but in reality they leave under pressure. There is almost no escape hatch or safety bridge for them, hence the importance of the spirit and principle of this amendment which I support.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for his reference to the code of guidance. He is right that there are many good things in that code. The difficulty about relying on that is that it merely asks local authorities "to have regard" to it. Some time ago in this Chamber the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, observed that the phrase "have regard to" means almost exactly nothing. While in general terms that may be a slight overstatement, my own local authority, the London Borough of Brent—and I say this regardless of what political control it happens to be under at the particular time—says that it has had regard to the code of guidance and is doing exactly the opposite. Therefore, in cases where it is most needed, the Minister cannot rely on the guidance to provide the answers which we need because it just does not do the job.
I was extremely disappointed by what the Minister said about sending the wrong signals to 16 and 17 year-olds by encouraging them to think that they might like to leave home. That is not what is going on. The Minister has doubtless noticed that hitherto I have exercised great self-restraint in not mentioning the issue of benefits. But in the face of that reply, I cannot continue that restraint because, of course, people in that situation do not have a right to benefits and therefore do not have the opportunity to obtain housing by lawful means which older people have.

375
The youth training allowance has not been uprated since 1988. I can find no sign that the Department for Education and Employment even thinks about whether or not it should be uprated. I hope that it will be uprated next time, but I do not have great confidence that it will be. That is not something which leaves people in a good position to find somewhere to live while they have food in their mouths.
Now that that issue has been introduced, the Minister will doubtless rely on severe hardship payments. But those are discretionary and temporary. They normally need to be renewed every eight weeks. Therefore, people receiving those payments are not in the same position as homeless older people. Even without challenging the policy on benefits, which is wide of this amendment, it means that those people are likely to be in much greater need than anybody else and in a much worse situation to cope with that need. That is why it would be perfectly reasonable for local authorities to allow them reasonable preference.
The Minister relied quite heavily on the Children Act 1989. I should like to quote some figures. It appears that 25 per cent. of local authorities do not have a policy to assess all homeless 16 and 17 year-olds and 41 per cent. of authorities do not consider rooflessness as a ground for accommodation. That suggests that in the present situation the Minister has relied too heavily on the Children Act, much good though there is in that Act.
Of course, the present situation is not where we shall be next year. It will not have escaped the notice of the Committee that under the asylum Bill and attendant regulations, very large numbers of children will become the responsibility of social services departments because the Department of Social Security has washed its hands of them. So the strain falling on those departments in a year's time is likely, especially in some areas of London, to be immeasurably greater than it is now. Therefore, if they are not coping now, how much less will they be able to cope in a year's time?
I clearly have not made the Minister see that there is a problem. I wonder whether I have been more successful with the Committee. I should like to seek its opinion on the matter.
6.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 264ZA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 99.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Beaumont of Whitley, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Falkland, V.

McNally, L.

Geraint, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hamwee, B.

Redesdale, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Hylton, L.

Sandwich, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Seear, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Southwell, Bp.

Kirkhill, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

376

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Aldenham, L.

Lawrence, L.

Arran, E.

Leigh, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Lindsay, E.

Balfour, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Berners, B.

Lucas, L.

Blake, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Blyth, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Boardman, L.

McConnell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Bridgeman, V.

Butterworth, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Marlesford, L.

Carnock, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mersey, V.

Chelmsford, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Coleridge, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Colwyn, L.

Mountevans, L.

Courtown, E.

Newall, L.

Craigavon, V.

Northesk, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

O'Cathain, B.

Crathorne, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cross, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cuckney, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Denham, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L.

Selsdon, L.

Feldman, L.

Shannon, E.

Ferrers, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Flather, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gisborough, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Goschen, V.

Stewartby, L.

Greenway, L.

Strange, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Peckham, L.

Sudeley, L.

Henley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Holdemess, L.

Teynham, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Inchcape, E.

Trumpington, B.

Inglewood, L.

Vinson, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wilcox, B.

Kimball, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Kingsland, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.54 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 264ZB:
Page 91, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) persons to whom the authority are, or have been, subject to a duty under sections 169, 172, 176 and 179 of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: I realise that we are close to the dinner hour but I hope that the Committee will allow me to develop my arguments on this amendment. I believe this is one of the core amendments in this part of the Bill. Clause 148 spells out the allocation scheme a local authority must adopt, and requires that it should be constructed so that reasonable preference is given to those listed in the Bill; that is, those occupying insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing and

377
the like, people living in insecure accommodation, families with dependent children, applicants who have medical or welfare needs for permanent housing or those whose economic and social circumstances make it difficult for them to find settled housing.
However, nowhere on the face of the Bill are homeless families as such to be given reasonable preference. Why is there this silence? I suggest that the Government may have two arguments: either that someone who is homeless is already included in the categories of applicants listed—in other words, it is unnecessary to refer to homelessness as such—or that to include homelessness in the categories would encompass additional people whom the Government do not think merit reasonable preference. In other words, the homeless are in some sense undeserving of preference if they do not fit into the categories listed in the Bill. Which argument are the Government using? Do the Government think that reference to homelessness is not necessary, or do they think it is undesirable? Let me assume that the Government think it is unnecessary because it is covered by the other categories. I really believe that that is not true. Earlier this year the Department of the Environment published important research which followed 2,500 homeless applicants from when they first made their applications to a period 18 months later. It was a unique and important study of 2,500 applicants.
What that research of the Department of the Environment showed is that being homeless constitutes an additional pressure and strain over and beyond all the other factors involved in unsatisfactory housing. It is not just that accommodation is temporary and insecure—that applies to any six months shorthold tenancy—but that the people concerned are usually living in someone else's home and can be thrown out at 10 minutes' notice after a row. That is the degree of insecurity which a homeless family may experience and which someone living under a shorthold tenancy would not experience.
Nor is it just a matter of homeless people experiencing overcrowded and insanitary conditions. Often an entire family of three or four people might have to share one bedroom in a friend's house. Nor is it just that their economic and social circumstances make it difficult to find alternative accommodation, because if they have no fixed home they have no job, and if they have no job they can get no fixed home. It is not even simply that they are unsettled. As the DoE research has shown, many will have made something like six or seven moves between long-suffering family and friends in a couple of years, spending two months here, three months there, with all the stress that that imposes on children and family.
I seek to argue tonight that the experience of homelessness, and of having nowhere to call home, is worse than any situation—short possibly of violence—that anyone else in the categories listed in the Bill will experience. If an applicant in the categories listed in the Bill is living in a home, however poor, overcrowded or temporary, at least it is a home of some sort or other. I suggest that being homeless is qualitatively worse and qualitatively different from any other housing experience and therefore should be included, on its own
378
grounds in Clause 148. How can the Government ignore the fact that homelessness is different? I emphasise that I do not seek to say that homeless families should jump the queue. I suggest merely that they should be listed with those who have other forms of housing need to whom reasonable preference must be shown.
I fear the Government will resist this key amendment not because homelessness is already covered in the categories but precisely because it is not. Precisely because it is such an extreme and desperate situation any reasonable authority would use its best endeavours to offer such a family a permanent home immediately. They would then—in my view rightly—take preference over other groups in housing need, thus undermining the Government's insistence on a common waiting list. My argument is that they simply cannot wait. Hence the Government's insistence that they must be parked in temporary housing, and their needs then assessed along with others. Rather than allowing local authorities to meet their needs and build more housing, the Government require local authorities to construct a conflict between different victims of the housing crisis.
In another place, the Minister called this distinguishing between the symptoms and causes of housing need. That is a distinction without a difference. The symptoms are one and the same: the absence of a home.
Let us remember to which homeless people local authorities will still be obliged to offer temporary accommodation: those who are unintentionally homeless through no fault of their own; those who have children; those who have been in care; or those who have mental and physical health problems. Those people have tried to help themselves. Two thirds of the homeless have made efforts to help themselves, as the DoE's research indicates. Even so, more than any other category, the homeless listed in Clause 148 have been buffeted from pillar to post. They have lived out of suitcases and on the charity and tolerance of friends. They cannot be sure that they will even have a home for their children next week. Why refuse them access to the waiting list? Why visit on them even more misery for the sake of ideology? Why cannot we respond decently and allow such people to be included in the local authority's allocation scheme. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell: Although it may be argued that the subject of homelessness is covered elsewhere, in particular in regulations, nevertheless, in drawing up their register according to agreed criteria, there is a need to ensure that local housing authorities recognise that homelessness is one of the criteria that should be considered when reasonable preference is being determined.
The Government's 1989 review of the homelessness legislation stated:
"There is little doubt that [homeless] people would and should expect to have priority in any system of housing allocation based upon need".

379
The amendment does not ask that homeless people should have automatic priority but that, alongside the other criteria, homelessness would be acknowledged as a legitimate factor to be taken into consideration when assessing reasonable preference.
The allocation of housing and the determining of priority needs will be helped by the register, but only if it reflects a consistent and adequate list of the variety of needs and circumstances affecting people in need of housing, as well as a full picture of housing accommodation currently available within the authority. The objective is to ensure as far as possible that the allocation is fair and open and that those with the most acute problems are assisted.
I believe, as do many involved within the Church and voluntary sectors, that the amendment recognises that homelessness is a legitimate factor to be taken into consideration when compiling a list of criteria to ensure that the local authority allocates housing accommodation in a manner that reflects the true priorities of those who are homeless. I support the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: From comments that I made earlier, it must be obvious that I, too, support the amendment on the simple grounds of fairness and reasonableness.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Amendment No. 264ZB seeks to give reasonable preference in the allocation of housing to people who are owed a duty under the homelessness legislation. I do not think that the noble Baroness will be in the least surprised when I tell her that I do not find her amendment appropriate. It goes to the very kernel of our proposals to change the current position and to try to bring into being a housing allocation system which is even-handed between those people waiting patiently on the housing list and those who have become homeless.
It is our firm view that the needs of homeless households are not necessarily the same as those of people who require long-term housing. But having said that, I would point out that something like three-quarters of those people who become homeless are already on the housing register. We do not believe that just because they become homeless they should then jump over the other people waiting patiently above them on any list in order to gain the next available house. For those people who become homeless, the overriding need is for accommodation to be made available immediately.
The noble Baroness painted her usual lurid pictures, quite oblivious of the fact that some time ago I pointed out that only some 2 per cent.—a very small number—came into the homeless category on a roofless basis. Therefore, the proposition that people were being put out at 10 minutes' notice may be good dramatics but it
380
does not accord with the great bulk of the cases that come to local authorities as homeless. They come because they foresee that they will become homeless.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Given the number of local authority acceptances for homelessness, will the Minister tell the House the number of people that that figure represents?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not see the total number on my piece of paper. I cannot answer. It is not insignificant—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: How can the Minister tell the Committee that it is a trivial number if he does not know the figure?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: When one considers the range of people, 2 per cent. is trivial in terms of the total number of people applying. I should have thought that that was perfectly clear. There is a huge divide between us. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness will wish to divide the Committee on this issue. I shall, therefore, continue.
We are talking about 2,400 people in total. That is 2 per cent. of all the people who present as homeless. Therefore, the picture painted by the noble Baroness is not one which applies to the great bulk of homeless people. That is the point I made; and I think that it is a fair point considering the noble Baroness's suggestion that almost everyone who became homeless was thrown out "at 10 minutes' notice". That is simply not the case.
People who are about to become homeless can be dealt with in a number of different ways. In a significant number—a good deal more than 2 per cent.; in fact the figure is 10 times greater—an arrangement is made by the local authority to keep those people in their current accommodation until an alternative can be arranged. The scheme is called Homeless at Home. Various other methods are used in order to find people temporary accommodation up to at least two years' duration if that is what is required. Under our proposals anyone who is given assistance under the homeless legislation will receive that assistance for up to two years in the house to which they go. I do not think that that adds up to a huge army of people who will be insecure once they become homeless.
Once these medium-term needs have been met and those people have been found accommodation by the local authority, the nature of the requirement changes. Whether they have been homeless or threatened with homelessness is no longer an issue. They have been provided with accommodation under the homelessness legislation. That seems perfectly reasonable. What is then at issue is their present and future needs for long-term housing compared with those other households on the housing register and the extent to which their present accommodation meets these needs.
Part VI of the Bill is intended to establish a single consistent route into social housing so that all applicants—homeless and non-homeless—can be sure that their needs will be assessed fairly. It has always been our view that such assessments should be on the

381
basis of an applicant's present and future needs. What has happened in the past should not influence their priority for housing.
Clause 148 goes into detail on the priorities that ought to be sought when people are being considered for social housing. We have discussed some to date and I believe they cover in a reasonable and broad way the people who require long-term social housing. Part VI of the Bill will ensure that the needs of everyone on the housing register are assessed fairly, regardless of whether they have become homeless. A formerly homeless household may receive a degree of priority under the allocation scheme on a number of grounds. These could, for example, include insecurity of tenure or the fact that the applicant has dependent children or has a pressing need for a settled home on medical or welfare grounds. In many cases, formerly homeless households will get priority because of the limited economic opportunities available to them. If the applicant is in greater overall need than other households on the register, then he or she will get priority accordingly.
The noble Baroness seeks to suggest that homelessness of itself should give people priority. Therefore, if someone becomes homeless they should be able literally to jump the housing queue over other people whose needs are every bit as great but who are waiting patiently. They may have tried to arrange their own accommodation in which to wait until they reach the top of the council's list. Their position may be every bit as serious as that of the person who has been declared homeless. Once that person is homeless—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He said that people would jump over the heads of those whose needs were as great or even greater than those on the list. Can he tell me whose needs would be even greater than those of a homeless family?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Baroness once again predicates the position where the homeless person is roofless, out on the streets, with nowhere to go. As I tried to explain, but clearly failed, under the homelessness legislation the local authority will have attended to that person's immediate needs. It will have found that person accommodation of some kind and ensured that he or she is properly accommodated, so there will not be an immediate pressing need any greater than for the person waiting at home, perhaps with parents. There might be a young married couple, living with parents and waiting to reach the top of the list and get a house. The needs of the homeless person may be no more pressing than those of the young couple, with or without children, who may be in the same position.
The noble Baroness tries to pick a totally artificial argument. People who are homeless will not be camping in the street; their needs will be dealt with. Their position with respect to long-term housing will be considered in exactly the same way as other people in the community who are waiting patiently for the same long-term housing. I wish to make that important point again and again. The noble Baroness tries to lull the Committee into believing that homeless people will be
382
so totally disadvantaged that they should be given absolute priority over everyone else waiting patiently on the list and who may have taken the precaution of not becoming homeless because they made arrangements. They may live with their family or in rented accommodation which is not entirely suitable. That is the kernel of the change we are making.
I ask the Committee to consider this. Is it right to give priority to applicants just because they have become homeless and are now being looked after temporarily but perfectly well over other people who are in exactly the same position but have looked after themselves and found their own temporary accommodation? Is it right that one group should receive priority on the housing list over another? I do not believe that it is. Their position in the housing list will not be disadvantaged because they are homeless but we do not believe that it ought to be advantaged. That is the difference between us.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I followed what the noble Lord said, but he was talking about getting to the top of the housing list. It is not just one list. Different people need different types of property. I come from the City of Birmingham. There, 50 per cent. of the people who are said to be homeless may have been staying at the houses of relatives and friends. Fifty per cent. are on the housing register and have been on it for a long time because they have nowhere to live. Some may be quite high on the register.
It is a big problem. Last year in Birmingham 11,879 people put themselves forward as homeless. When they went through all the interviews, 1,717 were declared not to be homeless. That left the local authority with 10,162 families who were homeless. In that way, some housing goes to people who are perhaps not the most deserving, as suggested by the noble Lord. Furthermore, nearly 2,000 of those declared homeless had left home because of violence from their partner in marriage. Obviously one must deal with those cases quickly.
I am seriously worried about the Housing Corporation. Far more money is given to it than to local authorities, yet it is not being called upon to take on the homeless. That is important. The Bill concerns the responsibilities of local authorities. I hope that at a later stage the Minister will put forward actions that the Housing Corporation must take regarding social housing.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure that the noble Baroness was not supporting my position at the beginning of her intervention. My figures are greater than hers. She suggested that 50 per cent. are already on the waiting list. Many will be high up, I agree, and I shall not knock them down; if they are on the list they get their house. However, my advice is that something like three-quarters are already on the waiting list.
The kernel is not whether such people are on the list but whether they ought to be given immediate preference over other people on the list. If such people had inspected the register, they might expect a house within the next two or three weeks, or a month or two. The position is that they do not get it. The homeless on

