Sitting of 20 June 1996

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

    KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Monday 24 June at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from farm workers and other workers in the beef industry in West Yorkshire regarding economic suffering because of the BSE outbreak; and if he will make a statement. [32360]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I have not received specific representations from West Yorkshire, but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary met representatives of the rural, agricultural and allied workers group of the Transport and General Workers Union on 15 May to discuss a wide range of BSE-related issues.
    Mr. O'Brien: Many people in West Yorkshire have suffered as a result of the BSE outbreak, and there are many reasons for that. What action does the Minister intend to take against the Doncaster firm, Prosper De Mulder, which allegedly produced animal feed in a way that was against the regulations laid down by the Government? The present Minister must be aware of the meetings that took place between the former Conservative Member of Parliament for Dewsbury, Mr. Whitfield, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) when Minister of Agriculture, and Mr. De Mulder.
    It has been pointed out that financial contributions were made by the De Mulder company to the Dewsbury constituency Conservative party to help Mr. Whitfield in his campaign. Will the Minister join me in calling for a full inquiry into the financing by De Mulder to the Conservative party in Dewsbury? Silence on that matter will mean only further allegations of sleaze about the financing of the Tory party.
    Mr. Hogg: Allegations of sleaze do the hon. Gentleman no good at all. It is not an attractive allegation and he should not have made it in this place. As to the more substantive part of his question, if any of the allegations that people were negligent or in breach of their statutory or other duties are backed by evidence, that might well be a reason for those who have or may have suffered loss to consider some legal action, but that depends on being able to establish through credible evidence some cause for action.
    Sir Donald Thompson: The West Riding is a large place, and I live, as my right hon. and learned Friend knows, in the Pennines. Many people in the Pennines were encouraged by the Government and the EU to go into suckler herds, and the cattle which are now leaving their mothers are worth considerably less than they were a year or even two years ago. Does my right hon. and learned Friend have any words of hope for those cattle rearers?
    Mr. Hogg: The low price that beef producers are currently receiving for their product is, of course, a matter of considerable concern. It is best addressed by a revival in market confidence, but, as the House will know, the Agriculture Council meets next week in Luxembourg and will consider a number of Commission proposals to bring support to beef producers. At the moment, two specific proposals are on the table, the first of which is a top-up to the premiums of 21 ecu and 25 ecu, and the second is an element of money—which to us will be worth about £14 million—that can be focused on beef producers in accordance with national decisions. Those proposals are on the table. They may change, but we shall be able to use those resources to address the problem that my hon. Friend identified.
    Mr. Clapham: The Minister will be aware that there has been a dramatic fall in the number of beasts going into some abattoirs, including one in my constituency. That is likely to affect jobs. He will also know that the intervention board has included just 42 abattoirs on the list of those designated to deal with cattle under the 30-month scheme. The abattoir in my constituency is not on that list, and local farmers are having to travel considerable distances to abattoirs that are. Will the Minister ensure that there is a fair geographical spread, and that the list is monitored continuously so that abattoirs such as the one in my constituency, which have spent huge amounts to bring themselves up to European Union standards, are included when that becomes practicable?
    Mr. Hogg: It is important to try to define our principal objective. Here we are referring to the slaughter of cattle aged over 30 months. We want to complete the process with all possible speed, because there is a substantial backlog. The intervention board has therefore tried to match renderers with abattoir capacity, and also to ensure a fair geographical spread.
    We are now slaughtering up to around 27,000 cattle a week, and we have slaughtered about 150,000 since the policy got going at the beginning of May. We keep the location of abattoirs and renderers under daily review, and that is very much the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that our objective now is to complete the slaughter of the backlog of cattle with all possible speed.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what amount has been spent to date on measures related to the BSE issue; and what is his latest estimate of future spending. [32362]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The cost to date has been around £190 million. Over the next three years, the cost will be around £1.5 billion.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: The current estimates suggest that every man, woman and child will be required to pay £60—which is £250 for the average family—plus the cost of the selective cull and the cost of intervention. Can the Minister give any assurance to the general public that this massive and costly programme will actually lead to the eradication of BSE within a reasonable period?
    Mr. Hogg: I share my hon. Friend's dismay about the fact that it has been necessary to spend such huge sums on the policy. I think that we all regret that. As for eradication, that is an important point. I am glad to say that we are seeing the progressive elimination of the disease. There have been about 160,000 confirmed cases so far; the high point was reached in 1992, when there were about 36,500. The number of cases is falling by 40 per cent. year on year. Last year, there were about 15,000; this year, if we took no action, we would expect about 8,000, and about 2,800 by 1998. As I have said, the disease is being eliminated. That is because of the action that we have taken on feedstuffs, about which I have spoken in the House many times.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the Minister aware that the figures that he has given do nothing to allay the despair felt by farmers in my constituency and elsewhere about the muddle that the Government have produced in their terrible, failed attempt to resolve the crisis? Will he now tell farmers in Montgomeryshire and elsewhere when they can expect to know what system will finally be used to resolve it? When will he tell them the health grounds for the proposed increased cull, and when will he tell them what compensation the farmers will receive for the unnecessary destruction of thousands of good cattle?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. and learned Gentleman is less coherent than usual, but let me deal with compensation, which is an important point. Here, I refer to the accelerated slaughter programme. Clearly, any cattle that are slaughtered under an accelerated slaughter programme will attract compensation. The compensation will be significantly higher than that which we pay for cull cows under the 30-month slaughter scheme. We shall clearly have to embark on detailed negotiations with agriculture representatives—
    Mr. Carlile: Quickly.
    Mr. Hogg:—and quickly, to try to agree a fair basis for compensation.
    Sir Jerry Wiggin: Now that the framework agreement is in position, will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that the Government have obtained from the European Union firm assurances that, as the steps that we
    984
    are taking progress, there will be a reciprocal lifting of the various bans by the EU, so that we shall at last be returning to a fair deal?
    Mr. Hogg: I do not want to deceive the House about this. Thus far, we have an agreement on the eradication plan. Last night, the Standing Veterinary Committee unanimously approved the United Kingdom eradication plan. Separate from that, although clearly related, is the Commission framework document. That document must be adopted at Florence. There is a good prospect that it will be, but it is fair to say that, as yet, it has not been. The framework document as we now see it will provide a mechanism for an early relaxation of the ban in the way that is set out in the document. That reflects our proposals.
    Mr. O'Hara: Is the Minister aware of the moral outrage in the industry not only at the lack of transparency and equity in the way in which abattoirs were selected to participate in the over-30—month cull, but at the price of £87.50 per head that was negotiated—which, I am advised, is three to four times in excess of the market rate that would have been offered by abattoirs that were not allowed to tender? On a throughput of 20,000 cattle a week, that is an extra burden on the taxpayer of £1.5 million a week.
    Is he further aware that the scheme's beneficiaries are using that unfair commercial advantage to undercut less favoured rivals in the business, and to negotiate deals directly with farmers, thereby cutting out auctioneers and destroying the meat market for farmers? Why was there no transparent tendering process, how was the figure of £87.50 arrived at, and how does he justify it? Most important, when will he act to correct the chaos that he has caused in the market?
    Mr. Hogg: I think that the hon. Gentleman has asked 12 questions and I fancy that you, Madam Speaker, would prefer me to focus on one or so. The one that I shall focus on is the key one: why we chose the abattoirs that we did. That goes back to the point that I made to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham). Our purpose is to secure rapid implementation of the 30-month slaughter. We need to do that to clear the backlog. We have tried to choose abattoirs that are most likely most quickly to enable us to eliminate that backlog. The identification of the abattoirs is done by the intervention board, working with others, under the direct supervision of my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
    Sir Hector Monro: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the farming industry appreciates the efforts that he and his colleagues have made to resolve the crisis, but that the farmers losing most are probably those selling prime beef under 30 months, due to the loss in market value? Therefore, was it not disappointing that he had to reduce the premium by 10p yesterday for the 30-month cull, because that helped to give some compensation to the beef industry generally?
    Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and I shall divide my answer in two. As to the producer selling for consumption beef under the age of 30 months, my points about the announcement at Luxembourg next week will provide some support for my

    985
    right hon. Friend's constituents. His second point relates to the reduction in the top-up, which was set at 25p over and above the 85p cull cow rate. The problem with that top-up was that we were compensating for destruction at a rate higher than producers were selling for consumption, which was undesirable and created perverse economic incentives. We reduced the top-up for that reason.
    Dr. Strang: Will the Minister confirm that, in addition to the 1 million cattle that will be slaughtered under the 30-month scheme, he has agreed to the slaughter and destruction of a further 150,000 cattle—mainly milking dairy cows? The Minister has acknowledged that compensation must be higher than for cull cows, but does he accept that the figure should cover the cost to the farm of losing those animals? What will be the effect on milk production and jobs? Has the Minister made any estimate of the likely cost to the taxpayer? Will he confirm that, in return for all those measures, the UK is not even getting a timetable for lifting the ban?
    Mr. Hogg: I am sure that you will forgive me, Madam Speaker, if I again observe that I have been asked about six questions. I will focus on the key question. The eradication programme approved last night by the Standing Veterinary Committee provides for an accelerated slaughter scheme designed to speed the decline of BSE that has two distinct approaches. As to animals born in 1990–91 and the two following years, we will trace the farms of origin to identify animals most at risk of developing BSE, which will be subject to a compulsory cull.
    However, there are no mandatory birth records for animals born before October 1990. As it would not be possible to compel farmers to participate, we must adopt a voluntary approach. Compensation rates for farmers who choose to participate will be significantly higher than those applying under the 30-month scheme. We shall consult closely with the farming community and others on the modalities, including compensation rates.
    Mr. John Townend: What proportion of the £1.5 billion will be met by European Union compensation, and what proportion of that compensation will be indirectly paid by the British taxpayer because of the reduction in the UK's rebate?
    Mr. Hogg: As a result of the reduction in the rebate, the UK will be paying the lion's share.

    Disability Discrimination Act 1995
    Ms Hodge: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to implement the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in the agricultural industry. [32363]
    Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to implement the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in the forestry industry in England. [32368]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Mr. Tim Boswell): The employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—with one exception relating to trade organisations—which apply to all employers
    986
    with more than 20 employees, will be commenced by 2 December 1996. Codes of practice will be available. Drafts were laid before Parliament last week.
    Ms Hodge: Why has the agricultural industry, which is renowned for low wages, been singled out under the 1995 Act as the only one in which discriminatory wages have been specifically endorsed by the wages boards?
    Mr. Boswell: I do not for a moment accept that the agricultural industry is unique or has been singled out. In fact, I bracketed that and the forestry industry in answering. I understand the point that the hon. Lady is seeking to address. It is precisely because my predecessors, after consultation, decided to retain the Agricultural Wages Board with its provision for a statutory minimum wage that there is any element of distinction between the treatment of agricultural employees and those in other industries.
    Mr. Gerrard: Will the Minister confirm that public rights of way and public footpaths in forest areas will be covered by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and that, when Forestry Commission estates are sold, in particular, it will be illegal for purchasers to narrow footpaths or to do anything else to restrict access? Will he tell us precisely what he is doing to ensure that employers in the forestry industry are aware of their responsibilities under the Act?
    Mr. Boswell: Those are somewhat different and disparate points. After the anticipated announcements on implementation and further advice to employers by my noble Friend, we shall be ready to give advice to employers in forestry and in agriculture on their obligations under the Act. Clearly, access provisions will be bound by the general law. On forestry disposals—which I think the hon. Gentleman has in mind—wherever possible the approach will seek to safeguard access to woods that are used extensively by securing an access agreement through the local authority. I am sure that local authorities will wish to have the specific interests of people with disabilities in mind when implementing the provisions.
    Mr. Riddick: Is not the best thing we can do for disabled people to ensure that there are jobs in the British farming industry for them and for other people to take up? Towards that end, does the Minister agree that it is extremely important that we boost consumer confidence in British beef? Is it not important that we tell the British people that the incidence of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease here is no higher than in any other European country, and that the precautionary measures taken in this country probably make British beef the safest in the world to eat? Is it not the case that there is real anger among the farming industry at the way in which some food lobbyists and Labour Members—not least the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman)—have—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going quite wide of the question. I know that he was very keen to be called during a question relating directly to BSE, but the question does not relate directly to BSE. His question must relate to the Order Paper.
    Mr. Riddick: It is about saving jobs.
    Madam Speaker: I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants to save jobs, but he is going the wrong way about it.
    Mr. Boswell: I can assure the House that the Government are as interested in securing economic and effective jobs as they are in the proper provision of facilities for people with disabilities. We shall certainly proclaim loud and clear the interests of the British beef industry on every possible and conceivable occasion.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the disabled should look at the Government's record rather than listen to the rhetoric from those on the Opposition Benches? Will he confirm that spending on the disabled has more than trebled in real terms under this Government?
    Mr. Boswell: I shall have to be a little careful in answering outside my departmental responsibilities, but the Government have an excellent record on disability. I remember being modestly engaged—in my previous job at the Department for Education—in securing some of the provisions for future and higher education, in which I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment is also engaged.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister accept that agriculture, horticulture and forestry are very important employers of disabled people, and especially of disabled people with learning difficulties? Has the Minister of Agriculture read the programme of action from the Forestry Commission on dealing with disabled people? Does the Minister accept that there is a responsibility on the Minister of Agriculture and on all Cabinet members to promote employment for disabled people—if only because of its outstanding importance and our refusal to accept complacency on such matters?
    Mr. Boswell: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no complacency whatever among Ministers. We seek the right balance. Among other things, we very much wish to emphasise to employers in forestry, agriculture and elsewhere their direct responsibilities under the Act and under the codes set out under the Act and the need to have regard to the interests of disabled people. It is a difficult balance to find, but we are determined to offer advice and encouragement for them to fulfil those responsibilities.

    UK Food Industry
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking (a) to reduce the extent of regulation on the UK food industry and (b) to increase its global competitive ness. [32364]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): The Government's food law deregulation plan was published on 14 September 1993. It listed 29 action points. Action has already been completed on
    988
    15 of these and a further 11 are due for completion this year. In addition, the Ministry has a market task force, dedicated to improving marketing competitiveness.
    Mr. Baker: The Government's activities on deregulation and the market task force are to be welcomed. I hope that my hon. Friend will do what she can to increase those activities, because they benefit the food industry, which is well poised to take advantage of world markets, not least as the common agricultural policy fades. Will my hon. Friend take action to discourage and prevent the over-zealous enforcement of food regulations by environmental health officers, which is still taking place? Does my hon. Friend agree that the last thing our excellent food industry needs is a Government formed by the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, who are the enemies of enterprise and the apostles of over-regulation? The damage they have caused to our beef industry is already very serious.
    Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is right to seek to draw a balance between the need, quite rightly, to protect the consumer and the need not to stultify enterprise in this important industry. The system which we have developed, and which environmental health officers enforce, is the HACCP system—hazard analysis critical control point. It looks at where the critical points are in food production, identifies where the risks are and applies the law proportionately. I hope that the House is aware that that system has been recognised in this country and is being emulated in others as well.
    Mr. Corbett: Does the Minister not find it extraordinary that one of her hon. Friends should contemplate relaxing regulation on food when we have just been told of the colossal cost of clearing up the BSE scandal and when there has just been concern over the safety of baby milk? Would not the best answer be the establishment of a food standards agency, separate from the Minister's Department?
    Mrs. Browning: No, I am not astonished. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Baker) struck the exact balance—proper enforcement proportionate to risk. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that baby milk is quite safe.
    Mr. Batiste: Is my hon. Friend aware that, over recent years, small independent abattoirs have had to pay huge sums in order to meet the standards set by new and ever-higher regulatory levels? It is precisely those abattoirs that are now facing devastation as a consequence of the application of the policy on BSE and the decision to use only the large abattoirs for that slaughter policy. Before my hon. Friend comes back to the House with proposals for the slaughter of more animals, I hope that she and her colleagues will think carefully about the need to be fair to those small independent abattoirs, particularly those which have in place adequate rendering facilities.
    Mrs. Browning: I am aware of that, and I am sympathetic to the investment made by abattoirs across the country, many of which are seeking higher standards and the EU mark to enable them to export. That export market has now, unfairly, been denied to them. My hon. Friend will have heard the answer given by my right hon.

    989
    and learned Friend the Minister when he explained how those abattoirs have been selected for the 30-month cull scheme.
    I must tell my hon. Friend that one of the encouraging things is that the British consumer is still eating beef. We can see in the supermarkets that there is still support in the United Kingdom for the consumption of beef. Therefore, there is an opportunity for all slaughterhouses to slaughter for consumption. Despite the importance of the cull scheme, we must not lose sight of the fact that abattoirs are still slaughtering for consumption, and that is the most important aspect.
    Mrs. Golding: Does the Minister not think that food safety should come before the political dogma of deregulation? Is she prepared to risk another food crisis by sticking to the dogma that deregulation is all—important?
    Mrs. Browning: We never subjugate the safety of consumers to any policy or dogma. I refute totally the hon. Lady's suggestion and I am sorry that she could not find something more constructive to say.
    Mr. Spring: Is my hon. Friend aware of how efficient the farmers in my constituency are in terms of global competitiveness? Is she also aware of the high levels of optimism among cereals farmers in Suffolk, which is manifested in rising land prices? Will my hon. Friend join me in applauding the fact that that optimism has translated itself into an unemployment rate in my constituency of only 4.2 per cent.—one of the lowest anywhere in the developed world?
    Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the competitiveness of firms in his constituency—and, indeed, the United Kingdom in general. That is why we supported the general agreement on tariffs and trade and why we are seeking to reform the common agricultural policy and move towards world market prices as soon as possible. British farms will be well placed to compete in a global market.

    Fishing Policy
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for using decommissioning funds to encourage conservation-effective fishing. [32366]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): The aim of any decommissioning policy should be to help bring fishing effort into better balance with what fishing stocks will bear.
    Mr. Mitchell: Given that there is a conservation crisis in fishing as a result of the common fisheries policy and that there will be continuous pressure for decommissioning, would it not be more sensible not to take out conservation-effective fishing vessels, such as Grimsby's seine-netter fleet, but to rearrange the programme to give priority to taking out, first, the bigger and more efficient vessels, those whose activities are more damaging to conservation and the environment and those vessels whose track record shows that they have been making the biggest catches? Would it not also be sensible
    990
    to do that on a Europe wide basis? If we do it alone, we shall simply ensure that the stocks that we save are looted by over-large foreign fleets.
    Mr. Baldry: I made it clear to the Council of Ministers the other day that its forthcoming decommissioning proposals, which do not make any provision for decommissioning industrial fishing vessels, are crazy. Industrial fishing does enormous damage, especially to stocks in the North sea. I have also made it clear that we will not contemplate any further large-scale decommissioning of the UK fleet until we have made some substantial progress on the issue of quota hoppers.
    I find the Labour party's approach to the whole issue somewhat surprising, given the comments of the Labour Member of the European Parliament who represents the hon. Gentleman's area—Peter Crampton—who describes himself as the Labour party fisheries spokesman in Europe. He appears to have welcomed the 40 per cent. reduction in the UK fishing fleet. I find that very strange indeed.
    Mr. Bellingham: My hon. Friend will be aware from his recent visit to the Wash inshore fishery that conservation is of paramount importance. Is he aware that the current dredging programme is causing great concern to local fishermen? Will he confirm that the promised monitoring programme and consultation process are actually in place and working?
    Mr. Baldry: I visited my hon. Friend's constituency last year specifically to look at the whole issue of dredging. I fully appreciate that concerns about dredging were raised with me at that time. I am confident that the monitoring programme is being assiduously carried out.

    Cattle Slaughter Scheme
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest weekly figure for the number of animals slaughtered under the 30-month scheme in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [32367]
    Mr. Baldry: Just under 20,000 animals were slaughtered in England and Wales under the 30-month scheme in the week ending 16 June.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that answer. Is he aware that, this time last year, a 600 kg live-weight beef animal would have realised about £786? Even with the 25p per kilogram top-up payment, there is now a loss of more than £90 per animal. With this week's cut in the premium to a measly 15p per kilogram, the loss will be about £158 per animal.
    Does the hon. Gentleman realise how important that sort of animal is to a small mixed farm? Will he explain his remarks earlier this week, when he said that it was now clear that the market had developed in such a way that the premium could not be justified? He seemed to be saying that somehow the market had made up for the premium, which is arrant nonsense. Will he please explain?
    Mr. Baldry: Let us all be quite clear about the purpose of the top-up: it is for clean beef, steers and heifers, which we would have expected to come into the human food chain. As of 20 March, it was clear that some farmers would not have them ready to enter the food chain. The advice of the Meat and Livestock Commission and others was that there was an incentive for farmers to hold back those cattle to be slaughtered under the 30-month scheme rather than putting them into the human food chain. That is a crazy situation.
    We took factual and accurate advice from the Meat and Livestock Commission, and the 15p top-up premium as from 16 June reflects the market price. It also reflects the fact that it is now more advantageous for farmers to sell their cattle into the human food chain than to sell them into the 30-month scheme. That must be right.
    It is also fair and proper to ensure that anyone who has cattle under the scheme as of 16 June, who may not have been able to get them into the slaughter programme, will have the benefit of the top-up from whenever those cattle are slaughtered. In fact, we are talking about cattle that were well over 30 months on 20 March.
    Sir John Cope: Does not the progress made from the over-30-months cull to the agreement on eradication and now the possibility of agreement on a framework document show that my right hon. Friends were entirely right to use the veto in the Community and thereby to bring beef to the top of the agenda? They have brought us to a position where we are now very close to an agreement that we can all back.
    Mr. Baldry: Yes. Having, along with other ministerial colleagues over the past few weeks, spoken to many fellow Agriculture Ministers and other Ministers elsewhere in the European Community, I am convinced that if we had not pursued the policy of non-co-operation, we would not have made such positive progress in seeking to lift the export ban on UK beef.
    Mr. Salmond: But have not the Minister and his colleagues achieved an armistice in the beef war by agreeing to a level of eradication and slaughter that the Minister of Agriculture previously said that he would not agree to? Is not the House entitled to understand, therefore, that the past month of posturing has been at best irrelevant and at worst positively damaging? Is it not reasonable to expect to see a white flag of surrender over Downing street this afternoon?
    Mr. Baldry: With respect, all that is disingenuous twaddle. No one looks for the lifting of the export ban more keenly than beef producers in Scotland, and I cannot believe that any beef producer in Scotland will look with any respect at the hon. Gentleman's comments.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Does my hon. Friend accept that behind the words "an accelerated programme" lies devastation for many of our dairy herds? Does he accept that those of us who come from dairy-producing areas welcome today what my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has said—that there will be increased compensation for animals that have to be slaughtered under the scheme? Will my hon. Friend confirm that there will be compensation not just for the loss of the animal, but for lost production from that
    992
    animal? Can my hon. Friend assure us that there will be compassion and common sense in the way in which the programme is operated?
    Mr. Baldry: I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend on all those points. This morning, I again met the deputy president of the National Farmers Union—the president is abroad—and the president of the Country Landowners Association to start the process of discussion on the details of compensation between the Government and the farming industry, including from next week the farming industry in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We shall, of course, listen carefully to what the farming industry says about compensation. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has made clear, compensation will be at significantly higher rates than under the over-30-months scheme.
    We shall, of course, listen carefully to what the industry says about the various elements of compensation, not least the representations that it makes to us about consequential loss. In those discussions and negotiations, we shall discuss the practicalities of the scheme, such as how pregnant cows will be dealt with. There will be as much understanding as possible about the impact on the livelihood of individual farmers.

    Agricultural Pollution
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent correspondence he has received from representatives of local authorities concerning Government policy on agricultural pollution. [32369]
    Mr. Boswell: The Department has received correspondence this year from representatives of local authorities on a range of agricultural pollution issues, including the land-spreading of waste and recycling of farm plastics.
    Mr. Flynn: Have not the Government's foolish deregulation policies led to contamination by muck flowing from the rendering industries, particularly in Ashford in Kent, where the products of the rendering industries, possibly contaminated by BSE, are now polluting the environment? The Government have been soft on regulation, and that has created pollution. Is it not right that the country will never again trust the Government to ensure the safety and purity of British food?
    Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman is entirely off beam. It is precisely as a result of our stringent legislation and the provision of the new Environment Agency that such matters—including the discharge of waters to agricultural land—are closely regulated. The case that the hon. Gentleman cites relates to treated water from an effluent plant that is discharged in the way that he caricatured. It is subject to all the regulations of the Environment Agency and, to the best of our knowledge and information, they are complied with in full. Any breaches of that legislation will be rigorously pursued.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June. [32391]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend ignore advice from the Opposition, who would sign away Britain's vital interests to some European super-state? When he meets European leaders in Florence tomorrow, will he remind them of Britain's economic success, and will he continue to fight robustly for Britain's interests in Europe, in contrast with the Opposition, who would fight for Europe's interests in Britain?
    The Prime Minister: It is certainly the case that the principal Opposition party would jeopardise the rebate, undermine the veto and follow policies in Europe which certainly would not add to employment and would damage our position here and in Europe. I confirm that we shall not remotely follow any of those policies. We have a crowded agenda to address at the summit at Florence this weekend—on the intergovernmental conference, unemployment and economic issues—and I hope to get a resolution of the beef dispute.
    Mr. Blair: Under the European Commission proposal, when does the Prime Minister think that the ban on beef will finally be lifted? Obviously, I am asking not for a precise date, but for the approximate time when he now expects it to be lifted.
    The Prime Minister: We do not yet have an agreement on the framework. There is unanimous agreement by the Standing Veterinary Committee on the eradication plan, which is a great step forward. The agreement on the framework document remains to be achieved and I hope to reach an agreement in Florence. I am not certain that I will, but I certainly hope that it will be possible. After then, it will be for us—not the Commission—to determine the dates, as it will depend on the steps that we have to take. I would expect that, provided that we can reach agreement in Florence, we shall begin to see the lifting of the ban in the early autumn, but that will depend on negotiations still to come.
    Mr. Blair: The question is not when it will begin, but when it will end. Perhaps the Prime Minister will confirm the following about the deal. First, there is no date on the deal. Secondly, there are no guarantees; indeed, any part of the ban being lifted has to be referred to a committee which is under no obligation to accept it. Thirdly, he has had to concede extra cattle to be slaughtered, although there is no scientific basis for it. Fourthly, there is no lifting of the third country ban and, fifthly, there is no deal on additional compensation, though we shall be spending
    994
    billions on it for years to come. If those points are correct, is not calling it a triumph, as some Ministers have today, an utter travesty of the truth?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in almost every aspect of what he has just said. Let me make it clear to him that, but for the action that we have taken, we would be nowhere near the deal that it may be possible to strike this weekend. In the first eight weeks after the ban was imposed, nothing whatever was offered to us by our European partners. In the four weeks since we began a process of non-co-operation, we have reached agreement on the eradication plan and reached agreement with the Commission on a framework. I hope that we shall reach agreement with our partners on a framework to enable us to begin to move towards lifting the ban.
    The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about the slaughter of extra animals. No animal that would not have been slaughtered is now to be slaughtered. All those animals would have been caught by the 30-months-plus plan. Almost every one of the statements that the right hon. Gentleman has just made shows a profound misunderstanding of the whole negotiation.
    Mr. Blair: My understanding is based on the European Commission document.
    The Prime Minister indicated dissent.
    Mr. Blair: Then perhaps the Prime Minister will answer the question that was put to him: when does he expect the ban finally to be lifted? I suspect that the reason why he will not give us an estimate is that, if he did so, the period would be in years, not months. That is why he does not want to give it. Is not the truth that he is now so desperate to extricate himself from this mess that he will settle for anything? There is humiliation in the deal. There is ignominy in the deal. In fact, it is not a deal at all: it is a rout.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's position is wholly idiotic. Not only that, but now that he is talking in that fashion, he might bear in mind that his hon. Friend the shadow Minister of Agriculture supported the ban, against the interests of this country, after it was proposed. First the right hon. Gentleman says that he supports our policy and that we must negotiate an agreement. Then, when we do negotiate an agreement, he changes his position. The fact of the matter is that there would have been no chance of an agreement, but for the policy of non-co-operation that we have followed. We are now within a few hours, with luck, of getting an agreement in Florence —and that is no thanks to the policies of the Opposition, who right from the outset have done all that they can for party advantage, notwithstanding the damage to the British agricultural industry.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend remembers the old cowboy movies that he must have watched in his youth. In that context, if one of our colleagues had gone to Germany and told a German audience that he would never be prepared to see Britain isolated in Europe, and that he would therefore be prepared to give up the veto, but then told a British

    995
    audience that he would never give up the veto because Britain might have to be isolated in Europe, would my right hon. Friend be justified in saying to that person, "Paleface speak with forked tongue?"
    The Prime Minister: When the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) went to Germany, I at least did not expect him while he was there to attack a policy that he was nominally supporting in this country. But instead, to curry favour with his hosts, he rolls over on his back with his feet in the air.
    Mr. Ashdown: I did not support the Government in the policy of confrontation. Is it not perfectly clear that the Prime Minister, having again marched his troops to the top of the hill in Brussels, is now engaged once more in uselessly marching them back down again? What is the cost of all that folly, the terrible damage to Britain's influence abroad and to respect for this country?
    There is muddle, confusion and chaos at home, and we are now required to slaughter more animals. The Prime Minister says none, but the National Farmers Union says 66,000. Brussels is to police the scheme; there is no starting date, no timetable, no clear phasing and no binding response from our colleagues. What words will the Prime Minister now use to convince us all that this is the brilliant and decisive victory that he has predicted all along?
    The Prime Minister: Yet again the right hon. Gentleman shows his breathtaking capacity to understand nothing. He is wrong on almost every aspect, as he will discover at the end of the discussions in Florence, when we will have finally dealt with the matter. We would still be waiting for any movement towards the lifting of the ban by Christmas or later, had we followed the policy that he advocated. As it is, we are close to an agreement that will be in the interests of the British agriculture industry. He says that he is interested in the agriculture industry when he is in his constituency, but when he is in the Chamber he just wants to make silly points.
    Sir Peter Hordern: Did my right hon. Friend read the remarks that Mr. Henkel made at the conference attended by the Leader of the Opposition? He said that unemployment in Germany was continuing to increase, whereas in Britain it had fallen by 20 per cent., that the rate of taxes on retained profits in Germany was twice as high as in Britain, and that Britain was the enterprise centre of Europe. Is it not the case that we are doing rather well at cricket, our footballers are playing like heroes and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) is nearly 80 years old? We are moving towards a position where all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, so why let Labour ruin it?
    The Prime Minister: Mr. Henkel, the president of the Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie, said more than that: he pointed out that we had received 10 times as much investment from outside Europe as Germany had, despite the fact that Germany was a larger economy. What is rather strange is that the celebrated guest at that great
    996
    meeting where the president of the BDI paid those compliments to the United Kingdom would like to change all the policies that have made this country so successful.
    Mr. Simpson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June. [32392]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Simpson: Will the Prime Minister comment on his deputy's claim on "Today" that the culling of a further 65,000 cows amounts to no more than "a handful" of cattle? How does he square that with yesterday's comment by the Minister of Agriculture that any suggestions of a further cull were completely untrue? Will he give the House and the public two simple assurances: first, that the Government will guarantee full compensation to farmers for the reconstruction of the national herd and, secondly, that a sizeable contribution from Europe will now form a core part of the framework agreement that he has negotiated?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong to suggest that 67,000 additional animals are to be slaughtered, That is not remotely the case. Every one of those animals was going to be slaughtered in any event. Not a single extra animal will be slaughtered. [Interruption.]One can always tell when the Opposition do not like what they are hearing. Not a single extra animal will be slaughtered, so the hon. Gentleman's question is based on total nonsense.
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June. [32393]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Butler: May I wish my right hon. Friend a most enjoyable weekend break in Florence? So as to ensure that it is enjoyable also for Conservative Members, will he make it clear from the start, and again at the end, that he will accept no weakening of the British veto and no extension of qualified majority voting?
    The Prime Minister: Weekends in Florence are always enjoyable, as I have learnt on many occasions in the past. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is a lovely place, and I am looking forward to an enjoyable weekend there. And I can ensure that my hon. Friend enjoys both this and subsequent afternoons by giving him both the assurances for which he asks.
    Mr. Garrett: Why do the Government refuse to support the International Labour Organisation's convention on home workers when this country has 1.5 million home workers, many thousands of whom earn less than £2 an hour, and many of whom earn less than £1 an hour? These people have no protection or rights under our existing legislation. Does that not show a quite incredible callousness?
    The Prime Minister: Not remotely. A large number of people in this country are in work rather than unemployed precisely because we do not have the sort of legislation

    997
    that the hon. Gentleman prefers. I happen to take the view that policies, whether the hon. Gentleman likes or dislikes them, are for this House and should not be pushed upon us by bodies such as the ILO.
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June. [32394]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is no part of his Government's policy to impose regional government and regional assemblies on the British people,
    998
    which would mean yet another tier of government, more expense, more bureaucracy and more interference and would be a nightmare for the British taxpayer?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree that regional assemblies would be a total irrelevance, were they to be introduced. They are proposed by the Labour party only because it knows that its plans for a tax-raising Scottish Assembly are untenable unless it moves into this nonsense. The Labour leader is rather confused about this policy. He said on one occasion, "We are not committed to regional assemblies," and then on another occasion he said that regions should have assemblies. On this issue, not only does he disagree with his colleagues —he disagrees with himself.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 24JUNE—Remaining stages of the Defamation Bill [Lords].
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
TUESDAY 25 JUNE—Opposition Day [16th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on the Government's policy on bovine spongiform encephalopathy on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
WEDNESDAY 26JUNE—Until 12.30 pm, debate on the second report from the Employment Committee on the right to work/workfare followed by a debate on the sixth report from the Treasury Committee on the private finance initiative. Followed by debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day [17th Allotted Day].
There will be a debate entitled "Bureaucracy and Patient Care in the NHS" on an Opposition motion.
THURSDAY 27 JUNE—Estimates day [2nd Allotted Day — 2nd part].
There will be a debate on the future role of the Commonwealth.
FRIDAY 28 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 1 JULY AND TUESDAY 2 JULY—Progress on and completion of remaining stages of the Broadcasting Bill [Lords].
That will be followed on Tuesday 2 July by a debate on a motion relating to the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) (Claims and Payments) (Amendment) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 3 JULY—Until 2 o'clock, debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Until about 7 o'clock, proceedings on the Social Security (Overpayments) Bill, followed by proceedings on the Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Bill.
THURSDAY 4 JULY—Until about 7 o'clock, motions on the Structural and Boundary Change Orders.
FRIDAY 5 JULY—The House will not be sitting.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 26 June, there will be a debate on small and medium-sized enterprises in European Standing Committee B. On Wednesday 3 July, there will be a debate on European water policy in European Standing Committee A. [Wednesday 26 June: European Standing Committee B—European Community Documents (a) 6141/96: Small and Medium Sized Enterprises; (b) 6929/96: Loans to Small and Medium Sized Enterprises; Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports a) HC 51-xix (1995–96) (b) HC 51-xxii (1995–96) Wednesday 3 July: European Standing Committee A—European Community Documents (a) 8600/94: Ecological Quality of Water;
1000
(b) 5939/96: EC Water Policy; Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports a) HC 70-ii (1994–95) and HC 48-xxvi (1993–94); (b) HC 51-xvii (1995–96) Thursday 27 June:
Estimates Day [2nd Allotted Day—2nd Part]
Class 11, votes 1 to 5, Foreign and Commonwealth Office; overseas representation; other external relations; BBC World Service; The British Council; and Overseas Development Administration: external assistance: in so far as they relate to the future role of the Commonwealth. Relevant Report:
The First Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 1995–96, on the future role of the Commonwealth (HC45–1). Thursday 4 July—Motions on the structural and boundary change orders. The relevant orders are as follows:
The Cambridgeshire (City of Peterborough) (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996.
The Lancashire (Boroughs of Blackburn and Blackpool) (Structural Change) Order 1996.
The Nottinghamshire (City of Nottingham) (Structural Change) Order 1996.
The Cheshire (Boroughs of Halton and Warrington) (Structural Change) Order 1996.
The Devon (City of Plymouth and Borough of Torbay) (Structural Change) Order 1996.
The Essex (Boroughs of Colchester, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock and District of Tendring) (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996.
The Hereford and Worcester (Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996.
The Kent (Borough of Gillingham and City of Rochester Upon Medway) (Structural Change) Order 1996.
The Shropshire (District of the Wrekin) (Structural Change) Order 1996.
The Berkshire (Structural Change) Order 1996.]
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. Can he tell us today whether the Prime Minister will make a statement on Monday on the outcome of his meeting in Florence? Will the Leader of the House ensure that the House is given the opportunity to vote on a substantive Government motion on any specific proposals on BSE which are decided upon as a result of any decisions in Florence this weekend, not least because such a vote will be of great interest, when we see the details, to hon. Members on both sides of the House?
The Leader of the House announced that the remaining stages of the Broadcasting Bill will be held on Monday and Tuesday of the week after next. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government will not seek to overturn the amendments that were tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), which were carried with all-party support? Those amendments, as I am sure the Leader of the House is aware, will do much in the next decade to improve the accessibility of television for the deaf and visually impaired. He will realise that those amendments are important for the individuals involved and I hope that he will agree that it would be shameful if the House were to try to overturn those amendments. Will he confirm that the Government will not seek to do so?

1001
On another important issue, the Leader of the House will be aware of the Government defeat in the House of Lords on Monday on nursery vouchers. The Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill was discussed and an eminently sensible amendment, to defer the implementation of the scheme until evaluation of the pilots could take place, was passed. We know that the Leader of the House has had a letter from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which suggests that the Government may experience difficulty overturning the amendment in the Commons and also suggests measures for circumventing the decision in the Lords. Are the Government so fearful of their case that they intend to avoid facing that issue again in the Commons? Would it not be wise to take on board the evidence that comes from those pilots before the final implementation of that rather foolish scheme?
May I also ask the Leader of the House, wearing his hat as Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, whether he can confirm that the Select Committee should be ready to make its report on conduct in the next couple of weeks? Will he, as Leader of the House, guarantee that time will be found before the summer recess so that the House can debate and, I hope, accept the recommendations in that report?
Finally, is the Leader of the House aware that his colleagues in the Home Office are such great admirers of Labour Back Benchers that they have adopted the ideas of at least three private Member's Bills, including those on stalking, on paedophiles and on an amendment to the Public Order Act 1986? Will the Leader of the House ensure that the adoption of those ideas by Home Office Ministers is not used as an excuse to block the measures when they go through their remaining stages? Good ideas are still good ideas even when they come from Labour Members.
Mr. Newton: I shall work backwards. The hon. Lady's last remarks were pretty silly, not least because the national campaigners on stalking have made it clear that they acknowledge the defects in the Opposition Bill and think that the Government are acting appropriately by bringing forward their proposals. That is the sensible and responsible way to behave and the hon. Lady may regret her comments when she reflects on them.
On the subject of the Nolan report, I am happy to pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her helpful and constructive approach in the proceedings of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. I can confirm that I am reasonably hopeful now that the Select Committee will be able to produce a report before the recess. I take note of her wish and, I guess, that of others in the House that, if it proves practicable, we should seek an opportunity for a debate. I am bound to say, however, that the pressures on time are mounting all the time.
On the subject of nursery vouchers, the hon. Lady will understand if I say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has taken careful note of the amendment passed in another place on Monday night, but we have always said that we would evaluate the phase 1 pilots. The results that have been gathered show that the parents in phase 1 are positive about the scheme and we have every intention of ensuring that we can introduce vouchers for all four-year-olds in England from April 1997.
1002
On the subject of the Broadcasting Bill, I am sure that the hon. Lady would not expect me to anticipate debates in 10 days' time, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage will be sympathetic to the general concerns of disabled people, as I am, as a former Minister for disabled people. I will bring her remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Lastly, I can confirm that I expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make a statement after the Florence summit. Any question about debates can be resolved only when we know the summit's outcome.
Sir Terence Higgins: As the House did not have an opportunity to debate whether Members' televisions in their rooms should have a direct feed from the Floor of the House, may we have a debate to consider the effect of that provision? It may be true that hon. Members are now hearing more debates than they heard before as they can watch them in their rooms while working on constituency mail and so on, but the effect on attendance on the Floor of the House and the impression created outside has been awful. If we cannot have a system whereby, if Members are watching in their rooms, a hologram of them appears in their place on the Floor of the House, perhaps we could at least have a system whereby the outside television sets show more than one picture—not just the Floor of the House, but the Standing and Select Committees that are taking place at the same time.
Mr. Newton: I cannot conceive of any hologram that would be an adequate substitute for my right hon. Friend. While I am aware of the sort of concerns that my right hon. Friend has expressed, there would be a revolution among hon. Members if we attempted to go back from the present position to where we were. I am certainly anxious to play my part in any efforts to bring home to the public outside how much work goes on in this place all the time, not necessarily on the Floor of the Chamber.
Mr. David Rendel: I was interested to see that the Government have put off the debate on local Government reorganisation for a week. I was disappointed that they still expect it to take place in the same sort of time as it was originally allocated next week. As some of the reorganisation plans are contentious and the average time allocated for each one is currently only 20 minutes, would it not be more sensible to allow for a comparatively short debate on the non-contentious plans and to allow the more contentious ones to be debated at greater length, according to their worth?
Mr. Newton: I am not aware that any of the plans are particularly contentious. I said that I would reflect on the points raised by Liberal Democrats last week, and by the hon. Gentleman with me privately. I have come to the conclusion that what I have proposed seems to be the most sensible course. The earlier, significantly greater, number of local government orders were debated together and did not take up all the time allocated to them on the Floor of the House—I think that they took up roughly the sort of time that I am proposing on this occasion.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on early-day motion 940?
[That this House recognises that a report by Ealing Council into efforts to manipulate the housing list by two Labour councillors, who are prospective parliamentary

1003
candidates, shows that their conduct in this matter was extremely suspect and inappropriate and that it further shows that both of these individuals attended court in order to seek to influence legal proceedings instituted by the council to evict unlawful tenants; recognises that their efforts to retain known Labour voters in an illegal council tenancy with the deliberate aim of increasing Labour Party support in the Perivale Ward of Ealing was unfair to the 10,000 people on the housing waiting list and political gerrymandering of the gravest kind; and calls upon the National Executive of the Labour Party to examine their suitability as prospective parliamentary candidates.]
It takes to task two Labour councillors in Ealing who have corruptly been seeking to obtain Labour council accommodation for Labour voters. That issue should be exposed on the Floor of the House for the evil and disgrace that it is, and for the unfairness that it creates for the 10,000 people on the housing list who are not Labour voters.
Mr. Newton: I share my hon. Friend's concern at what is alleged to have happened in that case. I am sure that the people of Ealing will be no less interested than my hon. Friend in the findings of the independent inquiry, which I understand is looking into the matter.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: May we have a statement soon clarifying the Government's intentions regarding the date of the general election in view of the report in today's edition of The Independent that Downing street is preparing contingency plans for an October election? Apparently, it all depends on whether England win Euro 96. Are Ministers so depressed about their own performance that they now depend on Gazza's performance?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Following the astonishing news last week that the two countries that last year voted not to join the European Economic Community are doing wonderfully well in terms of jobs and trade when compared with those that voted to join, which appear to be in an appalling financial mess, may we have an early debate next week on the narrow issue of the huge advantages that nations can gain by not joining the EEC?
Mr. Newton: I have no plans for such a debate, but perhaps my hon. Friend will catch your eye, Madam Speaker, in the debate that is to take place after my right hon. Friend's statement today. I remind my hon. Friend of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said not so many minutes ago about the excellent performance that this country is putting in on the economic front inside the European Union.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Leader of the House find Government time to debate holiday flights, particularly charter flights, on aircraft that are not registered in Britain and fly out of here with British holidaymakers to a third destination? He will be aware that his noble Friend the Minister for
1004
Aviation and Shipping made a statement yesterday that appeared to deal with this but in fact guaranteed only that such flights will be able to change their country of registration after 1 August. It does not offer protection to holidaymakers. I hope that the Leader of the House is taking this seriously. It will be too late when a plane full of British holidaymakers has gone down because we did not take action to ensure that the planes are safe.
Mr. Newton: I always take seriously points made by the hon. Lady, and my noble Friend's attention was drawn to the fact that she has raised these matters with me before. I shall now draw his attention to the fact that she does not regard the remarks made yesterday in another place as adequate. I am sure that he will consider what the hon. Lady has said.
Mr. Tim Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Central Railway plc has applied for an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 but that the Secretary of State for Transport decided that because the matter is of national significance it should be debated and voted on by both Houses of Parliament, and the earliest date when this could take place is Monday 22 July? Because of the massive blight and uncertainty that the proposal is causing all along the route, will my right hon. Friend do everything to ensure that the debate and vote does indeed take place during the week beginning Monday 22 July?
Mr. Newton: I said last week that I expect that the House will sit well into the second half of July, and I can assure my hon. Friend that I share his hope that it will be possible to deal with this matter before the summer recess.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On the question of an election in the autumn, will the Leader of the House comment or get somebody to make a statement on the significant fact that the Government are clearing up all the business so that there will not be an overspill period in October? As we have not had an announcement about the recess either, we are bound to draw the conclusion that the Government are trying to provide a contingency arrangement for an election in October or November. My real interest is whether I have to order the envelopes.
Mr. Newton: The only thing that I can say about the envelopes is that the hon. Gentleman will need them some time within the next year. As for the rest of his good-natured but mischievous question, I can tell him that it now looks virtually certain that there will be an overspill and that the Government are well advanced with planning a significant legislative programme for the next Session.
Mr. John Wilkinson: In view of the decision of the Transport Council of the EU in recent days to arrogate to the EU the right to negotiate international air service agreements, which hitherto has been the prerogative entirely of sovereign states, can my right hon. Friend persuade the Secretary of State for Transport to come to the House to explain what the implications might be, particularly for my constituents, many of whom work at Heathrow, which is, of course, the premier gateway into Europe and a vital source of revenue for the economy and the local community?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is well aware of the Government's sympathy, and that of my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary, for his position. I shall bring his request to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. Martyn Jones: Will the Leader of the House ensure that, when we debate bovine spongiform encephalopathy next week, we are given a final figure for the number of cattle that are to be culled? My farmers are very worried about the number that is being mooted, be it 20,000, 45,000, 150,000 or more. They are in disarray. They are dismayed by the cut in top-up support premium from 25p to 10p. Will he assure the House that the Minister will finally come up with a figure next week?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that, in the wake of the discussions that will take place in Florence—which were much discussed during Prime Minister's Question Time— both my right hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister will seek to clarify the position as soon as they can. I must, however, reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on several occasions. All the cattle that have been the subject of some rather exaggerated—indeed, simply wrong—reports in today's newspapers, being by definition considerably more than 30 months old, would have been slaughtered anyway.
Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. Friend will know that this morning the Trade and Industry Select Committee published its report on the affairs of BMARC. He will also know that the report wholly exonerates my right hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken), and clears him and others of any wrongdoing.
My right hon. Friend may also be aware that last night Messrs Goodman Derrick, solicitors acting for Granada Television, wrote to the Clerk of the Select Committee seeking to prevent this morning's news conference from taking place and publicising those facts. It would seem that Granada Television believes that it is in the public interest to publish smears, lies and allegations against a Member of Parliament, but that it is not in order for a Select Committee of the House to give publicity to the truth. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Select Committee report to be debated as a matter of urgency, so that these matters can be fully and properly aired and the practices perpetrated by Granada can be exposed?
Mr. Newton: I share my hon. Friend's interest in the steps that he tells us were taken last night. I am sure that they will be widely noted. As for the Select Committee report, debates on such reports usually—although not always—take place after being selected by the Liaison Committee to fill the slots that are available. I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) to my hon. Friend's suggestion. I can also confirm that the report found nothing to substantiate the allegations against my right hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken).
Mrs. Alice Mahon: The 10,000 people in the Calder Valley in my constituency who signed a petition against the imposition of nursery vouchers will be very disappointed by the right hon. Gentleman's assertion that vouchers will be imposed by 1997. When does the Secretary of State for Education and Employment intend
1006
to bring the issue back to the House, and how can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that the House will pass the legislation?
Mr. Newton: I cannot answer the latter question at this stage, because the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill is still being dealt with in another place. As for the hon. Lady's first point, I find her attitude extraordinary. She used the word "imposed", but nothing is being imposed on anyone. What is being offered is an additional choice.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate next week on early-day motion 1015?
[That this House notes the failure of the BBC Television Panorama programme of Monday 17th June to draw a curious connection to the attention of their viewers; namely, that in an attempt to portray incompetence by the Conservative government, they focused on a farm near Ashford, Kent, alleging at the least irresponsible management leading to the spread of BSE, and hinting at a possible connection with three CJD cases in East Kent; and notes that they displayed the proprietors of the farm to be R. Sternberg of Plurenden Farm, but significantly failed to mention that this referred to the late Rudy Sternberg, a personal friend of the late Harold Wilson, who was created a Life Peer by the then Labour Prime Minister in the style and title of Baron Plurenden, ostensibly for services to British agriculture.]
Such a debate would enable us to investigate the quality of the research done by television programmes. It is clear from the "Panorama" programme about BSE that the intention as to rubbish the Government's work in dealing with the disease.
Mr. Paul Flynn: It was very successful.
Mr. Arnold: The hon. Gentleman says that it was successful. Who was the proprietor of the farm featured in the programme? No less than Rudy Sternberg, who was made a life peer by the Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson for services to agriculture. Perhaps, while aiming to hit the Conservative Government, "Panorama" accidentally ripped the scab off Labour sleaze that took place at the time of the Harold Wilson Government.
Mr. Newton: That is an interesting point. It is always a matter of concern when programmes purporting to give a factual account of events seem to omit details that might be relevant. I am sure that, in the light of what he has said, my hon. Friend will want to pay tribute to the steps taken by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to introduce greater transparency in the honours system.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On 23 February, the junior Health Minister, with great fanfare, announced a £50 million powered wheelchair programme. In May, the Department finally got round to issuing some guidelines, but there seem to be tremendous problems in gaining access to the provisions that are supposed to have been established. May we have a debate about the matter?
Mr. Newton: I cannot sensibly promise a debate alongside all the other pressures that have been put on me

1007
for debates in the past couple of weeks, but I will bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Mr. John Marshall: May I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate on London Transport so that the House can condemn the proposed series of one-day strikes that will disrupt the lives of thousands of my constituents and many hundreds of thousands of Londoners? During such a debate, one could contrast that negative approach with the Government's positive approach in improving the Northern line, in extending the Jubilee line, in encouraging the Heathrow to Paddington link and in improving the Docklands light railway.
Mr. Newton: The whole House is, or should be, disappointed about ASLEF's proposed action. As we have seen time and again, such strikes do not benefit anyone, least of all the travelling public. They will prevent them from enjoying the benefits of the various Government measures to which my hon. Friend has referred. I hope that we might hear some words of condemnation from Labour Front-Bench Members, but I suspect that that is a triumph of hope over experience.
Mr. Ken Purchase: In regard to the jobseeker's regulations, I would be grateful if the Leader of the House brought a Minister to the House to make a statement and to order an inquiry into the death of my constituent, Thomas Causon. In the month since his death, his mother has been unable to establish and to apportion blame for the death. He was 40 years old, had a serious epilepsy condition and was receiving medication, but he was forced to attend an interview. He understood, perhaps mistakenly, that, unless he attended the particular job that he was sent to, he would
1008
lose benefit. The job involved painting and decorating outside in bitterly cold weather. Unfortunately, he collapsed and died, but his mother has been unable to establish whether the procedures adopted under the jobseeker's regulations were appropriately applied.
Mr. Newton: In the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said, the whole House would want to express its sympathy to the family involved. He will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment further without any further information about the circumstances. I will, of course, bring his points to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Social Security and for Education and Employment, who are both here to answer questions next week.
Mr. Flynn: When may we have a debate on television advertising so that we can congratulate the Independent Television Commission, which, in the past couple of hours, has instructed television companies not to show an ASDA advertisement featuring an actress that is designed to push medicinal drugs, in particular paracetamol, which kills twice as many people as heroin in almost every year—it certainly did so last year—and a series of drugs called co-proxamol, which also kills more than 200 people a year? Is ASDA not wrong to make those drugs more accessible to children as young as 12 by cutting the price of those drugs and by advertising them on television? Should not we be protected in our homes from drug pushers?
Mr. Newton: As some of the hon. Gentleman's points are fresh to me and as, I must admit, I doubt whether it is right for him to accuse ASDA of irresponsibility, the sensible and right course is for me to bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, and to make the point that television advertising might be in order when we return to proceedings on the Broadcasting Bill in 10 days' time.

Retail Development
3.58 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I am pleased to announce that I have today published the Government's revised planning policy guidance note on town centres and retail development, which honours our pledge to the Select Committee on the Environment in the Government's response to the Committee's inquiry, "Shopping Centres and their Future". The Select Committee endorsed our policy, but asked for it to be clearer and stronger. We consulted on the revised document last July. That attracted considerable support in more than 500 responses and also proposed numerous useful suggestions, many of which have been incorporated in the final version.
The revised guidance note is a further landmark in our planning policies for revitalising town centres, and it emphasises our determination to maintain and enhance them. On returning from the United Nations conference Habitat II in Istanbul, I am more than ever convinced that cities and towns are the heart of our civilisation and that we need their life and vigour for our survival.
Towns are where most of our population live, work and shop and where much of the 4.4 million growth in households projected for 1991 to 2016 will need to be located. It is where we should be encouraging the location of shops, offices, leisure and housing. People have mistakenly characterised our policy as a ban on out-of-town development—all stick and no carrot. We must encourage sustainable development that helps make towns and cities attractive places to be, attractive to those who work and live there, and attractive to those who visit. We want to encourage urban regeneration and focus development in existing centres.
We are proposing a planning policy that promotes development in town centres. We want development plans to contain the positive message that development is welcome here—and to say where in general terms and, if possible, to identify sites. Developers and occupiers— whether retailers, firms needing office space, leisure operators and others who attract a lot of people—all need greater certainty from the planning system. To create that climate of confidence, we need a new approach to planning that can articulate the city's vision, inform developers where development will be encouraged and work with them to identify sites—and so speed up the process and reduce uncertainty.
The revised guidance sets out as clearly as possible the importance that we attach to the revitalisation of our city, town and local centres. We are proposing a positive approach to planning, based on a clear strategy about where we will encourage development. That marks a change from the reactive approach that planners have often had to take in relation to a succession of out-of-centre developments. The guidance provides clearer tests for proposals for out-of-centre developments—whether shops, offices, leisure, higher education, health or other uses that attract a lot of people and are best located in, or close to, existing centres. I emphasise that it is a question not just of shops but of those other important developments as well. We expect local planning authorities, after consulting widely, to provide clear guidance on where development will be encouraged in their areas.
1010
As well as that plan-led approach, the guidance advocates a sequential approach to choosing sites, starting with the town centre or other centres, then edge of centre—defined in terms of easy walking distance—and only then, other sites that are well served by a choice of means of transport. Public transport and access will be important if people want to go for that type of answer.
In drawing up development plans and in individual cases, I expect that approach to be followed, with local planning authorities and developers able to demonstrate that they have thoroughly examined more central sites before they look further afield. I shall require that examination to be thorough—not merely a statement that an examination has been made. The guidance recognises that some uses, such as shops selling bulky goods or certain large-scale leisure developments, may be able to establish a need for development that cannot be accommodated in the town centre. In those circumstances, the guidance suggests that they combine with existing out-of-centre facilities and provide improvements to access by public transport.
The main emphasis of our policy is to revitalise town centres by focusing investment and development, to reinforce their economic prosperity. We need to build on their strengths, on the links that exist between businesses, and on the synergy that makes the pay-off of an individual development much more than just its incremental effect. There is a strong economic argument for recapturing the advantages that town centres traditionally had. Town centres are also the focus of our communities—not just economic, but civic and social. The town is also the most accessible place. Developments on the bypass—whether shops, offices, multi-screen cinemas or hospitals—apart from undermining the vitality and viability of existing centres, are often accessible only by car. As such, they are inaccessible to about one third of the population. Town centres, by contrast, are usually accessible to all.
There is, finally, the environmental rationale—our concern about sustainable development. The dispersed pattern that has grown up over the past 50 years has been made possible and been driven by our increased use of the car, which has given us individually greater freedom, but has made us collectively increasingly reliant on it. By locating development back in centres—town centres or local centres—we can also recapture some choice about how we get to the facilities that we need and how we can achieve a range of tasks in a single trip.
Again, I underline the need for a greater variety of uses in existing centres, moving away from the long-term trend of segregation of uses and the creation of large single-use developments. Since the war, that has been one of the matters that has very much divided our cities. We want to re-establish the diversity and mix that makes town centres vibrant.
Above all, we need to make our town centres places where people want to work, visit and live. We need to encourage more housing in our town centres through flats over shops, conversion of redundant offices and mixed-use developments. We need policies that positively enable such developments, rather than rules that prevent them. I expect local planning authorities to have positive policies to help such developments happen.
To revitalise our town and city centres will take more than just planning policies. It will need vision—a shared vision of the local authority, the local private sector and

1011
the local community. The guidance that I published today stresses the need for everyone to get together to generate a clear way forward, a strategy and an action plan. For many centres, there will be a need to address issues of traffic and parking, improving the environment and improving the management and maintenance of public spaces to create the confidence that will bring in the development.
Town centres need a clear strategy, and many need positive management. They cannot just drift, as many have done up to now. Town centres have to remain competitive, and, to do so, they need to be better managed. There is no point in protecting town centres by stopping development elsewhere, only to find that town centres cease to be attractive and do not put in an effort because they feel that they do not have competition.
Part of making our town centres more attractive to investors and to people as places where they can work, shop, worship, take their leisure and live is to improve the quality of the environment. The guidance emphasises the need for raising the quality of urban design, urban spaces, car parks, shop-fronts and street furniture.
Access by car and—more particularly—car parking is a key issue in the guidance. We need to cater for visitors arriving by all means of transport. To cater better for town centre shoppers, the guidance recognises that the main gain will come from reallocating existing parking from commuters to the town centre shopper and visitor. Additional provision, even when it is part of a town centre development, needs to be seen as a contribution to the town centre rather than as tied to the individual development. We need to make car parks work for the town centre.
I have left until last reference to shopping, if only to put it into perspective. The guidance is not about a moratorium on out-of-town superstores—as the French and others have recently produced. Shopping is only one, albeit the most high-profile, of our key town centre uses. The same broad principles—the plan-led and sequential approaches—apply to all such developments, not only to shopping. Shopping gets more publicity simply because it is a dynamic industry and it is an activity that we all do.
The guidance, however, spells out in more detail our policy for shopping. The policy of getting new shopping developments into town or local centres wherever possible applies as much to food stores as to non-food stores. No one type of shopping is singled out for special treatment. We have clarified the tests that out-of-town retail developments should meet—in terms of impact on the vitality and viability of existing centres, their accessibility by a choice of means of transport and their impact on overall car use.
The publication of the revised PPG6 is another major step in promoting planning policies that will produce more sustainable patterns of development. It also confirms our commitment to the revitalisation of our town centres, to put the heart back into our high streets. It will help focus investment and development, to capitalise on the advantages of locations that are accessible to all. I know that the policy will be popular with many people across the country. I commend it to the House.
Mr. Keith Vaz: That was not a statement—it was an apology. This is the Secretary of State's apology for years of neglect by the Government of Britain's town and city centres. Every hon. Member will know as they walk down any high street that the Government's legacy on town centre policy is obvious to anybody—the empty shops, the lack of amenities and the fear of crime.
The Secretary of State has sole responsibility for the Government's abdication of their role of providing leadership to the private and public sectors in retail and other development. Will he explain to the House why it has taken him so long to publish the proposals? Does he realise that that delay has caused enormous uncertainty? Does he accept that the only reason why retail development looks elsewhere is the Government's failure to make proposals to revitalise town and city centres?
In what way is the Secretary of State proposing to target regeneration funds in support of the renaissance of our town centres? Will he accept responsibility for the appalling time scale in dealing with planning issues? Will he explain to the House why it is he who takes so long to deal with call-ins on retail development, knowing full well that delay causes additional economic burdens and is an unnecessary interference in the diversity of local policy?
Does the Secretary of State not agree that the Government, through legislation, have directly hampered the ability of local councils to support their local town centres? What does he propose to do with the hundreds of extant planning permissions for developments outside town and city centres?
Labour Members are serious about protecting Britain's town and city centres. They are part of our heritage and a vibrant part of our economy. They are our future. Over the years, we in the Labour party have warned time and again that the pursuit of the Government's planning policies would destroy town centres. They have ignored our concern and the pleas of the private and public sectors.
British retailing is among the most sophisticated and technologically advanced in the world. We have witnessed a retail revolution that has obviously passed this Government by. Over the years, there has been tremendous innovation in retailing, which the private sector has ably demonstrated in its evidence to the Labour party's review of planning policy. Never mind about Istanbul; it is Labour councils that have led the way in city centre management. They are initiating impressive schemes, working in partnership with the private sector, and bringing people back into our town centres so that they are vibrant and exciting places in which to live and work and for our children to play in. They are challenging the fortress approach that has been imposed on them over the past 17 years.
Labour in Coventry has innovative car parking schemes, York has its city centre housing policies, Leeds has proposals for a 24-hour city and there is Birmingham's dynamic use of culture and the arts. There is no need for citizens to retreat to the suburbs after dark.
Every town and city centre in Britain is different, but they all have one thing in common. It was interesting to hear what the Secretary of State said about the heart of Britain being our town and city centres. They have been left with a hole in their heart because of the Government's policies. The butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker

1013
of middle England, so beloved by the Secretary of State, are being driven away by the twin burdens of economic recession and an absence of Government strategy, including a totally non-existent transport policy. Up and down the country, family businesses with a history spanning generations have closed.
Every town and city centre that has suffered over the past 17 years should erect a suitable monument to the Secretary of State to which the local pigeons have access. It should bear the legend, "He did too little, too late, and when he did something, it was not enough." The Labour party believes in making the high street work, not in letting the high street down, which is what the Government have done.
Mr. Gummer: No one would know from that that almost every one of those cities has a Labour council that has driven out of the centre time and again every shop that tried to make money. Let us talk about Newcastle, where John Lewis used to pay three times as much in rates per square foot as it did in Westminster, because Newcastle city council used to tax people out of the city. Leicester, from which the hon. Gentleman comes, has a notorious city council, pushing businesses out of the city centre into the surrounding county. Fosse park in Blaby district has prospered directly because of the city's appalling attitude to business.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Leeds. That city did not start to think about partnership until the Government forced it to do so because of the Leeds urban development corporation. We had to take over areas of our great cities to rejuvenate them, because of the appalling history of Labour councils that did not care about business, never cared about the city and drove people out into huge soulless estates.
When I appeared before a Select Committee in the other place, one of the questioners was an ex-Labour councillor who was still defending the destruction of the centre of Liverpool by building outside it towns without amenities, without decent public transport and without any of the things that make a town work.
The hon. Gentleman has no right to come to the House and talk about those matters in the way that he did, because we know from reports in The Independent that he is busy telling people that, if there were ever a Labour Government, they would be much softer on out-of-town developers. There has been no direct denial of that. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is precisely why the Opposition had a nice cosy little meeting with various representatives of business whom they thought they could cajole on to their side.
The hon. Gentleman's speech was an attempt to cover up the fact that, from Newcastle in the north right the way down to the great cities of the midlands and the south, where Labour has been in charge, city centres have increasingly died. The new programme that we have now put into operation and the partnership in which we have led the way have driven even the city of Sheffield—with two of its worst leaders now sitting in the House—to join the partnership. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself and he should support our proposals.
Sir Sydney Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that for anyone who has the remotest remembrance of Labour party policies when it
1014
was last in government, the uncharacteristically churlish remarks of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) beggar belief? Will he accept the congratulations of all clear-thinking people on his personal initiative in this whole area and the impetus that he has given to it, which is worthy of the utmost commendation?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with encouraging high street shopping is that it demands unpopular decisions, perhaps relating to new bus routes going through streets unaccustomed to such traffic, or the provision of more car parking? If there is to be success in this area and if retail outlets are to return to our high streets, it is absolutely essential that there is the utmost co-operation between local authorities, local traders and local residents.
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. He may have noted that in my statement I made no reference to anything that could not be supported by the Opposition if they had chosen to take a bipartisan approach—such as I have done—rather than the extremist view adopted by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) as a fig leaf to cover up a very sad history. The truth is that we need to ensure that the city centres live—and that costs. We also need to take unpopular decisions, and that is what we have done. I note that the Labour party has even criticised me for calling in some of the developments and thinking about them carefully before making a decision.
Mr. Vaz: The right hon. Gentleman takes too long.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman says that I take too long—that is because he is used to making decisions and speeches without thought.
Mr. Chris Davies: Does the Secretary of State accept that much in the document should be welcomed by all hon. Members, and that it gives some real substance to the sentiments that he has expressed for some years? The tragedy is that the document should have been published 17 years ago, when some of the Secretary of State's less environmentally conscious predecessors allowed the stable door to be opened, to the great detriment of traders across the country. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, although the document will help in the long term to alter the planning policies that have so changed our towns over the past few years, it is not good enough to think merely of the long term, given the number of developments already in the pipeline for which planning permission has already been granted?
Does the Secretary of State agree that a moratorium should be introduced until developers can demonstrate firmly and convincingly that their projects will not harm the vitality and viability of existing town centres? Does he accept that there are still some unenlightened local authorities that seem to believe that out-of-town developments are beneficial? Does he accept that once such authorities give approval to a development, there is little that retailers can do to prevent it, whatever harm they believe it may do? Does he agree that there should be a simple appeals system, so that the guidelines he now supports can be put into practice by traders?
Where is the money to come from, to pay for some of the town centre improvements described in the document? Surely there is a need for pricing mechanisms to ensure a

1015
better balance between the advantages enjoyed by car users at out-of-town developments and the advantages for those using car parks in town centres.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman would do well to note how many planning permissions sought previously have not been proceeded with. I do not think that the problem is as worrying as he makes it out to be. In any case, as he knows well, there are no powers under which a moratorium could be brought about, so that is not a possibility.
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the timing of the document. Much of our retail development has brought about what the hon. Member for Leicester, East, in one of his more sensible moments, called the retail revolution. Many people want to use supermarkets. I have never been opposed to them and, as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I often commended the fact that people had wider choice and fresher food in city centres than they had ever had before, and at prices that were extremely competitive. I am not opposed to supermarkets, but I am saying that there should be a reasonable balance. That reasonable balance can be achieved by concentrating now on our town and city centres, and that is what I seek to do.
The hon. Gentleman referred to price incentives. It is difficult to imagine how they would operate. No doubt I shall have the opportunity of seeing a Liberal Democrat working party document which, if I know such documents, will be strong on platitudes but not very good on practicalities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: I have the remainder of the day's business to safeguard. More than 40 Members seek to speak in the debate that follows. I therefore require hon. Members to put single brisk questions to the Secretary of State and I require the Secretary of State to answer briskly so that we can proceed properly with our business.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will the Secretary of State ensure that local planning controls properly reflect the needs of shoppers? Is he aware that retail costs in this country are much higher than those in, for example, the United States? What will his proposals do to reduce the high cost of shopping here?
Mr. Gummer: I shall certainly look at the particular points that my hon. Friend raises. I am sure that he is pleased to see that I have put much emphasis on what local authorities can do to release more land in the centres of cities, to assemble suitable plots and to use their powers to help in exactly the way that my hon. Friend wants.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that he should also look at the new gimmick that developers use in coalfield areas in particular? They put in applications for opencast, thereby getting rid of valuable agricultural land, and a planning development comes along later. There is such a development in my constituency, adjoining the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes).
1016
An opencast application has been put in, and there will then be an out-of-town shopping development. If the Secretary of State does not ensure that the opencast application is turned down, that valuable land will be almost fit for a set-aside scheme, so the planning application will go through. If he does not do that, the Duke of Devonshire will make a lot of money.
Mr. Gummer: I have not heard such an assembly of prejudices in one question for a long time. The hon. Gentleman must accept that PPG6 makes it quite clear that planning applications for out-of-town shopping centres will not be accepted unless there is no other place for necessary shopping development. That is quite clear, so what he says does not apply.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the joy that his statement will bring to the town centre of Kingston upon Thames, which has been nurtured by Conservative councils over the years? Will also assure me that he will protect historic marketplaces such as that of Kingston upon Thames and ensure that parking charges do not get totally out of hand, thus killing shopping? Will he give us assurances on security and street cleaning?
Mr. Gummer: On street cleaning, Conservative councils are more likely to get the streets cleaned properly, particularly if they contract out the service. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will have words to say about further moves on security. If people live in town centres, that helps security considerably. I have the same affection for historic markets as my hon. Friend, and I am pleased that Kingston has been so well protected by Conservatives in the past, as it will be in future when the present lot gets out.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Government's conversion is most welcome? It is also welcome that they have accepted so many of the Select Committee's recommendations. However, does he realise that it is rather late for places such as Greater Manchester, where new developments at Cheadle and Dumplington have done a great deal to damage the existing town centre? What does he plan to do to make it possible to convert many of the empty shops in town centres and suburban shopping parades into housing? That excellent proposal needs to be effected, because empty shops make shopping areas depressing.
Mr. Gummer: I agree. That is why we are doing a great deal of work on building regulations, for example, which are different for different types of development. If we can make the whole system more sensible and make it hang together, we shall help to encourage that. We are looking particularly at the problem that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I remind him that, although we responded to the Select Committee, it was because of our moves in that direction and my announcement that the Select Committee decided that the issue was worth examining. Therefore, it is fair to say that the Government have driven the proposal right the way through.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend realise how much his statement will be welcomed in middle England, particularly in small cathedral cities such as Lichfield? In particular, does he realise that his hierarchy of development—town centre, edge of centre and out of town—and the proactive moves in respect of town councils will be very much welcomed? Will my right hon. Friend explain how he intends to ensure that local councils properly explore the possibilities of development in town centres before it is proposed out of centre?
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend must understand that the guidance is the mechanism by which inspectors make their decisions. Local authorities that do not follow the guidance will find that their decisions are overturned and in many cases they may well find themselves carrying the cost of that. Therefore, local authorities will understand precisely what needs to be done. I am working closely with them and in most cases they have had a change of heart. However, it has been very hard in a number of cities. I am pleased to say that even in Sheffield, the new council leader is beginning to think seriously about participation and partnership.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents will warmly welcome his statement? In particular, a group of traders in Tewkesbury have written to me today to thank my right hon. Friend for overturning his own inspector and making a landmark decision under the new guidelines. Does he accept that the new guidelines are particularly necessary in small and medium-sized historic market towns, not least because large developments are of a disproportionate size to the retail base in those towns? Will he instruct his inspectors rigorously to uphold the guidelines, so that I shall not need to talk to him about some cases that may be building up in future in respect of Cirencester?
Mr. Gummer: My motive for doing that will not be merely to avoid seeing my hon. Friend—but I promise him that not only will I do as he says, but that people who believe that they can get round the rules by renaming their shops and giving them some other sort of title so that it appears that they are not a retail centre, will find themselves caught by exactly the same regulations.
Mr. Robert Ainsworth: I welcome the further retreat from Thatcherite dogma, inadequate and late though it be. However, does the Secretary of State accept that the damage done while that dogma prevailed, and while planning applications were being accepted over the heads of local authorities throughout the country, was profound and long-lasting? What on earth can he do now, as he shuts the stable door after the horse has bolted? Are there not hundreds of planning applications, which were approved by his predecessor while he sat on the Government Benches, still outstanding and ready to be developed at the expense of town and city centres throughout the land?
Mr. Gummer: The real problem is something very different. Labour councils in our big cities have destroyed those cities, first by driving business out of them; secondly by stopping private development within them;
1018
thirdly by insisting on dividing where people live from where they work; fourthly by insisting that people want to live in tower blocks rather than in small houses side by side; and fifthly by pulling down instead of renovating. There is no history in Britain worse than that of Labour local government and the town centres. The hon. Gentleman has hit exactly the wrong target. It is only because what he refers to as "Thatcherite dogma" recreated the economy that we can do what we are doing now.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Why does the Secretary of State propose to clog up the centres of towns with car parks and cars, rather than pursuing a policy of regular, cheap, if not free, public transport—the very policy that the Government destroyed in South Yorkshire?
Mr. Gummer: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has ever gone shopping with small children and large numbers of bags. He ought to live in the real world of real people. If we want people, especially women, to shop in city centres, we must provide safe, clear places nearby where they can park their cars, so that they can do their shopping with their children and then get back into their cars and drive. If the hon. Gentleman thinks differently, he has not gone shopping himself. I wonder who in his house does the shopping.
Mr. Ian Pearson: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Merry Hill centre is located in my constituency. I appreciate that he cannot comment on the current planning inquiry, but can he tell the House whether, and if so how, the revised guidance will affect consideration of proposals to extend existing out-of-town developments?
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to acknowledge that I cannot refer to the particular case, but in general the position is as follows. I have already said that, if there are to be extensions of out-of-town shopping for one reason or another, it is best if that happens where there is already such a development, and that it should be associated with good public transport and the like. I have made it clear that there is no question of a moratorium on out-of-town shopping, as has taken place in France. We have much to learn from the rest of the continent. If only we had followed more closely some of the good ideas from the rest of Europe, instead of some of the American attitudes, we would have done better.
We accept that there will be some approvals, and I shall examine each case as carefully as I can. But that sometimes takes rather longer than the hon. Member for Leicester, East, with his "quick, tick, tick, tick and out" approach, would want. We want to get the right answer, not simply a quick answer.
Mr. Chris Mullin: I find it hard to recognise the picture that the Secretary of State paints of the responsibility for some of the disasters that have been inflicted on us in the past. In the north-east, our town centres have been seriously damaged by the dreaded Metro centre which, as the Secretary of State knows, was built by Sir John Hall, who is not a Labour voter. May I ask about another point that has been referred to but not

1019
answered? How many planning applications have been granted for further out-of-town centres? Can anything be done about them, or is it too late?
Mr. Gummer: The Metro centre was so successful because Newcastle city council pushed up the rates in the centre of Newcastle until nobody could make money there. That was one of the good examples of how Labour local government works, and how a Labour Government would work, if there were one. Labour taxes people until they cannot make money, and then complains because somebody else tries to allow them to make money "offshore"—in this case, just over the boundary in the Metro centre. The hon. Gentleman clearly does not know the history of the area that he has represented for some time. As for the second part of his question, I shall give him an up-to-date figure. What I said to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, applies to the hon. Gentleman's question, too.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Has not this policy U-turn come years too late? It is not only the inner cities that have suffered, but towns such as Tewkesbury, and Barnoldswick in my constituency. Barnoldswick—a town of some 10,000 people—has lost its jobcentre and its gas and electricity showrooms, and the centre of that small town is a wasteland. Business rates have gone sky-high and traders do not know where to turn. Has not the Secretary of State been criminally negligent in the way in which he has allowed our small towns to deteriorate?
Mr. Gummer: First, the rates in the north of England have been significantly and proportionately reduced following the introduction of the uniform business rate. At the time of its introduction, some £800 million moved from the south to the north as a result of Conservative changes after the high rates placed on businesses by Labour local authorities. Such authorities used to take money from businesses—because those businesses did not have enough votes to vote the council down—and spend it on silly schemes that helped no one and were paid for by local people. The hon. Gentleman wants to know why that has happened in the north of England—it is because of Labour councils and Labour rating.
As for the hon. Gentleman's comments on town centres, planning permission arrangements will not make people open shops if they will not be profitable. Town centres will be given as big a chance as possible to compete, but the public want proper competition and decent prices. If they are provided in city centres, the people will go there. If they are not—Labour councils have stopped them in many cities—people will go elsewhere.
Mr. Hartley Booth rose—
Madam Speaker: Mr. Booth, it is my impression that you came in after the statement had started. Is that correct?
Mr. Booth: That is correct, Madam Speaker, and I apologise. As I have a special interest, I was watching my monitor and heard every word from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). Had I come away, I would not have done so.
Madam Speaker: That is a story which I have heard many times before. The entire House knows my attitude— Members must be in the Chamber to hear the statement if they wish to question the Minister.

BILLS PRESENTED
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (PRODUCTION AND SALE)
  Mr. Roger Freeman, supported by Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Tony Newton, Dr. Brian Mawhinney, Mr. Secretary Forsyth, Mr. Secretary Hague, Mr. Solicitor-General and Mr. David Willetts, presented a Bill to make provision (with retrospective effect) for the printing and sale of statutory instruments under the authority of the Queen's printer, for their issue under the authority of Her Majesty's Stationery Office and for the reception in evidence of lists of such instruments which do not bear the imprint of the Queen's printer: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 156.]
  SOCIAL SECURITY (OVERPAYMENTS)
  Mr. Secretary Lilley, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr. Secretary Dorrell, Mr. Secretary Forsyth, Mr. Secretary Hague and Mr. Roger Evans, presented a Bill to amend section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and section 69 of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 157.]
  DATA PROTECTION AND PRIVACY
  Mr. Harry Cohen presented a Bill to make provision, replacing the Data Protection Act 1984, for regulating the holding, use, disclosure and transfer of information (including automatically processed information) relating to individuals and the provision of services in respect of such information; to provide for the appointment of a Data Protection Commissioner and the establishment of a Data Protection Tribunal; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 159.]

  European Union
  [Relevant documents: The White Paper on Developments in the European Union July to December 1995 (Cm.3250), First Annual Report on Progress in Implementing the Action Plan for the Introduction of Advanced Television Services in Europe (8567/95), Commission's Recommendation for the Broad Guidelines of the Economic Policies of the Member States and the Community (11/207/96—EN REV 1), Draft for the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines for the Community and for Member States: Report to European Council (7949/96), unnumbered explanatory memorandum of 20th February 1996 submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on the draft agreement for cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy between the European Atomic Energy Community and the Republic of Argentina, and Minutes of Evidence taken by the Foreign Affairs Committee on 12th June (House of Commons Paper No. 306-ii).]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
  4.37 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I welcome this opportunity to report to the House on matters concerning the forthcoming Florence summit and other matters affecting the European Union. However, I must begin with an apology to the House. As I must accompany the Prime Minister to Florence later this evening, I will have to leave the Chamber just after 6 pm. I hope that the House will understand. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) hopes to reply to the debate and to deal with the matters raised in it.
  I also take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on his appointment to the Privy Council, which I believe to be a well-deserved recognition.
  One of the advantages of this debate is that we can discuss the forthcoming Florence summit. I want to use part of my remarks to comment on the beef crisis and how the Government see the likely developments during the next few days. Before I do so, I shall refer to some of the other important matters likely to be discussed during the weekend. Clearly there are important issues and we hope that, if the beef problem can be resolved, the EU will be able to address more long-term problems that command attention. I shall highlight three issues briefly.
  First, there is to be a report on the intergovernmental conference to the Heads of Government. The conference has now been proceeding for two or three months. As one would expect, the deliberations have been mainly general. It is unlikely that the Heads of Government will be expected to reach even provisional conclusions. We would certainly oppose that. It would clearly be premature, and I do not think that anyone else will take a different view.
  However, the Heads of Government might wish to indicate priorities for the conference to look at in the next few months. When Foreign Ministers met in Rome earlier this week, we said that flexibility, defence, employment and third pillar issues might well be deserving of some form of priority.
  Employment is another major issue that the conference is likely to consider. We are all conscious that unemployment in Europe is far too high. It is likely that there will be a lively debate based on a number of papers
  1022
  that have been prepared. Certain proposals from President Chirac, and Jacques Santer's own ideas, will determine the nature of the discussion. The United Kingdom will want to point to our experience as the country of western Europe that has relatively low and falling unemployment. We have a much better record in that respect than any other major European economy at the present time.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Rifkind: It is rather early, but I cannot resist my hon. Friend.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: To get the facts absolutely straight, as I know that my right hon. and learned Friend always does, will he confirm that, while the European Union has a high rate of unemployment—11 per cent. or 20 million—those countries which voted not to join the European Union have low rates of unemployment and great prosperity?
  Mr. Rifkind: I could point to countries both inside and outside the European Union that have either high or low rates of unemployment. I do not draw any general conclusion. The United Kingdom is a good example of how it is possible to have relatively low and falling unemployment, which is a great credit to the policies that have been pursued by the Government.
  The great challenge facing Europe at the moment, as we know, is the increased competitiveness of countries in south-east Asia and Latin America. If they increasingly challenge our markets, it is not unreasonable to point out that their success is not as a result of an addiction to the social chapter or to putting treaty amendments on employment in the legislation that covers their affairs, but because those countries have increasingly adopted policies of deregulation, development of a market economy, privatisation, competition and more open trading. That has led to their being powerful challengers. I believe that the United Kingdom can, in a similar way, show the rest of Europe how unemployment can best be dealt with. I am sure that many of the discussions on employment will centre on those aspects.
  The third main issue that is likely to be considered is European monetary union. Therefore, the Florence Council will consider reports by the Economic and Finance Council—ECOFIN—the European monetary union progress report on ins and outs, fiscal stability pacts, and the Commission's broad economic guidelines. A substantive report is expected to be presented at the Dublin European Council.
  There will also be discussion on a number of other matters, with the possibility of declarations on the middle east, what is happening in Russia and other such issues.
  Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Rifkind: In a moment, but not now.
  I should like to report to the House on the situation affecting the beef industry and what I believe is the objective over the next few days, and comment on certain matters of current interest in that respect.