383
the waiting list have their position accelerated. The waiting time for those rehoused who were on the waiting list averages about 14 months whereas for those rehoused as homeless the period is more in the region of seven months.
To be declared unintentionally homeless accelerates one's ability to obtain social housing. We do not believe that that is fair. It is not that such people should not be housed; they are housed immediately in non-long-term accommodation under the homelessness provisions. They then take their turn with other people in getting access to long-term housing. The proposition that I put forward seems to me to be reasonable and it is in no way damaged by the rather vigorous language used by the noble Baroness in order to pretend that there are armies of people out there on the streets. They are not on the streets: the homelessness legislation prevents that happening. Quite right, too. What we believe should not then happen is that the homeless person promptly receives priority on the housing list so that he or she moves ahead of people who have waited patiently, perhaps in similar circumstances, but have not been declared homeless. I do not anticipate that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment because it is the kernel of the debate between us upon the Bill. Therefore, if we have a Division I trust that my noble friends will support me in the Lobby.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I always regard it as a sign of the weakness of the Minister's argument when he tries to attribute to these Benches arguments or language that they did not use. The Minister has done so repeatedly in his answers tonight. Therefore, I wish to correct the record. He said frequently that the amendment asked that homeless people should jump over those waiting patiently. He obviously enjoyed using the phrase because he repeated it several times.
I never once said and I believe no one else on this side said tonight that we sought that homeless people should jump over those waiting patiently. Had the Minister been listening, he would have known that we made it clear that such people should be given reasonable preference—no more and no less—over any other category. The right reverend Prelate repeated the phrase. Yet the Minister chose to ignore it in order to create an argument that was not being advanced so that he could seek to knock it down. If the Minister had any confidence in his own case, he would not have needed to invent one on behalf of the Opposition. We did not say that homeless people should "jump the queue", that they should go over the heads of those who are more deserving; we said that they should be given reasonable preference along with those who are also in housing need. I hope the Minister accepts that correction in language; that is one of the gulfs between us.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If "reasonable preference" does not mean that people will get a council house before somebody who would otherwise, so to speak, have beaten them to that council house, then I do not know what it does mean. That seems to be the same,
384
putting it in rather more common language, as saying it is "jumping the queue". That is how people waiting patiently think of it.
Baroness bolus of Heigham: How does the Minister define people in the categories listed in Clause 148? Is he telling us that people under subsection (2)(a)—those occupying insanitary and overcrowded housing—are not jumping the queue on his definition? Are those who occupy housing accommodation that is temporary not jumping the queue? Are families with dependent children not jumping the queue on the Minister's new definition of queue-jumping? Are families in which someone is expecting a child not jumping the queue? The same applies to families with a particular need on medical or welfare grounds? I could go on.
Every argument that the Minister has adduced against homelessness applies to his own Bill. Which will the Minister have? Are people in these categories jumping the queue; or will he accept that what we are asking is that homeless people should be treated as an additional group, along with those in this category, as being entitled to reasonable preference? I ask the Minister to answer that point.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not responsible for the terminology that the noble Baroness uses. I am clear about my terminology and I am clear about my case. I believe that the preferences outlined in the Bill are the proper preferences. As I said, these preferences will be counted for someone who is homeless. I do not believe the additional factor of becoming homeless necessarily entitles someone to extra points or extra privileges.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister has now said that those groups who come under Clause 148 are entitled to proper preference, but if there is a more extreme form of housing need—namely, homelessness—people are not entitled to proper preference. Is that what the Minister is saying?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall not indulge any more in this little to-ing and fro-ing. I have made my position clear and the noble Baroness makes hers clear. I do not think we shall ever agree on this matter. I am clear. The qualifications in the Bill are those that we believe a local authority should look at in order to decide the balance as to who has priority. Normally, that is done according to a points system. That is perfectly fair. It is rather silly to ask whether that means that somebody who has children is trying to jump the queue. That is quite a different situation. I am saying that the homeless are housed by the local authority under homeless legislation. I do not believe that they therefore need preference, acceleration or whatever term one cares to use, when it comes to long-term social housing. They should take their place with others who consider themselves equally in need of long-term social housing.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We entirely agree. I should be delighted to have the homeless considered along with others who are in need of long-term housing

385
as listed in Clause 148(2). That is all we ask—that they be listed alongside those people, just as the Minister said, unless the Minister wishes to withdraw his words.
For 20 years the responsibility to house homeless people has rested on local authorities. For longer than that the condition of homelessness has been recognised by local authorities. It has certainly been recognised since the 1870s and 1880s as a condition to which they should pay attention, and since 1945 as one to which they attach particular responsibility. Everybody, except apparently the Minister, recognises that the homeless are at the most acute end of housing need.
The Minister has chosen to wipe the reference to homelessness off the face of the waiting list preferences. The onus is on him, after 20 years in which it has been enshrined in law and 50 years during which it has been enshrined in local government policy and practice, to show why now, suddenly, the homeless should be wiped off the face of the Bill.
Despite the Minister's best endeavours to attribute phrases to us, nobody is saying that the homeless should queue-jump. To wipe them off the face of the Bill and say that a homeless family cannot be considered alongside those in overcrowded housing or those with dependent children for reasonable preference on the waiting list, is deeply indecent. At the core of our argument is that homelessness represents an extra dimension of desperation and need over every one of those listed here.
Nobody is denying that those in the categories under Clause 148(2), in insanitary, overcrowded or insecure housing, do not need reasonable preference. But for every person who needs that, it is even more the case for somebody who is homeless, going from roof to roof, home to home, bed-and-breakfast accommodation to car, back to a family's flat, back to a friend's floor, back into bed-and-breakfast accommodation, each time trailing children in tow. Homelessness is a qualitatively different experience. It is not fully covered by the categories listed. Homeless people should be included in this list.
I am very sorry that the Minister's case is so weak that he has to attribute to us arguments that we have not used. We have said that homeless people should have reasonable preference along with other people in housing need. They should not queue-jump; but they should have reasonable preference. And why? Because homelessness is qualitatively worse than any other form of housing experience. I can only assume that the Minister has not personally experienced it. If he had, he would know that to be the case.
Despite the Minister's remarks, I shall not press this amendment to a Division tonight. However, I promise him that we shall return with it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before half past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Stansted Airport Aircraft Movement Limit (Amendment) Order 1996
7.26 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Stansted is the UK's and Europe's fastest growing international airport—and has been for the last four years in succession. A total of 41 scheduled destinations are served by direct flights from Stansted, operated by 13 carriers. Air UK, a British airline, is the biggest operator at Stansted, with 20 routes, mainly to European destinations. The airport is very popular with passengers, and the new terminal has won over 25 awards for design, passenger comfort and environmental friendliness.
Stansted has outline planning permission to around 15 million passengers per annum (mppa) but when that permission was given it was decided that development should be phased in line with the rate of growth of demand and the development of the associated infrastructure. The first phase was to allow development up to 7 to 8 mppa.
This draft order will, if approved, enable Stansted Airport to reach an annual throughput of 8 mppa, and therefore the full potential of the first phase of development. The order will amend the existing Stansted Airport Aircraft Movement Limit Order 1987 by raising the air transport movement (ATM) limit at Stansted Airport from 78,000 movements to 120,000 movements per annum.
The existing ATM limit of 78,000 movements per annum was intended to equate to a throughput of around 8 mppa, and assumed that average aircraft loading would be around 100 passengers per aircraft. In fact, the airlines operating commercial passenger flights from Stansted Airport since 1987 have chosen to use smaller aircraft than had been anticipated, with the result that the average number of passengers per aircraft is far lower than had been calculated in 1987.
This means that the current ATM limit of 78,000 movements will in fact equate to just over 5 million passengers per annum, which is likely to be reached in around 1997. In addition, the number of movements at the airport means that stand space on the existing two satellites will become increasingly congested and development of a third satellite will soon be required.
In July 1995, BAA plc, the airport operator, applied to the Secretary of State for Transport to raise the limit from 78,000 to 150,000 movements per annum. BAA plc assumed that the 150,000 movements would be reached in about 2008, and envisaged that it would be equivalent to the passenger throughput of 15 million passengers.
The Secretary of State decided to consult on that limit and indeed on a lower limit of 120,000 movements. That lower limit was based on adjusting the existing ATM limit upwards to take account of the lower than expected average aircraft loading but retaining the link to 8 million passengers per annum. Based on the latest information about passenger loading, an ATM limit of 120,000 movements would enable Stansted to achieve a throughput of 8 million passengers per annum.
A total of 70 responses to the consultation exercise was received and they played an important role in the decision-making process. When all factors had been carefully considered, it was decided to recommend to the House a revised limit of 120,000 movements.
The draft amending order is in just two articles. The first determines when the order shall come into effect and the second substitutes the figure of 120,000 for 78,000 movements in Article 2 of the earlier order.
The revised limit of 120,000 will meet concerns expressed by local authorities in the consultation exercise that the development of Stansted should be phased with the development of local infrastructure and is consistent with the conclusions of the planning inquiry that the timing of the further development of the airport should depend on the rate of growth of demand; but it will also allow BAA plc to continue to develop terminal facilities as business grows.
I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Goschen.)
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I strongly support the approval of this draft order, which, as my noble friend explained, will authorise the combined total of aircraft landings and take-offs at Stansted Airport to be raised by 42,000 units per annum. Having listened to my noble friend's speech, it seems to me that that "phased" increase—that it the word he himself used—strikes an equitable balance between BAA (Stansted's owners) and the concerns of local communities. As he pointed out, there has been no lack of consultation.
My noble friend mentioned that Stansted is the UK's and Europe's fastest growing airport and he cited the past four years. My memory goes much back further than his brief. It goes back to the mid-1970s when Stansted, then as now, was the London airport of choice for almost all the Scandinavian charter airlines that served London. In those days, London was Scandinavia's second or third most popular charter destination.
Stansted, largely with the help of the Scandinavians, had perhaps 400,000 passengers in a good year. For the Scandinavians, it was very much the airport of choice because it was outside the potential congestion of Heathrow and Gatwick. It was a matter of in or out over the North Sea. In those days, they generated up to 70 per cent. of Stansted's traffic and if they caught a cold, Stansted more or less went into intensive care.
388
Since then, there has been the Roskill Report in the early 1980s; the choice of Stansted as London's third airport; the planning inquiries; the prize winning terminal building; the popularity with passengers; and the awards. The last were mentioned by my noble friend. There has been the success story that he described in his speech and I would like to add to that a tribute to Air UK, Stansted's dominant carrier, as having contributed to the airport's success.
But looking beyond the past and the present there are reasons for supporting the order. My noble friend mentioned 41 destinations—I suspect that he and his officials have the same source materials as I have. The 27 European and the three intercontinental destinations are the ones that concern me. The three intercontinental destinations—I count Israel as intercontinental—disappoint me. But it seems to me that by increasing the opportunities for small and medium-sized aircraft to come to Stansted on short haul flights the opportunities for long haul traffic will also increase, and Stansted cannot lose. If we accept that the Channel Tunnel Stratford station terminal proposal creates opportunities for East Anglia, we must accept the same arguments for Stansted.
Furthermore, I believe that intercontinental open skies will come. A step forward was taken last week with the proposed BA-American Airlines alliance. That will generate additional demand in the London area—additional demand both for airport capacity and by outgoing passengers. Intercontinental growth and short haul growth together have made Gatwick into the success story that it is. I hope that with the growth of Stansted short haul (if I may call it that) and allying that with open skies, Stansted long haul will also grow.
Thinking further ahead, as does this order, it is nice and prudent to take a 10-year to 15-year timescale. Furthermore, I believe that if this order is approved, it will add—I stress the word "add"—to the remarkable success of this Government's airport and aviation policy. Hence, I strongly support my noble friend's Motion.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, first, I should like to thank the Minister for explaining the purpose of the order. I do not feel that we should be drawn into a widescale debate on aviation or airports as a result of what is an order of very limited effect. But we need to have such a debate, particularly in the light of the extremely important developments which occurred last week, to which the noble Lord referred. I do not wish to be drawn into a conclusion about that issue, nor, I think, would the Minister. That is extremely important—I mention it in a sense peripherally so far as the order is concerned—since a decision may well be made when this House is not sitting. I hope that the debate will be conducted with the maximum measure of transparency possible in the circumstances.
I discussed the issue informally with the Minster and he knows how I feel. I do not at all wish to put those discussions on the record. However, there are major issues on which the consumers, the travelling public, are entitled to have all points of view expressed as openly as possible. On any showing or any conclusion, it is an

389
extremely important matter for British aviation and the passenger traffic in the United States and this country. I shall not say any more than that.
So far as concerns the very limited order that we are considering, I entirely agree with what the Minister had to say. Stansted has an extremely attractive and in many ways remarkable terminal building. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, I agree that Air UK has helped in a measurable way in ensuring the success of the airport. It deserves commendation for that.
The limited but desirable effect of the order is an important way of being able to promote the completion of the first phase of the development of Stansted, a development which I, as a former aviation minister, thoroughly believe is absolutely essential for a coherent regional and national airport policy. In due course we shall have to consider the potential and limits of all London airports within a framework of national transport, not simply air transport, policy. But that is a debate for another day.
We have to recognise that some of the people around Stansted who were extremely anxious about the potential of that airport before it was built have had those anxieties allayed by experience; others remain anxious about even the limited development that is contemplated. They are worried about the supporting infrastructure, congestion and compensation for disturbance. I hope that the points raised in another place by Sir Alan Haselhurst relating to compensation will be taken very seriously by BAA plc. It is intolerable that there should be unnecessary and undue delays in the payment of compensation for disturbance. It does not help in creating confidence for further development. That is something to which I hope the company will pay proper attention, and it is something which the Minister in another place, Mr. Steven Norris, was urged to take up. I believe he said that he would pass on those representations to the company. Perhaps the Minister could let us know whether he is in a position to do that tonight; otherwise he may like to write to us as to the effect of those representations on BAA plc. I emphasise that it is an important element in building confidence, and that is the significant point.
One must recognise that there is always another side to the coin and the development of Stansted has led to enhanced employment and better access to an airport more people want to use. It is convenient for many more people than the other airports in the London regional area, including Luton, which is an important part of the London airport scene. What all of us who have an interest in this matter want to see—I am sure the Minister will use his best endeavours to see that his influence can be brought to full effect in this regard—is Stansted becoming more effective, attracting new services and playing a major role in the development of aviation in this country.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we have had a wide measure of consensus in relation to the order under consideration this evening. It paves the way for a phased increase in the amount of activity at Stansted and a phased development.
I agree that we must aim for an equitable balance for development, and that has been the thrust of the contributions that we heard this evening. I welcome the
390
contribution of my noble friend Lord Mountevans, who gave us a little more history about the airport, including the all-important charter market and the links with Scandanavia. My noble friend felt that his memory went back further than my brief. In the interests of those who occasionally assist in compiling the brief, I must say to him that my brief goes back to around 1940. However, we can discuss this at a later date.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned the negotiations on liberalisation with our American colleagues and also the proposed alliance between British Airways and American Airlines, about which we have heard so much in the press. The Government's position is that we were interested to hear of this; we have been kept broadly informed and we look forward to studying the matter in more depth. I agree with the noble Lord that there are major issues to be dealt with which deserve further consideration.
The noble Lord also asked me about the British Airports Authority. I cannot speak on its behalf; I can only make sure that the discussions in your Lordships' House are brought to its attention. With that, I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.44 to 8.30 p.m.]

Housing Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 148.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 264ZC:
Page 91, line 32, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 264ZD, 264ZF and 264ZG. Although I know that that sounds like an alphabet soup, these are really all one consecutive amendment. They are part of a series of amendments which I had hoped to move if I had been here a little earlier in the day. They follow on from what I was unable to speak to, which is Clause 144(2). The question they raise is why the Secretary of State is taking the power to control all the principles under which housing allocation is carried out. I ask why he is doing this in a very real curiosity and I hope to get a few of the answers.
I am a little reminded, looking at the powers the Secretary of State is taking over the allocation of housing, of the description in 1066 and all that of Poyning's Law, which was that the Irish were to have a parliament but the English were to pass all the Acts in it. Similarly, it seems to be the policy of this clause that local authorities are to have a housing authority but the Secretary of State is to do all the allocation in it. If you have housing powers in local authorities it really does seem a little superfluous for the Secretary of State to take such complete control of them himself. It is, in the

391
nice 17th century phrase, the Secretary of State keeping a dog and barking himself. I really do not understand why he is doing it.
Is it because the Secretary of State knows best? It seems a little improbable because he is not actually there in every local authority in England, Scotland and Wales. Or is it that the Secretary of State has an agenda and intends to impose that agenda on local authorities, whether they like it or not? And if he does have an agenda, will we by any chance be entitled to know what it is? That is an interesting question because people might wish to discuss it.
The clause also raises the question: should the principles of housing allocation be the same everywhere in the country? I do not think it is by any means self evident that they should. The Minister will recall the university amendment to Clause 9 of the asylum Bill to which he gave an extremely generous and welcome answer. That dealt with areas of the country where local authorities have let blocks of housing to universities because there is no great demand for the housing in those areas. The noble Lord, Lord Goold, mentioned the Gorbals in that context. So, clearly, demand is different in some places from others. Demand for housing in Islington or Brent is very different from demand for housing in a former pit village where there is now no employment to speak of. And if there are these differences, as I believe there are, is the Secretary of State really the best person to observe them, or might they just possibly be better observed by those who live with them every day and actually have to notice them as they go about their business? If a local authority perceives a particular pattern of housing need in its area and wants to respond to it, why does it have to ask the Secretary of State whether it is allowed to do anything about it?
In subsection (3) of Clause 148 the Secretary of State takes power by regulations to,
"specify further descriptions of people to whom preference is to be given as mentioned in subsection (2)".
In fact, because he is taking a very detailed set of powers, he has to say to himself very correctly, "Maybe I have forgotten something", so the more detailed the power he takes, the more detailed also the power he has to take to vary it. This is an infinite regression. Great powers have little powers upon their backs to bite 'em, and little powers have lesser powers, and so on ad infinitum.
In subsection (3)(b) we have a Henry VIII clause, and those the House is well known not to view with very great favour. The Secretary of State takes the power to,
"amend or repeal any part of subsection (2)".
In fact, once again, the more detailed the legislative power that is taken, the more detailed the proposals have to be to allow the Secretary of State to vary it. It is really a rather fusspotty style of legislation. It is the style of legislation of the housewife who can always see a speck of dirt where no one else can possibly see it. It creates a constant itch to change.
In subsection (4)—this is one of the provisions I am most curious about—the Secretary of State,
392
"may by regulations specify factors which a local housing authority shall not take into account in allocating housing accommodation".
Why not? If the authority thinks that is the need, why should it not respond to it? What sort of restrictions does the Secretary of State intend to impose under this regulation-making power? He must have something in his mind that he wanted to do with it or he would not have asked for it. Or is he just asking for it in case he should want to make a fuss in the future? We really must know, when we are approving powers of this kind, at least what it is presently intended to do with them. We should also consider what some future government might do with them.
I know the Minister does not like the argument of what future governments might do with regulations. But if we put these powers onto the statute book and leave them there, then someone—perhaps 20 or 30 years hence—will use them in ways which we might find absolutely outrageous. It would be perfectly possible, for example, in a country with less generous attitudes to the old than we have at present, for some future government to say that everyone over the age of 75 would not have any entitlement to local authority housing. And in this House of all places I think that that might be a little unpopular.
The Minister will of course say that no government will ever do that. I am not accepting that argument. For many years I told pupils that no government in this country would ever again introduce a poll tax and that they had learnt that it did not work. Since then the boundaries of what no British government will ever do have been moving so fast that I have been unable to keep up with them. Seven or eight times in a Session something is introduced which I thought no British government would ever do. Since I do not know where the boundaries are, I am not prepared to give any weight to that argument.
Subsection (5) simply states that,
"the scheme shall be framed in accordance with such principles as the Secretary of State may prescribe by regulations".
It is the same point again, and I do not understand why it is being done. The words I wish to delete from subsection (6) under the last of the amendments are simply consequential. If I ever heard of a nanny state anywhere, I heard it in this clause. Why? I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: In proposing these amendments the noble Earl, Lord Russell, revisits a general issue of principle we have discussed on a number of occasions. I wish to look at it against the background of the three subsections which his amendments seek to delete from the Bill and explain how we envisage our use of them and the possible impact on local authorities. Before I come to that, the idea that somehow or other the Secretary of State is going to be involved in every single housing allocation in every part of the country is simply not true. Nor indeed is it true that allocation schemes should be the same everywhere in the country. However, the principles on which they are based should be the same. Against those principles it shall be for each local authority to decide on its scheme, on the criteria it uses and the level of need that it applies to each of the factors

393
in Clause 148(2). Most local authorities operate what is called a points scheme; it will be for them to decide how points are allocated for different priorities. So this is not a device which the Secretary of State will use to control every housing allocation in the country.
Amendment No. 264ZC seeks to remove Clause 148(3). The subsection enables the Secretary of State to change any of the principles which local authorities must observe in determining how priority should be given in their allocation scheme. This is an important provision. It will enable us to add further categories to whom preference must be given and will also enable us to amend any part of the provisions for determining priority.
We believe that the principles in subsection (2) are appropriate and wide-ranging measures of housing need. However, our experience of past and present legislation, which contains a number of provisions dating back to 1935, shows that housing need can change. Conditions which were prevalent in 1935, such as the widespread lack of basic facilities, may no longer have the significance they once had.
Other factors, one of which was raised by the noble Earl, include, for example, old age and also family breakdown, a fairly new phenomenon. Not long ago it could reasonably be assumed that one family would occupy one house. Unfortunately, with divorce, a fairly significant number of families are now split and require two houses. In fact, it is one of the underlying causes of the pressure on the housing stock. These are indications of change.
There is the advent of community care where we like to see people looked after in the community and no longer placed in long-stay large hospitals, especially hospitals catering for mental illness and mental handicap. These are all factors which have changed quite dramatically over time. Who can tell what changes there will be in the next two or three decades?
We believe that the regulation-making power in subsection (3) will enable governments in the future to keep the legislation up-to-date as regards changing demographic and social conditions without the need for primary legislation. In recognition that the power in subsection (3) is wide ranging and that it would amend primary legislation, the regulations under the subsection are to be subject to the affirmative resolution of each House. I believe that this is a sensible provision and that we have taken adequate safeguards to prevent the power being used lightly.
Amendment No. 264ZD seeks to remove subsection (4) which specifies the factors which must be disregarded in allocating houses. This power will enable the Secretary of State to prevent authorities from taking account of factors which would discriminate unfairly against particular groups of applicants. We hear from time to time of cases where an authority discriminates against certain applicants, for example, by giving excessive priority to children of their own tenants or by refusing to give proper consideration to applications from single people. By having the powers in regulations the Secretary of State will be enabled to act quickly to
394
prevent abuse of the new provisions, should that prove necessary. Regulations under this subsection will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Amendment No. 264ZF would remove the Secretary of State's power to specify the principles governing the procedures to be followed in allocating housing. One use of this power, which was discussed in the January consultation paper and discussed in Committee earlier today, would be to restrict the involvement of elected local authority members in allocation decisions on individual cases. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales has indicated his concern that this practice is still prevalent in some local authorities in Wales. There has been support in some circles for similar provision to be made in England. Regulations under this subsection could disqualify members from involvement in certain decisions; for instance, those relating to housing in their own wards. These are likely to cover matters of detail.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Can the noble Lord give me any advice? Would some of the things he is saying have affected Westminster City Council? Would that council have been in the dock with the Government if these regulations had been in force then?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The Government are not in any dock.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Westminster City Council is!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not believe that that council was making decisions on that basis. When I joined a local authority some members of it, including members of the party opposite, rather liked the privilege they had of deciding who should or should not receive a house. There was a list with a points system.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I can see why the noble Lord left and came to Westminster.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps the noble Baroness will contain herself. That was a very unsatisfactory position. When I joined the authority I combined with a member of the party opposite who took the same view—
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may once again ask the Minister to withdraw the phrase "the party opposite", especially when speaking to an amendment from these Benches.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thought I was looking fairly clearly at what I mean by the "party opposite". If the noble Earl wishes to begin splitting the parties opposite, I shall deal with that in a moment. A senior member of the Labour Party and myself combined together to get rid of what he and I thought was a pretty iniquitous practice and brought forward a points system. That meant that the service was delivered on a much fairer basis. The noble Earl has tempted me. I must tell him that the proposal was fiercely resisted by

395
one member of his own party who rather liked the privilege of dispensing council housing in a slightly more personal way than I thought was right and proper.
Lord Monkswell: The Minister has been casting aspersions at Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors. Just to set the record straight, the Minister may like to know that when I was a city councillor in Manchester I was aware of a situation where a Conservative councillor so terrorised local housing officers into allocating housing for his chosen constituents that something had to be done about it and it was. I hope the Minister will recognise that as regards local government and housing allocation, it is not dealt with in the way the Minister paints it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was not trying to paint it in the way suggested by the noble Lord. I was simply saying that I have had experience of a local authority with a rather antiquated way of dealing with the matter. The noble Earl tempted me to reminisce on the subject of political complexions, but as everybody stood as an independent I am not sure where that leaves us.
We are all agreed that the allocation of council housing should be decided on a transparent basis and, in my view, that is best operated by some form of points system. However, that is to get away from the point about one of the things that we might want to do using the power which Amendment No. 264ZF seeks to delete. Regulations under subsection (5), which the noble Earl would remove, could disqualify members from involvement in such decisions. Such regulations are likely to cover matters of detail and I think that secondary legislation, with the negative procedure, is the right way to do that.
As the noble Earl said, Amendment No. 264ZG is consequential on the previous amendments and would disapply the main principles for determining priority in allocation under subsection (2). An authority would thus be able to allocate housing entirely as it chose without any reference to the principles for meeting housing need which are at the heart of our provisions. The one thing about which I am pretty certain following all our hours of discussion today is that most noble Lords believe that such principles should be specified. Much of our debate has concentrated on whether more principles should be laid down in statute than those which are already on the face of the Bill. I do not think that there is much disagreement on that, unless the noble Earl thinks that local authorities should be able to allocate housing without any regard to any of the principles in Clause 148(2). I am sure that that is not the noble Earl's intention, but that could be the result if his amendment were accepted.
The provisions of the three subsections are important. We are taking the proper steps to ensure that they are used carefully. The procedures are there. The most important power given to the Secretary of State can be exercised only by affirmative resolution. The others operate under the negative procedure. My understanding is that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, which considers matters of secondary legislation, has not
396
commented on these matters. With that explanation of why we envisage that we may need the power, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: I am quite used to people who begin a book at the last page; what I am not quite so used to is people who begin absolutely in the middle, which is what the Minister has done tonight. He has given a detailed and, I think, perfectly reasonable justification of why, if the Secretary of State is to decide all the priority categories, the powers of subsection (3) are needed.
However, that was not the question that I asked and that is why I was not particularly dismayed—or, indeed, particularly surprised—by the fact that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee did not refer to the clause. I am not making a purely drafting or constitutional point; I am asking a question about policy. I am asking the Minister why the Secretary of State is the best person to determine categories of housing need. I have not had an answer to that and, before I decide what to do with the amendment, I hope that I shall have an answer.
The Minister said that housing allocation has to be fair and orderly. That is agreed. A general requirement that it should be done according to housing need, together with the power of judicial review, will do a great deal of what is wanted. Curiously, yesterday I was complaining of the Government relying on judicial review where legislative restraint was more appropriate; here they are relying on legislative restraint where judicial review (which is all about the requirement of basic procedural fairness) is more appropriate. That is all that we need here. We do not need the Secretary of State taking all these decisions himself and I do not see how he is competent to do so.
If there is discrimination against certain broad categories, that will be caught by the Race Relations Act or the Sex Discrimination Act. Beyond that, it would be caught by the requirement for procedural fairness. We do not need to quote party examples. I think that we are agreed that all power tends to corrupt and, without commenting on any individual case because I am not surprised if it happens in any context, perhaps I may say that it happens at Westminster too.
Can the Minister tell me why the Secretary of State is competent to have those powers? And can he tell me another thing that he did not tell me? In subsection (4) why does the Secretary of State want to specify factors which shall not be taken into account, and what sort of factors does he mean? I did not hear an answer to that and I should like to hear one.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thought that I had explained what subsection (4) might be used for. I indicated that it would be used where authorities had decided to discriminate against certain applicants, such as by giving excessive priority to children of their own tenants or by refusing to give proper consideration to applications from single people. I gave those two examples to illustrate that, if such practices occurred in local authorities, the Secretary of State might decide that he should take some action.

397
I am asked why the Secretary of State is the proper person to do that. Somebody has to take those actions on behalf of the United Kingdom Government who, after all, put a lot of taxpayers' money into public housing. Therefore, it seems right that Parliament and the Government—and the Secretary of State on the Government's behalf—should take a close interest in how that housing is allocated. I said that the Secretary of State is doing that by means of the priorities that are set out in Clause 148(2).
There is a good argument for saying that central government has a role to play in both the detail and the principles. That is the role that this clause seeks to enact. The powers that we are now discussing would be given to the Secretary of State, who is always accountable to Parliament, to use in the future where circumstances have changed and where he decides—in consultation with his colleagues, I have no doubt, and with the agreement of Parliament—that some change should be introduced. That is the reason and I thought that I had addressed it—although perhaps at the end of my contribution, not at the beginning.
Lord Monkswell: Does the Minister recognise that the examples that he quoted would be significantly different in different local authority areas? As I read the clause, I can see no mechanism to enable the Secretary of State to set different priorities in different local authority areas. There would have to be a national scheme. One would have to be careful in drafting such a national scheme to ensure that a scheme that was set up to deal with a particular housing problem in a particular area did not prevent something desirable from happening in another area.
Earl Russell: The Minister used a dangerous argument about public money. Public money goes to all sorts of bodies. It does not follow that the Secretary of State is the best person to decide how that money should be used. Public money goes indirectly to the Royal Shakespeare Company, for example—I am glad that it does—but that does not mean that the Secretary of State is entitled to give directives on how best to play the part of Iago. I would not presume to suggest that he was the person best qualified to do that.
The Minister should think again about this because I do not think that he has entirely understood the question. I shall have to return to it later, by which time I hope that the noble Lord will have thought a bit more about what I am trying to ask him. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 264ZD to 264ZG not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 148 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Hamwee: I take this opportunity to ask a question on the paragraph at the end of Clause 148(2) which provides that,
"The scheme shall … secure that additional preference is given to households within paragraph (e) consisting of someone"—
398
in the singular—
"with a particular need … who cannot reasonably be expected to find settled accommodation for themselves in the foreseeable future".
I am not sure whether the use of singular and plural in this paragraph represents political correctness or whether the words import more than I had understood in the first instance. Is the Minister able to inform the Committee whether a household can comprise one person for the purpose of this paragraph and, if so, whether the "themselves" can be a "himself' or "herself', as I believe is intended?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not usually accused of political correctness. I doubt whether this is a case of political correctness. Of course, a household can consist of one person; otherwise, a single person would never be housed if he or she was not considered to be a household. This provision is an attempt to ensure that authorities make special provision for the most vulnerable sections of the community. We have in mind here very vulnerable people such as those discharged from psychiatric hospitals or those with learning difficulties who can manage to live independently with a degree of support but cannot be expected to find their own accommodation. Paragraph (e) is in the clause to address that kind of person. I do not believe that there is any significance in the move from singular to plural. I can assure the noble Baroness that it is not a matter of political correctness on my part. It may be political correctness on the part of the draftsman. I will ask about it.
Clause 148 agreed to.
Clauses 149 to 151 agreed to.
Clause 152 [False statements and withholding information]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 264ZH:
Page 92, line 36, at end insert—("unless in either case he has a reasonable excuse.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 264ZH and speak also in support of Amendment No. 264ZJ. This part of the Bill is concerned with the offence that may be committed if a person knowingly or recklessly makes a statement which is false or withholds information. The purpose of Amendment No. 264ZH is to provide that it shall not be an offence if the individual concerned has a reasonable excuse for giving false information or withholding information. The purpose of Amendment No. 264ZJ is to lower the level of penalty should anyone be fined for committing this offence.
I speak first to Amendment No. 264ZH. On certain exceptional occasions people may withhold information or possibly give false information for perfectly proper reasons in putting their names on the housing register. I shall give a couple of examples, both of which are in my experience in recent years.
I take, first, the example of a woman with one or two children living on a council estate whose husband was convicted of a criminal offence relating to drugs. Some of his friends believed that his wife had given information to the authorities. They made serious threats against her. She left the flat and found temporary

399
accommodation in another borough. That woman might, in trying to rectify her housing situation, have wished to withhold details of her whereabouts because she was under threat; she might not give full and proper information.
I also came across an instance where a woman who had been battered by the man with whom she had been living sought safety in a refuge and ended up in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. A woman in such a situation might wish, quite properly, to keep confidential either her identity or whereabouts. In both instances those people have to get their names on the register and may wish to conceal information about themselves and their whereabouts so that they cannot be identified by those who may be hostile to them. I am sure that other Members of the Committee can think of similar examples.
For perfectly proper reasons there may be pressure on the individual in exceptional cases not to give full information, and thereby they commit an offence. As my examples show, these people may be victims of violence or in fear of violence, harassment or abuse. They may also be people who as responsible citizens have given information to the authorities or acted as witnesses in the courts and find themselves under threat. Domestic violence is an obvious instance. Sadly, there are quite a number of such cases. All that is required is a small let-out so that it does not automatically become a criminal offence if one has given false information or withheld information. The examples that I gave were not ones where the offence had been committed with a view to furthering a claim for housing which would otherwise not have been valid but for rather different reasons.
I turn now to Amendment No. 264ZJ. This is concerned with the level of fine that may be incurred if a person is found guilty of an offence under Clause 152. Subsection (2) provides that the fine should not exceed level 5 on the standard scale. That would mean a fine in the region of £5,000. That is the same level of fine which can be imposed, for example, on a landlord who commits an offence in connection with failure to ensure safety in houses in multiple occupation. It would be difficult to suggest that the two offences compare in seriousness. A landlord who endangers persons living in houses in multiple occupation may threaten their well-being and possibly their lives, whereas a breach of Clause 152 is surely not as serious an offence.
The proposed amendment would lower the level of the fine from £5,000 (level 5) to £2,500 (level 4), which is surely sufficient for the gravity of the offence in Clause 152. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Clause 152 is in similar terms to Section 74 of the Housing Act 1985 (re-enacted in Clause 186 of this Bill) to which we will come later which creates similar offences for applications under the homelessness legislation. Social housing is a valuable asset and it is important that people who seek it should not misrepresent their circumstances. That could cause them to receive preferential treatment at the expense of other applicant
400
households. One of the essential principles behind Parts VI and VII of the Bill is fairness in the allocation of social housing. In order to deter people from making false statements or withholding relevant information it is important to have some sanction in the form of a fine.
Amendment No. 264ZH would moderate each of the two offences created by Clause 152. It would enable someone to make a false statement, or to withhold relevant information, and to avoid committing the offence by pleading "a reasonable excuse". What constitutes a "reasonable excuse" could lead to litigation.
I do not consider that those offences should be watered down in that way. The similar offences in Section 74 of the Housing Act 1985 have stood the test of time. It is a serious matter for a person to gain a public good by misrepresenting his or her circumstances.
Moreover, an application for social housing through the register is a more complex matter than applying for assistance under the homelessness legislation. It is not merely a matter of establishing whether or not the local authority owes a duty to the applicant. The applicant for social housing may want to persuade or induce an authority to believe, for example, that he qualifies to appear on the register or that he warrants greater priority under an allocation scheme than the authority has given him. In practice, the withholding of information—for example, where someone is afraid to disclose threats of violence—is likely to reduce rather than increase the priority that an applicant might otherwise attract. It is unlikely that someone would be penalised for withholding sensitive personal information in that case.
We should remember that the information given to the local authority is to be kept confidential. We discussed that point earlier today. It should not be disclosed to other members of the public. The authority should be able to have the information. There is no good reason under the sensitiveness heading why the information cannot be given.
If an applicant under duress gave information which increased his or her chances of being allocated the accommodation, I am sure that a court would take that into account. Someone has, so to speak, to pull the trigger on a prosecution. I am pretty certain that the local authority would take it into account. Local authorities, after all, have to make the decision as to whether they should bring in the law in that regard. Obviously they will not necessarily and automatically do so in every case. As I have said, they already have powers, and there are very few prosecutions. Local authorities would prosecute only if they felt that it was a deliberate try-on to gain considerable advantage on the list.
As to the maximum fine, we have picked a fine which we believe reflects the seriousness of the offence. Level 5 is generally the right level of penalty for offences of giving false information or withholding information. If one looks across at similar offences, a level 5 fine is what we find. For example, it applies to offences of failing to disclose information requested by the corporation. The seriousness of the offence derives from the degree of intent rather than the consequences.