  1023
  As is well known, the British Government start from exactly the same basis as that of all other European Governments—that the first priority must be the health of the public, combined with the eradication of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Those are the twin objectives, and we share the determination of all who are involved in the matter to ensure that they are achieved. We know that, against that background, some 160,000 animals have been found to be infected with BSE in the United Kingdom over a number of years. They have all been slaughtered and destroyed.
  We know that, because the British Government are determined to deal with higher risk categories, they have implemented for some time a policy of ensuring that all animals over 30 months of age not only are slaughtered when they reach the end of their working life but that their carcases are destroyed to ensure that they do not enter the food chain. Those measures and, in addition to them, the much more sophisticated control mechanisms now in place in the United Kingdom—more than in any other part of Europe—explain the British Government's view that the ban should never have been introduced, that it continues to be unjustified and that British beef is safe to eat. That is not only our view, but the view that Commissioner Fischler, the Agriculture Commissioner, expressed some time ago.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Rifkind: In a few moments, if I may.
  It is against that background that we have approached these matters, but we are realistic. We know that, even if we believe that the ban should never have been introduced, we need the agreement of the other member states and the Commission if the ban is to be lifted, so the Government have pursued a strategy since the ban was introduced that is designed to bring about the completion of its ending at the earliest possible date.
  Our strategy has been straightforward and simple—to persuade the Commission of the desirability of lifting the ban and, through that means, to persuade other member states. As the House will recall, the first category was beef derivatives—the famous tallow, gelatine and bull semen. The Commission was persuaded. It unanimously recommended the removal of that ban. The House will recall that the proposal was blocked by a minority of member states. They went in—if one wishes to use the phrase—for a policy of non-co-operation. They refused to co-operate with the unanimous view reached by the Commission after it took scientific advice.
  Against that background, on 21 May, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House that we did not believe that it was reasonable to accept such an outcome and that the United Kingdom would pursue a policy of non-co-operation until two objectives were fulfilled. The first was the lifting of the ban on beef derivatives. That ban has now been lifted. The second was the agreement of a framework strategy that allowed for the phased lifting of the rest of the ban.
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: On the Government's strategy, did the Foreign Secretary hear
  1024
  the Deputy Prime Minister say that this was a battle between Britain and the rest of the world? If he did, and if he agrees with that statement, why are we not implementing a policy of non-co-operation with the entire world?
  Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman may not be aware of the full facts, let me enlighten him. It is true that the United States has a partial ban on British beef. It is also true that it has the same partial ban on France, Ireland and Portugal, as well as other countries outside the European Union. The EU ban is much wider than that of the United States and other countries, so it is logical and appropriate to deal first with it, and then we shall be able more effectively to deal with any remaining bans that apply against not only the United Kingdom, but France and other European countries.
  Mr. Robin Cook: A moment ago, the Foreign Secretary said that the Government's objective was to obtain the completion of the lifting of the ban at the earliest possible date. Can he tell the House when, under the framework that he is recommending to the House, the completion of the lifting of the ban will be successfully reached?
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman—the right hon. Gentleman, I apologise—knows perfectly well that it is impossible to give calendar dates. He and the Leader of the Opposition knew that perfectly well when, after a certain momentary hesitation, they decided to give their support to the Government's non-co-operation policy.
  Mr. Cook rose—
  Mr. Rifkind: Let me complete the remark before I again give way.
  In the past 48 hours, the right hon. Gentleman has gone through his customary procedure. He solemnly endorsed the Government's non-co-operation policy on the basis laid down by the Prime Minister a month ago to achieve a framework strategy and now, with a sudden presentation of amazement that there is no timetable in the framework document, conveniently forgets that the Government never said that they would propose a timetable. Indeed, the Government have made it clear in the past month that calendar dates would not be introduced. The right hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do. Perhaps he will put aside his pious and unconvincing indignation before he comments further.
  Mr. Cook: The Foreign Secretary can confirm that I wrote to him on 27 May to say that our support was for the lifting of the ban within a defined time scale. I appreciate that the Foreign Secretary cannot offer us a calendar date, but can he tell us which year he will agree to—this year, next year or the year after?
  Mr. Rifkind: I will give the information to the right hon. Gentleman in the near future, if he will be patient for a moment longer.
  Mr. Leigh: Surely the important answer to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is that we cannot give calendar dates but—as farmers in my constituency and farmers' leaders said this

  1025
  morning—there must be an automatic phased lifting of the. ban as conditions are met, and that that should not be conditional on politicised committees meeting in Brussels. That is the important point that needs to be made. Now the 30-month cull is in place, any further cull must be based on scientific evidence for the purpose of eradication; it should not be just a mass slaughter of healthy cows.
  Mr. Rifkind: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He has summed up the point correctly. Since the Prime Minister announced the policy of non-co-operation, we have pursued the adoption of a framework strategy, but such a strategy must, as my hon. Friend rightly says, be based on objective scientific criteria. We know that the Commission's beef derivatives proposal was blocked by a minority of member states, not on scientific grounds, but for a variety of reasons that related, in part, to the state of public opinion back home, in part to their perception of the constitutional difficulties that they would face in getting the lifting of ban through their parliaments, and in part to other, essentially irrelevant, reasons that had no direct relation to public health. We presented our framework document to the Commission, which has largely used our proposals to produce its document, and we are determined to ensure, as my hon. Friend rightly says, that scientific and objective criteria are applied.
  We know that the Commissioners, as individuals, are not scientists, any more than Ministers are scientists. They need advice when scientific matters are being considered and I have no objection to the advisory—I stress advisory—scientific committees to which the Commission will refer such matters in order to be satisfied that the conditions that are laid down in the framework document have been met.
  That is why the right hon. Member for Livingston was again talking nonsense when he said yesterday, and the day before, that the framework document required the approval of five scientific committees before anything could happen. He knows that, with the exception of the Standing Veterinary Committee, the other committees are purely advisory. He also knows that only two groups of people—scientists and politicians—can give advice on scientific matters. If I had to choose between the two groups on a scientific matter of fact, I know that one of the objectives of the United Kingdom's policy has been to ensure that the Commission bases its decisions on the scientific advice of those who are responsible to it, rather than relying on ministerial judgments in the other capitals of Europe.
  Mr. Gapes: Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that, in addition to the 21 countries that have imposed a ban on British beef for a variety of reasons since 1990, 39 countries had imposed bans on British beef before the European Union decision? Can he give us a guarantee that, if the European Union ban is lifted, all the individual countries will abide by that lifting of the ban—or will they make national decisions?
  Mr. Rifkind: For countries outside the European Union, the decisions are obviously national decisions. What is unique about the European Union ban is that we are part of a single market. That is what makes the ban qualitatively different from those of the United States, Canada or any other country. A national Government can,
  1026
  of course, come to a decision—and we can respond against that country by a reciprocal ban if we so choose. Every Government has that right, but we are part of a single market, and a ban imposed on health grounds by 14 countries on the exports of the 15th can be maintained only if those health grounds can be justified and if other considerations are not brought into play.
  There is a deep sense of unfairness in the United Kingdom about the ban, because the Commissioner for Agriculture has said that, in his judgment—and he speaks for the Commission—British beef is safe to eat. That means that there is no justification for a breach of the single market principle for reasons not directly related to public health.
  Mr. Peter Shore: We all want the phased lifting of the ban to happen quickly. I understand that the Commission will be influenced by, one hopes, objective scientific opinion, but when a proper proposal is made by the Commission to lift a segment of the ban, will that have to be approved by the Council of Agriculture Ministers first?
  Mr. Rifkind: No, that should not be required. I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman and the House about the procedure that will be followed, because it is spelt out in the framework document. We told the Commission, and it has accepted the point, that it would be sensible to consider the ban not as a single ban, but as a ban on different categories of cattle, including those from BSE-free herds that have been only grass-fed, embryos, young cattle born recently, those under 30 months and those over 30 months. Those are the five categories that the Commission suggested. In each case, the procedure for lifting the ban—and this point relates to the timetable—will begin when the United Kingdom Government present a working paper to the Commission describing the ways in which the conditions for lifting that part of the ban have been met.
  For example, in the case of BSE-free herds—those that have been fed only on grass and have no history of infection—we are working at the moment, as the House knows, on a system of certification, which is already advanced in Northern Ireland and will soon be available for the rest of the United Kingdom. When the Ministry of Agriculture is able to do so, it will present the documentation that shows that that system can produce reliable information that a herd is BSE-free. On receipt of that information, the Commission will ask the advisory committees, on an advisory basis, to advise whether the system is sound and working effectively. If the Commission is satisfied, it will adopt a formal proposal that will go to the Standing Veterinary Committee. If the proposal is approved by the Standing Veterinary Committee, the ban will be lifted. It does not need to go before any Ministers or any Government.
  Mr. Leigh: Will we have a choice? We fear that the Standing Veterinary Committee is politicised and that it works under the orders of other Governments. It is not a pure scientific body, so we want to ensure that, once we have met the conditions and it is obvious that we have done our best to meet them, the committee will automatically accept the lifting of the ban.
  Mr. Rifkind: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns—we have shared concerns because of

  1027
  experience—but he should not take that concern too far. Last night, for example, the Standing Veterinary Committee unanimously approved the United Kingdom eradication programme. That decision, frankly, was far better than we had expected. The committee, including representatives from Germany, Austria and other countries that have been difficult in the past, unanimously endorsed the programme. Even on beef derivatives, with which we have had serious problems, we had a good majority at the Standing Veterinary Committee, although we did not have a large enough majority.
  The procedure I have outlined is important, and we have considerably strengthened the system as a result of what has been achieved in the past four weeks. In the past, countries could maintain that questions of market confidence were relevant to perpetuation of the ban. The Commission's framework document clearly states that scientific considerations are relevant, and one of the objectives of the forthcoming foreign summit is that the Heads of Government should also commit themselves to scientific considerations as the basis for decision.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: If the United Kingdom Government feel that they have fulfilled one of the conditions for the lifting of part of the ban, but are turned down by the Standing Veterinary Committee in Brussels, which imposed the ban originally, what will we do?
  Mr. Rifkind: I have two points to make in reply to my hon. Friend. First, we would need to judge whether the decision was taken on bona fide scientific grounds. If it was, we would have to consider the committee's concerns carefully. Secondly, as we found in relation to beef derivatives, that is not the end of the matter. Even if the Commission does not achieve a sufficient majority on the Standing Veterinary Committee, it is still able to take the matter forward and, as we saw in the case of the beef derivatives, get the ban lifted. That has already happened. It is not just theory: we saw it happen with the beef derivatives, although it took longer than we had hoped.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is not the Commission right to insist on a belt-and-braces approach because the Government have been criminally negligent since 1988 in allowing contaminated feed into the system? Is not the root of the problem that the Government did not police the system? The Commission and our European partners recognise that, which is why they insist that everything that is done here should be double-checked by the European Union. Because everything has to be double-checked by our European partners, the Foreign Secretary—like the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon—is unable to tell the House when the ban will, ultimately, be lifted.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is getting a bit carried away. He knows perfectly well that, throughout Europe, there are always imperfections in control mechanisms. If the hon. Gentleman believes ill only of his own country, and that there are no problems in any other country, he is either remarkably naive or extraordinarily short-sighted. Of course we recognise that there have been shortcomings in the United Kingdom's
  1028
  control system—that has been acknowledged for some time—but it is absurd to imply that they are unique to the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman knows—and should recognise—that the control mechanisms now in force in the United Kingdom go far further than those that exist in any other western European country.
  Mr. Denis MacShane rose—
  Mr. Alan W. Williams rose—
  Mr. Rifkind: I must make progress—I might give way later.
  One matter that I know is of interest to the House is the culling of additional animals, about which there has recently been much publicity. I shall deal with some of the ways in which that subject has been misrepresented in some statements.
  We have for some time been slaughtering and destroying all animals over the age of 30 months when they reach the end of their normal working life. Under that policy, 25,000 cattle a week are being slaughtered and destroyed. The Commission proposes that that policy should be accelerated in respect of cattle born in 1989–90—not all cattle, but those that came from herds or areas where they were likely to have been exposed to the same animal feed as animals subsequently found to be infected. We have agreed that that is an acceptable proposal, but that does not mean that there will be any slaughtering of cattle that would not otherwise have been slaughtered and destroyed.
  The proposal is that the policy should be brought forward to help produce the earlier eradication of BSE. That factor is not as significant as is being made out in some quarters. We are talking about cattle born in 1989–90—seven-year-old cattle. I am advised that the average age of slaughtered dairy cattle is six years eight months—and it is mostly dairy cattle that we are talking about. A substantial number of the cattle in question would, in normal circumstances—even if it were not for BSE—be reaching the end of their life in the seventh year.
  The figure of 67,000, which a number of people have highlighted, is notional. The actual figure is certain to be substantially lower. Of that 67,000, many are cattle that have already been slaughtered or would be coming up for slaughter and destruction during this year under the 30-month scheme. The best estimate that can be made of the additional cattle that might be affected is between 20,000 and 45,000—not 67,000, as previously suggested. Of course, compensation has to be made available to farmers to make up for their loss. It is important that that point is understood; otherwise there could be needless concern and alarm.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Can the Foreign Secretary illuminate that point? He spoke of animals with an average age of six years and seven, or 10, months, which would normally progress into the food chain. Surely the stipulation that, thankfully, is coming from Europe, is that they should not go into the food chain. If they did, pollution across species would occur again and we would greatly damage confidence in our beef.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Those cattle were already going to be slaughtered and

  1029
  destroyed—but at the end of their normal working life; they would have continued as dairy cattle, producing milk for a longer period. That is perfectly safe and, rightly, no one has objected to that. The cattle would then have been slaughtered and destroyed. They are now going to be slaughtered and destroyed earlier, as that will help with the overall eradication programme. That is an additional factor resulting from the proposal. I am happy to have clarified that point.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: The general public find it puzzling that 40,000 became 80,000 and then 150,000, when the Government maintain at every juncture that they are basing their policy on scientific evidence. How can the science vary so much, especially as 99 per cent. of those cows do not carry the BSE prion? How can the Government claim that the policy is based on scientific evidence? Meanwhile, farmers do not even have a timetable for the lifting of the ban.
  Mr. Rifkind: There are two reasons. First, the matter is not arbitrary; we are not talking about all cattle that happen to be born in a particular year. When a cow is found to be infected with BSE, one examines other cows in the cohort that carry a higher risk of potential infection—cattle that would have been born at the same time and, because they were born in the same place, are likely to have been exposed to the same animal feed.
  Secondly, we were reluctant to include cattle born in 1989–90 because proper documentation of cattle began only in 1990; before that date, there is no documentation on the age of cattle. The current proposal, which involves taking that year into account, therefore requires the active co-operation of the farming community. Our reluctance sprang from legitimate reasons. In the light of the circumstances, we believe that if there is a proper compensation scheme, the farming community will wish to co-operate and we shall be able to meet the requirement.
  I have one further point on the subject, although I do not want to devote my entire speech to beef. The House will have its own view on the necessity or otherwise of the non-co-operation policy. As one who has been very much involved in the policy, I can only give the House my candid judgment: I firmly believe that, without the adoption of the non-co-operation policy four weeks ago, there would not have been the slightest possibility of the Commission adopting a framework document providing for the phased lifting of the beef ban. Nor would there have been the slightest possibility that, at the Florence summit, the Heads of Government might adopt such a policy—as they might do over the next few days. Such is the political controversy surrounding these matters in other countries that they would have found reasons to defer consideration, and it would have taken many more months of uncertainty. Each hon. Member will come to his or her own view on the matter, but I have no doubt that that is the case.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: As the Foreign Secretary knows, I do not agree with the central thrust of what he has said, but if we were to assume that he was right, does he view the United Kingdom's action
  1030
  as a valuable precedent to be followed by this country and by other members of the European Union in similar circumstances in future?
  Mr. Rifkind: The crucial aspect of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said relates to the phrase "in similar circumstances". The particular point about this sad series of events is that, to my knowledge, it is almost unique for 14 member states to impose a worldwide embargo on the exports of a 15th country. It is not just a matter of Britain disagreeing with the rest of Europe on an aspect of European policy. Of course it would be intolerable to introduce a policy of non-co-operation in such circumstances.
  This was unique. We are talking about an important British industry, which had its exports banned by the other 14 countries. How would France, Germany or the other countries have reacted in similar circumstances? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman seriously suggesting that if the French Government, for example, had had their exports banned by the other 14, even though the Commission had said that their beef was safe to eat, would simply have said, "That's very sad. We'll wait until you all change your mind"?
  Mr. Campbell: The issue is one of principle. Is the Foreign Secretary saying that it is legitimate to use duress in the current circumstances? If so, is he telling the House that, in other circumstances, he would regard it as legitimate for other countries in the European Union to use duress? Would not the United Kingdom resist any effort to make us negotiate under duress?
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. and learned Gentleman must remember what our objective has been: to get a framework agreed by everyone. We have not said, "You must accept our views as to the content of the policy," or, "You must agree that the ban is lifted on 2 July." That might have been unreasonable for the reasons that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested. We have said that the non-co-operation policy will continue until a framework strategy is agreed by everyone. Our objective was to set a negotiation in train.
  Although the Commission was very willing for that to happen, the sad fact, which the House cannot ignore, is that a minority of member states did not want, for reasons of domestic political problems, to start a negotiation, never mind reach an agreement. They wanted the issue to be put in the "too difficult" tray, and perhaps return six or nine months later when their own domestic opinion might have made it possible for them to start to negotiate. That was the problem that we had to address, and we make no apologies for the way in which we dealt with it.
  Mr. Mark Robinson: Do not the Opposition, on any attempt to fight our corner in Europe, raise serious questions about what would happen if a Labour Government were elected in this country? Would they agree to everything that was put on the table by our partners in Brussels?
  Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend raises an important point, because the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and the Leader of the Opposition tried, I presume, to earn political capital—as they saw it at the time—by

  1031
  supporting our non-co-operation policy. Now, they attack us because we may be about to accept an agreement that they say falls short of what should be accepted.
  Given that the right hon. Member for Livingston supports the non-co-operation policy, I look forward to hearing whether, if he were in our position, he would continue that policy until the various criticisms that he now makes were satisfied. If he is not saying that, he is slightly unconvincing in the strictures that he tries to present. He knows perfectly well the basis on which the non-co-operation policy was introduced: to achieve the lifting of the ban on beef derivatives—which we have achieved—and a framework strategy for the phased lifting of the rest of the ban, which may be achieved in the next couple of days.
  Mr. Robin Cook: As the Foreign Secretary was kind enough to refer to me again, perhaps he will now answer the question that he promised earlier that he would: in what year will the completion of the phased lifting of the ban take place?
  Mr. Rifkind: As was indicated earlier, we believe that the Ministry of Agriculture will be able to introduce proposals for the initial lifting of the ban in the autumn of this year. It may be earlier. We cannot be certain of the precise date. The lifting of the ban will be a priority for the Government. It will be based on when the Government are able to show the Commission that the conditions have been met. I believe that that process will accelerate over the next few months and that it is a perfectly realistic expectation.
  Mr. MacShane: If the Foreign Secretary thinks that he has won on this matter, I imagine that the Dutch football manager went home the other night thinking that he had won.
  Let us be clear. Is the Foreign Secretary saying that the Commission is batting for Britain but that member states are exercising an individual veto? As he is Mr. Veto on so many other issues, why does he object so strongly when other countries imitate him?
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman thinks that he is making a clever point, but he makes a poor one. The United Kingdom believes that unanimity should often be the requirement. If there had been a need for unanimity in this area, there would not have been a ban in the first place. It was possible to introduce the ban only because of majority voting. Those who live by majority voting occasionally die by majority voting, so that principle should not alarm the hon. Gentleman too much.
  I shall now deal with the wider issues. I am conscious of the fact that, recently, there has been heightened interest in the future of the European Union and the United Kingdom's role in it. The position was explained clearly by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in an important speech yesterday. Our commitment to the European Union is based on two fundamental considerations, the first being the political benefits to the United Kingdom, which were best explained by my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher in 1975.
  What she said is as true now as it was then. She said that we must ensure that no effort is spared in telling people the basic reason why it is in Britain's interest to
  1032
  remain a member of the European Community, that the Community gives us peace and security in a free society, a peace and security denied to the past two generations, that the Community gives us a chance to influence world affairs, that Britain's instincts have never been isolationist, and that membership of the Community enables us to play a full part in the counsels of Europe and a continuing role in world affairs.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: Is my right hon. and learned Friend absolutely sure that those are still the views of our noble Friend?
  Mr. Rifkind: That is an entirely fair question. All I can say is that my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher has never been reluctant to let her views be known on any given matter. If those remarks now misrepresent her current opinion, I am sure that she will take the earliest opportunity to say so. Sadly, she has not done so in the past 20 years, so I am entitled to assume that she holds them as fervently and enthusiastically today as she did then.
  The other reason why the European Union is crucial to this country is the single market, which we must not confuse with a free trade area, as occasionally is done. The whole point about the single market is the elimination not just of tariff barriers but of non-tariff barriers, and to deal with the inevitable protectionist tendencies in member states in the European Union. That is why we need the enforcement measures. That is why—despite the criticisms that we often hear about it—there needs to be a European Court—[Interruption.] There needs to be one. To ensure the enforcement of the single market, that is a requirement. That is well understood. It does not in any way diminish some of the criticisms that we make about certain aspects of the way in which the court is permitted to operate, but that is a separate matter.
  Mr. Robinson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that 40 per cent. of all American investment that comes into Europe comes to the United Kingdom because we have the most favourable regulatory regime of any country in Europe, and that that is why we need to use the European Court in these circumstances to improve the single market?
  Mr. Rifkind: That is indeed right. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier today, when he quoted the head of the German confederation of industry, 10 times as much investment comes to the United Kingdom as comes to Germany—because of the economic circumstances in this country.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Although it is certain that we need a court to have a rules-based single market, and we need adjudications on those rules, is it necessary to have a legal system that is superior to our own, and which penetrates our legal system, giving rights and obligations to individuals and institutions within the member states, which is quite unlike any other free market agreement between nation states in any other part of the world, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement?
  Mr. Rifkind: It is more than a free trade agreement. It goes back to the origins of the treaty of Rome. It is not some new, sinister development. It has nothing to do with

  1033
  the treaty of Maastricht. It was in the original treaty that we signed some 20 years ago. That point must be remembered.
  Mr. Tim Renton: My right hon. and learned Friend rightly drew a distinction between a free trade area and a single market, but does he agree that there is a link between a European single market and European monetary union? Monetary union can be seen as a logical consequence of a single market, and it is very difficult for a single market to be achieved without a single currency.
  Mr. Rifkind: I am afraid that I must part company with my right hon. Friend. In a recent speech, the Governor of the Bank of England also indicated that he was unconvinced of the existence of a necessary connection between the two elements.
  The Government's position on our commitment is clear, but the Leader of the Opposition is in danger of confusing—to say the least—people both here and abroad about what his actual beliefs are. I read with interest a speech that he made recently to the German confederation of industry in Hamburg. Some time ago, he said proudly that, under his leadership, he would never allow this country to be isolated or left behind in Europe. In Germany earlier this week, he said:
  "I shall defend the interests of the British people as stubbornly and fiercely as I expect the German government to defend the German interests."
  We shall all wait with considerable scepticism to discover how it is possible to reconcile never being isolated with stubbornly and fiercely defending British interests.
  Some time ago, we heard the Leader of the Opposition say that, under his leadership, Britain would abandon the veto in regional, industrial, social and employment policy. In Germany, he said that the Conservative party would portray Labour as wanting to end the British veto. Why can we not have a straight line from the Leader of the Opposition? He said in Germany:
  "We will be part of the European Social Chapter".
  In the very same speech, however, he said:
  "The impact of non-wage costs on total employment costs cannot be ignored, nor can the way some regulations prevent the kind of workforce flexibility needed by modern manufacturing processes and the new service industries."
  As in so many other areas of policy, the Leader of the Opposition says all things to all people in a desperate attempt to promote his own position.
  I believe that the situation in the Labour party is beginning to resist that approach. Only this week, in the European Parliament, 52 Labour MEPs rejected the Labour policy of support for non-co-operation. In doing so, they attacked not just the Government but their own leadership. Very recently, a document was published, signed by 50 Labour Members of Parliament who were attacking their own Front Bench on the single currency, and who say that they are going to launch a campaign to persuade their own party leadership to change its current policy of being sympathetic to the idea.
  Those inconsistencies, with Labour MEPs attacking their Front Bench and 50 Members of Parliament criticising official policy—well, it all looks quite familiar. The hon. Member for Livingston is going to begin to experience what some of us have been experiencing for a little longer. We have always known that these divisions
  1034
  exist in the Labour party, but until recently Labour Members have been slightly better than us at concealing them. It is now evident that that deception cannot be sustained. The extraordinary, unprecedented self-discipline is breaking down, and I have no doubt that that will add to the gaiety of mankind.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must announce that Madam Speaker has decided that, from 7 pm, speeches shall be restricted to 10 minutes.
  5.23 pm
  Mr. Robin Cook: I shall follow the Foreign Secretary in addressing the bulk of my remarks to the beef dispute and its resolution, but before I do so, let me also follow his example in referring to another matter that will arise at the Florence summit. I hope that it will prompt concern on both sides of the House, and possibly on all sides of the Tory party.
  In the past two weeks, the Foreign Secretary has twice attended Council meetings at which the peace process in Bosnia has been discussed, and he will know that that is also on the Florence agenda. This may well be the House's last opportunity to raise concerns about the peace process before the House rises for the recess, and it is likely that Bosnia will proceed to elections while it is in recess. I suspect that the Minister of State will have a lot on his plate when he replies to the debate, but when he does so, will he give us the Government's current views on whether it will be feasible to hold fair and free elections in Bosnia by 14 September, and tell us what view the Prime Minister will express at the Florence summit when the matter is discussed?
  The Minister will be aware that there are serious doubts about whether the elections can be free and fair. For instance, are the Government satisfied that candidates outside the governing parties will have access to independent media? What happened to the television station, promised during the Dayton peace process, that would give access to people outside the state apparatus? Are the Government satisfied with progress on the return of refugees? I understand that 1,950,000 out of a total of 2 million have still not returned. Can they realistically take part in the elections in September?
  Finally, and perhaps most important, what more can the Government offer to bring Mr. Karadzic and General Mladic to justice before the international war tribunal? Even if they do not stand in the elections, their continuing presence intimidates others, and there can be no reconciliation after the atrocities of the war if no justice is brought to bear on those responsible for those atrocities. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what view the Government will express in Florence; and I thank the House for its patience in allowing me to refer to the peace process that is intended to resolve the war in Bosnia.
  On the more absorbing issue of the resolution of our beef war with Brussels, I am quite confident—more confident than the Prime Minister sounded at Question Time—that the issue will be resolved in Florence. It is evident that the Government will now accept anything that is on offer to get themselves off the hook on which they have impaled themselves. We can see that if we examine the deal that is now on offer from Brussels, and compare it with the deal sought by Britain.

  1035
  First, there is the matter of the extra cull to which the Foreign Secretary referred, and to which he put a figure of between 20,000 and 45,000—or, as the Deputy Prime Minister described it this morning on the "Today" programme, a "handful" of cattle. The Foreign Secretary tried to explain that this was not an extra cull at all, because the cows were going to be killed anyway.
  Perhaps the House will allow me a reminiscence. I once took an English companion to the scene of the battle of Flodden, and waxed woeful over the number of members of the Scottish nobility who had died in that battle. My English companion, who was obviously losing patience with my tale of woe, broke in to say, "Well, they would all be dead now anyway." The Foreign Secretary seems to be following the same logic.
  The fact is that the Government have no commitment to cull cows aged over 30 months. As the Foreign Secretary rightly said, they have a commitment not to allow cows aged over 30 months to enter the food chain. They have now conceded that cows born in 1989 will be culled before the farmers necessarily conclude that they have reached the end of their working lives. If the Foreign Secretary is really confident that all those cows are at the end of their working lives anyway, he should try explaining to the House why the National Farmers Union is so concerned about the fact that cows on many farms which are not regarded as being at the end of their working lives will have to be culled earlier.
  There is also the awkward matter of what the Government said at the time when they embarked on the beef war. On 21 May, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:
  "I have seen no evidence to justify going beyond the proposal that we have advanced."—[Official Report, 12 May 1996; Vol.278, c.113.]
  Yesterday, the Minister said that it was quite untrue that the Government were contemplating an extra cull.
  I must tell the Foreign Secretary that there may be a case for the additional culls that are proposed. That is a matter for the House to resolve when it debates the Statutory Instrument which will, of course, be required, although this is not actually an extra cull. But as this Foreign Office debate is focusing on the negotiation of a package, let us at least not pretend that the Government have not shifted their position. Let us at least treat the House as adults and admit that there has been a climb-down, or possibly a climb up. Originally, the Government were willing to cull 40,000. That rose to 80,000 and it is now, according to the Foreign Secretary, about 125,000. That may have been necessary to reach agreement, but let us not pretend that it was not a shift in the Government's position.
  I advise the Foreign Secretary not to pretend that the Commission's framework is what the Government wanted. We know that it is not, because it opens by criticising the Government and expressing
  "considerable misgiving about the effectiveness of past actions taken by the UK in relation to BSE."
  It is not the first time that a Foreign Secretary has come to the House and claimed success in his negotiating policy, having secured a document that criticises the effectiveness of his own Government.
  1036
  We also know that this is not the document that the Government wanted, because we have a copy of the draft framework that the Government were arguing for only last week. There are three major gulfs between the Commission document and the Government paper. The first is that the Government paper sets out at great length the link between the steps that we can take to tackle BSE and the action that the Commission can take to phase out the ban on British beef. There is sheet after sheet on that—five pages in the annexe. Britain's action is in the left-hand column and the Commission's action is in the right-hand column, but none of that is in the Commission document.
  Mr. Rifkind: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman clearly has not read the Commission's paper, page 3 of which is about the procedure for lifting the ban. It says:
  "A working paper must be presented by the UK, elaborating the specific criteria and indicators as exemplified in the UK framework document",
  which the right hon. Gentleman quotes. Page 1 of the Commission paper says:
  "The Standing Veterinary Committee has examined the UK framework document … giving many of the principles a favourable reaction",
  so the right hon. Gentleman could at least do the House the courtesy of reading the document before commenting on it.
  Mr. Cook: I have read the document repeatedly. As the Foreign Secretary says, it states that the committee has given
  "many of the principles a favourable reaction"—
  not the five pages of the annexe. The Commission has covered itself by rolling together what is in the annexe into a single paragraph, and by rolling into a separate paragraph what action it might take in lifting the ban. There is no explicit link or parallel there.
  Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman must read the document a fourth time if he has read it three times, because he has not understood it. It states clearly the procedure for lifting the ban and says explicitly what the first step is:
  "A working paper must be presented by the UK, elaborating the specific criteria and indicators exemplified in the UK framework document."
  That is precisely the link that the right hon. Gentleman says does not exist.
  Mr. Cook: As the Foreign Secretary says, the document states:
  "as exemplified in the UK framework document."
  If he regards that as the binding link, I would not go to him for legal advice, even though he may be a Queen's Counsel.
  As the Foreign Secretary has turned to the page on procedure, let us deal with his comments. He said that I was wrong in saying that this matter had to go before five committees. [Interruption.] I am sorry if I misunderstood him. Obviously I was right in saying that it had to go before five committees. Is that what he is saying?
  Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman can check the record. I said explicitly that all these committees bar one

  1037
  were merely advisory committees. They could not block or decide anything. They merely advise the Commission. Only the Standing Veterinary Committee takes a decision.
  Mr. Cook: The paper says that the UK working paper
  "will be submitted"—
  Mr. Rifkind: For consultation.
  Mr. Cook: Indeed. I intend to read it all, if the Foreign Secretary will relax and let me do so. The paper states:
  "This working paper will be submitted for consultation to the Scientific Veterinary Committee, the newly created Multi-disciplinary Scientific Committee and, where appropriate, to other relevant Scientific Committees. At the same time, it will be discussed by the Standing Veterinary Committee.
  In the light of these discussions the Commission will take a decision".
  Is the Foreign Secretary saying that if, after those discussions, the committees say, "This is not sufficient", and if the Committee expresses the view that the indicators or criteria are not adequate, the Commission will take a favourable decision? Does any Back-Bench Conservative Member believe that that will happen?
  Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman must not get into a bogus lather about these matters. He knows that the Commissioners are not scientists. He would be the first to criticise Ministers or the Commission if they took scientific decisions without consulting scientific advisers. That is what they are required to do and that is what we insisted on, because if decisions are not based on scientific advice, the only alternative is to base them on political considerations, which is exactly what we are trying to get away from.
  Mr. Cook: The Foreign Secretary's intervention was revealing. He said that the Commissioners are not scientists—which we accept entirely—that they will take advice from scientific committees, and that these are the scientific committees. Having listened to that, it is unlikely that the Commission will then say, if the scientific advice is negative, that it will go ahead with the decision.
  The next stage is that the Commission will present its draft decision to the Standing Veterinary Committee. As the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) rightly reminded the Foreign Secretary, the Committee refused to lift the ban on derivatives—it divided on it. That is how we got into the dispute and into the non-co-operation policy in the first place.
  It is not entirely honest of the Foreign Secretary to say to the House that this will be a matter simply for scientific and not political judgment. The next paragraph says:
  "Fortnightly reports by the UK … and monthly reports by the Commission to the Council and Parliament will continue as long as necessary and are an integral part of this procedure."
  If we assume that the Council is going merely to note the reports with which it feels unhappiest, the Foreign Secretary is not being frank with the House about the nature of the discussions that he has had in the past month.
  There is another gulf that the Foreign Secretary cannot wriggle out of. In the document that he submitted last week, the Government made considerable play of the importance of exports to third countries. The Government
  1038
  proposed that exports to third countries that were not authorised to re-export beef to the European Union should recommence immediately. The Government also proposed that exports to other third countries should recommence subject only to safeguards on re-exports to the European Union, not subject to anything that we were going to do to tackle BSE. The Foreign Secretary cannot deny that that is knocked firmly on the head by the Commission, which dismisses the proposal in one line. It says:
  "Exports to third countries will be permitted in parallel to phased exports to other Member States".
  In other words, until we fulfil all the steps set out by the Commission, and until all the committees give their scientific advice, there will be no exports to third countries.
  When he was asked yesterday when exports to third countries could recommence, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, with the characteristic honesty that has undermined his interventions in this affair, said:
  "I am not trying to avoid it. I just don't know the answer".
  Perhaps the Foreign Secretary will give us the answer.
  Mr. Rifkind: On exports to third countries, the matter will no doubt be discussed this weekend in Florence. Yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General put to the European Court of Justice the UK case—which was extremely well received—with regard to this part of the ban. We are likely to have a decision within the next week or 10 days on whether there should be an interim decision by the court which could lift that part of the ban immediately. Obviously, we cannot be certain until we hear that judgment, but the Attorney-General believes that he had a good hearing on the inequity of that aspect of the ban. We will wish to see the outcome of that hearing and take that into account.
  Mr. Cook: I commend the Foreign Secretary on his confidence in the European Court of Justice. I presume that he will now defend it against the criticism that it frequently receives from Conservative Back Benchers. In case hon. Members did not notice it, may I point out that they are being asked to accept the framework agreement without any commitment on exports to third countries, and on the assumption that the European Court will ride to the rescue, which many Conservative Members will find uncomfortable.
  Apart from the gulf between the papers of last week and this week, the Foreign Secretary is unable to answer the question that I repeatedly asked him: when will the phased lifting of the beef ban be completed? He said that it was never his intention to have a timetable. On 27 May, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was seeking an agreed strategy to provide for the lifting of the rest of the ban and that the question of a timetable would obviously be part of those discussions—so presumably he discussed a timetable with our partners in the European Union. What did they say?
  Mr. Leigh rose—
  Mr. Cook: I will just finish with the Foreign Secretary.
  What did our European partners say when the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised the timetable? Are we to infer from his inability to offer any timetable that he does not wish to share with us the answer that he received?

  1039
  Farmers need to know when they can export beef again— will it be this year, next year or the year after? It must be dawning on Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, that they will be fighting the next general election with most of the beef ban still in place.
  Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman quoted from the British document that was put to the Commission, in which we made no suggestion of determining calendar dates now, as to when various parts of the ban should be lifted. Picking an arbitrary date of 31 July or 2 August would be nonsense. The Commission's document as well as our own reflects that the approach should be to agree the conditions that must be satisfied for the lifting of each phase of the ban, and for the UK to initiate that process when it can demonstrate that those conditions have been met. Then the ban will be lifted.
  Mr. Cook: The Foreign Secretary confirms the extent to which the Government are shifting their position. The Minister of Agriculture told the House:
  "I made it clear that, in order to be acceptable to us, any Council conclusions must include either agreement to lift the ban forthwith, or a procedure and timetable to that end."—[Official Report, 3 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 407.]
  I ask not for a calendar date but to be told in which year the ban will be lifted—or to extend the point, in which century.
  Mr. Leigh: There is no use the right hon. Gentleman answering a question from my right hon. and learned Friend with another question. How can the UK insist in Florence this weekend on any date for the phased lifting of the ban when we have no idea whether the conditions will have been met by that time?
  Mr. Cook: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past 17 years, or for the past 10 years of the BSE crisis, but a Conservative Government have been in charge all that time. Ten years after BSE appeared in the herd, the Government still cannot say when the conditions for eradicating BSE will be in place. That is why the Commission started its statement by criticising the effectiveness of the UK measures.
  The Foreign Secretary asked whether I believe that the non-co-operation policy should continue beyond Florence. I recognise that the job of Foreign Secretary may occasionally involve telling the House with weary resignation, "This is the best deal that I can get, it's the best deal you're going to get, and you'd better take it." There is nothing dishonourable about doing that. I suspect that the Foreign Secretary ought to be saying that to the House.
  However, he cannot get away with pretending that this deal is the one that he wanted. Still less can he get away with pretending that the deal is a triumph for the policy of non-co-operation. I am rather more impressed by the results of the freelance policy of non-co-operation pursued by the hon. Members for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst)—who at least succeeded in getting the ban on their hospital lifted. Possibly the Foreign Secretary should have copied their framework strategy.
  1040
  The Foreign Secretary has been able to secure an agreement because the Government have at last come up with a plan to eradicate BSE from the herd. The right hon. and learned Gentleman carried around that document in his briefcase to all the chancelleries of Europe—an onerous task, and it would be churlish not to congratulate him on the energy that he expended on it. However, why did the Government wait three months after the ban before the Foreign Secretary took that action?
  Instead, the Government announced to the House three months ago the possible link between BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease. There was no warning to Brussels of the thunderbolt coming out of the sky, no plans for the extra measures necessary to tackle BSE or contain the inevitable blow to consumer confidence, and apparently no foreign strategy to contain the entirely predictable reaction of nations that import British beef. If the Government had not made those elementary errors, we might have got the deal that the Foreign Secretary is commending to the House today without three months' delay and the need to disrupt the business of the European Union.
  The Foreign Secretary was good enough to refer to our support for the policy of non-co-operation, although not with the generosity appropriate to my attempt to develop a bipartisan line. We argued that that policy should not be applied in a mindless, routine way as a blanket ban, but that there should be sensible exemptions. We said that Britain should not block measures that we wanted more than our partners, or those that affected third countries that are not even members of the EU or parties to the dispute.
  The Government blocked both types of measures. They blocked a measure to cut red tape although Britain had proposed it. The Government blocked tougher powers of inspection against fraud although Britain had lobbied for them. I discovered at the weekend that the Government also blocked a letter to Iran about Salman Rushdie, although the only beneficiary would be a resident of Britain and of nowhere else.
  One consequence of the non-co-operation policy that the Euro-sceptics could not possibly have anticipated is that it has focused on how many sensible things Europe does and how often they are helpful to Britain. The Government also blocked measures that are more important to the inhabitants of third countries outside Europe than to any resident of Europe. Most spectacularly, the Government blocked a declaration condemning the detention of pro-democracy activists in Burma. I cannot conceive what possible leverage the Foreign Secretary could imagine he was obtaining in respect of the beef ban by offering comfort to the repressive military regime in charge in Burma.
  It is now possible to draw up a score sheet on the beef crisis. On the one hand, we have the three-page offer from the Commission that falls far short of the offer that the Government were seeking only last week. On the other hand, we have the casualties. The Government have sacrificed their credibility by blocking measures for which they have long lobbied in Brussels. The Government have left the rest of the world perplexed, having negotiated agreements with
  Britain's support only to find them blocked by Britain. Most perversely of all for Back Benchers, the Government have left other EU member states more determined than ever before to cut the areas in which the veto applies. The

  1041
  Government's position at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference is to oppose any shift from the use of the veto in European Union decision-making. Their policy of non-co-operation has sharply undermined the credibility with which Britain can argue for that at the IGC.
  Another consequence of the Government's behaviour of the past month is potentially damaging to our long-term interests.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Hon. Members: He has only just come into the Chamber.
  Mr. Cook: I am tempted to rely on the Speaker's ruling that an hon. Member who is not present for the start of a debate is not allowed to participate half-way through. However, the hon. Gentleman has only a few months left in which to intervene in the House, so I shall not deny him this opportunity.
  Mr. Arnold: The right hon. Gentleman is rubbishing the policy of non-co-operation. Was it not the leader of the Labour party who said that he supported precisely that policy?
  Mr. Cook: I really should have known better than to let the hon. Gentleman intervene. We have been dealing with this issue for the past 45 minutes, and our position was made perfectly plain at the outset—that we were not going to undermine the Government's activities. We have made very sensible criticisms as to how they should carry out their policy, but the entire thrust of my speech—which I invite the hon. Gentleman to read tomorrow when he gets Hansard—is to point out that the tatty deal that the Government have secured can in no way be represented as a triumph for that policy.
  Mr. Arnold: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer my question.
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman never asks a question that is worthy of answer, to be perfectly frank.
  In his remarks, the Foreign Secretary stressed that Britain's future lies in Europe, and ended by praising the achievements of the European Union. If that is his position, the Foreign Secretary must take account of the wave of jingoism and offensive hostility to our European partners that has been released by the Government's activities over the past month, particularly from those newspapers that told us that the Government had declared war in Europe and that told us—presumably with some spinning—that the Foreign Secretary was presiding over a war Cabinet.
  The problem is that wars require an enemy. Inevitably those newspapers that announced that we are at war started to write about the other countries of Europe as our enemies. The Sun offered helpful advice to its readers on how best to insult German tourists. Last week, the Foreign Secretary made a speech in which he declared that the Government are not anti-European. I welcome that statement, although I am bound to say that I find it revealing that the Foreign Secretary should feel obliged
  1042
  to have to announce that. I also find it revealing that broadcasting authorities should regard the announcement as sufficiently newsworthy to include in their bulletins.
  If the Government are not anti-European, perhaps the Foreign Secretary should tell the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who—of all people—said it was unbelievable that the BBC had adopted Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" as a theme, because it was a German tune. Perhaps he should also tell the chairman of the Tory party, who—in a pithy statement of his cultural tastes—said that he would have preferred the BBC to choose a "bit of British music". Perhaps the Foreign Secretary should also tell the editor of The Sun.
  The Foreign Secretary wrote an article on the beef war for The Sun, which was carried under a cartoon of a German U-boat sinking British ships. In the line immediately above the photograph of the Foreign Secretary, the German U-boat commander says:
  "Mein Gott, it's good to be torpedoing British ships again!"
  The Foreign Secretary will be aware that I wrote to him to invite him to join me in a joint appeal against that type of offensive xenophobia. He will know that he refused. There is no point in assuring our partners that the Government are not anti-European if they see that that is the type of company that he keeps. It is a short-sighted diplomacy that says one thing to our partners and then sends out a different signal to the editor of The Sun, because the other members of the European Union can see through that.
  Mr. Rifkind: I seem to remember that the Leader of the Opposition had an article in his name published in The Sun recently. Will the right hon. Gentleman dissociate himself from that?
  Mr. Cook: No, not in the slightest. But I must say that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has dissociated himself from that cartoon and the like. Will the Foreign Secretary now dissociate himself from what The Sun has said?
  Mr. Rifkind: I have no difficulty whatsoever in condemning unreservedly the xenophobic nonsense that appears in the tabloid newspapers. But the idea that the Leader of the Opposition can have articles published in The Sun and that I am not allowed to do so without being associated with other headlines in that newspaper is one of the more absurd propositions made by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Cook: The Foreign Secretary cannot wriggle out that way. The reason why The Sun ran that type of cartoon and others like it is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government led them—through the spinning on this beef war—to talk about it as a war, to talk about a war Cabinet and to regard the other countries of Europe as our enemies. The Foreign Secretary knows perfectly well that the reason why he did not agree to make that joint declaration against xenophobia is that he did not want to offend the editor of The Sun.
  Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): Is my right hon. Friend at all surprised at the Tories' indifference to what has been printed in The Sun, bearing in mind the disgraceful speech by the Secretary of State for Defence

  1043
  at the most recent Tory party conference? Should we not also bear in mind when considering this offensive, anti-German hatred that the first victims of the Nazis were Germans? We should always remember that fact when people try to start with their anti-German propaganda.
  Mr. Cook: I agree with my hon. Friend. Euro-sceptics who argue that we should withdraw from Europe because Germany is too dominant inside Europe should reflect on exactly how dominant Germany would be inside Europe if Britain was not a part of it.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East): As we have a free press and a free democracy, obviously we should not go over the top on such matters. However, bearing in mind that some hon. Members of all parties, including Labour Members, have been researching and comparing the use of words in Nazi newspapers in the early 1930s, when they were Jew-baiting, and bearing in mind what The Sun said in its attacks on Germans, does the right hon. Gentleman feel that there might be—I put it no higher— a case for the Attorney-General to consider prosecutions against The Sun for incitement to racial hatred?
  Mr. Cook: I am not legally qualified to express a view on whether such a case could be brought on prima facie grounds. I am, however, politically qualified to know that that type of damaging xenophobia and jingoism deeply undermines Britain's political future—which is inside Europe and in co-operation with Germany and the other European states, not in confrontation with them.
  Mr. Jenkin: I join the right hon. Gentleman in condemning that type of xenophobia. But as he continues to advocate more qualified majority voting, will he reflect on the fact that that he is advocating a policy that is likely to give rise to more frustration, more headlines and more misuse of language of that type? We want nations in co-operation, and not to be coerced.
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman—if I understood him rightly—accuses me of hypocrisy. But there is no worse hypocrisy than pretending that the decisions of the European Union—in which the Foreign Secretary participates and in which the Government often take an initiating part—can be characterised by that cartoon and those like it. That is the greatest hypocrisy of all.
  Sir Peter Tapsell rose—
  Mr. Cook: I must make progress, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I have been generous in giving way.
  If anyone doubts the harm that is done to Britain's interests by that type of jingoism and offensive hostility, they should listen to the chorus of dismay from business leaders, including the retiring chairman of the Confederation of British Industry, who asked whether, among all this xenophobia, some people had actually noticed that the last war was over. The reality is that millions of jobs depend on exports to the European Union. Withdrawal, as the CBI warned, would leave us with exports that were subject to "regulation without representation".
  1044
  Hundreds of thousands of jobs in Britain are dependent on inward investment, which comes here only because we have access to Europe—the largest market in the world. Last week, yet another senior business man in the CBI reported that his Japanese company has called several times from Tokyo to ask about Britain's commitment to Europe. The doubts spread by Conservative Members about our commitment to Europe are potentially deeply damaging to the jobs in those companies.
  We now have the opportunity to turn the page and to start a new chapter in our relations with Europe. It looks as if we are at the closing stages of the beef war; it will not need the skills of Richard Holbrooke or Henry Kissinger to bridge the outstanding points of difference before the weekend. The Foreign Secretary and his Ministers are quite up to that task—[Interruption.] I am giving the Foreign Secretary the benefit of the doubt for once. He should accept it in the spirit in which it is offered.
  It is important that we resolve this dispute, but it is equally important to draw a line under this episode and look to the future. Britain must have a fresh start in Europe, and I do not believe for one minute that the Government are now capable of offering that fresh start. First, the other leaders of Europe will not find it credible when a Government who have pursued confrontation for the past month turn up next week asking for co-operation. Secondly, I see no sign that the Tory Back Benchers will allow them to replace an approach of conflict with an approach based on co-operation.
  As I have turned on my television set over the past month, I have never seen the hon. Members for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) or for Stafford (Mr. Cash) looking more fulfilled than when they were at war with Europe. Living in peace with Europe will be the problem for them. The Foreign Secretary's problem is that it is impossible for him to offer a fresh start for Britain in Europe, because too many of his party want a fresh start out of Europe. If in dark moments, when the lights are out, the Foreign Secretary thinks that he has problems with his existing Back Benchers, he should look over his shoulder at the candidates who have been selected for the plum seats in the next election.
  The Prime Minister's speech is always an accurate weather vane as to which way the latest wind is blowing in the Tory party. In the speech to which the Foreign Secretary referred yesterday, the Prime Minister said:
  "I have consistently said that we will not accept the pressure to develop Europe as a single train, with all the carriages moving at the same speed."
  In claiming consistency for that, the Prime Minister is guilty of a touch of amnesia. Four years ago, after presiding over the Birmingham summit, the Prime Minister reported on a discussion, saying that there would be
  "no fast track, no slow track, no one left behind, that was a consistent theme."
  Four years ago, no one was to be left behind. Now, Britain can be left behind. What has changed in those four years is not Europe but the Tory party, under a leader who, instead of resisting that change, is drifting with it.
  It is the Government's duty to tell the country and the Conservative party about the world as it really is. Tory Members have totally abdicated that duty. [Interruption.] I am talking about those on the Government Front Bench.

  1045
  I exclude the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) from my strictures, although I do not know if it will do her any good with her colleagues. [Interruption.] If any hon. Members feel that it would be helpful, I would be happy to give them an exclusion policy to be included in their next electoral address.
  There is only one way in which the Government's abdication of duty can be fittingly punished and that is by being forced to abdicate from their office of government. Last week, one third of Tory Members—perhaps one third of those present today—voted for a referendum on Europe. There is only one referendum that would offer Britain a real fresh start in Europe, and it is called a general election. I can assure Tory Members that there is no other referendum for which their constituents hunger half as much.
  A general election could sweep out of office this historic anachronism masquerading as a Government, with their embarrassing world view dating from the last century, and replace them with a Government who understand that Britain's future is in Europe and who would be prepared to work in co-operation, not confrontation. That is the fresh start in Europe that Britain needs, that is the fresh start that only a change of Government can deliver.
  6.2 pm
  Sir Edward Heath (Old Bexley and Sidcup): As I abandoned the struggle for power in this Chamber some time ago and as I want to make a helpful contribution to the debate, perhaps I might say a few things that the House will feel are constructive, although it may not like all of them. I also abandoned the screaming between the two Front Benches—in fact, I never had it. We witnessed a great deal of that this afternoon between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
  I was rather sad to hear the Prime Minister reproducing, not for the first time, the chant that Harold Wilson had against me of lying on my back exposing my belly to the Europeans. That statement lost him a great deal of respect among those who were concerned about our international relations. I think that three times from the Prime Minister is probably enough in modern circumstances.
  The Foreign Secretary emphasised the importance of the meeting in Florence and I agree with him entirely. He also mentioned one or two subjects that are likely to come up. There was the question of various economic matters, which must not be rushed. We must take our time over them.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis)indicated assent.
  Sir Edward Heath: I see the Minister nodding vigorously.
  There is complete condemnation of Britain's approach to these matters. Our approach is entirely unacceptable to other members of the European Union who have, for the past 40 years or so, gone ahead with great leaps, after a fixed time, and reached their conclusions.
  I realised the difference acutely when, 10 days ago, I was returning from Lille on the cross-channel train. We roared across the fields of France at between 175 and 180 mph. We came through the tunnel and then roared through
  1046
  the fields of Kent at between 35 and 40 mph. I consoled myself by saying, "Of course, we are going to have a fast link," but then I reminded myself that we decided that eight years ago and so far it has not started. That is one reason why the other member states are so suspicious of us. They do not believe that we want to make a success of our membership of the European Union.
  The Foreign Secretary mentioned employment, which is vital. However, I hope that the Government will not spend all their time on the social chapter saying that their view is the answer to everything. It is not. British firms with factories, institutions and services inside other members of the Union are observing the full social chapter with great success. They are not complaining about it.
  We had our own arrangements from 1909 onwards when Churchill introduced them as Minister of Labour. I celebrated their 50th anniversary. They contributed greatly to social harmony and did not prevent our economic development or our prosperity; yet those arrangements were abandoned three years ago, and that is claimed to be the secret of our success. It is nothing of the sort. The Foreign Secretary said that we have to compete with the products of the far east. If we are to do that by that method, we will have to go down to the level of the wages in the far east. [Interruption.] That is the logical conclusion. There is no other conclusion. The real conclusion should be that we have to persuade our industrialists to carry on with greater technical efficiency so that they can be competitive while paying their men properly.
  I see examples round the country where people have been sacked and kids have been taken on. One knows full well that, when those kids reach the age of 20, they will be sacked and more kids will be taken on. That is not the sort of society for which Conservatives have always worked. I hope that there will not be lectures to the other European Governments about what they should do about the social chapter.
  We now come to the main question. I think that the conference is of the utmost importance. I suggest to the Prime Minister that his top priority must be to re-create confidence in this country, not only in the European Union but in the rest of the world. That is his job now. Confidence has been lost over this episode. I have a list of 35 different countries, not just those in the European Union, which will not have anything to do with British beef. The Americans have not touched it since 1988. What was the reason for that? They did not believe that we had taken the measures necessary to prevent the disease from occurring. Canada will not take British beef and nor will Australia. New Zealand has taken it on and off, but Japan will not take it and nor will Singapore. The list goes on and on.
  What the Prime Minister has to do—it is a formidable task—is to restore confidence in our country. To look at this from a local point of view, the Prime Minister has also to restore the confidence of the people of this country. All the polls show that it is not the European Union or the outsiders who are being blamed for the beef problem, it is the Government. The task is to restore confidence through the action being taken.
  We should remind ourselves how this problem occurred—it was on 20 March, exactly three months ago, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced to all the media that it was now thought

  1047
  that there was a danger of a connection between the animal disease and the human disease. That statement was given enormous prominence throughout the world. It is one reason why confidence must be restored.
  What happened next? On 25 March, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that a large number of animals—up to 4.5 million—would have to be culled. That went around the world and everybody said it was a real crisis. However, in the following week others in the Government said that there was nothing to be afraid of, which produced the reaction, "What are those people doing, then? They are trying to cover up everything—or perhaps they don't realise there is a problem and so are not doing anything to deal with it positively." That is the background.
  Like other hon. Members, I do not believe that the blockade policy pursued by the Government has had any effect other than bad. People everywhere cannot understand why we are blocking the very initiatives that we have been trying to bring about ourselves. They say, "If you are going to do it, surely you should be a bit more subtle than that." The British people do not understand it, either.
  We have heard a great deal from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh)— still my friend, I am told—about the necessity to depend purely on scientific advice. We heard from him this afternoon about what the farmers are saying, what the people involved in agricultural machinery are saying, what everybody concerned with agriculture is saying. That is not science, that is politics—understandable politics, because their livelihoods and the future of their children are affected.
  What about the political feeling in the other countries in the Union? The demand for beef in Germany has dropped by 40 per cent., in France by 37 per cent., and likewise in the other countries of the Union. That is political, yet we are told that the only answer must be scientific. It just does not add up. What we must do— what I hope my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will do—is try to understand the jam in which the political leaders of the other countries in the Union find themselves. We cannot get away with simply saying, "We will ask the scientists and that will put an end to it all." It will not.
  It is not all bad; there is some good. We heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary that he and his colleagues—and, I think, the Prime Minister—now have complete and absolute trust in the Commission and the President of the Commission. [Interruption.] It is a welcome development— [Interruption.] Yes, we are delighted, absolutely delighted. What is more, the Government are now so enthusiastic about the European Court of Justice that they are putting the whole matter before it with complete confidence. I congratulate the Government on their intellectual appreciation of the machinery of the European Union.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister must make a settlement that will restore confidence in this country. He need not worry about the Euro-sceptics—he should forget about them—because they will have to accept any
  1048
  settlement that he makes if the vast majority of hon. Members, the observers and the Union itself says, "This is right; now you are dealing with the situation and producing the necessary answers."
  I also suggest to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that he stop reading newspapers—this is a good opportunity, as he is out of the country—because they have descended to a sordid level hitherto unknown in Britain. They are squalid. Of course, they are largely owned by foreigners who have no interest in our welfare. They want only to make money and to break up the European Union if they can. Let us all give up reading newspapers. Stanley Baldwin never read newspapers, and he was Prime Minister for eight or more years. He overcame every difficulty.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: A great European.
  Sir Edward Heath: Yes, Baldwin was a great European. He talked about the River Rhine in a dramatic speech.
  I want to spend a few minutes dealing with the wider issues of Europe. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister must restore confidence in those areas as well. Every ambassador in London knows—as we know and as the press is already reporting—about people in meetings in the wealthier part of Westminster, all discussing how they can get out of the European Union. Everybody knows about that. The only question is, will they be successful? We also know that many of them think that, if we lost the election, that would be to their advantage, as they would then capture the party and make it another anti-European party. That will not happen. We will make sure that it does not happen.
  That attitude is weakening this country abroad, which means that it is also weakening investment coming into Britain. Overseas companies say, "If that is going to happen, what long-term future is there? Why should be continue putting investment into Britain in the way we have done for so long?" That is an immense danger.
  We have to consider the European Union from the double point of view—political and economic. Its first purpose was political—it always has been and it always will be—and any attempts, as suggested in the White Paper, to turn it into a European free trade area are bound to fail. We do not want it, the other countries will not have it and, if necessary, the other 14 will go off on their own saying, "Right, you look after yourselves."
  They are of that mind at this moment because they are so angry about the way in which they think the British are treating them. That is especially true of the French. President Chirac has a terrible job trying to handle this awful problem where France has suddenly found that all the stuff that was vetoed here was promptly exported by British businesses to France, where it was used without anyone knowing about it. That is a horrible situation for President Chirac.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary quoted somebody who had described what she thought the purposes of the EU should be. Those purposes were clearly set out when I signed the treaty that took this country into the Community. They are governed by the fact—which I cited first in a speech opening the negotiations in 1961 and finished with in the debates in

  1049
  the House in October 1972—that we sought an ever closer union. People who now say or write, "We never knew anything about that," are only displaying their ignorance. That fact was constantly emphasised throughout that period. Some hon. Members who were not even born then have the nerve to come here and say, "We never knew anything about that." [Interruption.] I do not dispute that one, but others should be old enough to remember everything that was said at the time. An ever closer union remains the purpose of the European Union.
  People say, "Let's get out," but what future is there for this country outside the European Union? What future is there for us politically, internationally or for defence— leaving aside trade and everything else? What future is there in trade? We will not be able to influence the Union. We will have no influence at all.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: My right hon. Friend is underestimating our capacity to stand alone on defence matters. We shall actually have both wings of the European fighter aircraft.
  Sir Edward Heath: I see; how ingenious.
  We must look at the modern world instead of retreating back into orgies of nation states, which is now fashionable in some quarters. In a modern world, with the size of the five major powers, we would have absolutely no influence if we were outside the European Union.
  Our task is to use our influence inside the Union. We shall not have influence if we insult our European partners, as was done by two members of the Cabinet at party conference. We shall not influence them by blocking everything or using similar tactics. We shall not influence them by refusing to make constructive proposals or by trying all the time to limit what the Union can do. There is no future for us there. The Prime Minister was absolutely right at the beginning when he said that Britain must be at the heart of Europe, but one cannot be at the heart of Europe if one spends all one's time blocking its arteries. That just does not produce the answer.
  Sir Jim Lester: The Prime Minister has just said that he wants us to be the grit inside the oyster of Europe. One of the good things about grit inside oysters is that it eventually turns into a pearl.
  Sir Edward Heath: Yes. I have never found a pearl, but I am told that that is true.
  I hope that the Prime Minister will recognise the enormous job he now has in Florence. I hope that he will ignore all the nasty things going on and most of what has been said today—except this speech. I hope that he will aim at restoring confidence in our country and, in that way, in our party.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Peter Shore: I will certainly not follow the latter part of the remarks by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) because he erected an Aunt Sally to attack. He has taken on those who want to withdraw totally from the European connection out of hostility towards Europe itself. I suggest that that is a very small part of opinion in this country and that it does not represent the main thrust
  1050
  of those who, like myself, are Euro-realists and who have a different view of the future of Europe from the one that the right hon. Gentleman has always espoused.
  One of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, however, was a very useful contribution to the debate; he may be surprised that I agree with him on this matter. He was surely right to remind the House of the immediate occasion for the great worry that afflicted not only this country but Europe and the world generally about British beef. Very properly, he turned back to the statements made on 20 March. They were clumsy, poor statements which relied wholly on some badly expressed scientific views. There was no attempt to put the matter into the context and understanding that only a politician is able to give.
  There was a tremendous scare following the statements by the Secretary of State for Health and the Minister of Agriculture, who did not help either. The Secretary of State for Health told people for the first time that scientists could no longer deny that there was a possible connection between CJD and BSE. What on earth did the Government expect would happen immediately after that?
  Beef is bound to dominate this debate, as it will dominate the Florence summit. It is a pity really, because, although I do not deny the immediate relevance and great importance of the beef issue, there are other major matters—I suspect in the long term much more serious matters—to be taken up in Europe relating to the intergovernmental conference and the unfinished business of the Maastricht treaty, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup rightly reminded us. It would be a great shame if those matters were not addressed. I hope to say something about them later, because it would be a great mistake if we allowed them to be crowded out.
  I will now make my contribution to the beef debate. Like everyone in the House, I hope that there will be agreement in Florence tomorrow on the phased lifting of the European Union ban on British beef. BSE and the export ban are a huge disaster for British farming, and those problems must be removed at the earliest opportunity. But if agreement is reached tomorrow—I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary is not now with us—the Government will have no cause to congratulate themselves. Agreement will not be due to the petulant policy of non-co-operation and vetoing Council business announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May. It will be due, if anything, to the truly remarkable concessions that the Government have been prepared to make to win European acceptance.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the shadow Foreign Secretary, pointed out, in a few short weeks, the Government have been moved from their original offer to cull 42,000 cattle, conditional on the lifting of the ban, to an unconditional offer of a cull of 80,000 cattle and now to the acceptance of a slaughter programme involving no fewer than 160,000 cattle. It is no good the Foreign Secretary trying to spirit away those figures on the ground that cows are, after all, mortal creatures who eventually die from natural causes.
  Furthermore, each stage of the relaxation in the Commission's programme will need to be separately agreed by the Commission and its Standing Veterinary Committee. At all stages of processing, our industry will be invigilated by Commission inspectors. All this despite the Government's insistence, which I accept, that British

  1051
  beef is now safe, in the judgment of our medical and scientific experts, provided only that the health regulations are scrupulously enforced.
  Clearly, the European Union has imposed its will on us; I take no pleasure in saying that. However, in this case it would not be right or honest to put the main blame on the European Community. I say that for two reasons. First, I do not forget—who can?—the clumsy, badly presented and ill-thought-out statements of 20 March, to which I have already referred. They were the trigger to the whole series of unhappy events that has followed. The announcements, which were made without any attempt to assess the degree of risk, that a link between BSE and CJD could no longer be ruled out, had an immediate and immense impact on our own people, who cut their consumption of beef by 50 per cent. If there was panic here, one can hardly be surprised that there was panic abroad.
  Secondly, it would be wrong to argue that the initial imposition of the ban was due to any special malignancy on the part of our continental neighbours and other hon. Members have referred to this point already. The United States, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Canada are all well disposed towards this country, yet they have found it right to impose a similar ban on British beef.
  Following their statements on 20 March, the Government have now found it difficult to restore the confidence that was destroyed, not surprisingly. Beef consumption here has now recovered substantially, but the beef crisis has had two additional effects on public opinion in Britain which need to be addressed. The first, which I deplore, has been an outpouring of frustrated hostility, whipped up by much of the tabloid press, against Germany in particular and the European Community in general. It has been a pretty squalid performance by a large part of the British press.
  The second consequence, which I welcome, has been a new alertness in the public—almost an education—about what is involved in our membership of the European Union, which is an ever-increasing dominance of the Brussels authorities.
  What left many people thunderstruck by the response from the Commission and from European countries was not the alarmed reactions of the Governments of Germany, France, Italy and others on public health grounds about our beef exports, or even the unwelcome decision of the European Commission, backed by the Agriculture Council, to ban our exports to all European countries. What shocked British opinion was the European decision to ban our exports worldwide, and the realisation that European institutions had the power to make such decisions and that the elected Government and Parliament of Britain were obliged to obey them, with recourse only to the European Court of Justice. It alerted British opinion as never before to the massive transfers of power that have already taken place from Britain to Europe and the greater transfers of power envisaged in the Maastricht treaty.
  Our people are massively opposed to membership of a European federal state. That is the main argument. They have come to realise just how major a step towards that federal goal would be taken were we to adopt a single European currency and to subject ourselves to an European central bank.
  1052
  The latest survey of public opinion in Britain on the single currency was the Harris poll published in The Independent yesterday. In reply to the question:
  "Should there be a single European currency with key decisions on interest rates and monetary policy decided by a new European Central Bank?"
  78 per cent. of respondents said no and only 18 per cent. said yes. It is equally interesting that 70 per cent. of the Germans polled and 55 per cent. of the French also said no to a single currency.
  The distance between the classe politique in European countries and the opinions and wishes of their people has never been wider than on the issue of the single European currency and final stages of economic and monetary union. However, it is not only the federal and constitutional issues involved that should disturb people here and elsewhere in Europe; it is the baneful economic consequences on unemployment that a single currency and an European central bank would involve.
  One of the documents listed in the usual clutch of documents that always attends such general debates is the Community guidelines on economic policies—a document that is published regularly under article 103(2) of the Maastricht treaty. Europe is now an area of disgracefully high unemployment. Nearly 20 million people—more than 11 per cent. of the labour force—are out of work.
  The most interesting and disturbing part of the document is the section dealing with economic forecasts for 1996 and 1997. Those who might hope and expect some amelioration of unemployment in Europe will get no encouragement from the document. It reads as follows:
  "Given the anticipated weak expansion of economic activity in early 1996, employment trends are expected to remain weak in the months ahead …In Germany and Austria, employment is expected to fall considerably."
  If that prediction holds true, 1996 will be the fifth consecutive year of job losses in Germany. The document continues:
  "In Belgium, Denmark, France and Portugal employment is now expected to stagnate or fall this year."
  That is not a very happy outlook.
  What advice does the Commission offer the European nation states—the European Union? Incredibly, its principal recommendation calls for "sound public finances". By that it means further cuts in public expenditure in member states and further reductions in their borrowing requirements. In short, it recommends measures that must certainly increase unemployment in the European Union.
  Why has the Commission made recommendations against all common sense and instinct, at a time when Governments should be thinking of maintaining public expenditure and Government borrowing, if not increasing it? At such a time, why has the European Commission made a recommendation above all for sound public finances—in order to achieve the convergence guidelines laid down in the Maastricht treaty to enable Europe to move towards a single currency in 1998.
  Last weekend, Bonn saw its biggest demonstration since the second world war against planned German Government policy. We all remember vividly the widespread disruption in Paris and other French cities just before Christmas, when President Chirac announced a similar programme of retrenchment and contraction in France. Those are the policies of the madhouse.

  1053
  Of course the Commission will table another package of so-called job creation measures at Florence, using the regular technique that has been employed during the past two or three years, first by Mr. Delors in his so-called White Paper and by others. They will be tiny measures of a wholly trans-European nature that might engage an insignificant fraction of the unemployed populations of Europe in those great European projects, but it is basically a policy of subterfuge and camouflage to disguise the truth—that the central impact of Commission and European policy should be deflation in order to achieve a single currency.
  What would happen if we achieved a single currency? We must all have seen references to the proposal by Dr. Waigel, the German Finance Minister, that, once a single currency had been achieved, there should be a further discipline—not that we should be allowed to borrow 3 per cent. of GDP, but that it should be reduced to 1 per cent. of GDP in the overriding search for price stability.
  We have plenty of price stability in Europe. Inflation is virtually non-existent in most European countries. That is not the problem. Inflation was yesterday's problem. Today, the problem is deflation. We should be taking the lead—as I hope the Government will—in trying to get our European neighbours and partners to co-operate in policies designed to stimulate our economies in a sensible and responsible way in the pursuit of the greater prosperity and the higher employment of all our peoples.
  6.38 pm
  Sir Peter Hordern: So far, the debate has been almost entirely confined to the beef crisis. That is no great surprise, because it has been the greatest shock that has befallen the United Kingdom this year and I am quite sure that it ought to be taken seriously.
  What has come out perhaps worst of all are the atavistic tendencies of papers such as The Daily Telegraph and The Times—both, incidentally, under foreign ownership—and of course The Sun, and the way in which they have regarded the affair as a war against our European partners. That has been a most disgraceful performance, and I greatly regret it if any of my hon. Friends or any Opposition Members take the view that progress can be achieved by being bloody to the Europeans on any long-term basis.
  I accepted that a policy of non-co-operation was necessary, but I did so with great sadness, because I could see that the European leaders were not concentrating sufficiently on the proposals that we had brought before them. Happily, however, it now seems that progress can be made at Florence, and I very much hope that that will be the case.
  The lesson, especially for those who think that we can play our part outside the European Union, is that, in the first place, the United States, Canada and most other countries have refused to take our beef for many years. That was nothing whatever to do with the European Union. In order to get the thing straight and to recover the situation, we appealed to that much maligned institution. the European Court of Justice, and it was the European Commission that managed to save the situation with regard to tallow and those other substances.
  It is worth remembering that, if we were outside the European Union, we would not have been able to persuade any country to lift the ban on our beef—certainly
  1054
  not any country in the EU. As is so often the case, the importance of our membership of the EU is emphasised by what has happened during the beef crisis.
  It is not hard to criticise the institutions of the European Union. They can all be at fault, as can any human institution. It is not hard to criticise the direction in which the EU is going sometimes. But it is essential that we always remember that we are members of some 20 years' standing, and that our trade and business is now knitted in to the EU. Europe is where we do the largest proportion of our trade, and it brings us substantial benefits.
  The single market is not perfect; of course there is room for improvement. But can anybody believe that we would secure such improvement if we were outside the European Union, bashing against the walls, rather than as a full committed member?
  There are some who say that we would do better to forget our trade with the EU and concentrate instead on our trade with the far east. I do not deny that our trade with the far east is of great promise and potential, and I see no reason why we should not develop it as much as possible, but I cannot see why that should in any way detract from the importance of our trade within the EU. In fact, it supports that trade, because there is also no question but that this country attracts enormous inward investment precisely because we are a member of the EU. We would be less likely to attract that inward investment if we were outside it.
  To claim, as some do, that we would nevertheless be able to function perfectly well in some sort of free trade area, and that the EU would be happy to grant us that status, seems to me to fly in the face of reality. After all, we would then be in the position of a supplicant, not that of a full member of the EU, negotiating constantly for improvements.
  Of course the single market stands in need of improvement. In my opinion we need to extend it to the eastern European countries. We need to broaden its scope, extend its borders, and remove some of the restrictive practices. The House will recall that, about nine months ago, British Airways had a problem with landing at Orly airport. Does anybody believe that the French would have taken the smallest notice of our position if we had been outside the European Union? It was only because we were a member that Air France was made to alter its policy on landing rights. That seems to me to be a practical argument.
  I know that some people use arguments that rest on sovereignty—especially, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has just said, those about the single currency. Those arguments need to be taken seriously, but, as the House knows, we have secured an opt-out from the single currency, and will not be bound by it whatever may happen.
  We have now reached the point where there would be a referendum if the Cabinet—and, I suggest, Parliament too, because it is inconceivable that a referendum would be held unless Parliament had first given its view—came to a decision on a single currency, after consultation on the subject. So it can hardly be said that the Government are hell bent on a single currency. I can tell some of my hon. Friends, as well as some Opposition Members such as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, that there is no prospect of any hell bent progress towards a single currency.

  1055
  However, it is the question of sovereignty that so alarms some of my hon. Friends, for all sorts of good and no doubt traditional historic reasons.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Surely the issue is not just a matter of sovereignty in the broad sense, but of legislative authority for domestic purposes. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, had the arrangements for Europe stopped at the treaty of Rome, or perhaps even at the Single European Act, there would not be those difficulties for the Conservative party? What some Conservative Members, as well as other people, are worried about is exactly what the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) talked about—the obligation to move towards an ever closer union. For some of us that means a union with a unitary state, and the virtual elimination of the national option in the end.
  Sir Peter Hordern: So far as I am aware, the movement towards an ever closer union was part of the preamble to the treaty of Rome, so the House knew what it was doing when it signed up to that, and we must accept the consequences of having done so.
  The other important point about sovereignty is the fact that we have been happy to share our sovereignty as a member of NATO for many years. The idea that we could defend ourselves entirely alone, without being a member of NATO, is ridiculous.
  Of course, we have had the sovereign right to devalue our currency for a significant time—and a fat lot of good it has done us. Because of that sovereign right, we have seen our currency greatly devalued. When I first entered the House, there were 12 deutschmarks to the pound; I cannot remember the relative values of all the other currencies. We have seen an incessant fall in the value of the pound against the currencies of our major competitors.
  All Governments depend on the ability to borrow money, and as a result of that devaluation there is no market prepared to lend money to this country other than at a higher rate of interest than that obtainable for stronger currencies, because the lenders know that our currency is likely to depreciate rather than to appreciate. Our sovereign right to devalue has meant in effect that we have had consistently higher interest rates than our competitor countries. All that has imposed a certain charge on industry and business.
  There is something else that I must mention in connection with the single currency. As I shall go on to explain, I do not think that it would be practical, and for that reason I do not favour it. But are some people really saying that we should have no regard to the strength of sterling, despite our historic experience of being connected to the gold standard for 300 years, and also of being tied to the United States dollar for 25 years after the war, through the Bretton Woods agreement? Nobody accused Winston Churchill of surrendering our sovereignty in those years; it would have been absurd to do so.
  We in the House must recognise the fact that it is quite likely that there will be a strong European currency among the core countries within the European Union, whether we like it or not. We must therefore concern ourselves with how that will affect our business and trade.
  1056
  At the very least, the euro will be a formidable competitor for sterling, because it is bound to circulate freely within the countries. Some 40 per cent. of our trade is with Germany, France and the Netherlands, and it is likely that business will be contracted and settled in the currency.
  I do not know how long it will take, but the euro will act first as a common currency in this country. After a long period, we may well find that it is preferred to sterling, partly because of pressure upon sterling and partly because it is likely that the currency will have lower interest rates than sterling if the criteria of the Maastricht treaty are abided by.
  Whether we like it or not, it is likely that there will be a strong euro used by a core of strong countries. No matter how many referendums we have, the issue will be decided by consumer preference. Who can tell what will happen? Some people believe that the euro will never be used in this country, but I am not so sure. France, Germany and the Benelux countries will decide to introduce such a currency. We may think that that is not in their economic interests, but there is a strong political will for such a currency in those countries. We may not like it, but that political will has been there for many years. It is unlikely to desist just because we tell the countries that it is not in their economic interests to continue.
  France and Germany are no less sovereign countries than the UK. If their Governments, Parliaments and people decide for political reasons that they want a single currency, there is—whatever treaties may say—not much that we or anybody else can do about it. We must look at reality and at what will happen in the future, and that makes it all the more necessary that we remain a full member of the EU. We must influence events as best we can in the form of a Europe of sovereign nations that recognises all the time the direction in which the most powerful nations wish to go.
  I am not in favour of an all-powerful European Parliament, as it would be a great mistake for democracy ever to depart too far from its natural roots. So far ahead as one can see, these roots lie in national Parliaments rather than the European Parliament. In my view, the sovereign test of a sovereign Parliament is its power to tax and spend, and that power must remain with national Parliaments and must not be ceded to the EU or the European Parliament.
  In the long run, neither Governments nor Parliaments can affect the livelihoods and welfare of the people of Europe as much as the movements of capital and technology. As a full member of the EU, we must see to it that those movements proceed in the most efficient way within the enormous single market. After all—we have learnt our lessons on this—markets dictate interest rates. We must play our full part in what is now a loose confederation of nations within the EU which may, in due course, become something closer. It is no good us retiring to our tent in a sulk. There is a strong core of European countries determined to draw ever closer, and we must recognise that. I wish my right hon. and hon. Friends every success in the negotiations that lie before them in Florence, and we should negotiate in the fullest sense as a full member of the European Union.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I very much welcome the tone and the constructive contribution to the debate of the right hon. Member for

  1057
  Horsham (Sir P. Hordern). Those of us who are aficionados of these European debates have notched up something of a first tonight, in that the first two speeches from Conservative Back Benchers have been positively pro-European and constructive in tone and approach. That is welcome on an all-party basis, because if a criticism can he made of those of us in the pro-European camp, it is that, in recent years, we have been frankly too complacent in allowing the critics and those who wish to deconstruct the European Union too much time and space to make mischief and thoroughly to misrepresent what is going on.
  The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), gave some friendly advice to the Prime Minister, advising him not to read the newspapers. If one looks at the verdict of the newspapers on what is on offer ahead of the weekend summit, one will see that the Prime Minister might be tempted to take the advice of his distinguished predecessor. The Government, who prepared the way so well for the Scott report recently, have not done a good job in advance briefing on the likely outcome to the beef fiasco, and they have persuaded no one.
  Prime Minister's Question Time today was a classic example of the weakness of the case that the Government have advanced as some kind of victory. Not one Conservative Back Bencher asked a question on that issue. They were more intent on talking about the Leader of the Opposition's recent excursion to Bonn than about the apparent victory that the Government have secured as a result of their non-co-operation policy.
  That attitude has been reflected in the press. Let us be fair and take a number of newspapers that are normally, if not completely loyal to the Conservative party, more to the right of centre in their editorial stance than to the left. The Daily Mail said:
  "John Major has sounded the retreat in the beef battle with Europe."
  The verdict of The Daily Telegraph was:
  "Surrender by Britain on beef ban".
  The Financial Times was rather more generous in its editorial today and described the proposals as "tough but fair", but added that the Prime Minister
  "should abandon his silly policy of disrupting EU procedures and move the BSE problem from politics into the realm of veterinary science where it belongs".
  That was perhaps one of the kinder remarks made about the Government.
  The Evening Standard—a paper that normally takes a robust, Conservative and right-wing view of the world—began its editorial today by saying:
  "Mr. John Major's beef war with Europe has always been ludicrous. Since it was founded upon a wanton deceit—that the mad cow crisis is somehow Europe's fault, rather than the consequence of a catastrophic failure of government regulation—it can only end in one way, with a British government climbdown".
  A fairly unanimous cross-media consensus has developed, and it is a fair reflection of the sorry outcome to the entire affair.
  The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), told me a few moments ago that he could not be in the Chamber at this stage of the evening, and I accept that. But I want to make a straightforward criticism of Labour's approach, as it
  1058
  should not be allowed to get off scot-free for its activities during the past two or three weeks. Labour Front Benchers have tried to run with the hounds and the hare on this issue. It seems to me that one could either back the Government or not—the Liberal Democrats did not, and we have been consistent in our opposition to the entire non-co-operation approach. But Labour has sent out confusing and conflicting smoke signals to appease more than one audience, and it has not come out with any great credit.
  In the run-up to Florence, the potential deal on the table seems to depend on who blinks first, although neither the Foreign Secretary nor the Prime Minister referred to that aspect this afternoon. We can have progress of the type that is on offer if we agree in advance to lift non-co-operation. The Government's position has been that we will certainly not lift non-co-operation until we have a satisfactory deal in place.
  I suspect that the one-hour time difference between here and Florence will provide a suitable diplomatic stand-off that will allow a fudge to take place, and that non-co-operation will be lifted miraculously at much the same time as a deal is concluded. If that is the case, let us be clear that what has been agreed and accepted now by the Government is a good way short of the objectives that they set out on 21 and 22 May.
  Let us never forget what the Press Association reported Downing street as having said on the record the day after the Prime Minister made his opening statement in the House. Downing street has never sought to contradict it. It said:
  "Nothing short of a full timetable for the phased lifting of the entire ban will be sufficient."
  It is clear from listening to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister this afternoon that what is on offer here is not a full timetable for the phased lifting of the entire ban.
  The Government now adduce arguments as to why that may not be deliverable or desirable. One of those arguments, with which I have considerable sympathy, is that, rather than following a rigid timetable that pays no attention to the veterinary or scientific evidence, it is better to set targets, meet them and then progress beyond that. But the fact of the matter is that that ain't what they said on day one. It may be what they are saying now, but it is a retreat from their opening position, and it should be seen as such.
  The second aspect, which has already been touched on, is that a greater slaughter is now envisaged than previously. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) handed me a fax earlier in the debate from the National Farmers Union south-west regional advisory board, which met today and discussed the Government's proposals for a greater selective slaughter. Its position is probably typical of NFU opinion throughout the United Kingdom. It said:
  "We do not accept the principle of a selective cull, as it would add nothing to public safety, would involve the slaughter of a disproportionately large number of cattle which would never have developed BSE, and would cause great distress to the many farmers and their families who would lose a significant proportion of their herds."
  It went on to detail five conditions for its acquiescence in a selective cull.
  The point is surely that the Government have not only had to back-track—that is one thing—but, in back-tracking, have stored up problems for the future in Europe. The

  1059
  European consumer is hardly likely to believe any Government when they say that veterinary or scientific opinion requires X, Y or Z in years to come. We have rather undercut that principle by saying, "We know that this is not necessary, but we are going to do it anyway." That is hardly the way to send a signal of confidence to consumers. It may be necessary to break the logjam at Florence, but we should be under no illusion but that we might be storing up problems for ourselves in years to come.
  A third aspect of the potential deal before us is the missed opportunity caused by what we have vetoed en route to the juncture at which we now find ourselves. We have used the veto more than 70 times in the past two or three weeks. We have blocked measures that would have countered terrorism, fraud, drug smuggling and corruption—all things that were high on the British list of desires. We have blocked various economic measures. One was a 10 billion scheme designed to help put 8 million unemployed people back to work. On social policy, we have vetoed an anti-racism directive. We have blocked practical help for travellers who need emergency passports. We have blocked various laudable aims to provide international aid. The damage to a set of schemes and objectives to which we adhere and aspire, as well as the diplomatic damage, has made the price not at all one worth paying.
  Earlier today I was in Bonn, where I had the opportunity to meet the Minister of State's opposite number—the European Union Minister in the German Administration, Werner Hoyer—and I asked him straight, "Do you think that the tactics that the British Government have pursued in the past two or three weeks have brought forward the achievement of any of the aims that they set themselves—the earlier breakthrough in having the derivatives ban partially lifted or the deal that is now on the table?" I wished to know from the Minister's opposite number, whom he knows well, with whom he personally gets on well and has a good relationship, whether in his view the non-co-operation policy had advanced the British cause one iota. The Minister replied, "Absolutely not." He went on to describe the Government's approach as "disastrous". That was the view of the Minister's opposite number, a member of the Free Democratic party, but serving within Chancellor Kohl's coalition Administration.
  In his speech yesterday on the attitude of our partners, when I was relieved to hear him describe other European countries as our partners, the Prime Minister came out with a splendid analysis of the attitude of other member states, of which the German attitude that I encountered this morning was only too typical. The Prime Minister said yesterday:
  "It was the unwillingness of our partners to enter discussions and reach agreements in this way which led us to suspend normal dealings."
  He went on to acknowledge:
  "I understand their difficulties with their hostile public opinion. We've often faced that difficulty ourselves."
  Well, my goodness me. His audience must have been greatly taken by surprise at the frank admission from the British Prime Minister that the Government have occasionally faced hostile public opinion. He continued:
  "But there is no sensible alternative—for them or for us—to reaching conclusions based on evidence and science."
  1060
  That goes to the heart of the matter. Suspicion took root at European level because the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in particular handled the matter in an utterly ham-fisted way at the outset. It seemed that Britain was more concerned about getting the ban lifted than about eradicating BSE. That was the political poison in the system, which did for us in the past few weeks.
  So we now have some ironies as we look at what will be the likely conclusion to all this. First, at intergovernmental conference level, Britain is pushing to rein in the powers of the European Commission and scale down the competencies and powers of the European Court of Justice. Yet, as the Prime Minister pointed out in his speech, which two sets of institutions at European level have been of most value to us? Why, the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. The irony of that is not lost on those who listen to the arguments advanced by the Minister and his colleagues in the context of the IGC.
  Secondly, we should remember that the Commission paper expressed
  "considerable misgiving about the effectiveness of past actions taken by the UK".
  We should not overlook the conclusion in the paper that
  "more of the British monitoring and control will now have to be submitted for consultation and approval at Brussels level."
  It is a high irony that the Euro-sceptics, particularly among the Conservatives, who have been so full-throated and vocal in their gung-ho support for the Government, have helped to engender an outcome that has handed more power to Brussels. Little wonder that, with two honourable exceptions, they are rather noticeable by their absence from the debate this afternoon.
  The third and sad irony is the damage that has been done to our diplomatic and political standing within the EU, and therefore to our longer-term national interest. The conclusion from this sad and sorry episode for the Government and the Conservative party is that there is no point in trying to appease their sceptics in the hope of suing for peace within their party or at European level. It will not work.
  For example, a few weeks ago the House approved the Government's White Paper, which set out their objectives for the IGC. Yet in the few weeks since then, almost a third of parliamentary Tory party, on separate occasions, has voted for two ten-minute Bills—one that was euphemistically described as being about the reform of the European Court of Justice and the other for a referendum—both of which would blow apart the carefully constructed compromises in the White Paper and the subsequent Cabinet compromise over the party's attitude to the eventual referendum.
  The Government have fed the insatiable appetite of the Euro-sceptics, and we are beginning to discover, as they become more emboldened, the real terminus of their argument. It is not reform of the ECJ, the reining-in of the Commission or a curb on the powers of the Parliament: it is withdrawal. That is what the Euro-sceptics want, and that is the logical conclusion to which they would lead this country, by unstitching Maastricht and withdrawing the competencies of the ECJ.