401
Because the level 5 fine exists, that does not mean to say that, even if the local authority decides that the case should go to court and the court finds the person guilty, the court needs to fine that person at the top of the level. But it means that if the intent to deceive is serious then a serious penalty exists. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord can withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dubs: I listened to what the Minister said. I am bound to say that parts of his response seemed to be more in support of the amendments than against them, although his conclusion clearly came out against them.
The Minister said he thought that in some of the circumstances similar to the examples I quoted an individual was unlikely to be penalised. He then said that he thought that the court or the local authority would take such circumstances into account. That was the purpose of the amendment, which adds the words:
"unless in either case he has a reasonable excuse".
It is precisely in order to allow the local authority and the court to take the matter into account and have a sensible statutory basis for doing so that I tabled the amendment. By adding those words one would be achieving precisely what the Minister said he hoped would happen.
My aim is exactly the same as the Minister's. I thought that by putting those words on the face of the Bill in relation to a specific offence I was making the position clearer. I am disappointed that the Minister did not accept that. Will he consider putting the aim, which he and I share, into guidance to local authorities? That might be helpful and might achieve the point of my amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I cannot consider it as regards giving guidance to the court if the local authority took the matter to court. However, in the spirit of helpfulness, I am prepared to look at the point which the noble Lord makes. The problem is that when the words appear on the face of the Bill they appear to water down the offence in some way. However, I shall certainly consider what the noble Lord said and take advice.
Lord Dubs: I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 264ZJ not moved.]
Clause 152 agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Clause 153 [Regulations]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 264ZK:
Page 93, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) No Regulations shall be made under this Part in any case where the Secretary of State is satisfied that discrimination contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976 will result.").
The noble Lord said: The issue of discrimination is likely to arise as a result of defining qualifying persons on the basis of immigration status. We discussed earlier
402
the question of asylum seekers and immigration status. The fear is that, by making local authorities apply fairly rigid tests as regards entitlement to appear on the register and entitlement to be helped in respect of these provisions, discrimination may creep into the process. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that the proposed regulations did not put local authorities in breach of their statutory duties to provide services without discrimination on the grounds of race.
The Government propose to prescribe categories of persons from abroad who are to be excluded by local authorities from appearing on waiting lists and therefore excluded from being allocated social housing. There is concern that that might lead to some discrimination against black and ethnic minority applicants for housing, even those who in all senses are entitled to appear on the register and be considered for such housing.
The difficulty is that defining the status of a person under immigration law is an extremely complicated business. I doubt whether any Member of the Committee would be totally confident as regards deciding whether an individual in particular circumstances was eligible. The difficulty is that as a result sometimes the regulations lead to mistakes. My concern is that in order to avoid mistakes local authorities might in some instances act in a discriminatory manner.
The difficulty is that there are seven sets of regulation-making powers in this part of the Bill. That is part of the complexity I am addressing. I shall not go through them all but they include, for example, information that is to be held on the housing register; who are and who are not qualifying persons; the cases where provisions about allocations do not apply; and the procedures to be followed in allocations. Those are all complicated matters and when linked to immigration status the potential for wrong decision-making is fairly clear. The fear is that local authorities may indeed discriminate, as I have said. I feel that by adding this provision there would be a greater safeguard and the Secretary of State would have to be assured that the effect of any regulations which he makes would not result in such discrimination. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has explained his intention in relation to this amendment. I should start by making it perfectly clear that the Government would not wish to promote any legislation, whether it be primary or secondary, which would result in racial or sexual discrimination on the part of local authorities.
For their part, local authorities are under a general duty, under Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976, to promote racial equality and we encourage them to do so.
The Commission for Racial Equality has published a useful Code of Practice in Rented Housing, to which I would expect authorities to have regard. Authorities' housing activities could also fall within the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Were an authority to adopt an allocations policy that was manifestly in breach of its obligations under the relevant

403
non-discrimination legislation it would be open to challenge in the courts. Of course we might consider acting against that by regulation.
The noble Lord raised his concerns about entitlement to social housing which is based on immigration status. He was concerned that that may lead to racial discrimination. I remind the noble Lord that the parallel screening procedures for identifying ineligible applicants in the current homelessness code of guidance were drawn up in consultation with the Commission for Racial Equality. We have not heard any evidence that current screening procedures for persons from abroad have led to any discrimination. The guidance which we expect to publish in relation to Part VI would follow the same model as that already in existence which has been drawn up, as I mentioned earlier, in consultation with the Commission for Racial Equality. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am not totally convinced by it but perhaps we had better see how the legislation works in practice. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 153 agreed to.
Clauses 154 agreed to.
Schedule 13 agreed to.
Clause 155 agreed to.
Clause 156 [Homelessness and threatened homelessness]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 264ZL:
Page 93, line 31, leave out ("or elsewhere").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to remove a condition, which I understand is novel in our housing legislation, that somebody is not homeless if he has accommodation anywhere in the world.
At present, the stipulation is that an individual must not have accommodation in Britain. But that has now been extended in this legislation to anywhere in the world. I believe that that imposes an almost unrealistic burden on a local authority in terms of finding out whether that applies.
I believe that that provision is too wide. It is liable to have discriminatory implications. In practice it will be very difficult to implement. When I represented a constituency in another place, I remember that the local authority there had questioned somebody's entitlement to housing because it was argued that he had made himself intentionally homeless in Pakistan. That was before this legislation but it caused all sorts of difficulties. As far as I remember, in the end the local authority dropped that particular requirement. However, it was a little difficult for someone, as it were, to establish the circumstances under which he had lived in Pakistan; the circumstances under which he had or did not have the relevant accommodation any more; and whether or not he had left it on the basis of making himself intentionally or unintentionally homeless. It was
404
a complicated matter. I cannot believe that the Government would wish local authorities to have to put applicants through that sort of a test.
What I think would be useful is if the Government could give an assurance that homeless persons officers, when investigating the homelessness status of asylum seekers, will not be required to carry out investigations as to whether it would be reasonable for them to have continued to occupy certain accommodation. That, in a nutshell, is the desirable outcome in all this. If the asylum seeker is then given full refugee status, the Home Office, having done that, will have accepted that the person had a well founded fear of persecution in his own country. Therefore it could hardly be construed that that person had made himself intentionally homeless. The matter would depend on the outcome of such an application. But even if that were not the case, and the person was given exceptional leave to remain, it would still be difficult for a local authority official to determine the basis on which the individual had fled his country to find safety elsewhere. This proposal puts us in a difficult situation. I believe that the amendment, if accepted, would restore the present position. I believe that would be sensible. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: There is sense in the proposition that we are here because we are here because we are here. That proposition applies to the homeless just as much as to anyone else. If someone is homeless in this country, it really will not be of immediate assistance to that person if he may possibly have a place where he might be living in Pakistan or Nigeria, because the person is here and here is where he happens to be homeless. If there is to be an insistence that the person withdraws and occupies the accommodation in Pakistan, Nigeria or wherever, he may have a good deal of difficulty in getting there. That may involve the Home Office finding the costs of deporting the person. That is really quite unnecessary.
We are not only concerned here with asylum seekers. Plenty of people—perhaps British subjects who have gone to live abroad—may perhaps come back to this country for such an innocent purpose as visiting their aged mother. Let us suppose that she dies and the place that she was occupying is on a life tenancy. The person who visited her may find himself suddenly homeless and may need, even if only for a period of two months—possibly for a temporary reason to do with his work—accommodation in this country. I do not see the useful purpose to be served by putting him on the street rather than allowing him to have the same attention paid to his housing need as anyone else who lives here. If people are here, they are here, and the Government have to deal with that fact. They cannot pretend that those people do not exist. This is an excellent amendment and I hope it will be accepted.
Lord Monkswell: In rising to support my noble friend on this amendment, I paint a slightly different scenario. A young man of 19 or 20 is born in this country and has probably grown up here and lived here all his life. However, his parents have emigrated to Australia. For most of his life he lived with his parents. The local authority to which he applies because he is

405
homeless may have to ask that young man whether he has any relatives living anywhere in the world who could put him up. I wonder whether it is really the Government's intention to create a situation whereby an Englishman, who has every right to live in this country, is required to travel to the other side of the world because he can obtain some accommodation there through his family.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As noble Lords have indicated, the amendment seeks to remove the phrase "or elsewhere" from Clause 156. The original 1977 Act contained no such definition. The reason for putting the provision into the Bill is that there is no reason why someone who has voluntarily left accommodation in another country in which he or she could have continued to live should be regarded as homeless for the purposes of domestic United Kingdom legislation.
The suggestion was made that the clause could impact on people with family connections outside the United Kingdom but who have lived and worked here for many years and who may have children who were born here. Furthermore, fears were expressed, in this Chamber by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and elsewhere, that black and ethnic minority applicants were likely to be affected most, although the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, seemed to think that it might affect Australians.
That is not our intention, nor do I believe that the provisions can be misinterpreted in such a way. The purpose of the clause as drafted is simply to ensure that a person with accommodation overseas should not be able to leave it voluntarily and then rely on the homelessness legislation to gain a second address in this country. The clause will not interfere with the right to assistance under the homelessness provisions for those applicants who have a right to be housed in the United Kingdom.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made much of "he's here because he's here because he's here", saying that one could not pretend that the situation did not exist. Equally, one cannot pretend that a house elsewhere, which that person could perfectly reasonably occupy, does not exist. The house may be in Europe, possibly France. We may all know people who have houses in France or in southern parts of Europe. In what will be only a minority of cases—the number will be small—I do not believe that it is right to turn a blind eye to the fact that the person has a house that he or she can occupy.
For example, last February there were press reports of a woman of dual nationality who had been given a grant under the DoE sponsored "cash incentive" scheme which she used to buy a house in her country of origin. Those grants are no longer available for overseas purchases. She lived there for a while but then returned to this country and subsequently presented herself as homeless. The High Court found that she was owed a duty under the homelessness legislation, a decision which Camden Council described as "bizarre". That is exactly the situation the Government wish to avoid.
406
We fully accept that a local authority has a duty towards someone returning from abroad who has been made homeless there unintentionally. We have no plans to change that.
As regards asylum seekers, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, introduced the catch-22 concept. Clause 157(4) states:
"Accommodation shall not be regarded as available for a person's occupation unless it is accommodation which it would he unreasonable for him to continue to occupy".
Clearly, if he pleads asylum on the grounds that he would be under personal threats in his country of origin, where his house was, the subsection of that clause would be his "out"—if I may so describe it. He would not fall to be considered as someone who had a house elsewhere which he could occupy. I fully appreciate that argument. I hope that my reference to the subsection in Clause 157 helps the noble Lord.
Earl Russell: I am surprised at the depth of the localism of the Minister's picture of the world. It is rather like the Hampstead alderman in the days before Camden who said, "Do you mean to say that our ratepayers are paying rates to pay for public conveniences for the convenience of people from other boroughs?" People cross boundaries a great deal more often than the Minister suggests.
Let me take a concrete example. Let us suppose that the present Secretary of State at some future time should be without employment. Suppose at some future time his present house should be burned down. Would it be reasonable to say that the Secretary of State would be entirely unentitled to help because he had a home elsewhere in France? That place is not his normal centre of business, nor where he would look for future employment.
That kind of localism is remarkable. With the increasing freedom of travel in the world, people move about it: they have relatives in some parts of it, business interests in other parts of it, and occupations in other parts. If we are to go back to a world where everyone has to be shut in within their own little boundaries, we will do a great deal to discourage economic growth, culture and interchange. We will go back to a picture of this country under the old Poor Laws where everyone was sent back to their home parish. The Minister shakes his head, but the cases are exactly parallel. If that restraint had gone on, all the economic growth which the country experienced during the Industrial Revolution would have been impossible. It is exactly the same kind of localism as is being put forward here. In neither case is it capable of working. The Minister should notice how the world works. It is not like that.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps the Minister could help me in the case that I suggested. The parents of a young man of 20 had emigrated to Australia. They have to be contacted by the local authority to see whether they can accommodate their son. They have a reasonable sized house with a spare room, so they are in a dilemma. If they say: "Yes, we can accommodate our son", the local authority will not be required to treat him as homeless. On the other hand, the parents could lie and even though

407
they could accommodate their son, they could say: "No, we can't accommodate him". In that case, the local authority would accept the young man as homeless. But those parents would have been telling a falsehood. Would they be liable for the fine up to level 5 which is delineated in Clause 152? Would they suffer that jeopardy?
Lord Dubs: Having listened to the Minister, I wish that I had Hansard in front of me. I thought he said something interesting when he referred to Clause 157(4), stating that if an asylum seeker made a claim for asylum, it would be all right because the provisions of the paragraph would apply. I was delighted to hear it because he spent most of the earlier debates saying that many asylum seekers did not have a proper claim. In any case, until the claim was properly tested and accepted by the Home Office, they would have no entitlements. I believe that the Minister has made a concession, if I heard him properly. Perhaps he wishes to rebut that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord is becoming confused between the homelessness regulations and the right to access to the council house waiting list.
Lord Dubs: No, I am not getting confused. I accepted as a general principle what the Minister said about the right of people who claim asylum to certain entitlements. I thought it was a good principle. However, perhaps I should not pursue it too far in case the Minister withdraws what he said.
There are difficulties. I understand what the Minister said, that if someone clearly has a home and no particular reason to leave it but arrives in Britain asking for accommodation, then there is a difficulty. The trouble is that most examples are likely to be the other way. At the least, they are likely to put local authorities in a difficult position. I give the Minister one example. Suppose a family arrives from Iraq, claiming asylum. The local authority may well say: "We are not sure about your claim, you have a perfectly good house in Baghdad, what are you doing here?" The danger is that an investigation by the local authority as to the circumstances in the country that the people left might well be damaging to them or to other members of their family who are still there. It would cause all kinds of difficulties.
I do not suggest that local authorities would actually do that. They would have the sense not to. But there may be other examples in other countries where a simple investigation which might be innocuous in some countries could be quite lethal in its consequences for the relatives or friends of the individuals who fled. So there are difficulties.
I fear that the Minister is not to be persuaded. He is adding to the statute book a measure that will mean great difficulty for local authorities. It will place upon them a burden out of all proportion to any possible benefit and will do a lot of harm to most people who
408
are affected. I wish to think about what the Minister said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 264A not moved.]
Clause 156 agreed to.
Clause 157 [Meaning of accommodation available for occupation]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 264AA:
Page 93, line 43, leave out from second ("occupation") to end of line 45 and insert ("both by him and by any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to insert slightly different words at the end of the clause, leaving out a reference to people who normally reside with the applicant. The purpose is to ensure that, in assessing whether a person is homeless, account is taken of family members and others, perhaps carers, who do not at that time normally reside with the applicant but who would normally reside with the applicant were it not for a lack of suitable accommodation.
The effect of Clause 157(2) is that a person is homeless if he or she does not have accommodation where he or she can live under the same roof together with other members of the household who normally reside together. The policy is clear: it is to enable people who are separated for want of a home to be treated as homeless, albeit that one or other of them has separate accommodation.
As I understand it, the wording is the same as that in Section 58(1) of the 1985 Act; but there have been problems in practice. The emphasis on people who "normally reside" together excludes those who would have resided together—for example, an engaged couple expecting a child, a family who need accommodation with an elderly parent in order to care for that parent, or a terminally ill person who cannot manage without a live-in carer. The amendment therefore borrows alternative wording from Section 75 of the 1985 Act and, to a very modest extent, widens the scope of those whom the local authority should consider a separated household. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: This is an important amendment. Perhaps the Minister in replying will say whether the wording of the amendment will cover cases such as that where a child has been fostered or taken into care and where it is extremely desirable that it should return to its natural parents.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Clause 157 defines when accommodation is available for a person's occupation. The amendment moved by the noble Baroness would alter the definition of availability so as to refer simply to accommodation being available for occupation both by the person,
"and by any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him".

409
The amendment is unnecessary. As drafted, Clause 157 already provides what the amendment seeks to do; namely, to provide that accommodation must be available not only to the applicant but also to,
"any other person who normally resides with him … or in circumstances in which it is reasonable for that person to reside with him".
for it to be regarded as available for the applicant's occupation.
The amendment would also remove reference to,
"other persons who normally reside with the applicant as a member of his family",
having to be taken into account in determining availability. That removal is not desirable. In fact, it might impinge on the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. While family members of the applicant's household would fall within the wider category promoted by this amendment, it is desirable and appropriate that they should appear as a discrete group on the face of the legislation. So, not only do I not believe that the noble Baroness's amendment is necessary, but worse, I believe that the way in which it would operate, because of what it takes out, would in fact not be desirable. With that explanation, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: That is helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 264AB:
Page 94, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) in the case of a tenancy, he is unable to comply with the terms of the grant of the tenancy and the terms of the tenancy at the time of the grant, having regard to his own resources and such public assistance as is likely to be available to him, or").
The noble Baroness said: I expected this amendment to be grouped with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I shall try to be brief, given the lateness of the hour, but it is an important amendment and I do not feel that I should withdraw it.
The amendment seeks to ensure that available accommodation is available. If, for example, the tenant cannot afford to gain access to it, the accommodation is not to be regarded as available. In other words, it is reasonable for him to be regarded as not having access to it.
That problem will occur more frequently with the new conditions of sixth-month shorthold tenancies. First, there is the cost of access in itself. Most private landlords require a month's rent as deposit and then a further month's rent in advance. That means that with the help of friends or family prospective tenants must seek to raise perhaps £800. Having done so, if they can, there is still a second problem of meeting the cost of the rent. Housing benefit comes three or four weeks in arrears—that is assuming that it comes on time. Even so, now housing benefit does not cover the full cost of
410
the rent in 40 per cent. of cases either because the rent is excessive or because the property is regarded as over-large for the tenant.
Further, the new regulations on housing benefit will mean that housing benefit will not cover the market rent for that property but only the local reference rent, which may be considerably lower. Yet we know that 80 per cent. of homeless families need housing benefit.
Put all that together and there will be a growing problem of homeless families who are unable to afford privately rented housing. We need such an amendment to ensure that they are not regarded by local authorities as intentionally or deliberately homeless if they refuse to accept such accommodation, which they cannot afford, or if they leave such accommodation, which they cannot afford, because of the cost of access to it and the cost of staying in it.
I know that the Government believe that if they cap benefit the price of accommodation will fall. The last time that they seriously did that, the opposite was the case. The Salvation Army surveyed the effects of the 1985 capping of bed-and-breakfast payments, whereby, instead of having a maximum by discretion of £110 a head per week, the amount was capped to £70. If the Minister's theory of market economics worked, the cost that bed-and-breakfast hotels charge would fall accordingly. There were something in the order of 780 bed-and-breakfast hotels and as a result of those changes by the Government thereafter only 382 were willing to continue to accept homeless people. Of those 382, only 60 brought their price down to £70 a week. The rest in fact raised their charges by 15 to 20 per cent. The result, as the Minister may know, was that local authorities had a crisis in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
I hope we are wrong, but we fear that the same thing may happen this time and that capping costs merely takes the accommodation out of the market. It does not reduce its price because it is a landlord's market and there are other tenants who are anxious to rent the property. Therefore, we believe that currently there is and in future there will be a growing problem of people who are unable to afford access to privately rented accommodation or are unable to afford it thereafter. We want to ensure that, if they have to leave the accommodation or if they are given a list of addresses but when they go to inspect the accommodation they find that they cannot afford it, they are not thereby regarded as making themselves intentionally homeless. In all good faith, they cannot afford the rent. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: These amendments relate to affordability. It would clearly be wrong to assume that someone can continue to occupy accommodation, and therefore not be considered homeless, if he cannot meet the terms on which a tenancy was granted. An obvious case would be where he can no longer meet the.rent himself—for example, as a result of a change in the rent—and the rent charged is above the local reference rent for that type of property, with the result that housing benefit is not necessarily

411
payable in full. The local authority has a discretion (within limits) to top up the benefit, but may judge that that is not appropriate in the circumstances.
The order-making power that we are seeking under Clause 158 is intended to allow us to address such cases. We are reflecting on precisely how to use that power, and the range of cases it should cover. In that context, however, whether it is reasonable for a person to continue to occupy property is likely to cover a range of attributes, including whether the accommodation is of the right size and whether it is (where necessary) affordable for someone on housing benefit. The place to address affordability is in an order, provisions for which are in Clause 158. The more detailed issues raised by these amendments are not appropriate for the face of the Bill.
With the assurance that we will be addressing those issues in the orders we make under that clause, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That would be fine if I knew what the contents of the order were likely to be. In other words, can the Minister give us some indication to suggest that there is little distance between us? Though I would prefer it on the face of the Bill, I would have no choice but to accept what he says. Can he give us some indication of his thinking on the matter? Does he accept that, given that housing benefit does not cover, in 40 per cent. of cases, the full cost of rent let alone some of the other costs, that that will not be regarded as grounds for declaring that somebody has made themselves intentionally homeless and therefore the local authority has no responsibility towards them?
The test of excessive rent is an extremely tough one. If a couple without children seek to rent a two-bedroomed flat, that is regarded as excessive space and the housing benefit will cover only a portion of the rent of that property. If there is no one-bedroomed accommodation available and all they have is two-bedroomed accommodation and the couple seek to go into a two-bedroomed flat, by definition they will not receive housing benefit to cover their rent if they are on income support. They are therefore faced with the choice of going without accommodation, having that income support top sliced, getting into debt or being declared intentionally homeless. Can the Minister give us a sense of what his thinking may be and what the shape of the order may look like?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I should like to try to be helpful to the noble Baroness; I do not believe that there is a great deal of distance between us. As I indicated in my original contribution, we are currently reflecting on how we can use that power. I am not in a position to deliberate on the direction those reflections are moving. Therefore I cannot be more helpful, though I understand the noble Baroness's anxiety.
This is one of those issues where detail will be needed. It is a matter of balance. Although the noble Baroness gave us a case just on the other side of the balance, in fact many people not eligible for housing
412
benefit have to make a judgment as to what they can afford and temper that against what they would like. Many people have to accept, if they are a couple, that it is economically wiser for them to take one-bedroomed accommodation.
All those matters must be balanced. I could ask the noble Baroness whether she would be content to pay housing benefit to the couple if they decided to move into a four-bedroomed flat in a pricey part of the City of Glasgow or the City of London? Of course not. It is that kind of detail which we need to address, accepting that there may be problems with which we have to deal in the regulations which we will be able to bring forward under the clause.
I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful. If I discover that the process of reflection has continued a little further at the Department of the Environment, I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may raise a problem for the Minister in the sense that he is suggesting that regulations can be made under Clause 158. My reading of the clause is that it refers only to persons being able to continue to occupy. There is no mechanism within it to determine what the requirements would be for someone looking for accommodation. It is not just someone who cannot continue to occupy a place because the rent has gone up or because his financial circumstances have deteriorated; it is also the situation where people are literally homeless and the local authority tells them they are not homeless because private rented accommodation is available. However, they do not have the money for the deposit and they cannot afford the rent. That is what the amendment attempts to sort out. If I have misunderstood the meaning of the amendment or the meaning of Clause 158, I am happy to be fully informed by the Minister.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps it is my fault that in trying to make up examples I have led the noble Lord to the wrong conclusion. The clause is entirely about continuing to occupy the property; it is not about finding accommodation. We also have to take into account when reflecting on this matter that there is a considerable amount of existing case law which obviously has a considerable bearing on giving local authorities guidance.
Lord Monkswell: To rely on case law when we are now writing an Act of Parliament seems a rather curious way of trying to get out of the situation. We are in the process of producing a new Act of Parliament which will presumably supersede the case law built up on the basis of previous Acts of Parliament and the way courts have interpreted them. We are talking about a new law which will supersede and override previous case law.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My understanding of these matters is that case law does not necessarily touch on one Act of Parliament and one Act only. It can be read across and it can be read backwards—not literally read backwards but one can look backwards to previous legislation and the case law that comes from

413
it. That, in a way, is why case law is important. With the best will in the world, I do not believe that one can in Parliament legislate for every case. We try to lay down some principles, and case law, ministerial guidance and secondary legislation all have their part to play in the interpretation of those principles.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wish to emphasise one point and then I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment. The noble Lord speaks throughout as though somehow it is a tenants' market and that if tenants get a two-bedroom flat they can, if they are being realistic, shop around for a one-bedroom flat and get one. It is not like that. I do not know the position in any particular London borough but certainly in the part of the world I come from unfurnished rented accommodation at a reasonable rent that is salubrious and safe is like gold dust. If a recently married couple found a two-bedroom flat that was clean and affordable they would find themselves fortunate. The notion that somehow they can shop around and find a one-bedroom flat is simply not true. The Minister persists in believing that there is equity of bargaining power between tenant and landlord. There is no such thing. The bargaining power is all with the landlord, particularly when one talks about a young couple on income support. The Minister asked me rhetorically whether I would support a young couple going into a four-bedroom flat in Glasgow. If the alternative was being homeless and if there was not a realistic chance of a one, two or three-bedroomed place that they could go to then, yes, I would agree to it. That is the question: what is the supply of accommodation? What is it reasonable that they can seek and get, and can they afford it? If it cannot be afforded, then we need from the Minister an acceptance that that is a reason for saying that the couple have not made themselves intentionally homeless.
This is a very important issue for many young couples, particularly if their financial circumstances fluctuate, given the current state of the economy. We shall have to revisit this matter at Report stage. I hope that the Minister will have a slightly clearer idea that he can share with the House at the moment as to what the Government intend by financial accessibility. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 264AC:
Page 94, line 6, at end insert (",or
( ) it is so severely damaged by fire, flood, terrorist action or other cause that it is no longer fit for human habitation.").
The noble Earl said: I do not intend to speak to this amendment. I move it only in order to open up the group behind it. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: That seems to be a hint for me to speak to Amendments Nos. 264CB and 264CC. The first of these amendments is intended to ensure that occupiers of unfit housing are dealt with in a fashion where they are accorded priority for rehousing. The amendment is to add a category to Clause 158 for those who are living in accommodation which the council
414
itself has declared as unfit for anyone to live in. The fitness standard is in Section 604 of the Housing Act 1985. A house or flat will only be declared unfit if the council's own officers are of the view that it is not reasonably suitable for accommodation.
The amendment is intended to avoid the uncertainty which can arise if the council's housing officers certify that a property is not reasonable for continued habitation and designate it as unfit within the definition. Subsequently, when the occupier applies as homeless to the same council, the homelessness officers have to ask themselves whether that is accommodation which it would be reasonable to occupy. The amendment proposes a uniform test when unfit premises are being considered.
Although the second amendment deals with whether it is reasonable for a person to continue to occupy certain accommodation, the situation is rather different. I am proposing that it is accepted as not being reasonable to continue to occupy accommodation if possession proceedings have started, but the person has no defence against those proceedings. This is intended in part as a practical response to a not unusual situation. It is to avoid people who are threatened with homelessness having to go through the ordeal and expense of a court hearing in circumstances where they have no security of tenure and there is no defence against possession being granted. I mentioned costs. This provision will avoid costs generally being incurred and the landlord would claim costs against a tenant in such a situation. I hope also to reduce the load on the court in having to deal with possession orders where there can be no defence, and to save the time of a great many individuals. The current position is that many people are being forced to live in accommodation where there is no security of tenure. By definition, a characteristic of that is that the tenant has no defence against possession proceedings if the landlord takes such proceedings.
The department's own code of guidance on homelessness asks the following questions:
"Has an applicant with no security of tenure left accommodation following a notice to quit…? Should an applicant have gone to court if it was clear to him/her that there was no defence against possession being granted? In these circumstances the authority should start to process the application and to make (if appropriate) arrangements to secure accommodation immediately".
I think that that explains the situation as quickly as I can and I shall not take up the time of the Committee in elaborating on it. My noble friend has moved his amendment, so I hope that that explanation of my amendments is clear.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Amendment No. 264CB might be the one on which I can hang the case that I want to raise with the Minister. I refer to the situation where a council is using accommodation in a hotel for many people, including homeless families, but the premises are in an unfit state. I do not know whether they qualify exactly under the categories listed by the noble Baroness, but on 25th April this year, the sub-lessee pleaded guilty to breaches of management

415
regulations and was fined £32,000 plus £5,000 costs. Several statutory notices remain outstanding and works in default are being carried out by the council.
What concerns me greatly is that the council needs that accommodation. Something like 250 people live in that property—not all of whom are homeless—which the officer's report describes as "appalling". The council is advised that if it decides to apply for a compulsory purchase order simply because the landlord flatly refuses to do anything and the council is having to carry out some works in default, there is a strong possibility that it will be obliged to pay substantial compensation for the loss of business. The amount quoted is approximately £1 million.
It seems scandalous that a person running an unfit property and ignoring or refusing to comply with council orders then has the right to compensation. I wonder whether the Minister will consider introducing further provisions under this clause to cover such situations. It seems wrong that if the property is not run in accordance with the standards that are expected and necessary and if regulations and notices are simply flouted, the sub-lessee should then be entitled to claim massive sums of money in compensation, resulting in the council being unable to proceed to make the property fit for human habitation. I feel that that point relates to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, although not specifically connected with them.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: These amendments all relate to the availability of accommodation for occupation and to whether it is reasonable to continue to occupy those premises. In deciding whether or not to accept a person as homeless, a local authority takes account of the quality of the accommodation that the person is occupying. If it is not reasonable for him to occupy or to continue to occupy it, for example because of its physical condition after fire, flood or terrorist action—as in Amendment No. 264AC, which was not spoken to—the authority owes that person a duty under the homelessness legislation.
Fitness is, of course, a matter of degree. The Government would not wish to suggest that authorities should be aiming for anything less than property that complies fully with the fitness standard. Nevertheless, one must be realistic. Being unfit in one particular regard does not necessarily mean that the property is not "reasonably suitable for accommodation". For example, in an early case on this subject it was held that a broken sash cord on one window of a property led to statutory unfitness, although it was not suggested that the property should be abandoned as a result. In 1991, there were around 1.5 million properties that were in some way statutorily "unfit".
This amendment would, if accepted, place local authorities under much more severe restraints on the sort of accommodation they could use for discharge of duty and oblige them to use more expensive alternatives. Clearly, this would result in an impossible situation, with considerable knock-on effects. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has reminded me on one
416
or two occasions that this is not a perfect free market in terms of supply. If this amendment were accepted, local authorities would face a very difficult situation. More broadly, local authorities are, and will continue to be, required to provide suitable accommodation which must take into account the state of repair of the building.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I hope that the Minister will forgive me for interrupting him. The law on this matter is quite clear. A house may be unfit if it does not meet the eight-point, 10-point standard, 16-point standard, or whatever. The test is whether the property can be made fit at reasonable expense. In the example that the Minister gave of a broken sash cord, clearly the property could be made fit at reasonable expense and therefore that would not be an issue.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was not exactly praying that case in aid as a fundamental defence of my position in not accepting the amendment. I was just illustrating some of the problems that could arise in discussing whether a property was fit or unfit.
The point to which I was turning when the noble Baroness rose to speak was that local authorities would continue to be required to provide suitable accommodation which must take into account the state of repair. The word "suitable" is defined in Clause 183 of the Bill, which includes order-making powers. There is a considerable amount of case law as to what is defined as "suitable".
Amendment No. 264CC relates to proceedings for possession. The homelessness code of guidance makes clear that authorities should not require applicants to fight possession orders where there is no chance of success before accepting that a household is being threatened with homelessness. The Department of the Environment's recent study on evaluating the code found that almost all—something like 94 per cent.—authorities would take a notice to quit or notice of seeking possession as evidence of impending homelessness. There are, however, many different forms of tenancy and of grounds for possession. There are also many defences which can apply in particular cases. Given that existing arrangements are shown to be working well and can be re-enforced in new guidance, the Government do not wish to introduce a new requirement which at the margin in a difficult case would require the local authority to anticipate the decision of the courts.
The Housing and Planning Act 1986 amended Section 69 of the Housing Act 1985 to require authorities to have regard to the parts of that Act which deal with slum clearance, overcrowding and houses in multiple occupation. The new order-making powers in Clause 183 will allow the Secretary of State to specify further circumstances in which accommodation is or is not to be regarded as suitable for someone, and matters which are to be taken into account or disregarded in determining whether accommodation is suitable for someone. The appropriate place for further defining the suitability of accommodation is in that order, not on the face of the Bill. I do not think that Amendment No. 264CC is desirable.