  1061
  I welcome the Confederation of British Industry to the debate on Europe. The CBI, and in particular Mr. Niall Fitzgerald, was right to say that loose talk at European level costs British jobs. It does, and we should be clear about that as the debate unfolds.
  I have not yet mentioned proportional representation and voting reform for European elections in debates on Europe. I hope that the Minister will consider that issue in the context of the IGC. My colleague in the European Parliament, Graham Watson, has persistently questioned successive presidencies of the European Union about their attitude. I also wish to pay tribute to the Europewide European Movement, which last week published a paper on the issue, which was written by Mr. Andrew Duff, the director of the Federal Trust.
  I shall not go into the merits of the different systems, but it is clear that the case for this country's European elections to be based on the same principle of proportionality as those in the rest of the European Union, including Northern Ireland, is overwhelming. By electing our Euro-seats in England, Scotland and Wales under the first-past-the-post system, we are exporting our domestic political distortions to the Brussels Parliament. That should be of concern to people across the political spectrum because of its negative effect.
  I hope that, if the beef crisis ends—at least in the immediate diplomatic sense, because it will not end in the longer-term agricultural sense—the Government will learn the error and folly of their ways of the past few weeks. The Government cannot appease their Back Benchers, whose one objective is the ultimate disengagement of this country from the rest of Europe. They want to railroad the entire momentum of the European Union. The Government should take a more robust and constructive stance and, if they are not prepared to do so, they should make way for an Administration who would.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes):
  Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I remind the House that speeches will be limited to 10 minutes from now on.
  7.12 pm
  Mr. Tim Renton: I shall disappoint the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) because my speech will be the third consecutive speech from a Conservative Back Bencher in favour of Europe and of our remaining at the heart of Europe. I have no doubt that that fact, despite the ten-minute Bills and the vocal noises made by the Euro-sceptics to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, reflects the true opinion of the majority of Conservative Members.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has left on his plane for Florence, and I am sure that he goes with all our good wishes for a solution to the beef crisis in the IGC that starts tomorrow morning. In the minutes allotted to me, I shall make only one comment about the beef crisis, which is that I feel deeply sorry for all my right hon. Friends who have been involved in trying to solve it. It is a classic case, in which both
  1062
  scientists and politicians are involved. Scientists do not know enough about politics and politicians do not know enough about science. The world public distrust both.
  I stress the word "world". We have got used to the concept of the globalisation of interest rates and the fact that what happens in Tokyo tonight will affect London tomorrow morning and New York tomorrow afternoon. The beef crisis has taught us about the globalisation, or world worry about health problems. Thanks to CNN, Sky and BBC Worldwide, from the moment that the Secretary of State for Health spoke in the House three months ago, fewer Russians went to McDonald's in Moscow and Japanese housewives switched from beef back to traditional diets of fish. The origin of the beef did not matter.
  In the sad beef affair, one headline in one of the tabloids made me laugh. The headline was in the Evening Standard early in the crisis and it said simply "Britain cuts off continent". What a marvellous, out-of-date, totally antediluvian thought. It is impossible now, of course, for Britain to cut itself off from the continent. As Russia found in eastern Europe, walls and barriers no longer work. I shall spend the next few minutes on that theme.
  In recent months, I have met business men and politicians from France, Sweden, Germany and Italy. I have noticed that every one of them expects economic and monetary union to happen. Without exception, they look forward to it and they are not worried about the effects on their national Parliament or on national sovereignty. The likely scenario for the next three years—from now to the millennium—is an unchangeable process towards a single currency.
  The single currency will start in 1999 and—I am even more positive about this than my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern)—when it starts, Benelux, France, Germany, Austria, Ireland, Spain and Portugal will all join and Italy will be in the wings waiting. From the moment that that happens, the relations between those in the single currency and those outside it are bound to be somewhat strained. For that reason, people such as Mr. Lamfalussy of the European Monetary Institute are now talking about a second exchange rate mechanism or stability pacts to govern the relations between those in and out of economic and monetary union.
  I believe also that we shall have a referendum on the single currency in 1998, which will turn into a referendum on the principle of our membership of the European Union. If the result of the vote is no to joining EMU, which will be assumed to be binding on us for 10 to 20 years—as the Norwegian no was—our Euro-partners will lose patience with us, and they will cease trying to accommodate us.
  The net result will be that, whatever the official treaties say, the directives that are important to us, such as the investment services directive, will start to be tweaked to our disadvantage. Those at the heart of the European Union and EMU, using phrases such as, "provided that it is in the long-term interest of the European Union" or, "subject to the public interest" will find ways to use those directives to our disadvantage. Those ways will probably be like the Poitiers solution, which was, as the House will remember, the French way of allowing Japanese videos

  1063
  into their country. They sent all the videos to Poitiers, which has no customs officials, so the videos languished there in a warehouse for a long time.
  The disadvantages will grow and the effects on us as an international exporter will become increasingly severe. Sterling long-term interest rates will be subject to devaluation and fluctuation and will be 2 per cent. higher than Euro-interest rates. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham made that point earlier and he will know, as I do, that French long-term interest rates are now already lower than British long-term interest rates, simply because it is expected that the franc will join the euro.
  The non-social costs and the non-productive costs for manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom will be about 3 to 4 per cent. higher than those for comparable industry in the economic and monetary union. Those figures were given to me just yesterday by a leading business man with factories throughout the European Union, who was deeply worried that companies such as his would, in a few years' time, be centring their activities on countries that they know are, and will remain, at the heart of Europe. That is something to which those who do not believe in our membership of the European Union—the Euro-sceptics—will have to face up. At that stage, the withdrawal of Britain from the European Union could become a possibility. That would be disastrous for investment, employment and economic growth in the United Kingdom.
  Meanwhile, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said, our partners in the European Union are going ahead and preparing the modalities for making the single currency happen—a report on that will be presented to the IGC. They believe that the euro will allow maximisation of advantages in the European Union. Although, as it has been put to me, we now have the free movement of people and services, there still remains the barrier of exchange rates, which is costly. Within EMU, there will be better control of non-productive costs and Europe will be more competitive in world markets.
  The link between the European single market and monetary union is a logical consequence of the single market. With the free circulation of capital that we and our European partners now insist upon, monetary policies cannot remain independent of each other. That reasoning lies at the heart of the adoption of Maastricht treaty. The single market is not compatible with monetary instability, and it is to avoid monetary instability that monetary union will come into place. As we have seen in recent years, exchange rate depreciation by some inevitably leads to protectionist measures by others.
  Therefore, the challenge for those on both sides of the House who believe in Europe is now to consider the possibility of EMU with an open mind and to believe in an even more successful and complete single market, in which we in Britain can prosper to an even greater extent than we do at present.
  I shall end by reminding the House of the words of John Donne. He said:
  "No man is an Island, entire of it self; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less".
  We should not approach the future of the European Union, and economic and monetary union within it, with pessimism or despair; we should not be driven back into
  1064
  insularity and nationalism. We should approach the future of the EU with vision, hope and passion, believing that that is where our economic success lies.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. Giles Radice: The right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) will not be surprised to learn that I very much agreed with what he said. However, I do not want to follow him on this occasion, but wish to say some words about the beef crisis and what we have learnt from it.
  I, like other hon. Members, hope that the Government will be able to take away from Florence a framework for taking the measures necessary to ensure the safety of British beef, to restore consumer confidence across Europe and, eventually, to remove the ban on British beef. I entirely understand and sympathise with the position of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the policy of non-co-operation. During the crisis, they did not wish to be accused of undermining the Government's position, as they certainly would have been had they adopted the policy suggested by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy). There is an argument for saying that the policy helped to concentrate minds—I suspect that it concentrated the minds of British Ministers as much as the minds of the continentals.
  The Government's handling of the beef crisis, especially the policy of non-co-operation, could do lasting damage to our relations with our European partners. As hon. Members have reminded us, it is a British problem and not a predominantly European problem. There have been 150,000 cases of BSE in this country and, as I understand it, there have been about 400 cases in all the other member states combined, which illustrates that it is a British problem. Given that fact, given the single market and given the impact on consumers across Europe and on the European beef industry, it is not surprising that other countries feel entitled to hold a view on what we are doing to eradicate BSE. That fact must be clear to all hon. Members.
  I fear that, as the Commission said, the Government did too little, too late to deal with the problem of BSE. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, the Government mishandled the announcement of the news that BSE might be linked to CJD. The first that the Europeans heard of it was when it was announced to the House by the Secretary of State for Health, so it is not surprising that they reacted as they did.
  If the framework is agreed at Florence, will it be because of the non-co-operation policy? That is what the Foreign Secretary claims, but I am sceptical. Curiously enough, there has been some impact on our own policy. As has already been said, we have now produced a policy to eradicate BSE that we have explained to our partners. Most important, the Foreign Secretary, the Minister of Agriculture and others have been visiting the European capitals in the past month in the way they should have been doing in the previous two months. That is why we are now heading towards a solution. Those visits have been much more important than the non-co-operation policy.
  As some hon. Members have said, the irony is that we have been relying on the much-hated Commission to pull irons out of the fire. It has been the European Court of

  1065
  Justice to which we have appealed when we have been in trouble. It is the qualified majority vote in the Council of Ministers on which we shall rely when we want to win our case. Some countries may vote against us, but we shall need a majority. It will be European compensation that will help our farmers. For those reasons, the framework of the European Union is helping us to solve the crisis in a way that would not happen if we were dealing with the 14 different nations individually.
  Of course, the policy comes at a cost. I understand the position of the Labour Front-Bench team, but there has been a cost. That cost has involved the 73 measures that have been vetoed in the Council of Ministers. Those measures include many policies dear to many hon. Members: anti-fraud measures; cutting red tape in Europe, which hon. Members say is so important; and agreement on the Europol drugs unit and action against terrorists. The list of measures that we have vetoed looks pretty ludicrous when one starts to examine it.
  The cost to us is also that we are now isolated. As I travel round the capitals of Europe, I cannot remember a time when the United Kingdom's reputation has been so low. I sometimes feel ashamed of our position and of being a Briton in these circumstances. The Prime Minister talks about flexibility on the European issue and flexibility inside the European Union, but the problem is that the others are thinking of inserting a flexible clause into the treaty that they will use to go ahead without us. That is the great problem and the danger—the French and Germans have already been talking about it. It is a reaction to us and to the fact that we are seen as negative and carping. There is a major problem in terms of our long-term relationship with the EU, and the question is whether we have damaged it even further by what has happened with beef.
  One good thing, however, has come out of the crisis. Hon. Members have rightly talked about the appalling way in which the press, particularly the tabloid press, has behaved; but more important is the fact that many of the Euro-sceptics have shown their true colours and admitted that coming out of the EU is on their agenda. Some hon. Members will shake their heads. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) and the hon. Members for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) are honest, but others called for such things as repatriating many policies to Westminster, reasserting the primacy of British law in all cases, eliminating or emasculating the Court of Justice, abolishing direct elections to the European Parliament, opting out of the British fisheries policies. Those policies are not compatible with membership of the EU.
  At least the Euro-sceptics have shown their true colours during this crisis. Indeed, one or two of them said privately to me that they hoped that the beef crisis would enable them to develop their true policy of leaving the EU. It is interesting that they are not in the Chamber this evening. One or two are present, but not many, which is unusual. I think that they are right to hang their heads in shame. They have, however, done us all a service: they have made clear their position and awakened the rest of us to the dangers of what is happening. I welcome what the chairman of the Confederation of British Industry, Mr. Fitzgerald, said about how dangerous to British interest is all the loose talk about leaving the EU.
  1066
  I welcome the debate. It is about not just the single currency but British membership. I am certain that the supporters of British membership of the EU, which is so much in our national interest, will win that debate.
  7.32 pm
  Sir Peter Tapsell: The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) chided us because some of my hon. Friends who are Euro-sceptics are not here in sufficient number. The reason for that, of course, is that they are supporting a great British national institution called Ascot. They have left me behind as their representative.
  I shall start in the same way as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) by briefly summarising my personal attitude—as a Euro-sceptic who voted against every stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993—towards the European Union. Contrary to what the hon. Member for North Durham said, I do not wish Britain to leave the EU, and few of my hon. Friends who share my Euro-sceptic views have that wish. I want Britain to remain within the EU, but as an independent sovereign nation state governed by Ministers answerable to a Westminster Parliament, whose decisions cannot be overridden by any European institution or court.
  In so far as we have already been pushed from that position, I wish to see the key abdicated powers repatriated to this Parliament and our courts.
  Mr. Robin Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Peter Tapsell: I would be delighted to give way, but I cannot because of the ten-minute rule. That is why I so disapprove of these ten-minute rule debates. I would like to speak for an hour.
  If the federalists here, such as the hon. Member for North Durham, and those overseas say that my position is incompatible with the treaty of Rome as it has been developed by subsequent legislation and practice, let them try to drive Britain out of the EU. So far as I know—[Interruption.] I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) is not going to snigger throughout my speech. We all know his views. Perhaps he will allow me to put mine.
  So far as I know, there is no legal machinery by which a parliamentary democracy can be expelled or suspended from membership of the EU. If some other states want to tear up the existing treaties and start again with a new European political and monetary union, as has been suggested by one or two hon. Members today, a Union from which Britain would be excluded, let them try, and let us use our best endeavours to frustrate them. I certainly have no secret agenda in mind to try to bring Britain out of the EU, and I shall fight tooth and nail in this Parliament and the next, if I am elected to it, to see that we are not driven out by the federalists. If anybody has a secret agenda, it may be them.
  Talk about British isolation in all this is greatly exaggerated. How many Frenchmen would be happy for long in a German-dominated EU in which there was no British counter-balance? For France, culturally and politically, it would be a form of national suicide. They know that. Of course Britain could survive and thrive outside the EU. I do not have time to develop the detail

  1067
  of that argument, but it is worth bearing it in mind that only 9 per cent. of the total profits of British business as a whole is earned in the EU, which means that 91 per cent. is earned outside it. It would be much better for Britain and far better for Europe that we should be in that union of nation states, which our Prime Minister has often described as his aim, as recently as yesterday, and which De Gaulle defined as a "Europe des Patries". There is overwhelming support for that concept among the British people, but for no other form of European Union.
  The French language and intellect lends itself to penetrating political statements. Lytton Strachey wrote that, between the collapse of the Roman empire and the start of the industrial revolution, only three men became the intellectual masters of Europe—Bernard of Clairvaux, Erasmus and Voltaire. Voltaire argued that the British political classes were the only ones in Europe capable of understanding the feelings of the masses. That is still true today. It is probably truer today than at any time since 1789.
  As the Harris poll, quoted by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, in yesterday's edition of The Independent makes clear, despite the fact that the classe politique in continental Europe is so committed to the idea of a single currency, the Germans oppose it by 70 per cent. to 29 per cent. and the French by 55 per cent. to 43 per cent. In Britain, there is a huge 4:1 majority against joining a single currency. The Euro-sceptics, of course, represent that 4:1 majority in this country.
  Another great Frenchman, Poincaré—
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Who?
  Sir Peter Tapsell: If my hon. Friend has not heard of Poincaré, he had better start studying European history, as he is so keen on Europe.
  Poincaré summarised the situation for his own time and for ours when he said:
  "The trouble with the Germans is that there are 30 million too many of them."
  The existence of the iron curtain and the menacing threat of Russian communism masked that reality for 45 years after the second world war. But with the reunification of Germany, that ethnic, geographic and historic fact has again inevitably moved back centre stage, as it did for Voltaire and Poincaré—who, for the benefit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), whom I greatly congratulate on his well-deserved honour, was the French Prime Minister and leader after the Versailles treaty. I am sorry that my Lincolnshire French accent is not as good as my hon. Friend's Kentish accent.
  Chancellor Kohl is a good man, but he is also a good German. He is about to unveil a statue of Bismarck, whom he greatly admires—as I would if I were German. Kohl does not believe in blood and iron, but he does believe in the international aims of Bismarckism. Bismarck wanted Germany to enjoy in peace what it had won by war; Kohl wants Germany to enjoy in peace what it lost by war. They have the same ambition for Germany to be the senior partner in the European business, as my friends in central Europe all tell me when I visit them on my business travels.
  1068
  After 1871, Bismarckism worked well until the Germans, or the Kaiser, "dropped the pilot". One day, Germany—or God—will drop Kohl. He, good man that he is, is fearful of the deluge that may come after him. He, if not my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East, is unsure of German moderation in the future. The whole European debate now really centres on the choice of the umbrella most suitable to keep us dry against that possible future deluge.
  Chancellor Kohl argues quite openly that German moderation, and European peace and prosperity, can be assured in the coming century only by the inextricable involvement of German political institutions and German business interests with those of adjoining European countries, and most particularly with France, in order to avoid, especially, a fourth terrible Franco-German war.[Interruption.] If Chancellor Kohl talks openly about those matters, as he does, there is no reason for my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East to go on sniggering at that particular point in my speech.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes):
  Order. I am afraid that the 10 minutes are up.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: The House may be relieved to learn that I do not intend to refight the last two world wars, although I am sure that Chancellor Kohl will be pleased to learn that the hon. Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) described him as a good German.
  To a large extent—understandably—the debate has been dominated by the beef issue. I want, however, to concentrate on some aspects of our relationships with the European Union. There has been a good deal of media comment in the past few months that the number of Labour critics of Maastricht exceeds the number of Conservative critics, and that may have led to a growing feeling that there are more anti-Europeans—if that is the right description—among Labour Members than among Conservatives. It is confusing and misleading, however, to lump together all Labour critics of Maastricht as anti-EU.
  I personally have considerable reservations about moves towards too much further integration. I have said that on other occasions, and no doubt I shall express my views in future debates, but a number of my hon. Friends who voted against Maastricht on every occasion are by no means of the same opinion. Indeed, some of those who went into the No Lobby to vote against Maastricht would describe themselves as federalists, going much further. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) is one of them. It is nonsense to say that Labour critics of Maastricht are all in the anti-European camp.
  Although, as I have said, I am critical of substantial moves towards more European integration that certainly would not have the support of the British electorate—all the indications at this stage are that they would not—I have nothing in common with some of the Tory critics of the European Union. I am not necessarily referring to the hon. Member for East Lindsey, or to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), who I believe wishes to speak and for whom I have considerable respect, when I listen to some of the Tory critics of Maastricht and the European Union, I see in them all that I dislike in politics. I see in them and their supporters little Englanders,

  1069
  backward-looking petty nationalists with an intense dislike of foreigners—although no doubt they will tell us that they go abroad for their holidays.
  I know that my views are very different indeed from those of the people I have just described. Those Tory critics are the strongest opponents of the social chapter, viewing it as though it were the plague. I am in favour of the social chapter, and I hope that one of the first actions of a Labour Government will be to see that it is implemented in Britain.
  They are also the strongest opponents of a minimum wage. I am not necessarily saying that Conservative Euro-enthusiasts are all in favour of it—I do not know— but certainly the Tory critics of the European Union seem to be the most determined opponents of any form of minimum wage, and time and again show indifference to poverty and deprivation both in Britain and abroad. Since I entered politics so many years ago, I have always been suspicious of people who wrap themselves in the Union Jack and give the impression that they are super-patriotic, while repeatedly showing indifference to those in greater social need.
  As I said in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), I thought that the speech made by the Secretary of State for Defence at the Tory party conference was vulgar and deeply offensive. It reinforced my feeling that I do not agree with Tory critics of the EU on so many issues. My immediate reaction was shame: I was ashamed that a Tory Cabinet Minister could make such a speech and be applauded at the Tory party conference—and the Prime Minister was on the platform, more or less nodding in agreement. I did not think that that time would ever come. Can we imagine a Labour Minister making such a speech? Even when we had a different policy on the European Union, which some of my hon. Friends disliked intensely—it was very different from our current policy—I do not remember any such vulgar or offensive speech about foreigners at the Labour party conference. I think that my hon. Friends will agree.
  One of the ironies about Maastricht and the European Union is that, while Labour critics of Maastricht protested at the convergence criteria on public spending and related matters, on issues discussed earlier so eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore)—that was one of the main reasons why we went into the No Lobby—the Tory critics held the diametrically opposite view on public spending. They are the most ardent and enthusiastic advocates of public spending cuts.
  I recently asked the Library what was Britain's current budget deficit. It amounts to 6 per cent. As we know, the Maastricht treaty lays down a figure of 3 per cent. The Library informs me that, to meet the criterion for Government borrowing set out so firmly in the treaty, a cut of some £20 billion would be necessary. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said earlier, that would undoubtedly mean substantial cuts in public expenditure.
  I find it difficult to understand why the Governments responsible for Maastricht should have placed such dogmatic emphasis on figures that will mean not dealing with poverty and social deprivation in member states, including Britain. Why did they not include criteria about moves towards full employment and about tackling mass
  1070
  unemployment? The latest figures have been much quoted, but the Library figures reveal that official unemployment in EU member states is more than 18 million. Does what has happened in Europe demonstrate how careful we must be about mass unemployment and the ugly political creatures who thrive on such misery, poverty and deprivation? Some of those movements have been emerging in Europe. We need policies that are different from those laid down in the Maastricht treaty. That is why I have been so critical of it.
  When anti-German feeling was referred to, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) quoted those disgusting articles, I thought not only of the German victims of Nazism, but of what happened last Saturday. Were they not Germans? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said, they were protesting against what I am speaking about, and against the policies in the Maastricht treaty that the German Government want to implement.
  The treaty's criteria to cut public spending and all the rest of it are a direct incitement to the Government, who use them as an excuse—not that they necessarily need one. When they want to cut public spending, they say, "We must do so; it is part of the Maastricht treaty and of achieving convergence," even though they do not intend at the moment to go into the European monetary union. Those negative views are not necessarily shared by all the most Euro-enthusiastic hon. Members, but they deeply worry me.
  I want a Europe where unemployment is being dealt with. I do not want to see the misery of more than 18 million people out of work—the official figure, but there are probably more. That is why we must give much further consideration to the matter, although not to our EU membership. I voted against that in 1975, but I accept that we are in and that we will remain in. I want, however, different policies to aid people in Europe, and I shall continue to campaign with my hon. Friends on those lines.
  7.52 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), because he shows why the public become confused about the messages that are sent out by the parties and by colleagues. In this debate about our involvement in Europe, we must recognise that, since we first became heavily involved with the single market and the Maastricht treaty, the public have become more doubtful in some areas. People think that the country is becoming more involved in what they believe is likely to lead to a super-federal state.
  We need to consider the matter in perspective. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) referred to Mr. Kohl. In his recent speech in Louvain, he said:
  "The question of war and peace in the 21st century really hinges on the progress of European integration."
  The stupid nationalist and xenophobic press and other hon. Members interpreted that to mean that we had either to accept Mr. Kohl's views about Europe or have a war and be left out.
  I took another view of it. Mr. Kohl was not threatening us with war or a federal European state. As one of the same generation who experienced world war two, I can

  1071
  say that his speech contained no threat. It echoed Winston Churchill's speech, just after the war, at Zurich, where he said:
  "We must build a kind of United States of Europe".
  He and Mr. Kohl called on us to put behind us our old enmities, not just to end the Franco-German rivalry, but to build a new Europe that would make war between European nations impossible, and that would help to build security and stability in the whole of Europe. The generation who suffered the bloodbath of the 1914–18 war welcomed those noble aspirations, as I do now, and we should not lose sight of that.
  The Chancellor's insistence, however, on a federal solution—I use a British context to this—cuts across the grain of much of the British experience of pragmatism and our aspirations and interpretations of Parliament's role. To me and the Government, the national Parliament remains the central focus of democratic legitimacy. That view is contained in the Government's White Paper.
  The danger to Europe is that, in our efforts to build the bridge of unity, we will replicate the federal institutions that were adopted in the United States. If we move too quickly, as the United States did—after 80 years, it broke out into civil war—we will retard rather than progress the purpose that we seek to promote in Europe. The founding fathers of that great country experienced that difficulty, and we are hung up on it ourselves. We all know that, unless we handle it carefully, one country after another will, either by force of economic circumstances or reluctantly, be dragged into a super-state. They will resent the encroaching burden of bureaucracy and view it with suspicion, as do Norway and Denmark.
  If we put the matter to a vote in a public referendum, the enthusiasm that is generated by the majority of hon. Members will not be replicated. Enlargement has important implications if we are to fulfil the dream of a stronger, more stable and secure Europe. To enlarge Europe is the first priority of the intergovernmental conference. We must realise that that will not come about by strengthening, through corporate economic solutions, supranational institutions or the erosion of national identity. On the contrary, we need more flexible institutions that can accommodate those countries, so that we do not impose extra social costs on them. We need measures that not only reduce bureaucratic burdens and improve the competitiveness of countries that we hope will join the European Union, but increase prosperity.
  Another important priority faces us. We must consider carefully the discussions that will precede the introduction of the single currency. Important and controversial points give genuine grounds for indecision. There is no strong message from either Front-Bench team. My party and the Government say that, if we think it is appropriate, we will have a referendum. The Labour party has yet to make such a commitment.
  Recently, the Confederation of British Industry has at least shown greater confidence—certainly the members representing larger companies have—in the value of having a single market and currency. That is refuted by the Institute of Directors. Some trade unions are in favour of a single currency; some are doubtful. Some hon. Members—it would be interesting to know how many—
  1072
  are unequivocally in favour of such a move. It is no wonder, therefore, that the public are worried about the direction in which we are going.
  What worries me above all is the tone in which our debates on these issues are held. The trouble is that too much of it is expressed in nationalistic and negative terms, which frequently betray a lack of confidence in our ability to persuade our people. We have to work towards a compromise and a solution with our European friends. Membership of the EU represented acceptance— especially with the introduction of the single market by the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher—of the creation of supranational institutions.
  We must reject proposals that would seriously diminish our national sovereignty; but if we are to make progress, we must accept that economic, political and technological developments make it spurious to pretend that national sovereignty has the substance that it once had. Such developments make it impossible for some nations to have an independent currency or even to survive without joining other nations to protect their economic and financial base. That concept involves not only political and economic matters, but defence arrangements.
  Relying on the old concept of national independence runs against the grain of greater unity, just as asking the public to accept a federal solution will restrain the development, strength and stability that can come from greater economic and political co-operation.
  The attitude that prevails among many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and outside, makes it more difficult to convey the right message to the public. There are those of us in the House who do not have hang-ups about federation—and there are hon. Members who are warmly disposed to Europe who do.
  8.1 pm
  Mr. Stuart Randall: The relationship between the UK and the rest of the European Union faces a serious crisis, and there is a desperate need for confidence building. I hope and pray that the Florence summit will result in the relationship between our country and other EU member states being rebuilt. Serious national interests are at stake. Britain's future lies firmly in the European Union. The case for that is massive; yet the UK's behaviour for so long places in jeopardy its future interests. I regret—I do not say this in any partisan way—that the Prime Minister cannot deliver the confidence that business interests and the public require.
  I was pleased by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in Bonn on Tuesday, which contained a ray of hope. The position that he adopted was refreshing and in contrast to views expressed in the House and by the Government. My right hon. Friend promised a fresh start in the relationship between Britain and the rest of the EU. If only we can do that, if we win the next general election. My right hon. Friend said at that well attended meeting in Bonn that he wanted Britain to walk tall at the centre of the Community. It was encouraging to hear such remarks, which I interpreted as our leader saying that there will be no two-speed Europe for us, with Britain in the slow lane.
  I am thinking of our nation, not in party political terms, when I express the belief that two contrasting positions will be in evidence at the next general election. Labour will be in favour of a constructive relationship with the

  1073
  European Union, whereas—and I do not relish this—the Tories will remain catastrophically divided, isolated and continuing as a force for obstruction with our EU partners. Some speeches made this evening depressed me.
  Mr. Dykes: Only one.
  Mr. Randall: That is a fair intervention.
  A constructive relationship between this country and the EU will lead to a single currency—that is as inevitable as night follows day. Some opinion polls on the single market are confusing and conflicting, but it is regarded by business interests that generate this county's wealth and fund its social policy as a terrific success. It has brought a huge increase in trade levels and great opportunities for business enterprise. The single market is also popular with young people, who are leading us by the nose. It is wonderful the way young people react. The Arthur Andersen study clearly showed huge interest in the single market.
  I do not have time to make the case for a single currency, but it is like having a cart without a horse. The single market and a single currency go hand in hand. The attractions to business of currency stability and lower transaction costs are irresistible. Many valid points have been made about the deflationary effect of a single currency and the consequences that inadequate convergence could have for employment. We must ensure that the transition works and does not damage public perception of the EU.
  If we believe in the concept of European co-operation, there must be more majority voting on policy where currently we have the veto. Majority voting is a more efficient and democratic way of conducting the governance of Europe. If we develop greater co-operation over foreign policy, which is pillar 2 or 3, the European Union's size and economic strength could make it much more influential. The common agricultural policy must also be reformed.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in Bonn:
  "I have no doubt at all that Britain's future lies in the European Union and at the centre of its events, not on the sidelines …It is demeaning to my country to be reduced to the margins of influence, dragged along querulously behind the vision and drive of others."
  I found that very encouraging.
  So much has been said about the beef crisis, and I have so little time. It is now quite a political matter, and I believe that Conservative Members have a lot to answer for in the way in which it has been handled. In March we heard the health statement, but there was no preparation for it. We lost time, and there was no co-operation. We sustained much damage to our industry and to our reputation. I do not think that there will be a solution by the time of the next general election or that all the phases will have been gone through. Conservative Members will have a lot to answer for.
  I should like to make a few practical and down-to-earth comments about the European Parliament. Not enough is said about the European Parliament, although it is regarded as suspect by many people. The Maastricht treaty contained the new idea of co-decision making. We should give the European Parliament a bit of credit for once and realise that the partnership between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament has worked
  1074
  extremely well. The partnership gives ordinary people an opportunity to have contact with Members of the European Parliament, who are a part of the decision-making process. In democratic terms, that is good and very encouraging. The European Parliament has the power to block and it has various other powers.
  I am afraid that I am out of time. I shall finish by saying that, based on what has happened so far, I believe that there is a very good case for giving the European Parliament budgetary powers and for extending those to compulsory expenditure, so that it can do something to improve the efficiency and budgeting of the common agricultural policy.
  8.11 pm
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), except to say that I have greater trust in our Prime Minister to bring back something from Florence than the hon. Gentleman seems to have, as expressed in his speech. I greatly enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell). It drew to my memory that wartime warning of "careless talk costs lives". That warning was used when we were fighting the Germans, and I believe that it may apply to his words.
  We must fact the fact that the beef crisis has long been a calamity of indeterminate scientific analysis over natural good sense, but one hopes that the end is now in sight. I join some Opposition Members in doubting the beneficial effects of the non-co-operation policy. Perhaps it has had some influence, but I rather doubt that it has had much. The non-co-operation policy worries me especially as it affects spheres of British interest such as Europol, which is a part of a marvellous British initiative. We seem to think that that can be dismissed in using non-co-operation as a hammer.
  I should like to make a point that I do not believe is always admitted by the Government: the European Commission remains the instrument for clearing up the BSE problem. The Commission lifted the ban on beef by-products, and it remains the instrument to sort out warring interests and political differences between nations. I remind the House of the Commission's crucial efforts to win the battle over the general agreement on tariffs and trade, which was led by Britain's very able Commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan.
  Too often, criticism of the European Union—of what it has achieved and will achieve—hangs on criticisms of its institutions. Too often those who put the greatest faith in institutional values are those who criticise the European Union the loudest. That applies to some of my hon. Friends, the Euro-sceptics. That has been the case particularly with the European Court of Justice, which is the primary European Union institution to apply the rules, to identify those who break them and now—very much under British influence—to apply sanctions to miscreants.
  We should welcome the existence of that instrument to ensure that agreements are applied properly and enforced fairly throughout the Union. We have argued for it, and Britain obtained agreement at Maastricht to give it greater powers to apply fines. Rather than arguing that the European Court's powers should be undercut, we should continually remind people that Britain always wants to play by the rules and wants others to do so, too. The

  1075
  European Court is charged with ensuring that that is done, and it is doing it ever more effectively, as year follows year.
  The advantages of a single market of 340 or so million people are self-evident, with ever freer movement of people, goods, services and capital. To work properly, the single market must have common rules—not intrusive rules, which they do not have to be and should not be— that are properly enforced and evenly applied. That is the function of the European Court.
  I agree with Ministers that we should maintain pressure to improve the workings of the European Court of Justice, as we are working to improve the workings of the Council of Europe's European Court of Human Rights. But let us beware of arguments advocating political control for such bodies, as that would mean politics overriding the rule of law, which is as inappropriate in an international context as it is in the British context. Sooner or later, such control would also run contrary to Britain's interests, both commercially and politically. That is not to say that there are no shared political interests between Britain and our partners in Europe—of course there are.
  The European Union is not only a free trade area. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) pointed out, it never has been and never will be only a free trade area. For any nation aspiring to influence and leadership in the world—as Britain does and, I hope, always will—a position outside the European Union would prove untenable, even while enjoying the free market advantage of being within the European Economic Area. Britain left a free trade area to join a political community which gains its momentum by embracing free trade. That is the way round. Other nations have followed, and still others are knocking on the door. Europe's prosperity and even its security depend on a continuing drive towards an enlarged European Union. In that, Britain must continue to give a lead.
  Just as British influence in Europe over the years is now being felt among our European partners, is it not peculiar that so many voices in Parliament and elsewhere—including in the media, as other hon. Members have pointed out—preach Europhobia? Those voices show such lack of confidence in Britain's ability successfully to negotiate or make deals within the European Union, which runs in the face of history and our achievements in Europe and elsewhere, where we have negotiated and won the argument so successfully.
  We must continue to take pride in our roots and our track record and to draw strength and confidence from them. To withdraw under the hypothetical threat that others may set rules or establish an unreliable agenda hardly advances the British cause. The Euro-sceptical view would deny us any influence on events as they unfurl now or in the future. That would be to abdicate our future and to deny our rights of influence rather than to protect them. Rather, I believe that we should work closely with our European partners and with other countries to protect and embrace our mutual best interests, influencing for the better the character and structure of the partnerships with countries in the European Union and elsewhere to which we are committed.
  We must continue to argue for evolution within the European Union which aligns with British interests and with our agenda, to include deregulation and openness.
  1076
  We must continually point out that the centralism inherent in too much of the thinking in Europe must lead to more rather than fewer meddling approaches from Brussels.
  The speech of one Opposition Member injected a political accent, and I should like to follow that for a moment. I believe that the true Conservative vision for Europe, as deployed by the Prime Minister, is right for Britain. That is a Europe committed to free trade, market solutions and flexible labour markets. It is a Europe of nations, but not of bureaucracy; it is a Europe enlarged, but not rigid. The rest of the European Union needs Britain's Conservative voice to put that case, which in recent years has gained more and more support from other European member states. That voice has to be heard and responded to positively. We must employ persuasion, not perpetual brinkmanship. In an uncertain world, there is strength in working closer together, and there will be benefits for everyone in Britain if we succeed.
  The Labour and Liberal Democrat vision of Europe is too often a negative one. It spells a weak Britain in an inward-looking European super-state where jobs are destroyed and enterprise is crushed. The Conservative vision is a positive one. It is a strong Britain in a strong, outgoing Europe with jobs and prosperity as our priorities. That is the way to build on the economic success of the European Community and to help consolidate peace in our continent. I believe that that is the importance of this and any other debate on the European Union—and may we have more of them.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. Tom Cox: I want to comment on an issue that has not yet been mentioned—the application for membership of the European Union made by the Republic of Cyprus. That country has long historic links with the United Kingdom and we are one of the guarantor powers. I should declare my interest as chairman of the Commonwealth parliamentary Cyprus group. Whenever I talk about Cyprus, I mention two commitments, as do other hon. Members on both sides of the House who are involved with Cyprus. We believe in the total sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus and we believe in the rights and the security of Cypriots, be they Greek or Turkish Cypriots.
  I do not think that anyone would dispute that Cyprus, with its traditions and democracy, is part of Europe. That is why many hon. Members fully support its application for membership. Discussion on its application took place some years ago. In January 1992, the European Parliament agreed to establish a Cyprus joint parliamentary committee. At a meeting of that committee in November 1994, a recommendation was sent to the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission that enlargement of the EU should involve Cyprus and Malta. At a meeting in Nicosia in April 1995, that same committee adopted a recommendation which stressed:
  "an unsuccessful outcome to the talks held under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-General for a solution to the Cyprus problem should in no way constitute an obstacle to Cyprus's membership of the European Union."
  It is because of that commitment that I wish to take part in the debate.
  What concerns me and many other hon. Members is that we are increasingly hearing that the application of Cyprus will depend on whether there has been a

  1077
  settlement to the long-running tragedy that has existed there since the invasion by Turkey in 1974. Such a condition was never mentioned or sought to be imposed before and many of us wonder why a change is taking place. I and many other hon. Members were concerned that, at a recent meeting of the friends of Cyprus group— the chairman of that group is Lord Bethell from the other place—comments such as that were made by the Foreign Secretary.
  I and many other hon. Members want a settlement to the long-running tragedy in Cyprus. I suggest that people read the report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. He will leave no one in any doubt about who he blames for the lack of a settlement to that long-running tragedy. It is certainly not the Republic of Cyprus or its Government.
  For several years there has been a close relationship between Cyprus and the European Economic Community. Report after report has praised the impressive record of Cyprus' economy and stressed its eligibility to become a member of the Community. Over the years, the Government of Cyprus have set up some 20 committees, in co-operation with the European Parliament, to look at specific issues that would face Cyprus as it becomes more involved in the European Community. Those committees have covered company law, free movement of capital, foreign and security policy, taxation, the environment, industrial policy, enterprise policy and many other matters.
  In June 1994, at its meeting in Corfu, the European Council discussed Cyprus and said:
  "An essential stage of Cyprus' preparation for accession can now be regarded as completed."
  That statement was confirmed by the European Community at its meeting in Essen in December 1994.
  That is the background to what has happened in recent years to Cyprus's application for membership of the European Union. Many hon. Members are concerned that conditions are beginning to be imposed and that one of the countries seeking to impose them, is, sadly, Britain and the British Government. The application for membership of the European Union should be based solely on the criteria for membership and on no other issue.
  President Clerides of the Republic of Cyprus has repeatedly asked the Turkish Cypriots to work with him to form the basis of the application that the Republic of Cyprus is now seeking to see pursued after the IGC. Sadly, we know that the economy of northern Cyprus is in a deplorable condition. Thousands of Turkish Cypriots are leaving northern Cyprus because they are depressed and see no future for themselves or their families. There is no doubt that membership of the EU would benefit the whole of that country and its people.
  I hope that this evening we will have a clear statement from the Minister and from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson that under no circumstances will Turkey have any veto on Cyprus's application. Turkey seems to think that it will have a right of veto, and it should be told clearly by one of the guarantor powers for the island of Cyprus that it will have none. I hope that we will hear that loud and clear from both Front Benches.
  The recent history of Cyprus has been one of tragedy. All of us who are involved with Cyprus want a settlement for the benefit of the republic and of the people who live
  1078
  there. Many of us believe that the future for the island of Cyprus is via its membership of the European Union, which will bring stability, security and, without doubt, prosperity to that country. I hope that Cyprus's application will be supported by all parties represented in the House, and that, when it is tabled, the British Parliament will be at the forefront in supporting it.
  8.30 pm
  Sir Richard Body: I agree with the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) that Cyprus belongs to Europe and should be in the European Union— but so should some 24 other countries that equally belong to Europe. Some of our Euro-enthusiasts have argued today for a single currency. They told us that we cannot repatriate the common agricultural policy or anything else. I put to them one simple point—how can we bring in Cyprus and the other 24 countries that belong to Europe, just as much as we do, if we try to enforce single policies on no fewer than 40 countries?
  The newspapers were rather maligned in the earlier part of our debate, but they made one forecast that has proved to be correct—that the Euro-enthusiasts on the Conservative Benches would be out in full force in this debate to repudiate the Euro-sceptics. They have indeed turned out—every one of them—and made the case for little Europe. They think of Europe as just 15 countries. [Interruption.] Oh, yes. They argue for a single currency and all the policies that may just work, but only just, for 15 countries, but could never work for 40 if we want to bring into Europe countries such as Ukraine and Russia, which belong to Europe just as much as we do. It is unthinkable. I fear that even my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), with whom I try to agree on these occasions, is a little European. His Europe is but a mere part of our continent.
  Hon. Members have spoken of the massive case for our membership of Europe and cited economic facts. I draw their attention to the first full cost-benefit analysis of our membership of the European Union. After 20 years, it is right that some objective study should be made. The study was sponsored by a number of industrialists and reported in last week's European Business Review.
  The survey's conclusion is that, although there are advantages to our membership, it is fairly evenly balanced or, indeed, slightly adverse so far—but it says that, if we embark upon the social chapter and a single currency, it will be categorically adverse. I commend to the House someone who contributed to that report, Noriko Hama— who is the chief economist at the Mitusishi Institute and probably advises more Japanese investors in this country than anyone else—who said that, in or out, this will always be the best country in Europe for Japanese and other foreigners to invest in.
  She gave some powerful arguments for that view—not just the obvious one that we speak the English language, just as all Japanese business men do—including the fact that we take a much less chauvinistic attitude towards the Japanese when they want to invest and set up factories in this country; that we are not so regulated; and that we are much more welcoming than other countries. I commend to hon. Members what she said and also the other conclusions in that important report, which is the first detailed, sophisticated study of the economic advantages and disadvantages of our membership of the EU.

  1079
  The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) spoke passionately about unemployment. It is outrageous that 18 million—and rising—people are out of work. Some people say that the number will be 20 million quite soon. Yet around the world unemployment is going down. It is going down in Britain. In parts of western Europe that are outside the European Union there is no unemployment problem. For example, in Switzerland and Norway, unemployment is non-existent. We must ask ourselves whether the European Union is trailing its feet over an employment policy while other countries throughout the world are getting over the problem of unemployment and not suffering to the same degree.
  Economists say that there is a distinct correlation between the size of a market or an integrated economy and the size of the problems—the larger the market, the larger the problems. They say that in a large single market the mega-corporations tend to be the biggest investors and the most powerful elements and that they prefer to invest in capital projects rather than in what economists call labour, but what we call people. If that is true, it is an indictment of the way in which any large single economy works. Several hon. Members became quite lyrical on the subject, but I hope that they will consider some of the arguments being advanced by some of our foremost economists in both the academic and business worlds.
  It is rather notable that an educational charity has been seeking an economist of some distinction to argue the economic merits of our continued membership of the European Union and a single currency, but has so far failed to recruit anyone willing to undertake that task. We must put to one side, or at least moderate, the euphoria that has been generated so eloquently and forcefully over the years by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends that it is now catching on among Opposition Members.
  Some of my hon. Friends are rather patronising to us Euro-sceptics. None of us likes being patronised; I certainly do not. More than 40 years ago, way back in 1955, I signed the first early-day motion on what we call Europe. It was signed by just a few hon. Members and it urged the Government of the time to be at Messina and play their part in drafting what became the treaty of Rome. I well remember what the then Patronage Secretary, who now sits this side of the Gangway, had to say to us about that EDM. We were just a tiny band and we were rather federalist-minded. I fear that they are now all dead, or certainly retired, as I am the only survivor in the House.
  I hope that my hon. Friends do not become too patronising towards those of us who have been arguing about Europe for so long—in my case, originally arguing in favour of membership. The world is moving on—if I may say so and make a very banal point—and so is Europe. We are not talking of the Europe of the 1960s or the 1970s. We must now look forward to a Europe in which all 40 countries may play a part. That is why I hope that, at Florence, we shall take some steps to make the Community a more flexible, looser arrangement so that those countries, which are just as European as we are, may be allowed to play a part.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) shares with his right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and
  1080
  Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) the classic ability of Members of Parliament to make a good speech without notes. Unfortunately, I cannot follow them to that extent, but I share with them, having been around before, during and after the war, a passionate belief in European internationalism as a means of preventing successive disasters such as those that we had experienced.
  Where I disagree with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup is on the means he has chosen. He and his generation saw to it that Europe was saved from disaster. We owe a debt to those who went to war as well as to those who died. However, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman, whom I shall mention at length this evening, has chosen the wrong vehicle—provably so. I mentioned to him that I intended to make these remarks. He has to go to his constituency this evening, and I understand that, of course.
  The test case is the fisheries. We are to have a cut of approximately 40 per cent. in our fishing ability; that is part of the European Community's responsibility. During the debates of 19 December last, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup was attacked by Conservative Members for having given away the fishermen's rights. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "There is no truth whatever in that statement. The principle was laid down by Act of Parliament, as were all principles. However, the policies to be followed were not laid down, and there was no common fisheries policy at that time—nor was one being discussed."
  He was referring to the period 1971–72.
  I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is sincere in his desires, but I fear that, as with all of us, his memory is sometimes not as accurate as it might be. The principle, of course, was not laid down by Act of Parliament; it was laid down in successive regulations and existing treaties of the European Community. They laid down fisheries as a common resource. Indeed, our relationship to that fisheries policy was published only after the great vote on the White Paper, when article 103 of the revised treaty laid down the arrangements. They were not known at the time of the big vote on the principle. In any case, as I shall show, those arrangements were not included in an Act of Parliament.
  The right hon. Gentleman said last December:
  "there was no common fisheries policy at that time—nor was one being discussed."—[Official Report, 19 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 1360.]
  However, in July 1971, before the accession treaty, the right hon. Gentleman's Government published a White Paper. Paragraph 152, headed "Fisheries", said:
  "we do not consider the common fisheries policy, decided upon at the time our negotiations began, to be appropriate to the needs and circumstances of an enlarged Community".
  So it must have been a policy. The White Paper then said:
  "further discussions will be held in the near future. The Government are determined to secure arrangements which will be fair throughout the enlarged Community and will satisfactorily safeguard the interests of British fishermen."
  Why were the existing arrangements unsatisfactory? The reason was that a regulation laid down the principle of a common resource, although that may not have been within the terms of the treaty, and arrangements for the common resource would be decided by qualified majority voting. We know of the difficulties that that brings.

  1081
  If the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup were here, I would tell him that there was very much a common policy. What he said then, alas, was not carried out. Safeguards were not inserted in the arrangements, although at a Conservative party conference earlier, the Government said that they would be.
  On 19 December 1995, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "My actions were not secretive; I have a record in my own papers. The principle was published, and it was open for debate in the House."
  It was published only after the right hon. Gentleman had signed the treaty. On the matter of open debate in the House, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "We debated our proposed entry into the Community day after day in both Houses of Parliament."—[Official Report, 19 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 1361.]
  There were statements about the fisheries, but there was no debate.
  It is extraordinary that the discussions on the European Communities Act 1972 did not feature any debate on fisheries. The relevant amendment was ruled out of order on 22 June 1972. The then Chairman of the Committee, in an unprecedented remark, ruled it out of order, saying:
  "It is depressing but nevertheless true."—[Official Report, 22 June 1972; Vol. 839, c. 737.]
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) had said that, unless we debated the amendment, we would not debate fisheries at all. I fear, therefore, that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup was also inaccurate in that respect.
  On 19 December 1995, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "Therefore, it is a lie to say that we were secretive and held back information from the House."—[Official Report, 19 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 1361.]
  Unfortunately, I again challenge that statement as not being strictly correct—indeed, I believe that it is incorrect by a long way. When the fishing arrangements were finally agreed by Lord Rippon, he made statements in the House that suggested that any arrangement that had been made, as it had been, for a 10-year temporary arrangement for the fisheries provided that, when it finished on 31 December 1982, it would be subject to wide and unanimous agreement.
  In the House of Lords, Lady Tweedsmuir twice said that that was the case. I do not have time to read the quotation because of the 10-minute rule, but it is stated clearly. That was untrue, because, in the treaty and in the other documents, it was clear that fisheries arrangements would be subject to qualified majority voting. That was pointed out by the late Lord Jay on 20 January 1972, when he said:
  "The Chancellor has misrepresented the facts to this House and to the fishing industry. In saying categorically in the other place on 14th. December that we have a veto, the noble Lady was guilty of a direct falsehood."—[Official Report, 20 January 1972; Vol. 829, c. 731.]
  I believe that I have demonstrated by those brief quotations that the right hon. Gentleman's memory in that respect was inaccurate.
  The Norwegian press published, during the period of the negotiations, a letter from the right hon. Gentleman to Mr. Bratteli, the Norwegian Prime Minister, saying:
  "It is very important for us that we present this question in a manner that will appear satisfactory to our fishing interests."
  1082
  Unfortunately, Mr. Bratteli still went ahead and as a result, his Fisheries Minister resigned. That had a big effect on the subsequent referendum in Norway.
  I have summarised the situation accurately, I believe. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt read what I have said and look at the documents that I shall send to him. I have respect for the right hon. Gentleman, for being of a generation who made discussion of these matters possible and who made it possible for us to be here in freedom, but I believe that he has chosen the wrong vehicle. The fact that the fisheries arrangements had to happen to get us into the EC, the fact that we now have friction in our fisheries arrangements, the fact that there is a crisis in the industry and the fact that there are fish wars show that the machinery is not working.
  I believe that the treaties are not the right vehicle for us to achieve what we all want—a peaceful, prosperous and equitable Europe of all nations, as the hon. Member for Holland with Boston said, in the next few years and in the centuries to come. I ask the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to admit that he has chosen the wrong vehicle to attain those ends.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. Ray Whitney: The European fisheries policies have always been perfectly clear. If the common fisheries policy did not exist, it would have to be invented. The propensity of fishermen to over-fish, the need for conservation and the fact that fish do not take account of international territorial waters mean that we need international collaboration, and that is what the common fisheries policy should and does offer. That does not mean that it should not be changed, but the basis of its existence must be accepted, even by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
  Our debates on Europe tend to be setpieces between accustomed actors, among whom I include myself and the hon. Member for Newham, South. We go through the regular routine of the "pros" and the "antis" and we hear the views of both sides. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) has almost put himself in the anti-European category, according to my definition of it. I heard what he said about a Europe of 40, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a working community. There are also the much-discussed Euro-sceptics.
  I am delighted that the balance of the debate, which has continued for nearly four hours, is so strongly in favour of those who take a constructive and positive approach to Europe. Those in the other camp—as we well know, and has been demonstrated again this evening, they are on both sides of the Chamber—fall into two categories: the clear anti-Europeans and the Euro-sceptics. The anti-Europeans are few in number, but they have two qualities that they can pray in aid: first, their consistency, as most of them have been consistently opposed to Britain's membership of the European Community for 20 or 30 years; and secondly, their honesty, as they say what they believe. That is in sad distinction to many Euro-sceptics, who share the view that they wish Britain to be out of the European Union, but shy away from actually saying so. Instead, they resort to the use of the word "sceptics".
  Sceptical means doubtful or unconvinced, but Euro-sceptics are not in the least doubtful. Most are convinced that we should be out of the union, but they

  1083
  simply do not dare say so. They know that even now, despite the barrage of anti-European propaganda to which the public have been subjected, the great majority of the electorate is where it was at the time of the 1975 referendum—a 2:1 majority in favour of Britain remaining in Europe.
  I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker), who has joined us for the first time today. If he listens quietly, perhaps he will learn something for a change. It is nice to have him here, even at this late hour.
  Even if we take Euro-scepticism at face value, what a negative position it is. What on earth does it mean? We are all sceptical about a great many things, but surely it is the duty of politicians to support or advocate a policy. We are well accustomed to negativism or scepticism in the media, and we rightly complain about it, but we seek from politicians the positive advocacy of a policy. What are Euro-sceptics positive about? Instead, they exaggerate and magnify every silly grumble—and some not so silly—about the European Union. We hear a great deal about square tomatoes, straight bananas and silly rules about slaughterhouses. We hear diatribes about the great spectre of the hegemony of Germany that will attempt to dominate and control us and use every manoeuvre to achieve what it failed to achieve in two world wars. We are told that 13 other ancient European nations are voluntarily rolling over or being hoodwinked to accept German domination. That is total myth, and they know it.
  Another myth is that we thought that we were only joining a free trade area. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) have touched on that. It was always perfectly clear that it would be more than a free trade area.
  When the Common Market started in 1958, for all those historical, geographical and cultural reasons, Britain did not join at Messina. I was interested to hear what my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said about his views on Messina at the time. It was a great missed opportunity of our political forebears. Instead, we said, "Let us form a free trade area." Within two years, we realised that that was not adequate, and by July 1961, Britain, under a Conservative Government, was applying to join the European Community because we knew exactly what was at stake and that that was what was needed.
  All the extra benefits of the European Community have always been perfectly clear, as has the background of the failure of the European Free Trade Area. Baroness Thatcher has been quoted, in what she said about the European Community in 1975. Nine years later, in June 1984, she addressed the memorandum to her fellow Heads of Government that called for
  "a series of new policies to promote the economic, social and political growth"
  of the European Community. She stressed that it must be the objective
  "to aim beyond the common commercial policy through political co-operation towards a common approach to external affairs"
  and to strengthen European defence co-operation. So any serious politician who claims that he thought that we were only joining a free trade area has many questions to answer.
  1084
  The benefits of the membership of the European Union are manifold. Although we need to develop the common foreign and security policy and make it more effective, it certainly exists. The environmental benefits, international trade, our effectiveness in the Uruguay round of the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiation and the World Trade Organisation have been mentioned, as have the benefits of the internal market.
  In order to use those great benefits properly, we need supranational organisations such as the European Court of Justice. The point has been made, so I shall not dwell on it, but we cannot simply repatriate British laws and have no supranational laws, because we benefit from them. We are great advocates of the single market, and to make that single market work properly, we certainly need a European Court of Justice. It is subject to amendment, as is the European Parliament, but those supranational institutions are absolutely necessary. Those who advocate the so-called withdrawal from or change in those institutions know that it is completely unrealistic. It is another means of disguising their own basic objective, which is that Britain should withdraw from the union.
  The White Paper on the IGC, which I believe is a commendable document that tries to stitch our party together, puts that clearly:
  "We must be realistic therefore about the sort of changes we can hope to achieve at the IGC, just as we are clear about the sort of changes we will not accept. If we were to press ideas which stand no chance of general acceptance, some others would seek to impose an integrationist agenda which would be equally unacceptable from our point of view."
  That is precisely what too many hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, are trying to do. They know clearly that what they advocate would lead to Britain's departure. All those claims about repatriation, and about seeking to change the fundamental essentials of the treaties of Rome and of Maastricht would break up the European Union, greatly to the detriment of Britain and of our British national interests.
  It is encouraging that tonight the strong weight of argument has been against the anti-Europeans and the Euro-sceptics. I am afraid that that campaign will have to continue, because the time for turning the other cheek and trying to patch things up is over. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, we can gain tremendous benefits from being part of Europe, and Britain's place—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Mike Gapes: Earlier today, I intervened during the Foreign Secretary's speech, and I was a bit surprised that when he responded to me, he did not point out the fact that
  "All member states had imposed or announced bans"
  on this country's beef
  "before the Union acted"
  collectively.
  Those are not my words, but those of David Williamson, the Secretary-General of the European Commission, in an article that appeared in the Financial Times on 10 June. I hope that Ministers will read that

  1085
  article, which says a lot of sensible things about the damage the non-co-operation policy is doing to our country and to Europe as a whole.
  Unfortunately, I do not have time to go into detail about the beef crisis, but it is worth pointing out that none of the 21 countries that imposed a ban on our beef before the European Union action will make any financial contribution to the British farmers affected by their ban, whereas the European Union is providing financial support. No doubt that means that, in the Daily Express and the Daily Mail—owned by the people who were referred to by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)—the European Union will be denounced for doing so.
  I intend to concentrate on economic and monetary union. The Confederation of British Industry has produced a little leaflet as part of its "Business in Europe" campaign, which includes the following important statement:
  "Even if the UK does not join, it is in the UK's interests that EMU is a success."
  The House of Lords European Communities Committee has published in the past few days a report entitled "An EMU of 'Ins' and 'Outs'", which says:
  "We are convinced that it is prudent for the United Kingdom to plan on the basis that EMU will go ahead, whether or not the United Kingdom eventually joins."
  Perhaps that is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer has quietly persuaded his fellow Finance Ministers to drop the requirement for two years' membership of the ERM before a country can join EMU. He is keeping his options open. I am not sure whether the rest of the Cabinet are entirely satisfied or happy with that, but at least the Government seem to be preparing the ground.
  EMU is not a problem for our Government alone. If and when it takes place, it will happen because there is now a momentum behind it. The markets have already made the adjustments. In the financial institutions, it is assumed that there will be a European single currency within the next few years. There may be some slippage of a few months in the implementation date, but we should not hold our breath. It is clear that EMU will happen at some point, and as a country we are sleepwalking away from the real questions.
  The debate today has been of an infinitely better quality than some of the European debates in the House. I congratulate the Conservatives who have come along and made their voices heard in favour of European co-operation for a change. Sometimes it has been a bit sad, and we have got the impression that there is no one but rabid xenophobes on the Government Benches.
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: It is not for want of trying.
  Mr. Gapes: I exempt the hon. Lady, who always attends European debates.
  I have a serious point to make about where we are going. Clearly the single currency will be centred on the deutschmark. There is already a deutschmark zone. If we choose to stay out of that, it will probably be at the cost of our having to meet the convergency criteria anyway, so as to be competitive in international markets. I was in Oslo recently, and the Norwegians are meeting the single market criteria more rigorously than most member states of the EU, even though they voted to stay out. They are doing so because they recognise that their economy depends on
  1086
  getting into the European market. If we do not face up to this problem in the next few years, we could face some harsh decisions.
  Our country is now at a watershed, and we must stop the uncertainty. We must recognise that we have to make some decisive choices soon. I have been against referendums, and I tended to the view of Clement Attlee that they were the devices of demagogues and dictators. But we must make decisive choices, and we need a general election soon that gives a clear choice to the people of this country. We will do ourselves enormous damage if we spend another year of incessant agonising about our future and do not face up to the fundamental economic and political problems of a wider Europe, such as enlargement. This country must stop looking inwards and start looking to the wider world.
  9.5 pm
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: I am hoping for two helpful announcements following the Florence summit: first, that the framework document on BSE will be adopted and implemented, as other hon. Members have said today; and, secondly, that the non-co-operation strategy will be abandoned and consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs. The two elements are linked by the Government, and the latter strategy has been regarded as the cause of the former.
  Earlier today, a triumph was claimed by the Government, and who am I to argue with that? I merely put on record a point that I made to the Foreign Secretary when he came to speak to the Conservative group for Europe, of which I am chairman, on 12 June in the House. In my view, had we adopted the framework approach from the start, we would have arrived at much the same point by now without the non-co-operation process. If negotiation, scientific evidence and everything else that we have called in aid are as strong and important as we believe them to be, the obduracy and bad manners of the non-co-operation process would not have been necessary.
  Some things are very obvious from the position paper of the Commission, entitled "The Protection of Human and Animal Health". It is very clear, for example, that the European Union holds the whip hand in this. The document states:
  "Fortnightly reports by the UK and inspections and monthly reports by the Commission to the Council and Parliament"—
  not this Parliament, but the European Parliament—
  "will continue as long as necessary and are an integral part of this procedure".
  The document adds:
  "The Commission will subsequently fix the date when exports can effectively resume following a successful outcome of a Community inspection".
  My goodness—that puts us in our place.
  It has also become obvious that we cannot manage without the EU. These countries are our customers. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) said that the countries banned our exports before the EU did so, and he is quite right. However, it was worse than that. Our customers banned our exports. The day after the announcement by the Secretary of State for Health—I am glad that he made it in the House—the markets in Derbyshire and Staffordshire closed. My constituents, and my beef farmers in particular, had a lucrative trade with Italy, but they have been unable to export anything—not a single gramme or ounce—since.

  1087
  These countries are our customers, but they are also our regulators—there can be no argument about that any more. They are also our competitors and, close as we are, they are our companions in every aspect of business. What is also beyond peradventure is that enormous and long-lasting damage has been done to the European beef industry— probably more than to our own. Therefore, we are all very much in this together.
  My anxieties have been aroused by much of the debate during the past three months or so. Hon. Members have talked about the damage done to this country's reputation abroad, but I should like to mention how the clumsy handling of this and previous rows has damaged public opinion in this country. When the Prime Minister took office, a Gallup poll in The Daily Telegraph in November 1990 asked a regular question:
  "Generally speaking, do you think British membership of the European Union is a good thing, a bad thing or neither good nor bad?"
  In November 1990, 56 per cent. said that it was a good thing and 13 per cent. said that it was a bad thing—in other words, about 4:1. Of course, the British are among the few nations who can say that something is a bad thing, but want to stay in it. Nevertheless, at that stage the European Union was very popular. That was the result of a highly successful decade of pro-European activity, culminating in the creation of the single market.
  Where are we now? In the same poll in The Daily Telegraph on 10 April 1996, 34 per cent. of respondents said that it was a good thing, 34 per cent. that it was a bad thing and 32 per cent. did not know. So we now have a confused and divided nation. That, I suspect, reflects a confused and divided House, and in particular a confused and divided Administration.
  Our Front-Bench speakers repeatedly raise fears about things that do not exist and probably are not going to exist. We constantly hear—it is in the White Paper—that the Government are totally against a super-state and a federal Europe. Those phrases were bandied around by our Ministers long before Sir James Goldsmith appeared on the scene and started using such language.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends are raising an Aunt Sally which has no basis in fact. The result is to make the British people fearful not of how the European Union will be in future but of how it is now. We know that the United Kingdom as a trading nation has gained enormously from how the European Union is now. The Government have been making a rod for their own back. That makes it harder to accept change when it inevitably comes. It also makes it harder to accept the implementation of changes agreed many years ago such as the fisheries policy. It just makes life very much harder.
  All the surveys show that the British people want more information—information that they can trust, refer to, discuss, debate and evaluate. That should come from the Government. It should not come from anyone else. It should come clearly from the Government, who ought to take on board as a duty their responsibility to educate the nation.
  The same report in The Daily Telegraph referred to an effort by Gestetner to discover the attitudes of Britain's school children. It discovered that
  "sophistication about Europe among Britain's young is not high … 39 per cent. thought Europe included the USA and Australia."
  1088
  The provision of information ought also to be the European Commission's job, but it is extremely hesitant about information campaigns. It has decided not to spend information money in this country, although it spends it in other countries. So the voluntary movements will have to do it. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) is the chairman of the European Movement. I am a vice-chairman, and other vice-chairmen have been in the Chamber tonight. We will have to do it. We will have to take on Goldsmith. We will do it, but it is a disgrace that it is being left to the voluntary movements. It ought to be the responsibility of the Government.
  I have a feeling that the Government think that anti-European or Euro-sceptic policies will be popular with the electorate when the election comes. This is the Redwood theory. It is sadly mistaken. It may go down well in Wokingham, but it does not make voters' eyes light up in the industrial midlands, where large numbers of marginal seats are to be found—seats such as mine. Why? Because the European Union means jobs, that is why, and my young working voters know it. At no time since the war have the British electorate voted into power an anti-European party. The Labour party knows that, which is why, with its most cynical approach to politics, it is now moving in that direction.
  More significantly, it is in the Government's interest and the country's interest that we should adopt a much more positive approach in future. I hope, therefore, that we will return in our dealings with the European Union to consent and courtesy as quickly as possible.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: In a Chamber in which we extol the virtues of education and maturity, when someone like myself speaks as a pro-European who 20 years ago campaigned against Europe—as did my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—it is regarded not as a sign of education and growing maturity but as some dark secret that one should try to bury. I was unashamedly naive about Europe and I have, I think, matured and become confident of the benefits that membership of Europe gives to us as a nation and to the people whom I represent.
  I listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and I agree that the original concept of the treaty of Rome was right. Europe should grow closer and closer over the years into a greater unity. We should be unashamed about that, especially as most of us come into politics because, above all, we want peace. We can prioritise the economy, which is very important—the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) spoke about jobs—but we want peace and prosperity and that is why we have built Europe as a bulwark against another war such as the one in 1914–18 and the last war.
  We want a peaceful and a prosperous Europe that offers cultural diversity. We should speak out about the good aspects of Europe, and I am glad that we have had a positive debate today. So many of the voices that have been heard in our country in the past two years have been strident, Euro-sceptic voices.
  I do not blame the Euro-sceptics. They have an opinion and they have the right to express that opinion, but the Government have been pushed into nervous timidity about Europe. That is the real problem, but I think that they are

  1089
  coming to their senses. I knew they would come to their senses on the day that the CBI spoke out with a clarion message. As someone involved with manufacturing industry, I have gone round and spoken to the chairmen of companies and they have asked quietly—they are more positive now—what the Government's problem is and why they have changed their mind about being at the heart of Europe. That is a consistent point of view and an important one.
  I wish to shed a little light into the lives of all those who believe in Europe. Some of the more sophisticated polls show that the new, younger generation, especially those who are well educated, are positive about Europe. We have a wonderful network in Europe in the ERASMUS exchange programme. Young students from across Europe come here to be educated, and our students go abroad. There is a marvellous feeling among the new generation, who are better at languages than we were and better at conversing with their opposite numbers. That is making Europe a reality and is one ingredient that will stop us ever going back to an anti-European position.
  Another problem with the issue of Europe is that too often people think that one has to be pro-Europe and unquestioning or anti-Europe. I want to be both. I am pro-European, but there are some ghastly problems with Europe. For example, the common agricultural policy is a disgrace. It must be changed, but we must be in Europe to change it. We cannot change it if we do not participate.
  I take the traditional view about a healthy democracy. I do not know of any healthy democracy that does not have a legislature that checks the executive effectively. That has worked in this country and in the great democracies of the world. An effective legislature is the key ingredient, together with an independent judiciary, for a healthy democracy. We do not have that in Europe, because it is far too heavily driven by the executive. The Council of Ministers has too much power—as, in some ways, does the Commission, but that can be put right.
  As a Front Bencher shadowing various Ministers in the past 12 years, I have seen the facility with which a Minister would leave the House of Commons, get into his chauffeured car, drive to the City airport or Heathrow, fly to Brussels, and meet his opposite numbers, with a simultaneous translation and another staff provided. The executive has wonderful access to Europe. The Minister shakes his head, but if we want to deepen our European experience and to make the people we represent more confident about Europe, we must start taking it seriously ourselves.
  That means that we must talk to our opposite numbers in Germany, France, Spain and Italy. We must have the ability to meet them and talk to them on issues in which we are interested such as energy, the environment or industrial policy. The best way to overcome prejudice is to meet the people that one tends to hold prejudices about. We, the 15 domestic legislatures, have to take steps to make common cause, which is what politicians do best. Politicians are good at gossiping, plotting and planning, and we must start doing that across the 15 domestic parliaments.
  The Front-Bench teams have been very good and have allowed Back Benchers to squeeze in extra time, so I shall not detain the House for too much longer.
  If we are to start making common cause, we must have access—not the miserable one trip to Brussels a year. We must have a method of communication, a regular page on
  1090
  the Internet and a regular journal or newsletter for hon. Members and for those other legislatures that are still steam driven. We must also demand a meeting place—a central location—perhaps in Brussels, with meeting rooms and simultaneous translation, where we can do the thing that politicians do best: check an executive which, if not controlled, will get out of hand.
  I promised myself that I would say nothing about the beef crisis, but I have been tempted by the latter remarks of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire. I was sitting in the House talking to the chairman of a major chemical company three months ago when the crisis broke. When we all thought that it was a quiet week, two Cabinet Ministers rushed into the Chamber to make a statement— indeed, the hands of the Secretary of State for Health were shaking on his papers. The message went round the world that there was a crisis. The senior industrialist said to me, "When we get to a certain level in my business, we are sent on a crisis management course. You are told that, if you do not handle a crisis in 10 minutes or 10 hours, it will get out of hand." The beef crisis got out of hand.
  I was with the German ambassador in Paris two weeks ago, when he asked me in a pained way, "What have you done? You have single-handedly undermined one of the most important industries in Europe." If the crisis was in the pharmaceutical, chemical or steel industry, it would look different, but it happened to involve farming and beef. It was this Administration who got things so wrong and forgot that we live in a global village. The image of the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box was instantly transmitted around the globe, and everything that followed was this Administration's responsibility.
  I shall end on a better note: this has been an intelligent and constructive debate. We must ensure that the message that prosperity and peace come from a deepening and widening Europe is broadcast not just today. We must continue to give that message, or the eccentric right in this country will take the initiative and take advantage of the current situation.
  9.22 pm
  Ms Joyce Quin: Today's debate has been part of the series of debates that we hold in the House to look at the six-monthly developments in the European Union. Such is the unpredictability of political life that six months ago we did not imagine that we would spend the majority of today's debate discussing a beef crisis. As many hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, it has been a good debate—one of the best of the six-monthly debates that I have experienced during my time in the House, with some excellent contributions from both sides of the House. There have been fewer of the setpieces to which the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) referred, and, given the unusual circumstances, some unusual contributions.
  On the Conservative Benches, as was pointed out by many of my hon. Friends, the debate was not dominated by Euro-sceptics. They have not been entirely absent from the debate. There was the perhaps idiosyncratic speech of the hon. Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell), which provoked plenty of reaction on both sides of the House, and the speech of the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), who said some things with which I agreed, particularly on the common agricultural policy and the need for its reform if enlargement of the EU is to go ahead, as we all hope.

  1091
  None the less, there were some notable Euro-sceptic absences in the debate, including that of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). Perhaps he was so wounded by the comments made about him by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) in The Times today—I shall not quote them in case they are deemed unparliamentary—that he was rendered speechless and unable to attend. I shall leave to my hon. Friends the joy of discovering those quotes in today's newspapers.
  Mr. Bellingham: What about the Labour Members who oppose Europe?
  Ms Quin: I do not think that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) has been present throughout the debate. He certainly has not heard as many of the speeches as I have, so perhaps he will not make comments from a sedentary position.
  The beef ban and the Government's approach to beef have been a dominant theme throughout the debate. Indeed, there were many telling criticisms of the Government's approach to the issue. There is, it seems, a depressing pattern in the Government's approach to European Union issues. They breathe fire and brimstone and then subside without achieving their original goals, and often do so in such a way as to damage our standing with our European partners. Indeed, this is the third time in the past couple of years that the Government have adopted such an approach: they did so in the dispute about qualified majority voting, at the Ioanina conference and at the time of the appointment of the European Commission President, where they stuck out against the appointment of Jean Luc Dehaene and ended up with the appointment of Jacques Santer, who then said that his views on European policies were identical to those of Mr. Dehaene, whom the Government had been so determined to resist.
  There has been a catastrophic mishandling and mismanagement of the BSE episode and the beef ban by the Government, beginning with deregulation and the laxity of rules on animal feed, which have caused such problems, leading to the extraordinary events, which have been described by many hon. Members, of 20 March, when the Secretary of State for Health made his statement to the House. The statement was made with a staggering lack of consultation with our European partners and it caused many of the problems that have subsequently haunted the Government. I quite accept the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who said that members of the public were surprised that the EU had the power to impose a worldwide ban, but I find it quite astonishing that the Government did not seem to realise that, or that they did not prepare the ground much more fully with our European partners, given the likely reaction by consumers in other European Union countries.
  I found the Foreign Secretary's speech an exercise in the rewriting of immediate history. He seemed to think that we had very short memories indeed and that we would not remember what was said in the House only a month or so ago, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) reminded us in vivid detail
  1092
  what the Government said at the beginning of the process, what they claimed then and what they claim today in the House and outside to the media.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: In his speech today, the Foreign Secretary repeatedly made the point that the extra 67,000 cattle that will be slaughtered are not additional, because they will be slaughtered prematurely anyway. But is not that true of all cattle? Otherwise our fields would be filled with small, grey, geriatric cows tottering around on arthritic legs. We do not see that. Is not it true that the additional cows that are being slaughtered are in fact having their productive lives reduced, and that the change of policy is a humiliating climbdown?
  Ms Quin: As ever, my hon. Friend makes his point very effectively. The Government are unable to convince the National Farmers Union, and farmers generally, of the accuracy of figures that they say are much less important than they obviously are.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) reflected on the many ironies of the situation. There certainly are a great number. Many double standards have been operated throughout this episode. Tory Euro-sceptics who have been keen, indeed gleeful, in their criticism of European Union countries have usually omitted to refer to countries outside the EU that have also banned our beef. The Government must recognise that, even if the ban is lifted, as we all hope, it will be, a massive information campaign will be needed to ensure that other countries, many of which have a traditionally friendly attitude to Britain, accept British beef in the future.
  There is also the irony of the Government's appeal to the European Court of Justice, given the many criticisms of the Court that have emanated from Conservative Members, and the schizophrenic approach to it adopted by the White Paper. There is also the irony involving the voting system. The Foreign Secretary spoke of the importance of unanimity, but I heard a radio interview in which the Minister of Agriculture seemed to suggest that, thank goodness—in his view—the matter could be decided through qualified majority voting; otherwise, it would be impossible to make any progress in the direction that the Government wanted.
  Then there is the irony referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston—the blocking of measures that we in Britain particularly wanted, and from which we stood to benefit greatly. I endorse what my right hon. Friend said about the unfairness of penalising countries by blocking decisions even when those countries were third countries, not party to the dispute. I think that blocking aid to Russia, or to third-world countries, comes firmly into that category.
  The Government now have a massive bridge-building exercise to undertake, and a great deal of reassurance to give many people who have been greatly worried and put out by their strategy. They certainly have many bridges to build with British industry. Many firms and industries have been extremely worried for a long time by the Government's approach to the whole European Union question. That has been confirmed by quotations, given in the House, from representatives of the Confederation of British Industry.
  I know from my conversations with representatives of industries belonging to, for example, the Chemical Industries Association, how concerned they are that

  1093
  continuing Government criticisms of the EU may jeopardise their position in the single market. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is on record as saying that he is very worried about the pronouncements of many of his hon. Friends and their possible effect on inward investment. If the hon. Member for South Derbyshire were here, I am sure that she would endorse his comment, given that, like me, she comes from an area that has benefited greatly from such investment.
  We need to build bridges with our European Union partners, and we hope that that can achieved if the Government adopt a much more constructive attitude to the issues to be considered by the Council of Ministers over the next few months. Presumably that will give the Government an opportunity to reverse the blocking of important measures that we have seen over the past few weeks.
  The Government have a duty to reassure some of the countries that are applying for EU membership, which have been worried about the implications of the Government's policy, believing that, if it went on too long, it might jeopardise their applications and their relationship with the EU. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) mentioned the application of Cyprus, and, as he knows, in previous debates, we have strongly supported his line.
  I warmly welcome the many powerful expressions of concern in the debate about the far too frequent xenophobic rantings during this episode, especially in the tabloid press. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and many others spoke powerfully about that. It is a credit to the British people that they have not been whipped up into a xenophobic frenzy. The warm welcome given to many visitors from EU and other countries during the Euro 96 tournament has been good to see.
  One of the measures that the Government blocked was a declaration against racism and xenophobia. If there is a settlement in Florence, will the Minister of State assure me that the Government will join our European partners and support that declaration?
  I mentioned that the Foreign Secretary seemed keen to rewrite immediate history, but the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) told us about the rewriting of the history of our previous relations with Europe and the European Community. The Foreign Secretary rightly made the distinction between a free trade area and a single market, but Europe is not just a single market. We did not join just a single market when the British people decided in the 1970s to stay in the EC.
  I confess to being old enough to remember the arguments during the referendum campaign and the speeches by people such as Enoch Powell about the danger of the loss of sovereignty in the EC. In many ways, those arguments were like the ones advanced today against the EU, but they show that, in the 1970s, we were joining not just a free trade area, but a deeper body of co-operation, with different aspects, including an important social dimension, which the Government often seem to forget.
  I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North mentioned the social chapter. In recent weeks, there have been some interesting developments on that. I was pleased that the principal employment adviser of the Confederation of British Industry recommended an end to the Government's opt-out from the social chapter. I remind
  1094
  the Minister of State—perhaps he will refer to this—that it is important to read what the social chapter says. Not many people seem to realise that it refers to
  "the need to maintain the competitiveness of the Community economy."
  It also says that measures should be gradually implemented and that directives should avoid
  "administrative, financial and legal constraints in a way which would hold back the creation and development of small and medium-sized undertakings."
  Why does the Prime Minister never mention that in all his rantings against the social chapter? Is it because, if he did so, his opt-out from the social chapter would clearly be seen as the shabby political manoeuvre it is?
  If there is agreement on beef, the Florence summit will allow the discussion of many other matters, some of which have been referred to by my right hon. and hon. Friends. The all-important question of tackling unemployment is on the summit agenda. I hope that the Minister of State will assure us that the Government will back some of the employment initiatives proposed by the European Commission president and by many Governments in their interesting submissions to the summit.
  I commend the submission of the Austrian Government, which describes that country's successful experience of a strong currency combined with an active employment policy. I should like the Minister to welcome the submissions of the Irish, Belgian, Netherlands, Luxembourg and Danish Governments—all of whom want complementary action on employment at European level to supplement national action.
  The Government's attitude to employment in Europe is staggeringly complacent. From the world prosperity league, to which the Government do not like to refer, it is clear that the UK's record is not good and that it has much to do to catch up with the progress made by other European countries over the past 16 years in employment policies and creation. The current Conservative poster campaign—"Yes it hurt. Yes it worked"—goes down badly with my constituents. For some reason, the Conservatives chose to site that poster, referring to low unemployment, in a ward in my constituency that suffers from high unemployment. A similar poster, referring to the number of people who own their homes, is to be found in another part of my constituency where there is little home ownership. If the Conservatives carry on behaving like that, their campaign will not be terribly successful.
  I appreciate that the Minister has been asked many questions, but if he has time, perhaps he will give some explanation for the Government's mysterious position on qualified majority voting and powers for the European Parliament. At times, the Government talk of no increase in QMV, at others about no significant increase. They do the same in relationship to the powers of the European Parliament.
  In recent weeks, part of the hidden agenda of the Minister's friends has been revealed, with withdrawal at last mentioned by some of them. Despite the overall pro-European tone of this debate, the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd)—who is not known for making extravagant statements—has been writing letters to The Economist warning that the UK will have to man the ramparts all over again. I wonder whether the Minister agrees.

  1095
  It will take the Government a long time to restore, if they ever do, Britain's standing in Europe—and the Government do not have that much time left. This country needs a Government who will approach the future challenges of enlargement, CAP reform and so on without being handicapped by the souring of relations that has frequently marked the present Government's record.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston concluded his speech by saying that the UK needs a fresh start. It can have that with a change of Government. That would mean a fresh start in Europe and a much needed fresh start in Britain. It would allow a far more constructive relationship between the UK and Europe which would give the British people a better deal from EU membership and help to create a sound basis for the enlarged and renewed European Union that we all want in future.
  9.43 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): I take the opportunity to reinforce the congratulations expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). The right hon. Gentleman and I have crossed swords before, but his elevation to the Privy Council is well deserved.
  This has been a fascinating and high-quality debate across the Floor of the House. It will be very hard to do justice to all the points raised, so I apologise in advance to hon. Members whose points I do not deal with in my comments.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear, the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union is vital to our national interests, to our position in the world, to our nation's economy and— to agree with only one part of the comments made by hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman)—to the peace of Europe, which is an important part of our national interest. That dominating strategic fact drives our policy in the longer term.
  The immediate prospect that I must deal with today, as has been made apparent in the debate, is the crisis of the European handling of BSE. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy)—I think in a spirit of teasing—told the House about my good relations with my opposite numbers around Europe. I suspect that he was trying to undermine me in some way. Very seriously, however, those who know my origins will realise just how much distaste I have for the extremes of xenophobia about which one hears from time to time. I should like to make that clear.
  One of the misfortunes of this exercise has been a growth in xenophobia. That started not with the non-co-operation policy, however, but with the frustration of the British people at the behaviour of the European Union during the course of this exercise. The Union's action in banning British beef exports was inappropriate, precipitate and damaging to the industry—not only in Britain, but across the continent. The non-co-operation policy arises from the repeated refusal of our partners to engage properly in negotiations. We faced the prospect of the ban continuing indefinitely, and it was not in our national interests to allow that to happen.
  1096
  It is now more than 12 weeks since the start of the ban. In that time my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, made proposal after proposal to the institutions of the Union, and he demonstrated time and again that there was no basis for the ban. Other Ministers did the same—including myself on a number of occasions—in the political networks in which one must deal. Some of our partners merely refused our proposals. What was worse, some of them refused to offer alternatives or constructive criticism. It was often impossible to get a clear idea of a country's policy. We faced the prospect of endless inaction, while a British industry employing 650,000 people foundered. It would have been irresponsible to let that situation continue. That is not xenophobic or anti-European, but a matter of national interest that a Government must take seriously.
  That is why, with regret, we adopted the policy of non-co-operation and blocked EC business. We did not do it lightly. We did it because the behaviour of some member states left us no alternative. We decided that progress would not be possible in the intergovernmental conference or elsewhere until, to quote my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister:
  "we have agreement on lifting the ban on beef derivatives and a clear framework in place leading to lifting the wider ban."—[Official Report, 21 May 1996; Vol. 278, c. 100.]
  Some, particularly in Europe, have asserted that that policy breaks the law. They have suggested that it breaks article 5. It does not. No article of the treaty dictates how nation states should vote. There are, however, articles that make it illegal to impose unilateral bans on importers in the single market, and there are articles that make it illegal to ignore the lifting of the derivatives ban. We are not the ones who have broken the law. Others have threatened to break the law by refusing to lift the ban on beef derivatives, and we shall look to the Commission and, if necessary, the European Court of Justice to see that the rules are applied. Throughout this crisis we have resolutely refused to be drawn down the path of illegality. Many have recommended that, but we have refused. In pursuing a framework for lifting the ban on British beef, we are simply asking the Commission to fulfil its proper duties under the treaties.
  What we are doing is not unprecedented. Several of our partners have resorted to tough tactics in the past to secure national interests. Many observers have recalled the French empty-chair policy of 1965–66, one subordinate aim of which was to protect French farmers. In recent years, Spain, Italy and others have used blocking tactics in pursuit of national aims.
  Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie), have expressed concern about long-term damage to our standing. I have not been aware, in any of the meetings of the European Union that I have attended, that any of the countries I have mentioned are suffering from their past actions being held against them, and I do not foresee that being a problem for us in the future.
  The Prime Minister has made it clear that normal work in the European Union and progress at the IGC will not be possible until we have secured a framework for progressive removal of the ban on British beef exports. There is a growing realisation that the restoration of the beef market is a European interest, not just a British one. After all, German consumers may not be eating British beef, but one of the problems facing that country is that substantial numbers of them are not eating German beef either.

  1097
  The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) often says things in the Chamber with which I agree, but I must correct him on one point. We do not put the action of individual countries down to malignancy in any way, and he should not misunderstand that. We should recognise that many of them have their own internal political problems of different sorts.
  As the House knows, the Commission will be putting forward its proposal for Florence. Four weeks ago that was deemed to be impossible, even though we had asked for it a number of times. The framework has been and will be considered by member states. Four weeks ago, that was denied. So, even before Florence, our tactics have precipitated progress in negotiations. We could not have come so far without non-co-operation.
  Throughout this, the Labour party has taken its traditional opportunistic line. The Labour leader was at first confused, and then he was tentatively supportive. All the time he was trying to seize some party advantage for a situation in which, in his own words, the "national interest is engaged". For example, our negotiations were not helped by the actions of Labour MEPs who criticised the Government in the European Parliament on a number of occasions. We were not helped by the Labour leader's attack on the Government's handling of the issue when he was in Germany the other day—the very country whose media have been most strident in their criticism of British beef.
  I suppose that on this issue the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye could be considered a neutral observer. He characterised Labour's policy as running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. I could not have put that better myself.
  The right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) talked about what represents a success in this. The criterion for success is whether it delivers solutions to the problems faced by the beef industry. The aim is the fastest possible delivery of confidence in British beef, the fastest possible delivery in access to a single market and the fastest possible resolution to the European crisis on beef.
  I started with beef because, naturally, it was uppermost in our mind. However, our vigorous defence of the United Kingdom's interest in Europe is not restricted to the policy on beef. That defence will continue in our other discussions in Florence. In our discussions on employment—the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) raised that issue— the Government will impress on our European partners the need to create the right economic climate for job creation. We will stress the foolishness of increasing the burden of non-wage costs.
  Our defence of British interests will continue in our discussions on subsidiarity and deregulation and on cutting the burden of present and future European legislation. It will continue in the IGC, where we will reject proposals to centralise power in Brussels— proposals fuelled solely by misguided ideology. At the IGC we will refuse any extension of the powers on qualified majority voting.
  The hon. Members for Gateshead, East and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) all raised the issue of employment. That is just about the most important issue that will be addressed in Florence. Employment
  1098
  is Europe's biggest problem and has been its biggest failure. Employment creation is one of the great weaknesses of the European Union.
  Since 1960, the number of jobs in the United States has increased by nearly 200 per cent., while in Europe the number of jobs has increased by barely 10 per cent. In the past 20 years, the United States has created 36 million new jobs as against 5 million in the European Union. Every other trading bloc has done better than Europe in that respect.
  Mr. Renton: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. He should recognise that one reason for higher employment growth in the United States has been its consistently lower interest rates than most European countries. As we move towards greater stability in the single market, possibly through economic and monetary union, we hope for lower interest rates, which will generate lower unemployment.
  Mr. Davis: It is a little off my European brief, but as an ex-business man I can tell my right hon. Friend that the primary concern in interest rates is the nominal interest rate. The best method of dealing with that is low inflation, which happens to be a primary policy of this Government—Europe or not.
  The UK, uniquely within the EU, has a good record on creating jobs—moreover, jobs in the private, not the public, sector. Since 1979, the UK has created as many jobs in the private sector as have been created in the whole of the rest of the EU. That is the answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who offered the thesis that, in order to compete with the far east, we had to offer the wages of the far east. We have demonstrated that that is not the case.
  All that is no accident. It comes from an approach based on free trade and competition, reform of inflexible labour market regulations, reduction of non-wage costs, investment in skills and sound macro-economic policies—points all made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes in his excellent speech. That is why we opted out of the social chapter and why we continue to believe that our policies are the best for the British people.
  That is also one reason why Britain is so successful at attracting overseas investment. Britain accounts for more than 30 per cent. of non-EU investment in the EU. Last year we attracted 22 per cent. of all German overseas investment—we are its number one destination. Despite what the hon. Member for Gateshead, East said, that should not be news to the Labour party. After all, two days ago its leader got the message direct from the president of the German equivalent of the Confederation of British Industry. Mr. Henkel drew attention to the British Government's record—our success in dealing with unemployment, in reducing state interference, in privatisation, in reducing the state share of national income and in the low taxation of profits. Mr. Henkel concluded:
  "Great Britain has become the most attractive location for investment in Europe. Although the German market is twice as large as the British, since 1985 foreigners have invested 10 times as much in Britain as in Germany."
  The Labour party never believes that fact when it hears it from us, so I hope that its leader will have been more receptive when he heard it from an impartial

  1099
  overseas observer—however galling it must be for the Leader of the Opposition to travel abroad only to have to listen to foreigners praising the British Conservative Government's approach.
  In Florence, we will reinforce member states' efforts to create a sound, stable macro-economic framework in which business can create jobs. We agree with the emphasis on tackling unemployment in Mr. Santer's confidence pact and President Chirac's memorandum. But we will not agree to an increased role for trade unions, a single European social model or the abolition of the UK's social protocol opt-out. We will not agree to measures that destroy jobs rather than create them—to increased rigidity in the labour market, too much regulation, high non-wage labour costs and the sort of corporate approach which failed this country so badly under the last Labour Government.
  I have very little time left, but I promised the right hon. Member for Livingston that I would answer his specific and important questions about Bosnia. First, he referred to the feasibility of free and fair elections. It is vital for the international community that elections are held on 14 September. It is the best hope for making a new start in Bosnia. We expect the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe chairman in office, Swiss Foreign Minister Cotti, shortly to certify that elections can go ahead. That will focus the efforts of all concerned on improving the conditions for free and fair elections.
  In particular, we need improvements in freedom of movement, freedom of expression during the election campaign, as the hon. Gentleman said, and freedom of the media. It is not true that only Government candidates will have access to the media during the election campaign. The international community, in the form of the high representative, Carl Bildt, and the OSCE, which is responsible for supervising the elections, has secured an agreement on fair access to prime time television. We shall ensure that all parties stick to the agreement.
  The return of refugees has begun: tens of thousands have returned since the end of the war, but it will be a long process. Hundreds of thousands will not have returned by the time of the elections, so we have ensured that there will be ways in which they can all vote. They will vote either where they are registered in the 1991 census, in which case they may vote in absentia, or where they plan to return to, in which case they may go there to vote.
  The right hon. Member for Livingston raised the question of Karadzic and Mladic. Obviously, we agree that indicted war criminals must be brought to justice. It is not acceptable that they continue to be free and it is worse if they exercise power and influence—
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY (EVIDENCE) ACT 1921
  Resolved,
  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. McLoughlin.]

  New Age Travellers (Tayside)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: I thank Madam Speaker for giving me the opportunity to raise the subject of so-called new age travellers on the Adjournment debate tonight. I say so-called because, in a letter to me—one of many—the writer says:
  "There are, of course, no such things as New Age Travellers".
  It is a term the press invented. The letter says:
  "These people are vagrants.
  They have not opted out of society as may be claimed, but choose to 'cherry-pick' the rules in order to select the best ones and observing no duties and responsibilities, nor do they have any respect for anyone but themselves.
  They roam in gangs and make nothing but trouble and expense to the mainly law abiding citizens everywhere."
  Be that as it may, the so-called new age travellers had a sizeable encampment in my constituency during April and May. They gathered ostensibly to celebrate a Pictish festival at Dunnichen hill near the village of Letham. The event has taken place for several years. In earlier years, Robbie the Pict and his followers had attended for a weekend. The local people enjoyed much of what took place then.
  Sadly, this year, the event was an unlicensed rock music festival of around two weeks' duration. At the height of the event, about 2,500 people were involved. By the second weekend, the number had dropped to about 300 travellers, most of whom appeared to be of English origin—odd people, I suggest, to be celebrating a Pictish festival.
  The major problem experienced during the event was excessive noise caused by amplified rock music played almost incessantly over several days. It was clearly audible in the village of Letham some two miles away. Not surprisingly, law-abiding, tax-paying constituents complained to me and to Tayside police.
  In addition, dogs accompanying the travellers were allowed to run wild, and they caused considerable distress, injury and death to sheep. Some 2,000 pheasant chicks were destroyed. A number of sheep were killed, and several of the travellers' dogs were shot by estate staff.
  There were also problems of rubbish and litter, there was damage to walls and fences, and obstruction was caused by the travellers' vehicles, many of which were without road fund licences, MOTs or insurance. There were no sanitary or toilet facilities. About 2,500 people were on the site, and raw sewage drained into the main water supply for the estate's home farm and cottages, and thereafter into Rescobie loch and on to Forfar.
  The anti-social and at times abusive stance adopted by the travellers made difficulties for the local farmers and estate staff. It also made police negotiations virtually impossible, and led to a confrontational approach which, was unhelpful in fostering good relations. All that occurred despite a high degree of tolerance exercised by local residents and the Tayside police. It was also apparent that the unlicensed sale of alcohol was taking place on the site, and there were stories about soft drugs being used,

  1101
  Tayside police confirm that the officers on duty were of the opinion that many of the travellers were obviously under the influence of alcohol or drugs for much of the period.
  Following continued complaints, a police operation was undertaken to disable and seize the most prominent sound system being operated on the site. While that was being carried out, the officers came under sustained attack from the travellers, who threw stones and brandished sticks and other implements. Fortunately, no injuries of any consequence were caused, but it is worrying that the travellers had prepared a cache of weaponry in readiness for the police action.
  Seizure of the sound equipment and the charging of the operator were dealt with as a common law breach of the peace. In addition, 16 individuals were charged under section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 in respect of the camp at Dunnichen hill and a prior encampment near Forfar.
  My concern is for future years. We do not want Dunnichen hill to become the Stonehenge of Scotland. Robbie the Pict and his friends will return next year. We do not want the new age travellers joining them and a repeat of what happened this year.
  I am reminded that the Opposition opposed the aggravated trespass clause in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act being applied to Scotland, yet the police used their powers under that Act in this case and in an earlier case involving the removal of hawkers, when a direction to leave land was made under section 61 and the hawkers agreed to move without further objection.
  The police would not have been able to operate without those powers, yet they were opposed by the Opposition. I remind the House of that because, as is so often the case with law and order legislation, the Opposition oppose the introduction of powers and then are delighted when they are used in the interests of law-abiding citizens.
  I accept that decisions about the appropriate course of action to take with new age travellers must be made by the chief constable, but I submit that chief constables should be directed to use section 61 as early as possible.
  I also agree that affected landowners should request the removal of new age travellers. In the case of Dunnichen, only one of the two landowners made such a request. That hampered police operations, as it placed the police in a difficult position and required an operational judgment based on the level of the nuisance and the disruption. I wish to place on record my thanks for the way in which the police acted, and the fact that they managed to take the necessary action.
  I recognise that, in legal terms, the powers under section 61 are adequate, but they can be hampered by practical difficulties. If the travellers refuse to leave, the only option left to the police is to arrest the offenders. Such action will probably lead to confrontation and may leave family groups stranded while the head of the household is detained.
  Another problem may arise from a failure to define the extent of land to which a section 61 direction is intended to apply, and on which further trespass is forbidden. Will my right hon. Friend consider issuing guidelines to clarify the position and to assist the police? I understand that, for the police, dealing with new age travellers essentially involves enforcing the law and is a matter of practicality.
  1102
  The number involved and their reluctance to accept regulation of their life-style can make police intervention a matter of considerable difficulty. That is why the Conservative party was determined to put those powers on the statute book.
  Consequently, the practice differs considerably from the theory and from the Act. Sections 61 and 62, which give certain powers to the police, may, if exercised, risk causing further problems. I recognise that, but even so I believe that, without those powers, the police could not have acted as they did so effectively at Dunnichen.
  Even if we do not use the powers, we cannot accept lawlessness. I make it perfectly clear that my constituents will not accept lawlessness.
  We also need a definition of the extent of the land to which a section 61 direction is intended to apply, on which further trespass is forbidden. That is important, because we are trying to deal with a possible repeat next year. If a section 61 direction is intended to apply, will it apply to the whole estate? In Scotland, if we do apply it not to the entire estate, but to the precise site that the travellers occupied this year, they could simply move a couple of fields away, and we would have a problem.
  Finally, we must address the ghastly fact that the travellers are to a considerable extent supported in their life style by the social security regime, which pays out benefits irrespective of their place of residence. As those individuals are reluctant to contribute to society or to seek employment, why should the taxpayer subsidise their way of life? Why should the taxpayers in Letham have those people forced upon them? Why should taxpayers have to see that, if those people go to an office to pick up their money and find that it is not there, the police have another incident on their hands?
  Faced with such intrusions into their lives, why should my constituents not say to my right hon. Friend, "Thank you for putting those necessary powers on to the statute book, but can you use your persuasive powers to get the Department for Social Security to reconsider how it makes payments to travellers, and perhaps to cease that form of mobile support?"
  I, too, say to my right hon. Friend, "Thank you for the powers that you have given the police and the fact that we can move the travellers on." I trust that sections 61 and 62 will mean that they cannot come back, and that we can do what was done at Stonehenge. In plain language, I conclude by saying that we do not want them back. We are happy to have Robbie the Pict, but we do not want the new age travellers.
  I have told the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) whose constituency abuts mine and was affected by the same new age travellers—they went into his constituency and caused considerable trouble—that he can have a couple of minutes to speak before the winding-up speech.
  10.12 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) has illustrated graphically the problems visited upon Angus by the new age travellers, and I thank him for allowing me to speak briefly in his Adjournment debate, which I much appreciate.
  Angus is used to dealing with genuine travelling people, and has installed some excellent travelling people's sites. The village of Letham, which is one of

  1103
  Scotland's major beauty spots, is used to Robbie the Pict and the small number of Pictish-related annual events which have taken place over many years with little or no disturbance—indeed, with some enjoyment for local people.
  If travelling people leave the area as they find it and arrive in small numbers, there is minimal disturbance, but what happened recently meant that some of the most picturesque and vulnerable areas were swamped with new age travellers, who caused damage to property and livestock, health and sanitation problems, and left a trail of angry people in their wake.
  New age travellers driven from England should not look upon Scotland as a soft touch. Those scenes must not be repeated. Action must be taken to prevent a recurrence of such large-scale gatherings and the disturbance that they create for the surrounding communities. That can be done through exclusion orders and all the other available mechanisms.
  I support Angus council's tough approach to the problems, and its initiative in calling for a summit meeting to review the situation, which will allow all the authorities involved—Angus council, the police and the Members of Parliament—as well as the individuals directly involved and Letham community council, to meet and plan ahead to ensure that there is a co-ordinated community response to any future recurrence in the Angus area.
  I am sure that Angus council will echo the words of the hon. Member for North Tayside—this will happen again. We will have to be ready for it and take all possible steps to protect the local environment and the local community. What happened was unacceptable and we must ensure that we are fully prepared and able to act instantly on behalf of local residents and the wider community in Angus.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for North Tayside on choosing this topic for the Adjournment debate. I hope that the problem will be dealt with effectively and efficiently, and that it will not recur.
  10.14 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) on securing a debate on this important topic, and I welcome the contribution from the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh). I note that he and his colleague, the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), are the only Opposition Members present for the debate—not a single Labour or Liberal Democrat Member is present.
  The fact that we are having this debate tonight is a vindication of the Government's policy of ensuring that the provisions relating to collective trespass applied to Scotland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom. I must gently point out to the hon. Member for Angus, East that he and his party opposed that vehemently, along with Labour and the Liberal Democrats, when the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 made its way through this House.
  At the time, those provisions were spoken against and voted against by Labour. For the Liberals, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)
  1104
  denied that the problems that the Act was designed to address existed in Scotland. Yet we had the pleasure in the Scottish Grand Committee on Monday of the former leader of the Liberals, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), calling for action under the Act against new age travellers as a result of local complaints. It is not only within the Labour party that we see leaders finding that they must embrace Conservative policies that they had opposed.
  Because we have taken action, even in the face of strong opposition from the Scottish National party and others, the police were able to act decisively in response to such calls. I shall try to deal with the various points that my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside raised, but it may be helpful if I say something about the background to the situation involving new age travellers in North Tayside.
  My information is that, on 26 March 1996, a number of travelling people, including family groups, camped on Lour estate, near Forfar. The landowners requested them to leave the site. When they failed to do so, the group was required to quit by the police. Again there was a failure to comply, and seven people were reported to the procurator fiscal at Forfar for contravention of the trespass provisions in section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
  The group moved off the Lour estate and joined other new age travellers from various parts of the United Kingdom—including, as my hon. Friend said, Northumberland, Cornwall and Lincolnshire—who were camped on Dunnichen hill at Letham near Forfar. The purpose of the gathering was apparently to celebrate the battle of Nechtansmere between the Picts and Northumbrians, which is reputed to have taken place on that site. An unofficial festival was planned for the weekend of 17 to 19 May. Police estimate that, by that weekend, some 300 to 400 new age travellers had camped at the site, with about a further 1,500 people who intended to stay for the weekend.
  That annual festival has taken place for more than 11 years and generally passed without serious incident. Local opinion towards the festival over the years has been ambivalent, with many people—particularly shopkeepers—welcoming the activity and the added trade arising from the presence of occasional travellers and weekend visitors. However, it has become clear that, whatever the historical origins of the festival, it now represents a significant incursion on land, and a considerable public order and safety problem.
  This year's event was scheduled to take place on the weekend of 17 to 19 May. Following complaints from one of the landowners, a large-scale police operation was mounted to restrict car access to the area. That was successful, and there is little doubt that the torrential rain that fell in the area that weekend and the absence of vehicles, which would have otherwise provided sleeping accommodation and shelter for many of those attending, contributed to the failure of the event.
  A number of those gathered for the festival decided to extend their stay, in the knowledge that the following weekend was a bank holiday. During the intervening period, a group of individuals thought not to be directly associated with the new age travellers brought a sound system from Cornwall, including an 8,000 watt amplifier. Throughout the night of Friday 24 May, the police

  1105
  received numerous complaints from the residents of Letham, as my hon. Friend said, some two miles distant, about the levels of noise coming from the campsite. On the morning of Saturday 25 May, police officers attended the site and took possession of the amplifier in the face of a great deal of hostility. Stones, bricks and bottles were hurled at the police. They have video evidence of the operation, which confirms that.
  Over the second weekend, police mounted road blocks at three points to prevent further arrivals at the site. People leaving the site by vehicle were informed that they would not be permitted to return. Over the period of the police operations, 16 people were reported to the procurator fiscal under the illegal trespass provisions of section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. A further 10 were charged with other offences, including police assault and breach of the peace.
  At the end of the festival, police allowed one vehicle loaded with petrol cans to leave the site to collect fuel for some of the others. That has been the subject of inaccurate reporting by some sections of the media. I make it perfectly clear, therefore, that the police neither paid for nor provided petrol, as part of some kind of deal to persuade the new age travellers to leave. Nothing could be further from the truth. Tayside police have understandably taken great exception to those allegations, and the local commander has written in the strongest terms to the editor of the newspaper in question, who I hope will apologise.
  For the record, a little more than 1 gallon of diesel was supplied by the police to two vehicles that had run out of fuel some distance from the area while travelling towards Perth, to enable them to get to the nearest garage. I would expect the police to extend such assistance to any stranded motorist.
  On Tuesday 28 May, the new age travellers began moving off Dunnichen hill. The group subsequently travelled in two directions. One group travelled into the Grampian area, where it later stopped at Gourdon near Inverbervie—to the considerable annoyance of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside. The other group, I am led to believe, ultimately settled near Peebles.
  The Gourdon group initially settled peacefully, with the police keeping a watchful eye on it. However—I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's remarks are passed on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security—after they had cashed their DSS benefit cheques, a number of the travellers became, to put it politely, the worse for wear with drink. Two individuals left the site in a vehicle. The police assessed the manner in which the vehicle was being driven as a danger not only to those in the vehicle but to the general public. The vehicle was stopped and one individual was apprehended and, I understand, charged with road traffic offences.
  The other occupant of the vehicle returned to the site and alerted associates there. That led to a confrontation with the police, and a number of arrests were made. Police subsequently directed the travellers to quit the site and informed them that if they failed to do so, the trespass provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 would be enforced.
  I understand that the Gourdon group, consisting of approximately 100 people and 35 vehicles, left the site on Sunday 16 June. Latest reports from the Northern constabulary suggest that they are at present in the Spean bridge area.
  1106
  The other group, consisting of about 50 people, including women and children, arrived at a site near Peebles on I June. They are camped on private property, and the landowner has written to the chief constable seeking their removal under the 1994 Act. I understand from Lothian and Borders police that the new age travellers do not intend to remain there much longer. They have indicated to police—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will no doubt note this—that, once they have collected their DSS benefit cheques and repaired their vehicles, they will move on. I believe that that has been accepted by the police and the landowner.
  The police have established links with the travellers and have told them that, if they do not move by an agreed date, they fully intend to use the powers available to them under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to eject them. That date will be notified to the travellers in advance, and the police fully expect that they will leave before the deadline. If they do not, they will be effectively moved on. The police believe that relationships with the travellers are such that the use of force will not be required. I am told that the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale has been kept fully informed by the police.
  The examples that I have just cited demonstrate that there is a growing problem with mass trespass in Scotland. The Government decided that having the power to deal with trespassers in Scotland was sensible and prudent, as we rightly anticipated that anti-social development. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office said in the debate on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994:
  "Scotland is not immune to this kind of activity … there is every reason to take preventive action".—[Official Report, 13 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 378.]
  The Government therefore gave the police new powers to deal with trespassers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Those powers came into force in November 1994, and they fall into three broad categories.
  First, provisions relating to the offence of aggravated trespass provide protection for those engaging in lawful activities, whoever and whatever they may be, from trespassers who intend to behave disruptively. The Act gives the police power to direct trespassers to leave the land if they reasonably believe that the trespassers will seek to disrupt or prevent a lawful activity on that land.
  The second group of provisions in the Act is aimed at preventing mass encampment on private land by trespassers. Those powers are triggered only if people invade land with the intention of residing there, refuse to leave that land and then damage it, or destroy property, crops or buildings, or threaten the occupier, a member of his family or agent.
  Thirdly, the police can direct persons assembling on land to leave the land when it is believed that a gathering will take place such as to cause serious distress to the inhabitants of the locality by the playing of amplified music during the night.
  The events that I have described demonstrate that the police are prepared to use those powers, and that they work. The use of the powers in the 1994 Act is, of course, essentially an operational matter for the police, but I have every confidence that the police will take all necessary steps to respond effectively to any complaints received. I

  1107
  understand that the police believe that the powers that they now have are adequate to enable them to deal effectively with such situations.
  I believe that the police in Tayside, as well as Grampian and Lothian and Borders, have acted firmly and responsibly in dealing with the incidents that I have described. By using the powers in the 1994 Act, they have been successful in limiting the damage that has been caused to property. Indeed, I understand that one landowner has complimented the police in Tayside on their handling of the situation at Dunnichen hill.
  I deplore the behaviour of some of the new age travellers. They are taking advantage of the good will of society in a way that I abhor. They are souring public opinion against the traditional traveller whom the Government have done much to help. But I welcome the firm police action that has been taken, and I have every confidence that that will continue in the future.
  The situation is yet another example of a strong law and order policy initially being vilified by the Opposition parties, yet a short time later they are only too willing to
  1108
  urge use of such powers, especially when pressed by their local electorate into doing so. That is what makes us different from Opposition Members. The Government believe in protecting local communities from the damage and nuisance caused by new age travellers and their like. The Opposition's focus is on protecting the imagined rights of a tiny minority, to impinge on communities in a way that Opposition Members would find unacceptable on their own doorstep.
  I welcome the opportunity to repeat my pledge that the Government will wage relentless war on all law breakers in every area of life, and will sustain the rights and security of our citizens on every occasion. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside will take every opportunity to convey it to his constituents that, had he not been in the House, supporting the Government, those powers would not have been in place so that action could be taken effectively to protect the interests of his constituents with his support, as has happened in recent weeks.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Mobile Homes
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) of 4 June,Official Report, column 394, what powers he has under the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to alter the valuation list bands for dwellings; and if he will use those powers to alter the council tax liability of residents of mobile homes. [33070]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend has powers under section 5 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to alter the number of, the ranges of values ascribed to, and the proportion of council tax payable in respect of the existing valuation bands, by order subject to affirmative resolution of the House of Commons.