417
My noble friend Lady Gardner asked me a question, on which I find it difficult to comment in terms of the particular case she has raised. Broadly speaking, local authorities have a duty to take action in respect of properties in their area which fail the test of fitness for human habitation. Under provisions of the 1985 Housing Act, to tackle an unfit property an authority may require the owner to carry out the repairs (as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said in her intervention) or, in extreme cases, require closure or demolition. Another possible option is a compulsory purchase order. I am not an expert on housing policy and law, and I do not wish to go any further than that this evening. However if my noble friend wishes to give me further details I will consider the points that she has raised and write to her.
To return to the amendments, I have drawn the attention of the noble Baroness to Clause 183 and the position therein. I have explained what I hope is the present reasonable position and is likely to be in the future. I hope that those involved in these three amendments will feel able to withdraw them.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: Before the Minister sits down, will he copy the letter that he might be sending to his noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, because I, too, am interested in how someone who is apparently operating a business illegally can walk away with 1 million for his troubles when the council feels that the business should be taken over and run properly? A number of us will be interested in the Minister's answer to that.
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend sits down, is there any possibility that the case raised by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes could be sub judice?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I should have to look at that before I replied to anyone.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Try parliamentary privilege!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I doubt whether parliamentary privilege covers a letter from me to my noble friend or even the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, to whom I shall happily copy the correspondence.
Baroness Hamwee: I am not entirely sure whether, in referring to this ubiquitous guidance, the Minister is indicating that he goes along with the thoughts which I have expressed. In particular, is Clause 183, which deals with suitability of accommodation, an appropriate reference when one is dealing with an applicant who faces repossession and has no defence to that? I am not immediately persuaded that the two clauses interlink in a way which is as effective as I should like to see.
The Minister referred to 94 per cent. of local authorities apparently following the section of the code of guidance which I quoted. I am not sure whether he is suggesting that that should be reproduced and that the other 6 per cent. should be persuaded that they should
418
take the same attitude. I do not know whether the Minister can give me any further indication that he has, at any rate, sympathy with the points that I am making.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I see the point that the noble Baroness makes. Shortly after I talked about the 94 per cent. which would take a notice to quit or a notice seeking possession as evidence of impending homelessness, I said that there were different forms of tenancy and different grounds for possession. We would not wish to introduce a requirement which, at the margin in difficult cases, would require a local authority to anticipate the court's decision. Of course, we could use an order under Clause 157 in relation to possession orders if we wished to.
Earl Russell: When John Locke in 1681 drew up the first Whipping lists for this place, he classified noble Lords of the day under V for vile, W for worthy, and in more extreme cases, VV and WW: and in the most extreme cases VVV and WWW. Listening to the Minister's reply to my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I wonder whether we should classify properties as unfit, very unfit, and very, very unfit. But I shall not follow the Minister any further into that thicket.
The amendment formally before the Committee at the moment is my Amendment No. 264AC. I put it down solely because I hoped to hear the Minister say that it was unnecessary. He did. I should like to thank him for doing so, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 157 agreed to.
Clause 158 [Whether it is reasonable to continue to occupy accommodation]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 264B:
Page 94, line 12, after first ("from") insert ("or to").
The noble Earl said: In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and with the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak briefly to the amendment and with it to Amendment No. 264C which is practically the same amendment. The amendment seeks to amend Clause 158(1) which in its present form says a person cannot be required to occupy premises if their occupation will lead to violence from some other person residing in it. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has sought to add the words "or to" after the word "from". The effect would be to extend the protection offered by the clause to people who have been victims of ouster orders under Clause 4 of the Family Law Bill. Members of the Committee who have followed that Bill know that this is a very necessary power and will welcome it warmly.
However, it is an extreme power and if, after men have been subject to ouster orders and have had to leave, they are then to be found to be intentionally homeless one might think that that had something in common with double jeopardy. The campaign against domestic violence is necessary and I am glad to say that it is gathering steam. However, if it is to be successful it must be pursued with concern for safety and justice.
It must not be allowed to become vindictive. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, tabled these proposals. I am glad that he did so. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 264BA and 264CA which remove the condition that the violence must be from a person residing in a dwelling. The two amendments stand in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who has referred to the unhappy position of someone fleeing from domestic violence. I too have known that a violent husband—it is often the husband—will continue to pursue his wife despite the separation. There have been some horrendous experiences in, for instance, women's refuges where a husband, unable to accept the fact of separation, has appeared and threatened violence and has been violent. That situation should be accepted in the drafting of the provision.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We fully accept the important role of the homelessness legislation in providing assistance for those fleeing domestic violence. When this Bill was considered in another place my then honourable friend, now my right honourable friend, the Minister for Housing accepted the proposition made by the honourable Member for Greenwich that perhaps the present provisions do not cater adequately for all circumstances as they relate only to violence within the home. He agreed to consider what more might be done to safeguard the interest of those women who are under threat of violence from a former partner no longer living there. Subsequently he wrote to the honourable Member for Greenwich confirming that we would be bringing forward amendments at a later stage to extend the domestic violence provisions so that a person would be regarded as homeless if he, or more usually she, were under threat of violence from a partner or former partner whether or not he was living at the same address.
I regret that owing to the changed timetable for the consideration of this part of the Bill we have not yet been able to table those amendments, but it remains our intention to do so. I imagine that means that we shall do so on Report. I hope that that explanation goes a long way to addressing the problems. However, it does not go the whole way in addressing the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She would like the provision to extend to any violence, whoever the perpetrator. I must say that I have some difficulty going that step further. If a person experiences violence or abuse outside the home there are many more remedies open to them, and to the authorities, to help deal with the problem than are available to someone experiencing domestic violence. Threatening behaviour and assault are already punishable offences under criminal law; if people are caught in the net they will be arrested. It would not be unreasonable to ask someone experiencing violence outside the home to pursue available legal remedies in the first instance.
The court will be able to attach a power of arrest to injunctions obtained by social landlords where there has been violence or threats of violence. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept my assurance that we shall address the central part of her concerns.
420
The amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, would have a different effect. The noble Earl is asking that the perpetrator of violence should be capable of being regarded as homeless and entitled to assistance under the legislation.
I cannot accept that. There are remedies in law for excluding a violent partner from the family home. In the absence of those, it would be open to the victim, or potential victim of violence, to flee the home, seeking assistance under the homelessness legislation initially and subsequently seeking to gain sole access to the property through the courts.
To give someone the right to be accommodated under this legislation if, of his own initiative, he offers violence would be a licence, if not an incitement, to commit acts of violence. That is not sensible and I do not believe it is what the noble Earl or the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, are seeking.
There may be circumstances in which someone suffers a real mental breakdown and needs to be removed from his home for both his own safety and that of others. In those circumstances, there may be a case for assisting him to find other accommodation. If he left the property voluntarily but in the interests of the safety of others, it may be that the local authority would take the view that he was not intentionally homeless and would therefore be willing to offer him assistance under the homelessness legislation.
I hope that the noble Earl will understand why I cannot feel able to accept the amendments, but I assure the Committee that I shall return to the issue of domestic violence on Report.
Earl Russell: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, as well as on my own behalf, I thank the Minister for the reply to my noble friend which I was very glad to hear.
However, the second part of my noble friend's amendment raises wider problems than those which we discussed. Those problems interact with those raised on the social protection amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, which was discussed last night. The Minister is quite right that there are all sorts of other ways in order to protect people. But as we discovered last night, they do not always work. There is a case for a fall-back which is worth further thought.
On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, which I moved, it is rather misleading to describe being forcibly excluded from one's home as an incitement to perform the act which led to it. The exclusion is a severe punishment but a right one. The Minister knows that; I need not repeat it. But once that is done, the person who has been excluded still exists. Being accommodated under the homelessness legislation is not so attractive that it is likely to be an incitement to anyone.

421
Since many women remain compassionate towards the men who have done these things, often unwisely compassionate, if there was some sort of place where those men could go rather than sleep on the streets, women might be more ready to employ the powers given to them under Section 4 of the Family Law Bill than they would otherwise be. Therefore, the system might work a good deal more effectively and humanely if that power were included in it. but I certainly shall not press the point this evening and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 264BA to 264D not moved.]
Clause 158 agreed to.
Clause 159 [Duty of local housing authority to provide advisory services]:
The Chairman of Committees: In calling this amendment, I must point out that if Amendment No. 264E is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 265.
[Amendment No. 264E not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 265 not moved.
Lord Swinfen: I would actually like to move Amendment No. 265 if I may, but I shall do it as briefly as possible.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 265:
Page 94, line 28, at end insert ("taking into account the particular needs of people with physical, mental and sensory disabilities").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is designed to ensure that the needs of disabled people are taken into account by local authorities when they secure that advice and information about homelessness are available to every person in their district.
Disabled people, including those with physical, mental or sensory disabilities, have a range of particular needs when seeking housing information and advice. The premises of agencies giving advice and the format in which advice is available must be accessible to disabled people. This not only means, for example, that office accommodation is wheelchair accessible but also that information is available in accessible formats for visually impaired people.
Many advice organisations, statutory and voluntary, are aware of these needs and cater for them in their provision. However, the inclusion of this amendment will make apparent the particular needs of disabled people and ensure that local authorities guarantee that all advice agencies make suitable arrangements. Housing advice is particularly important for disabled people because of the need for suitable housing related to their particular disability. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees: I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. He was sitting there most patiently, as always.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Swinfen seeks to
422
require local housing authorities, in providing advisory services on homelessness, to take into account the particular needs of people with physical, mental and sensory disabilities.
The new provisions requiring authorities to secure that advice is available are not intended to be unduly prescriptive. It will be for each authority to determine how best to fulfil this duty, and how best to take account of the special needs of any particular group of people. That includes the particular group my noble friend is concerned about. The Government would not wish to see further prescription on the face of the Bill, but, rather, intend to issue guidance on the provision of advisory services. This will enable a fuller explanation to be given to authorities of the particular needs of the various groups, and to direct authorities towards best practice for dealing with those needs effectively. I am sure that guidance is the more appropriate and flexible vehicle for tackling such issues. I hope that with that assurance and explanation of how we propose to deal with this issue my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: I thank my noble friend for his response to the amendment and will certainly withdraw it. I hope that the Disability Discrimination Act we have recently passed will help go a long way to satisfying my demands. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 265Z4 and 265ZB not moved.]
Clause 159 agreed to.
Clause 160 agreed to.
Clause 161 [Terms and conditions of assistance]:
[Amendments Nos. 265ZC and 265ZD not moved.]
Clause 161 agreed to.
Clause 162 agreed to.
Clause 163 [Application for assistance]:
[Amendment No. 265ZE not moved.]
Clause 163 agreed to.
Clause 164 [Inquiry into cases of homelessness or threatened homelessness]:
[Amendments Nos. 265ZF and 265G not moved.]
Clause 164 agreed to.
Clause 165 [Persons from abroad not eligible for-housing assistance]:
[Amendments Nos. 265ZH and 265A not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 265AA:
Page 96, line 35, at end insert—
("(1) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall render ineligible under this Part any claimant pursuing an appeal under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993.").
The noble Lord said: During debate on the amendment dealing with whether or not people had accommodation abroad, the Minister reassured the Committee by saying that if an asylum seeker had accommodation elsewhere but had fled for safety, the provisions of the Bill would cover his application. Yet Clause 165 denies that proposition. The amendment

423
seeks to ensure that any claimant who pursued an appeal under the Asylum and Immigration Bill would be eligible under this part.
I agree that the issue is a little narrower than the point made earlier by the Minister. However, the amendment deals with the difficulty that arises when a claim made by an asylum seeker has been turned down and, quite properly, the asylum seeker exercises his right to appeal against that decision. In a number of instances he will win his appeal. The difficulty is that there is a gap in terms of entitlement under a range of provisions between the Home Office turning down the application and a successful appeal. The period of the appeal process can be lengthy. The amendment ensures that during that period an asylum seeker would not lose his entitlement under this part of the Bill. We believe that that is natural justice; otherwise we deny people the right which they may win back if the appeal is successful. They may experience serious housing difficulties during what may be a lengthy period.
It is a difficulty which runs through the Government's proposals on asylum. However, it is in sharp relief in this provision. I assume that people would lose any accommodation that they might have obtained from the date that the Home Office informs them that the appeal has been unsuccessful. Presumably upon winning an appeal, those people will gain the accommodation back. The situation is confusing; it is unsatisfactory. The amendment would make the position clearer. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: The right to appeal against an unfavourable asylum decision is becoming a little like the proverbial right to have tea at the Ritz: everyone has the right to do so, and a great many people are unable to do so.
The difficulty in exercising legal rights is a constant phenomenon. We do not want to make it any worse than it is. If the right of appeal is to remain meaningful, the right to live somewhere while one exercises that appeal necessarily has to go with it.
It is a little difficult to serve papers in "cardboard city". Addresses within it are flexible. While the Minister admires flexibility in all sorts of places, I do not think that he takes his admiration quite that far.
Lord Hylton: I support the amendment. It seems quite wrong that a person should be consigned to a housing limbo, or possibly a housing hell, simply because he or she has exercised his or her right of appeal under asylum and immigration law.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Amendment No. 265AA, which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, moved—he did not speak to the other amendments grouped with it—would prevent persons who were appealing an adverse decision by the Home Office on their asylum claim from being prescribed in regulations as ineligible for assistance under Part VII.
424
Perhaps I may go back a step and remind the Committee of where the amendment arose. When people apply for asylum at the port of entry they are eligible for benefits. They are also eligible for consideration under the homelessness legislation. We got into difficulty earlier with that, but I am clear about it. Those people who apply in country are eligible neither for the benefits nor to be considered under the homelessness legislation. After some months—we hope fewer with each passing month—the Home Office makes a decision. If it is adverse—for example, in 1995 it was adverse in 79 cases out of 100—and does not grant refugee status or exceptional leave to remain, the next step for that person is to appeal.
I shall be quite open about it. I have already explained to the Committee that one of the problems is that it is a no-lose situation for the asylum seekers. Until recently, if they put in an appeal, they simply stayed on benefits and were considered under the homelessness legislation for as long as the appeal took. It could take quite a time, partly because of the considerable numbers we have experienced coming to the country, and also partly because in a number of cases the applicant was able to spin it out by asking for adjournments. So there was almost a perverse incentive for people to appeal and draw out the appeal because it enabled them to remain in the country with benefits.
The Government decided that, given the number of people who at the end of the appeal procedures are found still not to merit refugee status, we had to act against a clear abuse of the system. The outcome of the appeal procedures in 1995 was that only 3 per cent. were successful. Yet all the others could have eligibility to benefit.
In the Social Security (Persons From Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996 which your Lordships approved and which came into effect last February, the changes we made mean that asylum seekers who have received a negative decision on their asylum claim are not entitled to benefit. That includes housing benefit. It encompasses all those who appeal against the decision. As an aside and for clarity, asylum seekers who make their claim for asylum in-country rather than at the port on their arrival here are not entitled to housing benefit at all.
We are squaring the homelessness legislation with the decision that we have already taken in the social security legislation, in particular on the housing benefit system, where payments are not made during the course of an appeal. The amendment would mean that a person could, on appeal, continue to claim under the homelessness legislation and the local authority would be obliged to assist them. That would run contrary to the principles of the policy which we have brought in regarding entitlement not only to the benefit system but also to homelessness. For all the reasons I have argued in the Committee today and previously, we cannot move in that direction.
I am asked by the noble Earl, as I have been asked on a number of occasions, "What happens to people in those circumstances?". My answer remains the same. They are in no different position than they have been in

425
until now when after some time their appeal was turned down, as it was in the vast majority of cases. They are no longer eligible for any of the benefits or for consideration under the homelessness legislation. It may well advance that day, but it does not change the arithmetic to any great extent. The majority currently are left at the end of the appeal process in exactly the same position as the noble Earl described. As I have argued before, I believe that by taking this step we will concentrate the minds of people who appeal. We will remove the perverse incentive to appeal. We hope we will then be able to deal with backlogs and process applications and appeals much more quickly than we have been able as the numbers have built up over the past decade. So while I understand the noble Earl's point, I believe the position that the Government have taken is entirely consistent and logical and accords with the figures that we have seen over the past few years.
10.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am sorry; I am afraid that the Minister's reply to my argument is not true. These people are not in the same position as those whose appeal has been taken through a hearing and they have lost. The difference is that these people, if they are destitute—as they normally are by this time—cannot leave the country as they do not have the means to do so; whereas people whose appeals have failed can leave the country at Her Majesty's expense or, I believe, sometimes at the expense of British Airways. They can be deported. But we are dealing here with people who cannot be deported; they do not have the means to leave the country; and, because they are trapped in this country, any support they may get will be in this country.
Can the Minister show me anything in his proposals as he advances them which discriminates between those whose appeals are found to be justified and those whose appeals are not found to be justified? I do not quite see how he could do that, because we do not know until the hearing takes place whose appeals will succeed and whose will not.
I was brought up in the belief that it is better for 99 guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be condemned. I know that nowadays that is regarded as an old-fashioned view, but I afraid that I still hold to it. The requirements of justice demand it. That principle applies equally to those who are seeking asylum and have appealed against a refusal.
If anyone else were to introduce restrictions on the judicial process quite this sweeping, Ministers might possibly consider accusing them of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. I do not intend to do that. However, I do believe that this measure is a very severe hindrance to the course of justice. The Minister has made out no case for it, except one that rests on a presumption which in some cases is certain to be false; and he has no idea in how many cases it will be false, or indeed in which cases it will be false. The logic of that position is very poor indeed.
Lord Dubs: I wish to make two points in relation to the Minister's remarks. First, whatever the argument about the number who will, or will not, win an appeal—I concede that at present the majority do not—the fact is that the justice of an appeals system is denied. If people are unable to function, if they have nowhere to live while awaiting an appeal, then it may be very difficult for them to stay in this country and exercise their right of appeal.
As the noble Earl said, there are wider issues at stake than simply the technical point made by the Minister that people are using the time it takes to reach appeal as a way of staying here. The implication is that some appeals have not been very well founded.
Justice has its price. The price of justice is surely protection of the rights of all individuals so that those who will win an appeal are not penalised because of others whom the Minister says should not have their rights while waiting for the appeal date.
My second point concerns the number of people who will be affected. I am trying to remember some of the details of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, with which the Minister will be as familiar as anybody. It contains changes to the appeals system as a result of which fewer people will be allowed to exercise an in-country right of appeal than would have been able to do so. The Minister's argument loses some of its force if the Asylum and Immigration Bill goes through in its present form. Therefore the rights of justice would seem to me to loom larger than they might otherwise have done.
The Minister's position is not very convincing. I wonder whether he would care to comment on the fact that the effect of the Asylum and Immigration Bill will be to reduce the number of people who can give effect to a right of appeal in this country and therefore he need not be so worried as he said he was about people who might be abusing the system in his terms.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am having some difficulty at the moment in running two Bills at the same time. I am afraid that I cannot immediately give the noble Lord an answer to the particular point he raised at the end of his remarks. It is certainly true that anyone who appeals in country for asylum does not receive any benefit and is not eligible to be considered under the homelessness legislation. They are still considered by the Home Office for eligibility for asylum or exceptional leave to remain. Certainly, if they are refused, they are able to appeal, although they still do not get onto the benefit system. Perhaps the noble Lord is thinking of the fast tracking system. That is what I jotted down. To be honest with the noble Lord and the Committee, I cannot just recall the appeal procedure on the fast track, and so I cannot confirm or deny what he said.
I was beginning to wonder whether the lateness of the hour was affecting the noble Earl when he asked how I could tell who was going to be successful and who was not. I then realised that he asked the question in order to answer it himself; the answer being, of course, that I could not tell. That is true. If we could