  My right hon. Friend has, however, no plans to make such an order. He sees no grounds for reducing the contributions which residents of mobile homes make towards the cost of local services. This would, besides, entail increasing the liability of other council tax payers and would necessitate a massive, and expensive, re-banding exercise: there are over 5 million dwellings in band A alone.

  Uniform Business Rate (Sports Clubs)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to exempt non-dividend-paying sports clubs from the uniform business rate; and if he will make a statement. [33171]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None. Sports clubs which are not conducted for profit may already apply for up to 100 per cent. of discretionary relief from their business rates bill.

  Building Regulations (Consultation)
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many responses his Department received to its consultation on extending part M of the Building Regulations to residential dwellings; and how many of these(a) supported and (b) opposed the extension. [33367]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  One thousand and seventy-four responses were received. The consultation posed a number of questions, the responses to which cannot be summarised simply as numbers who either supported or opposed the extension.
  510
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library copies of the responses to the consultation on the extension of part M of the Building Regulations to residential dwellings. [33368]

  Mr. Jones
  Copies of the responses were placed in the Library in May 1995.

  Desalinated Water
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate his Department has made of(a) the cost per cubic metre of producing desalinated water and (b) the overall cost of providing desalinated water as a long-term solution to water shortages in Britain. [33536]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  In its 1992 report "Water Resources Development Strategy", the National Rivers Authority—now part of the Environment Agency—in considering options for meeting imbalances between public water supply and demand which might arise, estimated an indicative overall cost of between £4 million and £6 million for production of 1,000 cu m of water per day by means of desalination. The work which informed this report indicated water production costs generally in the order of 70p to 80p per cubic metre, although in plants featuring energy recovery—for example, from an adjacent power station—the costs might be in the range of 42p to 48p per cubic metre.

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) 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; [33476]

  (2) 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. [33477]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The numbers of accidents reported in my Department and the agencies for which it was responsible at the time are:

  Year

  Minor

  Major

  Fatal

  1991–92

  508

  2

  1

  1992–93

  277

  1

  0

  1993–94

  230

  1

  0

  1994–95

  176

  0

  1

  1995–96

  219

  0

  0

  Data on accidents related to information technology are not collected separately.

  The Department records accidents at the time of their occurrence and collects the data annually. As required by the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995, the Health and Safety Executive was notified of all major injuries and fatalities at the time they occurred. Of the two fatalities, one was as a result of a fall from a window. The second occurred while a lift was being repaired.
  511
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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. [33479]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department has a continuing programme of maintenance and repair to its buildings, furnishings and equipment to ensure a good working environment for its staff and visitors. Expenditure specifically related to health and safety measures is not recorded separately.

  Energy Advice Centres
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of each of the local energy advice centres in providing cost-effective advice to the public and on the need for the continued provision of such services(a) in those areas with local energy advice centres and (b) elsewhere. [33365]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Government passed control of the local energy advice centre pilot study to the Energy Saving Trust at the beginning of April 1996. The trust is assessing the pilot study, which will be completed at the end of the September.

  Previous market research results have demonstrated that the local energy advice centres are providing an effective and value for money service. Sixty per cent. of clients found the advice they received "very useful" and 90 per cent. of clients would recommend others to contact LEACs for advice. In 1994–95 around 57,000 clients visited LEAC offices. As a result of advice received, 21,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions were saved; and the total savings per annum were £1.8 million.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the continued funding of local energy advice centres. [33366]

  Mr. Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) on Tuesday 18 June 1996,Official Report, column 402.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of people employed by each of the next steps agencies under his Department's control; how many of those employees are women; and at what civil service or equivalent grades they are employed. [32733]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The following information covers non-industrial permanent staff in the three next steps agencies as at 13 June 1996:

  Grade

  Female

  Male

  Total

  Building Research Establishment

  Grade 3 and equivalent

  0

  1

  1

  Grade 4 and equivalent

  0

  1

  1

  Grade 5 and equivalent

  0

  4

  4

  Grade 6 and equivalent

  1

  20

  21

  Grade 7 and equivalent

  7

  92

  99

  Senior Executive Officer and equivalent

  30

  112

  142

  512

  Grade

  Female

  Male

  Total

  Higher Executive Officer and equivalent

  38

  81

  119

  Executive Officer and equivalent

  29

  44

  73

  Administrative Officer and equivalent

  97

  26

  123

  Administrative Assistant and equivalent

  30

  2

  32

  Total

  232

  383

  615

  Planning Inspectorate

  Grade 3 and equivalent

  0

  1

  1

  Grade 4 and equivalent

  0

  1

  1

  Grade 5 and equivalent

  2

  4

  6

  Grade 6 and equivalent

  12

  178

  190

  Grade 7 and equivalent

  2

  22

  24

  Senior Executive Officer and equivalent

  1

  14

  15

  Higher Executive Officer and equivalent

  18

  24

  42

  Executive Officer and equivalent

  44

  49

  93

  Administrative Officer and equivalent

  103

  72

  175

  Administrative Assistant and equivalent

  40

  32

  72

  Total

  222

  397

  619

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  Grade 5 and equivalent

  0

  1

  1

  Grade 6 and equivalent

  1

  0

  1

  Grade 7 and equivalent

  0

  3

  3

  Senior Executive Officer and equivalent

  1

  7

  8

  Higher Executive Officer and equivalent

  6

  8

  14

  Executive Officer and equivalent

  6

  3

  9

  Administrative Officer and equivalent

  17

  6

  23

  Administrative Assistant and equivalent

  4

  4

  8

  Total

  35

  32

  67

  Publications (Subscriptions)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all(a) periodicals, (b) magazines and (c) journals received on subscription by his Department over the last three months. [33759]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Titles received on subscription in the past three months include a range of trade, technical, scientific and professional journals and magazines covering the work of the Department. To list each would involve disproportionate cost.

  Copyright
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department intends to complete its review of measures required to ensure compliance with copyright law. [33767]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  It is anticipated that the review of photocopying procedures to ensure compliance with copyright law will be completed by the end of September 1996, after which legal advice may be sought.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further action he proposes to take against those local authorities whose direct labour and direct service organisations failed to meet their statutory financial objectives in 1994–95. [34208]
  513
  Sir Paul Beresford
  On 2 April this year, 26 statutory notices were served on 22 local authorities concerning the failure of their direct labour and service organisations to meet the required financial objectives in 1994–95. My right hon. Friend has now considered the response to those notices, and has decided to give 22 directions to 20 local authorities.

  The directions take the following three forms:
  requiring the authority to retender the work and to seek the consent of the Secretary of State if proposing to award the work in-house: Calderdale MBC (vehicle maintenance), Castle Morpeth borough council (highways and sewers), the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (sports and leisure management).
  preventing the authority from carrying out the work if it fails to meet the financial objective in a specified year or years:
  1995–96 and 1996–97: the London borough of Hackney (schools and welfare catering).
  1997–98 and 1998–99: Watford borough council (building maintenance).
  requiring authorities to retender the work if they fail to meet the financial objective in a specified year or years, and to seek the Secretary of State's consent where the work has to be retendered and where the authority subsequently wishes to award work in-house:
  1995–96 and 1996–97: Bournemouth borough council (other cleaning), Broxbourne borough council (refuse collection, highways and sewers and grounds maintenance), Coventry city council (schools and welfare catering), Durham county council (building cleaning), Rochester upon Medway district council (grounds maintenance), Sedgefield district council (grounds maintenance), Selby district council (sports and leisure management), Southend-on-Sea borough council (grounds maintenance), South Kesteven district council (building maintenance), and Walsall MBC (grounds maintenance)
  1996–97 and 1997–98: Charnwood borough council (other cleaning), Corby borough council (highways and sewers), Reigate and Banstead borough council (building maintenance), and Sevenoaks district council (refuse collection)
  1996–97: North East Lincolnshire district council (refuse collection)

  The Secretary of State has also decided to take no further statutory action in respect of financial failure in 1993–94 by:
  Crawley borough council (building maintenance), and Rochester upon Medway district council (highways and sewers).

  The Secretary of State is still considering the response from Lichfield district council—other catering and sports and leisure managements.

  To date, 45 notices have been served by the Department on 30 local authorities for losses incurred by their DLOs-DSOs in 1994–95. Today's decisions follow those announced on 13 May this year. Further notices for financial failure will be issued later in the year, and we expect to have announced all our decisions by the end of October.

  This action continues our drive to ensure that taxpayers receive value-for-money services from their local authorities. Where authorities' in-house teams fail to achieve their financial targets, and where they do not seem to have taken the steps necessary to improve their performance, we will not hesitate to take statutory action in the interests of local taxpayers.
  514

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Next Steps Agencies
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is the total number of people employed by each of the next steps agencies under his Department's control; how many of those employees are women; and at what civil service or equivalent grades they are employed. [32727]

  Mr. Willetts
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the chief executives of the agencies. I have, therefore, asked the chief executives of the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate, Central Office of Information, Chessington Computer Centre, Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency, Civil Service College, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Occupational Health and Safety Agency, Recruitment and Assessment Services, the Security Facilities Executive and the Buying Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from N. E. Borrett to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 17 June 1996:

  The Deputy Prime Minister has asked me to reply to your question relating to numbers of employees in Next Steps agencies under his control; how many of those employees are women; and at what Civil Service or equivalent grade are they employed.

  The answer to each part in respect of PACE is shown on the attached table.

  Staff in Post as at 1 April 1996 for PACE

  Number

  Number of Employees

  329

  Male

  203

  Female

  126

  Staff in Post as at 1 April 1996 for PACE

  Civil Service grade/equivalent

  Male

  Female

  Grades at which they are employed:

  Grade 3

  1

  0

  Grade 5

  3

  0

  Grade 6

  14

  0

  Grade 7

  37

  2

  SEO Level

  43

  5

  HEO Level

  22

  10

  EO Level

  36

  47

  AO Level

  45

  49

  AA Level

  2

  13

  Total

  203

  126

  Letter from Keith Williamson to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 17 June 1996:
  The Deputy Prime Minister has asked me to reply, on behalf of the Central Office of Information, to your Question on the employment of women in Next Steps agencies.
  The number of permanent staff in post at 1 April 1996 was 443, 184 of whom were women. A breakdown by grade is detailed below:

  Full time staff

  Grade level

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Senior Civil Service

  4

  —

  4

  Grade 6

  12

  —

  12

  Grade 7

  23

  11

  34

  SEO and equivalent

  76

  42

  118

  515

  Full time staff

  Grade level

  Male

  Female

  Total

  HEO and equivalent

  62

  44

  106

  EO and equivalent

  33

  22

  55

  AO and equivalent

  36

  49

  85

  AA and equivalent

  13

  16

  29

  Total

  259

  184

  443

  Letter from R. N. Edwards to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 13 June 1996:
  The Deputy Prime Minister has asked me to reply to your question on the employment of women in Next Step Agencies.
  The total number of staff employed at Chessington as at 1 April 1996, was 409, of which 216 were women. Women are employed at all grades from SGB2 to Grade 7, which is the highest grade below Chief Executive at Chessington.

  Letter from Robin Guenier to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 13 June 1996:
  The Deputy Prime Minister has asked me to reply to your question on the employment of women in each of the Next Steps agencies under his Departments' control.
  In CCTA the head count of staff as at 1 April 1996 was 270 of which 88 were women. The breakdown of women by grade is as follows:

  Grade

  Number of women

  Total in grade

  3–6

  0

  14

  7

  4

  41

  SEO

  15

  76

  HEO

  16

  55

  EO

  14

  35

  AO

  26

  36

  AA

  3

  3

  Secretarial

  10

  10

  Letter from S. H. F. Hickey to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 18 June 1996:
  The Deputy Prime Minister has asked me to reply to your question on employment of women in Next Steps Agencies.
  The position in the Civil Service College at 1 April 1996 was that we had a total head count of 274 permanent staff, of which 163 were women. The women were employed in all grades from Support Grade Band 2 up to and including Grade 5. The number at each grade is:

  Grade

  Total

  Women

  SGB2

  15

  10

  SGB1

  3

  1

  Typist

  1

  1

  AA

  5

  3

  AO

  72

  60

  PS

  9

  9

  SPS

  1

  1

  Assistant Librarian

  2

  2

  EO

  42

  29

  HEO

  17

  11

  Senior Librarian

  1

  1

  SEO

  13

  10

  Grade 7

  68

  18

  Grade 6

  20

  5

  Grade 5

  4

  2

  Grade 3

  1

  0

  Total

  274

  163

  516
  Letter from Mike Lynn to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 17 June 1996:
  I have been asked to reply, in respect of HMSO, to your question to the Deputy Prime Minister about women employees.
  As at 1 April 1996, HMSO employed 2,745 permanent staff, of whom 928 were women.
  We no longer use the Civil Service grading system, but the numbers of women employed at different levels of responsibility were as follows:

  Senior Management:

  11

  Junior/Middle Management:

  174

  Administrative Staff:

  529

  Support Staff:

  97

  Operational Staff:

  117

  Letter from Dr. E. C. McCloy to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 14 June 1996:
  The Deputy Prime Minister has asked me to reply to your question on the employment of women in Next Steps Agencies.

  For OHSA the information is:

  Total staff at 31 March 1996:

  118

  Total number of women:

  88

  Of which:

  Grade 3:

  1

  Grade 5:

  3

  Grade 6:

  3

  Grade 7:

  2

  SEO and equivalent:

  9

  HEO and equivalent:

  27

  EO and equivalent:

  8

  Clerical/Secretarial and equivalent:

  35

  Total:

  88

  Letter from Craig Muir to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 17 June 1996:
  The Deputy Prime Minister has asked me to reply to your question on the employment of women in Next Step Agencies. Recruitment and Assessment Services are happy to provide the enclosed information.

  As from the 1 April 1996 Recruitment and Assessment Services employs 150 permanent/fixed term/loan staff, 106 of this number are women, they are in the following grades:-

  Grade

  Number

  6

  2

  7

  6

  Senior Psychologist

  2

  Higher Psychologist

  2

  Psychologist

  1

  Senior Executive Officer

  3

  Higher Executive Officer

  3

  Executive Officer

  18

  Administrative Officer

  40

  Administrative Assistance

  14

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1

  Personal Secretary

  4

  Typist

  7

  Support Grade II

  1

  Support Grade I

  2

  Total

  106

  517
  Letter from John King to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 17 June 1996:
  The Deputy Prime Minister has asked me to reply to your question on the employment of women in next steps agencies under his Department's control.
  As at 1 April 1996 SAFE had 1191 staff of whom 97 were women. These were employed in a range of Industrial and Non-Industrial Civil Service Grades up to and including Grade 6.

  Letter from S. P. Sage to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 17 June 1996:
  The Deputy Prime Minister has asked me to reply to your question on the employment of women in Next Step Agencies.
  On 1 April 1996 the head count (not full time equivalents) for TBA was as follows:

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Grade 5

  1

  —

  1

  Grade 6

  2

  1

  3

  Grade 7

  3

  —

  3

  Senior Professional and Technology Officer

  12

  —

  12

  Senior Executive Officer

  5

  3

  8

  Higher Professional and Technology Officer

  17

  —

  17

  Higher Executive Officer

  5

  5

  10

  Professional and Technology Officer

  3

  —

  3

  Executive Officer

  4

  14

  18

  Senior Personal Secretary

  —

  1

  1

  Typing Manager

  —

  1

  1

  Senior Manager 3

  —

  1

  1

  Administrative Officer

  15

  23

  38

  Personal Secretary

  —

  2

  2

  Typist

  —

  5

  5

  Support Grade Band 1

  —

  2

  2

  Support Grade Band 2

  2

  —

  2

  Total

  69

  58

  127

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment has he made of the effectiveness of the citizens charter; and if he will make a statement. [32685]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The key criterion for evaluating the effectiveness of the citizens charter is improvement in the standards and responsiveness of public services. A full account of this is set out in last year's charter White Paper "The Citizen's Charter: The Facts and Figures", Cm 2970.

  Cost Compliance Assessments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how cost compliance assessments for legislation are arrived at; and what consultation there is with(a) business organisations and (b) representatives of small businesses before they are published. [33191]

  Mr. Freeman
  The arrangements for preparing compliance cost assessments are set out in "Checking the Cost of Regulation: A Guide to Compliance Cost Assessment", a copy of which is in the House Library. Responsibility for preparing the CCA rests with the official responsible for the policy proposal. A preliminary CCA should be prepared as soon as possible in the policy-making process. This should be refined as the policy proposal is developed, incorporating the views of business. Departments must consult business and representative bodies on the content of the CCA,518
  preferably on the basis of their initial assessment. Small businesses must also be consulted and the impact on them of the proposal must be separately identified.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has made to EU colleagues about consulting(a) business organisations and (b) small business representatives while drawing up cost compliance assessment for European legislation. [33192]

  Mr. Freeman
  The best way of calculating the costs of new regulatory proposals is to consult business and consultation with small businesses is particularly important. I take every opportunity to make this point in contacts with my EU colleagues.

  Copyright
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment his Department has made of the terms of the photocopying licence proposed by the Copyright Licensing Agency; and what plans it has to purchase such a licence. [33760]

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department is still considering the terms of the photocopying licence proposed by the agency.

  Publications (Subscriptions)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all(a) periodicals, (b) magazines and (c) academic journals received on subscription by his Department over the last three months. [33757]

  Mr. Willetts
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish the latest figures showing the volume of correspondence received by Ministers and agency chief executives from hon. members, the targets set for reply and the percentage of replies sent within target. [34211]

  Mr. Willetts
  The 1995 correspondence figures are set out in the table. The table also sets out the figures for 1994, first published on 18 April 1995,Official Report, columns 21–24. Hon. Members' attention is drawn to the footnotes which accompany the table and which provide general background information on how totals have been calculated. In particular, the entry for the Benefits Agency shows a fall in the number of letters received from 21,411 in 1994 to 2,689 in 1995. This reflects a change in the way the figures have been presented. The 1995 figure excludes 13,981 letters from Members of Parliament sent direct to district offices where local officials have replied.
  519

  Correspondence from Members of Parliament to Ministers and Agency Chief Executives

  Department/Agency

  Target set for reply (working days)

  1994 Number of letters received

  Percentage of replies within target

  Target set for reply (working days)

  1995 Number of letters received

  Percentage of replies within target

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  15

  9,429

  80

  15

  8,533

  68

  Intervention Board

  10

  109

  96

  10

  16

  100

  Cabinet Office (OPS)

  15

  941

  71

  15

  1,526

  76

  Central Statistical Office1

  10

  70

  67

  102

  42

  67

  Crown Prosecution Service

  15

  206

  76

  15

  118

  81

  Customs and Excise

  18

  4,969

  62

  18

  34,914

  68

  Ministry of Defence

  15

  7,769

  69

  15

  7,109

  75

  Army Base Repair Organisation

  —

  —

  —

  15

  37

  100

  Defence Accounts Agency

  10

  51

  90

  10

  63

  93

  Defence Animal Centre

  —

  —

  —

  5

  18

  100

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency

  —

  —

  —

  7

  103

  76

  Defence Postal and Courier Service

  —

  —

  —

  15

  13

  100

  Disposal Sales Agency

  —

  —

  —

  15

  15

  100

  Duke of York's Royal Military School

  —

  —

  —

  3

  17

  100

  Department of Education

  20

  12,615

  85

  20

  3,47,582

  81

  Department of Employment

  15

  6,821

  82

  15

  43,227

  90

  Department for Education and Employment

  —

  —

  —

  20

  3,58,111

  87

  Employment Service

  15

  1,156

  85

  15

  1,306

  97

  Teachers' Pensions Agency

  10

  70

  97

  10

  95

  100

  Department of the Environment

  15

  17,767

  57

  15

  18,138

  652

  Planning Inspectorate Agency

  8

  604

  80

  8

  7593

  89

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  10

  11,178

  89

  10

  7,364

  90

  Department of Health

  20

  16,311

  84

  20

  16,121

  79

  Medicines Control Agency

  —

  —

  —

  10

  11

  100

  NHS Pensions Agency

  8

  93

  100

  20

  81

  84

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office

  5

  11

  91

  5

  13

  100

  Home Office

  15

  14,830

  20

  815

  11,556

  26

  25

  12,845

  51

  825

  12,327

  51

  Her Majesty's Prison Service

  15

  1,569

  73

  15

  2,564

  76

  UK Passport Agency

  15

  172

  95

  15

  101

  86

  Inland Revenue

  18

  5,063

  50

  18

  3,9746

  47

  23

  1,048

  60

  23

  3,1036

  49

  Valuation Office

  —

  —

  —

  1123

  3,12221

  48

  15

  23

  78

  1315

  31

  51

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  15

  549

  76

  15

  14359

  75

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  20

  5,166

  83

  20

  4,641

  81

  Court Service15

  —

  —

  —

  20

  985

  46

  Her Majesty's Land Registry

  20

  31

  90

  20

  63

  100

  Public Trust Office

  15

  36

  75

  15

  45

  98

  Department of National Heritage

  18

  3,490

  83

  18

  3,834

  95

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency

  —

  —

  —

  10

  16

  100

  Royal Parks Agency

  18

  15

  80

  10

  20

  80

  Northern Ireland Office

  10

  3,468

  65

  1610

  34,237

  64

  (including Northern Ireland Departments)

  15

  1,924

  75

  1715

  31,857

  80

  Child Support Agency (NI)

  10

  48

  88

  10

  73

  74

  Compensation Agency (NI)

  7

  102

  94

  10

  94

  99

  Northern Ireland Prison Service

  —

  —

  —

  10

  54

  83

  Social Security Agency (NI)

  10

  28

  93

  10

  41

  63

  Overseas Development Administration

  15

  3,962

  93

  15

  3,941

  96

  The Scottish Office

  17

  5,562

  49

  17

  5,874

  49

  Historic Scotland

  17

  13

  92

  17

  39

  95

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  —

  —

  —

  17

  11

  100

  Scottish Prison Service

  17

  68

  76

  17

  81

  84

  Student Awards Agency for Scotland

  —

  —

  —

  17

  61

  95

  Department of Social Security

  20

  23,193

  64

  20

  1819,645

  71

  Benefits Agency

  20

  21,411

  93

  20

  192,689

  89

  Child Support Agency

  20

  9,092

  25

  20

  205,554

  63

  Contributions Agency

  20

  299

  67

  20

  21304

  48

  War Pensions Agency

  20

  522

  99

  20

  1,117

  100

  Department of Trade and Industry

  10

  23,171

  74

  10

  318,505

  72

  Companies House

  10

  79

  66

  10

  44

  85

  Insolvency Service

  10

  33

  88

  10

  29

  100

  Patent Office

  —

  —

  —

  10

  17

  100

  Radiocommunications Agency

  10

  38

  100

  10

  38

  100

  Department of Transport

  15

  20,905

  72

  15

  19,427

  65

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  10

  357

  95

  7

  402

  99

  Driving Standards Agency

  10

  87

  87

  15

  122

  94

  Highways Agency

  15

  422

  47

  15

  665

  84

  Marine Safety Agency

  15

  21

  100

  15

  18

  100

  Transport Research Laboratory

  15

  10

  90

  15

  11

  100

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  15

  17

  100

  15

  42

  98

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  15

  4,728

  54

  15

  37,761

  62

  520 521

  Correspondence from Members of Parliament to Ministers and Agency Chief Executives

  Department/Agency

  Target set for reply (working days)

  1994 Number of letters received

  Percentage of replies within target

  Target set for reply (working days)

  1995 Number of letters received

  Percentage of replies within target

  Welsh Office

  12

  3,062

  73

  12

  2,987

  82

  CADW: Welsh Historic Monuments

  12

  47

  93

  12

  46

  93

  Total number of letters

  257,676

  222,797

  Average percentage of replies within target

  —

  —

  78

  —

  —

  82

  1On the 1 April 1996 the Central Statistical Office merged with the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to form the Office for National Statistics.

  2Represents target set for CSO to submit replies to HM Treasury.

  3Includes all ministerial replies, not only those letters to Members of Parliament.

  4The Department for Education and the Department of Employment merged on the 6 July 1995. Figures given are for the period from 6 July to 31 December.

  5 The Department for Education and Employment was established on 6 July 1995. Figures given are for the period from 6 July to 31 December.

  672 per cent, of letters were replied to within 20 working days.

  7Figure includes letters received direct from Members of Parliament as well as via Ministers' offices. Figure also includes 26 cases which relate to Wales.

  8Until April 1995 targets within the Home Office were expressed in calendar days and, because of bank holidays, performance was occasionally measured against fewer than the 15 or 25 working day target. The 25 day target is for replies in respect of subjects dealt with by the Immigration and Nationality Department, Prison Service and UK Passport Agency, and includes letters sent direct to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate Board. The 15 day target is for all other subjects.

  9Head Office figures.

  10Local Office figures. In addition, the Inland Revenue processed 471 'delegated cases', where local officials replied direct to MPs. Of these 78 per cent, were replied to within the 23 day target.

  11Letters from MPs where the Chief Executive has replied on behalf of the Treasury Ministers.

  12Excludes 94 letters relating to caravans, where the Agency conducted lengthy negotiations with the Industry. MPs were made aware that the constituency correspondence had been held in abeyance pending the outcome of negotiations.

  13Letters from MPs sent direct to the Chief Executive.

  14This figure excludes letters received by the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers which were subsequently replied to by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  15The Court Service became an executive agency on 3 April 1995. Figures given are for all correspondence replied to by the Chief Executive between that date and the 31 December.

  16Replies signed by the Minister.

  17Replies signed by the Private Secretary to the Minister.

  18Excludes letters replied to by the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency on behalf of Ministers.

  19In addition, the Benefits Agency replied to 13,981 letters from MPs sent direct to district offices, of which 95 per cent, were replied to within the 20 day target.

  20Includes letters from MPs to Ministers where the Chief Executive has signed on Ministers' behalf.

  21In addition, the Contributions Agency replied to 158 letters from MPs sent direct to district offices, of which 96 per cent, were replied to within the 20 day target.

  22The 1994 figures are taken from the Official Report, 18 April 1995, columns 21–24. Please also refer to notes given with that reply. In addition the following Departments and Agencies received between 1 and 10 letters from Members of Parliament during 1995 but are not shown in the table.

  Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, Central Science Laboratory, Meat Hygiene Service, Pesticides Safety Directorate, Veterinary Laboratories Agency and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (MAFF).

  Civil Service College, Occupation Health and Safety Agency (OPS).

  Army Technical Support Agency, Defence Analytical Services Agency, Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency, Meterological Office, Military Survey, Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation, Naval Recruitment and Training Agency, Queen Victoria School and the RAF Training Group (MOD).

  The Building Research Establishment Agency, the Buying Agency and Securities Facilities Executive (DOE).

  Export Credit Guarantee Department.

  Wilton Park (FCO).

  Medical Devices Agency (Health).

  Fire Service College (Home Office).

  Government Property Lawyers Agency (Attorney General).

  Public Record Office (LCD).

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (NI), Driver and Vehicle Testing (NI), Rate Collection Agency, Training and Employment Agency (NI) and the Valuation and Lands Agency (Northern Ireland).

  Scottish Records Office (Scottish Office).

  IT Services Agency and Resettlement Agency (DSS).

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist and the National Physical Laboratory (DTI).

  Coastguard Agency and the Vehicle Certification Agency (DOT).
  522 523

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Next Steps Agencies
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the total number of people employed by each of the next steps agencies under his Department's control; how many of those employees are women; and at what civil service or equivalent grades they are employed. [32736]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Lord Chancellor has responsibility for four agencies: the Court Service, the Public Trust Office, the Public Record Office and Her Majesty's Land Registry. As the question concerns a specific operational matter on which the respective chief executives are best placed to provide an answer, I have asked them to reply.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 20 June 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply on behalf of the Court Service to your Question about the number of staff employed by Next Step Agencies.
  The number of staff employed by the Court Service is 10,390 and the number of women is 6,769. This is broken down by grade as follows:

  Per cent.

  Grade 5

  2

  18.18

  Grade 6

  10

  23.26

  Grade 7

  37

  31.09

  Senior executive officer

  91

  37.92

  Higher executive officer

  425

  54.84

  Executive officer

  1,199

  61.93

  Administrative officer

  3,243

  67.76

  Administrative assistant

  333

  70.85

  Support grades

  1,429

  71.31

  Letter from Julia C. Lomas to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 20 June 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your Parliamentary Question, listed on 11 June 1996 for answer on the 20 June 1996 regarding the total number of people employed by the Public Trust Office divided into male and female.

  Grade

  Males total

  Females total

  GRD4

  0

  1

  GRD 5 SOL

  0

  1

  GRD 6 SPRN

  3

  1

  GRD 6 LGL

  3

  1

  GRD 7 PRN

  4

  1

  GRD 7 COP

  0

  1

  GRD 7 PPTO

  1

  0

  GRD 7 LGL

  0

  1

  SEO

  20

  9

  HEO

  50

  38

  EO

  77

  75

  SPS

  0

  1

  TYP MNR

  0

  3

  SM 3

  0

  1

  AO

  89

  103

  AA

  3

  2

  SGB 1

  4

  2

  SGB 2

  16

  6

  TYP

  0

  32

  Total

  270

  279

  524
  Letter from Stuart Hill to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 20 June 1996:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question concerning the total number of people employed in H M Land Registry and the number of women by grade. The information you require is as follows:

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Senior Civil Service (Formerly Grades 2–5)

  22

  5

  Senior Registration Administrator 1 (Grade 6)

  24

  0

  Senior Land Registrar (Grade 6)

  18

  2

  Senior Registration Administrator 2 (Grade 7)

  43

  2

  Assistant Land Registrar (Grade 7)

  54

  40

  Registration Executive 1 (SEO)

  224

  45

  Registration Executive 2 (HEO)

  409

  183

  Registration Executive 3 (EO)

  980

  1,388

  Registration Officer 1 & 2 (AO)

  970

  2,372

  Registration Assistant 1 & 2 (AA)

  469

  1,454

  Totals

  3,213

  5,491

  Overall Staff total (as at 12 June 1996)

  —

  8,704

  HM Land Registry operates its own grade structure following the delegation of pay and grading for staff in Grades 6 and below in April 1994. The Civil Service equivalent grades are noted against the Land Registry grade title.

  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 20 June 1996:
  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply for the Public Record Office to your question about employees in the agencies for which he is responsible.
  The total number of people employed by the Public Record Office is 454.7, of which 190.2 are women who are employed in grades ranging from Grade 12 to Grade 3 (and equivalent grades).

  Senior Judges
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many senior(a) male and (b) female judges from an ethnic minority background sit in courts in England and Wales; and if he will state the position held by each such judge. [32913]

  Mr. Streeter
  The table sets out the figures for male and female holders of judicial office believed to be of ethnic minority origin as at 1 June 1996. The figures for ethnic minority office holders are believed to be correct, but as the ethnic origin of candidates for judicial appointment was not recorded prior to the autumn of 1991, the numbers may be incomplete.

  Judiciary

  Of ethnic minority origin

  Male (ethnic minority)

  Female (ethnic minority)

  Full-time Judiciary

  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary

  0

  0

  0

  Heads of Division

  0

  0

  0

  Lords Justices of Appeal

  0

  0

  0

  High Court Judges

  0

  0

  0

  Circuit Judges (including Official Referees)

  5

  4

  1

  District Judges

  2

  0

  2

  Stipendiary Magistrates

  2

  1

  1

  Part-time Judiciary

  Recorders

  13

  12

  1

  Assistant Recorders

  9

  6

  3

  Deputy District Judges

  12

  8

  4

  Acting Stipendiary Magistrates

  2

  2

  0

  525

  Children's Evidence
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if all courts in England and Wales now have a system of providing privacy for a child who is required to give evidence in court cases. [32875]

  Mr. Streeter
  I have asked the chief executive of the Court Service to reply directly to the hon. Member in respect of the operational arrangements for the Crown court, county court and High Court. The magistrates' courts are a locally managed service and responsibility for putting in place privacy systems for child witnesses rests with the relevant magistrates' courts committee. My Department is always willing to advise on such systems which include the provision of screens to shield witnesses, and the use of video and television links. Courts without such equipment can make arrangements with other courts to use their facilities. Where possible, every effort is made by court staff to comply with requests for a child witness to wait separately or to arrive and depart separately.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 20 June 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about facilities for children giving evidence in court cases. As Chief Executive of the Court Service I can reply in respect of the county courts, Crown Court and High Court.
  It is for the judge presiding at the trial to determine whether it is appropriate for a child's evidence to be given by way of a live television link and whether to allow a video recording of an interview with a child to be allowed as the child's evidence in chief. 67 of the 92 Crown Court Centres in England and Wales have live television links to enable children to give evidence from a separate room and to play video recorded evidence. It is always open to the judge at a court centre without a live TV link to order a case to be transferred to a centre so equipped. Centres without these facilities can use screens which prevent the child and defendant seeing each other. The requirement for additional television link systems is kept constantly under review and additional systems are installed where a need is shown.
  The civil courts do not have television links. However, it is very rare for children to give oral evidence in civil proceedings or to be present in court. Instead, the child is represented by a court welfare officer or guardian ad litem who gives evidence on his or her behalf. If a child does have to give evidence, screens can be used. Most civil cases are held privately in chambers so that only the parties to the case and their legal representatives are present.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June. [32547]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June. [32548]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
  526

TRANSPORT

  Airport Capacity (London)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list, for each of the last three years, how many new-start airlines have been able to commence operations at(a) Heathrow and (b) Gatwick airports under the EU rule that allows 50 per cent. of any additional runway capacity to be offered to new-start airlines. [32795]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, I refer the hon. Member to the Civil Aviation Authority document CAP 644, "Slot Allocation: A proposal for Europe's airports", which provides useful information on the proportion of slots allocated to new entrant airlines. A copy of this document will be placed in the Library.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the time allowance expresed in minutes per flight that airlines currently build into their operating schedules to allow for congestion at Heathrow and Gatwick airports. [32787]

  Mr. Norris
  This is a matter for individual airlines.

  Runway Capacity
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the conclusion of the runway capacity in the south-east—RUCATSE—study that a new full runway would provide for the equivalent of five years' traffic growth. [32908]

  Mr. Norris
  The RUCATSE study did not produce any general conclusion that a new runway would provide for the eqivalent of five years' traffic growth. The speed at which a new runway is taken up would depend on which site was chosen and when it was introduced. RUCATSE showed that, with new runways at either Heathrow or Gatwick in 2010, these would be full by 2015, with traffic being drawn in from the other London airports, but that the take-up of a new runway at Stansted would be much slower.

  Traffic Area Offices
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what contingency plans he has in place to amend the traffic area boundaries in the event of Parliament not approving secondary legislation; [33292]

  (2) if the Government's proposals to close the traffic area offices in Manchester and Cardiff can proceed before the secondary legislation to amend the traffic area boundaries has been approved by Parliament. [33292]
  527
  Mr. Norris
  There is nothing in legislation which requires the Secretary of State for Transport to provide an office in each traffic area, so the approval of new boundaries by Parliament is not necessary before the closure of offices. We would seek to make whatever arrangements for dealing with the work were most efficient. We will be consulting the Council on Tribunals.

  Heathrow Terminal 5
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he estimates a fifth terminal at Heathrow would be completed in the event of the inquiry finding in favour of its construction. [33360]

  Mr. Norris
  Following submission of the inspector's report, the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport are responsible forjointly determining whether BAA plc's application for planning permission for a fifth terminal should be approved. The construction timetable thereafter would be a matter for BAA plc.

  Fuel Taxation
  Sir Peter Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he intends to take to protect United Kingdom coach and heavy goods vehicle operators from unfair competition resulting from lower fuel taxation in other EU countries. [33345]

  Mr. Norris
  Fuel duty is only one element of the costs that affect the international competitiveness of road transport operators. We have supported the introduction of minimum rates of fuel duty in the EU. The rate of duty on fuel in the UK is of course a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Satellite Navigation Services
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to ensure that the European centre for future satellite navigation services is based in the United Kingdom. [33255]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department is involved in discussion about the need for a European centre for future satellite navigation services. The case has not been established for such a centre, but if it is we will ensure that UK interests are protected.

  Aircraft Movements (Punctuality)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he collates relating to the punctuality of aircraft leaving and arriving in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement on trends over the last five years. [33109]

  Mr. Norris
  The information relating to the punctuality of aircraft leaving and arriving in the United Kingdom is available in the Civil Aviation Authority monthly and annual publication "Punctuality statistics". My Department issues quarterly press notices with summary tables and with comment on these statistics. The level of punctuality achieved in 1995 was higher than that for 1990 and 1991, although slightly lower than that achieved in 1994.
  528

  Excalibur Airways
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the country of registration for all aircraft operated by Excalibur Airways operating to and from the United Kingdom. [33533]

  Mr. Norris
  Excalibur Airways currently operates one aircraft to and from the United Kingdom, which is registered in Antigua.

  Air Accidents
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he has taken with regard to safety recommendation 95–25 of the air accident investigation branch, as detailed in paragraph 2.9.1 of air accident report 1/96. [33284]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport has accepted and implemented the recommendation to which the hon. Member refers. Permit procedures have been reviewed and changed in order to clarify permit and safety responsibilities regarding applications by foreign operators involving the use of wet-leased aircraft.

  These measures were announced on 10 January by my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping. A copy of the announcement—Department of Transport press notice No. 9—was, at that time, placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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 to acceptable health and safety standards, detailing incidents involving information technology and those involving expenditure of more than £5,000. [33523]

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not available.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [33520]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department has carried out a survey in each of the past five years of health and safety incidents and produced an annual report for the permanent secretary. The Health and Safety Executive has been involved five times.

  London Underground (Serious Crimes)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many serious crimes were recorded on the London Underground during 1995. [33107]

  Mr. Norris
  Crime figures on the London Underground are not collected by calendar year, but the figures for the most serious crimes in 1995–96, and as compared with the equivalent figures for 1994–95 were:

  Violent assaults: 418—down by 15.7 per cent.

  Robberies: 578—down by 5.9 per cent.

  Indecent assaults: 154—up by 3.2 per cent.

  529

  Small Ships Register
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what representations his Department and the Marine Safety Agency have received about the delay in the awarding of the contract to run the small ships register by the agency; [33282]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the director of the Marine Safety Agency about the small ships register and the awarding of the contract for running this service; [33280]

  (3) what steps he is taking to ensure interested parties have the opportunity to bid for the contract for the small ships register from the Marine Safety Agency. [33281]

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

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Barry Field, dated 20 June 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Questions enquiring: (a) what representations have been received about the delay in awarding the contract to run the Small Ships Register; (b) what discussions have taken place with the Marine Safety Agency about the Small Ships Register and the awarding of the contract for running this service, and, (c) what steps are being taken to ensure interested parties have the opportunity to bid for the Small Ships Register from the Marine Safety Agency.
  To date no representations have been received about the delay in awarding the contract for running the Small Ships Register. Nor have any discussions taken place with the Secretary of State about the Small Ships Register or the awarding of the contract as this is an operational matter which has been dealt with within the Agency.
  In the event that the contract for operation of the Small Ships Register is relet there will be a full competitive tendering exercise and all parties who have expressed an interest will be invited to tender together with any other parties who may be identified as potential suppliers.

  Street Works Advisory Committee Report
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the final report of the Street Works Advisory Committee. [34209]

  Mr. Norris
  The committee's report is published today, with the Government's response, which is set out in joint highway authority and utilities circular No. 1/96 (Department of Transport), 25/96 (Welsh Office). Copies of the report and circular have been placed in the Library.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total number of people employed by each of the next steps agencies under his Department's control; how many of those employees are women; and at what civil service or equivalent grades they are employed. [32741]

  Mr. Norris
  The number of people employed by the Department of Transport in its agencies on 1 June 1996 is in the table.
  530

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Driving Standards Agency

  Grade 5

  1

  0

  1

  Grade 6

  1

  1

  2

  Grade 7

  9

  0

  9

  Senior Executive Officer

  16

  3

  19

  Higher Executive Officer

  108

  18

  126

  Executive Officer

  1,028

  110

  1,138

  Administrative Officer

  40

  62

  102

  Administrative Assistant

  75

  268

  343

  Total

  1,278

  462

  1,740

  Driver and Vehicle and Licensing Agency

  Grade 3

  1

  0

  1

  Grade 5

  3

  0

  3

  Grade 6

  8

  6

  14

  Grade 7

  16

  2

  18

  Senior Executive Officer

  39

  13

  52

  Higher Executive Officer

  98

  76

  174

  Executive Officer

  133

  291

  424

  Administrative Officer

  477

  1,236

  1,713

  Administrative Assistant

  355

  1,210

  1,565

  Total

  1,130

  2,834

  3,964

  Highways Agency

  Grade 2

  1

  0

  1

  Grade 3

  3

  0

  3

  Grade 4

  5

  0

  5

  Grade 5

  18

  2

  20

  Grade 6

  47

  1

  48

  Grade 7

  172

  11

  183

  Senior Executive Officer

  314

  23

  337

  Higher Executive Officer

  212

  52

  264

  Executive Officer

  191

  143

  334

  Administrative Officer

  142

  224

  366

  Administrative Assistant

  40

  70

  130

  Total

  1,145

  526

  1,691

  Marine Safety Agency

  Grade 4

  1

  0

  1

  Grade 5

  2

  0

  2

  Grade 6

  10

  0

  10

  Grade 7

  62

  2

  64

  Senior Executive Officer

  84

  3

  87

  Higher Executive Officer

  31

  13

  44

  Executive Officer

  15

  17

  32

  Administrative Officer

  23

  44

  67

  Administrative Assistant

  9

  35

  44

  Total

  237

  114

  531

  Marine Emergency Organisation

  Grade 4

  1

  0

  1

  Grade 5

  1

  0

  1

  Grade 6

  3

  0

  3

  Grade 7

  11

  0

  11

  Senior Executive Officer

  11

  3

  14

  Higher Executive Officer

  35

  3

  38

  Executive Officer

  56

  11

  67

  Administrative Officer

  355

  32

  387

  Administrative Assistant

  2

  14

  16

  Total

  475

  63

  538

  Vehicle Certificate Agency

  Grade 5

  1

  0

  1

  Grade 6

  1

  0

  1

  Grade 7

  4

  0

  4

  Senior Executive Officer

  11

  0

  11

  Higher Executive Officer

  22

  0

  22

  Executive Officer

  6

  2

  8

  Administrative Officer

  8

  9

  17

  Administrative Assistant

  5

  5

  10

  Total

  58

  16

  74

  531

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  Grade 4

  1

  0

  1

  Grade 5

  1

  0

  1

  Grade 6

  3

  0

  3

  Grade 7

  16

  2

  18

  Senior Executive Officer

  45

  4

  49

  Higher Executive Officer

  72

  6

  78

  Executive Officer

  552

  45

  597

  Administrative Officer

  169

  144

  313

  Administrative Assistant

  31

  252

  283

  Industrial

  191

  20

  211

  Total

  1,081

  473

  1,554

  Professional and miscellaneous grades are included in the mainstream equivalents.

  Fishing Industry (Accidents)
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people have been disabled as a result of accidents in the sea fishing industry during the last four years. [32365]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 25 January 1995,Official Report, column 201, and 14 February 1995, Official Report, column 525. The position has not changed.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Firearms
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of firearms-related crimes involved licensed pistols in the last available three years. [33244]

  Mr. Maclean
  Thirty per cent. of notifiable offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used in England and Wales in 1992 involved pistols. The figure for 1993 was also 30 per cent. and that for 1994, 23 per cent.

  Information is not collected centrally on whether these weapons are licensed. Most firearms used in crime are not covered or are untraceable because their serial numbers have been removed.

  Paedophiles Register
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans to introduce a public register of paedophiles. [33112]
  532
  Mr. Maclean
  The Government published a consultation paper, "Sentencing and Supervision of Sex Offenders", on 17 June which proposed that convicted sex offenders should be required to notify the police of their address and any subsequent moves. This information will provide the police with a register of the current whereabouts of sex offenders.

  Crime (Hemsworth)
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recorded crimes in(a) the Hemsworth constituency and (b) the relevant police divisional area were committed by those between the ages of 18 and 25 years; what proportion of the total crimes committed in the area, in the last available year, were committed by those aged 18 to 25 years; and how many of these crimes were directly or indirectly drugs-related. [33245]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Police (Damages)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many actions for damages have been defended at trial in the civil courts by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for the past five years and the present year to date; what were the causes of the actions; how much the Commissioner was required to pay in(a) compensatory damages and (b) exemplary damages; and what disciplinary action was taken against the police officers involved. [33330]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is as follows:

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996 as at 8 May

  Actions defended at trial

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a

  34

  50

  18

  Amounts paid (£000s)

  21

  203

  53

  84

  267

  839

  The requested breakdown of actions for damages can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  As regards disciplinary action, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on 8 May, Official Report, column 156. I understand that since that information was provided two cases have been recorded in 1996:

  Case 1: involving three officers, formal disciplinary proceedings and dismissal of the officers concerned; and

  Case 2: involving one officer, who has made subject to formal disciplinary proceedings.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases have been the subject of an internal investigation on behalf of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis where no formal complaint has been recorded for the past five years and the present year to date; how many such cases arose from actions for damages brought against the Commissioner which(a) resulted in awards being made against the Commissioner at trial and (b) were

  533
  settled out of court (i) after and (ii) before proceedings were commenced; and what disciplinary action was taken against the police officers involved. [33332]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Commissioner informs me that information on internal investigations prior to 1994 is not readily available. This, and the other information requested, can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The following is the number of internal investigations in 1994 to 31 May 1996:

  Year

  Number of cases

  1994

  424

  1995

  424

  1996 (to 31 May)

  167

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many actions or threatened actions for damages have been settled out of court for more than £10,000 by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for the past five years and the present year to date; what were the causes of the actions; how much the Commissioner paid out; and what disciplinary action was taken against the police officers involved. [33331]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information in the form requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost. The total number of actions and threatened actions for damages over the last five years is as follows:

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996 (as at 8 May)

  Action

  74

  85

  140

  174

  140

  50

  Amount (in £000s)

  390

  468

  1,332

  1,050

  1,051

  359

  Threatened Action

  38

  51

  74

  100

  72

  21

  Amount (in £000s)

  60

  84

  204

  209

  242

  37

  Monserrat Citizens
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision is being made for citizens of Monserrat to seek temporary refuge in the United Kingdom during the present emergency caused by the volcanic eruption. [33338]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Arrangements have been announced enabling Montserratians who can be accommodated by sponsors in the United Kingdom, and who can meet their own travel costs, to be admitted to the United Kingdom on an exceptional basis outside the immigration rules. To date, 103 people have registered an interest in these arrangements, 58 of whom have left Montserrat.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the results of the latest CCTV challenge competition; and if he will make a statement about plans for future competitions. [34096]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend will be announcing the results of the 1996–97 closed circuit television challenge competition on Friday 21 June. Details of the successful bids will be placed in the 534
  Library. The Government have stated their intention of making £45 million available for CCTV. Some £15 million of this will be available in 1997–98.

  Boundary Commission Review
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take on the report of the interim review of the Boundary Commission for England. [34097]

  Mr. Howard
  I have today laid before Parliament the report of the interim review of the Boundary Commission for England together with a draft Order in Council for giving effect, without modification, to the recommendations contained in the report.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the policy of detaining certain asylum seekers in prisons; [32776]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to have immigration officers' decisions to detain asylum seekers in prison reviewed by an independent adjudicator after they have spent seven days in detention; and if he will make a statement. [32774]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Detention is carried out under the powers contained in the Immigration Act 1971. The overriding consideration is whether the overseas national is likely to comply with any restrictions upon him, including any arrangements for his removal from the country.

  Wherever possible, Immigration Act detainees, including asylum seekers, are held in immigration service detention centres. Prisons are used only when no places are available in an immigration service detention centre, or where the detainee is unsuitable for detention in these establishments. Immigration detainees in prisons are generally held separately or with unconvicted prisoners and are accorded the same privileges as those on remand.

  Currently, any detainee who has an appeal outstanding, or who has been detained for more than seven days for further examination having sought entry to the United Kingdom, may apply to the independent appellate authorities for bail. The Asylum and Immigration Bill contains provision to extend bail rights to everyone detained under Immigration Act powers.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what occasions over the last 12 months asylum detainees have been confined to their cells continuously for 48 hours; what were the reasons for such continuous confinements; and if he will make a statement. [32775]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Between 1 June 1995 and 31 May 1996, 54 immigration detainees were found guilty of an offence against prison discipline and given a punishment of cellular confinement of two days or more. Prison Service records do not distinguish between those who had sought asylum and those who had not. That information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  535
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of the number of asylum seekers currently detained under Immigration Act powers by(a) nationality, (b) gender, (c) place of detention, (d) length of detention and (e) immigration status at the time of application; and if he will indicate how many of these detainees' asylum applications have (i) yet to be determined, (ii) been refused with an appeal pending and (c) been refused and the appeal been refused. [33267]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is in the tables.

  Table 1: Number of people recorded as detained on 31 May and 7 June 19961,2 who had sought asylum at some stage, by gender and immigration status

  Port

  Illegal entrants

  Deport

  Total

  Male

  418

  247

  32

  697

  Female

  44

  9

  1

  54

  Total

  462

  256

  33

  751

  1These figures include people who have been in detention for less than a month. Because of the delay in recording receptions into, and releases from, detention and the large number of persons detained for a short period, the figures should be used with caution.

  2Illegal entrants and deports figures relate to 31 May, port figures to 7 June 1996.

  Table 2: Number of people recorded as detained on 31 May and 7 June 19961,2 who had sought asylum at some stage, by stage of application

  Stage of application

  Total number detained

  Awaiting initial decision

  181

  Awaiting result of appeal

  400

  Awaiting removal after refusal

  170

  Total

  751

  1These figures include people who have been in detention for less than a month. Because of the delay in recording receptions into, and releases from, detention and the large number of persons detained for a short period, the figures should be used with caution.

  2Illegal entrants and deports figures relate to 31 May, port figures to 7 June 1996.

  Table 3: Number of people recorded as detained on 31 May and 7 June 19961 2 who had sought asylum at some stage, by length of detention and immigration status

  Length

  Total number detained

  0–1 month1

  201

  1–2 months

  133

  2–6 months

  287

  6–12 months

  112

  12 months+

  18

  Total

  751

  1 These figures include people who have been in detention for less than a month. Because of the delay in recording receptions into, and releases from, detention and the large number of persons detained for a short period, the figures should be used with caution.

  2Illegal entrants and deports figures relate to 31 May, port figures to 7 June 1996.

  536

  Table 4: Number of people recorded as detained on 31 May and 7 June 19961,2 who had sought asylum at some stage, by nationality and immigration status

  Nationality

  Total number detained

  Nigeria

  105

  India

  96

  Algeria

  72

  Ghana

  52

  Turkey

  39

  Sri Lanka

  38

  Zaire

  34

  Gambia

  29

  Pakistan

  29

  China Peoples' Republic of

  26

  Romania

  23

  Yugoslavia

  19

  Bangladesh

  17

  Iran

  13

  Angola

  12

  Colombia

  11

  Lithuania

  11

  Ecuador

  8

  Somalia

  8

  Afganistan

  7

  Ivory Coast

  6

  Czechoslovakia

  6

  Albania

  5

  Ethiopia

  5

  Jamaica

  5

  Liberia

  5

  Poland

  5

  Russia

  5

  Sierra Leone

  5

  Uganda

  5

  Kenya

  4

  Tanzania

  4

  Lebanon

  3

  Bulgaria

  2

  Cameroon

  2

  Cyprus

  2

  Georgia

  2

  Montenegro

  2

  Niger

  2

  Sudan

  2

  Zimbabwe

  2

  Others

  19

  Nationality doubtful

  4

  Total

  751

  1These figures include people who have been in detention for less than a month. Because of the delay in recording receptions into, and releases from, detention and the large number of persons detained for a short period, the figures should be used with caution.

  2Illegal entrants and deports figures relate to 31 May, port figures to 7 June 1996.

  Table 5: Number of people recorded as detained on 31 May and 7 June 19961 2 who had sought asylum at some stage, by location of detention and immigration status

  Prisons

  Total number detained

  HMP Rochester

  145

  HMP Haslar

  103

  HMP Birmingham

  33

  HMP Wormwood Scrubs

  15

  HMP Greenock

  11

  HMP Magilligan

  8

  HMP Bristol

  4

  HMP Wandsworth

  4

  537

  Table 5: Number of people recorded as detained on 31 May and 7 June 19961 2 who had sought asylum at some stage, by location of detention and immigration status

  Prisons

  Total number detained

  HMP Doncaster

  3

  HMP Armley

  2

  HMP Chelmsford

  2

  Others

  22

  Other places of detention

  Campsfield House

  156

  Harmondsworth

  83

  Gatwick Apt Det Suite

  44

  Police Cells

  26

  Dover Harbour PS

  24

  Queens Building

  15

  Tinsley House

  13

  Manchester Apt Det Suite

  11

  Port

  10

  Stansted Apt Det Suite

  8

  Dover West

  2

  Others

  7

  Total

  751

  1These figures include people who have been in detention for less than a month. Because of the delay in recording receptions into, and releases from, detention and the large number of persons detained for a short period, the figures should be used with caution.

  2Illegal entrant and deports figures relate to 31 May, port figures to 7 June 1996.

  Stalking
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new cases of stalking were reported to the police in(a) the Metropolitan police authority and (b) each other police force area for each year since 1990. [32585]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the issue of stalking since 13 May. [33720]

  Mr. Maclean
  Since 13 May, we have received representations on the issue of stalking from: the National Anti-Stalking and Harassment Campaign, NASH; the Suzy Lamplugh Trust; hon. Friends and hon. Members and noble Lords in another place; and 13 members of the public, including victims of stalking.

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proposals he has to provide for a criminal offence of stalking; [33721]

  (2) what representations he has received about the Stalking (No. 2) Bill [Lords]. [33722]

  Mr. Maclean
  Of the representations we have received on this subject, only early-day motion 875 made specific reference to the Stalking (No. 2) Bill.

  The Government will be publishing a consultation paper shortly, which will put forward comprehensive proposals for legislation to deal with stalking.
  538

  Domestic Violence
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many separate incidents of domestic violence were reported to police in(a) the Metropolitan police authority and (b) each other police force area in each year since 1985; how many resulted in prosecutions and how many resulted in convictions. [32588]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Assaults (Women)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many physical assaults and robberies against women were reported to police in(a) the Metropolitan police authority and (b) each other police force area for each year since 1990; how many of these cases were taken to court; and how many resulted in convictions. [32589]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Police (Sexual Harassment)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many complaints of sexual harassment were made by women police officers in(a) the Metropolitan police authority and (b) each other police force for each year since 1993; [32689]

  (2) what steps he is taking to monitor levels of sexual harassment in the police service. [32688]

  Mr. Maclean
  Records of the number of complaints of sexual harassment made by women police officers are not kept centrally. All police forces in England and Wales have an equal opportunities statement and a grievance procedure, both of which will cover sexual harassment. Individual forces monitor the implementation and effectiveness of their equal opportunities policies, including those dealing with sexual harassment, and the operation of their grievance procedures. In addition, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary pays close attention to this area during the inspection of individual forces.

  Prisons (Private Sector)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans for greater involvement of the private sector in the Prison Service and the targeting of regime activities. [33445]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) on 4 June,Official Report, column 327.

  Prisons (Staff)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff inquiries about the exit package in the Prison Service have been received; how many staff will be taking the package during the current financial year; and if he will make a statement. [33446]
  539
  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 David Scott to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 20 June 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about exit packages from the Prison Service.
  Just over 3,600 staff have applied to be considered for voluntary early retirement or severance. Earlier this year, business plans produced by governors and heads of headquarters groups and units indicated a likely net loss of about 1,500 posts during 1996–97. However, some proposals are being reviewed in the light of changing circumstances. It is not yet possible to say, therefore, exactly how many staff will be offered, and will accept, the exit package during this financial year. We aim to start letting staff know the outcome of their applications shortly.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average number of days spent on training by prison staff during 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [33440]

  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 David Scott to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 20 June 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General, to reply to your recent Question about the average number of days spent on training by prison staff during 1995/96.
  In 1995/96, the Prison Service monitored staff training for prison officer grades. For these grades, the Service achieved an average of 6.2 days training per member of staff.
  In 1996/97, the Service is monitoring the training of all of its staff, and is committed through a new Key Performance Indicator to achieve an average of at least six days training per member of staff.

  Prisons (Morale)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on morale, job satisfaction and security in the Prison Service. [33447]

  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 David Scott to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 20 June 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about morale, job satisfaction and security in the Prison Service.
  Prison work by its nature is difficult and demanding. Nevertheless, a staff survey in 1994 indicated that two thirds of staff were satisfied with their jobs, and over half felt proud to work for the Prison Service.
  540
  At present the service needs to lose some posts, but we are seeking as far as possible to achieve this by a mixture of natural wastage and voluntary redundancy.
  The next survey is due to be carried out in 1997 and this will provide more up-to-date information.

  Police (Strength)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were employed in each police force area for each year since 1980; and how many were employed as beat officers. [32587]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on police strength from 1980 to 1995 can be found in the appendix to the annual reports of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary, copies of which are in the Library. Details of police strength for each force at March 1996 are set out in table A.

  Information on the number of officers specifically assigned to beat duties is not available. Information on patrol strength in each force is available from 1991 and is set out in table B.

  Police strength in England and Wales as at 31 March 1996

  Force

  Total police ranks

  Avon and Somerset

  2,981

  Bedfordshire

  1,128

  Cambridgeshire

  1,238

  Cheshire

  1,975

  City of London

  869

  Cleveland

  1,420

  Cumbria

  1,115

  Derbyshire

  1,763

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,899

  Dorset

  1,263

  Durham

  1,401

  Dyfed-Powys

  991

  Essex

  2,884

  Gloucestershire

  1,133

  Greater Manchester

  6,938

  Gwent

  1,044

  Hampshire

  3,347

  Hertfordshire

  1,712

  Humberside

  2,041

  Kent

  3,120

  Lancashire

  3,171

  Leicestershire

  1,908

  Lincolnshire

  1,147

  Merseyside

  4,411

  Metropolitan police

  27,343

  Norfolk

  1,401

  Northamptonshire

  1,153

  Northumbria

  3,668

  North Wales

  1,378

  North Yorkshire

  1,324

  Nottinghamshire

  2,318

  South Wales

  3,027

  South Yorkshire

  3,073

  Staffordshire

  2,209

  Suffolk

  1,138

  Surrey

  1,644

  Sussex

  3,074

  Thames Valley

  3,674

  Warwickshire

  979

  West Mercia

  2,017

  West Midlands

  7,145

  West Yorkshire

  5,142

  Wiltshire

  1,219

  541

  Police strength—patrol1

  Force

  31 December 1991

  31 December 1992

  31 December 1993

  31 March 1995

  Avon and Somerset

  1,748

  1,693

  1,617

  1,625

  Bedfordshire

  603

  521

  580

  518

  Cambridgeshire

  665

  656

  649

  669

  Cheshire

  981

  1,007

  1,051

  1,024

  City of London

  394

  360

  355

  380

  Cleveland

  849

  836

  814

  816

  Cumbria

  719

  662

  673

  649

  Derbyshire

  943

  1,045

  988

  947

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,579

  1,728

  1,690

  1,661

  Dorset

  718

  746

  735

  727

  Durham

  747

  778

  762

  770

  Dyfed-Powys

  570

  593

  589

  605

  Essex

  1,591

  1,609

  1,533

  1,531

  Gloucestershire

  630

  645

  592

  628

  Greater Manchester

  3,555

  3,666

  3,577

  3,552

  Gwent

  616

  606

  611

  599

  Hampshire

  1,888

  1,703

  1,980

  1,980

  Hertfordshire

  966

  926

  996

  970

  Humberside

  1,008

  1,142

  1,099

  1,182

  Kent

  1,954

  1,900

  1,837

  1,531

  Lancashire

  1,733

  1,805

  1,726

  1,593

  Leicestershire

  1,087

  970

  1,003

  1,020

  Lincolnshire

  737

  713

  761

  736

  Merseyside

  2,389

  2,453

  2,488

  2,573

  Metropolitan police

  13,286

  14,392

  14,561

  14,684

  Norfolk

  811

  804

  799

  807

  North Wales

  818

  794

  796

  798

  North Yorkshire

  865

  811

  785

  781

  Northamptonshire

  649

  698

  729

  720

  Northumbria

  1,897

  1,756

  1,974

  2,149

  Nottinghamshire

  1,337

  1,311

  1,349

  1,284

  South Wales

  1,834

  1,953

  1,985

  2,023

  South Yorkshire

  1,724

  1,657

  1,694

  1,682

  Staffordshire

  1,091

  1,304

  1,234

  1,314

  Suffolk

  665

  713

  732

  706

  Surrey

  1,157

  1,007

  1,010

  879

  Sussex

  1,870

  1,799

  1,710

  1,543

  Thames Valley

  1,961

  2,017

  2,061

  2,104

  Warwickshire

  510

  475

  510

  471

  West Mercia

  1,320

  1,167

  1,256

  1,199

  West Midlands

  3,780

  3,702

  3,524

  3,546

  West Yorkshire

  2,865

  2,710

  2,616

  2,707

  Wiltshire

  621

  632

  661

  612

  1Based on returns provided by police forces, showing officers who spend more than 50 per cent, of their time on patrol duties. These include foot, car, beat and dog patrol, and mounted officers.

  Rape
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many rapes and sexual assaults were reported to police in(a) the Metropolitan police authority and (b) each other police force area for each year since 1990; how many of these cases were taken to court; and how many ended in a conviction. [32590]

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information relates to offences recorded by the police and is given in the table. Information on court proceedings for 1995 is not yet available.

  Notifiable offences of sexual assault1 recorded by the police, 1990 to 1995

  Police force area

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Metropolitan police

  3,428

  3,331

  3,876

  4,300

  4,715

  4,303

  Avon and Somerset

  497

  481

  393

  659

  828

  672

  Bedfordshire

  225

  209

  171

  305

  295

  203

  Cambridgeshire

  264

  271

  303

  285

  305

  291

  Cheshire

  257

  306

  314

  328

  366

  387

  Cleveland

  209

  212

  187

  161

  148

  216

  Cumbria

  214

  149

  112

  171

  163

  165

  Derbyshire

  327

  315

  286

  351

  343

  392

  542

  Notifiable offences of sexual assault1recorded by the police, 1990 to 1995

  Police force area

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Devon and Cornwall

  565

  577

  462

  729

  616

  570

  Dorset

  169

  249

  230

  214

  263

  248

  Durham

  264

  290

  298

  348

  346

  262

  Essex

  479

  410

  477

  556

  384

  515

  Gloucestershire

  222

  223

  188

  226

  286

  245

  Greater Manchester

  869

  1,033

  1,028

  925

  851

  934

  Hampshire

  621

  759

  701

  904

  700

  747

  Hertfordshire

  248

  279

  209

  193

  243

  199

  Humberside

  655

  696

  586

  616

  546

  583

  Kent

  565

  498

  740

  697

  696

  669

  Lancashire

  376

  408

  289

  349

  361

  445

  Leicestershire

  286

  302

  437

  349

  460

  403

  Lincolnshire

  306

  231

  216

  202

  268

  261

  London, City of

  24

  11

  26

  19

  21

  13

  Merseyside

  563

  504

  503

  584

  594

  671

  Norfolk

  296

  279

  280

  267

  254

  225

  Northamptonshire

  202

  180

  204

  184

  260

  229

  Northumbria

  474

  458

  552

  495

  547

  395

  North Yorkshire

  188

  142

  151

  202

  203

  179

  Nottinghamshire

  711

  802

  776

  816

  785

  681

  South Yorkshire

  459

  432

  428

  455

  481

  454

  Staffordshire

  342

  339

  285

  345

  358

  411

  Suffolk

  258

  298

  269

  259

  264

  284

  Surrey

  270

  246

  331

  289

  347

  295

  Sussex

  590

  532

  629

  514

  563

  533

  Thames Valley

  617

  687

  615

  566

  633

  553

  Warwickshire

  126

  119

  174

  262

  216

  171

  West Mercia

  303

  298

  350

  281

  329

  349

  West Midlands

  1,030

  1,053

  1,091

  1,045

  927

  856

  West Yorkshire

  1,090

  1,131

  924

  1,017

  1,013

  1,028

  Wiltshire

  292

  259

  315

  265

  255

  261

  Dyfed-Powys

  220

  244

  226

  247

  186

  186

  Gwent

  239

  176

  251

  227

  201

  203

  North Wales

  218

  265

  236

  361

  232

  258

  South Wales

  331

  325

  393

  402

  375

  392

  England and Wales

  19,889

  20,009

  20,512

  21,970

  22,227

  21,337

  1Offences of indecent assault on a male or a female and gross indecency with a child.

  Notifiable offences of rape recorded by the police, 1990 to 1995

  Police force area

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Metropolitan police

  981

  1,158

  1,192

  1,314

  1,404

  1,495

  Avon and Somerset

  87

  98

  102

  134

  151

  164

  Bedfordshire

  46

  46

  45

  62

  60

  65

  Cambridgeshire

  33

  62

  74

  65

  69

  99

  Cheshire

  25

  37

  53

  75

  80

  63

  Cleveland

  32

  47

  45

  34

  55

  46

  Cumbria

  23

  19

  26

  26

  40

  34

  Derbyshire

  37

  34

  61

  54

  58

  87

  Devon and Cornwall

  59

  60

  69

  108

  127

  110

  Dorset

  23

  49

  36

  39

  83

  43

  Durham

  45

  45

  42

  51

  56

  75

  Essex

  91

  83

  71

  84

  95

  128

  Gloucestershire

  19

  23

  40

  44

  128

  47

  Greater Manchester

  177

  227

  193

  231

  236

  258

  Hampshire

  111

  136

  149

  138

  107

  136

  Hertfordshire

  21

  46

  33

  48

  31

  52

  Humberside

  49

  61

  81

  67

  71

  109

  Kent

  96

  115

  133

  108

  171

  175

  Lancashire

  65

  58

  31

  52

  61

  70

  Leicestershire

  21

  38

  37

  46

  77

  62

  Lincolnshire

  34

  38

  33

  41

  51

  45

  London, City of

  1

  0

  1

  2

  2

  1

  Merseyside

  87

  63

  87

  95

  117

  145

  Norfolk

  33

  62

  53

  60

  57

  56

  Northamptonshire

  45

  44

  46

  51

  48

  41

  Northumbria

  88

  93

  102

  116

  125

  106

  North Yorkshire

  13

  19

  22

  23

  29

  37

  Nottinghamshire

  108

  111

  112

  175

  181

  119

  South Yorkshire

  59

  74

  62

  89

  94

  83

  Staffordshire

  43

  53

  64

  68

  79

  69

  Suffolk

  50

  61

  51

  62

  47

  42

  543

  Notifiable offences of rape recorded by the police, 1990 to 1995

  Police force area

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Surrey

  32

  41

  28

  46

  52

  30

  Sussex

  64

  73

  82

  70

  105

  118

  Thames Valley

  94

  99

  114

  106

  113

  140

  Warwickshire

  9

  18

  18

  9

  21

  16

  West Mercia

  39

  50

  53

  60

  56

  60

  West Midlands

  170

  214

  207

  204

  211

  237

  West Yorkshire

  153

  213

  206

  215

  260

  235

  Number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for sexual offences1 by police force area 1990 to 1994

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Police Force Area

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Metropolitan police

  614

  642

  688

  769

  810

  443

  424

  393

  398

  392

  Avon and Somerset

  135

  122

  100

  119

  115

  78

  69

  70

  65

  61

  Bedfordshire

  58

  38

  29

  58

  42

  37

  24

  21

  32

  33

  Cambridgeshire

  75

  56

  80

  59

  75

  57

  34

  54

  33

  44

  Cheshire

  72

  75

  100

  86

  73

  48

  58

  82

  59

  51

  Cleveland

  52

  56

  50

  36

  31

  42

  38

  26

  25

  25

  Cumbria

  47

  37

  33

  32

  35

  39

  29

  16

  27

  23

  Derbyshire

  113

  91

  72

  97

  88

  74

  58

  62

  56

  58

  Devon and Cornwall

  141

  117

  95

  99

  124

  118

  90

  64

  72

  80

  Dorset

  46

  65

  46

  54

  47

  30

  30

  29

  23

  32

  Durham

  67

  56

  52

  54

  51

  53

  42

  37

  41

  39

  Essex

  79

  92

  88

  85

  90

  55

  70

  53

  51

  46

  Gloucestershire

  45

  39

  43

  34

  30

  36

  23

  29

  26

  30

  Greater Manchester

  299

  288

  337

  269

  280

  190

  188

  202

  155

  157

  Hampshire

  154

  137

  141

  169

  143

  100

  88

  86

  95

  93

  Hertfordshire

  68

  60

  55

  45

  66

  48

  28

  29

  21

  30

  Humberside

  130

  125

  91

  78

  70

  96

  92

  79

  56

  55

  Kent

  126

  67

  63

  57

  96

  114

  75

  79

  46

  80

  Lancashire

  142

  109

  101

  111

  116

  101

  74

  72

  74

  79

  Leicestershire

  68

  81

  55

  83

  94

  45

  64

  32

  38

  47

  Lincolnshire

  78

  60

  43

  70

  58

  54

  30

  31

  38

  28

  London, City of

  20

  7

  8

  6

  8

  9

  5

  4

  3

  7

  Merseyside

  180

  165

  175

  172

  138

  95

  78

  91

  95

  68

  Norfolk

  79

  57

  48

  44

  43

  42

  50

  36

  28

  37

  Northamptonshire

  47

  55

  43

  47

  67

  35

  36

  32

  25

  37

  Northumbria

  143

  137

  160

  174

  162

  99

  88

  116

  112

  98

  North Yorkshire

  52

  51

  52

  68

  73

  36

  34

  33

  31

  39

  Nottinghamshire

  166

  179

  177

  145

  146

  117

  108

  104

  76

  79

  South Yorkshire

  125

  108

  116

  113

  125

  82

  77

  73

  66

  76

  Staffordshire

  107

  92

  72

  106

  91

  73

  68

  46

  58

  59

  Suffolk

  47

  60

  57

  31

  40

  31

  31

  38

  36

  47

  Surrey

  54

  56

  22

  37

  58

  33

  37

  20

  24

  27

  Sussex

  112

  94

  107

  79

  113

  85

  77

  62

  48

  61

  Thames Valley

  106

  137

  136

  104

  114

  83

  69

  87

  57

  64

  Warwickshire

  26

  29

  32

  45

  48

  28

  24

  27

  29

  29

  West Mercia

  83

  95

  83

  59

  87

  63

  58

  65

  40

  55

  West Midlands

  297

  310

  307

  272

  249

  228

  214

  210

  177

  190

  West Yorkshire

  262

  236

  205

  187

  199

  180

  172

  140

  117

  121

  Wiltshire

  46

  68

  51

  42

  56

  37

  42

  35

  27

  28

  Dyfed-Powys

  46

  38

  45

  52

  42

  28

  21

  26

  29

  32

  Gwent

  64

  53

  56

  47

  55

  33

  37

  31

  29

  32

  North Wales

  64

  56

  65

  72

  59

  43

  47

  40

  48

  47

  South Wales

  158

  136

  165

  151

  143

  106

  101

  90

  91

  86

  England and Wales

  4,893

  4,632

  4,544

  4,517

  4,650

  3,425

  3,102

  2,952

  2,677

  2,802

  1Includes offences of indecent assault on a man, indecent assault on a woman and gross indecency with children.

  Number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for rape by police force area 1990 to 1994

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Police force area

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Metropolitan police

  241

  311

  281

  314

  353

  125

  111

  107

  84

  90

  Avon and Somerset

  36

  38

  33

  41

  44

  7

  4

  14

  5

  12

  Bedfordshire

  17

  18

  18

  22

  21

  3

  5

  7

  4

  3

  Cambridgeshire

  19

  23

  22

  32

  20

  3

  6

  5

  8

  4

  544

  Notifiable offences of rape recorded by the police, 1990 to 1995

  Police force area

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Wiltshire

  48

  46

  69

  61

  65

  64

  Dyfed-Powys

  34

  47

  42

  39

  16

  18

  Gwent

  39

  38

  42

  48

  33

  60

  North Wales

  27

  55

  47

  66

  51

  61

  South Wales

  80

  91

  88

  103

  94

  120

  England and Wales

  3,391

  4,045

  4,142

  4,589

  5,067

  5,221

  545

  Number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for rape by police force area 1990 to 1994

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Police force area

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Cheshire

  13

  10

  31

  23

  19

  7

  6

  8

  15

  8

  Cleveland

  16

  30

  31

  26

  20

  6

  6

  8

  8

  5

  Cumbria

  11

  9

  9

  16

  16

  10

  2

  4

  4

  4

  Derbyshire

  26

  16

  31

  28

  29

  6

  9

  6

  11

  5

  Devon and Cornwall

  21

  27

  22

  24

  33

  7

  10

  3

  6

  9

  Dorset

  19

  20

  14

  16

  22

  5

  9

  2

  6

  10

  Durham

  22

  25

  16

  18

  25

  7

  11

  7

  9

  7

  Essex

  38

  39

  31

  49

  41

  16

  8

  7

  8

  6

  Gloucestershire

  10

  17

  11

  7

  14

  2

  3

  7

  4

  3

  Greater Manchester

  105

  131

  105

  138

  165

  30

  37

  35

  28

  39

  Hampshire

  44

  69

  46

  63

  48

  11

  17

  12

  13

  11

  Hertfordshire

  12

  20

  27

  10

  17

  2

  4

  4

  2

  4

  Humberside

  14

  15

  21

  18

  11

  4

  11

  4

  7

  3

  Kent

  38

  26

  32

  12

  32

  16

  16

  15

  15

  9

  Lancashire

  45

  32

  32

  31

  45

  9

  2

  8

  12

  9

  Leicestershire

  13

  11

  23

  18

  25

  6

  3

  11

  9

  2

  Lincolnshire

  20

  21

  15

  18

  24

  9

  4

  2

  4

  2

  London, City of

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  43

  29

  52

  58

  55

  24

  11

  11

  10

  14

  Norfolk

  17

  21

  23

  17

  23

  5

  3

  8

  5

  3

  Northamptonshire

  13

  34

  30

  24

  28

  8

  7

  7

  13

  2

  Northumbria

  63

  59

  57

  72

  83

  15

  22

  21

  7

  22

  North Yorkshire

  11

  12

  8

  17

  20

  3

  3

  2

  5

  3

  Nottinghamshire

  52

  68

  47

  58

  53

  20

  20

  4

  16

  13

  South Yorkshire

  45

  44

  37

  53

  42

  14

  11

  14

  6

  14

  Staffordshire

  33

  24

  25

  38

  43

  11

  8

  7

  11

  12

  Suffolk

  20

  29

  29

  15

  21

  4

  5

  5

  4

  3

  Surrey

  5

  12

  9

  11

  10

  1

  2

  2

  4

  2

  Sussex

  39

  26

  27

  28

  26

  12

  11

  10

  12

  7

  Thames Valley

  34

  45

  47

  33

  32

  5

  18

  11

  5

  4

  Warwickshire

  7

  10

  8

  10

  9

  1

  6

  —

  6

  3

  West Mercia

  33

  14

  25

  16

  26

  13

  3

  7

  5

  5

  West Midlands

  96

  125

  113

  102

  118

  40

  43

  33

  28

  32

  West Yorkshire

  69

  99

  93

  74

  60

  37

  34

  26

  28

  21

  Wiltshire

  20

  17

  33

  18

  14

  6

  8

  6

  4

  —

  Dyfed-Powys

  15

  21

  20

  26

  9

  2

  3

  10

  1

  3

  Gwent

  14

  25

  23

  26

  22

  8

  6

  3

  7

  7

  North Wales

  4

  22

  20

  17

  19

  3

  7

  7

  7

  6

  South Wales

  54

  67

  70

  67

  44

  18

  25

  24

  19

  20

  England and Wales

  1,467

  1,711

  1,648

  1,704

  1,782

  541

  540

  494

  465

  441

  Prisons (Programmes)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners completed (i) programmes accredited as being effective in reducing reoffending and (ii) the sex offender treatment programme in the last financial year; and if he will make a statement. [33439]

  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. Alex Carlile, dated 20 June 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many prisoners have completed (i) programmes accredited as being effective in reducing reoffending and (ii) the sex offender treatment programme in the last financial year.
  For the year ending 31 March 1996, 406 prisoners completed the core module of the sex offender treatment programme (SOTP) while a further 33 completed the SOTP booster programme (designed for men about to be released from very long sentences).
  746 prisoners completed cognitive skills programmes, 115 of these being the reasoning and rehabilitation programme and 631 being the in-house thinking skills.
  546
  In order to meet the criteria set for programmes to be accredited the standards of existing programmes have had to be improved. Although this work has been completed it is too early to say how many prisoners have commenced running the enhanced programmes or provide numbers for completion.

  Prisons (Disorder)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on preparation for disorder in the Prison Service; and how he will update the contingency plans. [33444]

  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 David Scott to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 20 June 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the preparation for disorder in the Prison Service and the update of contingency plans.

  547
  The central Incident Intelligence Support unit monitors order in prisons and allows governors and area managers to identify those prisons with a rising trend of disorder in order to take corrective action.
  Each prison has contingency plans, which are tested and updated annually, to assist governors in managing disorder. The command suite at headquarters is activated whenever there is a potentially serious possibility of major operational difficulty. Incidents are then managed by a senior prison governor, and additional resources allocated as required. The command suite, like establishments' contingency plans, is regularly tested to ensure that procedures are as effective as possible.

  Restraint Cells
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to develop a controlled restraint cell unit; where it will be located; and if he will make a statement. [33448]

  Miss Widdecombe
  A Prison Service study has examined the feasibility costs and benefits of concentrating the high security risk prisoners and those posing the most severe control problems in a top security prison. Ministers are considering the findings.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for project licences have been refused under section 5(4) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 on the ground that the benefits likely to accrue as a result of the programme of research are not sufficient to outweigh the adverse effects on the animals concerned. [32812]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 17 June 1996]: Statistics are not kept.

  Project proposals which cannot be justified are almost always withdrawn by the applicant when challenged by the animals (scientific procedures) inspectorate. This precedes the formal application process and refusal is, therefore, necessary on only a small number of occasions.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Next Steps Agencies
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the total number of people employed by each of the next steps agencies under his Department's control; how many of those employees are women; and at what civil service or equivalent grades they are employed. [32726]

  The Solicitor-General
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is responsible for two next steps agencies: the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Government Property Lawyers. As at 1 April 1996, the total number of people employed by the Treasury Solicitor's Department was 383, of whom 183 were women, and the total number of people employed by the Government Property Lawyers was 129, of whom 67 were women. The number of women employed as at 1 April 1996 within each grade is in the following table.
  548

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  Government Property Lawyers

  Senior Civil Service

  8

  —

  Grade 6

  11

  —

  Grade 7

  51

  5

  Senior Executive Officer

  6

  1

  Higher Executive Officer

  16

  3

  Executive Officer

  30

  15

  Administrative Officer

  24

  17

  Administrative Assistant

  3

  —

  Secretarial and typist grades

  26

  23

  Support grades

  8

  3

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  United Nations Industrial Development Organisation
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of(a) the work of UNIDO and (b) the impact of the restructuring which has taken place within that organisation in terms of value for money; and what discussions he has been involved in concerning its long-term future. [33550]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have commissioned an external assessment of UNIDO's performance and value as a development agency. We are considering the conclusions of the review in the light of the restructuring that has taken place within UNIDO and in the context of wider UN reform.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  St. Bede's College, Manchester
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will investigate the proposal by St. Bede's college, Manchester, to introduce a fee-paying element for pupils at that school whose fees are paid by Trafford local education authority. [33551]

  Mrs. Gillan
  No. This is a matter for Trafford local education authority to resolve with St. Bede's college.

  University Lecturers
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many university lecturers took early retirement in each year since 1975. [33559]

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not held centrally.

  University Personnel
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many university personnel are on(a) full-time contracts and (b) part-time contracts. [33560]
  549
  Mr. Forth
  According to figures to be published shortly by the Higher Education Statistics Agency, the number of academic staff employed on a full-time basis in UK higher education institutions in 1994–95 was 102,700. The number of part-time staff was 12,000.

  Students (Plagiarism)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students have failed to complete their degrees or been awarded pass or third-class degrees after being accused of plagiarism in each of the last five years. [33561]

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to ensure proper appeal structures are in place for students accused of plagiarism in their university coursework. [33562]

  Mr. Forth
  This is a matter for universities and colleges of higher education, which, as independent and autonomous bodies, are responsible for their own academic and administrative affairs, including any arrangements for considering appeals from students about the assessment of their coursework.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the percentage of the budget of training and enterprise councils spent on the enterprise aspect of their work. [33564]

  Mr. Paice
  Training and enterprise councils play a central role in local economic development by co-ordinating the training and business support activity in their areas. As such, all the programmes they deliver on behalf of the Department contribute to local enterprise.

  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade also controls funds provided to TECs for a range of small business and enterprise activity including the business link initiative.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many TEC board members are women; and what steps she is taking to ensure women play a full part in TEC boards. [32691]

  Mr. Paice
  There are 139 female board members on English training and enterprise councils. As private companies, the appointment of board members is a matter for TECs. TECs are required to draw up and implement an equal opportunities strategy which relates to all their activities, including membership of the board.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she last met with members of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications to discuss reform of the national vocational qualification system. [33737]

  Mr. Paice
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment last met Sir Michael Heron, the chairman of the National Council for 550
  Vocational Qualifications, on 27 March 1996. The Secretary of State conveyed her priorities for NCVQ—including measures to further improve the quality of the national vocational qualification system—to its council via her annual guidance letter, 29 January 1996, and my hon. Friend Lord Henley, the Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment is in regular contact with the chairman of NCVQ.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total number of people employed by each of the next steps agencies under her Department's control; how many of those employees are women; and at what civil service or equivalent grades they are employed. [32731]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows the number of full-time equivalent staff in the Teachers Pension Agency and in the Employment Service at 1 April 1996, broken down by gender and grade or managerial level:

  Staff in the Teachers Pensions Agency at 1 April 1996

  Men

  Women

  Total

  Senior civil service by level of management

  Chief Executive

  0

  1

  1

  Director

  0

  0

  0

  Divisional Manager

  0

  0

  0

  Grades below the senior civil service by grade level

  Grade 6

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 7

  4

  0

  4

  SEO

  4

  5

  9

  HEO

  7

  19

  26

  EO

  20

  47

  67

  AO

  46

  130

  176

  AA

  53

  64

  117

  Total

  134

  266

  400

  Staff in the Employment Service at 1 April 1996

  Men

  Women

  Total

  Senior civil service by level of management

  Chief Executive

  1

  0

  1

  Director

  5

  0

  5

  Divisional Manager

  19

  5

  24

  Grades below the senior civil service by grade level

  Grade 6

  20

  10

  30

  Grade 7

  173

  51

  224

  SEO

  265

  169

  434

  HEO

  981

  846

  1,827

  EO

  3,681

  7,504

  11,185

  AO

  5,942

  16,160

  22,102

  AA

  777

  1,724

  2,501

  Total

  11,864

  16,469

  38,333

  Training
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) women and (b) men received employer-funded training in each of the last five years. [32690]
  551
  Ms Paice
  From the labour force survey, the estimated number of women and men employees who had received employer-funded on or off-the-job training in the four weeks prior to the interview in each of the last five years is shown in the following table:

  Women

  Men

  Spring 1991

  1,152,000

  1,470,000

  Spring 1992

  1,148,000

  1,369,000

  Spring 1993

  1,139,000

  1,302,000

  Spring 1994

  1,254,000

  1,395,000

  Spring 1995

  1,131,000

  1,257,000

  Figures for spring 1995 are not comparable to those for earlier years because of a change in the survey questionnaire.

  The information for numbers training in a year is not available in the form requested.

  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the proportion of(a) national vocational qualifications, (b) general national vocational qualifications and (c) modern apprenticeships currently obtained by (i) men and (ii) women by subject. [32693]

  Ms. Paice
  Information from the Department's national information system for vocational qualifications on the proportion of men and women achieving NVQs and GNVQs by subject area is given in the following table. Modern apprenticeships were launched in September 1995 and it is too early to present information on successfully completed modern apprenticeships.

  Awards of NVQs and GNVQs to men and women by subject area: 1994–951,2,3

  Percentage

  Type of award

  NVQs '

  GNVQs

  Subject area

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  Business and Management

  33

  67

  54

  46

  Arts, Crafts and Hobbies

  0

  0

  57

  43

  Culture, Society and Education

  11

  89

  8

  92

  Language, Communication and Self Help

  41

  59

  49

  51

  Music and Performing Arts

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sports, Games and Recreation

  76

  24

  0

  0

  Food, Drink, Tobacco, Catering, Leisure and Tourism

  48

  52

  50

  50

  Environment, Security, Health and Safety

  86

  14

  0

  0

  Agriculture, Horticulture and Animal Care

  67

  33

  0

  0

  Science and Mathematics

  0

  0

  60

  40

  Health and Personal Care

  7

  93

  7

  93

  Architecture and Construction

  98

  2

  93

  7

  Computers, Electrical and Electronic Engineering

  56

  44

  81

  19

  Engineering, Production and Industrial Design

  97

  3

  94

  6

  Minerals, Materials and Fabrics

  61

  39

  0

  0

  Transport Services and Vehicle Engineering

  99

  1

  0

  0

  All subjects

  59

  41

  57

  43

  Source:NISVQ

  1 Subject area is based on the Superclass classification.

  2 Data have been obtained from City and Guilds, the Business and Technology Education Council and the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, RSA.

  3 Academic year from October 1994 to September 1995.
  552

  Female Ethnic Minority Pupils
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the performance, by(a) subject and (b) ethnic minority of female ethnic minority pupils at (i) general certificate of secondary education and (ii) A-level. [32692]

  Mr. Paice
  The Dearing review of 16 to 19 qualifications included a recommendation for work on developing a framework for national monitoring of candidate achievement by ethnic origin, which my right hon. Friend remitted to the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and National Council for Vocational Qualifications for further study and advice. We also intend to obtain information about the progress of minority ethnic pupils in individual schools, by means of information gathered by the Office for Standards in Education as part of its regular inspection cycle and to undertake research as necessary, to look in greater depth at particular issues.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in respect of phase 1 and phase 2 of the nursery voucher scheme, how many inspectors she is aiming to recruit for each phase; how many applications to become a nursery education inspector she has received; how many such applicants have enrolled in the relevant training course; and of these, how many have successfully completed the course, to qualify as a nursery education inspector. [33539]

  Mr Robin Squire
  In phase 1, the chief inspector of schools aims to recruit, train and register 200 to 300 nursery education inspectors: to date, some 450 applications have been received and 320 have been selected to undergo a training and assessment course before the end of July. The number successfully completing will be known when all the courses have been received for phase 2 against a target of 2,000 to 4,000. This is very encouraging.

  Copyright
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when her Department plans to conclude its discussions with the Copyright Licensing Agency to ensure compliance with copyright law. [33764]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has been in correspondence with the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd. but has had no reply since our last communication of 21 December 1995.

TREASURY

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new recipients of incapacity benefit paid income tax in 1995–96; how many of these had their tax deducted at source by the Benefits Agency; and what was the total tax yield for 1995–96. [32236]

  Mr. Jack
  It is estimated that there were about 175,000 new claimants of taxable incapacity benefit in 1995–96 who were liable to income tax. Of this number, about
  553
  25,000 had no other source of taxable income and had tax deducted from their benefit by the Benefits Agency. The estimated revenue yield for 1995–96 is about £30 million.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are currently unemployed whose last registered employment was in the construction industry. [33749]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information available from the winter—December to February–1995–96 labour force survey, shows that in Great Britain, there were 263,000 currently unemployed persons whose last reported employment was in the construction industry.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total number of people employed by each of the next steps agencies under his control; how many of those employees are women; and at what civil service or equivalent grades they are employed. [32742]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executives of the Royal Mint, the Office for National Statistics, the Valuation Office and Paymaster agencies. I have asked each of them to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Roger Holmes to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 20 June 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply to your Question about the employment of women.
  The Royal Mint currently employs a total of 1003 staff—624 Industrial and 379 Non Industrial—of whom 174 are women.
  The Royal Mint no longer employs staff under Civil Service Grades. I have nevertheless drawn broad comparisons. They are tabulated below:

  Civil service grade

  Number of women

  Grade 7

  1

  SEO

  3

  HEO

  9

  EO

  35

  AO

  76

  AA

  25

  Semi-skilled

  25

  174

  Letter from Tim Holt to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 20 June 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply to your Question on the total number of people, and the number by grade of women, employed by the executive agencies under the control of his department as far as it relates to the Office for National Statistics.
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) was formed on 1 April 1996 with the merger of the Central Statistical Office (CSO) with the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS). With effect from 14 June 1996 the total number of people employed by the new agency was 3,434. This includes 3,229 permanent and fixed term appointment staff and 205 casual staff.
  2,045 of the staff employed by ONS are women. They are employed in all grades from Support Bands up to members of the Senior Civil Service (formerly Grade 5s). An analysis of the number of women employed by grade is attached to this letter.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.
  554

  Office for National Statistics Analysis of female staff by grade

  Grade

  Permanent staff

  Casual staff

  Total staff

  Grade 5

  5

  —

  5

  Grade 6

  4

  —

  4

  Grade 7

  58

  —

  58

  Senior executive officer

  47

  —

  47

  Senior research officer

  14

  —

  14

  Senior social survey officer

  11

  —

  11

  Assistant social survey officer

  7

  —

  7

  Higher executive officer

  197

  —

  197

  Higher graphics officer

  1

  —

  1

  Librarian

  1

  —

  1

  Mapping and charting officer

  1

  —

  1

  Social survey officer

  11

  —

  11

  Assistant librarian

  2

  1

  3

  Assistant statistician

  19

  —

  19

  Executive officer

  387

  5

  392

  Research officer

  5

  —

  5

  Trainee statistical officer

  4

  3

  7

  Administrative officer

  721

  45

  766

  Personal secretary

  51

  1

  52

  Senior personal secretary

  10

  —

  10

  Typing manager

  1

  —

  1

  Administrative assistant

  294

  52

  346

  Typist

  26

  —

  26

  Support manager three

  6

  —

  6

  Support grade band one

  23

  1

  24

  Support grade band two

  24

  7

  31

  Totals

  1,930

  115

  2,045

  Letter from A. J. Langford to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 20 June 1996:
  In your question to the Chancellor (32742) you ask about the number of women employed in the Agency and the grades they hold.
  I attach a schedule detailing the information you require.
  Please let me know if I can assist further.

  Valuation Office Agency—staff numbers 1 April 1996

  Grade

  Total sip

  Female sip

  Percentage

  First class valuer (Grade 6)

  140

  1

  0.71

  Principal valuer (Grade 7)

  300

  20

  6.7

  Senior valuer (SEO)

  719

  173

  24.1

  Valuation executive (HEO)

  635

  156

  24.6

  Senior valuation executive (SEO)

  34

  2

  5.9

  Valuation technician (Executive Officer)

  913

  372

  40.7

  Valuation referencer (Admin Officer)

  761

  509

  66.9

  Valuation assistant (Admin Assistant)

  763

  632

  82.8

  Support staff 1

  38

  26

  68.4

  Total

  4,303

  1,891

  43.9

  1 Cleaners, messengers, security officers, porters.

  Letter from Keith Sullens to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 20 June 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply to your Question asking what is the total number of people employed by each of the next step agencies under his control; how many of those employees are women; and at what Civil Service or equivalent grades they are employed.
  PAYMASTER employs a total of 669 people of whom 480 are women. A table setting out the grades in which they are employed is shown below. I have also included the percentage representation per grade which I hope you will find helpful.

  555

  Grade

  Number of women

  Percentage representation

  Grade 7

  2

  40

  SEO

  4

  19

  HEO

  39

  48

  EO

  82

  62

  AO

  233

  81

  AA

  94

  89

  Typists

  3

  100

  SGB 1

  6

  86

  SGB 2

  12

  60

  Earnings
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are earning less than £2.50 per hour in(a) Dulwich, (b) Luton, (c) Swindon and (d) the United Kingdom, breaking the figures down by (i) age, (ii) gender and (iii) ethnic origin. [32682]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Information from the labour force survey for the number of employees in Great Britain in 1995 who earned less than £2.50 per hour is shown in the tables. The information for local areas, such as Dulwich, Luton and Swindon, is not available.

  Employees earning less than £2.50 per hour by sex and ethnic origin

  All

  Men

  Women

  All employees

  911,000

  346,000

  565,000

  White

  864,000

  325,000

  539,000

  Ethnic minority groups

  46,000

  20,000

  26,000

  Employees earning less than £ per hour by sex and age

  All

  Men

  Women

  All

  911,000

  346,000

  565,000

  16–24

  440,000

  228,000

  212,000

  25–34

  145,000

  38,000

  106,000

  35–49

  183,000

  35,000

  147,000

  50+

  143,000

  44.000

  99,000

  Unemployment
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the total number of people registered unemployed in(a) Dulwich, (b) Luton and (c) Swindon, on 1 April 1996 and in each of the last five years; and what percentage this represented of the total work force; [32683]

  (2) how many people are unemployed and claiming benefit in (a) Dulwich, (b) Luton and (c) Swindon; and how many of these will qualify for the new jobseeker's allowance. [32686]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The latest figures show that in May 1996, on the unadjusted basis, claimant unemployment in the Dulwich constituency, and the 556
  Swindon constituency stood at 4,539 and 4,147 respectively. The figures for Luton relate to the local authority area only and stand at 7,360.

  It is not possible to determine how many of the people who are currently claimant unemployed will be entitled to jobseeker's allowance in October. If, however, their circumstances remain unchanged until October, they will transfer to JSA.

  Further information on the number of people claimant unemployed in the areas requested can be obtained from the Nomis database accessed by the House of Commons Library.

  Comparisons with the April 1966 figures will be affected by the changeover in January 1996 from a 1981–based ward geography to a 1991—based geography. The estimated effect of this rebasing exercise on each of these areas was the change their (January 1996) levels as follows: Dulwich, -7; Luton, -34; Swindon, +96.

  Dewsbury Tax Office
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters his Department received in 1994(a) objecting to and (b) supporting the proposed closure of Dewsbury tax office. [33623]

  Mr. Jack
  The Inland Revenue has received 60 letters objecting to the proposed closure of Dewsbury tax office and none supporting it.

  Mrs. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated cost of the move of the Dewsbury tax district office from Dewsbury to Leeds. [33624]

  Mr. Jack
  The proposal to move Dewsbury tax office to Leeds is at an early stage and it is not possible at present to estimate the costs of this.

  Mrs. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated cost of running a tax shop in Dewsbury. [33625]

  Mr Jack
  The initial estimate of the annual cost of running a tax shop in Dewsbury is £90,000.

  Mrs. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people whose tax is currently handled by the Dewsbury tax office will be self-assessed for taxation in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99. [33626]

  Mr. Jack
  Some 15,500 individuals whose tax is currently handled by Dewsbury tax office will become self-assessed for taxation in 1996–97. It is unlikely that this number will change significantly in 1997–98 and 1998–99.

  Mrs. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have visited or telephoned the Dewsbury tax office, for information or advice in each of the tax years to April 1995 and April 1996. [33627]

  Mr. Jack
  Details of the number of people who visited or telephoned the Dewsbury tax office and tax inquiry centre in the years ended April 1995 and April 1996 are as follows:
  557

  Year to

  Personal callers

  Telephone inquiries

  April 1995

  9,132

  53,074

  April 1996

  9,442

  56,203

  Judicial Review
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [33596]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 19 June 1996]: None to date.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [33567]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 19 June 1996]Two, both dating from 1993. Since in both cases issues of European Community law were referred to the European Court of Justice, decisions of the English courts are still awaited.

  Partial Birth Abortions
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many partial birth abortions have been recorded as taking place in(a) NHS hospitals and (b) licensed premises in England and Wales. [33030]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 18 June 1996]I have been asked to reply.

  We are not aware of this procedure being used in the United Kingdom.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Next Steps Agencies
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total number of people employed by each of the next steps agencies under his Department's control; how many of those employees are women; and at what civil service or equivalent grades they are employed. [32734]

  Mr. Hanley
  The only next steps agency under this Department's control is the Wilton House Conference Centre. A total of 33 people are employed there, five of whom work part time. The grade and gender breakdown is:558

  Male

  Female

  Assistant Principal (HCS5)

  1

  —

  Principal (HCS7)

  3

  3

  Executive Officer

  1

  7

  Administrative Officer

  —

  4

  Senior Personal Secretary

  —

  1

  Personal Secretary

  —

  1

  Catering Manager 3

  1

  —

  Chef 2

  1

  —

  Support Grade 2

  3

  5

  Total

  12

  21

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 17 June,Official Report, column 327, if the teacher referred to will be given back her job after her confinement leave if she so wishes. [33719]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The St. Helena Government have informed us that the teacher concerned will not be given her job back after her confinement because the vacancy created by her resignation has meanwhile been filled. Should a vacancy arise in the future, she will be able to apply for a job under the terms of the recently revised public service orders.

  Copyright
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department will decide whether it is obliged to purchase a licence from the Copyright Licensing Agency. [33766]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We will take the necessary action concerning a licence with the Copyright Licensing Agency when discussions with the agency have been concluded.

  International Labour Organisation Conventions
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take during discussions at the ILO and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and at the World Trade Organisation conference in Singapore, to promote ILO conventions on the right to freedom from slavery, servitude and forced labour with particular respect to low-income countries. [33041]

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The promotion of International Labour Organisation conventions is a matter for the ILO, in which the UK continues to play a full part.

  Miss Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to promote the International Labour Organisation conventions on freedom from discrimination, social security coverage and health and safety protection at the G7 summit in Lyons and the World Trade Organisation meeting in Singapore. [33042]

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.
  559
  International Labour Organisation conventions are not on the agenda for discussion at the G7 summit in Lyon on 27 to 29 June or at the World Trade Organisation meeting in Singapore in December 1996.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list each of the grants made by each of the lottery boards in respect of which(a) projects, (b) organisations and (c) individuals in Northamptonshire may receive support. [32238]

  Mr. Sproat
  Information on lottery awards broken down by the areas of support requested is not available. For a full list of lottery awards in Northamptonshire, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 11 June,Official Report, columns 99–100.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to widen access to the £5 concessionary television licence for retired people and those living in warden-patrolled accommodation. [33114]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government have no plans to extend general availability of the concessionary television licence scheme for those living in accommodation for residential care. However, we intend to correct the situation where a whole housing scheme applies for the concession but cannot qualify solely because of the ownership circumstances of a small proportion of dwellings within its boundary.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) how many prosecutions there have been against people for non-payment of the television licence fee for every year since 1990; and what is the average cost to the Exchequer of these prosecutions; [33317]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the gender and average income of those individuals (a) prosecuted and (b) found guilty of non-payment of the television licence fee. [33316]

  Mr Sproat
  According to figures provided by the BBC, the number of people prosecuted for television licence evasion in the United Kingdom for each year since 1990 was:

  Year

  Number of prosecutions (to nearest thousand prosecutions)

  1990–91

  183

  1991–92

  209

  1992–93

  232

  1993–94

  219

  1994–95

  210

  1995–96

  215

  560
  Information is not collected on gender or average income of those prosecuted for licence evasion, nor on the average cost to the Exchequer of prosecutions. Information on convictions for offences under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts is set out in the Home Office's annual publication "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", supplementary table Vols. 1 and 2, which is held in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proportion of the revenue generated by the television licence fee was absorbed by the cost of its collection in the last year for which figures are available. [33327]

  Mr. Sproat
  In 1995–96, the costs of collecting the television licence fee comprised 5.2 per cent. of the income generated by licence sales.

  Sports Clubs
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to encourage non-dividend-paying sports clubs to increase their youth development programmes; and if she will make a statement. [33172]

  Mr. Sproat
  Following the publication of the sports policy statement "Sport: Raising the Game" in July 1995, the Sports Council's regional offices have made it a priority to provide advice and information to schools, sports clubs, governing bodies of sport and local authorities on how best to establish school/club links. The Sports Council itself will establish a £2 million challenge fund to help develop school/club links. It is hoped that applications will be invited from schools, sports clubs and governing bodies of sport including non-dividend-paying sports clubs this autumn.

  The sportsmatch scheme, launched by the Government in 1992 to increase the amount of business sponsorship going into grass roots and sport and physical recreation, has also earmarked up to £1 million for school projects. A great number of these projects could be aimed at improving links between sports clubs, other organisations and schools.

  Historic Buildings (Admission Charges)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to review admission prices to castles and historic buildings managed by English Heritage. [33641]

  Mr. Sproat
  This is an operational matter for English Heritage. I have no plans to intervene in its arrangements.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the total number of people employed by each of the next steps agencies under her Department's control; how many of those employees are women; and at what civil service or equivalent grades they are employed. [32729]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department is responsible for two agencies, the Historic Royal Palaces agency and the Royal Parks agency. HRPA employs 419 staff, of whom 183 are women. RPA employs 250 staff, of whom 68
  561
  are women. The following table shows the grades women are employed in and their respective numbers in those grades. These figures do not include casual staff.

  Number of women—HRPA

  Number of women—RPA

  Civil Service grades incorporating equivalents

  Grade 7

  3

  2

  Senior executive officer

  8

  2

  Higher executive officer

  16

  5

  Executive officer

  34

  8

  Administrative officer

  54

  7

  Administrative assistant

  62

  —

  Sub-total

  177

  24

  Other grades which do not necessarily equate to Civil Service grades

  Inspector

  —

  1

  Police sergeant

  —

  2

  Police constable

  —

  39

  Horse manager

  —

  1

  Groom

  —

  1

  Industrial gardeners

  6

  —

  Sub-total

  6

  44

  Total

  183

  68

  Copyright
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage on what occasions her Department has signed a licence from the Copyright Licensing Agency. [33765]

  Mr. Sproat
  None. The Department of National Heritage is currently discussing the terms of its photocopying licence with the Copyright Licensing Agency. We expect to sign the final licence shortly.

  Judicial Review
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage on how many occasions in each Session since 1991–92 legislation has been introduced into Parliament by her Department with the purpose of(a) removing the effects of a judicial review decision or (b) implementing a judicial review decision; and if she will list the relevant legislative provisions. [33590]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 19 June 1996]: No such legislation has been introduced by the Department of National Heritage since its inception in 1992.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many decisions by her Department were challenged by way of judicial review in each Session since 1991–92; and if she 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. [33572]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 19 June 1996]: One decision was upheld by the courts in each of the Sessions 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96. Additionally, in 1995–96 one application for judicial review against the Department
  562
  was struck out. In no cases during the periods in question have the courts found for the applicant; nor has the Department ever submitted to judgment. It follows that the Department had never appealed against a judicial review decision.

>HEALTH

  Prescriptions (Students)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many claims for free prescriptions have been made by students; and how many have been successful for 1995–96 and in each of the previous five years. [29039]

  Mr. Malone
  During 1992–93, around 248,000 low-income scheme claims were made by students of which around 52 per cent. resulted in entitlement to free prescriptions. For 1993–94, the figures were respectively around 308,000 and 60 per cent. and for 1994–95 around 333,000 and 72 per cent. Information was not collected for years before 1992–93 and is not yet available for 1995–96.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many claims for free prescriptions have been made by students; and how many have been successful for the latest year for which figures are available. [1059]

  Mr. Malone
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 November 1995, c. 66]: I regret that my previous answer was incorrect. It should have read as follows:

  "During 1994–95, around 333,000 national health service low-income scheme claims were made by students of which around 72 per cent. resulted in entitlement to free prescriptions".

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the members for the day who attended the meeting of the Committee on Safety of Medicines held on 13 October 1995; [31866]

  (2) how many full members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines were present at the meeting of the committee held on 13 October 1995. [31862]

  Mr. Malone
  Proceedings of the committee are confidential.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) of 19 December 1995,Official Report, column 1150, if he will list the factors which led to the choice of Professor Rawlins and Professor Langman to attend the meeting of the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products on 26 to 27 October. [31895]

  Mr. Malone
  Professor Rawlins and Professor Langman attended the meeting on the basis of their long-standing expertise in pharmacoepidemiology, and in their capacities as chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines and chairman of the Sub-Committee on Pharmacovigilance respectively.
  563
  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his oral statement of 23 October 1995,Official Report, column 701, of what data the Medicines Control Agency requested an expedited analysis. [31864]

  Mr. Malone
  The Medicines Control Agency requested an expedited analysis of the data on venous thromboembolism from the transnational case control study. The Medicines Control Agency discussed with the investigators the availability of information on the relative risks of myocardial infarction and stroke with different oral contraceptives and understood that substantive data would not be available for one to two years.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 1995,Official Report, columns 521–24, if he will list the members for the day of the Committee on Safety of Medicines during the period 1 January 1995 to 31 December 1995. [31860]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested will be contained in the committee's annual report which will be published in due course.

  Mr. Hughes
  to ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 1995,Official Report, columns 520–21, if all members and co-opted members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines received at 10.30 am on 12 October the papers relating to desogestrel and gestodene which had been dispatched on 11 October. [31861]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave him on 1 April,Official Report, column 53, and on 16 April, Official Report, column 487.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which individual in the World Health Organisation in July 1995 made available preliminary results from the World Health Organisation study on oral contraceptives to the Medicines Control Agency. [31911]

  Mr. Malone
  The preliminary results from the study were provided to the Medicines Control Agency by the World Health Organisation in confidence.

  Capital Projects, London
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the capital projects with a value of over £1 million which have been undertaken in London during the past four years. [31611]

  Mr. Horam
  The capital projects undertaken in London during the past four years with a value over £1 million are shown in the table.

  Unit

  Scheme

  Bethlem and Maudsley NHS trust

  Knights Hill—ESMI Unit

  Camden and Islington Community Health Services NHS trust

  Daleham Gardens Intensive Rehabilitation Unit/Health Clinic

  Central Middlesex Hospital NHS trust

  Central Middlesex Hospital Mother and Baby Unit

  City and Hackney Community NHS trust

  Medium Secure Unit

  Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS trust

  Vincent Square Health Care Centre

  564

  Unit

  Scheme

  Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS trust

  Chelsea and Westminster Hospital

  Eastman Dental Hospital

  Phase 2 Scheme 8

  Enfield Community NHS trust

  Medium Secure Unit

  Enfield Community NHS trust

  Reprovide Highlands Hospital

  Forest Healthcare NHS trust

  Whipps Cross Hospital Phase 2

  Great Ormond Street Hospital For Children NHS trust

  Camelia Botnar Laboratories

  Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS trust

  Phase 1 redevelopment

  Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS trust

  Southwood balconies and fire exit stairs

  Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS trust

  Guy's hospital development phase 3

  Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS trust

  St. Thomas' hospital—A and E upgrade/extension

  Hammersmith Energy Centre

  Incinerator installation

  Hammersmith Energy Centre

  Mechanical and electrical installation

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHS trust

  Charing Cross hospital linear accelerator and new building

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHS trust

  Hammersmith hospital cancer centre

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHS trust

  Hammersmith hospital PACS X-ray system

  Homerton Hospital NHS trust

  Homerton development A and E extension

  Homerton Hospital NHS trust

  Homerton—relocation of services

  Homerton Hospital NHS trust

  Medium secure unit—Hackney

  King's College London

  Camberwell joint education centre

  King's Healthcare NHS trust

  Kings College hospital theatres

  King's Healthcare NHS trust

  Kings College redevelopment of A and E

  King's Healthcare NHS trust

  Radiology phase 1 Neurosciences

  Lewisham Hospital NHS trust

  Lewisham phase 2 redevelopment

  London Ambulance NHS trust

  Homerton ambulance station

  London Ambulance NHS trust

  HQ/control room

  Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS trust

  Redevelopments phase 3A

  North West London Mental Health NHS trust

  Park Royal acute secure unit

  Northwick Park and St. Mark's NHS trust

  Relocation of St. Mark's hospital

  Parkside Health NHS trust

  North Kensington Pembridge centre

  Pathfinder Mental Health Services NHS trust

  Springfield hospital forensic psychiatric clinic

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton Healthcare NHS trust

  Barnes ESMI phase 2 (Nucleus)

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton Healthcare NHS trust

  St. John's Twickenham redevelopment phase 1

  565

  Unit

  Scheme

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton Healthcare NHS trust

  St. John's Twickenham redevelopment phase 2

  Riverside Community Healthcare NHS trust

  Regent St. Nursing Home for the Elderly

  Royal Free Hampstead NHS trust

  Royal Free hospital renal unit centralisation

  Royal Hospitals NHS trust

  St. Bartholomew's theatres

  Royal Marsden Hospital NHS trust

  Royal Marsden hospital paediatric unit

  St. George's Healthcare NHS trust

  Atkinson Morley's hospital theatres

  St. George's Healthcare NHS trust

  St. George's combined heat and power

  St. Mary's NHS trust

  Special children's wing

  The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery

  Phase 1B (new building)

  University College London

  Relocate tropical diseases

  Wellhouse NHS trust

  Barnet general hospital

  West Lambeth Community Care NHS trust

  South Western hospital redevelopment

  West London Healthcare NHS trust

  Regional secure unit

  Whittington Hospital NHS trust

  A and E redevelopment

  Source:

  CIM Database and North and South Thames regional office records. This table includes all schemes situated within London boundaries i.e. with London post codes and with a works cost of £1 million or over.

  Residential Care (Mental Handicap)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many residential places for adults with mental handicap have been purchased by(a) health authorities and (b) social services departments in the past year; [33068]

  (2) how many residential places for children with mental handicap have been purchased by (a) health authorities and (b) social services departments in the past year. [33067]

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of community occupied bed days purchased for patients with learning disabilities in England by the national health service in nursing homes, residential care homes or group homes in England in 1994–95 was reported to be 5.3 million, an average of 14,500 places on any one day. The figure is for all ages, including children; no age breakdown is available.

  English social services departments supported 23,000 adult residents with learning disabilities in residential or nursing care in England at 31 March 1995. Comparable information for children is not available centrally. For Wales, this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the effect on the funds and resources available to support people with mental handicap needing residential care of the closure of mental handicap hospitals and the sale of hospital sites; [33078]
  566
  (2) what steps he is taking to provide alternative provision for the care of those patients with mental handicap currently in mental hospitals which have already published locally their closure dates. [33065]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is for health and local authorities to work together to determine the best use of financial and other resources in planning the development of community based services for people with learning disabilities.

  Decisions about the provision of services to meet the continuing care needs of patients with learning disabilities in long-stay hospitals are for the relevant heath authorities in consultation with social service departments and in the light of departmental guidance contained in HSG(92)42, LAC(92)15 and HSG(95)8, copies of which are available in the Library. In Wales, this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people with mental handicap were in(a) mental handicap hospitals and (b) other residential provision, including local authority, private, or voluntary in (i) 1970, (ii) 1980, (iii) 1990 and (iv) the most recent year for which figures are available. [33069]

  Mr. Bowis
  Centrally available information for England is shown in the table.

  Adults with learning disabilities in hospitals and residential care, England

  National health service hospitals and units1

  Private hospitals, beds1

  Nursing homes, beds2

  Residential homes, places2

  1970

  55,400

  —

  —

  33,100

  1980

  44,400

  —

  —

  413,800

  1990

  24,900

  1,200

  —

  31,000

  1995

  11,400

  40

  3,200

  39,000

  Source:

  DH annual returns, HES, RHAs.

  1 The figures are not directly comparable over time because of changes in the method of data collection. The 1970 and 1980 figures are estimates of residents at 31 December derived from the mental health inquiry which covered NHS mental handicap hospitals and units. The 1990 and 1995 figures are estimates of those in hospital under the care of a learning disabilities consultant, at 31 March. They are estimates based on a combination of data from the hospital episodes system and data obtained directly from the regional health authorities.

  2Figures for beds and places have been given, rather than for occupied beds and residents, because the latter are not available before 1994 and 1987 respectively.

  3This figure is from 1969 and may not be the same basis as later data.

  4Includes children with learning disabilities in voluntary and private homes (of which there were 800 in 1983).

  Compensation
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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 additionally those involving expenditure of more than £5,000. [33486]
  567
  Mr. Horam
  The figures for sick pay in each of the past five years can be provided only at disproportionate cost. The cost of compensation paid to employees of the Department or members of the public in each of the past five years is as follows:

  Minor £

  Major £

  1991

  7,264.53

  —

  1992

  113.50

  —

  1993

  900.00

  7,067.38

  1994

  3,750.00

  —

  1995

  6,523.00

  79,834.98

  There have been no fatal injuries in any of the past five years.

  Two cases involved expenditure over £5,000. Both were settled out of court in the sums of £7,067.38 and £75,334.98 respectively.

  There have been no compensation payments as a result on incidents involving information technology.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [33484]

  Mr. Horam
  Information is not collected centrally on the regular health and safety inspections and checks in accommodation occupied by the Department of Health and its agencies. We have no record of any involvement by the Health and Safety executive in health and safety issues within buildings occupied by the Department or its agencies in the past five years.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [33487]

  Mr. Horam
  Expenditure specifically related to meeting health and safety standards is not recorded separately.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [33485]

  Mr. Horam
  Figures are available only for the previous three years. The numbers of minor injuries are as follows:

  1993–94: 85

  1994–95: 91

  1995–96: 76

  During this period, there were no fatalities and only one major injury—1995–96. Information technology, related injuries are not separately identified.
  568

  Beta-interferon
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost to the NHS per patient for a course of treatment of the drug beta-interferon. [33372]

  Mr. Malone
  The length of a course of treatment with beta-interferon is for the doctor to determine, and varies from patient to patient.

  Edgware Hospital
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the plans for the future provision of accident and emergency services at Edgware hospital. [33606]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Discussions about the future of the casualty service to be provided at Edgware have been proceeding for some months with local doctors and others. I expect these discussions to be concluded soon.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the exchange of correspondence between himself, the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst) and the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) on the future provision of accident and emergency services at Edgware hospital. [33612]

  Mr. Dorrell
  No.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of people employed by each of the next steps agencies under his Department's control; how many of those employees are women; and at what civil service or equivalent grades they are employed. [32735]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is provided in the following tables.

  Medicines Control Agency

  Total

  Female

  UG3

  1

  1

  UG4

  3

  1

  UG5

  28.9

  7.3

  UG6

  14

  4

  UG7

  59.65

  21.65

  SEO

  10.2

  4.2

  PHO1

  12

  6

  SSO

  3.3

  3.3

  HEO

  20

  6

  PHO2

  2.1

  2.1

  HPTO

  1

  0

  HSO

  26

  15

  LIB

  1

  0

  TM

  1

  1

  EO

  45

  24

  SO

  16

  14

  ALIB

  1

  1

  SPES

  4

  4

  AO

  38

  23

  ASO

  11

  10

  PES

  40.5

  39.5

  AA

  22

  13

  TYP

  2.15

  2.15

  Total

  362.8

  203.2

  569

  NHS Estates agency

  Total

  Female

  UG3

  1

  0

  UG5

  4

  0

  UG6

  17

  2

  UG7

  54

  4

  SEO

  8

  4

  SPTO

  13

  2

  HEO

  14

  9

  HPTO

  11

  3

  IO

  1

  0

  LIB

  1

  1

  EO

  7

  1

  PTO

  1

  1

  Other1

  7

  7

  Total

  139

  34

  1 NHS regional office staff.

  NHS Pensions Agency

  Total

  Female

  UG6

  1

  0

  UG7

  1

  0

  SEO

  3

  0

  HEO

  19.8

  11

  EO

  60.6

  39.6

  AO

  240.8

  187.8

  AA

  53

  28

  PES

  3

  3

  Typist

  13

  13

  SM3

  1

  0

  SGB1

  2.5

  1.5

  SGB2

  29.9

  6.9

  Total

  428.6

  290.8

  Medical Devices Agency

  Total

  Female

  UG4

  1

  0

  UG5

  4

  1

  UG6

  6

  1

  UG7

  19.6

  1.6

  SPTO

  31.8

  4.8

  SEO

  3

  0

  HPTO

  12.4

  2.4

  LIB

  1

  0

  HEO

  7

  1

  PTO

  10

  4

  EO

  10.4

  5.4

  ALIB

  1

  1

  SPES

  1

  1

  TECH II

  1

  0

  AO

  17

  11

  PES

  6

  6

  AA

  5

  3

  TYPIST

  0.6

  0.6

  Total

  137.80

  43.80

  Agencies

  Total

  1,068.2

  571.8

  numbers are as at June 1996, are whole-time equivalents and exclude staff on loan or secondment or special leave without pay.

  Clinical Trials
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of those exposed to drugs and medicines in clinical trials prior to market release are(a) men and (b) women. [32694]
  570
  Mr. Malone
  this information is not available centrally.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the proposed PFI contracts for(a) Norfolk and Norwich, (b) Amersham, (c) Carlisle, (d) Swindon, (e) North Durham and (f) Bishop Auckland have been signed. [33726]

  Mr. Horam
  Full business cases for Norfolk and Norwich, Amersham and Swindon have been approved, but contracts have not yet been signed. Full business cases for the other schemes mentioned are being worked up by the trusts concerned, with the advice and support of the national health service executive.

  Infections (Schools)
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department is pursuing to combat dermatitis infections in schools. [31622]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 7 June 1996]: When a child has dermatitis the responsibility for managing his or her care and treatment rests with his or her general practitioner. If there are a number of cases of an infectious skin condition in a school, additional advice may be obtained from the local consultant in communicable disease control.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients with learning disabilities have been detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 in each year since it came into force. [33369]

  Mr. Bowis
  The table gives the number of formal admissions of patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 who were classified as "mentally impaired" or "severely mentally impaired", in England for 1987–88 to 1992–93. These include admissions to national health service facilities and private mental nursing homes authorised to detain patients under the Registered Homes Act 1984; information for special hospitals is not available centrally. Data for earlier years are not available on a comparable basis. Figures for 1993–94 and 1994–95 will be published shortly.

  Admissions of formally detained patients with categories "mental impairment" or "severe mental impairment". NHS hospitals (excluding special hospitals) and private mental homes registered to detain patients.

  England

  Number admitted

  1987–88

  199

  1988–89

  268

  1889–90

  213

  1990–91

  227

  1991–92

  310

  1992–93

  252

  Figures are taken from Korner returns KH15 and KO37 and relate to financial years.
  571

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Recruitment
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what use his Department and its executive agencies have made of executive search agencies or employment companies in filling vacancies within his Department or executive agencies administered by his Department during the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96; what agencies were employed; what was the cost in each case; how many staff were recruited in each case; and what was the total cost in each financial year of these contracts. [31416]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No executive search agencies were used by the DTI in the financial year 1994–95. In the financial year 1995–96, three senior posts were filled with the assistance of executive search agencies. The details are as follows:

  £

  St. James's Management Recruitment

  25,962.34

  Korn/Ferry Carre/Orban International Ltd.

  29,551.25

  Saxton Bampfylde International Ltd.

  30,075.00

  Total

  85,588.59

  DTI headquarters made no use of employment companies for recruitment during the period in question. I have asked agency chief executives to reply directly to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 20 June 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency to the above Parliamentary Question.
  The Radiocommunications Agency did not use executive search agencies or employment companies for the filling of vacancies in either financial year.

  Letter from Seton Bennett to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 20 June 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to provide additional information on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory in reply to your question about the use of executive search or employment companies in 1994/95 or 1995/96.
  This Agency did not use an executive search company during this period. Two specialist posts were filled in 1995/96 with the assistance of employment agencies, and the details were as follows:

  £

  Capita Recruitment Services

  2,974

  Draft Personnel Ltd.

  2,645

  Total cost

  5,619

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 20 June 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about the use made of executive search agencies or employment companies in filling vacancies within The Insolvency Service during the financial years 1994–95 and 1995–96.
  The Insolvency Service has not used executive search agencies or employment companies in any of its permanent recruitment during those financial years.
  572
  Letter from R. J. Marchant to Mr. Brain Donohoe, dated 20 June 1996:
  In the absence of the Comptroller General on official business overseas I am replying for the Patent Office to your question on the use made of executive search agencies and employment companies.
  The Patent Office has not used such means for filling its vacancies.

  Letter from John S. Holden to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 20 June 1996:
  I have been asked by the President of the Board of Trade to reply on behalf of Companies House Executive Agency to your Parliamentary Question.
  During the financial year 1994–95 and 1995–96 no executive search agencies or employment companies were used by Companies House to assist in filling vacancies.

  Pemed UK
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in what capacity his officials attended the inaugural reception for Pemed UK on 14 October 1993. [33300]

  Mr. Lang
  Among the principal guests at a reception organised by Pemed on 14 October 1993 was a delegation of business men from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia led by its Ministers for industry. This was the first major industrial delegation from that country to visit the UK. The official responsible for trade promotion with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia attended the reception in that capacity.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. [33518]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Business Links
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department's business links publicity programme is scheduled to start; how much it will cost public funds; and how the money will be targeted. [33194]

  Mr. Page
  A publicity programme for business links has been in existence since the first business links opened, involving mainly local activities. Now that the network is nearing completion, it will be supplemented by a national business links advertising campaign, which will begin on June 24. The campaign will feature poster, radio and national newspaper advertisements and is designed to draw attention of companies to the potential benefits of the business links service. The campaign will be supported by a national telephone service, which will switch callers directly to their local business link. The total cost of the advertising and supporting publicity campaigns for 1996–97 is £4 million.
  573

  Small and Medium Businesses
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the actions taken as a result of the meetings of the group of Ministers across Departments responsible for small and medium enterprises. [33193]

  Mr. Page
  The aim of the group is to provide a forum for co-ordinated and cohesive policy across Whitehall Departments and to address the areas vital to the competitiveness of small businesses.

  The small firms Ministers have been closely involved in the "Your Business Matters" consultation and in co-ordinating a response to the issues which most recently were raised.

  A list of measures to assist small businesses is contained in "Your Business Matters—Government Response", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Coal Industry Records
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the level of charges made for the inspection and copying of maps, plans and records of the British coal industry; and if he will consult the Coal Authority in regard to these charges. [32970]

  Mr. Page
  The Coal Authority is under a financial duty to recover through fees and charges the full cost of carrying out certain activities, including making information available pursuant to section 57 of the Coal Industry Act 1994.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what charges are made by the British Coal Authority in regard to the inspection and copying of records concerning the coal mining industry. [33032]

  Mr. Page
  This is a matter for the Coal Authority. I have placed a copy of the authority's scale of charges concerning mining records in the Library of the House.

  Living Conditions
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people in(a) Dulwich, (b) Luton and (c) Swindon are living below the European decency threshold, expressed as (i) a total figure and (ii) a percentage of the total population. [32684]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not available. Details of earnings are not available for areas smaller than a county or London borough, and information on income is derived from national estimates.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total number of people employed by each of the next steps agencies under his Department's control; how many of those employees are women; and at what civil service or equivalent grades they are employed. [32740]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The chief executives of the DTI executive agencies will respond direct to the hon. Member.
  574
  Letter from Seton Bennett to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 20 June 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to provide additional information on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory in reply to your question about the number of staff employed by this Agency.

  The figures you request are contained in the following table:

  Grade level

  Female

  Male

  Total

  Grade 5

  0

  1

  1

  Grade 6

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 7

  0

  4

  4

  SEO level

  1

  7

  8

  HEO level

  0

  11

  11

  EO level

  4

  8

  12

  AO level

  9

  0

  9

  AA level

  3

  1

  4

  Total staff

  17

  32

  49

  The figures are provided on a headcount basis by grade level. They exclude casual staff.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 20 June 1996:
  I have been asked to answer the question you raised on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency.
  The following table shows the total numbers of women by Civil Service and equivalent grade employed in the Agency on 7 June.

  Grade

  Total

  Female

  Grade 3

  1

  0

  Grade 5

  6

  0

  Grade 6

  7

  0

  Grade 7

  33

  3

  SEO and equivalent

  59

  4

  HEO and equivalent

  95

  5

  EO and equivalent

  182

  22

  AO and equivalent

  96

  50

  AA and equivalent

  44

  32

  Total

  523

  116

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 20 June 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about the number of staff and the number and grades of women employed by The Insolvency Service.

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Grade 3

  1

  0

  1

  Grade 4

  2

  0

  2

  Grade 5

  1

  1

  2

  Grade 6

  0

  0

  0

  Inss Grade A

  10

  0

  10

  Grade 7

  1

  0

  1

  Inss Grade B

  53

  4

  57

  SEO

  6

  1

  7

  Inss Grade C

  86

  29

  115

  HEO

  18

  13

  31

  HPTO

  1

  0

  1

  Inss Grade D

  201

  116

  317

  EO

  63

  61

  124

  PTO

  1

  0

  1

  Inss Grade E

  44

  35

  79

  AO

  134

  191

  325

  PS

  0

  13

  13

  SBG1

  1

  1

  1

  SM3

  0

  1

  2

  575

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Total

  AA

  59

  84

  143

  SGB2

  19

  5

  24

  TYP

  2

  137

  139

  703

  692

  1,395

  Source:

  DTI PERMIS Computer Records. Date: 1 April 1996.

  Staff included in the data comprise permanent staff, staff on loan from other Government Departments, staff seconded from the private sector (who have been allocated to the grades which reflect their salaries) and staff on paid maternity and sick leave.

  The data does not include casual staff and those on short term appointments from agencies.

  Letter from John S. Holden to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 20 June 1996:
  I have been asked by the President of the Board of Trade to respond to your recent Parliamentary Questions on behalf of the Companies House Executive Agency.
  I have set out on the attached page the information you requested, but please do let me know if you require any additional breakdown.

  Grade

  Male headcount

  Per cent.

  Female headcount

  Per cent.

  Total

  Grade 4

  1

  100.0

  —

  —

  1

  Grade 5

  2

  100.0

  2

  Grade 7

  7

  63.6

  4

  36.4

  11

  SEO

  12

  92.3

  1

  7.7

  13

  SPTO

  1

  100.0

  —

  —

  —1

  HEO

  31

  54.4

  26

  45.6

  57

  EO

  63

  54.8

  52

  45.2

  115

  AO

  113

  34.6

  214

  65.4

  327

  AA

  54

  41.5

  76

  58.5

  130

  SPS

  —

  —

  1

  100.0

  1

  PS

  —

  —

  3

  100.0

  3

  TM

  —

  —

  1

  100.0

  1

  Typist

  —

  —

  8

  100.0

  8

  SM2

  —

  —

  1

  100.0

  1

  SM3

  4

  40.0

  6

  60.0

  10

  SGB1

  10

  23.8

  32

  76.2

  42

  SGB2

  51

  18.5

  224

  81.5

  275

  Total

  349

  35.0

  649

  65.0

  998

  Figures exclude casuals, unpaid maternity leave, career break schemes, but include all part-time employees.

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Ms Tessa Jowell, dated 20 June 1996:
  I am replying in relation to the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade about the staffing of next step agencies. The following figures give headcount by grade, excluding staff currently out of the office on loan, career breaks or similar arrangements.

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Grade 3

  1

  0

  1

  Grade 5

  2

  1

  3

  Grade 6

  5

  0

  5

  Grade 7

  7

  2

  9

  Assistant comptroller

  1

  0

  1

  Superintending examiner

  5

  0

  5

  Principal examiner

  13

  3

  16

  Senior examiner

  125

  12

  137

  Examiner

  41

  3

  44

  SEO

  17

  4

  21

  HEO

  36

  18

  54

  576

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Total

  EO

  88

  71

  159

  AO

  81

  123

  204

  AA

  47

  61

  108

  Support grades

  4

  6

  10

  Personal secretaries

  0

  7

  7

  Typists

  0

  7

  7

  Total

  473

  318

  791

  Bomb Bags
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will reclassify bomb bags as fireworks. [32687]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  As stated in my written reply to the hon. Member on 15 May 1996,Official Report, column 494, "bomb bags" are toys and therefore subject to the safety requirements of the Toys (Safety) Regulations 1995. I can see no advantage therefore in classifying these items to treat them as fireworks, for example for the purposes of the general product safety regulations. The items do not fall within the definition of a firework in British standard 7114:1988.

  Euro 96 Merchandise
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to ensure that Euro 96 merchandise is clearly marked if produced by child labour. [33156]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 17 June 1996]: None. It is for the parties concerned to decide how to present their merchandise.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what reports he has received alleging that Euro 96 souvenir footballs have been made by child labour in Pakistan; and if he will make a statement. [33157]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 17 June 1996]: None. As the Government have made clear previously, we remain firmly opposed to the exploitation of child labour. That is why we are supporting this week, at this year's general conference of the International Labour Organisation, a resolution concerning the elimination of exploitative child labour.

  Burma
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which British companies have current or planned investment in Burma of which he is aware; and what is its total value. [32359]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 18 June 1996]: It is not the practice of my Department to divulge information relating to British companies' individual investments overseas as this is considered commercially confidential. The British Government do not compile figures on the

  577
  UK's total investment in Burma. However, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie on 19 March, Official Report, House of Lords, column 95.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to discourage tourism to Burma. [32358]
  578
  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 18 June]: I have been asked to reply.

  We have no current plans to discourage tourism to Burma. We do not think that this would be an effective means of achieving the principal objective of our policy towards Burma, which is to persuade the State Law and Order Restoration Council—SLORC—to introduce democracy and full respect for human rights.
  579

WALES

  Local Management of Schools (Funding)
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the deadlines, formal and informal, given to unitary authorities in Wales for production of section 42 statements of funding for local management of schools; and if he will list those authorities which(a) have complied and (b) have not complied with each deadline; [31924]

  (2) if he will set out action which is available to him to take in respect of authorities which fail to comply with statutory deadlines for the production of section 42 statements of expenditure under schemes of local management of schools; and what action he has taken in respect of authorities in Wales which have failed to comply with recent deadlines. [31925]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Local education authorities are required by section 42(3) of the Education Reform Act 1988 and regulation 7 of the Education (School Financial Statements) (Prescribed Particulars) Regulations 1995 as applied in Wales by the Education (School Financial Statements) (Prescribed Particulars) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 1996 to publish, before the beginning of the financial year to which they relate, budget statements in respect of schools maintained by them.

  Recognising the additional pressures faced by authorities in the light of local government reorganisation, including late finalisation of some local management of schools schemes, the Department indicated to LEAs that, for its own purposes, it would be prepared to wait until 30 April 1996 for submission of budget statements.

  Complete section 42 statements were provided by 30 April by:

  Torfaen

  Blaenau Gwent

  Carmarthenshire

  Bridgend

  Monmouth

  The following authorities submitted budget details, but not complete statements:

  Conwy

  Cardiff

  Flintshire

  Vale of Glamorgan

  Reminders were sent to authorities on 20 May requesting finalised budget statements by the end of May.

  All authorities have now submitted budget statements to the Department, although in some cases they are incomplete. The Department is pursuing outstanding details with the authorities concerned.

  My right hon. Friend has powers under section 99 of the Education Act 1944 to direct authorities to fulfil their statutory duties under education legislation if he considers it expedient to do so. He will consider using those powers in any cases where outstanding information is not provided shortly.
  580

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much energy is generated by wind farms in Wales. [32890]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1995 some 171 GW hours of electricity was generated by wind schemes in Wales.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many wind farms there are in Wales; and in what locations. [32888]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are currently eight non-fossil fuel obligation wind farm developments in Wales. Their locations are as follows:

  Mynydd y Cemaes: Near Cemaes, Powys

  Penrhyddlan: Llandinam, near Newtown, Powys

  Llidiartywaun: Llandinam, near Newtown, Powys

  Rhyd-y-Groes: Rhosgoch, Anglesey

  Taff Ely: Near Tonyrefail, Rhondda Cynon Taff

  Llangwyryfon: Near Llanrustyd, Cardiganshire

  Bryntitli: Near Rhayader, Powys

  Dyffryn Brodyn: Near Trelech, Carmarthenshire

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on wind farms. [32887]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government's policy is to stimulate the development of renewable energy sources wherever they have prospects of being economically attractive and environmentally acceptable, in order to contribute to diverse, secure and sustainable energy supplies; a reduction in the emission of pollutants; the encouragement of internationally competitive renewable industries.

  Prostrate Cancer
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of prostate cancer have occurred in Wales in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [32895]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest available information on the number of new registrations of prostrate cancer diagnosed in residents of Wales is given in the list.

  1981: 568

  1982: 546

  1983: 611

  1984: 690

  1985: 699

  1986: 680

  1987: 699

  1988: 728

  1989: 855

  1990: 858

  Motorway Lighting
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the location of the sections of motorway in Wales that have overhead lighting by parliamentary constituency; and if he will plot this information on a map and place a copy in the Library. [33037]
  581
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The following is a list of locations by parliamentary constituencies:

  Location

  Parliamentary constituency

  1. Junction 22 Newhouse

  Monmouth

  2. Second Severn crossing approach road Junction 29 Castleton

  Newport, East and Newport, West

  3. Junction 38 Margam—Junction 41 Pentyla

  Swansea, East and Aberavon

  4. Junction 41 Pentyla roundabout

  Swansea, East

  5. Junction 49 Pont Abraham

  Llanelli

  A map showing this information as at 13 June 1996 has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Schools (Selection)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in which schools in Wales there is a process of selection; and if he will make a statement. [33240]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I am not aware of any maintained schools in Wales which operate a process of selection in admission arrangements. A number of independent institutions do, but comprehensive information on admission arrangements is not held centrally.

  Powered Outdoor Wheelchairs
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many powered outdoor wheelchairs have been provided to patients by each of the health trusts since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [33163]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Some 664 powered outdoor wheelchairs have been supplied to Welsh patients by the artificial limb and appliance service since 1992. Management responsibility for this function transferred to three NHS trusts on 1 April 1996.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money he has spent on NHS screening for (i) breast cancer and (ii) cervical cancer; and if he will make a statement. [33160]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  School Budgets
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on (i) infant schools' budgets and (ii) primary schools' budgets. [33164]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Budgets for maintained infant and primary schools are determined by application of the local management of schools scheme operated by the local education authority in whose area they are located. The amount of each school's budget depends on the resources the local authority concerned makes available to schools in its area.
  582

  Women's Refuges
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many refuges for women escaping domestic violence have been registered in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [33322]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  There is no statutory requirement for the registration of refuges for women escaping domestic violence, and information on the number of refuges is not held centrally.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of people employed by each of the next steps agencies under his Department's control; how many of those employees are women; and at what civil service or equivalent grades they are employed. [32730]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested for my Department's next steps agency, Cadw, is given in the table:

  Cadw staff by grade and gender

  Grade

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Grade 5

  1

  0

  1

  Grade 6

  2

  0

  2

  Grade 7

  6

  1

  7

  SEOs

  11

  3

  14

  HEOs

  10

  8

  18

  EOs

  15

  16

  31

  AOs

  8

  13

  21

  AAs

  15

  10

  25

  Industrial/museum support grades

  91

  28

  119

  Total

  159

  79

  238

  Information as at 1 April 1996.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance he has given the members of the Welsh ambulance policy advisory group on the requirement to align the boundaries of proposed new ambulance trusts with those of the new health authorities; and if he will make a statement. [33820]

  Mr. Hague
  None. The Welsh ambulance policy advisory group is an independent body operating under its own terms of reference.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) on what date he first(a) received notification from and (b) was consulted by the Welsh ambulance policy advisory group in respect of the proposed reorganisation of the trust structure for the provision of ambulance services in Wales. [33819]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the timetable for the (a) receipt, (b) consideration, (c) consultation and (d) confirmation of (i) new boundary and (ii) other changes in the trust structure for the provision of ambulance services in Wales. [33817]

  Mr. Hague
  I have not received any proposals to reconfigure ambulance services in Wales. These are currently matters for the relevant trusts in consultation with health authorities.
  583
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales at how many of the meetings of the Welsh ambulance policy advisory group on reorganisation of the ambulance trust structure his Department has been represented. [33821]

  Mr. Hague
  The Welsh ambulance policy advisory group invites one of my officials to attend its meetings as an observer. He has attended on three occasions when ambulance service configuration has formed part of the agenda.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he informed the Welsh ambulance policy advisory group of the nature of special financial provision for the South and East, Wales Ambulance NHS trust in the event of wholesale reorganisation of Welsh ambulance services. [33818]

  Mr. Hague
  I have had no such contact with the Welsh ambulance policy advisory group. The financial performance of individual trusts is a matter solely for the trust board and my Department.

  Social Services Inspectorate
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral statement of 17 June,Official Report, columns 521–24, what proposals he has to strengthen the social services inspectorate. [33825]

  Mr. Hague
  I shall announce my proposals shortly.

  Copyright
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the adequacy of his Department's compliance with the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988; and if he will make a statement. [33768]

  Mr. Hague
  As far as I am aware, the Department's compliance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is adequate.

  Child Abuse (North Wales)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral statement of 17 June,Official Report, columns 521–24, if he will include in the terms of reference of the Waterhouse judicial inquiry, the need for (a) a children's ombudsman and (b) a children's commissioner. [33824]

  Mr. Hague
  I have no plans to do so.

  Publications (Subscriptions)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all(a) periodicals, (b) magazines and (c) academic journals subscribed to by his Department in the last three months. [33755]

  Mr. Hague
  A list of all newspapers, periodicals and journals subscribed to by my Department was placed in the Library of the House in January 1996. Since then, the following new titles have been subscribed to:

  Care Standard

  Dynamic Graphics

  Eurostat—Theme 1—Regions

  Gupta Pro

  584

  Home and School

  New Economy

  Nursing Times Research

  Office Secretary

  Programme on Education Building Exchange

  Property Letter

  Rent Officer Statistics

  Sheep Farmer

  Soundtrack

  Talking Points on Britain's Economy

  Training Education Employment

  UK Meat Market Review

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of confirmed BSE cases in each of the last 36 months. [33305]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 18 June 1996]: The number of confirmed BSE cases in Wales by year and month reported in the last 36 months, as at 18 June 1996, is as follows:

  1993

  Number

  May

  280

  June

  302

  July

  271

  August

  260

  September

  281

  October

  267

  November

  374

  December

  287

  1994

  January

  264

  February

  299

  March

  327

  April

  316

  May

  229

  June

  195

  July

  126

  August

  151

  September

  179

  October

  173

  November

  166

  December

  78

  1995

  January

  188

  February

  199

  March

  124

  April

  126

  May

  116

  June

  100

  July

  128

  August

  128

  September

  83

  October

  85

  November

  98

  December

  99

  1996

  January

  92

  February

  122

  March

  72

  April

  41

  May

  67 as at 18 June 1996

  585

  Supply Estimates
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the dates of publication of the Supply estimates in(a) 1991, (b) 1992 and (c) 1993. [30410]

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

  Financial year

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Publication date

  Main Supply estimates

  12 March 1991

  10 March 1992

  9 March 1993

  Summer supplementary estimates

  13 June 1991

  16 June 1992

  17 June 1993

  Winter supplementary estimates

  14 November 1991

  12 November 1992

  18 November 1993

  Spring supplementary estimates

  18 February 1992

  16 February 1993

  15 February 1994

DEFENCE

  Next Steps Agencies
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total number of people employed by each of the next steps agencies under his Department's control; how many of those employees are women; and at what civil service or equivalent grades they are employed. [32732]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information will be placed in the Library.

  Defence Codification Authority
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about defence agency status for the Defence Codification Authority. [34210]

  Mr. Soames
  I am pleased to report that the Defence Codification Authority became a defence agency of the Ministry of Defence on 17 June 1996. The aim of the DCA is to maximise the benefits of the NATO codification system by uniquely describing every item in the NATO inventory, thereby increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of logistics systems and operations, promoting interoperability and interchangeability, while reducing duplication and waste. The DCA currently has a staff of 161 civilians mainly based at Anderston, Glasgow with a small complement of staff at Didcot, Oxfordshire. The owner of the DCA will be Air Officer Communications and Information Systems at Headquarters Logistics Command, Brampton and its chief executive will be Mr. Ken Bradshaw.

  The chief executive has been set the following key targets for the first year of operation:

  1. To complete an annual policy evaluation by September 1996 and establish future policy direction to reflect strategic initiatives in NATO and the MOD.

  2. To increase the rate at which the number of duplicate NATO stock numbers (NSNs) are eliminated by 0.15 per cent. of the total number of NSNs.

  586

  3. To extend the DCA's NSN database file purification service to the Army and RAF by March 1997.

  4. To let a development contract for the item of supply information system ISIS2, by July 1996.

  5. To install a financial management information system to meet HM Treasury accounts direction by March 1997.

  6. To reduce the DCA's unit cost of NSN codification, assuming forecast levels of demand, to less than £61.

  7. To reduce agency running costs by 5 per cent.

  8. To reduce the number of post-codification queries to less than 14,000.

  9. To define an acceptable quality level for inclusion in contracts with external suppliers by September 1996.

  I am arranging for copies of the agency's framework document to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those constituencies he has visited in the last three months on official business and those constituencies he intends to visit in the next three months; and if he will make a statement. [32330]

  Mr. Portillo
  During the last three months, I visited the following constituencies on official business:

  Date

  Constituency

  6 March

  Yeovil

  8 March

  Solihull

  13 March

  Ruislip-Northwood

  19 March

  Grantham

  28 March

  Manchester, Central

  6–7 May

  Birmingham, Ladywood

  21 May

  Mid-Norfolk

  It is not my practice to give details of my future programme, but my office would normally write to hon. Members before visits to their constituencies on official business.

  Publications (Subscriptions)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all(a) periodicals, (b) magazines and (c) journals received on subscription by his Department over the last three months. [33758]

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

  Copyright
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department plans to conclude its discussions with the Copyright Licensing Agency to ensure compliance with copyright law. [33769]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The MOD library in conjunction with the Directorate of Intellectual Property Rights are currently considering a licence with the Copyright Licensing Agency. The MOD is awaiting a reply to correspondence sent to the agency.
  587

SCOTLAND

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many representations he has received regarding the removal of the compulsory competitive tendering moratorium for Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980 work; what discussions he has held with local authorities and their representatives concerning this decision; and if he will make a statement; [32576]

  (2) what factors underlay his decision to remove the moratorium on compulsory competitive tendering for Local Government (Planning and Land Act) 1980 work; and if he will make a statement. [32574]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend and I have received representations from hon. Members, private contractors and six local authorities. Contractors welcomed the decision to bring forward the reintroduction of compulsory competitive tendering to 1 January 1997, and drew my attention to the fact that, in the absence of compulsory competitive tendering, there had been a decline in the amount of work subject to competition. Some local authorities have, however, expressed concern about the practicality of the timetable and, in addition, one council has lodged a petition for judicial review of that decision.

  My right hon. Friend and I remain strongly of the view that council tax payers should benefit from the introduction of competition as soon as is practicable. Nevertheless, in the light of the representations, and bearing in mind that we do not have powers to specify different dates for different authorities for the reintroduction of competition for work under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, we have now decided not to make regulations bringing forward the date for reintroduction to 1 January. My right hon. Friend announced this in a letter to Rosemary McKenna, the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 13 June. Instead, we are consulting on that a practicable timetable for reintroduction would be, but clearly 1 January is no longer practicable.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, per constituency (1) the number of overseas voters on the current Scottish electoral registers; [33050]

  (2) the number of electors attaining the age of 18 years on the current Scottish electoral registers. [33061]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Electoral statistics collected from the 1996 electoral registers are based upon the new parliamentary constituencies which take effect at the next general election. The information on the numbers of overseas voters and of those attaining the age of 18 years is as follows:

  Attainers 1996

  Overseas electors 1996

  Scotland

  44,873

  1,055

  Aberdeen Central

  366

  16

  Aberdeen North

  735

  4

  Aberdeen South

  555

  42

  588

  Attainers 1996

  Overseas electors 1996

  Airdrie and Shotts

  656

  5

  Angus

  712

  12

  Argyll and Bute

  616

  10

  Ayr

  800

  17

  Banff and Buchan

  797

  9

  Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross

  468

  15

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  1,009

  18

  Central Fife

  641

  2

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  692

  11

  Clydesdale

  702

  7

  Coatbridge and Chryston

  625

  5

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  773

  12

  Cunninghame North

  787

  15

  Cunninghame South

  772

  3

  Dumbarton

  74

  16

  Dumfries

  673

  12

  Dundee East

  541

  17

  Dundee West

  504

  6

  Dunfermline East

  568

  19

  Dunfermline West

  675

  11

  East Kilbride

  751

  7

  East Lothian

  638

  11

  Eastwood

  1,022

  25

  Edinburgh Central

  296

  43

  Edinburgh East and Musselburgh

  486

  20

  Edinburgh North and Leith

  343

  40

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  744

  39

  Edinburgh South

  562

  74

  Edinburgh West

  669

  30

  Falkirk East

  678

  13

  Falkirk West

  618

  5

  Glasgow and Upper Nithsdale

  553

  23

  Glasgow Anniesland

  423

  9

  Glasgow Baillieston

  501

  1

  Glasgow Cathcart

  453

  11

  Glasgow Govan

  345

  13

  Glasgow Kelvin

  300

  32

  Glasgow Maryhill

  384

  10

  Glasgow Pollok

  466

  5

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  528

  7

  Glasgow Shettleston

  279

  1

  Glasgow Springburn

  357

  2

  Gordon

  834

  11

  Greenock and Inverclyde

  634

  8

  Hamilton North and Bellshill

  635

  1

  Hamilton South

  522

  1

  Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber

  718

  27

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  872

  8

  Kirkcaldy

  599

  10

  Linlithgow

  669

  11

  Livingston

  781

  3

  Midlothian

  534

  7

  Moray

  800

  11

  Motherwell and Wishaw

  529

  4

  North East Fife

  669

  40

  North Tayside

  689

  23

  Ochil

  791

  14

  Orkney and Shetland

  464

  7

  Paisley North

  598

  5

  Paisley South

  629

  9

  Perth

  685

  18

  Ross, Skye and Inverness West

  611

  15

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  557

  6

  Stirling

  636

  33

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  910

  6

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  684

  25

  West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine

  934

  29

  West Renfrewshire

  815

  16

  Western Isles

  269

  2

  Shotgun and Firearm Licences
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many revocations and cancellations there
  589
  were for (i) shotgun and (ii) firearm licences for each police force in Scotland, for each of the last five years for which figures are available; what were the reasons for such actions; how many appeals there were in each year and police force area; and how many were successful. [32955]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of shotgun and firearms licences revoked or cancelled in Scotland in each of the last five years, for which statistics are available, is set out in the table. The reasons for such actions are not recorded centrally nor is the number of appeals.

  Force

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Shotgun certificates revoked

  Central

  5

  3

  5

  2

  4

  Dumfries and Galloway

  4

  11

  12

  1

  2

  Fife

  6

  12

  3

  6

  4

  Grampian

  22

  11

  12

  28

  16

  Lothian and Borders

  28

  13

  5

  9

  3

  Northern

  9

  8

  3

  10

  10

  Strathclyde

  20

  23

  28

  23

  17

  Tayside

  11

  14

  20

  15

  5

  All forces

  105

  95

  88

  94

  61

  Firearms certificates revoked

  Central

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3

  4

  1

  0

  0

  Fife

  2

  1

  2

  1

  2

  Grampian

  10

  3

  4

  9

  5

  Lothian and Borders

  7

  4

  2

  5

  1

  Northern

  9

  6

  8

  10

  6

  Strathclyde

  7

  6

  4

  2

  4

  Tayside

  5

  6

  12

  5

  4

  All forces

  45

  32

  34

  33

  23

  Shotgun certificates cancelled

  Central

  564

  467

  310

  225

  246

  Dumfries and Galloway

  649

  717

  422

  295

  224

  Fife

  1,243

  610

  413

  215

  275

  Grampian

  1,521

  1,275

  997

  717

  714

  Lothian and Borders

  1,100

  1,312

  976

  586

  583

  Northern

  1,208

  997

  957

  593

  547

  Strathclyde

  2,707

  2,555

  2,007

  995

  966

  Tayside

  789

  708

  546

  431

  428

  All forces

  9,781

  8,641

  6,628

  4,057

  3,983

  Firearms certificates cancelled

  Central

  105

  85

  51

  63

  63

  Dumfries and Galloway

  375

  218

  197

  113

  106

  Fife

  334

  133

  111

  88

  88

  Grampian

  693

  697

  382

  283

  281

  Lothian and Borders

  529

  314

  328

  246

  205

  Northern

  594

  578

  430

  379

  300

  Strathclyde

  516

  456

  383

  273

  250

  Tayside

  266

  134

  215

  157

  160

  All forces

  3,412

  2,615

  2,097

  1,602

  1,453

  Statistics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which statistics his Department has discontinued(a) the collection and (b) the publication of since 1989. [32863]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  (a) The following regular statistical surveys have been discontinued since 1989:Survey of initial police action against children involved in crimes and offences: (discontinued from 1989).
  Survey of detailed information from district courts on non-payment of police fixed penalties and non-payment of fiscal fines: (discontinued from 1990).
  590
  Survey of non-vocational further education in certain small centres: (discontinued from 1992).
  Survey of foreign and Commonwealth students in teacher training colleges: (discontinued from 1993).
  Survey of excesses and deficits in teacher supply: (discontinued from 1995).
  Survey of applications for teaching posts: (discontinued from 1995).
  Survey of number of cases dealt with by social work departments: (discontinued from 1995).
  Survey of housing owned by regional authorities: (discontinued from 1996).

  (b) Available information is that the publication of no other major statistical series has been discontinued since 1989: changes in the basis of publication of statistical series are made from time to time in response to requirements for information.

  Offshore Installations (Solway Firth)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's role in respect of(a) consultations on the siting of the Esso exploration rig west of the Solway firth at the "Cod Hole" and (b) safeguarding the interests of commercial fishermen who currently fish there. [32373]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Esso is currently carrying out exploration drilling in block 112/15 to the west of the Solway firth which was awarded in the 14th round of offshore oil and gas licensing. This block is subject to strict conditions—agreed with, among others, the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department—to restrict the timing and scope of certain activities carried out under the licence. In accordance with these conditions, the company has kept SOAEFD fully informed in advance of each stage of its exploration work in the area. Esso also consulted a number of fishermen's associations—including the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, the Clyde Fishermen's Association and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations—prior to deciding the location and timing of its exploration drilling.

  Arrangements regarding the specific siting of drilling rigs are required by SOAEFD only when species that spawn in the sediment may be adversely affected by drilling activities. No specific arrangements of this nature were required in this case.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of people employed by each of the next steps agencies under his Department's control; how many of those employees are women; and at what civil service or equivalent grades they are employed. [32738]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers of males and females employed in each of the agencies, expressed in full time equivalent terms, are shown in the tables.
  591

  Permanent staff in executive agencies of the Scottish Office at 1 April 1996 (full-time equivalent)

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  Student Awards Agency Scotland

  Grade equivalent

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Senior CS

  —

  —

  —

  1.0

  —

  1.0

  1.0

  —

  1.0

  Grade 6

  1.0

  —

  1.0

  4.0

  —

  4.0

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 7

  3.0

  —

  3.0

  17.0

  —

  17.0

  —

  —

  —

  SEO

  2.0

  —

  2.0

  39.0

  —

  39.0

  2.0

  1.0

  3.0

  HEO

  11.0

  3.0

  14.0

  41.0

  1.0

  42.0

  5.0

  1.6

  6.6

  EO

  17.0

  15.1

  32.1

  41.0

  3.0

  44.0

  9.0

  10.6

  19.6

  AO

  32.0

  37.5

  69.5

  7.0

  3.0

  10.0

  30.0

  41.6

  71.6

  AA

  27.0

  21.0

  48.0

  3.3

  20.4

  23.7

  8.0

  13.5

  21.5

  Industrials

  —

  —

  —

  59.0

  —

  59.0

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  93.0

  76.6

  169.6

  212.3

  27.4

  239.7

  55.0

  68.3

  123.3

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  Historic Scotland

  Total (excluding SPS)

  Grade equivalent

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Senior CS

  1.0

  —

  1.0

  2.7

  —

  2.7

  5.7

  —

  5.7

  Grade 6

  2.0

  —

  2.0

  5.0

  —

  5.0

  12.0

  —

  12.0

  Grade 7

  10.0

  1.6

  11.6

  17.0

  5.4

  22.4

  47.0

  7.0

  54.0

  SEO

  7.0

  1.5

  8.5

  31.0

  11.0

  42.0

  81.0

  13.5

  94.5

  HEO

  17.0

  12.3

  29.3

  27.0

  6.0

  33.0

  101.0

  23.9

  124.9

  EO

  9.0

  12.3

  21.3

  46.6

  24.0

  70.6

  122.6

  65.0

  187.6

  AO

  5.0

  26.6

  31.6

  26.6

  37.6

  64.2

  100.6

  146.3

  246.9

  AA

  7.0

  8.0

  13.0

  51.9

  58.9

  110.8

  97.2

  119.8

  217.0

  Industrials

  15.0

  1.0

  16.0

  219.0

  2.0

  221.0

  293.0

  3.0

  296.0

  Total

  73.0

  61.3

  134.3

  426.8

  144.9

  571.7

  860.1

  378.5

  1,238.6

  Scottish Prison Service1

  Male: 3,838.8

  Female: 600.2

  Total: 4,439.0

  1 Due to a pay and grading review, Scottish Prison Service staff are no longer classified by the standard civil service grades and are now split into paybands. Consequently, no breakdown along the lines requested is possible for SPS.

  Health Service Estate (Revaluation)
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements are being made following the periodic revaluation of the NHS estate which was completed last year. [34099]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  One of the requirements of these valuations is to provide an independent estimate of the net current value of newly built property and for property that has become surplus to requirements since the last independent valuation exercise. This allows new property to be valued on a consistent basis with the existing NHS estate, preventing pricing distortions in the NHS internal market, and for the book value of surplus assets to be adjusted to a level that reflects likely net disposal proceeds. These adjustments require submission of trust debt to the consolidated fund and are technical in nature and involve no loss to the Exchequer. Her Majesty's Treasury has today presented a minute to the House giving particulars and the circumstances of the remission which it has approved in principle.
  592

  Local Authority Spending
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to cap Scottish local authorities in the current year. [34212]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of confirmed BSE cases in each of the last 36 months in Scotland. [33308]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 18 June 1996]: The information requested is in the table.

  Confirmed BSE cases

  1993

  June

  182

  July

  137

  August

  153

  September

  106

  October

  238

  November

  212

  December

  182

  1994

  January

  256

  February

  125

  March

  218

  April

  157

  May

  113

  June

  151

  July

  106

  August

  52

  September

  97

  October

  72

  November

  80

  December

  89

  593

  Confirmed BSE cases

  1995

  January

  100

  February

  94

  March

  75

  April

  80

  May

  63

  June

  34

  July

  60

  August

  66

  September

  52

  October

  39

  November

  67

  December

  36

  1996

  January

  34

  February

  68

  March

  53

  April

  5

  May

  48

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Expenditure
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of gross domestic product is currently represented by social security expenditure. [32486]

  Mr. Burt
  On the basis of the latest available estimates of total expenditure in 1995–96, approximately 13 per cent.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will give a breakdown of the percentage of total incoming telephone calls to the Child Support Agency client helpline which received(a) a personal answer and (b) a recorded answer for each month since September 1994; [31920]

  (2) what was the average (i) time to answer and (ii) call handling time on the Child Support Agency national client helpline in each month since September 1994; [31917]

  The total number of calls to the client helpline offered by BT analysed by the percentage of those personally answered, the percentage of calls which received a BT national screening centre message (NSC), the number and percentage of calls that were answered within 20 seconds and the average duration of the calls answered

  Date

  Total calls offered byBT

  Percentage of calls receiving personal answer'

  Percentage calls answered by NSC

  Calls receiving personal answer within 20 seconds

  Percentage of calls receiving personal answer within 20 seconds

  Average duration of calls answered (min/sec)

  September 1994

  432,203

  27.19

  65.35

  52,890

  45.00

  4.37

  October 1994

  397,372

  36.52

  64.34

  72,834

  50.19

  4.13

  November 1994

  479,023

  30.29

  68.21

  70,260

  48.42

  3.24

  December 1994

  327,678

  34.47

  67.53

  59,799

  52.94

  3.49

  January 1995

  438,484

  34.54

  50.15

  65,293

  43.11

  5.02

  February 1995

  339,999

  42.25

  25.22

  83,916

  58.41

  5.04

  March 1995

  354,955

  44.8

  2.12

  85,980

  54.07

  5.03

  594
  (3) how many call handling positions are (a) staffed and (b) available on the Child Support Agency national client helpline; [31919]

  (4) what percentage of calls were answered within the target time to answer on the Child Support Agency client helpline in each month since September 1994; and what was the target time to answer. [31918]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  [holding answer 12 June 1996]: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Steve Heminsley to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 19 June 1996:—
  In the absence of Miss Chant, the Chief Executive, I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency Client Help Line.
  Two of the questions refer to the "National Client Helpline". This section does not exist as such and appears to be a confusion of two titles: the Client Help Lines (CHL) which are based in the Child Support Agency Centres, and the National Enquiry Line (NEL). I have assumed that the intended reference is to the CHL.
  The information requested is shown on the attached table, apart from the average time to answer a call. This information is not available.
  When a client calls the CHL during opening hours they will receive a personal answer either immediately or after being held in a queue of calls. Like any other organisation where a great deal of contact with clients is by telephone, clients who do not receive an immediate answer may choose to hang up and ring at a later time, the later contact being successful.
  Where, therefore, the attached figures refer to calls offered by BT, this does not represent the total number of people trying to get through. Research has shown that at peak times as many as 90% of the calls being presented can be from clients who are calling again after not getting through earlier. It follows that the figure showing the percentage of calls receiving a personal answer does not equate to the number of people who receive a personal answer. It is not possible to identify the individual number of callers trying to get through.
  When the CHL is closed, clients will receive a recorded message provided by the BT National Screening Centre (NSC). Prior to February 1995 the BT NSC facility was used to provide a message for any calls that were unable to reach the CHL queue. This was withdrawn to avoid unnecessary charges incurred by the customer and the Agency. The percentage of calls shown to have received a recorded message since that date is as a consequence substantially lower.
  The CHL aims to answer 80% of calls within 20 seconds. The total staffing complement for the CHL is 288.5 posts. The current staff in post figure is 264.5; 15 of whom are still receiving training. Additional staff are being recruited to fill vacancies on the CHL. Not all the Helpline positions are manned at any one time due to flexible working arrangements and leave.
  595

  The total number of calls to the client helpline offered by BT analysed by the percentage of those personally answered, the percentage of calls which received a BT national screening centre message (NSC), the number and percentage of calls that were answered within 20 seconds and the average duration of the calls answered

  Date

  Total calls offered by BT

  Percentage of calls receiving personal answer1

  Percentage calls answered by NSC

  Calls receiving personal answer within 20 seconds

  Percentage of calls receiving personal answer within 20 seconds

  Average duration of calls answered (min/sec)

  April 1995

  924,117

  14.78

  1.48

  54,553

  39.93

  5.00

  May 1995

  359,153

  39.94

  1.65

  82,658

  57.63

  5.04

  June 1995

  257,961

  55.62

  2.37

  93,204

  64.96

  5.10

  July 1995

  260,179

  58.76

  3.37

  94,613

  61.89

  5.08

  August 1995

  348,954

  42.06

  2.26

  73,477

  50.06

  5.09

  September 1995

  558,743

  27.13

  1.84

  71,481

  47.16

  5.11

  October 1995

  374,765

  43.24

  3.03

  78,902

  48.70

  5.10

  November 1995

  612,847

  22.11

  2.72

  47,732

  35.22

  4.58

  December 1995

  487,236

  24.00

  3.00

  47,392

  40.54

  4.52

  January 1996

  776,796

  19.63

  1.84

  50,412

  33.06

  4.53

  February 1996

  518,573

  28.56

  3.40

  55,371

  37.38

  4.52

  March 1996

  423,383

  38.45

  3.46

  62,123

  38.16

  4.44

  April 1996

  701,051

  20.51

  2.68

  45,382

  31.57

  4.49

  1 The percentage of calls receiving a personal answer does not equate to the number of people who receive a personal answer.

  2 From February 1995 NSC answered out of hours calls only.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what consideration has been given to the replacement of the Child Support Agency computer system; [33346]

  (2) what meetings have taken place involving the chief executive of the Child Support Agency in the last three months where major changes to or replacement of the Child Support Agency computer system have been discussed. [33347]

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

  Letter from Steve Heminsley to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 19 June 1996:
  In the absence of Miss Chant, the Chief Executive, I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency Computer System (CSCS).
  The Agency has recently conducted an Information Systems Strategy review, which included an analysis of any new systems that may be required and examined the likely timetable for the routine replacement or enhancement of existing systems, including CSCS. The findings are still being assessed and refined and the Agency is not yet in a position to announce a decision.
  The Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency is involved in numerous meetings to discuss strategic issues for the Agency including CSCS.

  Caller Service Sites (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which caller service sites in the Yorkshire area are to be lost; what are the Benefit Agency's plans for these sites; and what expenditure has been undertaken on each of these sites over the last five financial years. [33025]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Jon Trickett, dated 19 June 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking which Caller Service sites in the Yorkshire area are to be lost; what are the Benefit Agency's plans for these sites; and what expenditure has been undertaken on each of these sites over the last five financial years.
  596
  Local managers have been reviewing the provision of caller outlets within the District network in the Yorkshire Area but no decisions have yet been made to close any individual site.
  Should there be any proposals to close a particular site there would be local consultation in the usual way with customers, their MPs and customer representative groups.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Benefits Agency (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what running costs savings will be required of the management team in the Yorkshire area by the charge programme in the next three years; and what will be the change in the budget for the Hemsworth area for each of the next three years; [33023]

  (2) what plans he has for staff reductions within the Benefits Agency in the Hemsworth area; and what estimate he has made of the numbers of staff who will be employed in the Wakefield district in each of the next three years. [33024]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Jon Trickett, dated 19 June 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking what running costs savings will be required of the management team in the Yorkshire area by the Change Programme in the next three years; what will be the change in the budget for the Hemsworth area for each of the next three years; what plans he has for staff reductions within the Benefits Agency (BA) in the Hemsworth area and what estimate he has made of the numbers of staff who will be employed at the Wakefield District in each of the next three years.
  The Agency will carry out a wide-ranging review of its activities as part of the Departmental Change Programme. Such a programme of change will cover fundamental areas of the organisation's business and we are committed to achieve a 25% improvement in our productivity by 1998/99. In the first year it has been necessary to identify efficiencies and economies in excess of £200 million nationally.
  The BA in the Yorkshire area is examining all aspects of BA processes and business services. Until that examination is complete the impact on running costs for the Yorkshire Area Management Team and Hemsworth cannot be assessed.

  597
  It is also too early to assess the precise impact this will have on staffing at a local level. However, there are at present no plans for any reductions of staff for the Wakefield District in this financial year.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what decisions were taken at the recent meeting of the Benefits Agency management team responsible for the Yorkshire area relating to the departmental change programme. [33022]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Jon Trickett, dated 19 June 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what decisions were taken at the recent meeting of the Benefits Agency (BA) management team responsible for the Yorkshire area relating to the departmental change programme.
  The BA management team responsible for the Yorkshire area meet regularly to discuss all aspects of performance and service delivery in the Area they serve.
  At one of their recent meetings the management team discussed the potential impact of the Departmental Change Programme and a range of other issues that could have an impact on the delivery of benefit services in Yorkshire. This is part of a normal planning process within the BA and is intended to assist managers in setting priorities and in planning the effective use of resources.
  No firm decisions were taken at the meeting mentioned in relation to the Departmental Change Programme. However District Managers were asked to review their customer service provision in the light of the 1996/97 budget allocation to ensure they provide a high quality service at the lowest possible cost.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [33512]

  Mr. Burt
  The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State of Social Security 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. [33515]

  Mr. Burt
  The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been(a) the number of child benefit recipients and (b) the expenditure on child benefit broken down into age bands and household income adjusted for family size for the latest year available. [33823]
  598
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is in the tables.

  Estimates of expenditure include one-parent benefit; it is not possible to separately identify child benefit expenditure alone from survey data.

  Number of child benefit recipients by household equivalised net income and age of eldest child in the United Kingdom (thousands), 1992–93

  Household equivalised net income (per week)

  Age of eldest child

  £0to £100

  £100.01 to £200

  £200.01 to £300

  £300.01 to £400

  £400.01 and above

  All

  Under 5

  140

  670

  500

  230

  190

  1,740

  5 to 10

  230

  910

  510

  200

  140

  1,990

  11 to 15

  270

  970

  630

  240

  170

  2,280

  16 or over

  90

  340

  260

  130

  110

  930

  All

  720

  2,880

  1,910

  810

  610

  6,940

  1. Results are based on the 1992 and 1993 family expenditure surveys.

  2. All prices are given at January 1993 levels.

  3. Estimates are derived from survey data and are subject to sampling error. Figures are shown to the nearest 10000 benefit units, and £5 million. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  4. Income is adjusted for family size (equivalised) using the McClements scale. For example, to have a similar standard of living as a couple without children with an income of £100, a single person would need an income of £61 and a couple with two children aged 5 to 7 years would need £141.

  Child benefit and one-parent benefit expenditure by household equivalised net income and age of eldest child in the United Kingdom, (£ million pa), 1992–93

  Household equivalised net income (per week)

  Age of eldest child

  £0to £100

  £100.01 to £200

  £200.01 to £300

  £300.01 to £400

  £400.01 and above

  All

  under 5

  100

  475

  325

  140

  115

  1,160

  5 to 10

  230

  905

  450

  180

  120

  1,880

  11 to 15

  295

  980

  540

  205

  140

  2,160

  16 or over

  105

  330

  205

  100

  80

  820

  All

  735

  2,685

  1,515

  625

  460

  6,020

  1. Results are based on the 1992 and 1993 family expenditure surveys.

  2. All prices are given at January 1993 levels.

  3. Estimates are derived from survey data and are subject to sampling error. Figures are shown to the nearest 10,000 benefit units, and £5 million. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  4. Income is adjusted for family size (equivalised) using the McClements scale. For example, to have a similar standard of living as a couple without children with an income of £100, a single person would need an income of £61 and a couple with two children aged 5 to 7 years would need £141.

  Benefit Deductions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households, from data taken for the annual statistical inquiry, in 1993, 1994 and 1995, are having weekly deductions made from their supplementary benefit or income support as appropriate, for(a) electricity and (b) gas (i) of under £2 per week and (ii) in each £1 band above £2 per week up to £50 per week. [33620]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.
  599
  Numbers have been given, as requested, in £1 bands for deductions in excess of £2 per week, but only to a deduction level of £23 for gas and £24 for electricity. All higher amounts are banded together as numbers are too small to break down accurately.

  Cases with gas deductions

  £

  May 1993

  May 1994

  May 1995

  All cases

  204,000

  231,000

  214,000

  Under 2.00

  1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  2.00–2.99

  2,000

  1,000

  1,000

  3.00–3.99

  4,000

  4,000

  3,000

  4.00–4.99

  7,000

  7,000

  6,000

  5.00–5.99

  12,000

  14,000

  10,000

  6.00–6.99

  19,000

  20,000

  16,000

  7.00–7.99

  24,000

  26,000

  21,000

  8.00–8.99

  25,000

  29,000

  25,000

  9.00–9.99

  26,000

  30,000

  25,000

  10.00–10.99

  26,000

  31,000

  31,000

  11.00–11.99

  18,000

  20,000

  20,000

  12.00–12.99

  13,000

  15,000

  17,000

  13.00–13.99

  8,000

  10,000

  12,000

  14.00–14.99

  6,000

  8,000

  8,000

  15.00–15.99

  4,000

  4,000

  6,000

  16.00–16.99

  3,000

  4,000

  4,000

  17.00–17.99

  2,000

  2,000

  3,000

  18.00–18.99

  1,000

  2,000

  2,000

  19.00–19.99

  1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  20.00–20.99

  —

  1,000

  1,000

  21.00–21.99

  —

  1,000

  1,000

  22.00–22.99

  —

  1,000

  1,000

  23.00–50.00

  —

  1,000

  1,000

  Notes:

  1. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest thousand. Due to rounding, the totals may not tally.

  2. Sample size: 1 in 20.

  3. "—" denotes nil or negligible.

  4. No annual inquiries have been produced since 1993. Data are therefore taken from quarterly inquiries for 1994 and 1995.

  5. There will be cases where deductions are made in respect of both gas and electricity. These cases will be counted in both the gas and electricity deduction tables.

  Sources:

  Income support annual inquiry 1993.

  Income support quarterly inquiries May 1994 and May 1995.

  Cases with electricity deductions

  £

  May 1993

  May 1994

  May 1995

  All cases

  76,000

  74,000

  71,000

  Under 2.00

  —

  —

  —

  2.00–2.99

  2,000

  1,000

  1,000

  3.00–3.99

  2,000

  2,000

  2,000

  4.00–4.99

  4,000

  3,000

  3,000

  5.00–5.99

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  6.00–6.99

  7,000

  7,000

  6,000

  7.00–7.99

  8,000

  8,000

  7,000

  8.00–8.99

  7,000

  8,000

  7,000

  9.00–9.99

  7,000

  6,000

  6,000

  10.00–10.99

  6,000

  7,000

  6,000

  11.00–11.99

  4,000

  5,000

  5,000

  12.00–12.99

  5,000

  4,000

  4,000

  13.00–13.99

  3,000

  3,000

  3,000

  14.00–14.99

  3,000

  3,000

  3,000

  15.00–15.99

  2,000

  2,000

  2,000

  16.00–16.99

  2,000

  2,000

  2,000

  17.00–17.99

  2,000

  2,000

  2,000

  18.00–18.99

  1,000

  2,000

  1,000

  19.00–19.99

  1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  20.00–20.99

  1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  21.00–21.99

  —

  1,000

  1,000

  22.00–22.99

  1,000

  1,000

  1,000

  600

  Cases with electricity deductions

  £

  May 1993

  May 1994

  May 1995

  23.00–23.99

  —

  1,000

  —

  24.00–50.00

  2,000

  2,000

  2,000

  Notes:

  1. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest thousand. Due to rounding, the totals may not tally.