427
tell, we should have been able to make a much finer judgment on the whole question of asylum seekers and their continuing right after they had been turned down by the Home Office for the first time. Would that there were a method by which we could look into the future and foretell the outcome of their appeal! But there is not. I do not feel that it is a question of guilt or innocence. It is simply a matter of whether or not the person satisfies the various international legal definitions which give them the right to be considered as asylum seekers or give them exceptional leave to remain in this country. I do not believe that it is quite comparable to the law.
Moreover, it means that people from abroad—asylum seekers—are put on all fours with ordinary citizens of the United Kingdom who wish to appeal against a decision on benefit. As Members of the Committee will know, during the course of that appeal UK citizens whose application for benefit has been turned down do not get benefits. So, in fact, persons from abroad seeking asylum to that extent are on all fours with United Kingdom citizens lodging benefit appeals.
I know that both noble Lords who have spoken do not agree with me on that point. We have been over it a number of times and I have tried to explain the logic of the Government's position, which I believe is well founded. If we could only get the numbers down and begin to clear cases much more quickly than we are able to do, with the very considerable numbers who have been coming over the past few years, we should be able to make much more rapid decisions.
Earlier today, one noble Lord pointed out, in response to a suggestion that people could disperse themselves around the UK, that people from abroad—asylum seekers—by and large want to live in that area of the country (usually in the city) where their compatriots have settled and will be around them. It seems to me that in the majority of cases it is to those compatriots that people can and do look for sustenance during the course of their appeal and indeed during the course of their original application if they apply in country.
Earl Russell: At this time of the night it was a little perverse of the Minister to tempt me and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, into the byway of discussing the way appeals against refusal of benefit are treated in this country. I shall resist that temptation.
I am grateful to the Minister for his admission that he cannot know whose appeals are going to succeed. In making that admission, he admitted that he is going to do injustice to genuine claimants. Having made that admission, he should withdraw the Government's proposal.
Lord Dubs: I do not find the Government's argument to be in any way persuasive—not because he is not totally familiar with the details of the legislation (I am sure none of us are on top of the
428
details of that), but in terms of the principles the amendment seeks to address. But perhaps I can make one brief point.
It is not good enough to say that because refugees and asylum seekers coming here are supported in many instances by refugee community organisations, those organisations can look after the consequences of people who have nowhere to live because of the Government's measures. With the best will in the world, refugee community organisations are poor. They provide valuable work for asylum seekers and refugees and valuable support in a cultural, linguistic and religious sense. They do not normally have the resources with which to house people and it is disingenuous of the Minister to suggest that. He is not to be persuaded. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 265AB to 265ZBA not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 265BA:
Page 96, line 39, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Earl said: This amendment proposes to delete from the Bill the condition which ties entitlement to help with homelessness to the housing benefit regulations. At the same time I should like to speak to Amendment No. 265BB grouped with it, which states:
"The regulations shall not apply to a person who is not unlawfully in the United Kingdom".
That seems to me to be the nub of the whole issue. If people are entitled to be here, then they are entitled to help. Indeed, one might say that if they have to be here, they are entitled to help.
It does not make sense to let people come here and then make them starve when they have got here. I simply cannot understand why the Government think that those are consistent things to do. Or at least I can understand it: they cannot deny those people the right to come here because they are bound by international law; but they believe, quite possibly wrongly, that they are not bound by international law to afford them any social protection when they come here. That will become a matter of a great variety of cases in a great variety of international tribunals, and the Government may well lose some of them.
I really must say that of all the things British governments have done in my lifetime, I cannot remember any which have made me quite so ashamed of my country as this has done. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may first apologise to the noble Earl. I tempted him into thinking that he had to deal with Amendment No. 265B because I had it mixed up in my notes with the two amendments to which he has just spoken.
We have already gone over a good deal of this territory. The main purpose of the provisions on eligibility for assistance under Part VII is to enable

429
entitlement to assistance under the homelessness legislation to be aligned with entitlement to housing benefit.
Since 1994, under social security regulations, certain categories of person from abroad have not been entitled to housing benefit. The descriptions of person that the Government intend to prescribe in the regulations under Clause 165 as being ineligible for assistance under Part VII will be precisely the categories of person who have no entitlement to housing benefit. In other words, we are aligning the two descriptions—the homelessness description with the housing benefit description.
Broadly, these are: first, a person who requires leave to enter or remain in the UK under the Immigration Act 1971, and who is: an illegal entrant, an overstayer or a person given temporary admission; or a person who sought asylum after entering the United Kingdom (except where an asylum claim is made within three months of a declaration by the Secretary of State that his country of origin has undergone an upheaval) and who has no other leave to remain in this country; or a person whose claim for asylum has received an adverse decision by the Home Office—we have already discussed that case—or a visitor, student or other person given limited leave to enter or remain on the basis that he could support and accommodate himself without recourse to public funds; or the subject of a sponsorship agreement made within the previous five years, and whose sponsor is still alive; secondly, a person from abroad who fails a test of habitual residence in the UK; and, lastly, a person who is a citizen of a member country of the European Economic Area, and who is in breach of a European Community right of residence directive.
Those are the categories we propose to deal with in the regulations. It is important that entitlement to homelessness assistance and entitlement to housing benefit are in alignment, not least because of the implications for housing authorities' costs if they are not. To secure that aim we need the very provision that the noble Earl would in a rather narrow way attempt to remove. Amendment No. 265BA removes a secondary, but nevertheless important, provision which allows the regulations to make reference to the housing benefit regulations.
We have been over this ground today on a number of occasions. I rather fear that the noble Earl and I will not persuade each other. I have explained why we believe the entitlements ought to be aligned and I have given a very clear description of the categories we intend to bring within the scope of this part of the Bill. While I do not expect my arguments to win over the noble Earl, I hope he will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hylton: I should like to invite the Minister to reflect between now and the next stage of this Bill or between now and the appropriate stage of the asylum Bill on the situation of those people who come to this country with the intention of claiming asylum but who fail to do so at the port of entry. There are
430
many good reasons why they should fail to do so. For example, they may be in total ignorance of British asylum law; they may lack any command of the English language; or there may be no interpreters at the port of entry at the time they arrive. Those are the kind of reasons why people sometimes fail to make their application at the point at which they are supposed to make it. Many of them then go on to apply for asylum within a reasonable period after arrival.
Earl Russell: In trying to persuade me that I should follow the example of the housing benefit regulations, the Minister is trying to convince me that two wrongs make a right. I am not persuaded of that. I say one thing more to him. He occasionally reproves me for raising arguments about powers by saying, "No British government would ever do this." He is here doing something which, as recently as two years' ago, I believed, with the greatest confidence, no British government would ever do.
The most improbable examples I use in that area seem to me no more improbable than this seemed to me only very recently. I do not expect that I am going to persuade the Minister any more than he expects to persuade me. Since this seems the wrong time of night to have recourse to the Division Lobby, there is nothing else I can do but to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 265BB not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 265BC:
Page 96, line 42, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Earl said: This amendment deals with the position of spouses of asylum seekers. It is quite familiar ground that under the 1977 legislation single people do not enjoy a claim to priority homelessness. Clause 165(4) states that,
"no account shall be taken of any other person… [who] resides…if that other person is a person from abroad who is ineligible for housing assistance".
In other words, if one marries an asylum seeker one is treated as being single. I do not usually spend a great deal of eloquence on the defence of the family, but I believe that people who want to live in families should be allowed to do so without wanton attempts by the state to prevent them.
People who wish to marry asylum seekers, as they do from day to day, should have just the same rights to be able to have a family, live at peace with it, and enjoy the protection of the state, as any others. By making spousal contact with an asylum seeker an infectious condition like a kind of plague so that it puts one out of the protection of the state the Minister is doing something which has racial connotations which I find extremely unsavoury. I am sure that that was not the intention. I am sure that it was the usual Treasury intention which simply does not take into consideration these categories at all. But that is the

431
effect of what the Government are doing. It is an outrageous proposal and I hope that they will consider withdrawing it. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The amendment would remove Clause 165(4) which ensures that, in assessing homelessness applications, authorities cannot take account of a person who normally resides with the applicant if that person is someone from abroad who is not eligible for assistance under Part VII. If my memory serves me rightly, we discussed the matter this afternoon, which is rather a long time ago. The circumstances are the same here as they were then as regards eligibility for the housing list.
Clause 165(4) is an important provision. A large proportion of homelessness applicants do have dependants. In their own right, these people do not have a priority need for accommodation. That is conferred upon them and their application by the presence of those dependants.
Our policy on eligibility for assistance under Part VII is clear. I have already explained it. Persons from abroad who are not entitled to housing benefit should not be entitled to homelessness assistance. That must apply equally to people who are the dependants of others. If the question of whether there is a priority need turns on the presence of a dependant who is not eligible, then it is logical that a duty should not be owed in those circumstances. I hope that I have made the position clear. I appreciate that it is yet another message that the noble Earl is not going to agree with, but I do not believe that he will be surprised. He may not have heard me earlier today on the subject because I believe I spoke to it before the noble Earl joined the Committee. He will not be surprised because of the nature of my other defences on the matter.
Earl Russell: I fear that the Minister has made the position clear. He has made it clear that asylum seekers are unclean and that one should not associate with them. That is the only way in which I can read what he says. Before we leave the subject, I ask him to give some thought as to whether his proposals infringe Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees a right to privacy and to family life. It seems to me that a British subject who marries an asylum seeker is not in any way less entitled to the protection of that convention than somebody who marries another British subject or, indeed, an Australian, an American or whatever. It is a loss of the right to family life if one loses the protection of the homelessness legislation for marrying one person and not another.
I know that there are certain people within Her Majesty's Government who are becoming increasingly allergic to the European Convention on Human Rights, but this country, under a Conservative Government, did choose to enter and to ratify that convention. I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in this Chamber explain that he was in part responsible for the drafting of that convention. The noble Lord, for whom I have the greatest respect, is not the sort of
432
person Conservatives usually regard as a dangerous ideological foreigner, and what he regarded as fundamental rights I think are rights that we should take extremely seriously.
I am sure that the Minister will reply that the Government are confident that this interpretation is not true. I am no lawyer, and I am not certain, but when the Government say that they are confident we often find that that confidence is misplaced. Sooner or later this will go to court and one hopes that rather more attention will be paid to the court than is being paid to the arguments that we make here tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 165 agreed to.
Clause 166 [Asylum-seekers and their dependants]:
[Amendment No. 265BD not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 265BE:
Page 97, line 15, at end insert ("and
(c) for the purposes of this subsection, a person's claim shall be treated as being finally determined where he is granted a period of exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to clarify the question of what is the final determination of an asylum claim within Clause 166(2)(b). That provides that a person ceases to be an asylum seeker and therefore ceases to be subject to the disadvantages and disbenefits imposed by the provisions at the time the claim is recorded as having been finally determined or abandoned.
Many asylum seekers are granted exceptional leave to remain, even if they do not achieve full refugee status. Other noble Lords will know the effect of that better than I, but I should like to know the position of those who have been granted exceptional leave to remain although that leave is limited in time—at any rate, initially; it may be extended or become indefinite. If a decision has been made to allow somebody to remain in the UK without restrictions on working or having recourse to public funds, it seems appropriate that that person should not be subject to the effects of Clause 166. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Clause 166, among other things, specifies when a person becomes, and ceases to be, an asylum seeker. Clause 166(2)(b) provides that a person ceases to be an asylum seeker when his claim for asylum has been finally determined (or abandoned). Amendment No. 265BE seeks to define "finally determined" as being the point where the asylum seeker is granted a period of exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom.
As such, I suspect that this amendment is, if not technically defective, then inaccurate. I understand that a person's claim to asylum is not necessarily finally determined at the point where he is granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom, since it is open to him at that point to appeal against the decision not to grant him refugee status. Most asylum claims—currently over 80 per. cent.—are

433
unsuccessful. Those include exceptional leave to remain cases. Of the remaining 17 per. cent. or so, the majority are exceptional leave to remain cases. I believe that the amendment of the noble Baroness goes a little further than we would and almost implies that if an individual gains exceptional leave to remain he is not allowed to appeal. I know that that is not what the noble Baroness intends.
One of the important things that Clause 166 provides is a mechanism which enables the Home Office to notify local authorities when the asylum claim of a homeless applicant has been finally determined. The authority needs this information to determine what homelessness duty, if any, is owed to the person at that point. It is necessary, therefore, to have a definite point at which asylum claims are considered to be finally determined. In a practical sense this has to be the point at which all avenues of possible appeal have been exhausted. The amendment does not provide for this. Those people who are given exceptional leave to remain, as well as asylum seekers, are eligible for benefit and consideration under the homelessness legislation. I was not entirely sure whether the noble Baroness was casting doubt on that. I am happy to clarify it.
Since in most cases the final determination of an asylum claim does not result in the grant of exceptional leave to remain, I do not think that this amendment is a practical option. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw it. I do not believe that the noble Baroness spoke to Amendment No.265BF, and I shall rest my argument at this point.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I did not seek to suggest that a person who was granted exceptional leave to remain had his further rights of appeal restricted by the amendment. I do not believe that that is what this amendment does. The amendment states,
"for the purposes of this subsection".
That would not be the only occasion on which there was a notional assumption of a situation to deal with the subject matter of the clause. It has nothing to do with whether or not the asylum seeker can continue with appeals under separate legislation. My point is restricted entirely to that person's position with regard to the homelessness legislation.
The Minister gave a quick assurance. Perhaps I should read it in the Official Report. I do not know whether he can add to it this evening now that I have perhaps explained the amendment a little more fully.
Lord Dubs: I should like to follow that line of argument. I hope that I do not repeat the question posed by the noble Baroness. With regard to Clause 166(5), it provides that the Secretary of State may give information to the local authority in order that it can carry out its functions under this part of the Bill. That information is related to whether or not the person has become an asylum seeker. Surely if an individual has been given exceptional leave to remain, the fact that he or she is entitled to certain housing
434
services is made more definite. Although at that stage the individual may still have a right of appeal in order to attain asylum status, surely the local authority will benefit from knowing that the person has been given ELR, because that means that its obligations to the individual are quite clear.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It may be that we are getting into a bit of a pickle. If that is my fault, I apologise. Clause 166 provides a mechanism which enables the Home Office to notify a local authority when the asylum claim of a homelessness applicant has been finally determined. Clearly when the Home Office has come to a view it will have decided either that the individual is eligible for asylum and is granted asylum or— I am not sure whether I should use "either/or" because I think that there are three possibilities: the person is granted asylum, is given exceptional leave to remain, or neither. The application has been rejected and the individual has not fallen into exceptional leave to remain. It is clearly right that the authority needs that information. That is what the clause does: it gives the Home Office the power to give that information.
I believe that we are all clear about the person granted asylum. The person granted exceptional leave to remain has also ceased to be an asylum seeker. That is the problem. He has ceased to be an asylum seeker, although he could still appeal. I think that is where my confusion has arisen. He has ceased to be an asylum seeker; he has become someone with exceptional leave to remain, and as such he has full rights.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 265BF not moved.]
Clause 166 agreed to.
Clause 167 [Interim duty to accommodate in case of apparent priority need]:
[Amendment No. 265BG not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 265BH:
Page 98, line 10, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) Irrespective of the applicant's request for a review, the duty of an authority shall cease upon written notification to the applicant, which notification shall contain reasons for the termination of the duty and shall inform the applicant of his right to request a review of that decision (see section 181)").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 265BL. Amendment No. 268ZAC is grouped with these amendments, and I leave it to others who may be able to find it to decide whether to speak to it.
Amendments Nos. 265BH and 265BL return to the subject of information in the context of a review. I hope that the Minister can give further assurances. The first amendment relates to the written notice provision and is designed to ensure that an applicant is informed fully of his rights to a review at an early

435
stage and, as a practical matter, in the hope that it will avoid unnecessary delay in making an application if an applicant is ignorant of his rights in that respect.
My second amendment is intended to ensure that a homeless person refused temporary accommodation is notified formally of the refusal and of the reasons for it. It is a matter of natural justice to which the Committee has been referred earlier, and again a matter of practical importance, reinforcing the duty of local authorities to deal with it in a correct manner and to account for the process by which they have arrived at an unfavourable decision. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I appreciate the noble Baroness's concern that an authority should be required to give written notification of its decision not to accept a duty to accommodate under the homelessness legislation. The homelessness duty is an important one, and a person refused that duty is entitled to know the full reasons for this, so that if he is unhappy with it he can seek redress through a review under Clause 181.
That is why we have provided in Clause 164 that written notice is given of the outcome of inquiries under this part. These provisions substantially repeat what is currently in Section 64 of the Housing Act 1985. They require an authority to give its reasons in writing. If the noble Baroness looks at Clause 164 I hope that she will see that what she is seeking in Amendment No. 265BH is contained in Clause 164(3) and (6) which provides:
"Notice required to be given to a person under this section shall be given in writing".
I hope that answers that point.
With Amendment No. 265BL the noble Baroness is seeking to require authorities to give written notice of reasons for refusing the interim duty. I question whether that is necessary or indeed practicable. Local authorities are approached by a range of people seeking assistance with their housing problems, many of whom are not homeless within the meaning of the legislation and some of whom, although they may pass the test of homelessness, are certainly not owed a duty. It would be unreasonable for a local authority to be required to give a written response with reasons to each and every inquiry it receives, however casual.
Local authorities take their duties under homelessness legislation very seriously. They consider each case on its merits. The disposition of the law is to require them to consider all applications and, where necessary, to provide interim accommodation where they have reason to believe that someone may be owed a duty. So the balance of advantage already rests with the applicant. The code of guidance stresses the need to consider all applications fully and we will maintain this advice when we issue a new edition. It would be unrealistic to require authorities to go further. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I remain a little concerned about the second point. It is dangerous to suggest that,
436
in an area as fundamental to people's well being as this, notice in writing should not be required. I should have thought that any sensible local authority would keep proper file notes of what it is doing and what its responses to any application for housing have been. If it does that, it is only a small further step to giving the notice in writing. If it is not given in writing, there is an awful temptation for people to behave rather carelessly. However, I think that it is rather late to pursue the matter now. I thank the Minister for both those replies. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 265BJ:
Page 98, line 10, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("( ) The authority shall continue to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation pending a decision on a review.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment concerns the provision of accommodation pending a review. We know that the local authority has an interim duty to provide temporary accommodation for people in priority need while it considers whether people come within the remit of the Act and of local connection. If it decides that it does not have such a duty, the Government have sensibly agreed that the applicant should have the right of review.
This amendment does something very simple. It provides that the applicant should continue to stay in the interim accommodation while the review is being conducted and not be evicted, even though it is quite possible that the review may subsequently be found in his favour and he be reinstated again. We do not expect review cases to occur that frequently. But if they do, as a result of the amendment, the local authority will have to ensure that the proceedings take place as quickly as possible. However, a right of review is meaningless if, while that right of review is being considered or while the review is taking place, the applicant has been evicted from the accommodation he was in temporarily. If he has family or friend to go to, he will be fine. But if he has not, he may be in real difficulties. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Local authorities are generally very assiduous about the way in which they assess an application for assistance under the homelessness legislation. However, we see the new review procedure as an important safeguard for the rights of the applicant and we wish to see it as open as possible so that the aggrieved applicant can access it without specialist or professional help. We want authorities to conduct reviews as speedily as possible and we will be issuing guidance of the target times they might wish to set themselves for the turnround of appeals, although in many cases it will be several weeks before this can be arranged.
Nevertheless, given this situation, the amendment appears to be an invitation to anyone who is refused assistance by the authority to put in an appeal on wholly unmeritorious grounds with the sole objective of requiring the authority to accommodate him for a few more weeks pending the resolution of his appeal.