  2. Sample size: 1 in 20.

  3. "—" denotes nil or negligible.

  4. No annual inquiries have been produced since 1993. Data are therefore taken from quarterly inquiries for 1994 and 1995.

  5. There will be cases where deductions are made in respect of both gas and electricity. These cases will be counted in both the gas and electricity deduction tables.

  Sources:

  Income support annual inquiry 1993.

  Appeals Tribunals (Bradford)
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what consultations have taken place on the operation of social security appeals tribunals in Bradford; [33723]

  (2) what proposals he has in respect of social security appeals tribunals in Bradford. [33724]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administrative arrangements for social security appeals tribunals is the responsibility of the independent tribunal service, which has been asked to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals have been heard at Bradford social security appeals tribunals for each of the last five years. [33725]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Social security appeal tribunal hearings in Bradford

  Year

  Actual number of appeals heard

  Approximate number of appeals heard1

  1991–92

  —

  900

  1992–93

  —

  900

  1993–94

  —

  750

  1994–95

  —

  750

  1995–96

  1,055

  —

  ' The independent tribunal service does not keep detailed records for periods before the previous financial year.

  Next Steps Agency
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of people employed by each of the next steps agencies under his Department's control; how many of those employees are women; and at what civil service or equivalent grades they are employed. [32739]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.
  601

  Benefits Agency

  Contributions Agency

  Child Support Agency

  Information Technology Services Agency

  War Pensions Agency

  Total

  Grade

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  1–4

  7

  3

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  8

  5

  5

  28

  5

  3

  0

  3

  0

  6

  0

  5

  0

  45

  5

  6

  222

  92

  11

  0

  6

  1

  16

  3

  23

  10

  278

  106

  7

  227

  62

  28

  5

  18

  9

  81

  10

  4

  1

  358

  87

  SEO

  484

  168

  111

  49

  46

  42

  199

  56

  10

  4

  850

  319

  HEO

  1,696

  1,436

  338

  251

  186

  200

  330

  188

  24

  33

  2,574

  2,108

  EO

  7,429

  12,865

  989

  1,406

  623

  1,414

  422

  249

  104

  245

  9,567

  16,179

  AO

  10,151

  30,311

  927

  2,473

  1,022

  2,716

  129

  165

  127

  359

  12,356

  36,024

  AA

  2,836

  5,974

  297

  1,026

  246

  535

  16

  21

  64

  152

  3,459

  770

  Spec/Pes

  0

  77

  0

  0

  0

  13

  0

  26

  0

  3

  0

  119

  Typist

  3

  683

  0

  1

  0

  13

  0

  4

  0

  70

  3

  771

  SM1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  SM2

  2

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  4

  6

  SM3

  1

  18

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  19

  SGB1

  163

  143

  16

  18

  4

  0

  7

  1

  0

  0

  190

  162

  SGB2

  814

  394

  0

  0

  22

  1

  17

  41

  0

  4

  853

  440

  PROF

  3

  129

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  129

  OTHERS

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  32

  6

  32

  IND

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  21

  7

  21

  Total

  24,067

  52,364

  2,721

  5,230

  2,176

  4,946

  1,226

  765

  374

  936

  30,564

  64,241

  76,431

  7,951

  7,122

  1,991

  1,310

  94,805

  1 Staff numbers quotes refer to staff in post figures based on a quarterly head count on 1 April 1996.

  2 The figures include temporarily promoted staff in the higher grade and fixed-term appointments.

  Severe Hardship Payments
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many young people aged 16 to 19 were receiving severe hardship payments for each year since 1992. [32586]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Year

  Number of directions made

  1992

  83,406

  1993

  118,528

  1994

  111,797

  1995

  111,523

  1. Severe hardship payments are made only to 16 and l7-year-olds who are registered for youth training and would otherwise suffer severe hardship. Access to benefit is via a direction made by the Secretary of State, normally for a period of eight weeks. If the 16 and 17-year-old is still at risk of severe hardship when the direction ends, he or she can apply for a further direction. Information is available only on the number of directions made, not the number of individuals.

  2. Since 1988, the Government have further encouraged unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds to take the more positive option of youth training in place of dependence on benefit. Young people over the age of 18 have access to unemployment benefits as adults.

  Departmental Efficiency Targets
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the feasibility of his plans to increase the efficiency of his Department; and if he will make a statement. [34098]

  Mr. Lilley
  I have received a number of representations about my programme to increase the efficiency of my Department by 25 per cent. A number of projects are already under way which will contribute to the achievement of this target including the redevelopment of 602
  the Department's Newcastle estate to provide significant savings in running costs while improving the working environment for staff through the involvement of the private sector.

  Following the submission of proposals from three shortlisted suppliers, I am pleased to announce that a consortium consisting of AMEC Developments Ltd. and Building Property and Facilities Management has been selected as the preferred supplier to develop the Newcastle estate. Detailed negotiations will commence immediately and I expect a major contract under the private finance initiative to be signed later this year.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Elections (Postal and Proxy Votes)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will state, by constituency, the number of absent postal and proxy votes allowed in the 30 May elections and the equivalents figures in the 1992 general election. [32077]

  Mr. Ancram
  The figures are in the table.

  Number of postal papers allowed and issued

  Number of proxy votes allowed and issued

  Constituency

  1992

  1996

  1992

  1996

  Belfast, East

  486

  634

  195

  178

  Belfast, North

  374

  566

  241

  180

  Belfast, South

  675

  621

  181

  149

  Belfast, West

  443

  458

  271

  235

  North Antrim

  831

  1,105

  201

  163

  South Antrim

  676

  698

  286

  241

  East Antrim

  706

  575

  296

  228

  603

  Number of postal papers allowed and issued

  Number of proxy votes allowed and issued

  Constituency

  1992

  1996

  1992

  1996

  North Down

  755

  713

  293

  190

  South Down

  4,166

  2,115

  1,192

  555

  East Londonderry

  2,010

  1,517

  399

  275

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  5,417

  4,336

  430

  638

  Foyle

  1,285

  1,081

  246

  200

  Lagan Valley

  844

  1,065

  260

  195

  Mid-Ulster

  3,245

  2,676

  393

  443

  Newry and Armagh

  3,384

  2,174

  195

  349

  Strangford

  698

  872

  240

  180

  Upper Bann

  1,587

  1,546

  266

  178

  West Tyrone

  n/a

  1,913

  n/a

  410

  Totals

  27,582

  24,665

  5,585

  4,987

  Motorway Lighting
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the location of the sections of motorway in Northern Ireland that have overhead lighting by parliamentary constituency; and if he will plot this information on a map and place a copy in the Library. [33038]

  Name of body

  Number of appointments

  Administered by

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Drainage Council for Northern Ireland

  18

  —

  —

  Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland

  Agricultural Wages Board

  15

  —

  15

  "

  Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority

  5

  2

  1

  "

  Pig Production Development Committee

  4

  3

  2

  "

  Livestock and Meat Commission

  3

  1

  3

  "

  Fisheries Conservancy Board

  2

  2

  2

  "

  Foyle Fisheries Commission

  —

  —

  2

  "

  Construction Industry Training Board

  —

  —

  —

  Department of Economic Development for Northern Ireland

  Enterprise Ulster

  —

  8

  7

  "

  Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland

  3

  2

  4

  "

  Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland

  2

  4

  3

  "

  General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland

  8

  —

  4

  "

  Labour Relations Agency

  1

  6

  2

  "

  Local Enterprise Development Unit

  4

  4

  2

  "

  Northern Ireland Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members

  —

  —

  1

  "

  Northern Ireland Commissioner for the Protection Against

  —

  —

  1

  "

  Unlawful Industrial Action

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board

  2

  5

  1

  "

  Ulster Sheltered Employment Ltd.

  2

  4

  —

  "

  Committees for the Employment of Disabled People

  1

  4

  —

  "

  Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland

  10

  —

  —

  "

  Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland

  1

  5

  6

  "

  Industrial Research and Technology Board

  1

  1

  12

  "

  Statistics Advisory Committee

  —

  —

  10

  "

  Training and Employment Agency (Advisory Board)

  11

  1

  1

  "

  Fair Employment Tribunal

  5

  1

  54

  "

  Northern Ireland Industrial Court

  9

  1

  0

  "

  Northern Ireland Industrial Tribunals

  12

  10

  166

  "

  Scheme of Compensation for Loss of Employment through Civil Unrest

  2

  0

  1

  "

  Law Reform Advisory Committee

  5

  —

  1

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  Citizen's Charter Advisory Panel

  —

  —

  7

  "

  Northern Ireland Economic Council

  5

  1

  4

  "

  Statute Law Council

  6

  1

  1

  "

  Historic Buildings Council

  —

  14

  —

  Department of Environment for Northern Ireland

  Historic Monuments Council

  —

  —

  14

  "

  Nature Conservation and the Countryside

  —

  —

  16

  "

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  5

  6

  9

  "

  Housing Benefit Review Board Panels

  —

  —

  54

  "

  604
  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Roads Service under its chief executive, Mr. W. McCoubrey. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Civil Servants (Duties Abroad)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [32421]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments' expenditure on sending civil servants accompanying Ministers is as follows:

  1994–95: £47,825

  1995–96: £86,659

  Public Appointments
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many appointments are made to non-departmental and other public bodies in Northern Ireland annually; by which Departments these public bodies are administered; and how many of these appointments are annual. [32918]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is as follows:
  605

  Name of body

  Number of appointments

  Administered by

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Rent Assessment Panel

  33

  —

  —

  "

  NITHC/Belfast Harbour Commissioners/Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners

  3

  20

  11

  "

  Planning Appeals Commission

  5

  —

  3

  "

  Fire Authority for Northern Ireland

  16

  1

  1

  "

  Northern Ireland Operator and Vehicle Licensing Review Body

  5

  1

  —

  "

  Northern Ireland Water Council

  15

  —

  —

  "

  Northern Ireland Local Government Officer's Superannuation Committee

  —

  —

  17

  "

  Local Government Staff Commission

  15

  1

  —

  "

  The Laganside Corporation

  —

  1

  10

  "

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland

  15

  —

  15

  Department of Education (Northern Ireland)

  Council for Catholic Maintained Schools

  4

  1

  3

  "

  Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment

  18

  —

  —

  "

  Northern Ireland Higher Education Council

  12

  3

  —

  "

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  16

  —

  —

  "

  Ulster Folk and Transport Museum

  4

  1

  2

  "

  Ulster Museum

  3

  3

  1

  "

  Youth Council for Northern Ireland

  6

  —

  14

  "

  Northern Ireland Museum Council

  3

  —

  —

  "

  Staff Commission for the Education and Library Boards

  13

  —

  —

  "

  Belfast Education and Library Board

  37

  2

  1

  "

  North Eastern Education and Library Board

  35

  1

  2

  "

  South Eastern Education and Library Board

  36

  3

  5

  "

  Southern Education and Library Board

  36

  2

  2

  "

  Western Education and Library Board

  33

  2

  —

  "

  Mental Heath Commission for Northern Ireland

  2

  9

  —

  Department of Health and Social Services

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Northern Ireland

  10

  —

  4

  "

  Northern Ireland Council for Post Graduate Medical and Dental Education

  7

  —

  17

  "

  Advisory Committee of the Therapeutic Professions Allied to Medicine

  —

  4

  —

  "

  Central Dental Advisory Committee

  —

  7

  1

  "

  Central Medical Advisory Committee

  3

  3

  8

  "

  Central Nursing Advisory Committee

  11

  —

  6

  "

  Central Personal Social Services Advisory Committee

  —

  6

  —

  "

  Charities Advisory Committee

  1

  2

  2

  "

  Clinical Engineering and Medical Physics Services Advisory Committee

  —

  7

  —

  "

  Clinical Imaging Services Advisory Committee

  3

  3

  4

  "

  Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board for Northern Ireland

  —

  —

  16

  "

  Distinction and Meritorious Services Awards Committee

  1

  6

  3

  "

  Laboratory Services Advisory Committee

  6

  1

  6

  "

  Poisons Board

  —

  —

  10

  "

  Child Support Appeal Tribunals (CSATs)

  280

  280

  130

  "

  Disability Appeal Tribunals (DATs)

  149

  15

  29

  "

  Medical Appeal Tribunals (MATs)

  85

  26

  —

  "

  Mental Health Review Tribunal for Northern Ireland

  1

  —

  20

  "

  Registered Homes Tribunal

  31

  —

  —

  "

  Social Security Appeal Tribunals

  9

  402

  105

  "

  Tribunal Under Schedule 11 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972

  10

  —

  —

  "

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board

  2

  2

  5

  "

  Northern Health and Social Services Board

  3

  —

  3

  "

  Southern Health and Social Services Board

  3

  1

  6

  "

  Western Health and Social Services Board

  3

  —

  4

  "

  Eastern Health and Social Services Council

  20

  3

  10

  "

  Northern Health and Social Services Council

  17

  2

  8

  "

  Southern Health and Social Services Council

  17

  —

  9

  "

  Western Health and Social Services Council

  16

  —

  11

  "

  Health and Social Services Trusts

  31

  12

  17

  "

  Northern Ireland Blood Transfusion Services Agency

  —

  —

  3

  "

  Northern Ireland Central Services Agency

  1

  —

  7

  "

  Northern Ireland Health Promotion Agency

  2

  7

  13

  "

  Northern Ireland Regional Medical Physics Agency

  —

  2

  —

  "

  Central Services Agency (CSA)

  —

  —

  5

  "

  Probation Board for Northern Ireland

  —

  13

  —

  Northern Ireland Office

  Rathgael and Whiteabbey Training Schools Management Board

  —

  —

  12

  606 607
  The number of appointments for a term of one year is as follows:
  Historic Monuments Council—the appointment of 14 members in 1995–96 was for one year as a transitional arrangement. Appointments are usually for a three-year term.
  Nature Conservation and the Countryside—the appointment of 16 members in 1995–96 was for one year only as a transitional arrangement. Appointments are usually for a three-year term.
  Northern Ireland Housing Executive—Three appointments are on an annual basis.

  Child Support Appeal Tribunals (CSARs)

  Disability Appeal Tribunals (DATs)

  Medical Appeal Tribunals (MATs)

  Social Security Appeal Tribunals (SSATs)

  Appointments to the above tribunals are initially for one year, and thereafter renewable at three-yearly intervals, provided service is satisfactory. In 1995, 82 medical assessors were appointed for one year for SSATs. They are not members, but provide advice on medical interpretation as required by the tribunals.
  Central Medical Advisory Committee—a representative from the Northern Ireland Junior Doctor's Committee of the British Medical Association is appointed annually.

  Statistics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which statistics his Department has discontinued(a) the collection and (b) the publication of since 1989. [32862]

  Sir John Wheeler
  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. Other changes reflect changes in administrative systems on which some series are based, the development of new statistical techniques are technological developments affecting the compilation and dissemination of statistical data.

  When such changes are made, they are normally documented in the relevant statistical publications.

  Public Appointments (Salaries)
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the salaries of those members of non-departmental or other public bodies in Northern Ireland who occupy salaried positions. [32916]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is as follows:

  £

  Body

  Chairman

  Vice

  Members

  Law Reform Advisory Committee

  —

  —

  2,360

  Citizens' Charter Advisory Panel Northern Ireland Economic Council

  7,500

  —

  5,000

  Northern Ireland Economic Council

  17,670

  —

  3,550

  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights

  8,550

  —

  —

  Livestock and Meat Commission

  12,884

  —

  4,818

  Fisheries Conservancy Board

  3,510

  2,715

  —

  Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority

  4,675

  —

  2,820

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland (Honoraria)

  12,093

  4,031

  —

  Council for Catholic Maintained Schools

  4,200

  —

  —

  Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (Honorarium)

  8,790

  —

  —

  608

  £

  Body

  Chairman

  Vice

  Members

  Northern Ireland Education Council (Honorarium)

  8,726

  —

  —

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland (Honoraria)

  10,146

  3,382

  —

  Youth Council for Northern Ireland (Honoraria)

  4,555

  3,430

  —

  Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards

  5,075

  —

  —

  Belfast Education and Library Board

  4,675

  —

  —

  Northern Eastern Education and Library Board

  4,675

  —

  —

  South Eastern Education and Library Board

  4,675

  —

  —

  Southern Eduation and Library Board

  4,675

  —

  —

  Western Education and Library Board

  4,675

  —

  —

  Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside

  7,010

  4,690

  —

  Northern Ireland Transport Holding Co. (NITHC)

  23,170

  —

  7,740

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  29,255

  11,710

  4,840

  Langanside Corporation

  22,760

  11,380

  7,585

  Local Government Staff Commission

  7,518

  —

  —

  Planning Appeals Commission

  50,814

  49,681

  37,107–38,721

  Fire Authority for Northern Ireland

  15,560

  7,780

  —

  Royal Group of Hospitals and Dental Hospital HSS Trust

  19,285

  —

  —

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  19,285

  —

  —

  Down Lisburn HSS Trust

  19,285

  —

  —

  South and East Belfast HSS Trust

  19,285

  —

  —

  Craigavon Area Hospital Group HSS Trust

  17,145

  —

  —

  Green Park HSS Trust

  17,145

  —

  —

  Ulster, North Down and Ards Hospitals HSS Trust

  17,145

  —

  —

  North and West Belfast HSS Trust

  17,145

  —

  —

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community HSS Trust

  17,145

  —

  —

  Newry and Mourne HSS Trust

  17,145

  —

  —

  Eastern Ambulance Service HSS Trust

  15,125

  —

  —

  North Down and Ards Community HSS Trust

  15,125

  —

  —

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital HSS Trust

  15,125

  —

  —

  Northern Ireland Ambulance Service HSS Trust

  15,125

  —

  —

  Mental Health Commission for Northern Ireland

  10,125

  —

  —

  National Board for Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors for Northern Ireland

  21,100

  —

  —

  Child Support Appeal Tribunals (CSATs)

  159,800

  172,519

  —

  Disability Appeal Tribunals (DATs)

  159,800

  172,519

  —

  Medical Appeal Tribunals (MATs) Social Security Appeal Tribunals (SSATs)

  159,800

  172,519

  —

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board

  22,600

  —

  5,000

  Northern Health and Social Services Board

  14,835

  —

  5,000

  Southern Health and Social Services Board

  14,835

  —

  5,000

  Western Health and Social Services Board

  14,835

  —

  5,000

  Northern Ireland Blood Transfusion Service Agency

  6,000

  —

  1,500

  Northern Ireland Health Promotion Agency

  7,200

  —

  —

  Northern Ireland Regional Medical Physics Agency

  6,000

  —

  1,500

  Construction Industry Training Board

  6,000

  —

  —

  Enterprise Ulster

  14,975

  —

  —

  Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland

  43,000

  4,610

  3,640

  Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland

  52,550

  —

  4,620

  609

  £

  Body

  Chairman

  Vice

  Members

  General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland

  18,825

  —

  6,085

  Labour Relations Agency

  17,500

  —

  3,640

  Local Enterprise Development Unit

  18,125

  —

  6,085

  Northern Ireland Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members

  6,625

  —

  —

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board

  26,470

  —

  5,095

  Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland

  11,074

  —

  —

  Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland

  33,130

  —

  5,980

  Industrial Research and Technology Board

  7,976

  —

  3,513

  Training and Employment Agency (Advisory Board)

  22,365

  —

  4,065

  Northern Ireland Industrial Tribunals

  62,018 (President 88,266)

  75,978 Vice-President

  1 Joint appointments.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people of the Northern Ireland Office central list in the public appointments unit(a) currently serve on more than one non-departmental or other public body, (b) have never served on a non-departmental or other public body and currently do not and (c) have previously served on a non-departmental or other public body and no longer do so. [32917]

  Sir John Wheeler
  In respect of those currently appointed to public bodies, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor),Official Report, column 740. No changes have occurred since that date. The other information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  RUC Chief Constable
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the service criteria and qualifications which he and the Police Authority will be applying in selecting the next Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. [32521]

  Sir John Wheeler
  In accordance with the provisions of section 7 of the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970, the appointment of the Chief Constable of the RUC is a matter for the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.

  I understand that, in relation to the appointment of the next Chief Constable of the RUC, the service criteria and qualifications decided upon by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland are set out in the public advertisement. They include:

  (a) to have served in the chief officer grades for at least three years;

  (b) to be suitable on medical grounds for the post;

  (c) to have served at chief officer level in a constabulary with a substantial complement of officers;

  (d) to have successfully completed the senior command course or the strategic leadership development programme or the chief police officers' course; and

  (e) to have relevant experience of operational policing, policy, planning and resource management at chief officer level and have displayed the capacity for leadership and vision essential to the demands of the post.

  610
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what different criteria apply to the appointment of the Chief Constable of the RUC from the appointment of chief constables elsewhere in the United Kingdom. [32522]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The criteria used for the appointment of chief constables in other parts of the United Kingdom are a matter for each individual police authority at the time of appointment. There is therefore no single comparator which could be used to identify differences in the criteria applied to the appointment of the Chief Constable of the RUC.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes in the service criteria and service qualifications in the appointment of the Chief Constable of the RUC have been made since(a) 1969 and (b) 1989. [32523]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information relating to appointments in 1969 is not available as records relating to that period cannot be traced.

  In 1989, candidates for appointment to the post of Chief Constable of the RUC were required to:

  (a) have achieved a high level of all-round professional competence;

  (b) have held a post at chief officer level in a force with a minimum of 1,000 officers;

  (c) (i) have experience of a wide range of police post at command level which should desirably include operations, administration, personnel and financial management; and

  (ii) policing communities with complex social problems;

  (d) have proven ability to manage resources both financial and personnel;

  (e) have demonstrated the ability to be a team builder and have an understanding of the type of problems experienced in Northern Ireland.

  Comparison of these with the service criteria and service qualifications required today indicates no substantive changes.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what factors underlay the delay in publishing the criteria for the appointment of the Chief Constable of the RUC. [32524]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I an not aware of any delay in the Police Authority for Northern Ireland's publication of the criteria for the appointment of the Chief Constable of the RUC.

  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he plans to lay before the House the annual report for 1995 of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. [34077]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Copies of the Chief Constable's annual report 1995 have today been placed in the Library. It is a general report on the carrying out by the RUC of its functions during 1995, which is submitted to the Police Authority for Northern Ireland and transmitted to me for laying before Parliament in accordance with section 15 of the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total number of people
  611
  employed by each of the next steps agencies under his Department's control; how many of those employees are women; and at what civil service or equivalent grades they are employed. [32737]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested for the agencies under the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments is listed:

  Agency

  Total staff

  Female staff

  Grades of female staff (all grades include analogous ranks)

  Valuation and Lands Agency

  311

  108

  17 Staff Officer (SO)

  3 Executive Officer (EOI)

  9 Executive Officer II

  (EOII)

  48 Administrative Officer (AO)

  31 Administrative Assistant (AA)

  Government Purchasing Agency

  58

  26

  1 Deputy Principal (DP)

  5 SO

  1 EOI

  7 EOII

  12 AO

  Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency

  122

  69

  1 Grade 7

  9 DP

  8 SO

  3 EOI

  6 EOII

  29 AO

  13 AA

  Forensic Science Agency of Northern Ireland

  123

  48

  11 DP

  3.5 SO

  8.5 EO

  17 AO

  1 Support Grade Band 1 (SGB1)

  7 Support Grade Band 2 (SGB2)

  Training and Employment Agency

  1,377

  674

  2 Grade 7

  18 DP

  24 SO

  171 EOI

  111 EOII

  255 AO

  1 SGB1

  5SGB2

  86 AA

  1 Industrial

  Industrial Research and Technology Unit

  158

  55

  1 Grade 7 2 DP

  5 SO

  2 EOI

  15 EOII

  24 AO

  2SGB2

  4 AA

  Northern Ireland Prison Service

  3,676

  530

  3 Grade 6

  6 Grade 7

  6 DP

  16 SO

  27 EOI

  25 EOII

  78 AO

  47 AA

  2SG2

  612

  Agency

  Total staff

  Female staff

  Grades of female staff (all grades include analogous ranks)

  1 Governor 4

  2 Governor 5

  4 Principal Prison Officer

  12 Senior Prison Officer

  174 Basic Grade Prison Officer

  5 Organist

  17 Auxiliary Officer

  15 Searchers

  1 Night Patrol Officer

  23 Cleaner

  Compensation Agency

  124

  79.5

  2.5 Grade 6

  3.5 Grade 7

  1 SO

  4 EOI

  18 EOII

  22.5 AO

  27 AA

  1 Other

  Child Support Agency

  1,097

  671

  2 Grade 7

  3 DP

  12 SO

  15 EOI

  109 EOII

  401 AO

  129 AA

  Social Security Agency

  5,826

  3,817

  3 Grade 7

  14 DP

  58 SO

  211 EOI

  785 EOII

  1,751 AO

  995 AA

  Health Estates Agency

  126

  30

  1 Grade 7

  1 DP

  1 SO

  3 EOI

  4 EOII

  10 AO

  10 AA

  Construction Service

  720

  143

  1 Grade 7

  6 DP

  4 SO

  10 EOI

  16 EOII

  64 AO

  7 SGB2

  35 AA

  Planning Service

  417

  182

  3 Grade 7

  7 DP

  20 SO

  23 EOI

  16 EOII

  65 AO

  10 SGB2

  38 AA

  Roads Service

  2,354

  412

  1 Grade 7

  3 DP

  18 SO

  33 EOI

  59 EOII

  179 AO

  14 SGB2

  100 AA

  5 Industrial Staff

  613

  Agency

  Total staff

  Female staff

  Grades of female staff (all grades include analogous ranks)

  Water Service

  2,398

  358

  1 Grade 7

  5 DP

  15 SO

  21 EOI

  59 EOII

  4 ASO

  185 AO

  185 AO

  8 SGB2

  58 AA

  2 Industrial Staff

  Environment and Heritage Service

  380

  131

  1 Grade 6

  1 Grade 7

  14 DP

  15 SO

  8 EOI

  20 EOII

  31 AO

  3 SGB2

  25 AA

  13 Industrial Staff

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  321

  95

  1 DP

  1 SO

  3 EOI

  4 EOII

  51 AO

  35 AA

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland

  256

  194

  4 SO

  6 EOI

  15 EOII

  111 AO

  58 AA

  Land Registers Northern Ireland

  224

  149

  1 Grade 6

  4 DP

  10 SO

  4 EOI

  25 EOII

  82 AO

  8 SGB2

  15 AA

  Public Records Office Northern Ireland

  81

  31

  2 Grade 7

  1 DP

  2 SO

  4 EOI

  1 EOII

  14 AO

  2 SGB 2

  5 AA

  Rate Collection Agency

  261

  163

  1 DP

  6 SO

  6 EOI

  19 EOII

  121 AO

  4SGB2

  6 AA

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland

  192

  22

  1 SO

  11 EOI

  2 EOII

  6 AO

  2 AA

  Non-general service grades have been included with the figures for the equivalent general service grade.
  614

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of confirmed BSE cases Water Service Grade 7 in each of the last 36 months. [33307]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 18 June 1996]: The numbers of cases in the last 36 months are as follows:

  1993

  29

  32

  46

  28

  38

  45

  69

  1994

  52

  43

  49

  30

  11

  29

  21

  27

  28

  25

  29

  19

  1995

  21

  20

  16

  12

  12

  12

  13

  7

  14

  9

  21

  13

  1996

  13

  11

  14

  10

  4

  Copyright
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when his Department will enter discussions with the Copyright Licensing Agency with a view to ensuring compliance with copyright law. [33761]

  Sir John Wheeler
  No negotiations have yet taken place between the Northern Ireland civil service and the Copyright Licensing Agency.
  615

  Public Appointments
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are currently on the central list of the Northern Ireland Office public appointments unit for appointment to non-departmental and other public bodies. [32922]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 18 June 1996]: The current number is 4,538.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Forest Enterprise (Disabled People)
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with Forest Enterprise regarding the continuing employment opportunities for people with disabilities in English woodlands previously owned by the Forestry Commission. [32370]

  Mr. Boswell
  While Forest Enterprise has no such responsibility for woodlands which it has sold, the new owners must comply with the statutory requirements for employing people with disabilities.

  Food Agency
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to set up an agency for food. [32371]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. Issues of food safety are best dealt with by the Government Department with responsibility for the whole food chain.

  Farming (Environmental Management)
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what programmes the Government have introduced to promote good environmental management by farmers; and what similar programmes were in existence in 1979. [32372]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government's agri-environment programme provides a wide range of voluntary incentive schemes to encourage environmentally beneficial farming practices. There was no such programme in 1979.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to pay an official visit to Harborough to meet farming representatives to discuss BSE. [32374]

  Mrs. Browning
  I have no immediate plans to visit Harborough, but my colleague the Minister for Rural Affairs regularly meets the National Farmers Union county branch.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the costs of BSE measures. [32375]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
  616
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement about the action he is taking on BSE. [32382]

  Mrs. Browning
  The UK Government have prepared a report setting out the detailed programme on which we are embarked to eradicate BSE in the United Kingdom. This report has been widely circulated at home and abroad and copies have been sent to all hon. Members.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met consumer representatives to discuss measures to ensure the safety of food in the UK. [32376]

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met consumer representatives to discuss measures to ensure the safety of food in the United Kingdom. [32389]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Minister held one of his regular meetings with the chairmen of consumer organisations on Wednesday 8 May. He also met the Consumers Association to discuss bovine spongiform encephalopathy on the same day.

  I met consumer organisations on 3 April and with the consumer panel on 25 April.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will report progress on reforming the community agricultural policy; and what further initiatives he intends to take. [32377]

  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what mechanisms are in place for taking forward proposals for fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy; when he expects there to be substantial negotiations about reform; and what is his target date for achieving such reforms. [33247]

  Mr. Baldry
  This Government very much welcome the Commission's acknowledgement that the CAP cannot remain as it is. At the Prime Minister's insistence, the Madrid European Council requested the Commission to come forward with more detailed ideas for reform and I expect to see these during the course of the year. Meanwhile, the Agriculture Council next week will address reform of the fruit and vegetables regimes.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to expand the countryside stewardship scheme. [32378]

  Mr. Boswell
  We are expanding the countryside stewardship scheme with £5 million additional funds for new agreements both this year and next year. A number of additional items will also be eligible for payment.

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is being taken to address the problem of discrimination against disabled
  617
  people in agriculture where the employer is not covered by the provisions of the Disability Discrimination act 1995. [32379]

  Mr. Boswell
  Employers not covered by the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will be encouraged to follow the guidance in the employment code of practice.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is being taken in respect of discrimination against disabled people in agriculture where the employer is not covered by the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [32387]

  Mr. Boswell
  Employers, including agricultural employers, who employ fewer than 20 employees are not covered by the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Such employers will be encouraged to follow the guidance in the employment code of practice. My noble Friend the Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment will be deciding when and how to promote this in due course.

  Cattle Cull Scheme
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in the implementation of the 30-month cow cull scheme. [32380]

  Mr. Baldry
  The scheme is now running at maximum throughput of 27,000 animals a week, taking into account the restrictions on rendering and incineration capacity.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to review the working of the over-30 month slaughter scheme. [32384]

  Mr. Baldry
  The scheme is under continuous review.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new plans he has to safeguard the welfare of live animals exported from the United Kingdom. [32383]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) on 22 May 1996,Official Report, column 211.

  Fishing Policy
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to discuss fishing matters with EC Commissioner Bonino. [32385]

  Mr. Baldry
  I most recently discussed fishing matters with Mrs. Bonino at the Fisheries Council on 10 June. No date has yet been fixed for our next discussion.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies(a) he and (b) the Council of Agricultural and Fisheries Ministers of the European Community have commissioned in respect of the propagation and conservation policies adopted by Norway within their national territorial waters, and their possible adaptation for use by the European Community. [32388]
  618
  Mr. Baldry
  UK and other EU fisheries experts maintain close contact with their Norwegian counterparts and the measures applied by Norway: discussions take place on both a formal and an informal basis in various forums. No studies have been commissioned by the UK; nor, so far as we are aware, by the EU. However, Norway and the EU share concerns on the state of North sea stocks. Joint working groups are studying the issues with a view to improving management arrangements for jointly managed stocks. Equally, there are common interests in the production of salmon on which there are continuing contacts.

  Beef Ban
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his proposed timetable and procedure for the removal of the EU beef ban. [32386]

  Mrs. Browning
  We have already succeeded in removing any restrictions on the export of semen and on agreeing conditions for the export of gelatin and tallow. This is an important first step.

  Our policy on the next steps is to agree a framework which sets out clear and agreed conditions which have to be met to lift elements of the export ban and indicates the dates by which we expect to meet these criteria. Negotiations with our Community partners on this are proceeding and I will keep the House informed of progress.

  Fishing Fleet
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current tonnage of the United Kingdom fishing fleet; how far this is from its targets under the multi-annual guidance programme; and if he will make a statement. [34076]

  Mr. Baldry
  Latest available figures from the UK register show the current nominal tonnage of the UK fishing fleet as 207,000 tonnes. This figures, which represents some vessels measured in gross registered tonnes and others measured in gross tonnes, compares with an overall target for the end of 1996 in our existing multi-annual guidance programme of 176,981 GRT. Figures published recently by the European Commission, ostensibly using GT units, show us at 247,198 tonnes as against a target of 209,370 tonnes.

  For a number of reasons, none of these figures give a correct picture of the actual position.

  The first reservation relates to the end 1996 target itself. This was set using provisional data for the size of the UK fleet as at the end of 1991. We now know that this failed to include a significant number of vessels, the effect of which is to overstate the degree of reduction which we need to achieve.

  The second reservation relates to the units of measurement used. Vessel tonnage is a volumetric measure which depends critically on the exact methodology. A valid comparison of fleet tonnage requires a consistent standard for the period in question. Consistency is, however, not readily achievable because the European Community is progressively altering the methodology used for the fishing fleet from the various

  619
  national and international standards, previously collectively called GRT, to a common standard based on the international tonnage convention 1969 and known as GT. A phased programme of conversion was introduced by Council regulation (EEC) 2930/86, amended in particular by Council regulation (EEC) 3259/94, using technical provisions laid down in Commission decision 95/84/EC. Copies of these instruments are available in the House library. This process is not due to be completed until 2003.

  There is no simple mathematical relationship between GRT and GT for any given vessel establishment of a GT figure can be done only by physical measurement or, in the case of smaller vessels, by the application of formulae designed to give an approximation. Moreover, although GT figures are often higher than GRT figures for the same vessel, the range of outcomes can be as low as 50 per cent. or as high as 300 per cent. of the original tonnage according to the individual vessel characteristics. It is therefore impossible to use general assumptions to convert either the end 1996 target, or the current nominal tonnage of our fleet, to a GT basis, since the true result will depend on the actual relationship between GRT and GT for each of the particular vessels included on each occasion. Thus conversion requires consideration of each individual vessel.

  The Commission's attempted conversion in their recent published figures noted above, does not allow for this and does not use procedures agreed by member states or laid down in EU law. Their figures cannot therefore be properly described as GT, nor can the relationship between them be assumed to be proportional to actual progress in reducing our fleet.
  620
  Detailed work is being carried out to arrive at an accurate assessment of the UK position—similar uncertainties arise in relation to the figures for other member states. But, because records relating to vessels already removed from the fleet are not always sufficient to enable GT equivalents to be determined, there will necessarily be a degree of imprecision. Similarly, some newer vessels will be measured only in GT and would need to be remeasured to arrive at a GRT figure. As things stand, it is not therefore possible to give a valid comparison of performance against target on either basis.

  These and other technical issues such as discrepancies between UK and Commission records of the number of vessels in our fleet, are being discussed bilaterally with the Commission. We are also passing full details of our calculations to it so that agreement can be reached on appropriate adjustments. The total impact of this technical review is quite substantial. Once completed and agreed, I anticipate we shall be within a handful of percentage points of our tonnage target.

  Dietary Supplements
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at which Council of the European Union he expects the forthcoming draft directive on dietary supplements to be considered; and who will represent the United Kingdom at that Council. [33178]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer on 17 June 1996]: If the EU Commission tables a draft directive on dietary supplements, we would expect it to be considered at the Internal Market Council. The UK is normally represented at such meetings by the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, but other Ministers may attend if necessary.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Zaire: Home Office Country Assessment
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the Home Office country assessment for Zaire.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, each asylum application is considered on its merits and in the light of its particular circumstances. We have no current plans to publish a country brief on Zaire: the Asylum Directorate takes account of all available relevant information from whatever source.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that her reply may cause some surprise in this House? Is she further aware that Home Office refusal letters for applicants from Zaire frequently say, for example, that the Secretary of State does not accept that membership of the Opposition UDPS would be likely to result in arrest or harassment? If that opinion is not the result of a country assessment, is it the private opinion of the official concerned?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no, it is not a private opinion. It is an opinion based on taking advice and information from a wide range of sources. It includes the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and, in the case of Zaire, Zairian human rights organisations. A great deal of information is gathered and used as background for those applications, short of having a formal assessment that is in the public domain.
Many Zairians seek asylum primarily for economic reasons and although political opponents of Mobutu, human rights activists and Opposition journalists may be harassed, there is no systematic persecution of Opposition parties and their members. Almost all of the Zairian applicants are without documents and the accounts that they give lack credibility.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, of course in many cases it is difficult to make an assessment. However, will my noble friend the Minister confirm that as at present advised, on all the evidence available, it really would not be right to say that there is systematic persecution of the Opposition, or any members of the Opposition?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, every case is considered on its merits, as indeed it should be. The Asylum Directorate takes account of all available information.
448
I have already given some sources. Not only is the evidence considered substantively; there is an appeal system and, currently, even appeal to tribunal before cases are finally determined. I believe that everything that can be is taken into account in these cases.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, the noble Baroness's original reply implied clearly twice that there was a country assessment but not in the public domain. I believe that a list of six countries is published by the Home Office. In order to allow us to appraise this matter objectively, can the Minister tell us why she is not allowed to put this country assessment in the public domain? The original Answer makes clear that such an assessment exists.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no. I made clear that it does not exist in quite the form the noble Lord suggests. I said that in the course of determining applications, information is gathered in from many sources. It has not been put together in the form of a formal assessment, but would act as information relevant to a particular application.
Formal assessments are prepared. Indeed, we have already given notice that assessments for Cyprus, Bulgaria, India, Pakistan, Ghana, Romania and Poland will be assessed. They will be formal and will be placed in the Library of both Houses, as indeed are two assessments already.
I cannot rule out for all time that there will not be a formal assessment placed in the Library of both Houses, but Zaire is not a priority for that purpose at present.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that every asylum case is considered on its merits. However, as regards Zaire is it not the case that the writ of the central government does not run in all parts of the country; that the army has a great deal of power and is constantly at loggerheads with various political parties?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting point. It is a point taken into account. Since 1990, with the ending of the one-party system, there has been instability. The noble Lord will be aware of that. But in April 1994 a transitional constitution was agreed which provided for a broad-based government. Elections were planned for 1995. It may be to the knowledge of the noble Lord that Kengo wa Dondo sought to reduce inflation and corruption. There are still problems with the military—the point that the noble Lord made. Elections have been postponed until 1997. However, so far as concerns the Opposition, under Etienne Tshisekedi, the leader of the Opposition, there is a surprising level of toleration of political opposition. Although the broadcasting media are under state control, there is a highly partisan opposition press in Kinshasa.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister said fairly confidently that there was no systematic harassment of the Opposition in Zaire. I have no inside knowledge to enable me to contradict that. But is the Minister not aware that it is a characteristic of regimes of that kind that they control the media and information sources? Should not the noble Baroness be

449
wary of making confident assertions as, on many occasions, rulers like President Mobuto have died, or have been overthrown, and significant abuses of human rights have been found subsequently?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I was giving matters of fact and some chronology. The conditions and situations in those countries are taken into account. I have given some of the sources of that information. Where information is material to a particular applicant, it will weigh heavily either with the first hearing, as part of the appeal process, or with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
However, Zaire has been a major source of fraudulent multiple applications, often with a view to benefit fraud. Although that situation has reduced, there is still a higher than average incidence of non-compliance refusals for Zairian applications.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in view of the fact that Zaire is already grossly over-populated, with twice the population of China per square mile, is it not right that applications should be directed towards countries that are not grossly over-populated, such as America, and others?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may repeat what I said. We have a firm but very fair system for considering asylum applications. We in this country have a proud record of being fair to genuine asylum seekers. I shall spend much of today talking about something like 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of asylum seekers who for one reason or another do not have a genuine case for asylum in this country. It is absolutely right that we should seek to have a firm but fair policy.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, when will the so-called "white list" be extended to include other countries?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not talk of white or black lists. If the noble Viscount is talking about the third countries that we deem to be safe countries which are at this moment members of the European Union, I hope he will resist an amendment later today to take away the power from my right honourable friend to extend that list. We are thinking of Canada, America, Norway and Switzerland. As for the designated list, in the course of answering this Question, I have already named seven countries that we intend to designate. At this time we have no plans to extend it, but we shall have the power to extend it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her assurance that all cases are considered on their merits. However, does she agree that the assessment of the merits in the case of someone who alleges persecution because of membership of an opposition political party may be influenced by the country assessment? Does she understand that under these circumstances the House may legitimately wish to scrutinise the country assessment?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is an appeal system to scrutinise the country assessment. The appeal system
450
will take all of that into account. If an applicant believes he has been treated unfairly, and that the conditions in the country which he claims to be material to his case have not been considered, there is an appeal system. The formal assessments will be placed in the Library of the House. As I said, we have no current plans to place an assessment for Zaire in the Library of the House.

School Playing Fields: Sales
3.11 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many playing fields have been sold since the issue of the Education (School Premises) Regulations (S.I. 1981/909) by the Department of Education and Science; how many sales are currently under consideration and whether they have any plans to change the policy.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, it is the Government's policy that playing fields that schools need should be retained. We have no plans to change this policy. My department does not collect information about asset disposals at LEA-maintained schools. Grant-maintained schools may dispose of surplus land with the consent of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Since the advent of grant-maintained schools, consent has been given in 14 cases and nine applications are under consideration.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is not this the Government who constantly say how important sport and recreation are to the nation as a whole? I hope the Minister will correct my figures if they are wrong, but I understand that since that circular was issued some 5,000 playing fields have been sold, and perhaps half as many again are being considered for that purpose. Does not the fact that the Government have now instituted a register of recreational land demonstrate that they are now concerned about what is happening? Does this not call for a fundamental change of policy to stop the haemorrhage of this most valuable asset?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot confirm the noble Lord's figures. However, I think it is important that both LEAs and grant-maintained schools should have the freedom to dispose of assets if they are surplus to requirements. Obviously we think it is important that they should retain sufficient land to meet their sporting requirements and that is why we have regulations laid down that deal with that very subject. I think it would be wrong to have an absolute blanket ban on all sales, particularly as sales can often lead to better provision in some other field, or even better provision in the sporting field.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister not realise that the kind of damning statistics the noble Lord has put forward justify a warning given over 10 years' ago about what would happen to sporting facilities? Does he not think it obscene that at a time when hundreds of

451
millions of pounds of television fees are being spent at the professional end of sport there seems to be no government strategy to encourage sport at the grass roots level? That policy allows grass roots sport to wither.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid I have to reject what the noble Lord had to say. I do not believe there has been no encouragement from the Government in terms of encouraging sport at the grass roots. One only has to look at the White Paper published last year by the Department of National Heritage entitled Raising the Game and at the support we give to sport in schools in the national curriculum. That is why we lay down minimum standards governing the amount of space schools should keep. But, as I said, I think it is right that LEAs and schools should have the freedom to dispose of surplus assets. We have adequate controls to make sure they do not get rid of more than is necessary. We shall continue that policy.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, have any of the fields which have been sold also been covered by lease-back arrangements so that the fields have continued to be used in the way they should?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not aware of any cases of that sort but I shall be more than happy to make inquiries if my noble friend wishes.
Baroness David: My Lords, the Minister said when these fields were sold that the money obtained from those sales might be spent on other, more useful things. Do the Government follow up what the money is spent on? Can the Minister tell us what useful things have been bought as a result of the sale of these playing fields?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot give any figures to the noble Baroness. However, the point I was trying to make—I think it is a very important one—is that there should be that freedom, and it can be a freedom that can allow much better provision to be created in due course.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he is absolutely right to say that this money can be better used? I know of a school which sold its local playing field and was able to build an entire new block of schoolrooms and a new sporting facility at a slightly greater distance with a pavilion out of the proceeds. That must be common sense.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those comments. It points to the fact that it would be wrong, foolish and unwise to have the sort of blanket ban that noble Lords opposite collectively seem to be requiring.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister able to tell us what has happened to some of the recreational grounds in the former coalfield communities? Is he aware that the DTI and British Coal have given a public commitment that these sites will be retained in perpetuity? Does the Minister know what has happened? Has any progress been made in discussion?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are slightly wide of the Question but the noble Baroness was kind enough to
452
write to me giving me warning of this question. I took advice from colleagues in another department. We have made clear that our objective is that British Coal's land currently in active recreational use should be retained for that purpose. That remains the case. Discussions continue with the coal industry social welfare organisation which has expressed interest in acquiring all the sites. All I can say further is that an announcement is expected shortly.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does my noble friend share my pleasure that the Benches opposite appear to be supporting playing fields and therefore perhaps competition? Would he dare to share my hope that their support for such competition might eventually extend to the classroom?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. I agree with them in total.
Lord Peston: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows I never discuss politics in your Lordships' House, and therefore I shall not follow his noble friend's line. The noble Lord said—if I understood him correctly—that he agreed with what his noble friend Lord Elton said. However, what his noble friend Lord Elton said was anecdotal. The central question which we must put to the Minister is the one that he himself presents to us. His department collects no figures and therefore the Government do not have the faintest idea what the consequences of their policy are, and have no way of discovering whether the state of affairs is satisfactory. Is not that the nature of the problem—if one does not obtain any data, one cannot express a view?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe there is a problem. As I made clear, in the case of grant-maintained schools we shall review every application. In the case of all other schools, there are minimum space regulations which the schools are bound to follow. They cannot dispose of land unless it is surplus to those requirements.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the freedom to which the Minister has referred is the same as the freedom to dine at the Ritz. What he is forgetting is that local authorities have been squeezed so much by the financial directives of this Government that many of them have had no choice but to sell playing fields.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I totally reject that. We have increased the amount of money available to schools by £878 million this year, and over the past three years we have made an extra £2 billion available for capital projects.

Beef Export Ban
3.19 p.m.
Lord Taverne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they have made in obtaining a timetable for the lifting of the beef ban in Europe.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we have already succeeded in removing any restrictions on the export of semen and agreeing conditions for the export of gelatin and tallow. This is an important first step. Our policy on the next steps is to agree a framework which sets out clear and agreed conditions which have to be met to lift the export ban progressively. Negotiations with our Community partners on this are proceeding and we will keep the House informed of progress.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, may I express my sympathy to the Government for sounding the bugles of advance to cover their retreat. Is it not becoming increasingly evident that the policy of boycott, far from securing the desired timetable, is in fact having the effect of making our partners in Europe determined to try to find a way round British obstructionism, as they see it, contrary to our interest? Is it not a fact that the fiasco of the past month—probably the biggest diplomatic disaster since Suez—can only give satisfaction to those who wish to see us leave the European Union altogether?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, with respect, what a load of rubbish! The policy we have pursued over the past month shows every sign of producing results in the very near future—not only of producing results, but producing exactly those results that we had hoped for.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House under which powers Her Majesty's Government propose to enforce the killing of healthy cattle, as opposed to cattle which may be infected?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will be prepared to wait for us to bring before this House the necessary orders. He may recall that during the foot and mouth epidemic we killed whole herds, not because every animal was proven to be infected but because infection was in the herd. I do not think he need worry about our not having the necessary powers.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we already know that the Prime Minister is a master of appeasement and climbdown, and has already shown that to be so in the case of the further mass slaughter of cattle? Will he give the House an assurance that, at the Florence Summit, the Prime Minister will not agree to any other matters being discussed until the proposals put forward by the Commission have been agreed by all heads of government? And will the Prime Minister reprimand the president of the Commission for his gross interference in our internal political matters, and for the threats and bullying of the past week or two?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I really cannot reconcile the words "appeasement" and "climbdown" with getting what we want, which looks like happening. However, I can reassure the House that the action we have taken will not cease until we have the agreement that we seek from our partners.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, can the Minister give the House any other examples of where a sovereign elected government are given orders by unelected bureaucrats?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am not at all sure to what the noble Lord refers.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Deputy Prime Minister—
A Noble Lord: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I believe that we have time. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Harris, might take precedence, and my noble friend could follow.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on television this morning the Deputy Prime Minister referred to the ban on the importation of beef imposed by the United States and by Hong Kong? Will he share my puzzlement at his own Written Answer to my Question which appears in Tuesday's edition of Hansard (col. WA 17) in which I asked specifically which countries had imposed such a ban? The names of Hong Kong and the United States did not appear. Given the fact that it took four weeks for his department to answer the Question, would they at least try to get it right first time?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, indeed we have got it right. The name of Hong Kong was absent because the noble Lord asked which countries had imposed a ban before the European Commission imposed its ban. Hong Kong imposed its ban afterwards. The United States was absent because the United States has not imposed a ban on the import of British beef.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the Deputy Prime Minister was wrong, was he, this morning when he said that the United States had imposed a ban?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I was working, not listening to the radio.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the politics in all this are giving everybody a field day. What farmers want to know is what they will have to do, and when, in order to get their market back. Does the Minister have grounds for foreseeing the possibility, once the framework is agreed, of telling farmers exactly what the timetable will be and what they will have to do?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, what we rightly have is a framework, a procedure that will be followed in order to enable the ban to be lifted. There will be things that we must do to achieve that, because we are seeking to convince our European partners that they will be right to resume importing British beef. We shall be setting ourselves a rigorous timetable to achieve that aim.
Lord Carter: My Lords, in an earlier answer the Minister referred to foot and mouth disease. He really should know the difference between a disease that can be passed from animal to animal such as foot and mouth and a disease like BSE, which cannot.

455
Is the Minister aware that every farmer in the country will have been staggered by the remark of the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Heseltine, on the "Today" programme this morning when he casually referred to the "handful" of cattle now to be added to the 80,000 already in the selective slaughter scheme? Is that "handful" 20,000 or 67,000? In his evidence to the Select Committee on Agriculture in the other place yesterday, the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Hogg, quoted the figure of 67,000 as the additional number and said that 20,000 is too low. What is the reduction in actual numbers—not vague percentages—of BSE cases now expected to result from the selective slaughter scheme, and how many cattle are to be slaughtered?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, doubtless we shall have an opportunity to go into the details of this matter when they are presented to Parliament. However, I will help the noble Lord to the extent that I am able to. We are not looking for a disease that is passed from cow to cow; I am glad for the noble Lord's confirmation of that. We are looking at culling a group of cattle that are likely to be already infected even though not showing signs of infection. So far as the number of cases that we might expect to eliminate is concerned, of the basic cull—the original 42,000—we reckon that one in 14 would show the disease. There may be a number which would not show the disease; it is not something that can be diagnosed before symptoms appear. In the other sections of the cull, that percentage will be rather reduced. I do not have the figure with me. It is very much a question of seeing what we can do to reduce the incidence of BSE without going to unreasonable lengths. It is a matter on which Parliament will have a chance to have its say.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is it not extraordinary that the Minister—
Noble Lords: Next Question! Order!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me. I very much enjoy listening to my noble friend Lord Lucas answering the Opposition. Equally, I know that the House is looking forward to hearing my noble friend Lady Chalker.

UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
3.27 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to accede to the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention in time to nominate candidates and to vote for members of the Law of the Sea Tribunal, and if not why not?
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the Government consider that the long-term interests of the UK will be best served by accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The timing of accession remains under review. Parliament will be informed as soon as the
456
Government have taken a decision. It will not be possible to take a decision on accession in the timeframe necessary to secure voting rights for the UK in the Law of the Sea Tribunal election.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that it took some eight years to negotiate this worldwide convention, it was open to signature for about another six years, and has been in effect for two years? Will she further confirm that, by 30th June this year, all countries that wish to appoint members to the tribunal under the terms of the convention must have given in the names? Is it the case that, in not having done that, we exclude ourselves from the tribunal on the law of the sea and from various ancillary bodies thereunder? Why are we excluding ourselves from an arrangement that is manifestly in our national interest, as it is in the interests of all other countries given that, until the week before last, the Government were saying quite simply that we should accede, without any qualifications?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I underline that the Government are committed in principle and we are working at this matter. However, it has turned out to be more complicated than we anticipated. That is why it is taking longer than we wished. About half the countries have signed up; the other half have not.
The noble Lord is quite right: the UK candidate for the Law of the Sea Tribunal will not be able to succeed, because one has to have acceded to the convention for over a month before the election takes place. I hope that that will not affect the question of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, since the elections for that commission do not take place until March 1997. By that time I sincerely hope that we shall have been able to resolve these matters.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, as the noble Baroness confirmed that as a maritime nation we have a stronger incentive than most to establish an effective legal regime in international waters, how does it come about that even when we are on the side of the angels and for all the right reasons, we somehow contrive to make it appear to the world that we wish we were somewhere else?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have no idea about being on the side of the angels. These matters need to be worked at quite a lot. A number of states are party to UNCLOS and that is growing. But many industrialised countries are only now acceding or have not yet done so. We must continue our work on this, which is what we are doing.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say why half the signatories were in time but not us?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as a nation surrounded by water, we have a great deal more interest in this matter than some of those who are landlocked and who signed up quickly.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm, as has been reported, that a recently discovered obstacle is a belief by one member of the Government

457
that the fisheries around Rockall will be affected if we sign up to the convention? If that is the case, has that been confirmed by the Government's legal advisers and, if so, which?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am not sure that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, all the legal details. The Rockall fisheries zone is a matter of concern to this country. That is why we are continuing to study the legal and practical implications to make sure that we get things right.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, because Rockall is important for the United Kingdom and there are claims on it from at least three other countries, it is surprising that that has not already been dealt with, if Rockall is the problem. I have a special interest because I was the Secretary of State who put the Bill through Parliament which became the Rockall Act nearly 25 years ago, confirming and declaring that Rockall is part of Scotland.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I know that my noble friend worked extremely hard on that. However, while there is so much uncertainty around this is not the time to amend unilaterally the British fisheries limits, which would obviously be required if we were to bring them into line with UNCLOS. My noble friend will be well aware that that is the reason.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

University College London Bill
Read a third time.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Annan: My Lords, perhaps I can just say how glad I am that the Royal Free Hospital Medical School is now to be part of the University College. It was recommended 30 or more years ago by Lord Todd, endorsed by my noble friend Lord Flowers 15 years ago and at last it has come to pass. If universities were able to reform a little more quickly, they might receive more sympathy today when they are in a very bad way.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, having listened to the last comment I should like to make clear that I consider this to be an equal merger of the two medical schools. In no way is the Royal Free Hospital to be submerged.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and my noble friend
458
Lady Gardner of Parkes will forgive me if I do not respond to their helpful contributions. I know that some noble Lords are less familiar than others with the practice and procedure of your Lordships' House where Private Bills are concerned. Perhaps in defence of your Lordships I should explain that, if points are to be raised, notice is given and a sponsor appointed from the Back Benches to respond to any helpful contributions that may be made.
I am sure that if that line had been pursued and the sponsor appointed, he or she would have responded in a most welcoming way to both the contributions which have been made. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed.

Offensive Weapons Bill
The Earl of Lauderdale: 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 Lauderdale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Trading Schemes Bill
Lord Astor of Hever: 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 Astor of Hever.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Asylum and Immigration Bill
3.38 p.m.
Report received.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
POWERS OF DETENTION
(". In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 of the 1971 Act (detention of persons liable to examination or removal) for the words "under the authority of an immigration officer' there shall be substituted the words—

"(a) for a period of up to seven days, under the authority of an immigration officer; or

(b) for any other period, under the authority of an adjudicator upon application by an immigration officer,"").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in any democratic country that believes in and practises the rule of law it is an extreme step to deny anyone their liberty. That is why Parliament has always been concerned to ensure that there are adequate safeguards before anyone is kept in a prison or detention centre, thus losing their freedom. Yet there is one group of people—asylum seekers—who are detained without any judicial process and lose their liberty simply on the decision of a Home Office official. Those are people against whom there are no criminal charges and who are therefore completely innocent.
Locking up such people as an administrative act without a judicial safeguard cannot be right. At any point in time there are between 600 and 700 people detained under the Immigration Act powers, the majority being asylum seekers. However, the total number detained may reach several thousand. It is not pleasant being detained. Judge Tumim, when he inspected Campsfield House Detention Centre in February 1995, was quite shocked and said in his report,
"Detention without a time limit, no matter how reasonable the physical conditions, is extremely stressful. When combined with an uncertain future, language difficulties, a perceived or real lack of information and the fact that some detainees appeared to be terrified at the prospect of being deported, the stress increases".
I remind your Lordships of how we treat other people in Britain who are detained in prisons or other places, such as police stations. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which is the main legislation in this area, the longest period that anyone can be detained without charge is 96 hours. Even then the police must obtain the approval of the court for the detention to continue beyond 36 hours and again beyond 72 hours.
I turn to the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Here the maximum time that anyone can be detained without charge is seven days. In contrast, asylum seekers can be detained indefinitely with no prospect of a charge at all. In practice, their detention may vary from a few weeks to a year or longer. What options do those people have at the moment? They can return to their country of origin, which is a potentially dangerous process if they are liable to face persecution. Small wonder that several have committed suicide rather than face the risk of returning. An alternative is that they can apply for bail. At first sight that would seem to be the answer, but in practice very few bail applications succeed when taken up by asylum seekers. The reason is, I understand, that the sums demanded average about £2,000 and that is quite beyond the reach of asylum seekers and their friends. That means that in practice there is no effective bail system for asylum seekers. But even if there were, I suggest that that would be no substitute for having a proper judicial process to determine that detention is appropriate.
I turn briefly to what happens in other countries. Thanks to the efforts of the Refugee Council which did some research on the practice in nine European countries, I can say that there is a judicial process determining the detention in each one of those countries. Perhaps I may take a moment to give a few examples. In the Netherlands an appeal against a decision to detain may be taken to the district court. In Italy an asylum seeker can appeal to the relevant tribunal. In Denmark
460
any foreign detainee is brought before a judge within three days of detention and the court will decide the length of time that the asylum seeker will be detained. In Belgium a judicial appeal can be brought against a decision to detain. In Finland any decision to detain must be reviewed by a court within five days. In Sweden there must be a review of the decision to detain after two weeks. In Portugal any decision to detain must be confirmed by a judge within 48 hours and similarly in France, Germany and Spain.
Each one of those countries has a judicial safeguard as regards detaining innocent people against whom there are no charges and who happen to be asylum seekers. But I argue that what we do in this country should not depend on what is done by others. After all, we have a longer tradition of democracy, natural justice and the rule of law than any of the countries I have mentioned.
My amendment is extremely simple and modest. If it is accepted, it will mean that an asylum seeker is to be detained for no more than seven days, other than when that further detention is authorised by an immigration adjudicator. In other words, the Home Office will have to go to an adjudicator and put its case if it wishes to detain an asylum seeker beyond seven days. An adjudicator, well-experienced in matters of asylum anyway, will then have to decide whether the Home Office has justified the detention.
Therefore, the amendment does not challenge the principle that asylum seekers may be detained; it simply says that there should be judicial safeguards. When this matter was raised at Committee stage, the Minister suggested that such a safeguard would impose more burdens on the Home Office and be excessively bureaucratic. The answer to that is this. I am aware that the Home Office already carries out detailed reviews of persons detained and that authority for detention beyond a certain period has to be decided at quite a senior official level. Therefore, my amendment would not significantly increase the burden on the Home Office. It simply means that the judgment about an individual case as regards continued detention, which is now made by Home Office officials, will have to be considered and approved by an immigration adjudicator. But even if my amendment, if accepted, were to increase the burden on the Home Office, I argue that there is a price to be paid for justice and the rule of law. It is surely wrong that asylum seekers have fewer rights than criminals and fewer than suspected terrorists. That cannot be the way in which we wish to treat these people. I ask the House to support this amendment. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: We are dealing here with detention without cause shown. The main reason why detention without cause shown is egregious is that it is detention which cannot be judicially controlled by any legal process. If no cause is shown, one cannot decide whether the cause is sufficient. If it is done to British subjects it is illegal by a long tradition of measures stretching back to the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 and The Petition of Right of 1628. The question is whether it is also in any sense illegal if it is inflicted on people within our shores who are not British subjects.

461
There are two legal authorities which might possibly bear on this point. The first is Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights:
"Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty…save in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law".
I am aware that the present Home Secretary does not have a great affection for the European Convention on Human Rights. That is a debate which we need not enter now. For the time being it is a legal obligation accepted by this country. It seems to me that there is good sense in the view that, so long as we agree to be bound by a legal obligation, we should keep it. As recently as the beginning of this Parliament that was an observation which Ministers used to make frequently. So I ask the noble Baroness: has the Home Office taken any legal advice on the question of whether its policy of detention infringes Article 5 of the European Convention?
The second authority to which I wish to refer is Article 16(1) of the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees. I remind the House that that is not merely an international obligation. It is incorporated in British law by Section 2 of the Asylum Act 1993, which your Lordships may remember we passed not that long ago. So it is binding on us by our own authority. We agreed with it.
Article 16(1) provides,
"a refugee shall have free access to the courts of law on the territory of all contracting states".
I am aware that a case can be argued on both sides as to whether that clause condemns what the Home Office does at present. I am aware that in certain circumstances access to the courts exists and is valued. But the question is whether the effect of this procedure of detention without cause shown is to exclude such access in relation to the causes of the detention and whether, therefore, it is contrary to Article 16(1) of the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees.
I am not a lawyer. I would not wish to give any ex cathedra opinion on this point. But I would like to know whether the Home Office has taken legal advice on this point and, if it has, whether we can discover what the advice says.
Lord Renton: My Lords, no doubt my noble friend Lady Blatch will be answering that particular question and others. Meanwhile, perhaps I may venture to point out that although these amendments are moved with good intentions, there are various fallacies underlying them. I come first to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I confess that I am one of those who has wanted it to become part of our law and administered by our courts. I shall just repeat what the noble Earl said and hope I have got it right; namely, that nobody should be detained except by a procedure
462
prescribed by law. This Bill, and others which went before it, do just that. They prescribe a procedure by law, which is not necessarily a judicial procedure.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Can he help me on this point: does it prescribe a procedure or only a power?
Lord Renton: My Lords, clearly, this is a procedure for the exercise of a power. I hope that that answers the noble Earl. It cannot be otherwise.
I return to the point I was making. We have a procedure here which Parliament has prescribed. It is prescription by law. That brings me to the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who said that asylum seekers can be detained merely by immigration officers instead of by judicial process. I wonder whether he is aware, because he made a tremendous amount of party protest over this matter, that it is a procedure which has been followed by Labour governments for years as well as by Conservative governments.
When people come here as immigrants, the immigration officers do not have an easy task. There is a great variety of people to be examined. Some have passports; others do not. Some want to stay here for a long time, perhaps to obtain employment; others do not, and want to come merely to visit. Their passports may have to be marked for a particular period when they remain. But if someone comes here seeking asylum and happens to have no justification for it, or the reasons are very doubtful, under the present law—as I say, it has been the case for a long time—the immigration officer has to detain the person.
Eventually, under the 1995 Act and previous legislation, a judicial process can be invoked. The Bill is largely concerned with strengthening and improving that judicial process. But, fundamentally, it is not something that ought to be changed. Indeed, it is rather significant that the amendment says that there may be detention,
"for a period of up to seven days, under the authority of an immigration officer".
So there it is. It is just a question of the time anyway. At present, the time is unlimited until the judicial process can be invoked. That is not a very long time because the judicial process can now be invoked at a reasonably early date. In any event, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has said in the amendment that it shall be up to seven days.
The suggestion that this matter should be handed over to adjudicators—it is assumed that they will have a quasi-judicial function to perform—brings one to the question of whether there would be enough adjudicators to deal with the very large numbers of people who now come here trying to claim asylum. I confess that I do not know how many adjudicators there are, but I know that they are not numerous. In the nature of things, we would not expect them to be numerous. But their numbers would have to be increased if there were an appeal after seven days to an adjudicator. That would perhaps hold up the whole process of getting the matter

463
considered fully by a judicial process, which is contrary to what noble Lords who wish to have the amendment are proposing.
With great respect, I do not think this matter has been sufficiently thought through, but I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend has to say.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, this amendment does not challenge the principle that asylum seekers should be detained but there are many people, in the Churches particularly, who are concerned about lengthy periods of detention without trial and without time limit. There is nothing more hopeless than someone being detained with an uncertain future. My own experience as bishop to prisons teaches me that despair is both psychologically damaging to the individual and extraordinarily stressful. So the Churches would want to support the amendment. Of course it will cost more, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, but justice is at stake here and we believe passionately that it should be observed.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, at the Committee stage I moved and withdrew two small amendments bearing on this point. It seems to me that Amendment No. 1 is a far, far superior one, and I very much welcome and support it.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I rise to say how I feel about this amendment since the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, kindly wrote me a letter. Although I would like to, I am afraid that I cannot support it. Therefore I am a churchman who would perhaps be in a minority. I am afraid I do not agree with the right reverend Prelate. On the whole, I believe that Her Majesty's Government are doing their best to put right a situation and therefore my noble friend the Minister would have to answer very badly for me to agree with the amendment. I am sure she will not.
I do not believe that people from abroad, whatever their situation or condition, should feel that they can just come to this country and take up residence ad hoc before a final decision is made on whether they should be able to stay. I do not believe that an immigrant or asylum seeker coming here is in the same position as anyone in this country who has found him or herself in criminal proceedings. Let other countries do how they think, but there are only so many human beings a country can absorb, whether here or elsewhere. There are our own people to consider, whatever their origin—not just us whites, Europeans, but whether they be Asian, African or from other ethnic groups. They must be considered too. I believe that Her Majesty's Government have not been narrow, awkward or difficult in this Bill. I am afraid that I cannot respond in a way that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, would like me to respond.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this amendment is very similar in intent to Amendments Nos. 134 and 137A tabled during the Committee stage of the Bill. I shall be
464
resisting the amendment but I intend to rely on many of the arguments I used during the Committee stage because they still apply and still have force.
Under the current powers in the 1971 Act a passenger who is required to submit for examination by immigration officers may be detained on the authority of the immigration officer pending the examination or a decision on whether to grant him leave to enter. Once seven days have elapsed from the date of his arrival in the United Kingdom it is open to the detained passenger to apply to an adjudicator for release on bail—so there is the right of challenge. With the exception of my noble friends who have spoken in this debate, most people have spoken as though there is no right to challenge and no right to apply for bail. But there is, and in the same timescale as suggested by the amendment. The adjudicator will review the case in accordance with tried and tested procedures and will decide whether release on bail is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.
I am aware that a number of noble Lords are concerned that asylum seekers in particular will be deprived of their liberty for an indefinite period without judicial process. That is simply not the case. I make no apology for repeating that since the coming into force of the 1971 Act—my noble friend Lord Renton made the point that it has been on the statute book for a long time and has been administered by many governments, including the government of noble Lords opposite—a passenger detained pending further examination has been able to apply for bail after he has been detained for seven days. That will remain the case and provisions which the Government have included in the Bill will radically expand the opportunities to apply for bail.
The amendment seeks to remove that established procedure and replace it with a completely new arrangement. Instead of the detained applicant seeking bail from an adjudicator, the immigration officer would have to seek an adjudicator's authority to maintain detention.
I mentioned earlier that this amendment is similar in intent to amendments tabled in Committee. However, it differs in the way that it is expressed, and the wording of the amendment would cause me some difficulty even if I was sympathetic to the intentions behind it. It provides the immigration officer with a power to authorise detention of a period of seven days, but it does not make clear whether this is the initial period of seven days following arrival in the United Kingdom, as is currently the case in the 1971 Act, or any period of seven days. That is not made clear in the amendment. That ambiguity is mirrored in the authority which is granted to the adjudicator to confirm detention "for any other period".
I have already asked for the indulgence of the House in repeating comments I made during Committee, and I will now do so again because this is an important point. Decisions to detain are not taken lightly and are subject to regular review by the Immigration Service. Requiring an immigration officer to seek the authority of an adjudicator to maintain detention would undermine the integrity of the on-entry control and

465
would create an inefficient, and for the reasons I have just given, ambiguous system. Such a system would place considerable extra burdens on the Immigration Service—I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on that point—and the already hard-pressed appellate authority without producing any obvious benefits.
We have recognised that there are difficulties with the current arrangements for detaining people under powers in the 1971 Act. The principal difficulty is that certain groups of people detained under those powers are denied the right to seek bail. It is for that reason that we have taken measures in this Bill to ensure that the right to apply for bail is available to all. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made reference to guidelines on the detention of asylum seekers issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees when we debated the question of detention in Committee. The noble Lord focused on the second of those guidelines and I hope he will bear with me while I quote it. It refers to,
"the right to challenge the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty promptly before a competent, independent and impartial authority, where the individual may present his arguments either personally or through a representative."
I believe that that describes the bail system which will be in place if the additional rights to apply for bail which are contained in this Bill are accepted in full.
I turn now to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, about the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. The period of up to seven days may be necessary to allow inquiries to be made of embassies and other sources of information, but that is a maximum. It may not be necessary to use all of those seven days. Very few asylum seekers are detained—in fact, just 1 per cent. are detained and they can apply for bail at any time after the seven days.
I refer now to the European Convention on Human Rights. I know that my noble friend has a view on such things, but the convention is not part of domestic law. However, the Government are satisfied that the Immigration Act 1971 conforms to the provisions of the convention. We are satisfied that the detention of asylum seekers under that Act is compatible both with the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees. Perhaps I may advise the noble Earl that it is not the normal practice of government to disclose the content of legal advice that they have received or sought. The right to challenge after seven days is provided for in the Bill. I therefore regard the amendment as unnecessary.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, my noble friend has made a strong case for rejecting the amendment—
Noble Lords: Order! Report!
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I have listened carefully to what they have said and I should like briefly to deal with the main points that have been raised. It is true that the legislation which gave the power to detain individuals has been on the statute book since 1971. It was certainly there throughout the period of office of
466
the 1974–79 Labour Government. I did not make a single party political point in my speech, but what has happened more recently is that the Government have felt it necessary to detain far more asylum seekers than was the case in the 1970s when, on Home Office figures, very few asylum seekers came to this country, with the result—
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord must face up to the fact that there has been a vast increase year by year in the number of people seeking asylum, and the consequences are inevitable.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I accept that there has been a significant increase in the number of individuals seeking asylum in this country and in other West European countries. In fact, the increase has been greater in some other countries. I was going to say that this Government then increased significantly the facilities for detention. They opened Campsfield House. Haslar Prison in Gosport was converted for the purpose. There are also wings available at Rochester, and a number of other prisons and detention centres were opened specifically for this purpose. The Government's policy was to increase the number of people who would be detained. Although very few people were detained in the earlier period of the implementation of the 1971 Act, the numbers are now significant, which gives more point to the amendment. However, I accept the noble Lord's point that the principle applied under previous governments also and, in so far as it did, I am being critical by implication of what happened in earlier days as well as of what is happening today.
What my amendment suggests would not in any way weaken the power of the Government to detain individuals where that is appropriate. There may well be instances where detention is appropriate. I do not believe that it will be appropriate to detain the number of people who are being detained today, but I can see that there may be some occasions when it would be appropriate. The Minister herself said that only a small percentage of all asylum seekers are detained. Inevitably, however, a Home Office official or an Immigration Service officer has to decide whether detention is appropriate for any individual asylum seeker. The Home Office has to make such decisions whenever anybody arrives here for asylum or for other reasons, so the process already exists. I understand from meetings that I had years ago with Home Office Ministers that the Home Office is careful to scrutinise the continued detention of every individual to make sure that there are good reasons for the detention.
My amendment seeks simply to demand that the Home Office makes that information available to an adjudicator who can then determine whether the continued detention is appropriate. Adjudicators are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. They are judicial figures who have experience in dealing with immigration appeals. They are therefore recognised experts in the business and are obviously the appropriate persons for the task.

467
I turn now to the question of bail, which the Minister spent some time arguing was the main reason why my amendment is unnecessary. Even if there is an effective bail system, my key point remains: there should be a judicial process before anybody loses their liberty. That is what the present system for detaining asylum seekers denies.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that the noble Lord has just said that that process is denied to somebody being detained before they lose their liberty. The noble Lord's amendment refers to seven days after a person is taken into custody. Is the noble Lord suggesting that there has to be a judicial process even before an individual can be put into custody, which, in the case of such detainees, is only ever done for very good reasons? There is no difference between the timescale in the noble Lord's amendment and mine. The difference between our two points of view is that the noble Lord is insisting that in every single case the immigration officer must apply for a judicial review after seven days whereas we are giving the person who is detained the right to challenge being kept in custody after seven days.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, there is a difference between bail and the procedure that I am talking about. I am referring to the same process that any criminal in this country is entitled to under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Any person held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act has a right which is denied to asylum seekers. That right is concerned with how long people are detained before they are charged. These people are not charged, and there is no judicial process at all. The Minister has said that bail provides a way out. It may be a way out. I ask the Minister how many asylum seekers have managed to get bail in these circumstances. The Minister will agree that the sums demanded are normally in the region of £2,000. If the sum demanded for release is too large for bail to be effective that is not a bail system but merely a token system that does not work.
I apologise for repeating myself but I do so lest there be any misunderstanding. I suggest that, as under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act or the Prevention of Terrorism Act, if someone is to be detained under immigration Act powers beyond seven days—it can be within seven days—the Home Office should go to the adjudicator and state the reasons why in its view detention is appropriate in those circumstances. The adjudicator may agree that it is appropriate for the person to continue in detention, or he may disagree and say that an insufficient case has been made out. It is called justice; it is the system practised by the courts on most occasions. I believe that that is a system which adjudicators are well qualified to follow to provide some basic rights.
The bail system is still there but it is very much at the end of the line. It does not work. If the bail system worked I would not be bothering the House with this amendment. However, the bail system does not work. The simple procedure in this amendment would work. It would not undermine immigration
468
control or the system operated by immigration officers, but they would have to go to the adjudicator instead of merely senior officials to say why detention should continue.
This is such a simple device that I expected the Minister to be more sympathetic to it. I cannot understand why she refuses to accept the amendment. It provides a modicum of justice. In many ways, we live in an unhappy world. In this country we have certain standards. Surely, it is right that those standards should apply to all individuals whether they are humble asylum seekers or others. It is extraordinary that we give fewer rights to asylum seekers, who are innocent of any criminal matter, than to criminals under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act or the Prevention of Terrorism Act. We are not prepared to give the same rights to asylum seekers. The Government's system of immigration control would not be dented by this amendment but would remain intact. It would introduce a little bit of justice into the process of detaining asylum seekers. I should like to seek the opinion of the House.
4.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 102; Not-Contents, 125.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hayman, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Attlee, E.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Avebury, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bath, M.

Hooson, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Birk, B.

Hylton, L.

Blease, L.

Inchyra, L.

Borrie, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jeger, B.

Carter, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Clancarty, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Judd, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Kirkhill, L.

David, B.

Lincoln, Bp.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Listowel, E.

Desai, L.

Lockwood, B.

Diamond, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Donoughue, L.

McNair, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

McNally, L.

Dubs, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Eatwell, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Ezra, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Falkender, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Falkland, V.

Mayhew, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Gallacher, L.

Methuen, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Monkswell, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Ogmore, L.

Hamwee, B.

Peston, L.

469

Prys-Davies, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Rea, L.

Southwell, Bp.

Redesdale, L.

Stallard, L.

Richard, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Strafford, E.

Rochester, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Russell, E [Teller]

Thurlow, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Sandwich, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Scanlon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Seear, B.

White, B.

Serota, B.

Williams or Crosby, B.

Sewel, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Simon, V.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Howe, E.

Abinger, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ailsa, M

Inglewood, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kenyon, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Balfour, E.

Kitchener, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Knollys, V.

Beloff, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Blatch, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Boardman, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Liverpool, E.

Brigstocke, B.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas, L.

Butterworth, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Caldecote, V.

Lyell, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L.

Carnock, L.

[Lord Chancellor]

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Chesham, L [Teller]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Marlesford, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Merrivale, L.

Courtown, E.

Mersey, V.

Craigavon, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cranborne, V [Lord Privy Seal.]

Milverton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cuckney, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Munster, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Davidson, V.

Nelson, E.

De Freyne, L.

Newall, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Norfolk, D

Denham, L.

Northesk, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Onslow, E.

Downshire, M

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Orkney, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elles, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elton, L.

Peel, E.

Feldman, L.

Pym, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Finsberg, L.

Rawlings, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

St Davids, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Goschen, V.

Seccombe, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Harlech, L.

Strange, B.

Harrowby, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Strathclyde, L [Teller]

Henley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hesketh, L.

Swinfen, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Swinton, E.