437
We have been over this ground of general principle once or twice this evening. Therefore, it will not come as a surprise to the noble Baroness that I am attempting to continue what I consider my logic, and what no doubt the noble Baroness considers my lack of logic, in relation to this appeals situation.
The existence of a continuing entitlement to benefit would, we fear, merely encourage appeals without foundation. Therefore, we prefer to follow the model which is applied to social security appeals where entitlement to benefit is withheld pending the outcome of an appeal which has been made against a decision to suspend benefit.
The authority has a discretion to continue to provide interim accommodation where it feels that that is appropriate. I believe that that should be a sufficient protection for somebody in a difficult position. That is a small chink in the otherwise impenetrable logic which I am attempting to throw up in regard to the way in which we treat social security appeals across the field. We do not believe that it would be right to do as the noble Baroness suggests, but I point out that the interim accommodation procedure exists if the local authority feels that that is appropriate.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am now left utterly confused by the Minister's reply because he was moving between this procedure, which is not a social security procedure, and social security procedure.
Let us go back to where we were. I am seeking to say that it may take a few weeks for a local authority to decide whether a person who is currently enjoying interim accommodation is unintentionally homeless, in priority need and has a local connection. During that time the person is in interim accommodation. A decision may then be reached that the person does not fall into one of those categories. The individual may then appeal against that decision. Do I understand the Minister to say that a local authority has a discretion to continue to extend the period of interim accommodation while the appeal is being heard?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I said that the authority has a discretion to provide interim accommodation where it feels that that is appropriate. Of course, the person appealing may still be in the original premises because a decision could have been made by the authority before the person has left the premises which he knows he will have to leave. As I suggested earlier, that decision is usually made in advance of the person leaving. In those circumstances, the person may not yet have left before the decision was reached. I should not like the Committee to think that in every circumstance the person will be in interim accommodation using the interim powers. However, if it helps the noble Baroness, I am prepared to underline the fact that the authority has a discretion to provide interim accommodation where it feels that that is appropriate.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Does it extend also to the situation in which somebody is appealing in a
438
shorthold tenancy, for example, and between the local authority refusing and the appeal being heard, that interim duty may then newly come into play?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: In the circumstances which the noble Baroness has postulated, that the person is in accommodation but loses it, during the course of the appeal the authority has a discretion to provide interim accommodation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I believe that this matter can be dealt with in guidance in due course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 265BK:
Page 98, line 15, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Baroness said: To some extent, this is a linked amendment but again I shall try to be brief. For someone who is homeless and in priority need the local authority has a duty to provide temporary or emergency accommodation pending full inquiries into the case. But we are not now talking about the acceptance of a duty but rather the interim period during which a local authority determines whether or not a duty exists under the legislation in terms of someone being unintentionally homeless, in priority need and having a local connection.
I am concerned that the Government are steering local authorities into using suitable alternative rented private accommodation for the discharge of that interim duty. What I fear is that if local authorities send an applicant into private rented accommodation for the interim period while they make inquiries, those inquiries will not necessarily be made. They will regard themselves as having discharged their duty by putting someone into interim accommodation, however inadequate that may be.
While we are worried about this—it is too late at night to begin a full-scale debate on the adequacy or otherwise of the private rented sector to meet the homelessness duties of a local authority—nonetheless it is the case that, first, private rented landlords are fairly reluctant to let to families in these situations, particularly for a short and interim period which may last for only a few weeks. Secondly, evictions from the private rented sector are one of the most significant causes of homelessness. Anywhere between 15 and 30 per cent. of people coming into the homelessness group of the local authorities I have looked at have come out of that same private rented sector the Government are busy sending them back into.
Obviously circumstances differ, but I worry that the Government are expecting or encouraging local authorities to think they have discharged their interim duty by providing a list of addresses for someone who is going back into private rented accommodation. As a result, there will be no full review of that person's need for temporary accommodation other than keeping him in the interim accommodation he currently occupies. As I say, being the private rented sector,

439
that may well be entirely inadequate, particularly if he has problems of physical disability; if the house itself is not in a good condition; and if he has problems continuing to pay the rent for it. In the private rented sector—unlike the council house sector—rents are often not met fully by housing benefit. Will the Minister give us some help on this issue and not allow local authorities to avoid taking seriously a temporary duty by fobbing people off with inadequate private rented accommodation in order to meet their interim duty? I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As the noble Baroness explained, the amendment would remove the "alternative accommodation" provision in respect of the interim duty to accommodate pending inquiries. It would not seem logical to require an authority to accommodate someone itself on an interim basis when there might be a ready supply of accommodation available in the private sector. In accommodating applicants while an application is investigated local authorities may need to find accommodation quickly in an emergency and so make use of different types of accommodation. We would not necessarily regard bed and breakfast hotels as suitable interim accommodation for families except for the first few nights following a crisis, but in some cases such accommodation will offer a suitable interim solution.
Interim accommodation is generally not in use for very long. Local authorities are advised in the homelessness code of guidance that they should regard 30 working days as the maximum limit for completing their inquiries, except in exceptional cases, from the time they accept a duty. Recent research commissioned by the Department of the Environment-evaluation of the 1991 homelessness code of guidance—shows that on average authorities take 17 days to complete their inquiries. As we intend that revised guidance would continue to offer similar advice to authorities, I hope that the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.
As regards the kind of accommodation, interim accommodation must be suitable. We have discussed that situation with reference to other accommodation. I am trying to find my way through the main reasons for homelessness in the fourth quarter of 1995. I think I am right in saying that the end or loss of tenancy constitutes 21 per cent. of those reasons. Therefore I do not think it is quite the biggest factor, as I believe the noble Baroness suggested when she indicated that the loss of tenancy in the private sector was the biggest problem—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: One of the biggest problems.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not know whether 20 per cent. constitutes one of the biggest problems. In fact none of the categories is huge, so I suppose it is one of the biggest problems, even at 21 per cent. I am thinking on my feet. I shall not argue with the noble Baroness on that count.
440
I hope that what I have said about the need for the accommodation to be suitable and the way in which we hope and intend that the guidance will act will allay the noble Baroness's worries in this regard and show her that it would not be wise to remove the alternative accommodation provision.
Earl Russell: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do with the amendment, perhaps I may ask the Minister to clarify one point.
When he talks about housing being available, what does he mean by "available"? Does he simply mean that the housing exists; or does he mean that it is housing that the person could reasonably be expected to afford?
Perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive me for taking an example that she has already used this evening. A couple cannot find a one-bedroomed flat on the market. Are they expected to take a two-bedroomed flat which is available even though housing benefit does not cover all the costs? Would such a flat be regarded as available within the meaning that the Minister used?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am in some difficulty in that these are details which will be in a code of guidance which will be fairly detailed. I think not, although I should need to study the question and look for the answer in a more detailed way, if the noble Earl does not mind.
The important point is that we are talking about interim accommodation. I mentioned earlier that authorities have a reasonably good success rate in managing to keep people in their existing accommodation while the problem of finding them alternative accommodation for up to two years is resolved. That is one way in which the authorities can deal with the interim position. They can find a way to negotiate or help tenants to stay in their existing houses rather than have them face the rather graphic situation which was referred to earlier of being absolutely roofless as well as homeless.
If the noble Earl does not mind, I shall examine the question and perhaps write to him about it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Judgment on whether accommodation is suitable can be made only after inquiries have been completed. Yet that judgment is having to be made before the inquiries are completed by the local authority.
If one considers Clause 167 in the context of Clause 168, the interim duty is not the same as for those on the housing waiting list. The local authority has a duty to ensure that interim accommodation is available where someone is homeless—it is virtually the only place in the Bill where the word "homeless" is used—eligible for assistance and has a priority need. The priority need categories are,
"a pregnant woman…a person with whom dependent children reside or might reasonably be expected to reside; a person who is vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability … or threatened with homelessness as a result of an emergency".

441
Almost all those categories in a more general sense are people with special needs. They are people for whom standard private sector accommodation is not available. Often it is exactly the type of accommodation from which they have come.
The Minister was not sure whether 21 per cent. was a particularly high figure. I suspect that if he checks the national figures he will find that eviction from the private rented sector is only surpassed as a reason for homelessness by a breakdown in relationship either with family or husband. Those are followed by mortgage repossessions and rent arrears, and one goes on down the list. I am reasonably confident that in all the local authorities I have studied eviction from the private rented sector is usually (although not invariably) not due to rent arrears. One of the largest single explanations for homelessness is that the accommodation is unsuitable for that person's physical condition as listed under priority needs. In the off-the cuff, immediate judgment, the local authority may believe that people come within the category of need. It will have to review the decision and make final inquiries in particular about the local connection. The Minister says that none the less such people must either stay put or go back into the local private rented sector, even though it may have thrown them into the condition of threatened homelessness and the private rented sector is largely unsuitable for the categories of people in priority need as defined in Clause 168.
Given that there is a presumption that by going into interim accommodation such people will go on to enjoy temporary housing, it seems to me that it would be prudent, wise, sensible and humane for the local authority to ensure that the accommodation is available pending the review. Can the Minister help us further?
11.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure what I am being invited to explore. The local authority does not have a pool of houses available somewhere which it can promptly use for someone who is homeless. Therefore, there is an effort to match the best possible situation for the interim. I am sure that that is what the authority will do. It will have to do the best it can. No one in their right mind could expect the authority to have available every possible variation in housing that may be required by someone who may become homeless. The authority will have to try to ensure that it is suitable and, I add, the best match it can make in the circumstances. After all, it is a temporary and interim position while the authority examines the case. If it finds that the case is genuine and falls to be considered under the homelessness legislation, it will go on to find more suitable accommodation. If the authority's inquiries show that the needs of the people involved are such that the accommodation found is unsuitable, then it must find new accommodation.
The matter cannot be too easily resolved because it is not an event that is easy to plan for. Local authorities will have to try to do the best they can in
442
the interim arrangements to match the family situation of the person with the best accommodation it can find to solve the interim problem. That includes trying to keep people in their existing accommodation until the situation has been resolved.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In that case, we will look to the Minister at Report stage for amendments which will put a duty on the local authority making available interim accommodation to ensure that it is suitable. "Suitable" should mean that it is both appropriate and affordable, following the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Further, it should be made clear that local authorities will not have discharged their duties to provide temporary housing under the homelessness procedures by finding a family interim accommodation and then saying that, because it is in that accommodation, the accommodation is appropriate and that discharges or relieves the local authority from all further duties.
The Minister gave us comfort in the thought that he would support the position. In that expectation, I am sure that we shall re-visit the issue at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 265BL not moved.]
Clause 167 agreed to.
Clause 168 [Priority need for accommodation]:
[Amendments Nos. 265BM to 265D not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 265E:
Page 98, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) a person who is fleeing violence or harassment").
The noble Lord said: Clause 168 indicates the categories that have priority need for accommodation under the interim duty to accommodate. The purpose of this amendment is to add one other group; namely, those fleeing violence or harassment.
In the experience of local authorities some of the instances of threatened violence or harassment involve racial harassment: members of minority ethnic groups find themselves under serious pressure and are, as it were, coerced into leaving their homes. The point of the amendment is to ensure that a local authority would identify victims of that sort of coercion or racial harassment as having a priority need for accommodation.
It is a simple proposition. The facts are well known. Sadly, there are members of minority ethnic groups who are the subject of this type of pressure. Those who suffer in this way have a very unpleasant time and it is understandable that such families feel that they have to leave their homes. They then find themselves homeless. If a local authority is able to assess them as being in priority need of accommodation based on the point in this amendment, the local authority could act more quickly to provide them with interim accommodation. The case is a very simple one. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: This is an important amendment. The reason for spelling out these two categories is that

443
they are both ones which local authorities from time to time ignore. Because such matters are extremely unpleasant, many of us do not like thinking about them, and do not like admitting that they exist. Therefore we tend to hide our heads in the sand and pretend that we do not have to do anything about them. A specific statutory requirement, certainly to my knowledge in the case of domestic violence and, I believe, in the racial case as well, is worth including.
Before we leave tonight's business, I wish to congratulate the Minister on the courtesy, good nature and patience that he has shown in handling business which has occasionally been quite contentious. I can say no more than that he is beginning to approach the standard set by his noble and learned clansman on the Woolsack.
Lord Hylton: It has been established that there is a considerable volume of racial violence and harassment which bears directly on housing and which tends to produce homelessness. Will the Minister tell the Committee what is being done to try to prevent that before it happens, or after the first symptoms have manifested themselves and before it has reached the point of producing homelessness? I think everybody, inside and outside Parliament, wants to avoid ethnic clearance in this country, even if it has not always been possible to avoid it in other countries.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: First, I thank the noble Earl for his kind remarks. I like to think that we all manage to conduct the sometimes very contentious legislation that I seem to take through this place in a civilised way. While arguments are undoubtedly deeply felt, I do not believe that we lose tempers as in the other place. That is only right and proper when considering such serious matters. Comparing me to my noble and learned clansman is indeed a high honour.
Turning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I hope he does not mind if I do not follow him too far down that track. He has opened up a debate that is rather wide of the clause. It takes us into a great many other aspects of how social services work, how the police operate, and so on, in cases of domestic violence. If I had the solution to preventing domestic violence getting out of hand, I should be in quite high demand by my colleagues in Whitehall, and indeed by a lot of people outside. It is a difficult issue. We have already discussed it. I hope that we are accepting it and identifying it as one of the reasons why a lady in particular—that is usually how it operates, though not always—may require to leave the family home, because she feels herself to be so threatened by a violent husband.
I accept that we are going a little further than that and looking at harassment in a wider field outside the home. We discussed that. Without repeating what I said earlier, there are other aspects of the law which have to be brought into play when one considers other forms of harassment. I do not think we can necessarily look to housing legislation to solve those wider problems.
This amendment in particular would extend the definition of priority need to include any person who is fleeing violence or harassment. Some individuals may be
444
vulnerable as a result of the psychological effects of violence, abuse or harassment, or for any other reason. Their need is recognised in the reference in Clause 168(1) to which I should draw the Committee's attention. Perhaps I should say before I do so that Clause 168 is unchanged from the 1985 Act. Paragraph (c) says:
"a person who is vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability or other special reason".
That other special reason is important. Those three words are recognition of the problems about which we are talking—persons who are vulnerable to violence or harassment. We will elaborate on this in the guidance we issue on the new legislation. But I suggest that an open-ended reference to fleeing violence or harassment would not make sense in all circumstances. It would not take account of individual circumstances, and could lead to some perverse results. For instance under such a provision, if it was on the face of the Bill in the way suggested, a hardened drug dealer who wanted to lie low because some of his associates were threatening violence against him could claim a right to housing assistance from the local housing authority on the grounds of fleeing violence or harassment. That may be very true but whether the Committee considers that such a claim should be considered under the provisions of this part of the legislation, I am not sure. Certainly, I do not think I would think it. Nor, I suspect, would most Members of the Committee.
I recognise the concern behind the amendment and share all the points that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and other noble Lords have made about violence, whether it occurs on the street or in the home. However, I do not think that the solution to the difficulties which some people experience outside the home lies in extending the coverage of this legislation. When someone experiences violence or abuse within the home, it is not reasonable or logical that they should be expected to remain there and try to use the remedies of the law to protect themselves. We all know that that would not work and that the person would continue to be the victim of violence. A person in such a situation is and will continue to be considered unintentionally homeless and vulnerable as they are no longer able to live in their home.
I hope that that makes the position absolutely clear. Outside the home violence is another matter that I have already discussed. It takes a multitude of forms from a wide range of causes, and I believe that we have to be very careful before we make too sweeping amendments to housing legislation which would cover far wider issues than I think are relevant to the question that we are discussing about rights under homelessness legislation.
With that assurance, I think not for the first time today on the question of domestic violence and homelessness legislation, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: The Minister's point about the drug dealer is well taken. It does not answer what I believe is a genuine need for a statutory provision. So before we reach

445
the later stages of the Bill, I wonder whether the Minister could possibly think about whether some tighter form of words might be acceptable which performs its purpose.
Lord Dubs: I endorse the noble Earl's point. When I read Clause 168, it did not, frankly, occur to me (I read it earlier than this hour in the evening) that the words "other special reason" would refer to people fleeing from violence or harassment from their neighbours or other people in their locality. It did not seem to me that that was the most obvious interpretation. Now that the Minister has pointed it out, it makes sense.
I concede that if the amendment had been inserted not at the end, but at the end of subsection (c), my argument would have been that much better because it would have been preceded by the words,
"a person who is vulnerable as a result of'.
That would have met all the Minister's objection to including it. Where it is now, it does not have those words preceding it and therefore it has a slightly different meaning from the one it would have had if the person had been vulnerable. That being the case, and given that the Minister is going to issue guidance to local authorities to that effect, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 265F not moved.]
Clause 168 agreed to.
Clause 169 agreed to.
Clause 170 [Becoming homeless intentionally]:
[Amendment No. 265G not moved.]
Clause 170 agreed to.
Clause 171 agreed to.
House resumed.

Family Law Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment. The Commons amendments ordered to be printed.

Deer (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House; it was ordered that the Bill be printed as amended.
House adjourned at one minute past midnight.

  Kurdistan Workers Party: UK Immigration Policy
  Kurdistan Workers Party: UK Immigration Policy
  EU General Affairs Council, 10th June
  EU General Affairs Council, 10th June
  Rent Guarantees
  Rent Guarantees
  Environment Agency: Ministerial Guidance
  Environment Agency: Ministerial Guidance
  NATO: Combined Joint Task Forces
  NATO: Combined Joint Task Forces
  Statutory Instruments: Printing Arrangements
  Statutory Instruments: Printing Arrangements
  HGVs: Vehicle Excise Duty
  HGVs: Vehicle Excise Duty
  Fifth Freedom Charter Flights
  Fifth Freedom Charter Flights
  BSE: Selective Culling
  BSE: Selective Culling
  BSE: Ban on MBM in Feedstuffs
  BSE: Ban on MBM in Feedstuffs