470

Terrington, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Weatherill, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Wise, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Wynford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.21 p.m.
Clause 1 [Extension of special appeals procedures]:
Lord Ashbourne Lord Ashbourne moved Amendment No. 1A:
Page 1, line 9, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4B. The intention of these amendments is to give persons who have been forced to undergo involuntary abortion or sterilisation, or have been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure, the right to asylum in this country. They would also give persons in danger of compulsory abortion or sterilisation the right of appeal.
China is the only country where it is illegal to have a brother or a sister. By that I mean couples are permitted one child only. The amendment is not controversial. Almost all Britons, whatever their views on the moral and political questions surrounding abortion, regard forced abortion and forced sterilisation as particularly inhuman violations of their fundamental rights. Indeed in recent parliamentary replies to Questions tabled by my noble friend Lord Braine, Her Majesty's Government condemned such practices.
The Government of the People's Republic of China routinely compel women to abort their "unauthorised children". The usual method is intense coercion, using all the economic, social and psychological tools a totalitarian state has at its disposal. When those methods fail, women are taken physically to abortion mills, often in handcuffs, and forced to have abortions. That sometimes happens very late in the pregnancy, even up to the time of birth. The baby's skull is crushed with forceps or lethal chemical shots are administered into the soft part of the skull.
Forced abortion was rightly construed to be a crime against humanity at the Nuremberg war crimes tribunals, and yet today it is being used pervasively throughout the People's Republic of China.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that we are talking about a country where children are declared illegal just because they do not fit into a certain quota that has been established and promoted by the government. A report entitled Human Rights Violations Resulting from Enforced Birth Control issued last June by Amnesty International states:
"Couples who have a child above the quota are subject to sanctions, including heavy fines".
It talks also about psychological and physical pressure; it talks about degrading treatment; it talks about the use of handcuffs; it talks about the use of detention. That report from Amnesty International, an organisation

471
which takes no position on the defence of the unborn, strongly condemns China's horrendous practice of forced abortion and forced sterilisation. The report continues:
"In December 1993 a district court in Guangzhou reportedly sentenced a man to 10 years' imprisonment and three years' deprivation of political rights for his part in a 'save the babies and save the women campaign' which had assisted 20 women to give birth in excess of the plan. The court reportedly claimed that by his actions he had entered into rivalry with the party and state, and had therefore committed counter-revolutionary crimes as well as jeopardising social order".
That man got 10 years in prison because he tried to defend some women and babies in China against that evil practice.
But why am I talking so much about China? noble Lords may be asking. Noble Lords must be thinking that we surely have enough problems of our own. But those flagrant abuses of human rights, wherever they occur, must be resisted by the international community. Is this not an excellent opportunity for this country to take a lead in the fight against that tyranny and injustice?
Noble Lords may be saying to themselves, "Will that not allow a flood of Chinese to come into this country?" I know that noble Lords are concerned about a flood of people coming in, and rightly so, because the Government have to strike a balance, and that is not easy. As my noble friend the Minister has already said, every case is looked at individually. I welcome that, but I would seek to set noble Lords' minds at rest, because we have a precedent in the United States where both during the Reagan regime and the Bush regime legislation was passed similar to that I am seeking to introduce with these amendments.
During that period the number of people allowed into the United States varied between 100 and 200 per annum. That is not a big figure. It is for noble Lords to judge, but 100 to 200 per annum does not strike me as a flood of people coming into this country. Even if the experience of the United States were not repeated in this country, and I am misleading the House, which I am not seeking to do, it would be a simple matter to put a quota on the numbers allowed in. All the Government would have to do would be to say, "We limit the quota to, say, 500". The first 500 get in and then the choppers come down.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down surely it would not be a simple matter to impose a quota. If the amendments were incorporated into the Bill, they would, I believe and hope, be an obligation on government and a quota would go against such an obligation.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. If I have misled the House I must apologise. I shall take back that side of the argument. The House will judge for itself of course, but if the number was between 100 and 200 in the United States, it does not seem likely there would be a flood of applicants. In any event, every applicant is looked at individually. They have to meet the criteria in order to get in.
Last year, the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, chaired by US Congressman Chris Smith, held hearings on "Coercive
472
Population Control in China". The subcommittee heard testimony from Dr. John Aird, the former research specialist on China at the US Census Bureau. He testified that the policy:
"continues to rely on coercive measures to reach its objective, and therefore victims of these measures will probably continue to seek asylum in other countries".
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Congressman Smith and Miss Maggie Wynne, director of the Pro-Life Caucus in Congress, for their sterling work in drawing attention to these human rights abuses.
Dr. Aird concluded that the one thing that other nations can do is to:
"lower the barriers to asylum for Chinese fleeing the family planning program, which would cost relatively little".
That is what the amendment seeks to achieve and I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Braine of Wheatley: My Lords, I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Ashbourne on bringing forward this amendment. I hope that it will come as no surprise to any of your Lordships to learn that I fully intend to give him my full, unqualified support. I join my noble friend in paying a warm tribute to United States Congressman, Chris Smith, and to Maggie Wynne, director of the Pro-Life Caucus in Congress. With great skill and dedication they have highlighted the tragedy and the scandal of enforced abortion in China. Civilised people everywhere should be grateful to them for that.
Surely, enforced abortion is the cruellest and most barbaric abuse of human rights imaginable. I understand that last year one distinguished authority on China informed the United States Congress that there had been frequent and credible reports of direct physical coercion of that kind in China including, although not limited to, the arrest of pregnant women and forcing them to attend abortion clinics. There has also been incarceration of pregnant women until they submit to abortions and forcible attendance at so-called study sessions away from their families until they agree to submit themselves to sterilisation or abortion.
As regards the methods used, I am advised that they involve crushing the skulls of infants with forceps during delivery or the injection of iodine, alcohol or formaldehyde into their soft spots so that they are born dead. Secondly, they involve imprisoning husbands where necessary in order to force their wives to accept these appalling treatments; cutting off food, water, electricity and wages for couples who refuse to comply; confiscating their furniture and livestock; and even demolishing their homes.
The amendment, so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Ashbourne, provides asylum for those unfortunates who have been forced to undergo involuntary abortion or sterilisation—procedures involving the utmost cruelty. I hope that when my noble friend the Minister replies she will indicate her willingness to accept our amendment. Otherwise, I feel bound to say, in the face of the evidence it is inconceivable to me that anyone in this House—indeed, in Parliament as a whole—will support such

473
appalling cruelty. Therefore, in this debate I hope that we shall speak and act as one on this grave and distressing matter.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment. Some noble Lords may be a little surprised that I have done so. I do not believe that it will surprise any noble Lord to learn that my views and those of the noble Lord, Lord Braine, on abortion are not identical. However, our views on forced and involuntary abortion are identical. That is the hub of the common ground between us.
I believe in a world in which people are allowed to follow their own consciences, provided that they do no harm to others. Whatever may be said, often truly, at conferences on population control, I believe that people's own reproductive systems and their use of them are matters which are very much for themselves. Applying coercion is, to say the very least, intrusive. In many of the cases involved it is worse than intrusive. It is an assault and an infliction of a grave physical injury. I believe that those who face such dangers may well be said to have a well-founded fear of persecution. For that reason I am happy to put my name to the amendment.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I too put my name to the amendment. I did so because I recognise that there is the problem of enormous population explosions in places such as China, which I toured for three weeks. As was said most ably by those who have spoken so far, I believe in man's freedom of action and conscience. If a government are going to force population control, they must obtain the willingness of the people.
China brought in population control in 1979. Apparently it reached its peak in 1983 when there were 21 million sterilisations and 14 million abortions. I believe that that is the most disgraceful and inhumane way of allowing a nation to live. I thoroughly support the amendment.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I believe that we should not select our forms of human injustice. The noble Lords, Lord Ashbourne and Lord Braine, and the noble Duke the Duke of Norfolk are right in seeing the issue as part of a spectrum of unacceptable behaviour against the individual. Let us admit that in respect of this matter all of us are to some extent hypocrites. The scale of the population challenge which threatens the world makes us hypocrites. However, as the noble Duke said, there is a sharp distinction between the education of people in controlling the size of their families and the use of violent methods to compel them not to bear to full term the children which they fully intend and wish to have.
I might not have intervened in the debate had I not attended the fourth World Women's Conference of the United Nations at Beijing last autumn. I cannot and will not give your Lordships chapter and verse because I am not prepared to put certain people in that country at very grave risk. I can say that I am absolutely certain that what has been described by the noble Lords, Lord Ashbourne and Lord Braine, is consonant with what is happening in that country.
474
I understand and sympathise with the great difficulties that the Government might have in accepting the amendment. But I wonder whether they can give us the assurance that if people flee to this country on the grounds that they have been, effectively, tortured—that is the proper word—by having their full-term child ripped from them and killed, sometimes before their very eyes, they will consider that as coming within the definition of torture. I believe that any woman, certainly any mother, will understand that to see her baby killed before her eyes is a form of torture as profound in its psychological and other effects as the kinds of torture that we shall be discussing in the next group of amendments.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, as a mother I am appalled by the atrocities that have taken place and I am grateful to noble Lords for bringing them before the House today. However, my understanding is that there are procedures in place which would pick out such cases. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister would confirm that. Does she believe that isolating such cases on the face of the Bill will make for more difficulties?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I believe that the Bill must already cover this situation. I believe that we all feel sympathy for the cases which have been outlined and I certainly agree that it would be a form of torture and should be so considered.
The other side of the coin is that if anyone were able to have an abortion voluntarily in an entirely different country, she may then come here and complain that she was forced to have that abortion. That would be a different situation because the Government would have to be satisfied that the abortion genuinely took place against that person's will. But if it has been done forcibly, it must qualify as a form of torture and must be already covered by the Bill. While I have every sympathy for the case that is being put forward, I think that the amendment is unnecessary and I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is so.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I believe that the definition of torture extends to cruel, inhuman and unusual treatment or punishment. If that is the case, surely compulsory sterilisation and abortion are included within that definition. A person who has been subjected to that inhuman treatment would thus qualify as an asylum seeker and be given refuge in this country.
I hope that that is the case because I believe that the evil to which noble Lords have drawn attention is very real. While I share with my noble friend Lady Williams anxieties about the population explosion, I am equally at one with noble Lords opposite who say that any form of compulsion in this matter is a gross violation of human rights. I am sorry to say that it is one of the matters of which the People's Republic of China has been guilty over the years and which has been overlooked by the West and by those who are so keen to cast aspersions on the human rights performance of many other countries.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Braine, will agree with me about the case of Tibet where there has been, over the years, an attempt to commit the gross crime of ethnicide; that is, to remove the cultural, religious, ethnic and other distinctions between the Tibetans and their Chinese

475
colonial masters. One way in which that has been done has been by the use of compulsory sterilisation and abortion to a greater extent in Tibet than has been the case in the rest of the People's Republic of China.
I know that evidence has been presented on that matter to the Select Committee of another place. It was difficult for it to investigate the matter because the Chinese do not want anybody to know what is happening there. But in the long run, the danger is that by policies of migration and enforcement of special birth control procedures within the autonomous region of Tibet, the existence of the Tibetans as a separate people will ultimately be extinguished, in the same way as the Mongolians have already been and the East Turkestanis are on the way to being extinguished.
Therefore, noble Lords have raised an extraordinarily important feature of human rights violations in China. I hope that the Minister will give us the assurance which is sought in relation to anybody who appears on our doorstep claiming to have suffered either from compulsory abortion or sterilisation, whether it be in the People's Republic of China or elsewhere.
We must not forget that a few years ago, a vast programme of compulsory birth control was instituted in India. People were forcibly sterilised in that country and that ultimately led to the fall of the government. Therefore, it is not the People's Republic alone which should be put in the dock, although it is by far the greatest culprit regarding that crime in the world today. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to give us the assurance for which she has been asked.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, when she says that to categorise the evils referred to in this amendment as torture would be both effective and the best way in which to deal with the matter in this Bill.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, of course no one could question the horror of forced abortion and sterilisation. We have heard of those horrors from my noble friends Lord Braine and Lord Ashbourne. However, it may be that we should not use this Bill in order to condemn the law of China. Should the UK and other countries feel that the Chinese human rights record in that area is unacceptable, that should be dealt with by international bodies which could have a real effect on the Chinese Government to change their policy.
Do we really want those horrors dealt with? I genuinely believe that we do; and I know that I do. Therefore, I urge the Minister to have this matter raised in an international forum so that something can be done. But I repeat that I do not think that this Bill is the most effective method by which to do that.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, if the Minister can give an assurance that this appalling situation is already covered in the Bill, then I could not support the amendment. On the other hand, if it is not covered, I would strongly support the amendment and I believe that it should be inserted into the Bill.
476
The problem of numbers could be covered by inserting an amendment at a later stage to give the Secretary of State power to have a quota or to include in the Bill an amendment with the numbers involved.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I support the principle of this amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carr, that the amendment should be included in the definition of torture at Clause 12(2).
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Ashbourne who kindly wrote to me after he tabled the amendment, providing some background information on the reasons behind the amendment. Of course, I have written to him to explain our approach to those issues.
The subject of this debate—people who against their will undergo abortion and/or sterilisation or who have been persecuted for their failure or refusal to undergo such dreadful procedures—is one which touches everyone in this Chamber.
I begin by setting out our general approach to asylum claims based on these grounds. The first point to make is that forcible abortion or sterilisation would in most circumstances constitute cruel and inhuman treatment. Obviously each case has to be considered on its merits. But subject to that, I can confirm that we would not remove a pregnant woman in circumstances where there was a likelihood that she would be subject to forcible abortion, until after the birth of the child.
Nor would we remove an asylum seeker if it was likely that he or she would be subject to forcible sterilisation. In such cases, we would be likely to grant either asylum or, if it was not entirely consistent with the United Nations convention, exceptional leave, depending on whether the fear was based on one of the reasons specified in the 1951 Convention, and thus amount to persecution; that is, for reason of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree with me that a particular social group is probably the criterion under which these offences would fall.
Secondly, treatment inflicted on an asylum seeker in the past would obviously be an important clue to what might happen to them in the future. So if there was convincing evidence that a woman who was now pregnant had previously been subjected to forcible abortion, that might well tend to lend credence to her claim that this would happen to her again if she returned to her country.
Thirdly, forcible abortion or sterilisation might well be regarded as amounting to torture. So if it was likely that an asylum seeker had been treated in this way they would be very likely to qualify for the exemption from the accelerated appeal procedure, under the terms of the safeguard on torture which the House will be debating today.
Fourthly, the 1993 Act makes clear that a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of political opinion qualifies an applicant for asylum. Opposition or resistance to a population control policy may qualify as a

477
political opinion depending on the circumstances, although this may not be so in a case of purely personal non-compliance.
We must of course consider each case on its individual merits. Nevertheless, I would hope that my noble friends and noble Lords who have spoken in the debate have found those remarks reassuring.
Having said all that, however, I must make clear that cases of the kind I have just discussed are at present not often encountered. What is more common is for people to claim asylum on the grounds that their country has a strict population control policy; that they wish to have another child; and that they would face difficulties in doing so if they returned home.
However, perhaps I might also say that all of us in this House have views about abortion. My views are much closer to those of my noble friends Lord Braine and Lord Ashbourne, but there will be noble Lords in this House who would take another view. However, this is not the appropriate Bill; nor do I believe it is the time to use the Bill for changing our policy on abortion. What we are talking about here are people who undergo the most horrendous ordeal of being subjected to having to lose a baby in these awful circumstances against their will and it is claimed that that is an activity which is widespread within that country and possibly condoned by the authorities.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister would allow me to intervene? In her remarks so far she has referred only to those parts of Amendment No. 4B which refer to involuntary abortion or sterilisation. The amendment goes on to talk about,
"other resistance to a coercive population control programme".
Do her remarks equally cover that? It seems to me to be rather different from the thrust of the debate we have had so far.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I did in fact touch on that issue; resistance to population control can take many forms. I believe that China has huge population problems, which indeed were the subject of much debate at the world conference which was held recently and which my noble friend Lady Chalker attended. If people resist the policy simply because they argue against it, I would regard that as possibly not grounds for asylum in this country. On the other hand, if their resistance took the form of somebody who was pregnant saying, "I don't want an abortion", it is a very different matter if that abortion is then forced upon them.
It is also my understanding that there are financial incentives for a family producing only one child and of course there may be financial disincentives for having more than one child: one can object to that. However, if having become pregnant and taken the consequences of having a fiscal policy work against them in the case of a second or subsequent child, then I do not believe they should lose their human rights simply because they have suffered the consequences of whatever the fiscal policy might be.
478
However, claims of this nature—and by that I mean the kinds of cases I had been talking about before the diversion—are nearly always made by men and by a number of applicants who are not married. In such cases we look at the claim in the light of the totality of evidence. We would not, of course, grant asylum if the fear of prosecution is not a credible one, and when we do decide to refuse a claim of this nature our decisions are upheld on appeal in the great majority of cases. However, claims of this nature are considered carefully on their individual merits, and where there is a real threat that the person or spouse would be at significant risk of forcible abortion, asylum or exceptional leave would be granted.
Nevertheless we must distinguish between such meritorious claims and others. Much will depend on the pressures or sanctions that might be faced in each individual circumstance. For example, we would be unlikely to accept a claim as valid merely because of the applicant's claimed wish to have another baby and the fear of facing difficulties in doing so, such as those I have mentioned already: fiscal penalties or disincentives. In the light of that account of our policy, let me explain why I oppose the amendment. It seems to me to be both unnecessary and undesirable. That was a point made by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. It is unnecessary because cases of the kind referred to in the amendment would be unlikely to be certified. The first part of the amendment refers to forcible abortion or sterilisation. As I have indicated, if that genuinely had been forcibly inflicted it could well be regarded as torture and could therefore attract the exemption from the accelerated procedure which the House has already adopted.
The second part of the amendment refers to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, namely, the case of someone who has been persecuted for refusing to undergo such treatment and resisting a coercive population programme. However, in cases where it is established that persecution has taken place, as defined by the 1951 convention, asylum is unlikely to be withheld. Moreover, if asylum or exceptional leave is not granted such a case would be unlikely to be certified. The certification procedures are designed specifically for cases which are straightforward and manifestly unfounded. Moreover, I do not think it is helpful to single out the particular issue of coercive population measures and to make specific provision for it on the face of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, raised the point about singling out one form of torture, or being selective about one form of torture. Those who have a well-founded fear of persecution owing to their country's population control practices should be considered in exactly the same way as those claiming fear of persecution on any other grounds. If we make specific provision for each of the circumstances which may lead to persecution, we may end up with unwieldy and, I believe, unmanageable legislation. That is why the 1993 Act is based firmly on the general principles set out in the 1951 convention. It is the convention

479
which defines this country's international obligations towards refugees and which the legislation is designed to implement.
China has been mentioned, and it is important for me to refer to it. In 1995 the United Kingdom received 790 applications for asylum from Chinese nationals. In the same period 690 decisions were taken on Chinese applications. Of those, 10 were granted asylum and a further 15 were granted exceptional leave to remain. Almost all appeals by Chinese nationals were dismissed last year. The Chinese population control programme, commonly known as the "one child per couple" policy, features regularly in asylum applications from that country. It has been in force in China since 1981. The policy is based on a programme of public education, encouraging minimum marriage and child-bearing ages, together with the promotion of birth control, abortion and sterilisation. To enforce that policy there is in China, we understand, a system of penalties and bonuses to encourage people to accept the programme's guidelines. Penalties, although including the withholding of social services and demotion, typically involve fines for unauthorised births. The United States State Department report of March 1996 stated that the Chinese Government do not authorise the use of physical compulsion to submit to abortion. However, Chinese officials of course admit that instances of forcible abortion or sterilisation do occur and that is why we continue to look at each case carefully on its individual merits because, whether or not the government officially condone it, we consider it important to do so.
At present almost all such claims are made by men who have left China on their own and who wish to avoid the financial penalties imposed by the Chinese authorities for breaching the programme's guidelines. Those fines are frequently far smaller than the sums of money applicants claim to have paid to travel to the United Kingdom. Moreover, when the claims are considered against the totality of the evidence available, they are often found to lack credibility. Despite the assurances I have given to the House today about our approach to genuine claims of this type, we find that most such claims are at present refused and that our decisions are upheld at appeal in the very great majority of cases.
The purpose of our asylum procedures is to identify genuine victims of torture and other forms of persecution under the guidelines. I want to say unequivocally that certainly some of the examples we have heard about in our debate today would fall squarely in that category. I am therefore grateful to my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to set out our general approach to asylum claims of this kind. I hope that my noble friends Lord Ashbourne and Lord Braine and others who have spoken have been able to derive some reassurance from my remarks and that they will feel able to withdraw their amendment. Failing that, if the amendment is pressed, I hope that the House will
480
agree with me that singling out one form of torture among all others on the face of the Bill would not be desirable.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to everyone who has spoken on this amendment and of course to the Minister for her reassurances. I am still not completely reassured. I have some doubts about the sort of case when a woman who is having a baby is allowed to come here and have her baby in this country and then, afterwards, is returned to China and suffers the most appalling persecution after she goes back. I would have felt more comfortable if my noble friend the Minister had reassured me on that point. However, in the circumstances, I shall read carefully what has been said. I am most grateful to my noble friend for her response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 14, after ("which") insert ("(a)").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the above amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 5, 14, 18 and 19. During Committee the House adopted an amendment to Clause 1 which was designed to provide a safeguard for victims of torture. The provision has now been incorporated in the current print of the Bill as sub-paragraph (2). The sub-paragraph exempts asylum applicants from having their appeal accelerated if they can show a reasonable claim that they have been the victim of torture in the country in which they claim to fear persecution, or if that country has a recently documented record of torture.
During a subsequent debate, on 30th April, I made clear that, although we believe our procedures provide good protection for genuine refugees and that the Bill will preserve that position, the Government have accepted—and I was very ready to accept—the wish of the House that there should be a safeguard for victims of torture on the face of the Bill. The amendments I have tabled for today honour that undertaking.
On the same occasion, however, I indicated that we intended to seek some necessary adjustments of the provision on torture, in order to reduce the scope that we believe it would currently offer for evasion of our procedures by applicants who are not victims of torture and are not at risk of it.
Our amendments reflect the outcome of discussions which I have had with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, who your Lordships will recall moved the amendment in Committee which led to the adoption of sub-paragraph (2). I am very glad that the right reverend Prelate has felt able to put his name to the amendments, as indeed have two of the other signatories of the original amendment, the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, and the noble Lord, Lord Runcie. I should point out to your Lordships that both the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool and the noble Lord, Lord Runcie, are unavoidably absent from the House this afternoon.
Our amendments have the following effects. First, as I have indicated, they retain the principle that applicants who have been tortured in the country from which they are seeking asylum should be exempt from the accelerated appeal procedure for which Clause 1 makes provision.
Secondly, the amendments clarify the test of probability to be applied in assessing whether the applicant has indeed been a victim of torture. At present, Paragraph (5A) applies to an applicant who,
"can show a reasonable claim",
that he has been tortured. The Government agree with the intention behind that phrase, but in order to bring out the meaning more clearly we propose that the exemption should apply,
"where the evidence establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood",
that the applicant has been tortured in the country concerned.
Next, our amendments provide—and this is an additional safeguard which sub-paragraph 2A does not at present provide—that in order to certify an appeal by an applicant who claims to have been tortured, the Secretary of State will have to state in terms in the certificate that he does not accept that the applicant qualifies for exemption. The Secretary of State will thus be compelled to address the issue of torture directly and say whether or not he accepts that aspect of the asylum claim.
In addition, it will be open to the applicant to challenge the certificate at appeal. If the adjudicator concludes that it is reasonably likely that torture has occurred, his ruling to that effect will result in the certificate being overturned, thereby restoring the applicant's avenue to the immigration tribunal. Moreover, where an adjudicator judges that it is necessary in the interests of justice for the appellant to have more time in which to prepare his appeal, it is already open to the adjudicator to grant an adjournment for that purpose.
Finally, the amendments remove the separate exemption for applicants whose country of origin has a recently documented record of torture. The Government consider that such an exemption is unjustified and damaging, because it would enable large numbers of asylum seekers to evade having their appeal accelerated by simply pointing to incidents of misconduct by the police or security forces in their country, no matter how isolated or irrelevant to their own circumstances. Information about conditions in the country or origin are, as a matter of course, taken into account by the Asylum Directorate in assessing asylum claims, and such issues can of course be raised by the appellant before the adjudicator during the appeal. In many cases, that information will be entirely material to the individual case, but in some cases it will not be material to the case.
In Committee I spoke of the importance that the Government attach to ensuring that those genuinely at risk of torture are identified and protected. I have placed in the Library a memorandum which sets out the
482
procedures followed by the Asylum Directorate in considering such applications. The memorandum also reports on the outcome of discussions which we asked officials to conduct earlier this year with the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture.
The Government believe that the amendments that I have tabled will enable us to ensure that the position of genuine victims of torture is indeed safeguarded, while preserving the effectiveness of the provisions in Clause I which are designed to enable unfounded claims to be dealt with quickly and effectively. I commend them to your Lordships.
There are other amendments grouped with Amendment No. 2, but I reserve my position to respond to them until they have been spoken to by the individual proposers. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if, when contributing to the debate, I also refer in advance to Amendment No. 4A which is directly related to government amendments mentioned by the Minister. I should like to begin by saying that the debate just held regarding the possibility of some people involved in coercive attempts to try to abort children being brought within the category of being tortured is absolutely crucial in terms of the outcome of this debate.
If the definition of what constitutes torture and the extent and scope of it is so narrowly defined that few can get within it, the assurance received by the noble Lords, Lord Braine and Lord Ashbourne, will not be worth a great deal. On the other hand—and I put this in terms of pleading for some further illumination and elucidation from the Minister—if torture is defined in ways that really do include people who have been tortured or who are at grave risk of being tortured, then the noble Lords, Lord Braine and Lord Ashbourne, have received a valuable reassurance. In other words, it is crucial that the basic principle can sustain the cases that we are now discussing and those discussed in the previous debate.
The debate becomes very much more acute when we consider that the People's Republic of China will be taking over Hong Kong next year and will have control over many citizens who have no experience whatever of being compelled to have only one child. Indeed, many of them have been British citizens until very recently and have looked to this country for the protection of their rights. Therefore, this debate is of the greatest moment for all Members of the House.
I should like, first, to thank the Minister and the Government for going some way to meet the decision made by this Chamber in Committee with regard to the issue of torture. As the noble Baroness explained, the first part of the amendment which was carried in Committee has been met at least to some extent by the Government. However, I have one question with regard to sub-paragraph (a). It is a question that I believe a number of other noble Lords will be raising. The phraseology used in the Government's new amendment refers to the country to which a person is to be sent. It refers to someone who has been tortured, and then says

483
that he would not normally be returned to that same country. However, the original terminology used referred to,
"the country in which he is claiming to fear prosecution."
I shall briefly explain to your Lordships why that matters. If someone who been tortured can no longer be returned to the country in which he was tortured but could be returned to a neighbouring country or one in close association with that country and might then be sent on, we will not have achieved a very satisfactory safeguard.
I shall give a clear example. There is some reason to believe that at least some of those who have escaped from the ruthless regime in Zaire have been returned to that country by Belgium when they have passed through that country as a third country. It has not proved to be a safe country.
As regards sub-paragraph (a) of new paragraph 5(2), will the Minister assure the House that someone would not be returned to a country in which they are likely to be tortured, as compared with the country in which they were tortured? On the face of it, the wording seems to suggest that it is possible.
I turn to sub-paragraph (b). In the original amendment, noble Lords will recall that sub-paragraph (b) referred directly to a person who claims to fear persecution in a country which has a recently documented record of torture. The House will be aware that there are, alas, real examples of that. I need only refer to Myanmar, which used to be called Burma. The name was changed. Perhaps that is as well because great damage has been done to the rich history of that country. The other example is our fellow Commonwealth country, Nigeria, which still has under house arrest its most distinguished former son and president, Dr. Obasanjo.
The Minister says that the original wording in the amendment passed by this House in sub-paragraph (b) is too loosely worded. Will she consider accepting the wording in Amendment No. 4A which deliberately attempts to tighten up the provision by referring directly to a systematic pattern of torture of the kind that has been clearly recognised and indicated by the United Nations Committee against Torture and the United Nations Special Rapporteur? The amendment refers to an extensive practice of torture, not a single instance. It refers to,
"a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights",
not a single instance. It is not just one policeman getting out of hand, but a pattern which is adopted, sustained and consistently pressed by the Government of that country.
It is relatively easy to state which countries they are. It is relatively easy to look up the statements made by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture. We plead—we press very hard because we are clear that it was the intention of noble Lords when they passed the amendment in the first place—that no one who is a victim of torture, with clear evidence of torture, should
484
be returned to a country which consistently practises torture. If we do not have that safeguard, we have very little.
I wish to raise one other issue. I am concerned by the phrase that the noble Baroness used about evidence being credible or not credible. I fully accept that in some cases the evidence does not bear out the case of the person seeking asylum. But the Minister will be aware of the case of Mr. Igbinidu who has now been detained for a year at Campsfield Detention Centre in Oxford. No fewer than four of the most eminent medical experts in this entire country have signed a letter to The Times. They state:
"It was subsequently possible to secure documentary surgical and psychiatric evidence of torture and its psychological and traumatic sequelae".
I shall not detain the House for more than a moment but I read one sentence from the view of the Reader in Trauma and Orthopaedics who examined Mr. Igbinidu, who is still being detained at Campsfield. It is a test of credibility. It states:
"There are marks compatible with him having had needles stuck into his [sexual organ]. The big toe injury is compatible with his toe having been stamped on. The scars on the knees are compatible with him having to walk on his knees. The scar on his eyebrow is compatible with him having been hit with the butt of a gun. The bruise on the back of his occiput is compatible with his head having been driven against a wall…In my opinion…this man has been tortured and his story is compatible with the injuries in all verifiable areas".
That is signed by Doctor C.J.K. Bulstrode, Reader in Trauma and Orthopaedics at the University of Oxford Radcliffe Centre.
That seems to me to be a very strongly argued case for the medical evidence of torture in the case of that one person. I quote it because that case is still not found credible by the Home Office. We need assurance from Ministers at the Home Office in line with what they told the House—we fully appreciate it and are grateful for that—that such evidence would be accepted. If that kind of evidence is not accepted, I do not know what would be.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I speak to Amendments Nos. 4A and 15. The Minister has been notified that we wish these to be debated together with the amendments which stand in her name and those of other noble Lords. I preface my remarks by expressing my appreciation to the Minister for the efforts she has taken to reach agreement on the definition of torture: first, for recognising that the view of the House in Committee had to be given expression in legislation; and, secondly, for the negotiations into which she entered with those who had put their names to the original amendments. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for writing to me yesterday to explain the amendments that she has put down.
It is, therefore, with some regret that, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, we have had to dissent from two aspects of the amendments which the Minister so ably moved and spoke to. To that extent, although we shall not oppose them because they form an alternative to the amendments which were carried in

485
Committee, nevertheless we shall seek to persuade the House that the provisions would be improved with the addition of Amendments Nos. 4A and 15.
As regards the way in which the amendments have to be formulated, this is an enormously complicated matter. One of our amendments would have been pre-empted by one of the Government amendments, and had to be drafted in a different way. It is, formally, in conflict with what will be agreed, I am sure, in the Government's amendments. The other amendment has had to be put down as an amendment to one of the Government amendments. However, let me assure the Minister and the House that we are not trying to play games with the amendments. We seek to ensure that the best possible solution to the acknowledged problem of torture is found in the legislation.
There are two problems with the Government amendments. First, the amendments leave out sub-paragraph (b) which refers to,
"a person who is claiming to fear persecution in a country which has a recently documented record of torture".
We take the point that that is too wide and too vague. A recently documented record of torture could apply to a large number of countries where there has been torture but it has not been on a systematic scale. Therefore, sub-paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 4A refers more specifically to,
"a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights, or where the findings of the United Nations Committee Against Torture or the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture suggest the existence of an extensive practice of torture".
I believe that that provides the protection which the Minister seeks against claims on the basis of torture where torture is not of the essence in the claim, and where the Government might wish to apply the accelerated procedure.
The amendments will have to be voted on as we come to them in the Marshalled List. They cannot be moved now. However, Amendment No. 15 is an amendment to Amendment No. 14 to which the Minister has already spoken. Officials have assured me that it is the intention of Amendment No. 14 that torture in the country from which the claimant is seeking asylum will count in this amendment. The Minister did not make any point of that when she introduced the amendments. However, we are puzzled by the phrase in Amendment No. 14 concerning the,
"likelihood that the appellant has been tortured in the country or territory to which he is to be sent".
It seemed to us that the thrust of the amendments which were put forward and were voted on in Committee was, as the wording then was,
"claiming to fear persecution in a country".
In other words, that refers to the past and not the future.
Therefore we have proposed an amendment which, without removing any of the words of Amendment No. 14, states that the likelihood should be,
"that the appellant has been tortured in the country or territory from which he has come or to which he"
486
has been sent. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has given an example of Zaire and Belgium, and of the possibility that someone might be sent to a country where there is no torture but might still have been a valid applicant for asylum because he had already been tortured in Zaire. Indeed, there is the further possibility as regards Zaire and Belgium; namely, it is known that Belgian authorities have simply taken someone off a plane from London and put him straight onto a plane to Kinshasa. That is the extreme case.
We want to have it recognised—as I am sure the Chamber intended at Committee stage—that the validity of the application for asylum is that someone has been tortured in the country from which they came. That is the significant issue and that is why we have proposed the additional words to Amendment No. 14 in our Amendment No. 15.
Let me recapitulate. We are grateful for what has been done. We are sure that it has been done in good faith and we well understand why the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool have put their names to the government amendments. We sympathise with that. We shall not vote against those amendments but we shall seek to have them sharpened and tightened up in the form of Amendments Nos. 4A and 15.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, when the Minister replies I hope that she will cover the case to which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred. The noble Baroness referred to the case of the Nigerian, Abiodun Igbinidu, who has been detained in Oxfordshire for over a year. His medical examination has been carried out by Oxford and Cambridge dons who agree that he shows terrible signs of having been tortured. Why can he not be given asylum here? Why is he still detained? I hope that the Minister will cover that case.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I wish to raise a couple of points. Is there any reason why Amendment No. 14 is confined to cases where there is
"a reasonable likelihood that the appellant has been tortured"?
Why does the amendment not take into account the possibility that the appellant may be tortured if he is sent back? I can think of individual cases where this might well occur, for example where someone escapes from a country where he has witnessed atrocities committed by the security forces. He reaches another country and applies for asylum. If he is sent back, there is a good chance that he will be treated in the same way as those in the incident that he witnessed.
The situation in south east Turkey is an illustration of that. There are many people who have knowledge of the atrocities that have been committed in villages of Kurdistan, where 3 million people have been displaced from their homes, many tens of thousands have been killed, and thousands more have been taken into custody and tortured. There are people there who have knowledge of those incidents. Those people sometimes manage to escape to the outside world. Is it not fairly clear that if those people were sent back they would be

487
detained on account of the knowledge they possess and it is likely that they would be tortured, even if they had not already suffered torture in the past?
I refer to my noble friend's Amendment No. 4A where she advocates that a person should not be fast-tracked if he claims,
"to fear persecution in a country in which there is a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights".
That is a more restrictive criterion than that in the original amendment. Nevertheless, I fear that the noble Baroness may still reject it on the grounds that an individual claimant coming from such a country may have no grounds for thinking that he would be persecuted in that way. The fact that there is a pattern of,
"gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights"
in Nigeria—which my noble friend mentioned—or in Burma, or in other parts of the world that one can think of, does not necessarily mean that one person arriving at Heathrow is legitimately in fear of that kind of persecution.
I have been thinking about a matter as my noble friend spoke. I hope I may suggest that we might ensure that immigration officers and other people who have to deal with these matters possess a much more thorough knowledge of the situations in the countries of origin than they have at present. I know that frequently those who come from the countries which yield refugees claim that the Home Office briefings are inadequate. Just the other day I received a letter from someone in Somalia who said that the situation in his country had been distorted. However, I must add that he did not explain his criticisms in detail. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to deal with this issue at a later stage when those matters have been properly explained.
The other day I asked the Foreign Office for a copy of the latest report of the UN rapporteur on torture, and to my great surprise—I already had a copy but I wanted an additional copy to lay on the table at a reception that the Parliamentary Human Rights Group was giving for the UN rapporteur—after some weeks' delay I was sent a copy of the 1995 report which he issued in January of that year. Every single year when we ask for the reports of the UN rapporteur we have great difficulty in getting them from Geneva. There seems to be some hang-up in the transmission of those documents from the UN human rights centre in Geneva to the Foreign Office and then to the Home Office in London. If we have great difficulty in obtaining the documents, those who have to use them must experience an even greater problem. I suggest that copies of the annual report of the UN rapporteur on torture be made available to those who have to consider those applicants who claim to suffer from torture to enable them to refer to what the rapporteur has said about a particular country, whether it be Turkey, Burma or Nigeria. I am afraid that most of them are extremely ignorant of the circumstances in the country of origin, and that might be a step towards what my noble friend is trying to achieve.
5.30 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I, too, am puzzled by the fact that Amendment No. 14 appears to refer only
488
to past torture. If a person was tortured in the past, but has no lively fear of torture in the present, the provision would apply. It would not, however, apply if by the skin of one's teeth one managed to get on an aeroplane and leave the country without being tortured while one's colleagues were less lucky and were presently rotting in some cell and being tortured. That seems very curious.
It seems particularly curious in the light of the debate on the previous amendment. If—as they obviously are—the appalling abortions that have been mentioned are torture, the lady who has been aborted or sterilised in the past comes within the terms of the provision, even though she now has no baby to be aborted and cannot be sterilised if she returns. The lady who is currently pregnant but never had an abortion forced upon her in the past is not someone who was tortured in the past and therefore has to be returned to have the new abortion. It is very curious that we are concerned only with past torture, not with the present, certain, lively risk of torture if a person is returned.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, for the past 10 years I have had some connections with the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. Those connections led me, first, to be moved with great admiration for the amazing work done by members of the profession in seeking to heal the bodies and minds of victims of torture. But, more relevant to our discussions today, it made me realise as I never had before the full dimensions of what it means to have suffered torture and the effects on both the mind and the body. I suspect that people who have not been near to torture do not appreciate, as I previously did not, that one of the effects is an inability on the part of the person to talk about the experience or to act quickly in relation to it. If there is one class of people who should never be subjected to any sort of fast-track procedure, it is the victims of torture.
Therefore I most warmly welcome these amendments, and I praise my noble friend Lady Blatch for bringing them forward. It is absolutely right that torture should be on the face of the Bill in the way it now is, although it was not included in the Bill as first drafted. I am deeply grateful, as I am sure is the whole House.
I want to say to my noble friend that I believe there are matters of substance in the amendments raised by the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite and by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. It is not clear whether the exact form of the amendments is appropriate. I find it very difficult to see how they all fit together.
One aspect of my noble friend's Amendment No. 14 worried me the moment I saw it; namely, the reference is to torture in the past. The words used are: "has been tortured". It means that the person concerned could not be returned to any territory in which he or she had been tortured in the past, but on the face of it gives no safeguard that someone will not be sent back to a territory where there would be a real danger of their being tortured even though they had not previously been tortured in that territory. That point needs to be dealt with, either in the terms proposed or in other terms that my noble friend may consider more effective.

489
My concern was increased on reading the letter in The Times from Sir Richard Doll and others, to which reference has been made. It underlines that, whatever may be the intentions of officials in this area, the pressures upon them are very great. It is over 20 years since I was Home Secretary. I remember then being extremely worried at the sheer pressure of the huge number of cases that we struggled to deal with. It still happens in the office in Croydon. It seemed to me that, even given the conscientious attempts of the most dedicated officials in the world, under such an enormous volume of work mistakes could easily occur. Therefore we have to examine the issue very carefully and provide what safeguards we can.
While I most warmly welcome the amendments in the Minister's name, I hope that she will give serious attention to the further doubts that have been raised. I suspect that her intention is to cover the worries that we have; however, I am not altogether satisfied that they are fully covered in her amendments as they stand at the moment.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell: My Lords, I agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carr. It seemed from my reading of the debate in Committee that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool spoke very strongly on the question of a person being returned to a country where he fears persecution. That was the very nub of his remarks. That reference does not occur in Amendment No. 14.
Many of us greatly appreciate the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in bringing this amendment before the House. However, there is concern that it should be interpreted along the lines of the earlier debate. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House that assurance so that we are able to support the amendment that stands in her name, alongside that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool.
It is also important to bear in mind all that has been said about the tragic case of Mr. Igbinidu, who has now been in detention for over a year. Most of us are concerned about a person who is proven to have been tortured. That is now without doubt. In spite of overwhelming and expert evidence as to the truth of his story, the long-standing and accepted practice in our nation of receiving and supporting those who legitimately seek asylum on account of torture and repression may well be in jeopardy. In the light of that concern it is appropriate that an objective test of a record of torture, independently authenticated by the United Nations, as is included in Amendment No. 4A, is very much to be welcomed. I hope the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that all that was discussed and agreed at Committee stage in this House will be covered by Amendment No. 14.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as one who has not taken part in the debate, I intervene for only a moment to express my admiration and gratitude to my noble friend Lady Blatch for the way in which she has handled what was clearly a very sensitive, delicate and important matter. There was strong feeling in the House.
490
That was understandable in view of the appalling aspects of certain issues that arise. The way in which my noble friend appears to understand that, and yet at the same time to understand the necessity of keeping the provisions in proper legislative form was very remarkable. I express my gratitude to her and my admiration for her over that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments. Thanks also need to be shared by those who have engaged in this process of iteration and I am grateful in particular to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool.
Amendment No. 4A seeks to retain an exemption based on human rights violations in the country of origin. That is both unjustified and potentially very damaging to the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has proposed that, in addition to an exemption for victims of torture, asylum applicants should be excluded from the accelerated appeal procedure if their country of origin has a consistent pattern of human rights abuses or an extensive record of torture. I note that she states that her proposal would tighten up the wording of subparagraph (2)(b) so as to meet the concern that it would enable a very high proportion of applicants to avoid the accelerated appeal procedure. But it is clear that Amendment No. 4A would severely undermine the impact of the proposals in Clause 1.
First, the conditions in the country of origin will of course have to be taken into account in any case in assessing an asylum claim based on torture. We have only recently discussed China where we all know and have an understanding that terrible acts of torture take place. I made it absolutely clear that if asylum applicants meeting those conditions applied, they would be seriously considered for asylum purposes. But at the same time, people are returned to China who are not in danger and whose cases were not credible on application.
If, despite our having taken them into account, the applicant is unable to establish a reasonable likelihood that he has been tortured, I see absolutely no logic or justification in nevertheless providing him with an exemption from the accelerated appeal procedure. In other words, the proposal would provide an additional exemption for applicants who, by definition, were unable to establish a claim of torture, notwithstanding their country's poor record. I cannot discern a convincing argument for the proposition that an asylum seeker who has not himself been tortured, and whose claim on individual consideration is found to be manifestly unfounded or to qualify for certification under one of the other headings in Clause 1, should be exempted from having his appeal accelerated.
Secondly, the argument that asylum seekers who have experienced torture in the past may be especially vulnerable, and in particular may be suffering from traumatic effects which make it desirable to allow more time for them to prepare their appeal, cannot be advanced in support of the proposal that the Bill should exempt asylum seekers from having their appeal accelerated if they have not been tortured.

491
We already take full account of our extensive information about conditions in countries. The fact that we are granting asylum or exceptional leave to remain at a much higher rate than average to nationals of countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Somalia and former Yugoslavia shows that that is so. Last year the refusal rate for those countries ranged from 50 per cent. down to as low as 5 per cent. compared with a refusal rate for all nationalities of nearly 80 per cent.
But the evidence shows that some countries with very poor human rights records nevertheless generate large numbers of unfounded asylum claims. Many of those countries are also subject to powerful economic migratory pressures. It simply does not follow from the existence of abuses in a country that the individuals who seek asylum here are always or often genuine refugees or would genuinely be at individual risk if returned. Last year, for example, between 92 per cent. and 99 per cent. of claims from Algeria, Nigeria, Turkey and Zaire were refused.
The high refusal rates for those countries cannot be attributed to a climate of disbelief in the Home Office, as some of the Bill's opponents would have us believe. If the Home Office were refusing large numbers of genuine refugees,
it would be losing large numbers of cases at appeal. But the fact is that last year only 1 per cent. of appeals by Algerian nationals against refusal of asylum were allowed. For Nigeria the figure was 2 per cent., for Turkey 8 per cent. and for Zaire 8 per cent.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness invoked the refusal rate for Zaire. Is she aware that many people believe that that refusal rate is the result of a mistaken country assessment?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if I had the brief before me that I had for my Question this afternoon, I would be able to give the noble Earl a quote from a reputable organisation based in Zaire which follows up returns from this country whose asylum appeals have failed. It has not found those cases wanting. If it had, it would not be reticent in letting us know about them. However, I owe the noble Earl a reply to his specific point and I shall certainly give him that.
The noble Baroness's amendment would mean that, for certain nationalities, asylum appeals could not be accelerated even if it were apparent after proper individual consideration that they were manifestly unfounded. The amendment would significantly and unjustifiably restrict the availability of the accelerated appeal procedure. It would greatly reduce the impact of Clause 1, both as a deterrent against abusive appeals and as a means of enabling such appeals to be processed more quickly. I do not believe that that would be in the wider interests of those genuine refugees who seek asylum in this country.
Amendment No. 4A has a further important drawback. It introduces enormous scope for uncertainty. Who is to decide whether a country fits the proposed criteria of a consistent practice of human rights abuse or an extensive practice of torture? There are, as I have already said, many countries with poor human rights.
492
Every asylum appellant would claim that his country failed the test. There would be a continuing state of uncertainty about which nationalities were exempt from certification and which not. That would severely damage the purpose of Clause 1.
I remind the House that it would be quite mistaken to think of the accelerated appeal procedure as removing the applicant's right to a fair hearing of his case. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for intervening again. I should like to know why certification under this clause would be more difficult than the certification the noble Baroness's department already proposes under Clause 1.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am talking about certification under Clause 1. That is the whole purpose of the amendment. We are talking about Clause 1. We are extending the categories to whom it applies, hut the certification procedure in Clause 1 is exactly the same.
In practice, even if one assumes minimum administrative delay, certification will mean that the appeal should be disposed of in around four weeks from the initial decision. That is a more than adequate period in which to expect an asylum applicant to exercise his appeal. In all cases, of course, the initial consideration by the Home Office will already have involved the applicant having an opportunity to explain his fear of persecution at an interview and to make additional representations afterwards. Certified claims will still attract a right of appeal to an independent adjudicator before the applicant can be returned to his country of origin.
The Government accept that we should provide a statutory safeguard where there is a reasonable likelihood that an asylum applicant has been a victim of torture. We believe it is possible to combine that with maintaining the effectiveness of our proposals in Clause 1 for dealing more quickly and effectively with unfounded asylum claims. But the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, would provide an exemption for asylum applicants regardless of whether they are or even claim to be victims of torture. Notwithstanding the assurances about the scope of this proposal, it would significantly and unjustifiably restrict the availability of the accelerated appeal procedure in a way which would reduce its impact both as a deterrent against abusive appeals and as a means of enabling such appeals to be processed more quickly. Amendment No. 4A would damage the Bill and invalidate the purpose of Clause 1.
Torture, whether physical or psychological, is by its nature likely to be sufficiently serious to constitute persecution. Our aim is to ensure that genuine victims of torture are identified and protected. Information about country of origin, including consistent patterns of serious violations of human rights, is always taken into account.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept my suggestion that the text of the report on torture of the UN rapporteur on a particular country

493
should always be available to an immigration officer who is considering an application for asylum on the grounds of torture from that country?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again, let me repeat myself from the question I had earlier. All those sources of information are available to those who are charged with having to make judgments about individual applications.
Medical evidence supporting a claim of torture is always given very careful consideration. I shall return in due course to the specific case referred to a moment ago. Staff receive detailed and comprehensive training in how to interview asylum seekers and on how to assess claims. The training raises awareness of the barriers that genuine refugees may face in describing their experiences to officials. We all know that this is a particularly sensitive area. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other independent bodies contribute to the Asylum Directorate's training. Caseworkers work closely to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees' handbook.
We are anxious that our procedure should attract confidence. That is why we asked officials earlier this year to hold discussions with the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, which was prayed in aid by my noble friend Lord Carr. As a result of that, if the medical foundation asks for an extension of time to enable a medical report to be prepared, we have undertaken to consider that carefully. Such a request will not be refused except at senior executive level and for very good reason.
If the Home Office has concerns about any aspect of a medical foundation report on a case, we will normally discuss the concerns with the foundation before reaching a final decision. The foundation has also been supplied with a contact number in the Immigration Service for detained cases. Caseworkers already have access to the foundation's guidelines for examining victims of torture.
Amendment No. 15 proposes a drafting change to subsection (5)(a) which the government amendment would insert into Clause 1. We have proposed that the exemption should apply if the applicant has been tortured in the country or territory to which he is to be sent. The noble Baroness proposes that we should also include applicants who have been tortured in the country from which they have come. Indeed, I believe it is not an addition but a substitution for those words.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Amendment No. 15 is an addition to Amendment No. 14. There is no substitution.
Baroness Blatch: I hope I will be able to explain to the noble Baroness why we have difficulties with the amendment. First, the proposed additional words are not very precise. Do they mean the country from which the applicant travelled immediately prior to arriving in the United Kingdom, or are they intended to refer to the applicant's country of origin? If we accepted the proposal in principle, we would want a more precise form of words. Perhaps I may again use Zaire as an
494
example. Almost all Zairian applicants come to us through a third safe country. They come to us from Belgium because there is no direct route into the United Kingdom. That is an important point and would need to be clarified.
Secondly, I do not see the logic of exempting a victim of torture if the country where he was tortured is different from the country to which he is to be sent. Let us take, for example, an Indian national who has been working in Iraq and who seeks asylum here on the grounds that he was tortured in that country. He would have a very weak case. We would be likely to refuse his claim on the grounds that we intended to remove him to India where he did not claim to fear persecution. We would wish to certify his claim on the grounds that he was a national of a designated country and that would be a clear case of a manifestly unfounded asylum claim. Again, I can see no reason why we should be prevented from certification because of what happened to that applicant in Iraq.
Perhaps I may respond to one or two of the points that were raised. All noble Lords would agree that the Asylum Directorate has a difficult and painstaking job to do. I believe that the directorate and the adjudicators who hear appeals do it very well. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, suggested that the benefit of the doubt should be given even if the evidence does not bear out the claim. If we are to experience proper control, firm and fair, of the system, a policy of not securing evidence to support a claim would prove very difficult indeed.
I was asked specifically about Mr. Igbinidu. The gentleman has failed so far to satisfy the Secretary of State and the special adjudicator that he had a well-founded fear of persecution in Nigeria. He also failed to obtain leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal. Further evidence, including medical reports—I hope that noble Lords and indeed the right reverend Prelate will accept this point—was only received on 12th June. This is new evidence and it has only come to light since 12th June. It has been submitted to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. He is examining the totality of the evidence in Mr. Igbinidu's case and a decision will be made, we hope as soon as possible.
It is true to say that there has been a great deal of conflicting evidence and I have read most of the literature on the case. It would not be proper for me to discuss the detail of the further evidence today but I can assure the House that if Mr. Igbinidu does not meet the test of qualification under the 1951 convention we will of course, given the weight of the evidence that is now before us, also consider whether there are grounds for exercising discretion to allow him to remain exceptionally. I shall keep the House informed on that point.
I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and others to clarify the scope of torture. I have made clear that the term "torture" can indeed apply to any severe form of physical and indeed psychological abuse deliberately inflicted to cause suffering. I have also made clear that forcible abortion or sterilisation could

495
indeed constitute torture and therefore fall within the scope of the exemption proposed in the amendments I have tabled.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said that the government amendment did not protect people who had not yet been tortured but would be tortured if they returned to their country of origin or the country where they believed they had been persecuted. If we were satisfied that a person would be tortured if returned to the country of origin and that the torture would constitute persecution for a convention reason, we would grant asylum. If an applicant faced torture but not for a convention reason he would of course be granted exceptional leave to remain.
I hope that the amendments standing in my name will be accepted by the House and that the other amendments will be resisted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert ("; and
(b) sub-paragraph (5A) below does not apply").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 4 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 4A:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as applying to—

(a) a person who can show a reasonable claim that he has been the victim of torture in a country in which he is claiming to fear persecution; or

(b) a person who is claiming to fear persecution in a country in which there is a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights, or where the findings of the United Nations Committee against Torture or the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture suggest the existence of an extensive practice of torture.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a moment or two. I wish to make a couple of comments which may explain why I feel obliged to take the opinion of the House on this amendment.
I wish to make it plain first of all that the amendment does not give anyone the right to stay in this country. It merely lets them take the longer track which enables them to have time to adduce evidence. Nothing in my amendment—an amendment supported also by others—would give the right to anyone to stay in Britain unless they were able to show the immigration authorities, and if necessary the adjudicator, that they had made out their case.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carr, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, that victims of torture are rarely able to get their case together in a matter of days is at the very heart of this amendment. To mention an additional, very moving case, the author of Some Other Rainbow, our own John McCarthy, was detained for many months in Iraq, as noble Lords will recall. He specifically said to Members of this House only
496
yesterday that he, as a victim of detention, fear and torture, would have been unable to put his case together in a matter of days. Therefore, the first point I wish to make as strongly as I can is that nothing in Amendment No. 4A would force or oblige the authorities to accept someone who could not make out his case. It merely gives him the right to make that case, and a victim of torture cannot make a case in a matter of days.
The second point I wish to make is that the case of Mr. Igbinidu bears that out precisely. There was earlier evidence about his torture and that was waved aside by Home Office officials, no doubt because they thought it did not carry sufficient credibility. It was only when Mr. Igbinidu's lawyers went to the highest levels of medical practice in this country that evidence was adduced that the Minister has now said she will consider again. It would have taken Mr. Igbinidu weeks to get that additional evidence, which he now has. Under the fast-track procedure there is not the remotest chance that he could have made out a case that he had been tortured, as medical experts of the level of Professor Doll and others now strongly believe to be the case.
The third point I wish to make is that I am sure, in the light of the very helpful response of the Minister to the earlier amendment that was passed by the House, that we are entitled to ask for a similar response to this amendment, for it reflects the will of the House. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for me to press the matter in the hope that the noble Baroness will decide at Third Reading to respond to this amendment, which is concerned with the possibility of future torture, in the same very helpful way as she responded to the amendment addressing the past history of torture. I see no incompatibility between the two. I beg to move.
6.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 117.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Donoughue, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Dubs, L.

Avebury, L.

Falkender, B.

Bath, M.

Falkland, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Berkeley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Birk, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Blackstone, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L

Carr of Hadley, L.

Gregson, L.

Carter, L.

Hamwee, B.

Clancarty, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Haskel, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hayman, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

David, B.

Hooson, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Desai, L.

Hylton, L.

Diamond, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Inchyra, L.

497

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Norfolk, D. [Teller.]

Jay of Paddington, B.

Ogmore, L.

Jeger, B.

Peston, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Rea, L.

Judd, L.

Redesdale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Richard, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

Rochester, L.

Lockwood, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Russell, E.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Sandwich, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Seear, B.

Serota, B.

McNair, L.

Sewel, L.

McNally, L.

Southwell, Bp.

Mallalieu, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Mayhew, L.

Stafford, E.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Meston, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Methuen, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

White, B.

Mishcon, L.

Williams of Crosby, B. [Teller.]

Monkswell, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Nicol, B.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Abinger, L.

Henley, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Holderness, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Howe, E.

Balfour, E.

Inglewood, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Birdwood, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Kenyon, L.

Bowness, L.

Keyes, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kingsland, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Butterworth, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Cadman, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Carnock, L.

Leigh, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Liverpool, E.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Lucas, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Coleraine, L.

Lyell, L.

Colwyn, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Courtown, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Craigavon, V.

[Lord Chancellor.]

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Crathorne, L.

Marlesford, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mersey, V.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Denham, L.

Milverton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Mottistone, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mountevans, L.

Downshire, M.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dudley, E.

Munster, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Nelson, E.

Elton, L.

Newall, L.

Finsberg, L.

Northesk, E.

Flather, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Onslow, E.

Gisborough, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Goschen, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hanson, L.

Peel, E.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Harrowby, E.

Rawlings, B.

498

Rennell, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Renton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Teviot, L.

St Davids, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Seccombe, B.

Trumpington, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Stewartby, L.

Vinson, L.

Strange, B.

Wedgwood, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Wilcox, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Wynford, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.10 p.m.
[Amendment No. 4B not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 7A:
Page 1, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in this paragraph shall apply to a person who has a claim in support of which the evidence adduced establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that the appellant has been raped or seriously sexually assaulted, or there is evidence of the systematic use of rape as a means of waging war or exercising control in the country or territory to which she or he is to be sent.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment, like that on which the House has just voted, is not designed to give anyone a right to stay here permanently. It is designed simply to provide an exemption from the procedure of fast-tracking. It is designed to give time for evidence to come forward, to give time to allow people to tell their stories, and to give time to assess rather more fully than might otherwise be the case the credibility of stories which have been told.
Before I go any further, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for drawing my attention to a defect in the wording. In the event of the Minister wishing to accept the amendment, I hope that we shall be able to agree to tidy it up. The word "or" in the fourth line of the amendment should read "and". That conjunction is crucial to the amendment because it establishes the link between its two halves.
The first part of the amendment is plain enough. The use of rape as a weapon of war and of ethnic cleansing and persecution has been amply documented in the press in recent times. It is an atrocity. I use that word advisedly and technically and I do not think that any noble Lord will disagree with it. It is also something about which, notoriously, the victims find it extremely difficult to tell their stories. I have known cases in which that has been so and the difficulty was patent, serious and acute. If overcome, it was overcome only very slowly and with great effort. That may be inconvenient, but it is a fact—and because it is a fact we must live with it.
The link between the two sections of the amendment and the reason why it is crucial that it should read "and" not "or" is the issue of credibility. As the noble Baroness has been saying all afternoon, it is crucial to assess the credibility of an individual's story and, as I have been replying all afternoon, in assessing the credibility of an individual's story, we need to have an accurate picture of the country and the context from which that story comes. Stories are much more easily credible coming from some contexts than from others. That is why it is important to the credibility of one alleging that rape has been used against her—I suppose that I should add "against him" because that happens also—that in that country,
"there is evidence of the systematic use of rape as a means of waging war or exercising control in the country or territory to which she or he is to be sent".
The Minister may reply, as she did on the previous amendment, that there is some ambiguity about which country is being referred to. If I go too deeply into that, I shall anticipate a great deal of the argument that we shall need to have on the Question of Clause 2 stand part, but since some of it was raised in Committee, I shall touch on it briefly now. The Minister said just now that most of the asylum seekers coming from Zaire have come through Belgium. The noble Baroness will be familiar with the case of ex parte Bostam (which was discussed in Committee) from which it emerged that many of the people returned to Belgium under the safe third country procedure were in fact sent straight back to Zaire. Unless the noble Baroness can establish that the third country to which the person is returned is one wherein they shall be able to remain, that will be a purely technical distinction and probably of no effect. When we send people back, the likelihood is that it will end up as a matter of refoulment, going right back to the original country of origin. Therefore, I do not think that there is any mileage to be made out of trying to argue that distinction.
This is a serious amendment. It deals with an abuse which is serious and which is, across the world as a whole, probably more widespread than the abuse dealt with in the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne—that is, forced abortion, sterilisation and population control.
I agree with what the Minister said about not making too many categories of legislative drafting. As one of my academic colleagues said about criminal statutes in the 18th century, "People who had their turnips stolen demanded the death penalty for stealing turnips, not remembering that the catastrophe which happened this year to their turnips might happen next year to their potatoes". If we are to adopt the approach which the noble Baroness suggests, we would have needed Amendment No. 4A which the House has just decided not to adopt. Since the House has decided not to adopt that amendment, that route of dealing with the problem is blocked off. Therefore, I think that we need this amendment as a second best. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Earl has put forward his case with great clarity. I am not surprised
500
that he had to mention the deletion of the word "or" and its substitution by the word "and". There is, alas, rape and sexual assault in every country in the world—including, I am sorry to say, our own—and without that substitution a woman would only have to come here and show that she had lost her virginity, and because the amendment specifies only that there must be "a reasonable likelihood" that she had been raped or sexually assaulted, that would not be difficult for her to prove.
However, in addition to proving that, the woman would now have to show that in the country to which she is to be sent,
"there is evidence of the systematic use of rape as a means of waging war or exercising control".
I am surprised by the inclusion of the word "he" in the amendment because, as I understand it, men are not raped.
I have travelled in every continent except the Arctic and the Antarctic and have visited over 40 countries, but until this evening, when I read this amendment and heard the speech of the noble Earl I had never heard of,
"the systematic use of rape as a means of waging war or exercising control in the country or territory".
That may be my ignorance, but I had never heard of it. I do not know whether other noble Lords have heard of that, but it would be interesting to be told in which countries it is known and established that that occurs. Quite frankly, I have serious doubts about it.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the noble Lord not heard of the systematic mass rapes perpetrated by the Serbs in Bosnia?
Lord Renton: My Lords, I did not regard that as part of waging war but as an abuse of the circumstances which the war had created. It was not a method of waging war; indeed, it was counterproductive. The energies of those who waged war would have been much better spent in fighting the war in the ordinary way.
There are serious doubts about the amendment. Rape and sexual assault take place frequently in the world. Assume that the systematic use of rape as a means of waging war or exercising control applies to a large part of the world. Theoretically, enormous numbers of women can come here and remain for those reasons. I find that totally unrealistic. I very much hope that the Government will resist the amendment.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I make two brief comments. I support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The evidence which emerged from the tragic war in the former Yugoslavia is that many Bosnian Moslem women were raped by Serb soldiers or Serb military personnel as a way of terrifying the Moslem population so that it would leave the area and ethnic cleansing could be achieved. When I worked at the Refugee Council that body helped to provide accommodation under a Home Office scheme for Bosnians who had fled from that territory and had been accepted by this country. I had the opportunity to speak to a number of Bosnian women who in a dramatic,

501
tragic and painful way described how they had been brutalised. I fear that rape is used as an instrument of war to achieve military ends, in that case the removal of the civilian population from those parts of Bosnia that the Serbs wanted to occupy.
There is evidence that rape can be committed against men as well as women. Indeed, the concluding words of the amendment are
"to which she or he is to be sent",
thereby acknowledging that rape can be perpetrated against men as well as women, although it happens more frequently to the latter. I believe that this amendment is worthy of support, particularly if "or" is replaced by "and".
Lord Hylton: My Lords, Bosnia has been mentioned in this context. I believe I am right in saying that there were some cases from adjoining areas of Croatia as well. Much of the documentation of the facts was carried out by a distinguished Englishwoman, whose name I do not have with me and who was, I believe, the head of an Oxford college. Much of the rehabilitation of such victims has been carried out in this country. Training has been provided to citizens of the former Yugoslavia so that they may carry out rehabilitation on the spot in that country. I welcome the amendment and support it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendment No. 7A would insert an exemption for victims of rape and serious sexual assault, or where there is evidence of systematic use of rape in the country of origin.
It may be helpful if I begin by setting out the Government's general approach to claims based on rape. There is no doubt that assaults of this kind are by their nature so serious that, like torture, they are likely to amount to persecution if inflicted for a convention reason. As with torture, whether the applicant meets the criteria of the 1951 Convention in order to qualify for asylum, will depend on the circumstances. Rape or serious sexual assault imposed by agents of the state, or in circumstances where the state is unwilling or unable to afford protection, is likely to constitute grounds for asylum provided it has been inflicted because of the applicant's race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a social group.
In other cases rape may be inflicted as a random act of violence in a country undergoing civil war. In cases of this kind, which are not systematic, the applicant may not qualify for asylum. But it is our policy to grant exceptional leave to applicants where there are strong compassionate circumstances, and these typically include cases where the state of conflict in a country is such that it would not be safe or humane to return people to it for the time being. For example, there is strong evidence that rape has been inflicted systematically during the war in Bosnia as a means of suppressing and driving out opposing ethnic communities. It has been the case for some time now that we invariably grant asylum or exceptional leave to applicants from Bosnia.
502
The first part would provide an exemption for victims of rape and serious sexual assault, similar to the exemption which the Bill will provide for victims of torture. I do not favour this proposal. In some cases, torture may indeed take the form of rape or sexual assault. To that extent, rape victims will qualify for the exemption we are already providing. But I do not believe that it is sensible to attempt to itemise in primary legislation all the many different forms of man's inhumanity to man. What about people who have had their families shot in front of them? What about asylum applicants who arrive here after incarceration for years on end in horrendous conditions? I regret that many other examples of torture and persecution can be cited. To single out any one on the face of the Bill would, I believe, be undesirable.
We are all concerned to ensure that our procedures safeguard genuine refugees and victims of inhumanity. The way to achieve that is through ensuring the quality and fairness of our procedures and our staff. To itemise special cases in primary legislation is not the answer. The second part of the amendment would provide an exemption based on conditions in the country of origin. We have already discussed this concept fully in the context of the provision on torture. The arguments against this approach which I have set out in that context apply in the same way to Amendment No. 7A. I assume that the noble Earl is not linking this amendment to Amendment No. 20, as I was originally informed might be the case. I hope that for the reasons I have given this amendment will not be accepted.
Finally, the noble Earl referred to the position of Zairians in Belgium. We do not consider that the judgment of the High Court in the case of Bostam and others establishes that Belgium is unsafe as a third country. In that case the judge was concerned with the way that the adjudicators in those cases had considered evidence of the Belgian eight-day rule. The Belgian interior ministry has explained to us how the eight-day rule operates in practice, and I do not believe that it poses a barrier to asylum seekers who wish to claim asylum when they return to Belgium. I emphasise that the eight-day rule will no longer be an issue for most Belgian cases once appeals in third country cases cease to have a suspensive effect. The majority of applicants who transit Belgium do so in less than three days. We anticipate that most applicants will be returned within eight days of originally entering Belgium.
With regard to the allegations of malpractice in respect of Belgium's removals to Zaire, we are not aware of any substantial evidence to the effect that Belgium is failing to comply with its obligations under the convention in respect of asylum seekers from Zaire, or indeed of any other nationality. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before I say anything else, I reassure the noble Baroness that I do not intend to press this amendment, if for no other reason because of the defect in the wording to which I have already drawn attention.

503
I should like to dispose of one point which is a little extraneous to the main thrust of the amendment. I refer to the debate about Belgium as a third country. It is my contention—I have explained it to the House before and will not waste words on it—that there is no such thing as a country that is safe for everybody. The safety of a country can be judged only in relation to a particular applicant.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, was dissatisfied with the words "reasonable likelihood". But the standard of proof, in accordance with the ruling of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House in Sivakumaran, is not beyond reasonable doubt; it is a matter of probability. The wording of the amendment was aimed at achieving the same standard of proof as laid down in Sivakumaran. If the noble Lord suggests that we have failed to do this perhaps we ought to go away and try harder. If we are in line with the standard of proof that the law at present accepts, that, I should have thought, is all right.
Male rape does happen. I regret to say—I think it was about 18 months ago—there was a case reported on the London Underground, of all improbable places. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for confirming that. I am not aware of any case where it has yet been used as a systematic weapon of war, but I always hesitate to say that abuses of power cannot possibly happen. If male rape exists, its use as a weapon of war might exist. It would be foolish not to cover it in the amendment.
As for the use of rape as a systematic weapon of war on Bosnia, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said almost everything that needs to be said. I shall just add the name for which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was reaching. It is Dame Anne Warburton who has since become a distinguished member of the Nolan Committee and head of a Cambridge College.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said also that the effect of the amendment would be that people would remain here. I thought that I had explained that that was not the effect of the amendment. It is only that they should follow the ordinary, rather slower procedure for hearings instead of going on to the fast track. The argument here is not about remaining—that is a matter of justice and to be established in individual cases; it is a matter of how the cases are heard.
The Minister said, and I agree with her, that a random act of violence does not enable you to claim asylum because you are a rape victim. The reason for that is good and obvious. If you have been a victim of a random act, it does not make you less safe in your country than you would be anywhere else.
The key issue here, which is why the state of the country is vital, is the issue of the credibility of the person who alleges that rape has been used against her or, as it might be, him. That is where the question of the country assessment is vital. I beg the Minister's pardon for saying it, but the main other country where there is suspicion, and at present I would not put it any higher, that rape is being used by the armed forces as a systematic weapon of terrorising opposition is Zaire. I have about a dozen cases in my files. That is not
504
enough to entitle me to say more than "suspicion", but that suspicion does exist, and it would be as well that it should be verified.
The amendment links the attempt to procure a proper assessment of the country with the issue of the credibility of the individual applicant. That I think is right. Again, I agree with what the Minister said about the dangers of itemising everything in primary legislation. I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I have read his report. I have seen the point made in other academic contexts. I accept it fully. I should have greatly preferred the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Williams. If that had been carried, I would not have moved this one. Since it has not been carried, I am left with very little option, but I do not intend to push it to a vote. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert ("without giving a reasonable explanation of his failure to do so").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to say a few words also about Amendment No. 16. These amendments seek to provide some safeguards as regards the removal of asylum claimants to safe third countries.
Amendment No. 8 is concerned with when an individual arrives possibly with a forged passport. The purpose of the amendment is to prevent the authorities coming down harshly on that individual, because the amendment would give the asylum seeker an opportunity to give a reasonable explanation of his failure to have made the authorities immediately aware of his documentation.
Amendment No. 16 is concerned with late claims. Article 31 of the UNHCR convention, to which reference was made in Committee on this issue, states:
"The contracting states shall not impose penalties on account of their illegal entry or presence on refugees who come directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorisation, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence".
There may be instances when individuals have a good explanation for why their documents are not in order, and why they failed immediately to inform the officer of that fact. It may well be that individuals are just not aware of the significance of that, or want some time in which they can make their claim, and prefer to do so when they can obtain advice from members of their own communities, or legal or other help. There are good reasons why people might wish to delay.
An asylum seeker might arrive in the UK on a false passport and the forgery be undetected. The asylum seeker passes through immigration control, and the following day may apply for asylum at Lunar House and admit that the passport is false. In that case, despite the fact that the asylum seeker had volunteered information that the passport was false, if refused, the case will fall into the accelerated procedure, since the person

505
produced an invalid passport to the immigration officer, and failed to inform the officer of that fact on first arrival.
If there is a good reason for that position, it seems unreasonable that the asylum seeker should be treated in the way that he would be if the amendment were not accepted. The words, "without giving a reasonable explanation", are moderate and sensible.
There may be other instances—Amendment No. 16 may deal with them—when asylum seekers may be arrested and charged with having false documents and convicted, often with a recommendation for deportation. That may happen to people whose false documents have been detected, possibly while they are in transit; that is to say, individuals who had no intention of claiming asylum in the UK, but whose documents were detected in transit. As the UN convention protects only persons coming directly from a third country, an asylum seeker who is travelling from one country to another may have no option, to prevent deportation, but to claim asylum in the UK.
Those are complicated situations. They may not affect many people, but they affect enough. I am looking for the House to accept an amendment which enables the person to show good cause why the claim was not made earlier. Those are safeguards against the way in which Clause 1 will deal with those individuals. I know that we discussed them at some length in Committee, but Amendment No. 16 is somewhat different from the one we had before us then. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, before the Minister responds, perhaps I may add a word or two to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. There are one or two subsequent amendments which deal with the same issue. To sum up, the issue is that some people—they are often people from the most threatened countries—travel with false documents. There are some cases which will be familiar to the Minister and the House where people have endured the most extreme conditions. They are unable to leave their country with valid documentation. They would not be able to obtain it because they are seen as opponents or critics by the country concerned.
I fully appreciate the point that such people should make it clear as early as possible that they have come under a false document; and that they should be honest with the immigration authorities. There is a later amendment that I have tabled which refers to someone who, on all other grounds, would be accepted as an asylum seeker, save only that his or her documents are not valid. I wonder whether the Minister would refer to that issue. I am sure that she, being experienced in these matters, will appreciate that people who travel with false documents often come from the very countries which are the most serious in terms of the way that they treat their dissidents, their critics and the people who are trying to organise democratic opposition. I hope that on
506
those grounds alone people would not be refused asylum if, on all other grounds, they could satisfy the authorities of the validity of their claims.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I appreciate the fact that many people may travel with false documents and I believe that the immigration authorities would understand that. However, it seems to me strange that if people are coming to this country as a place of refuge they do not see it as a safe place and somewhere where they can declare immediately that their documents are false. It leads to a difficulty of not taking action as provided in the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, new sub-paragraph (4)(b) would allow us to certify a refused claim if the applicant produced a false passport on arrival without informing the immigration officer that it was not valid. When a false document is produced it takes courage to lie one's way through that. One must pretend and convince people that the document is not false. That is another form of courage which is summed up by people who produce false documents.
The amendment proposes that a certificate should not be applied if an applicant gives a reasonable explanation for failing to inform the immigration officer that his passport is false. We debated fully an identical amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Dubs, during Committee. I explained in detail then why I was unable to accept the terms of the amendment. Nothing that I have heard in debate today has led me to conclude otherwise.
We have consistently made clear that we expect asylum seekers to be completely honest and frank with our immigration authorities on arrival in this country. As my noble friend Lady Seccombe said, this is the place on entry which they have come a long way to find. Having arrived here it is in their own interest that they should be honest about their documentation. We entirely accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that often there will be a need to travel with false documentation in order to leave a country quickly and safely.
Dishonesty and concealment damage credibility. We accept that in principle there might be circumstances where a genuine refugee would need to use false papers in order to flee a country in which he had a genuine fear of persecution. Under the Bill, no adverse consequences arise for the asylum seeker merely because he presents an invalid, forged or stolen passport on arrival here, provided that the applicant declares the forgery to the immigration officer. But what is unacceptable, and casts doubt on credibility, is an attempt to pass off a fake identity or forged passport as genuine. It is the dishonesty inherent in such an attempt which triggers the accelerated appeal procedure. That is why we are unable to accept this amendment.
I do not believe it would be right to indicate on the face of the Bill that there may be a reasonable explanation for a blatant attempt to deceive an immigration officer. Those presenting false papers to our immigration officers are after all not doing so out of necessity. By definition, they have already fled the

507
country in which they claim to fear persecution and have arrived at their chosen place of safety. Such deception cannot be condoned.
Like the rest of Clause 1, sub-paragraph (4) will not prejudice the consideration of the asylum claim on its merits. If the claim is valid, asylum or exceptional leave will be granted regardless of document deception used on arrival. And the Bill will not penalise the genuine asylum seeker who has to travel on false papers, provided that he is honest and declares the false papers on arrival.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, prayed in aid Article 31 and our reference to it in a previous debate. I reject the argument that sub-paragraph (4)(b) as currently drafted is contrary to the terms of Article 31 of the 1951 UN Convention. Article 31 states that refugees shall not be penalised on account of their illegal entry provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry and presence.
First, the issue of a certificate comes into play only after the claim has been considered fully and on merit and has been found to be invalid. By definition, therefore, the Secretary of State has concluded that the applicant is not a refugee under the terms of the convention.
But, secondly, applying a certificate to a refused asylum claim, thereby triggering an accelerated appeal procedure, cannot be construed as imposing a penalty in terms of Article 31. As I have said on many occasions, all claims will still be considered on merit in the usual way. And all applicants will still have an appeal to an independent adjudicator if the claim is refused. This is a perfectly adequate procedure in such cases and cannot be termed a penalty. Moreover, those who enter or attempt to gain entry using false papers would have had ample opportunity to present themselves to the UK authorities to apply for asylum when examined by an immigration officer on arrival. It is the dishonesty inherent in deceiving the immigration officer that triggers the certificate if the claim is refused.
I turn to Amendment No. 16, which would prevent the certification of claims under sub-paragraph (5)(c)(i) and (ii) if the applicant can show good cause why the claim was not made earlier. We debated this issue at length in Committee and the Committee divided on and rejected an amendment with almost identical consequences for all four sub-paragraphs of sub-paragraph (5)(c). I am surprised that the noble Lords have sought to reopen a proposal which the Committee voted down when it rejected Amendment No. 19. I am still unable to accede to the terms of the amendment and I will explain why.
However, I must begin by pointing out that the amendment is defective. First, it does not signal properly that it is intended to apply to sub-paragraph (5). Secondly, even if that is disregarded, it would disapply sub-paragraph (5) in all cases where the claim was lodged after refusal of leave to enter or after a court had recommended deportation and where the applicant had shown good cause for not having claimed earlier. This means that we would not be able to certify an asylum claim by such an applicant even if it met other
508
certification criteria, such as being manifestly fraudulent. That would not be sensible and cannot have been the intention of the noble Lord in presenting the amendment.
Turning now to substance, the underlying intention behind the amendment is unnecessary and undesirable. First, under the Bill as drafted, a certificate will be available only where the claim has been fully considered and rejected. If it is found to be a valid claim, asylum or exceptional leave will be granted despite the circumstances in which the claim was submitted. But, if the claim is not well-founded, the fact that it was submitted only after refusal of leave to enter or after a court has recommended deportation will almost invariably justify a certificate. As I have already said, we expect that a genuine refugee would apply for asylum at the earliest opportunity. We need to send a clear signal that abuse of the asylum procedures in order to frustrate enforcement of our immigration laws will be met robustly.
Sub-paragraph (5)(c)(i) affects only people who have attempted unsuccessfully to enter the country, have been found not to meet the requirements of our immigration rules and make an asylum claim to fend off the enforcement of those rules. I do not believe that we should insert into the Bill an open invitation to late applicants to provide excuses for their failure to claim earlier. Many would seek to do so. This would unnecessarily complicate the handling of cases. And most importantly, it would blunt the deterrent message we are trying to send; namely the message that blatantly abusive claims will be dealt with robustly.
Sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) address growing forms of abuse of our asylum procedures. That is an area of abuse and must be recognised as such. These amendments are undesirable for the reasons I have given. They will not address those incidents of abuse and therefore not only is Amendment No. 16 defective but it is not acceptable to me on behalf of the Government.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed explanation although I am bound to say that it does not give a great deal of comfort.
It is not right to say that a late claim is an abusive claim. The majority of late claims, however undesirable the Minister may find them, are most likely to be made through ignorance, through not knowing the situation in this country or through being rather naive in the approach to officialdom here. I do not believe that late claims are abusive. Nor do I believe that many people who come with forged documents do so with an intention to deceive. The claims may be perfectly proper claims in terms of individuals having a well-founded fear of persecution even if they are made late through ignorance, uncertainty, insecurity or for the many reasons which cause people not to deal with British officialdom as expeditiously as the Government would wish them to.
Having said that, I know that the Minister is not to be persuaded. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 9 to 12 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 24, leave out from ("fraudulent") to ("; or") in line 25.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was moved in Committee but the Minister's reply was so unsatisfactory that we felt that it was necessary to return to this issue.
The point about the words which we seek to delete is that they are so extreme. The whole of subsection (5) provides opportunities for certification for the accelerated procedure and paragraph (5)(d) states that it applies if the claim is manifestly fraudulent or any of the evidence adduced in its support is manifestly false. It is the words "any of the evidence" which really stick in our throat.
Clearly, if the bulk of the evidence, the thrust of the evidence, adduced in support was manifestly false, then the application would be fraudulent. But there are many cases—and some were raised in Committee—when some of the evidence, and not necessarily an important part of it, could be false. But that does not mean that the application itself is fraudulent. It may simply mean that a mistake, and often an unimportant mistake, has been made. For example, a newspaper report submitted in good faith could have errors; it could be unreliable or exaggerated. A foreign government might misinform people about the fate of relatives in detention or witnesses may prove to be unreliable. All those fall within the words which Amendment No. 13 seeks to delete but they do not affect the genuineness of the application.
If the application is manifestly fraudulent perhaps it is legitimate to use the accelerated procedure, but not if any part of the evidence is manifestly false. Indeed, the UNHCR handbook deals with this issue at paragraph 199 which states:
"Untrue statements by themselves are not a reason for refusal of refugee status and it is the examiner's responsibility",
not the claimant's responsibility,
"to evaluate such statements in the light of all the circumstances of the case".
It is not just the UNHCR which thinks in that way. The Government's background paper to the Bill is very clear and helpful. It would be useful if the Minister could confirm what is said in that background paper, which refers to,
"unequivocal evidence that the information which he had given to support the claim was false: for example, where it is established that the alleged events forming the basis of the claim have not taken place, or where documents submitted to support the claim (for example, arrest warrants or newspaper articles) are found to be forged or counterfeit".
The briefing suggests that information submitted verbally would not be included and that if an applicant submitted a genuine newspaper article that contained an error that would also not lead to a fast-track appeal. Therefore, the Government's own briefing and their own interpretation of this clause in the legislation show that
510
the language of the clause is too extreme. The way to deal with that extremism and the language of the Bill is to take out those few words. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may add one further argument to the argument made so ably by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Many people in this House have experience of intelligence services and such bodies, some of which operate for very dubious governments. The assurance which I seek concerns the possibility of someone who finds that so-called evidence is added to his case against his wishes and without his knowledge by some agent of his government.
For example, if it were the case that somebody wished to put forward evidence "in support of the case" with the real intention of undermining the case, because the evidence was false and was adduced from some part of that government's embassy which might be very out of sorts with the person seeking asylum or refugee status, and the person concerned did not wish to adduce that evidence in his support, would that fall within the present terminology of the Bill?
Perhaps I may refer, as an example, to Boss, the organisation of the old South African government. Evidence was provided by that organisation, not at the wish of the person concerned and not with his understanding or knowledge, but in order to damage him. It is crucial that such evidence should not be taken into account as a basis for refusing the application. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness will give that assurance.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may be right to claim that the paragraph as it stands goes too far, but is it not possible that his amendment goes too far in the opposite direction? Would not a reasonable compromise be to replace the word "any" with the word "most"?
7 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I do not think that that is the answer because we want to know whether a person has a well-founded fear of persecution. Under international law, if a person has a well-founded fear of persecution he is entitled to refugee status since no other evidence is material. That is all that we want to find out. Admissibility of evidence must be directed to that end to which the whole investigation is directed.
This amendment covers a case to which we have referred many times before, where people enter the country by means involving some element of deception and then claim asylum in this country. I know that the noble Baroness regards that as an improper procedure. We have had a good many exchanges about that. I thank the noble Baroness for the letter which she wrote to me on this subject between the stages of the Bill, but since she said in that letter that she is unable to understand my position I hope that I shall be forgiven for explaining it further.
My understanding is that under international law it is perfectly in order for people to enter a country, even if the means by which they do so includes deception, and

511
then to claim asylum in country. I rely on Article 31 of the UN convention. Last time I mentioned it in Committee the noble Baroness challenged me to produce it. She said she could not understand how it came to have that meaning. With the leave of the House, I should like to read the relevant words and then the comments of the UNHCR upon them. The relevant words are:
"The contracting states shall not impose penalties on account of their illegal entry or presence on refugees who come in directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in that territory without authorisation, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence".
As I understand those words, if people entered the country and then claimed asylum and could show that claim to be good under international law ratified in this country by the 1993 Act, and incorporated, that would wipe out any element of deception. It seems to me that the clause in the Bill which this amendment would delete goes contrary to that. Since the Committee stage, I have discovered that my interpretation of Article 31 is the same as that used by the UNHCR and therefore, correct or not, it is one which deserves a hearing. The UNHCR says that,
"Article 31 exempts refugees coming directly from a country of persecution from being punished on account of their illegal entry or presence, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence".
It also says—and this is in answer to another point made by the noble Baroness in Committee—that the word "refugee" in that context must be understood not only in terms of those whose claims have been accepted but of those who are making claims, because
"once their claims have been examined they may prove to be refugees entitled to benefit from Article 31".
The UNHCR also says—and this relates to another argument that we have had, but I may as well deal with this matter now and avoid coming back to it later—
"the term 'coming directly' covers the situation of a person who enters the country in which asylum is sought directly from the country of origin, or from another country where his protection could not be assured. It is clear from the travaux préparatoires"—
I should add that under international law the travaux préparatoires can be used under principles rather like those of Pepper v. Hart to elucidate the meaning of the legislation—
"that the term also covers a person who transits an intermediate country for a short time without having applied for or received asylum there".
I deal now with the draft of the convention, and stress that these are still the words of the UNHCR. It introduced the term, "coming directly"
"not to exclude those who had transited another country, but rather to exclude those who 'had settled temporarily' in"
another country, which is a very different case.
Those are good reasons, I think, for saying that the words in the Bill to which we object are contrary to international legal obligations confirmed by an Act of Parliament passed in the lifetime of this Parliament. I know it is normally a legal principle that in a conflict between two Acts of Parliament the later will take precedence. But it will be a difficult principle to apply in this case because the noble Baroness has reaffirmed
512
many times that it is not the intention of this Bill to undo our obligations under the UN convention, which the noble Baroness says that we accept. I may say that I am very pleased to hear her say that.
So any court construing this Act would be bound to construe it in the light of the UN Convention on Refugees, as laid down in this country by the 1993 Act. Therefore it is something that may come within the jurisdiction of the British courts as well as the International Court of Justice. In these circumstances it might be a considerable saving on the Home Office's legal Bills to accept this amendment here and now.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, sub-paragraph (5)(d) enables the certification of a claim in which manifestly false evidence has been submitted. I listened carefully to the concerns expressed about this provision but I have not found them convincing. Indeed, much of what the noble Earl has been talking about has been travelling and entry, and not about fraudulent evidence adduced in support of a case. The amendment does not affect the first leg of sub-paragraph (5)(d), which would enable us to certify a claim where, for example, it was established that the alleged events forming the basis of the claim have not taken place. The amendment would remove the ability to certify refused applications where part of the evidence is found to be false. It is not unusual for applicants to submit forged evidence, such as a forged arrest warrant purporting to show that the applicant was detained by the authorities in his own country.
A deliberate attempt to deceive the Home Office by the submission of false evidence cannot be condoned. The Immigration Rules already provide that the submission of false evidence may damage credibility. We will not necessarily certify where part of the evidence is found to be false. The key test will be that the false evidence relates to the main basis of the claim. Even where this is the case, the claim will still have to be considered in the usual way, of course. If the claim qualifies for asylum despite the forging of part of the evidence, asylum will be granted. Where such claims are found not to meet the criteria for refugee status, it is entirely right that the false evidence submitted purely to bolster the unfounded claim should result in a refusal and also attract a certificate.
If the adjudicator considers that the evidence is not manifestly false he can set the certificate aside at the appeal hearing, even if he goes on to uphold the refusal of asylum, and in such circumstances the appellant's avenue of appeal to the tribunal would be reinstated. The fact that an applicant has travelled to this country using false papers could not in itself trigger certification under sub-paragraph (5)(d). The Bill clearly refers to evidence adduced in support of a claim and therefore if the applicant claims asylum in his true identity, sub-paragraph (5)(d) could not possibly come into play. However, it could apply if the applicant maintained the false identity or nationality shown on the false travel document for the purposes of pursuing his asylum claim. In that case, if asylum was refused we would want to certify the case; and rightly so.

513
To answer a particular point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, when she raised the case of a third party and prayed in aid MI5, this particular measure would only apply to evidence adduced by the applicant and not by a third party.
Perhaps I might repeat to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that this amendment is concerned with false evidence and not with illegal entry. A claim itself may not be fraudulent but the evidence adduced to support it could be fraudulent, and that is why one has to take one with the other. Both parts of sub-paragraph (5)(d) should be retained. The second part will send a clear message that any attempt to deceive the United Kingdom authorities by concocting false evidence will be met robustly. I urge your Lordships to reject the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister, at greater length, made not much more than the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. The noble Lord said that if I objected to the word "any" it might be replaced by the word "most". If it were so replaced—and I considered that option—the effect would be that most of the evidence adduced in support of the claim is manifestly false. To me, that means that it is a manifestly fraudulent application. I thought I was doing the same thing, but in fewer words than the legislation, that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, was recommending me to do. However, I find the Minister's reply to be of the kind which I would describe as "stonewall". She is relying on assertion and her own interpretation of the English language, rather than on what the Bill actually says. She said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that the intention is to apply this to evidence adduced by the applicant rather than by any third party. I have to say that the Bill does not say that. If that is what it means then it should say so, and evidence by a third party should be excluded from the terms of sub-paragraph (d).
The Minister made no serious attempt to deal with the charge which was the basis of my moving the amendment in the first place. The sub-paragraph refers to "any of the evidence". That means any evidence adduced, however little; in other words, a single error in a newspaper article could bring the application within the terms of sub-paragraph (d) and, therefore, cause the claim to be what the Government call "certified" and what we call "fast tracked". The Minister has given a thoroughly unsatisfactory answer to the question. If it were not for the time of the evening, I would certainly seek the opinion of the House. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 26, at end insert—
("(5A) This sub-paragraph applies to a claim if the evidence adduced in its support establishes a reasonable likelihood that the appellant has been tortured in the country or territory to which he is to be sent.").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 15, as an amendment to Amendment No. 14, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 14 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 17 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 18 and 19:
Page 2, line 30, after ("which" insert ("(a)").
Page 2, line 31, after ("applies") insert ("; and
(b) sub-paragraph (5A) above does not apply,").
[Amendment No. 20, as an amendment to Amendment No. 19, not moved.]
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 10 minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Railway Heritage Bill
7.12 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill was introduced in the other place by my honourable friend Mr. Mark Robinson. It had a speedy passage with all-party support. It falls to me to shepherd the Bill through your Lordships' House. I am delighted to do so. All my life I have been a steam train buff. I am a shareholder in the non-profit making North Norfolk Railway and a former director and now vice-president of the Bluebell Railway, which was the first steam railway in this country to be preserved.
Steam trains are part of our national heritage. It would be a sad thing if many of the items connected with them were to disappear. The sole intention of the Bill is to fill a vacuum and to ensure that the same restrictions apply to privatised railways, so far as concerns records and artefacts, as apply to the British Railways Board and its subsidiaries. It replaces Section 125 of the Railways Act 1993, which applies only to public bodies.
The Bill will help preserve our heritage for posterity. Posterity may wonder when going through a quiet country village and seeing a public house called "The Railway Arms"; or, indeed, when going through a small town and parking—legally, I hope—in Station Street with no railway within 20 miles. The heritage links those things back to the present. It is necessary, I believe, for people to be able to carry out that kind of trace. The disappearance of documents and other artefacts would be very sad.
The existing Railway Heritage Committee has been tireless in its work. One of its great achievements has been the designation of thousands upon thousands of

515
Brunel's drawings—many of them signed. In passing, I have to say that I only wish that Brunel's Great Western Railway broad gauge had become universal instead of the standard gauge; our journeys would have been infinitely more comfortable.
The Railway Heritage Trust has also carried out valuable work in preserving railway buildings and historic structures. The work already done will be enhanced by the Bill, the main features of which are sixfold. First, it defines the bodies to which the Bill refers; secondly, it strengthens the Railway Heritage Committee and enables it to have sub-committees; thirdly, it sets out the objectives and gives power to designate artefacts; fourthly, it provides for disposal methods; fifthly, it gives the Railway Heritage Committee power to withhold consent; and, finally, it contains very valuable powers for the Secretary of State to give guidance to the committee and to provide a means of arbitration should it become necessary.
I hope that my brief introduction has set out the purposes of the Bill and that your Lordships will now allow all the signals to go green.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Finsberg.)
7.15 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the Second Reading of this Bill so ably, albeit briefly, introduced by my noble friend Lord Finsberg and to congratulate our colleague, the honourable Member for Somerton and Frome on his initiative in bringing the Bill forward.
I feel that it is absolutely right that, Britain having invented the railway and then having given it to the world, we should take all possible steps to preserve all the documents and artefacts which make up a substantial element of our railway heritage.
Having invented the railway, it was logical that subsequently we more or less invented the railway preservation movement. Apart from our excellent National Railway Museum, we have more operating preserved railways than any other country; and, indeed, more rail-related museums than any other country. All those ventures are dedicated to preserving parts of our railway heritage.
Further, most of those ventures are largely the result of volunteer effort—that is, volunteer fund raising and volunteer expertise. It seems to me that the Bill will send a clear signal and will very much encourage that very substantial voluntary effort. By doing so the Bill will, if enacted, also contribute to our tourism industry, to education and to public enjoyment and awareness of our wonderful railway heritage.
While in no way reducing my support for the Bill, I have two concerns which I hope either my noble friend Lord Finsberg or my noble friend the Minister can allay. The first is the expression in Clause 1(d) at line 11 which refers to,
"any publicly owned railway company".
The word "public" can mean, for example, in the public sector—such as a railway formerly run by HMG or a local authority—or alternatively, it can mean, among
516
other definitions, a quoted company. Several of our preserved railways have had share issues and, of course, they own artefacts. But I presume that those artefacts, be they locomotives, coaches or the equipment required to print ticket stocks, would not fall within the remit of the Railway Heritage Committee. I would appreciate comments on that issue.
My second concern relates to finance. Modest artefacts require modest funding, and the success to date of the voluntary sector makes me confident that funding the acquisition of such modest artefacts will not pose a problem. However, sooner or later someone may want to preserve, say, a high speed train—20-plus years after introduction it remains the world's fastest diesel train. But here costs become a serious issue. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that there is a possibility that National Lottery funds may be made available for a preservation project of this magnitude were the volunteer sector to take it on? Those are two queries, but, none the less, it is a marvellous Bill. I am happy to volunteer my endorsement.
7.19 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, from these Benches I too welcome the Bill so briefly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg—indeed, an example that I hope to follow. There is no point in talking to death a Bill which I believe everyone favours. The Railway Heritage Trust was one of the first organisations to lobby me on this very subject when I came to your Lordships' House.
As an historian, I have always taken a great interest in the preservation not just of beautiful country houses but also of our industrial heritage. I entirely agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans. I share his concern about the cost of items which may require preservation at a later date. I hope that the noble Viscount the Minister will be able to tell us that his ministerial colleagues will look on this kind of heritage preservation with the same sympathetic eye with which they look upon heritage preservations. A time may come when funding greater than that which can be put together by volunteers will be necessary. I welcome the Bill and hope that we can grant it a Second Reading without further ado.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, on introducing the Bill. I am not sure that we shall talk it to death—I rather hope that we shall talk it into greater life. It is an important Bill. I declare my interest in such activities; I have a project to create a museum of the Channel Tunnel. I do not believe that the Channel Tunnel is included in the scope of the Bill, but I refer to boring machines and other items. The museum is an example of things that can go right or wrong.
Our railway heritage is one of the most important parts of our industrial history. Sir Neil Cossons, director of the Science Museum, has said that the railways were the most important development that Britain gave to the world during the past 150 years. That is quite a claim.

517
The railways have retained and in some cases actively collected a unique range of artefacts, documents and memorabilia. The start was not particularly good. Many of us who have an interest in railway history are saddened that there is no broad gauge rolling stock. I believe that it was scrapped in 1906. But since the requirements in the Transport Act 1968, to preserve artefacts, the National Railway Museum and the London Transport Museum were born, and I believe that they are probably the best railway museums in the world. Perhaps it is true to say that we led the world in railway technology developments; and we lead the world now in museums to demonstrate the development of history.
Perhaps we should not be too hard on our ancestors for not preserving broad gauge and other equipment, since the immediate past is often thought of as not being of particular concern or interest—we have just experienced it, and do not see the need to have it formally recorded. In taking a view for or against such preservation, we must not forget that our children and grandchildren have not had that experience. Therefore it is important to preserve even those items that we may not believe are particularly interesting.
While the railways were in public ownership, BR had the obligation under the Transport Act 1968 to preserve equipment and artefacts. But with privatisation and fragmentation that situation has changed. I am pleased that the Government have supported the Bill to widen the obligations on companies in the railway industry to preserve their heritage. The Bill, therefore, has the support of the Labour Party. We wish to see it receive Royal Assent at the earliest opportunity, not so much because there is any suspicion that any of the new privatised operators are seeking to junk any unique artefacts, but rather that with the present uncertainty over legislation which does not complete its passage before the Summer Recess, there is a danger that it could be lost. Once an artefact is lost, it is gone forever.
Although we have some concerns about parts of the Bill, they are positive concerns. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to some of my comments with words of comfort—or even motherhood, if that is the right expression.
I have three concerns. The first was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans. I refer to Clause 1. To which bodies does the Bill apply? There is a comprehensive list but I am unsure about whether all the operations and organisations which have succeeded the various parts of BR will be included, and whether all the artefacts that they own now and will own in the future will be included.
For example, is the promoter of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link included, and, if so, under which subsection? London and Continental Railways Limited has been handed the assets of European Passenger Services and Union Railways which were formerly publicly owned companies. But are the artefacts and assets now owned by LCR included, whether inherited from the Government or created subsequently by themselves?
The same comments apply to English, Welsh and Scottish Railways which took over the former British Rail freight companies. As a new company, are
518
its artefacts included? The answer is presumably, yes, to the old limping locomotives which it has stated that it will replace, but what about the new US locomotives which it has just ordered?
Is it possible that a franchise could be let to a foreign registered company; and, if so, would this legislation have any jurisdiction over that company? Is Eurotunnel included? I do not believe that it is. It has never been a publicly owned company. Is Ulster Railways included; and, if not, why not?
I appreciate the constraints on the drafting of the Bill. But I hope that the interpretation of it could be more along the lines of,
"any company or organisation which has or does operate with, on or in connection with the national railways network and system".
In short, a little motherhood from the Government, along the lines of a presumption that the procedures and responsibilities of the Bill should be applied albeit on a voluntary basis to those not covered, would be most welcome from those who have the railway heritage at heart.
Secondly, Clause 3 defines an artefact. Broadly, it is an item that can be moved. I view the intent underlying this clause as being broadly similar to the listing of buildings, except that in certain cases it will probably be a voluntary scheme. However, limiting though the Bill may be of necessity as regards the scope of Clause 1, it is important that those who own what might be considered an artefact are aware of their moral and sometimes legal obligation to offer it to the committee for designation.
Opinions will always differ among historians, enthusiasts and owners as to the historic interest of a specific item. Much of that opinion is by its very nature subjective. But the knowledge that some item might be an asset worthy of preservation may come as a shock to some people. Therefore, it is important that the work of the committee, its legal and moral rights and obligations, are as well publicised as possible throughout the industry.
Lastly, and inevitably, there is the problem of finance, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, alluded, for the purchase and/or preservation of artefacts. When all was owned by British Rail or London Underground Limited, that was done as a matter of course. The two excellent museums and the enormous collections that support them are a tribute to those who have been responsible for this work through several generations. Those organisations were content to pay for this work out of a sense of public duty.
Clause 4 refers to the notice of disposal and the terms of payment. With the ownership of an artefact in private hands, it must be reasonable that the owner should have the right to receive some reimbursement for a disposal. As I have found with Channel Tunnel artefacts, the value of an artefact can vary very dramatically, sometimes by a factor of 1,000, depending on the perceived worth—whether it is for scrap or commercial use. But even the purchase of an artefact for scrap can make a dent in the budgets of our museums. The PRISM fund is administered by the Science Museum and has been set up for the purchase of such historical artefacts.

519
However, I understand that there is a budget of about £50,000 to £100,000 per year which does not go very far to buy locomotives or rolling stock which have come to the end of their working lives.
I understand that the Science Museum allocates from its grant aid a budget for purchasing artefacts between its three museums. Last year that was £250,000 but because of reductions in grant the figure has reduced to £100,000.
We have been assured by the Government on numerous occasions that lottery money would be additional to rather than a replacement for heritage grants. However, many of us are not entirely convinced that there is not some connection between the two. The funding requirements may not be as exciting as for a new or subsidised opera house, but I hope that the Minister will impress on his noble friend Lord Inglewood and his colleagues in the Department of National Heritage the importance of ensuring that the work of preserving our railway heritage can continue. Because of the new structure of the railways that requires not just the same funding but more on a continuing basis.
I conclude by commending the excellent and dedicated work done by the Railway Heritage Committee and the museums involved. I hope that this Bill will assist them in ensuring that the occasional "difficult" owner of an artefact understands his obligations, but equally I hope that most of its work will be undertaken with the enthusiastic encouragement and partnership of the many organisations involved. We support the Bill wholeheartedly and wish it a speedy passage through its remaining stages in this House.
7.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Finsberg for introducing this short but important Bill. I recognise the hard work of my honourable friend the Member for Somerton and Frome in another place in taking the Bill through that House.
We have heard from my noble friend Lord Finsberg a description of the Bill, what it does and why it has come about. I believe there has been a broad consensus of support from around the Chamber. I was pleased to hear the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I welcome his debut appearance at the Dispatch Box from the Opposition Benches. I have a feeling we shall hear a great deal more from him at the Dispatch Box. The speech that he has made today shows the vigour with which he intends to pursue railway issues. However, this is a much happier dialogue than that which we normally have on the subject of railways.
I certainly concur wholeheartedly with the view of my noble friend Lord Finsberg that Britain's railway heritage must be preserved for the benefit of posterity. I am well aware of the excellent work done by many railway preservation societies such as the Bluebell Railway, with which my noble friend is so closely involved. I certainly wish that every success. Of course our railway heritage is not of value only for its own
520
sake: it also plays an important role in the future running of a working railway. That can be seen from the fact that drawings from the Brunel era—those were alluded to earlier—are still in use as working records.
The Railway Heritage Committee, an independent committee of experts representing both railway heritage and working railway interests, was set up under Section 125 of the Railways Act 1993. The committee is responsible for ensuring that historically significant railway artefacts and records are sent to the appropriate museum or other collecting institution at the end of their useful lives, so that they can be made available to a wider public. I wish to endorse the sentiments expressed in the House this evening in applauding the excellent work done by that committee.
The committee's powers cover the British Railways Board, its wholly owned subsidiaries and the public sector bodies brought into being during the restructuring process. I believe that my noble friend Lord Mountevans asked about the detail surrounding that. I do not think he need have any cause for concern. The description within the legislation is tightly defined. When the Railways Bill was before this House, the Government proposed to introduce a voluntary scheme to cover the private sector, but on further consideration that route proved inappropriate. The Bill now before this House would reinforce the committee's powers by extending the classes of owner to be covered. It would also enable the committee to carry out its work more effectively by empowering it to require relevant information from owners, and by permitting delegation to sub-committees.
Many of the owners of railway artefacts and records including Railtrack have already been privatised so are no longer covered by Section 125. But we certainly have every reason to expect that they will co-operate fully with the committee in the interim period before new legislation is enacted. Mr. Bob Horton, the chairman of Railtrack, has given his personal assurance that Railtrack will continue to work positively with the committee.
A number of questions were asked which I know that my noble friend Lord Finsberg will be eager to answer fully. In fact he will be champing at the bit. However, I should make a couple of points before he does that. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has a great interest in the subject and great expertise as regards all matters to do with the Channel Tunnel. European Passenger Services is responsible for running passenger services through the Channel Tunnel. Union Railways is responsible for the design of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. They are former publicly owned railway companies and so are covered by the Bill. London and Continental Railways is not covered. As the noble Lord suggested, Eurotunnel is not included, nor, I understand, is Ulster Railways.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was concerned that the Bill allowed various bodies to slip through the net. The noble Lord need not be too concerned about that. There has been much effort to ensure that the drafting is as accurate and as all-encompassing as it can be. There will be some instances where bodies will not

521
necessarily be covered by the provisions, but I think it is likely that the private sector bodies which fall outside the scope of the Bill will be keen to co-operate with the Railway Heritage Committee. Certainly I do not think it would do their public image much good if they decided to go against the committee.
The matter of lottery funding was raised. That is referred to on almost any occasion where anyone has a sniff of potential sources of money. I think my noble friend Lord Mountevans, who raised the issue, is aware that the National Railway Museum and the other major institutions which collect railway artefacts and records in the public sector are eligible for lottery money to pay for acquisitions, but other bodies may not be eligible. There is clearly a great deal of interest in the collecting of these artefacts. I end by saying that we all recognise the importance of the railway heritage, be it from the steam era or slightly more contemporary pieces of machinery, records or artefacts. These are of clear value to our national heritage. I wish the Bill every success.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I am most grateful for the support given to the Bill. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that over the years I have come to believe that the longer the speech, the less the speaker knows about the subject and the more he is trying to conceal. That is why I try to speak as briefly as I can.
I wish the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, every success in his endeavours on the Channel Tunnel. I hope that some items from the earlier 19th century channel tunnel will also find their way into preservation. I think he perhaps misunderstood me as regards broad gauge. What I meant to say was that I wish the whole of our system had been broad gauge and then we might even have thought about preserving the odd bit of standard gauge. But, alas, that was not the case.
As my noble friend the Minister said, Northern Ireland is exempt from this measure. I hope that your Lordships will on the odd occasion table an Unstarred Question on this subject so that we can let the public know what is being done. We can also say from time to time how valuable is the continuing work of the heritage committee and the other bodies.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until ten minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.39 p.m. to 8.10 p.m.]

Asylum and Immigration Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 1.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 32, after ("appellant") insert ("or the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was tabled at Committee stage, but we feel that it is so important and that the answers given by the Government were so unsatisfactory that we have to return to the matter again.
The amendment would ensure a level playing-field to the extent that the prohibition on the applicant under Clause 1 going to the tribunal and the special adjudicator should apply equally to the Secretary of State. It seems to us utterly unjust that the applicant should be denied access to the special adjudicator, whereas the Secretary of State still has that access. Not only is it unjust; it goes to defeat the objects of the Government in seeking to speed up the consideration of asylum applications. An application to the special adjudicator by the Secretary of State delays matters just as greatly as an application by the appellant.
This is not the ideal amendment. Ideally, we would wish access to the tribunal to be available to both the appellant and the Secretary of State. Failing access by the appellant, we do not see why the Home Office should retain appeal rights that it is removing from appellants.
In Committee, the Government said on a number of occasions that the object of the exercise was to reduce delay. They said on 30th April that denial of access to the tribunal was,
"an important part of the benefit which the appeal system derives from the accelerated procedure. It reduces the number of applications for leave to appeal which the tribunal is required to consider".—[Official Report, 30/4/96; col. 1506.]
At column 1507, the Minister said:
"I do not accept the argument that access to the tribunal should always be a possibility as a long-stop safeguard";
and in the same column:
"There seems little point in having an accelerated appeal procedure if we are not even prepared to reduce the normal three-tier system of consideration by the Secretary of State, the adjudicator and the tribunal to a two-tier one".—[Official Report, 30/4/96; col. 1507.]
We agree entirely. That is what this amendment would do. It provides that neither the appellant nor the Secretary of State should have access to the tribunal. We seriously ask the Government: what is gained by allowing the Secretary of State to apply for leave to the tribunal when the decision goes against him?
The argument for this amendment seems so apparent and is supported so strongly by the arguments put by the Government in Committee that I need not detain the House longer. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if this amendment is not accepted, appealing against an asylum decision will be

523
getting a little like playing chess with Catherine the Great. The only player who ever beat her was a robot, or so we are told. That was very wise of him, I think.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the issue raised by this amendment is the operation of our two-tier appeal system. The first tier is the appellant's appeal against the Secretary of State to the adjudicator. Normally, whichever side loses can seek leave to appeal to the second tier, which is the Immigration Tribunal. Since the Home Office does not lose many asylum cases before the adjudicator, it is mostly applicants who seek leave to appeal to the tribunal. The tribunal refuses about 85 per cent. of applications for leave to appeal to it in asylum cases.
However, under the accelerated appeal procedure which was introduced with Parliament's approval by the 1993 Act and which Clause 1 now seeks to make more widely available, the Secretary of State can certify an asylum claim which he refuses if it meets the statutory criteria. The criteria proposed by Clause 1 are that: the claim is not just unfounded but manifestly unfounded, or fraudulent, or out of date, or frivolous or vexatious; or that it was submitted only after the refusal of leave to enter or the commencement of removal action; or that the applicant tried to gain entry on a false passport, or failed to present a passport at all and did not give a reasonable explanation of this; or that he is seeking asylum from a country which has been designated with Parliament's approval as one where there is in general no serious risk of persecution.
The purpose of the accelerated appeal procedure, which as I say is not new, is to enable categories of claims which are likely to prove unfounded to be processed quickly, in order to deter such claims from being made and so reduce the burden on the appeal system. Where the adjudicator upholds not only the refusal of asylum but also the Secretary of State's certificate, the appellant is denied the avenue to the tribunal. This is so that, apart from the option of judicial review which will always be available as a long-stop safeguard, the failed appellant will be removable at an earlier point than would otherwise be the case.
It has been argued that this is unfair, and in particular that it is unfair that the Secretary of State will, as now, still be able to seek leave to appeal to the tribunal if he loses, but the appellant will be denied this right if the adjudicator upholds the certificate.
I do not agree that there is any unfairness. The first point to make is that the Bill does not invent or change the accelerated appeal procedure. It merely extends its scope. This situation has prevailed for some time. As I have pointed out, it was introduced with Parliament's approval in the 1993 Act.
Secondly, the adjudicator can restore the appellant's avenue to the tribunal if he considers that the certificate has been wrongly made. For example, he may agree with the Secretary of State's decision to refuse asylum but may nevertheless overturn the certificate because, for example, he does not agree with the Secretary of State's view that the applicant is a national of a
524
designated country, or that the claim is fraudulent, or that the applicant's explanation for failing to produce a passport on arrival was not a reasonable one.
Given that safeguard, I see nothing unfair in removing the appellant's avenue to the tribunal, provided that both the Secretary of State and the adjudicator have agreed that the claim is not only unfounded but also fits one of the criteria for certification.
And it does not at all seem to me to follow that there should be circumstances where the Secretary of State also is denied an avenue to the tribunal. That is to draw an entirely false equivalence. The purpose of curtailing the appeal process is to enable the refused applicant to be removed quickly where two authorities have agreed that the claim is unfounded. But, where the adjudicator and Secretary of State disagree about the validity of the asylum claim, a different situation exists. I see no comparable argument in that case for cutting off the avenue to the tribunal.
The amendment would in fact have perverse effects. It would actually advantage applicants who had made their claims in suspect or abusive circumstances. Let us take two contrasting cases. One applicant comes here specifically to seek asylum and does so honestly as soon as he arrives. The other makes no claim for asylum for months or years until, having been found working illegally and been served with removal or deportation papers, he fends off removal by claiming asylum. Let us suppose that both claims are refused. Under the Bill, the Home Office would rightly be able to certify the second application under sub-paragraph (5)(c) in order to enable the appeal to be accelerated. Now, what do we find if we apply the noble Lord's amendment to these two examples? It would remove the Secretary of State's avenue to the tribunal in the second case just because the applicant had waited until he was about to be removed before making his asylum claim. That seems to me to be a very odd outcome.
In other words, asylum applicants would actually stand to benefit in this respect by withholding their asylum claim rather than declaring it honestly at the outset. Similarly, the amendment would mean that, where applicants had their claim certified because they had concealed their travel documents from the immigration officer or had sought to pass off a false passport as genuine, the Secretary of State would be denied access to the tribunal precisely because of the abusive circumstances in which the applicant had sought entry. Again, that strikes me as perverse.
I would remind your Lordships that many or most refused applications will not attract a certificate. I have also made clear that certification will not be automatic. We will not, for example, certify a claim if, despite meeting the certification criteria, it raises particularly novel and complex legal arguments on which there is no clear case law. I should also stress that the Home Office currently operates a sensible policy in terms of when to appeal to the tribunal. For example, we do not normally appeal to the tribunal purely on the grounds that the adjudicator found the appellant credible whereas the Home Office did not, providing the adjudicator had considered all the evidence fully and carefully. Indeed,

525
in 1995, the statistics record the Home Office as having made only 40 applications for leave to appeal to the tribunal. I hope the House will resist the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my deepest suspicions are aroused whenever I hear a Minister say that they will apply the provisions of the Act sensibly, as the Minister just did, or when they say that they will not automatically apply the provisions—in this case of sub-paragraph (5) in Clause 1 of the Bill. That means that they have drafted the Bill more severely than they mean to apply it, and that must be bad law. It must be bad for our legislative system if Ministers say, "We provide for the worst cases but we are not actually going to apply them". It means that we have executive discretion over the provisions which Parliament provides. We want Parliament to make reasonable and sensible provision—to use the Minister's words—and the executive should then apply the law that Parliament determined. It is a fundamental principle and one which was breached by the speech the Minister gave.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, gave us the case of a robot playing chess against Catherine the Great. I give the Minister the credit of being the robot rather than Catherine the Great. She is repeating words that are written for her rather than words in which she believes. I do not accuse her of any of the other characteristics of Catherine the Great.
It was another stonewall answer to what was a perfectly serious amendment which deserved proper consideration. The Minister did not answer the case that was put; that is that, if the denial of appeal to the tribunal applies to the appellant, then it should also apply to the Secretary of State. The Minister gave a number of examples of what she called perverse effects, but those effects only arise because of the way in which the clause is drafted and because it is now possible, through a whole series of complementary sub-paragraph (5) in Clause 1, for the accelerated procedure to be triggered and, whatever the Government may say, for applicants to be denied rights to the full consideration of their application.
As I said at the beginning, I find that approach to this issue deeply unsatisfactory. In this case the Government are condemned out of the Minister's mouth, out of her brief. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 32, at end insert ("unless, in claims certified under sub-paragraphs 4(b) or 5(c), in the opinion of the adjudicator the appellant has a reasonable explanation for the circumstances which led to certification.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 22 arises out of a discussion that we had in Committee on 30th April, to be found in cols. 1499 and 1500, where the Minister said that, if a certificate was issued by the Secretary of State and a case did go through the accelerated procedure, the adjudicator who heard the appeal could set the certificate aside. Then, presumably—though the Minister did not add this corollary—the case would be adjourned so that the
526
asylum seeker had the same amount of time to prepare his case as if the certificate had never been issued and the right of appeal to the tribunal would then be restored.
I asked the Minister whether, since this power of the adjudicator was not made explicit on the face of the Bill, the Government would agree to an amendment on Report stage to give effect to her words. I was encouraged when she raised no objection to that proposal. As the Bill stands at present, sub-paragraph (7) of Clause 1 says without qualification that, if any of the conditions mentioned in sub-paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) apply, Section 21 of the 1971 Act shall not confer on the appellant any right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
Apparently the adjudicator does not have any power to set aside the procedure. My amendment says that, if the adjudicator is of the opinion that the claimant has a reasonable explanation for producing a passport,
"which was not in fact valid and failed to inform the officer of the fact"—
sub-paragraph (4)(b)—or if he makes an application after the events referred to—sub-paragraph (5)(c)—then he or she will not forfeit the right of appeal. That seems to me to be what the Minister agreed in Committee.
My noble friend Lord Russell quoted from a briefing from UNCHR in which an interpretation was given of Article 31 of the Convention on Refugees. There seems to be a difference of opinion between my noble friend and the Minister on the interpretation of that article and particularly on the question of what is meant by a "penalty". My noble friend took the view that a penalty meant any disadvantage which the claimant for asylum might suffer, whereas the noble Baroness appeared to be interpreting it far more narrowly as some sort of punishment before a court, even though in a previous debate—col. 1120 on the first day of the Committee proceedings—she admitted that a person would suffer a penalty if he or she was put through the fast-track procedure.
When the adjudicator comes to consider a fast-track applicant who has a reasonable explanation for his or her failure to comply with the provisions mentioned, then one of the matters the latter can lay before the adjudicator—for example, if he made the application for asylum one day after he landed at Heathrow—is that he had reasonable grounds for not making the application immediately and was entirely within the terms of Article 31 of the Convention. That seems plainly to imply that a person may lodge an application shortly after and not at the instant of arrival in the country. The appellant would then be able to plead that he was within the terms of Article 31 and it would be a matter for the adjudicator to decide in considering whether to set the certificate aside. That may go part of the way towards meeting the dispute between my noble friend and the Minister because, if in the event the adjudicator did not see the force of an argument concerning Article 31, then the matter could subsequently be contested before the European Commission on Human Rights.
We should lay this provision down as a marker for adjudicators; that is, that they must be careful not to declare that a person should be liable to the penalties of

527
certification if, by doing so, they will fall foul of the Convention and thus make the Home Office liable to yet a further defeat before the European Commission and Court. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall be a little repetitive because I have addressed almost all the points that have been raised by the noble Lord in the course of moving the amendment, and in particular the Article 31 points which he mentioned. We have consistently made it clear that we expect asylum seekers to be candid with our immigration authorities on arrival. We accept in principle that there might be circumstances where a genuine refugee would need to use false papers in order to flee a country in which he had had a genuine fear of persecution.
Under the Bill, no adverse consequences arise for the asylum seeker merely because he presents an invalid passport provided that he informs the immigration officer of that fact. But what is unacceptable and casts doubt on his credibility is an attempt to pass off a false passport as genuine. It is the dishonesty inherent in that attempt which triggers the accelerated appeal procedure if, after proper consideration, the claim is refused. I do not accept that the Bill should anticipate there being "a reasonable explanation" for such conduct. After all, those presenting false papers to immigration officers are not doing so out of necessity, but, by definition, they have already fled the country in which they claim to fear persecution and have arrived at their chosen place of safety.
The same point applies to overstayers and illegal entrants who claim asylum to fend off removal. In our view it is wholly unacceptable to insert an open invitation to late applicants to provide an excuse for their failure to claim earlier. Of course the Bill does not compel the Secretary of State to certify the claim and we would not do so if, exceptionally, we were satisfied that the lateness of the claim resulted from a genuine change of circumstances, such as news from the country of origin that the applicant was wanted by the authorities. But it would have to be a pretty extraordinary and convenient coincidence if such news happened to arrive just when the illegal entrant was about to be removed after he had been here for perhaps several years. And if we were satisfied that such news had indeed arrived coincidentally, we would be likely to grant asylum or exceptional leave to stay. I recommend strongly against legislating for such coincidences. Almost every late applicant would inevitably seek to exploit "a reasonable explanation" proviso and that could frustrate the objective of accelerating such appeals.
I have given full and detailed reasons, both today and during earlier stages of the Bill, why we are unable to accept an amendment in these terms. Nothing that has been said by the noble Lord has changed my mind on that.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will allow me to say so, she has not addressed the substance of the amendment at all. I do not think her mind was on
528
what I was saying. I was not talking about the exercise of powers by the Secretary of State. I was talking about the right of the adjudicator to set the certificate aside. Perhaps I may remind the noble Baroness of the words she used on 30th April:
"If in the case put to the adjudicator there is good reason why he should not have received a certificate in the first place, the adjudicator could set the certificate aside".—[Official Report, 30/4/96; col. 1499]
Nothing could be plainer than that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have made it clear endless times in the course of our debates, both today and on other occasions, that adjudicators can set the certificate aside and can take a different view from the Secretary of State on issuing certificates. But I have addressed quite directly, in the course of speaking to this amendment and a similar amendment earlier, that we do not wish to put on the face of the Bill the fact that a reasonable excuse is a key reason for setting the certificate aside. The adjudicator will make up his or her own mind as to what reason he or she produces for setting a certificate aside.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, how on earth can he make up his mind to set aside a certificate when he is not given power to do so in the Bill? That is precisely the point of the amendment. I am only asking for the noble Baroness to agree that effect should be given to the words she herself used and which I have just quoted. If she really wants me to produce an example of the kind of case where I think she would be bound to agree that the adjudicator would like to exercise such powers, I can do so.
If the certificate is issued and then circumstances change in the country of origin between the issue of the certificate and the appearance of the applicant before the adjudicator, such that he would find himself at serious risk when he was sent back to the country of origin, the adjudicator might have very reasonable grounds for setting the certificate aside. But I do not want to spell out such grounds out on the face of the Bill. I am only trying to do what the noble Baroness suggested we had already achieved, which was to give the adjudicator power to set aside a certificate which has been presented to him by the Secretary of State. If the noble Baroness cannot see that point, I must take counsel by withdrawing the amendment and coming back with it at Third Reading after perhaps trying to argue with her privately to make her see the error of her ways. If she has not divined that her own words gave authority for the amendment, I do not quite know what I am going to be able to say to convince her.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord will continue to argue with me over many things. I spend a good deal of my week every week responding to detailed inquiries from the noble Lord. I do not think much will change on that point. I have said that if the adjudicator believes that the certificate has been wrongly produced by the Secretary of State, the adjudicator can set that certificate aside. I have said repeatedly, not just to this amendment but to similar amendments, that we do not intend to put on the face of

529
the Bill an excuse such as having a reasonable explanation. It would invite all the abuses that we have had endlessly from asylum seekers who use that as a mechanism for delay. We are not prepared to go that far.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if I copy the noble Baroness's words precisely from her speech in col. 1499 of the Official Report of 30th April, where she said,
"good reason why he should not have received a certificate",
will she accept an amendment to that effect on Third Reading?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I would invite the House not to accept it.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, those are the noble Baroness's own words. I am absolutely flabbergasted. However, in the circumstances, I suppose I have no alternative but to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 2, line 44, at end insert—
("'persecution' includes persecution either by the state or its agents or by persons acting independently of the state's authority, if the acts are knowingly tolerated by the authorities or if the authorities refuse or prove unable to offer effective protection."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the definition of "persecution" based upon the 1951 Geneva convention seems reasonably clear. Nevertheless, there have been doubts over recent years as to how various governments have interpreted the convention, particularly the definition of the word "persecution". This amendment seeks to make it clear that persecution is either persecution by the state or its agents or by persons acting independently of the state's authority, if the acts are knowingly tolerated by the authorities or if the authorities refuse or prove unable to offer effective protection. Where the state prosecutes individuals, the situation is reasonably clear. The doubts come when people claim to suffer from persecution not from the state itself but from other organisations or paramilitary groups that may be acting independently of the state and over which the state has no control.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that persecution by both bodies—by the state or by bodies independent of the state—should all be considered as persecution for the purposes of the Bill. The amendment is important because the European Union had a resolution some time ago which would mean that only those persecuted by the state could be recognised as refugees. That was a quite negative and restrictive resolution and one which would undermine the rights of many asylum seekers who, if they were sent back, would face the same persecution from which they had fled even if the acts of persecution were not themselves committed by the state.
In commonsense terms, it is a very simple proposition and it is easy to understand. The UNHCR understood that very well. Perhaps I may quote from a statement it issued in 1995:
530
"To UNHCR, refusing refugee status to people who have been subjected to, or who fear, persecution by agents other than their own government is contrary to the text and to the spirit of the 1951 convention. Persecution which does not involve state complicity is still persecution. The Convention applies when the state is unable, as well as unwilling, to protect such people".
Nothing can be clearer than that.
Perhaps I may give the House one or two examples which will illustrate the situation. When I was with the Refugee Council we were very concerned about asylum seekers being returned to Zaire. I have not got the letter in front of me, but some years ago the then immigration Minister wrote that there was no persecution of asylum seekers who were returned by the Government of Zaire. But the letter went on to admit that there could be dangers from paramilitary organisations not under the control of the government. Although the British Government were sending people back, they were in effect conceding that there were dangers to returned asylum seekers from bodies which were behaving in an illegal manner as far as the state of Zaire was concerned and who were not under the control of the state. They were subjecting the asylum seekers to danger and persecution.
But Zaire is not the only country to which this might apply. The case of Algeria is very clear. Many individuals who do not abide by some Islamic customs and those associated with the West, have become targets for Islamic fundamentalism. Such people have fled to safety and yet that persecution is not from the Government of Algeria or its associated agencies, but from organisations which are hostile to its government. The Government of Algeria is simply unable to protect such individuals. Somalia and Liberia are two other examples where the collapse of state authority has meant that paramilitary groupings, not to do with the state directly or indirectly, have made life miserable for individuals and can cause persecution.
So the proposition is simple. Persecution can happen when the state causes it, or it may happen when organisations within a country that cannot be controlled by the state, persecute individuals. Both forms of persecution are very real and threatening. The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that both such forms of persecution should be recognised, as has been recommended by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I appreciate that the Minister may be unable to accept this amendment directly without further thought, but perhaps I may put before her a couple of matters for consideration which the Government may want to look at before we reach the end of the passage of this legislation.
It is clear that a number of governments are trying to escape some of the growing stringencies laid down by international conventions, by effectively using agents which they claim to have nothing to do with, to carry out operations that those conventions would make unacceptable and which would be outlawed by international law. Perhaps I may give an example which comes close to the hearts of everyone in this Chamber. That is the way in which General Galtieri's regime used death squads to destroy some of those who protested

531
against the dictatorship of Argentina during and after the Falklands War. The Minister may remember some of the stories that were told at that time about the "Disparados". I know something about it because Dr. Raul Alfonsin who was the elected democratic successor to General Galtieri, pursued some of the cases against members of the military and others for killing some of the opposition and other voices of dissent in Argentina at that time.
They were able to argue that that had nothing to do with the government and that they were not responsible for the actions that were taken by a section of the military and some sections of the police. Clearly, the government were fully aware of what was going on and probably inspired it. Effectively, this group of people was in a sense able to pretend that it was not directly an agent of the government.
I appreciate that this is a complex issue. I am sure that at the moment the Government will not feel able to accept the amendment just like that. Persecution may well be a growing problem. It is characteristic of some of the central American regimes as well as of the previous regime in Argentina. It is important to try to find formulae and words that will bring some of these governments within the scope of international conventions which almost entirely address themselves to the official state apparatus. I suspect that this will prove to be a growing problem. I commend for the thoughts of the Minister and the Home Office the issue of persecution by those who are not nominally agents of the state, but in practice very often are their agents. It is going to be a growing international legal problem.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have been very interested by what we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and from the noble Baroness. But I must point out to them that the burden of proof as regards persecution lies on the person seeking asylum. The more we tie them down to detail the more difficult it will be for them to discharge that burden of proof. I suggest that from their point of view it is much better to leave the broad expression "persecution" there. It will make it simpler for them to prove their case. If we tie them down to this kind of restrictive detail the asylum seekers may find it hard to do so. Although I am one of those people who wish to see our asylum rules strengthened, on this occasion I have to point out that, bearing in mind where the burden of proof lies, this amendment would not be helpful.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, perhaps I may add one further word here. In the case of a civil war, surely there is already provision for persons who are persecuted under those conditions to be permitted to come to this country. I wonder whether this amendment is either necessary or desirable.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is no universally agreed definition of an agent of persecution. But I hope that those supporting this amendment will be content when they understand our policy on this subject, which follows closely that set out in paragraph 65 of the
532
UNHCR handbook on procedures and criteria for determining refugee status. Persecution is normally related to action by the authorities of a country. However, we also accept that, in some circumstances, agents of persecution may be groups or elements within the applicant's country of nationality, other than the authorities. The noble Baroness has eloquently explained how that can sometimes be covert rather than overt activity. As set out in the UNHCR handbook, an applicant may qualify for asylum if the persecution by those other elements is knowingly tolerated by the authorities or if the authorities refuse, or prove unable, to offer effective protection, and the other inclusion criteria of the convention are met. In other words, we agree precisely with the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, set it out.
I do not consider that a statutory provision is desirable or necessary. It is the convention itself which engages our international obligations and which should be reflected in statute. The interpretation of the term "persecution", and more widely of the 1951 Convention as a whole, rests ultimately with the higher courts and is best left to case law.
The point that my noble friend Lord Renton made is very apposite. We believe that a rigid statutory interpretation is undesirable. Moreover, the amendment is flawed. Because of the way it is drafted, the interpretation that it seeks to impose would not apply to all asylum claims, but only to those falling within the scope of the special appeal procedure.
The European Union resolution of December 1995 on guidelines for the application of criteria for recognition and admission as a refugee sets out a joint position agreed by all member states of the European Union. But the resolution is not binding on member states. I recognise that the guidelines acknowledge persecution by third parties only if it is encouraged or permitted by the authorities. I can assure the House that we have no plans to depart from our long held broader interpretation, which I have already described and which follows closely that set down in the UNHCR handbook. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the Minister. I should like to say a word or two about the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He said that it would be simpler to have the system without all these qualifications. I wonder whether that is true. I can see that in some situations that may be advantageous, but I fear that where there is doubt about whether a non-governmental act of persecution falls within the 1951 convention, particularly stemming from the European Union resolution, that doubt can be removed by making it clear in statute that the persecution may take one of two forms. Although I question whether that would simplify the process in these circumstances, the noble Lord may well be right on the general proposition.
I turn now to what the Minister said. If I were completely satisfied that the Government had throughout acted according to that policy, I would be delighted and there would have been no need for the amendment. However, there have unfortunately been a number of instances where, as far as I can tell, the

533
Government have not acted fully according to the policy described by the Minister. I have already given an example relating to Zaire. I believe that that occurred a year and a half ago—it may have been a little longer—but it certainly did not happen so long ago as to come outside the Government's policy. The individual concerned was sent back to Zaire when the Home Office Minister—I believe that it was Mr. Charles Wardle at the time—admitted in a letter that other organisations, not under the control of the state, were liable to harass or threaten people who might return, but said that he was satisfied that the Government of Zaire were not indulging in such persecution. If the policy described by the Minister had been operating, I suggest that that individual would not have been sent back to Zaire.
However, the Minister has given assurances and we shall take her at her word. The Government's policy is now what the Minister has said that it is, and people who are being persecuted by individuals or organisations acting independently of the state's authority and which the state cannot control in any way fall within the definition of "persecution". That is fine. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Removal etc. of asylum claimants to safe third countries]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line I, leave out ("any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2) below") and insert ("section 6 of the 1993 Act (protection of claimants from deportation etc.)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 24, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 25 and 31. These technical government amendments remedy a minor technical defect in Clauses 2 and 3. They also make the third country provisions in the Bill easier to read.
At present, the Bill provides that, while an applicant can appeal against a third country certificate under Clause 3 of the Bill, he cannot bring an asylum appeal under Section 8 of the 1993 Act unless or until the third country certificate has been set aside by a special adjudicator. These government amendments adjust the Bill slightly so that an applicant cannot bring either an asylum appeal under Section 8 of the 1993 Act or a non-asylum appeal under the 1971 Act unless or until the third country certificate has been set aside by a special adjudicator.
The right of appeal under the 1971 Act on non-asylum grounds which would otherwise be available in third country cases would not generally be exercisable until after removal. But there would be a few cases where the asylum applicant could appeal on non-asylum grounds before removal, and this would represent an obstacle to quick removals. In practice, this would normally arise only where the applicant had an entry clearance for the United Kingdom. If the applicant had obtained that entry clearance while he was in his country of origin, it is most unlikely that we would seek to remove him on third country grounds. But if the
534
applicant had obtained an entry clearance for the United Kingdom while he was in a third country then we would seek to make a third country removal.
It may assist the House if I give an example of the type of case we have in mind. Let us suppose that a Ghanaian national had been in France for a while and had a French residence permit which was valid for another year; while in France, he obtained an entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom as a visitor; when he arrived in the United Kingdom he was refused leave to enter; and he immediately claimed asylum. We believe that France should be responsible for considering the applicant's asylum claim. Indeed, under the Dublin Convention, France would be the state responsible for considering the asylum claim. It is undesirable that in a case of this sort a quick removal should be delayed by an appeal on non-asylum grounds.
The amendments also dispense with the need for the various cross-references to the 1971 Act and the 1993 Act contained in Clause 2(2). The Bill as currently drafted disapplies a number of provisions in the 1971 Act as applied by the 1993 Act, which would otherwise give appeals suspensive effect. This is no longer necessary, and deleting the cross-references makes the Bill significantly easier to read. I hope your Lordships will welcome that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 11, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 25, after ("territory") insert ("has given an undertaking that it will substantively consider the application and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are now dealing with the situation of an individual being returned to what the Government consider to be a safe third country. Many safe third countries are on the continent of Europe. Typically and frequently they include Belgium and France. They are countries through which an asylum seeker has passed, possibly fleetingly, possibly in transit at an airport; nevertheless the individual has spent a little time there. Under Clause 2, the Government may fairly easily remove an asylum seeker to a safe third country. The difficult question that arises is: what is to happen when asylum seekers reach that safe third country? Under what circumstances is it appropriate to return them? Are there sufficient safeguards? My belief is that there are not sufficient safeguards. That is why I have tabled the amendment.
As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State must simply be of the opinion that everything will be all right if the individual is returned to that safe third country. The purpose of the amendment is to tighten those provisions. The Secretary of State's opinion alone will not do. That country must be asked to give an undertaking substantively to consider the asylum application. That is a minimal request. It means that if we return an individual to Belgium or France, that country will have given an undertaking to consider the asylum claim. If it does not give such an undertaking and if it is not prepared to consider the asylum claim, there is a danger

535
that having been removed from Britain to that second country, the asylum seeker will then be removed from the second country to another country and so on down the line until he or she is forced to return to the original country where the persecution occurred.
It seems reasonable that before returning an asylum seeker the Secretary of State should have some assurance that that country will consider the application. I am asking for no more and no less than that. That is the purpose of the amendment. Without such an assurance, we run the dangers which I have already described.
I understand that appeals by asylum seekers against a third country removal have a high success rate of about 40 per cent. Clearly, therefore, within the existing statutory framework the adjudicators are concerned about what will happen to people when we remove them. It is wrong in principle and in breach of the 1951 Convention that individuals who have fled to safety cannot find a government which will consider their application. In removing people to safe third countries we run the risk of exposing asylum seekers to the danger that they will not be able to make a claim anywhere and will be forced to return to the country in which they were originally persecuted. It is a reasonable proposition and is entirely within the spirit of Clause 2, except that the clause is too weak. It is better that the Government get an undertaking from the third country than that the Secretary of State should simply believe that everything will be all right. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I speak to this amendment and the associated amendment, Amendment No. 28. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has referred to the need for a clear undertaking. Amendment No. 28 makes that stricter by requiring that it be a written undertaking. This is squarely and absolutely within the terms of the Dublin Convention which was signed by Her Majesty's Government in 1990. That convention is binding upon us and other members of the European Community.
I should like to refer to two articles of that convention. I refer first to Article 11. With the leave of the House, I should like to read a short phrase which appears in that article. If in line with Clause 2 of the Bill a country asks another country, in this case a safe third country, to consider an application which has originally been lodged with itself, the convention provides,
"If the request that charge be taken is not made within the six-month time limit, responsibility for examining the application for asylum shall rest with the State in which the application was lodged".
I take it that means that if the application is lodged with the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom believes that the application should properly rest with a safe third country, in this case another member of the European Union, and that country refuses to take responsibility, under the terms of the Dublin Convention the responsibility rests with the United Kingdom, or in whatever other country the original application was made. That is what we have signed.
536
The purpose of this amendment is simply to underline that commitment made by all those who signed the Dublin Convention. It does so by saying on the face of this Bill, in line with the Dublin Convention, that there must be an undertaking from that other state. The only difference between this amendment and the Dublin Convention is that the latter is tougher. The Dublin Convention lays down a six-month time limit within which that other state must accept responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has not gone so far and has not insisted on a six-month time limit, but we are by law committed to that time limit and undertaking.
In Article 5 of the Dublin Convention reference is made to written agreements between states, not written agreements with specific relationship to this particular instance but to the general proposition of written agreements to determine where responsibility lies. It cannot be said that that is either impractical or impossible, since our Government have acceded to it. In my view, this amendment cannot be rejected by the Government without rejecting what is laid down on the face of the Dublin Convention. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will feel that, in line with that convention, she can accept the amendment. I support the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, when we considered this amendment in Committee the noble Baroness said that she could not accept it without making the whole procedure unworkable. I hope that she is wrong about that. If she is right it means that we cannot legally operate the procedure at all. I draw the attention of the noble Baroness to a passage from the preamble to the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees, not all of which passage she will find uncongenial. It states:
"The high contracting parties, considering that the grant of asylum may place unduly heavy burdens on certain countries, and that a satisfactory solution of a problem of which the United Nations has recognised the international scope and nature, cannot therefore be achieved without international co-operation".
It cannot be achieved without international co-operation because it does not work to have a game of pass the parcel, or pass the refugee around the world from one country to another. As many of us know, that process tends to happen at the expense of the airlines, and I can see no justice in that.
But that is not the only reason why it does not work. The major international obligation to which we are subject under the UN Convention is that contained in Article 33. I refer to the obligation relating to refoulement. The words of the article read:
"No Contracting State shall expel or return"—
that is "refouler" in French—
"a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality",
etcetera.
There is judicial authority in this country for the proposition that the words "in any manner whatsoever" include a billiard ball return via a series of third countries. It is those billiard ball returns which the amendment of the noble Lord seeks to prevent. If there is not an agreement in advance, for example if the

537
country to which the asylum seeker is returned states that the individual is an illegal entrant and they will not consider his claim, the individual ends up being sent back from where he came. That is refoulement, and it is the greatest breach of the convention that there can be. The noble Baroness should either accept this amendment or withdraw Clause 2. I hope that she can accept the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl realises that Amendment No. 26 in his name is in conflict with Amendment No. 28 in the name of the noble Baroness. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness requires a written agreement covering all cases, or the general situation. Amendment No. 26 requires an undertaking to be given with regard to the particular application. While I am not committed to either, in those circumstances I prefer the general to the particular.
We are dealing with deportations. I know from experience years ago when I was involved in these matters in the Home Office that deportation is always a delicate, difficult matter. We have to get it right before we ever do it. The conditions laid down in subsection (3), which the Secretary of State and those advising him would have to observe, are stringent enough. He has to take great care. It is suggested—I shall deal with the more sensible, if I may say so, amendment of the noble Baroness—that he should not deport unless there is:
"a written agreement between the government"—
of the country to which the person is to be deported—
"that that person will not be removed to another country"—
that means a third country—
"until any appeal process has been exhausted or abandoned … in accordance with the terms of the Dublin Convention".
I have to confess that I do not remember the terms of the Dublin Convention, but that may not be material to my argument. The conditions which the Secretary of State has to fulfil and certify, as set out in subsection (3), are stringent enough to ensure that no injustice is likely to be done. That is why I doubt whether either of the amendments is necessary. If one of them is thought to be necessary, as I say, I prefer that of the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in Committee, I set out the Government's general position on agreements and undertakings in third country cases. It may assist the House if I restate our position. We are certainly not opposed to bilateral or multilateral agreements where they can be negotiated. The Dublin Convention will provide a mechanism for determining which member state is responsible for determining an asylum application lodged within the European Union.
Perhaps I may refer to the quotation used by the noble Baroness regarding the Dublin Convention. It does not mean what she deduced from it. It means that the UK must within six months approach the third country which it believes is responsible for considering the claim. The Dublin Convention provides a mechanism for considering disputes between member states about
538
which state is responsible for considering a claim. The text of the amendment cannot be derived from the Dublin Convention.
The United Kingdom ratified that convention five years ago. We look forward to it coming into force as soon as possible. In Committee, in response to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, I explained that the Dublin Convention would not come into force until two months after it had been ratified by Ireland and the Netherlands. The indications now are that Ireland and the Netherlands appear to be on course to ratify the Dublin Convention during the forthcoming Irish presidency of the European Union. We all hope that that will be the case. In the meantime, removals to France are covered on a case-by-case basis by a bilateral agreement which we have negotiated separately.
The Government do not, however, accept that third country removals should not proceed in the absence of an agreement with the third country. If we were obliged to obtain undertakings from third countries on a case-by-case basis, we would be unable to operate an effective third country policy. We could expect third countries to refuse to take applicants back. Applicants would know that they could travel from country to country, before finally claiming asylum in the United Kingdom, safe in the knowledge that we would not return them to the safe country from which they had come.
Amendment No. 26 would prevent the removal of an asylum seeker to a safe third country unless that country had given an undertaking that it would consider his asylum claim.
We do not see that as a necessary condition in third country cases. If the third country refuses to consider the claim substantively, it does not follow that there has been a breach of the 1951 convention or that the asylum seeker has been placed at risk. There are circumstances where the third country to which we had removed an asylum seeker might refuse to consider that person's asylum claim substantively, but the asylum seeker would not be at risk.
Let me give three examples. First, suppose we removed an applicant to France, and France immediately granted the asylum seeker leave to remain, but did not consider his asylum application. The applicant might, for instance, secure leave on the basis of marriage to a French national. In those circumstances, the applicant would be perfectly safe in France. There is no reason why we should obtain an undertaking from a third country that it will consider the asylum claim rather than grant leave on a different basis.
Secondly, suppose we removed an asylum seeker to France, and France had evidence that the applicant had originally travelled to France via Germany. It would be perfectly proper for the French authorities to conclude that it was Germany's responsibility to consider the application, and send the asylum seeker back to Germany. That is a second clear example of a case where the third country would have refused to consider the applicant's asylum claim, without in any way putting the applicant at risk.

539
The third example would be a case where the third country refused to admit the applicant and returned him to us. We hope that such cases would not occur too often. But the asylum seeker would not have to be exposed to danger and no breach of the convention would have occurred. These examples illustrate that there are a number of situations where the third country would not consider the asylum claim substantively but there would be no risk to the applicant. In the absence of binding multilateral agreements, the constraints imposed by the amendment would bring third country removals to a halt. Therefore, we cannot accept Amendment No. 26.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I may make one point of clarification. She was absolutely right in what she said and I was wrong. I referred to the fact that application had to be made by the third country within six months. I did not wish to detain the House by going on to further parts of the articles, but I should have made the point that where it is clear that if the other country does not accept that application within three months, not six months, it rests with the state which originally made the request.
My point was that an agreement between two countries with a time limit would already apply in the case of the Dublin Convention. I was trying to get on the face of the Bill the fact that there would be a written agreement between two countries with regard to this matter before an asylum seeker would be able to be sent to a third country. In other words, his right of appeal would be upheld even if he were sent to a third country within the terms of the convention. I am sorry if I did not continue to the further subsection of Article 11.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Dublin Convention is intended to provide a clearer system of determining who was responsible for considering the claim in the first place. Then it provides a mechanism to resolve disputes in those cases, which is important. However, even the argument put by the noble Baroness is not an argument for saying that in every case where there is to be a third country removal there must be at the outset, even before, one can remove somebody to a third country, a written undertaking that it will consider the claim.
Amendment No. 28 would introduce a requirement for the Home Secretary to certify that there was a written agreement between the United Kingdom and the third country in question that it would not remove the applicant until his United Kingdom appeal had been completed. The Government have repeatedly made clear that they believe that that would be an unnecessary and unrealistic requirement to impose. It is unrealistic because no third country would be prepared to accept such an obligation. We would not be prepared to do so if other countries asked us. The amendment would therefore also bring third country removals to a halt.
The requirement which the amendment would impose is in any case unnecessary. I remind the House that we are talking about removals to a country within the
540
European Union or a non-European Union country with highly developed asylum procedures, not to the country in which the asylum seeker claims to fear persecution. There are circumstances in which it would be quite reasonable and proper for the third country to remove the applicant under its asylum procedures. If the safe third country had evidence that a fourth country—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Does she understand that the point at issue is not whether the country is generally safe but whether it will admit the particular asylum seeker to its processes?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no. As I understand it, the amendments concern accepting undertakings about what another country will do in the case of that person being returned. We are saying, first, that we do not believe that that is desirable or necessary and we believe that trying to get such assurances in advance would bring to a halt that part of the asylum procedure whereby we want to remove someone to a third country. The noble Baroness continues to cite the Dublin Convention. My understanding is that failure to respond within three months makes the third country responsible, not the United Kingdom.
There are circumstances where it would be quite reasonable and proper for the third country to remove the applicant under its asylum procedures. As I said, it also has obligations under international law. If a safe third country had evidence that a fourth country was in fact responsible for considering the asylum claim, it would be entirely proper for it to remove the applicant to that fourth country. Alternatively, if it considered an asylum application substantively under its own accelerated procedures, established that the applicant was not a refugee and refused asylum, it would be perfectly proper for it to initiate removal action. The third country would have established that the applicant was not in fact a genuine refugee, so there could be no breach of the non-requirement obligations under Article 33 of the convention. In both those examples the third country would have acted lawfully and responsibly.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to the refugee legal centre, which claims that 40 per cent, of third country appeals are successful. Perhaps I may say, first, that 96 per cent, of third country refusals concern people who have entered the United Kingdom from a member state of the European Union. It is absurd that applicants should be able to delay removal by arguing at appeal the inherent safety of other European Union countries as safe havens for asylum seekers. The great majority of findings by adjudicators have supported the Home Office view that countries like France and Germany are safe.
The analysis of third country appeals by the Refugee Legal Centre last year does not support the claim that 30 per cent, to 40 per cent, of such claims are successful. On the contrary, the Report shows that 61 per cent, of third country appeals are dismissed and 22 per cent, are referred back for reasons other than inherent doubts about the safety of the third country.

541
It confirms also our assessment that doubts about admissibility owing to the passage of time are a major factor in referrals. Indeed, our assessment is that that has now become the most common reason for referral. Only 16 per cent. of the Refugee Legal Centre's samples were referred back because of doubts about the safety of the third country.
While the Government believe that multilateral agreements can be useful and look forward to the ratification of the Dublin Convention, they are firmly of the view that in order to operate an effective third country policy it is vital that we can remove applicants without prior consultation provided that we are satisfied that the third safe country criteria in Clause 2(3) are met. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, listening to what the Minister said, the plight of asylum seekers seems to be akin to chess pieces being pushed around a chess board. These are human beings like ourselves who have been, in many instances, caught in very unfortunate and dangerous circumstances in their own countries and who are seeking safety somewhere else in the world. The thought that they can be moved around like pieces on a chess board because that is the way in which the system works better seems to me to be at the very least insensitive to what some of these asylum claimants have gone through before they arrive in this country or somewhere else in Western Europe.
Therefore, I do not believe that it is absurd that there should be arguments and claims, because people are fearful, not of being sent from Britain to France, but of what is to happen to them ultimately. That is what the two amendments are about. It is the ultimate fate of those individuals which concerns them and which concerns us, not the fact that they may be sent to another country which is safe. The problem is that they may end up in a country that is not safe. That is the purpose of these amendments.
I shall now deal with some of the specific points. I agree that the majority of safe third country removals will, in the first instance, be to another member of the European Union. But according to the Minister's own figures, 4 per cent.—I hope I have that right—will be returned to a country outside the European Union. That is not many people but it is still a significant number. It means that there are 4 per cent. of asylum seekers who have come from a country outside the European Union who will be returned to a country which is not within the scheme of the Dublin Convention, and possibly with fewer assurances as to their safety than they would have if they were returned to a country like Belgium or France. That is one area of concern.
Secondly, reference has been made to the Dublin Convention. We do not yet have that convention. It has been awaiting ratification by the European Union for five years. The Minister said that she hopes that it will be ratified during the course of the Irish presidency. That is fine. For all its faults, I believe that the Dublin Convention will clarify matters as regards movement within European Union countries.
542
But it is not appropriate for us to say that this amendment is not needed because the Dublin Convention will soon be in place. We cannot sit back and leave it to the Dublin Convention because that may not happen during the Irish presidency. It has been delayed on a number of occasions before and it is not reasonable to wait.
After all, the Government have similar provisions with regard to the housing of asylum seekers in two pieces of legislation before Parliament at present—the Asylum and Immigration Bill and the Housing Bill. That has been done because the Government wish to make sure that the housing aspect in relation to asylum seekers will be dealt with by the first piece of legislation to reach the statute book. The Government are backing both Bills to achieve certain ends, which I regret, and the space between the two Bills will be only a matter of weeks. Therefore, it is not right to say that we can sit back and wait for the Dublin Convention.
The Minister gave three examples, which I think were all hypothetical—and her excellent civil servants in the Home Office must have been working overtime to provide her with some of this material, I must say. She mentioned the situation of somebody being returned to France and the French Government would allow that individual to stay in France and not consider the asylum claim. I understand that and I suppose to that extent there is a technical defect in the amendment, but the spirit of the amendment would have been met if the wording had been along the lines of,
"has given an undertaking either that it will allow the person to stay or will substantively consider the application".
If that had been the only objection on the part of the Minister, it would have been easy for the amendment to be withdrawn and brought back at Third Reading with the necessary change made to it. Of course that is probably not the Minister's argument.
Her second example was that the individual might be sent from France to Germany because the individual had spent some time in Germany prior to going to France and then from France to here. I think that is the essence of our concerns, because it would be from France to Germany and then from Germany to where? The danger is, as I said earlier, that the asylum seeker may find that no safe country will consider his claim so that in the end he will be shuttled back to the country from which he first came. That is the problem. Otherwise, provided that the asylum seeker is safe, we are not going to become over-concerned, although there are some anxieties which subsequent amendments will deal with. However, we shall not be over-concerned provided the person is safe. The concern is entirely that the person may not be safe. What happens when he is sent from France to Germany and then from Germany elsewhere? The last solution was that he might be shuttlecocked back to us, and then we have the miserable situation of them being moved backwards and forwards with no government being willing to take them.
I am not happy about what the Minister has said. I am sorry she could not give us any comfort at all, because from what she said earlier the Government accept the basic principle that asylum seekers should have rights under the Geneva Convention. However, the

543
Government have not taken the necessary and logical further step of saying that they will apply that principle to the situation of third country removals to provide the same sort of safeguard as is contained in Amendments Nos. 26 and 28. I am sorry about that but I think at the moment I have no option but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 27, at end insert ("and
(d) that the person who has made a claim for asylum does not have close ties or connections with the United Kingdom.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move Amendment No. 27, which indeed is the amendment to which I have just referred. It really says that, if there is to be a third country removal, one of the reasons for not doing that would be if the asylum seeker claiming asylum here has close ties with this country. In other words, if the individual has a particularly close connection with this country—and I shall specify what they might be—then it would be appropriate for that individual's asylum claim to be considered here, notwithstanding the more general argument about third country removals, which concerns the previous amendment.
It seems to me it would be wrong, for instance, if the individual has a spouse living in this country, if the individual is an unmarried minor and has a parent in this country or if the applicant has an unmarried minor child in this country. There may be other connections; for example, if the applicant has had an education in this country, speaks the language or has other connections with Britain. It seems to me all these are some reasons why it would be appropriate and humane in exceptional instances to allow the asylum seeker to stay here notwithstanding the third country provisions. It is after all to the advantage of this country that asylum seekers who are allowed to stay here include people who have connections with this country so that they will perform well in terms of getting jobs, in terms of language, and so on. All this makes for the easier settlement of asylum seekers.
That should not be the only condition of course, because there might be asylum seekers who do not have such connections and who arrive perfectly legitimately in this country. But, where there are individuals who have close ties with this country, it seems to me almost absurd to remove them to France on what would to them, and to many Members of the House, seem a technicality. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we are now dealing with a situation where a person's claim for asylum has failed, but we must remember that in making that claim the person may well have made an alternative claim from the outset to be allowed to stay in this country because of close ties or connections. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may clarify the matter. The point
544
at issue is not that the asylum claim has been made and failed; the point at issue is that the asylum claim has not been allowed to be made and the individual is being removed without being allowed to make the asylum claim. That is the reason for saying that there should be exceptions as set out in the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say on the matter. However, under this clause, I should have thought that the circumstances were different from those assumed by the noble Lord. In all such cases of persons having a close connection in this country, I should have hoped and believed that when they claimed for asylum mention would have been made of the fact that they had such a close claim connection which, very often, quite apart from asylum claims, is a good reason for being granted leave to remain here. Therefore, the proposed provision to introduce arrangements to allow for a last minute appeal seems to me to be inappropriate. However, I wait with interest to hear the response of my noble friend the Minister.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has misinterpreted the point at issue. We are dealing with Clause 2 and with safe third country cases. They are cases where someone comes to the United Kingdom, perhaps via France, Belgium or wherever, and attempts to claim asylum here but is not allowed to do so because he has passed in transit through a safe third country. It may only be Schipol Airport but it still counts.
The effect of the amendment would be to allow a person, regardless of the fact that he transited through a safe third country to make a claim for asylum in this country rather than there because he has close family members in this country. Keeping families together is not an objective to which I am indifferent. I do not believe that it can be done by coercion or force, but where people want to do it I believe that the state is extremely misguided to discourage them. In effect, I believe it to be an interference with family life and possibly even contrary to Article 8 of the European convention. The amendment would allow people to claim asylum in the country where their family lives and not in a country where it does not.
I have known cases where asylum has not been granted which have led to an immense amount of correspondence, in respect of which I must say that the noble Baroness and her department have been extremely helpful—indeed, I would like to thank them—as regards making arrangements for access to children where one parent lives in one EU country and the other parent lives in another. It is in everyone's interest to avoid that sort of complication. I am sure that the noble Baroness would not mind if I had to write her rather fewer letters.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, before the Minister replies perhaps I may add one further consideration to the debate. As my noble friend said, there is a conflict here between the concept of maintaining the value and integrity of the family and the wish to find a safe third country to which people might go. I absolutely concur with my noble friend that there

545
can be no better argument for the choice of a country to which an asylum seeker makes his or her case than there being close family ties which—dare I say it?—in the Dublin Convention are defined as a spouse, a child under 18 or a parent of someone who is under 18; in other words, a very tight family unit.
One might have thought that it would be inconceivable for one even to have to make such an argument as regards a spouse, a child or an immediate parent. Although the case is different because it concerns an illegal immigrant rather than an asylum seeker, the case of Mr. Tong who is to be considered for deportation after 27 years in this country, despite having a wife and child both of whom are English citizens, makes one fear that the Home Office does not take family ties very seriously.
I believe that Mr. Tong is currently living in a church in Cornwall. Simple common sense makes it almost impossible to believe that our country would deport a father of a minor child, tearing him away from his wife who is a legitimate citizen of this country, albeit I do not deny for one moment that he was technically in breach of the Immigration Rules. He has committed no crime beyond that.
I urge the noble Baroness to consider the point that we all make about the belief we have in the integrity of family ties. One of the most cruel things that one can do is to rip a family apart, sending one member to one country and another to another country. That is all the more so when people have little to tie them to life other than their family ties. I hope that the noble Baroness will reconsider her response to the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am puzzled by the amendment. In Committee I gave a full account of our discretionary policy on family ties. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, described my statement as clear and helpful. He thanked me for my clear explanation of the way in which close family ties and other connections are respected by the Home Office. Therefore, I find it a little surprising that we are discussing the amendment again at this stage of the proceedings.
Under the concession that we operate, asylum seekers are not normally removed to a safe third country but are instead admitted into our own asylum procedures if they have close ties here. My account of the concession can be found in Hansard of 30th April at cols. 1587 to 1589. The details of what are regarded as close ties have also been published in Butterworths Immigration Law Service. We have made clear that we have no plans to alter that concession.
Other cases where removal to a third country may be waived, depending on the merits of the case, are where the applicant is an elderly or otherwise dependent parent, and where the family link is not one which would normally be considered but where there is clear evidence that the applicant is wholly or mainly dependent on a relative in the United Kingdom and there is an absence of any similar support elsewhere. In such cases, linguistic or cultural links with the United Kingdom and the third country could be taken into account.
546
We believe that these are sensible and reasonable considerations to apply in individual cases.
The Secretary of State must, however, retain the flexibility to decide whether the circumstances of a particular case justify the exercise of discretion in the applicant's favour. In exceptional cases, there may be circumstances where it would be entirely appropriate to remove an applicant to a safe third country, even though they may have close ties or connections with the United Kingdom.
An example would be a non-European Union national who commits a criminal offence in another European Union country and who attempts to gain entry to the United Kingdom on asylum grounds to avoid prosecution. Even if the applicant could demonstrate close ties with the United Kingdom, it might well be appropriate to return him to the EU country rather than consider the asylum claim here.
I have explained to the House that our discretionary policy ensures that family ties are taken into account, while preserving the flexibility for the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion in cases where it would be desirable to make a third country removal, notwithstanding the applicant's close ties with the United Kingdom. Amendment No. 27 provides no scope for discretion in such matters. I ask the House not to accept the amendment.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, can she say anything about the case of Mr. Tong? I appreciate that it does not fall fully within the terms of this provision, but it falls within the consideration of close family ties.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as the noble Baroness appears to know something about Mr. Tong, she will know that he has abused the system in this country. I hope that the noble Baroness is not condoning the harbouring of people who abuse the system. They should ensure that they press their case in the proper way. That person has not done that. I cannot read my note. I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. I know that I am pressing the good will of the noble Baroness. She said that she hoped I was not pressing the case of people who abuse our hospitality. That is a perfectly fair point and I wish to put that on the record. However, the man in question has married and has a child born in this country. We are talking about a period of 27 years. His child is young and common sense might suggest an act of mercy in this case which I would not normally ask for. Two British citizens will be left fatherless and husbandless respectively. I stress that I am talking about a period of many years.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness hinted at how long this case has been continuing. However, the figure she mentioned is not quite right. I understand this matter has gone on for 17 years. Mr. Tong married recently, and after deportation orders had been made. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the child is young. However, the concept of sanctuary no

547
longer exists in law. Mr. Tong cannot expect to benefit from his continued defiance of the law by remaining in the Methodist Church in Cornwall.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I see no purpose in trying to press the Minister further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 30:
Leave out Clause 2.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to remove Clause 2 from the Bill. At the same time I ask the House to consider Amendment No. 34—that Clause 3 should also be deleted—which is strictly consequential upon it. The noble Baroness said in response to Amendment No. 26 that it would bring third country removals to a halt. If that is so, third country removals must be brought to a halt for either they are done as part of a co-operative agreement, with undertakings that people will receive those we send to them, or they are manifestly unsafe under international law.
I have been trying for a long time to put across the point that what concerns us here is not whether the country is generally safe, but whether people will be admitted to the process. I have to say to the noble Baroness what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford once said to her during a lengthy education Bill: it is not that we cannot get her to meet our concern; it is that we cannot get her to accept that this is our concern. It often happens with third country removals to EU countries that the person concerned is not admitted to the process and so their claim is never even considered.
Tonight the noble Baroness spoke dismissively about the Belgian practice of removing people to Zaire. However, one of her adjudicators has stated:
"It is of course well known that there are close links between Belgium and Zaire … (there) is sufficient evidence … to show that it is not safe for (this appellant) to be returned there".
She spoke somewhat dismissively about the case of ex parte Bostam. She argued as if that were an isolated case. However, that was not an isolated case. It arose from a general principle of Belgian law; namely, if you are applying for asylum in Belgium, you must do so within eight working days of arrival, which, of course, those who have been in transit to the UK and then been returned to Belgium very often have not. One of the learned judge's reasons for oversetting the adjudicator's recommendation was that he had not taken into account the evidence before him that the Belgian authorities had wrongly determined applications as manifestly unfounded because the applicants had been returned to Belgium on third country grounds. Mr. Justice Hidden found that removal to Belgium was unsafe because that sort of thing had happened before. It is not a single case. It is a systematic one.
It is also a regular problem in France that anyone returned to France under the third country procedure tends to be found to be an illegal entrant. That happened
548
in the recent case of Mr. Ali Iqbal. On 3rd March 1996 he was returned to France under the third country procedure. He was immediately arrested at the Gare du Nord as an illegal immigrant. No attempt was made to investigate his claim. He was not allowed to speak to his lawyer. On the same day he was served with an expulsion order to Pakistan and an order of detention pending expulsion. That is a normal procedure when we send third country removals to France. Some of the features of Mr. Iqbal's case were extreme, but the basic principle of holding such people to be illegal entrants is normal. Under those circumstances I cannot see how a third country removal to France can possibly be regarded as safe unless we have an undertaking in advance.
In the case of Greece, there has been enough trouble for there to be a general UNHCR health warning on the return of third country applicants to Greece. A recent case in Italy also led the UNHCR to give a health warning. An applicant from Sri Lanka was returned by Italy, curiously, to Thailand, which is not a convention signatory and he therefore enjoyed no protection there under the terms of the convention. There are plenty of such cases. All those cases carry the risk of refoulement.
There is English judicial authority for the principle that this billiard-ball refoulement constitutes refoulement under the UN convention and is therefore illegal under international law—and, what is more, under an element of international law which, by the 1993 asylum Act, has been incorporated into British law. So unless we can be certain that the third country will consider the application, removal to a third country severely risks being illegal under international law. Noble Lords will see why I say that unless we can get undertakings from a third country, it is manifestly unsafe. The noble Baroness said that we cannot get undertakings; it will not work. Therefore I say that it is unsafe. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I wish to pursue one matter so that it can be considered when the noble Baroness comes to respond. It concerns how Clause 2 is affected by the amendment the Government conceded on the issue of torture earlier today. Will the Minister tell the House what is the position in relation to those found to have a reasonable claim to have been tortured in a country with regard to their return to a third country other than the one in which they were tortured? I am talking about somebody who has satisfied the terms of the noble Baroness's amendment. How will such a person be treated in respect of being returned to a third country, especially in a situation where that third country has not given an undertaking that the processes will be carried through to their conclusion in that third country?
I mention this matter because of the very considerable evidence from, among others, Judge Tumim, as he then was, on his visit to Campsfield Detention Centre last year, giving clear indications that people who have suffered torture are particularly liable to great stress and trauma if they fear that they will be deported to another country, especially one about which they know nothing.

549
Judge Tumim said in his report on Campsfield:
"The fact is that some detainees appear to be terrified at the prospect of being deported".
In the case of somebody who is about to be deported not to the country from which he came but to a so-called safe third country, that trauma will be very acute. This House has made very plain its special concern for victims of torture. It is our view on this side of the House that in a situation in which refouleinent could occur (my noble friend Lord Russell outlined that possibility) in the particular case of a victim of torture it amounts to a kind of additional torture itself. They are then faced with terrible uncertainties and fears about where their future may lie.
Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough, when she responds to this short debate, to tell us how she sees the impact of the first amendment to Clause 1 on Clause 2 with special reference to the sending on to a third country of a victim of torture.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I can begin with the final point. Clause 2 is not affected by the torture amendments. In third country cases we do not consider the substance of the claim; we rely on that country to do so. However, we will not return a person who is medically unfit to travel, so a judgment will be made about the specific medical state of a person who is seeking asylum.
In the Bostam case, Mr. Justice Hidden did not find that the removal to Belgium would be unsafe; only that there were unsatisfactory aspects of the earlier adjudicator's decisions upholding removal to Belgium.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Mr. Justice Hidden found return to be unsafe for that applicant. I have always said that "unsafeness" can only ever be in relation to the specific applicant. There is no such thing as a safe or unsafe country.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, going back to what Mr. Justice Hidden found, he did not find that removal to Belgium would be unsafe; only that there were unsatisfactory aspects of the decisions of earlier adjudicators upholding removal to Belgium. His was a judgment based on procedural considerations, not on an assessment of the safety of Belgium.
The noble Earl referred to France in regard to Mr. Iqbal. The allegations relate to a single applicant and a single French port and do not in themselves provide cause for us to doubt the general safety of France. I understand that the person at the centre of the allegations is in Paris and his asylum application is receiving consideration from the authorities. Nonetheless, special adjudicators have shown that they are concerned about the allegations and we are presently investigating the precise circumstances of the case.
Allegations have been made before that France gives inadequate consideration to asylum seekers returned from the United Kingdom. We investigated one such case last year and found that the applicant had not in fact claimed asylum in France. Over the past year or so
550
most adjudicators have upheld the Secretary of State's certificate in French cases, and in many of those cases where they did not the issue of concern was not the safety of France but the time which had elapsed since the applicant had arrived in the United Kingdom.
I referred in detail to the removal of asylum applicants to safe third countries at Second Reading, in addressing amendments at Committee stage and in speaking to amendments throughout today. I have defended the importance of Clause 2 to this Bill and it follows that, if Clause 2 is to be part of the Bill, I should defend that Clause 3 should stand part of the Bill because it gives a right of appeal against being sent to a third country. They are important to the Bill. I hope that they will remain part of it and therefore I oppose the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hold the judgment in the case of Bostam. I can only say, without detaining the House for a very long time—which I do not wish to do—that I do not agree with the noble Baroness's reading of it.
In the case of Iqbal I will grant the noble Baroness that he is still in France. He, like others before him, has been extremely fortunate in his lawyer. His lawyer in fact tried to obtain a hearing for him. He was denied an application form for a hearing on the ground that Iqbal had no valid address in Paris, which was a prerequisite for obtaining forms. He had to get through a good many more obstructions of that sort before obtaining a hearing for Mr. Iqbal.
There is therefore a real difficulty, and the fact that Mr. Iqbal has been fortunate enough to overcome it and has a lawyer with enough vitality to obtain a hearing for his case in this country, makes him unusual rather than the practice of third country return to France safe.
I really cannot think that the noble Baroness has taken on board the risks inherent in third country procedure. I know it is late at night but one cannot bring back clause stand part on Third Reading. It has always been my view that if it is proper for the House to be in session, then in the last resort it must be proper for the House to divide. It is my last chance to do so and therefore I ask the opinion of the House.
9.55 p.m.
Division called.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 30 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary "Not content".
On Question, amendment negatived.
10 p.m.
Clause 3 [Appeals against certificates under section 2]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 4, line 2, after ("under") insert ("Part II of the 1971 Act (appeals: general) or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 4, line 4, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) A person who has been sent to a country or territory to which section 2(4) applies shall be entitled to be admitted temporarily into the United Kingdom in order to attend any hearing of an appeal brought by him under subsection (1)(a) of this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment. I say that because I am very clear that, although the principle of the amendment is right, further qualifications will be necessary if the amendment is to work in practice. With this amendment we are trying to temper the wind to the shorn lamb to some extent. Under Clause 3, if somebody has been sent out of the country to a safe third country under the provisions of Clause 2, he has to conduct his appeal from that third country. All the evidence from the Council on Tribunals and everyone else is that the success and justice of an appeal is very much diminished if an appellant is unable to be present in person in order to conduct his appeal. The provisions of Amendment No. 32 are that,
"A person who has been sent to a country … to which section 2(4) applies"—
that is the safe third country—
"shall be entitled to be admitted temporarily into the United Kingdom in order to attend any hearing of an appeal".
The effect of that would be to reduce to some extent, but not totally, the possibility of the UK breaching its obligations under the United Nations convention on refugees. It will mean that applicants for asylum in the United Kingdom returned to a so called "safe" third country would have the theoretical ability to avail themselves of the protection of the United Kingdom if that third country in fact failed to admit them to its own asylum procedures. That is a matter that was considered in the last debate. We are attempting to protect the basic standards of due process in Clause 2 appeals.
The reason why I say that this is a probing amendment and not one that I can possibly submit to a vote in the House is that there are further qualifications which are necessary. First, a person granted leave to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of attending an appeal brought under this subsection should not be entitled in turn to appeal against a refusal to vary that leave. Secondly, a person granted leave to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose should not be entitled to appeal against a subsequent decision of the Secretary of State to make a deportation order against him. Thirdly, a person granted leave to enter the United Kingdom for this purpose should not be entitled to appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State to set directions for his removal subsequent to the determination of that appeal. I am recognising that this amendment is technically defective in that a number of potential subsequent conditions in which further appeal would be necessary would have to be denied if the amendment were to work satisfactorily.
I see that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, is with us. I do not know whether she has been advised on this issue, but there is a possible risk that the transport sources open to asylum seekers may be loth to risk incurring liability under the Immigration (Carriers'
552
Liability) Act 1987. I think that there would have to be a discretionary waiver to deal with the problem, stating that the passenger was arriving in the United Kingdom for the purpose of pursuing an appeal under Clause 3 of the Asylum and Immigration Act. Carriers could be notified of that waiver of liability by a standard information clause in writing, annexed to the notice of appeal carried by the passenger. I do not know whether the noble Baroness has been advised on this matter, but I am looking at the potential objections to my amendment, which I am moving because I want the Government to recognise the fundamental justice of having an appellant present in person at such an appeal.
I say that with some confidence because the Glidewell Report's final recommendations dealt with that. Recommendation X on page 20 states:
"At the least, if this clause is enacted, it should be amended to state that the appellant should have the right to return to the UK to be present at the appeal hearing and give evidence. This would help to ensure that the case was properly considered, although we take on board evidence which suggested that the individual might well have 'disappeared' by the time of the hearing".
The Glidewell Commission considered the matter in considerable detail and concluded that the right which is demanded in this amendment should be granted to appellants who have been sent to a third country under the provisions of Clause 2.
I repeat that we do not expect the amendment in its present form to be incorporated into the Bill, but this is an issue of great concern. It was raised in the Glidewell Report and deserves careful consideration by the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendment No. 32 would allow an asylum seeker whom we had removed to a third country to return to the United Kingdom to pursue his appeal. The noble Lord may say that it is not his intention to table wrecking amendments—he has said that he will not press the amendment—but that is the effect of the amendment. If we remove an asylum applicant to a third country, but then allow him to return to the United Kingdom, the benefits of making a quick removal will have been lost completely. The question of whether the third country would take the applicant back would arise all over again. If this amendment was accepted, there would be no point in removing the suspensive effect of third country appeals, and the benefits of Clauses 2 and 3 would be lost. That may well be the intention.
Nor is the amendment necessary. The arrangements for legal advice and representation from abroad are perfectly satisfactory. Asylum applicants who are removed on third country grounds will be provided with forms which will give a full explanation, in a language they understand, of the reasons why they have been refused and how they should go about pursuing their appeal.
The Immigration Advisory Service and Refugee Legal Centre are funded to provide representation at immigration and asylum appeals under Section 23 of the Immigration Act 1971. The Immigration Advisory Service is already accustomed to representing people pursuing immigration appeals from abroad. Section 23

553
funding will likewise be available for representing asylum seekers appealing from abroad against removal to a third country.
In addition, advice under the green form legal aid scheme will be available, subject to normal financial eligibility requirements. The scheme is available for advice on any matter of English law, regardless of whether the person seeking advice is in the country or outside it. There is no problem about the client having to sign a form in the presence of the solicitor whose advice is sought. Solicitors who have been franchised by the Legal Aid Board have delegated authority to accept postal applications under the green form scheme (including faxed applications). There is also provision for a friend or relative of the client to attend the solicitor in order to apply for legal advice on the client's behalf.
A third country appeal is significantly different from a substantive asylum appeal. The issue in a third country case is not whether the appellant's account of any ill-treatment he has suffered in his country of origin and of his reasons for claiming to fear persecution is credible. The issue is whether the third country is safe, and the certification conditions contained in Clause 2 are satisfied.
The case usually revolves around a discussion about the country's asylum procedures and its legal system. The amendment would underline the objective of Clauses 2 and 3 which is to enable us to make quick removals to third countries while those countries are still prepared to take back the asylum applicant. If the applicant were subsequently allowed to come back to the United Kingdom a second time it is highly unlikely that the third country would take him back again. The amendment is unacceptable. Although it is not being pressed tonight, I will continue to oppose it if it is returned to at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister can hardly describe as a wrecking amendment something which has been introduced as a probing amendment. We were seeking information and clarification from the Government. Although we do not like the clarification that we have been given, certainly we have been given clarification. It is now apparent that under Clauses 2 and 3 the appeal is no longer a substantive appeal on the immigration application. The Minister now tells us that it is an appeal on the issue of whether or not the third country is safe. The whole thrust of Clauses 2 and 3, which provide for the removal of asylum claimants to safe third countries, is very different from that which had been quite widely supposed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord did not realise that that was what Clause 3 was about. The noble Lord has been reading Clause 3 since the outset of the debates on this Bill. Clause 3 has only ever been concerned with appeals against the measures in Clause 2.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is true that Clause 3 is very limited in the scope of the appeal. But Clause 3 must be read together with Clause 2. We
554
have to consider the apparent fact that Clause 2 is not intended to be a way of speeding up procedures or providing a more economical way of dealing with asylum applications. It is a way of sweeping asylum applications under the carpet in such a way that they can never be brought out again. I read Clause 3 exactly as the Minister said. But I take this opportunity—and I move this amendment deliberately—to bring into the open the severe limitations on the appeal procedure which is provided for in Clause 3. There is no confusion in our minds or any difference of understanding. We want to ensure that Hansard recognises the position.
The Minister went on to say that there were a number of ways in which an appellant from a third country could be represented and take part vicariously in the appeal procedure. She spoke about friends and relatives in this country and the availability of legal advice. But the experience of all appeal tribunals of this kind, not just in the immigration and asylum field but throughout the scope of tribunal procedure, is that where the appellant is not able to take personal part in the proceedings he is likely to fare worse than if he is able to be present. Even if the appeal under Clause 3 is as limited as it appears to be, it still ought to be a fair appeal and one in which the appellant has a reasonable chance of success. An appeal in absence does not give a reasonable chance of success.
I do not regret moving this amendment, despite the necessary qualifications which would have to be made if it were to be agreed. It is right to point out that Clause 3 provides very much less protection against the activities provided for under that clause than might otherwise be supposed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 4, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) For the avoidance of doubt, directions under section 19(3) of the 1971 Act may include directions—

(a) that an entry clearance be issued notwithstanding that any requirement of the immigration rules has not been met;

(b) that a laissez passer or other travel document be issued;

(c) that the return to the United Kingdom of the appellant and any family members removed as his dependants be arranged and that the Secretary of State bear the cost thereof if there is evidence that the appellant would be unable to pay the cost himself;

(d) that no further certificate under section 2 be issued in respect of the appellant or any dependant of his; and

(e) that the Secretary of State uses his best endeavours to locate an asylum seeker who has won an appeal under this section in order that he be invited to return to the United Kingdom.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may emphasise that this is a probing amendment. As I recall, it was not debated in Committee. In that sense, we are seeking the Minister's response to issues which were not discussed in this House at earlier stages of the Bill.
I appreciate that because it is an amendment to Clause 3 it may be narrower in its relevance than it would be if it applied to all appeals. To that extent I appreciate that I am after wider comments from the

555
Minister than those merely in relation to Clause 3. The point at issue is that when an adjudicator allows an appeal, he can normally give directions to give effect to that decision. That, I believe, stems from the 1971 Act. Those directions can be given only to the Secretary of State or his officials.
What is not clear, and where I am seeking clarification from the Minister, is as to what powers the adjudicator has where an appeal against a decision to remove succeeds after the removal of the individual; that is to say, what powers does an adjudicator have to recommend that help be given to the successful appellant to be able to return to this country, the appellant having been removed before the result of the appeal? It may be a matter of documents or entry clearance, but it may also be a matter of compensating the appellant so that the appellant can make the journey back to this country in circumstances where he would not normally be able to afford to do so.
There is a range of circumstances where the adjudicator might be able to give directions so that action is taken to help the appellant, as indicated in the points in the amendment. I repeat, it is a probing amendment to see what is the Government's response, and whether the thrust of the amendment is clear. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I commend the efforts of the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Dubs, to find out just what is the meaning of the right of appeal under Clause 3. With Amendment No. 33 what they are clearly trying to do is to establish whether, if someone has a successful appeal from the third country to which they have been sent, the consequences of that appeal will be recognised by the UK.
We have already discovered that the likelihood of people being able to pursue an appeal from another country will be difficult, because they will not have the kind of help that the Minister described a few moments ago in her response to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. We now have what we might call the minimal position of what happens if the appeal is successful and whether it can be made real. It would be helpful to know whether, if an appeal is successful, the necessary material and other steps can be taken to ensure that that appeal becomes not just a legal victory but a real victory in terms of the person concerned being permitted to return to this country, and to live here according to the terms of the adjudicator's decision.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendment No. 33 purports to clarify the directions an adjudicator could issue in the event of a successful appeal, but it strays into territory which is not properly the subject of an adjudicator's directions. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that he would like to know whether the adjudicator has powers to recommend. I can give him an absolute assurance that he does have powers to recommend, but what he does not have are powers to direct, which of course is the subject of the amendment.
556
Section 19 of the Immigration Act 1971 provides that if an adjudicator allows an appeal, he:
"shall give such directions for giving effect to the determination as he thinks requisite, and may also make recommendations with respect to any other action which [he] considers should be taken in the case."
For the purposes of this debate the distinction between directions and recommendations is important. The Secretary of State is required to comply with directions, but he is not bound by an adjudicator's recommendations. Directions should be confined to measures which are necessary to give effect to the decision to allow the appeal. Any steps which the adjudicator thinks are desirable in a particular case, but which are not essential to give effect to his decision, are properly dealt with by means of a recommendation.
Amendment No. 33 seeks to blur this distinction. It would give an adjudicator the power to make directions which go well beyond what is required to give effect to the decision to allow an appeal. The Government cannot therefore accept the amendment. We are, however, partly sympathetic to the thinking behind it. I shall run through each of the matters dealt with by Amendment No. 33 in order.
I appreciate the intention behind limb (a) of the amendment. If the successful appellant was a national of a country for which a visa requirement was in force, a carrier would be liable to a penalty under carriers' liability legislation if it brought the applicant to the United Kingdom without some form of waiver. We have made it absolutely clear that successful appellants will be allowed to return and if necessary a visa waiver would be issued. The adjudicator could require this under Section 19. In practice, it will often be possible for the applicant to return to the United Kingdom without such assistance; for example, if he is a visa national. I am sure that that will come as a relief to my noble friend, who is no longer in his seat.
However, it would not be appropriate to issue an entry clearance to a successful appellant, as the amendment envisages. The holder of an entry clearance would normally be granted leave to enter, but a successful appellant who returned to the United Kingdom would not be granted leave to enter unless he qualified under the immigration rules. We would expect him to lodge a fresh asylum claim at the port of entry when he arrived there. He would normally then be granted temporary admission while his asylum claim was considered.
The second limb of the amendment is concerned with the issue of travel documents to a successful appellant. As I have just indicated, we will issue a travel document where necessary and the adjudicator will have powers to issue a direction to this effect.
Paragraph (c) of the amendment provides for a direction requiring the Secretary of State to arrange the successful appellant's passage back to the United Kingdom and to bear the costs. In the great majority of cases, it should be possible for the individual concerned to make his own way back to the United Kingdom. We accept that there might be wholly exceptional cases where an adjudicator believed that a successful appellant had no funds and no means of

557
returning to the United Kingdom. If so, the adjudicator could direct the Secretary of State under Section 19 of the 1971 Act to make the necessary arrangements, including the financial arrangements, which were required to give full effect to his decision to allow the appeal. No further legislative provision is required to clarify the point.
I cannot, however, accept that it would ever be appropriate for an adjudicator to direct that no further certificate under Section 2 should be issued in respect of a particular appellant. The adjudicator would not be able to give such a direction under the Bill as drafted and we do not favour an amendment to enable him to do so. The fact that an adjudicator has found a particular country to be unsafe for the applicant has no bearing on whether there is a different safe third country to which that applicant could be sent.
For example, an adjudicator might find that Italy was not safe for a particular applicant. The appellant would be allowed to return to the United Kingdom. This would give full effect to the adjudicator's determination. It is then for the Secretary of State to decide how to deal with the applicant's asylum claim. And it might then become apparent that the applicant was clearly admissible in the Netherlands, for instance, because he had a valid residence permit. In these circumstances, it might well be appropriate to issue a further certificate under Section 2.
The final limb of the amendment would state that an adjudicator could properly direct the Secretary of State to use his best endeavours to find the successful appellant and invite him to return to the United Kingdom. I cannot accept that such steps would be either necessary or practicable in order to give effect to an allowed appeal. The onus must be on the successful appellant to keep in touch with the authorities in this country. It would be extraordinary and unprecedented to impose such an open-ended and unacceptable obligation on the Secretary of State. It has always been the position in immigration cases that the onus is on the successful applicant to take advantage of the decision or determination in his favour.
I know that the noble Lord is not intending to press this matter and that it was for the purpose of clarification. I hope that my response has been helpful in that respect.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister said that a person who required an entry certificate would not be granted one but would be expected to apply again at the port of entry and put in a new application for asylum. How does that person get on an aircraft or other means of transport because, by definition, he has a refusal stamp in his passport and when he goes to book a ticket, the airline or other carrier will obviously decline to take him as a passenger fearing that if it does so it will be surcharged on refusal? Will the Minister explain how the successful applicant who is in Italy will be able to get on an Alitalia flight in order to come to London without an entry certificate?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I repeat that part of what I said in my response to the noble Lord, who
558
clearly missed it. Paragraph (c) of the amendment provides for a direction requiring the Secretary of State to arrange the successful applicant's passage back to the United Kingdom and to bear the costs. In the great majority of cases, it should be possible for the individual concerned to make his own way back to the United Kingdom. But we accept that there may be wholly exceptional circumstances where the adjudicator believed that a successful appellant had no funds and no means by which to return to the United Kingdom. If so, the adjudicator could direct the Secretary of State, under Section 19 of the 1971 Act, to make the necessary arrangements, including the financial arrangements required to give full effect to the decision to allow the appeal. No further legislative provision is required to clarify the point.
But, beyond that, what happens to the person once he is in this country as regards rights of entry is a matter for the Secretary of State and not a matter for the adjudicator.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am sorry but the Minister did not understand what I was asking. I am asking about the remarks which she made when she said that an entry clearance could not be a subject of direction but that the successful appellant had to come back to this country and lodge a fresh application for asylum at the port of entry. How would that person be able to book a ticket with any of the carriers when the carriers would know that that person had been refused leave to enter the United Kingdom on a previous occasion and would therefore be in fear of being surcharged if that person was again refused leave to enter on the second arrival at the port of entry?
I take the example which the Minister gave that the person was sent to Italy and the adjudicator found that Italy was not a safe place for that person. Therefore, he seeks to get on a plane in Rome to come back to London. He has the money to pay for the ticket—it is not a question of money—but, when he goes into the Alitalia ticket office and the staff there look at the passport and see the stamp of refusal, he will not be issued with a ticket because of the fear of being surcharged. How does that person get back to Heathrow or wherever he came from in the first place in order to lodge the fresh application for asylum?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am sorry if I misunderstood the point made by the noble Lord. In that case, he would need a visa waiver and we would issue one.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, that is extremely helpful not only in the original speech which the Minister made but also the further point of clarification which she made in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
I thank the Minster for clarifying an area in which there was doubt and for doing so in such an extremely helpful way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 35:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
ADJUDICATOR'S RECOMMENDATION
(".—(1) In Schedule 2 to the 1993 Act, after paragraph 3 there shall be inserted the following paragraphs—
"3A. Where a special adjudicator confirms a refusal, variation, decision or directions against which a person has appealed on the grounds mentioned in subsections (1) to (4) of section 8 of this Act, he shall determine forthwith whether there are other circumstances which, in his opinion, justify allowing the person to enter or not requiring the person to leave the United Kingdom.
3B. If a special adjudicator determines that there are such circumstances, he shall direct that the Secretary of State shall grant leave for the person to enter the United Kingdom if he has not already been granted such leave and to remain in the United Kingdom for as long as those circumstances shall continue to exist."
(2) In paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 2 to the 1993 Act, after the words "section 8 of this Act", there shall be inserted the words "and paragraph 3A of this Schedule".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in a sense, Amendment No. 35 could have been taken with Amendment No. 33, because it refers to the same kind of issue, but this amendment must come after Clause 3 rather than as part of it because it refers to the role of the special adjudicator and what happens when he confirms a refusal, variation, decision or directions against which a person has appealed.
The position at the moment is that the adjudicator can allow an appeal only, as I understand it, if he finds that the appellant is a refugee as defined by the 1951 convention. If the adjudicator finds that the appellant qualifies to stay here under any other international treaty, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, he cannot allow an appeal because that is not within the scope of his terms of reference, even if he believes that the appellant would be likely to suffer if removed for anything other than a convention reason or if he believes that the appellant should be allowed to remain here for other compassionate reasons, such as ill health. In other words, the exceptional leave to remain provision, which, after all, accounts for the majority of people who actually stay in this country after going through the asylum claim procedure, is outside the scope of the special adjudicator. We are suggesting that the special adjudicator should be given power to direct that the Secretary of State should grant leave for the person to enter the United Kingdom if he has not already been granted such leave, and to remain here so long as the special circumstances continue to exist.
The Government will no doubt tell us that it is rare for the Home Office to reject the view of the special adjudicator, but I understand that there are a significant number of cases in which the Home Office does reject the view of the special adjudicator. That can and does lead to judicial review. So what we are saying is that it is logical and rational for the special adjudicator to have the full range of options, which includes a direction that leave be granted. We recognise that if the special adjudicator does so the Home Office can appeal against that judgment, but we believe it is necessary, particularly in view of the prospect of an increasing
560
number of accelerated cases, that these additional powers for the special adjudicator should be granted. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this amendment would represent a fundamental and unacceptable departure from the existing role of the special adjudicator. The adjudicator's role is to oversee the correct application of immigration and asylum law, as set out in primary legislation and the immigration rules. In other words, the adjudicator is there to apply the rules fairly. Applicants appeal to the adjudicator on the grounds that their rights under the legislation have not been complied with. The exercise of discretion in favour of applicants who do not meet the statutory immigration or asylum requirements is the proper preserve of the Secretary of State. This is because discretion has to be exercised in the context of the Secretary of State's responsibility for maintaining the effectiveness and integrity of immigration control. Individual compassionate factors always have to be weighed against that wider responsibility. Adjudicators have no such responsibility, and that is why they have the power to issue binding directions only in cases where an appeal is allowed and only for the purpose of ensuring that a determination based on the rules is given effect.
The amendment is in any case unnecessary. It overlooks the fact that the question of whether exceptional leave should be granted is already built into the initial consideration process. Anyone refused asylum has had the case for exceptional leave fully examined. Moreover, the adjudicator can of course, if he dismisses the appeal, make a recommendation, including the recommendation of exceptional leave. I can assure the House that all such recommendations are carefully considered. Furthermore, it is our current policy that only officials at senior executive officer level or above are normally authorised to decide not to comply with recommendations in asylum cases.
If the adjudicator's recommendation arises from exceptional compassionate circumstances which have not previously been considered and which would genuinely merit the exercise of discretion outside the immigration rules, then we would act upon a recommendation. We believe that that is a perfectly reasonable policy. Therefore, I again urge noble Lords not to press the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the last part of the Minister's reply was especially interesting. Of course, it is common ground between us that the adjudicator can make recommendations and it is valuable to have on the record the assurance that, if there is any question of the recommendations not being accepted, it will be a senior immigration officer who will be responsible for such a decision. The Minister is right to say that the integrity of our immigration procedures is the responsibility of the Secretary of State, but our purpose in moving the amendment was to clarify the concerns about the powers of the special adjudicators which, I have to say, have been expressed not only in this amendment but also by adjudicators and special adjudicators in evidence to the Glidewell Panel.

561
It have been a valuable to have elicited that answer. I am not claiming that we have elicited anything new, but the Minister has been very clear and helpful in her response. In the circumstances, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 36:
Before Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
EVIDENCE OBTAINED USING X-RAYS
(". In any proceedings under the 1971 Act, the Immigration Act 1988, the 1993 Act or this Act, it shall not be admissible for evidence to be introduced as to a person's age which is derived from the use of X-Ray technology.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment arises out of the discussion that took place on 30th April concerning the arrival in this country of unaccompanied children, the problem of how the ages of those children should be determined and the remarks that were made then by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon concerning the use of x-rays for that purpose. I ventured at that time to point out that we had long ago discontinued the practice of using x-rays for age determination in immigration control. Since then I sent a copy of a report which my office published in 1981 to the right reverend Prelate and also to the Minister.
The Minister was kind enough to reply in detail saying that the Home Office and the Foreign Office had long discontinued the use of these techniques. However, they continue in private practice, as I confirmed by discussing the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who is a medical practitioner. When we produced that study in 1981 the purpose was to remedy the defects in the Yellowlees Report on the medical examination of immigrants, which had been published by the Home Office in 1980, in so far as that report referred to the risks inherent in the use of radiological examinations of children and the errors arising from varies techniques of age estimation based on x-rays.
Because there was no limit below which exposure to x-rays gives rise to a zero risk, we found that the use of x-rays, especially on children, is avoided wherever possible. According to one authority:
"We … have a large amount of data—much of it human—showing a statistically significant increase in a number of types of malignancies as a consequence of exposure to low doses of ionising radiation".
As a result of much evidence of that kind, the BMA passed a resolution at its annual meeting in 1979:
"That this meeting considers that medical examinations to determine virginity, and radiological examinations, carried out solely for administrative and political purposes, are unethical and instructs Council (a) to convey this view to the General Medical Council and (b) to make the strongest possible representation to the Government to ban these practices".
In addition, the World Health Organisation has condemned the use of x-rays for administrative uses because it exposes people to unnecessary radiation risks. The authors of the most advanced system for assessing skeletal maturity, Tanner and Whitehouse, had not updated their control group since the 1950s, because, in their words,
562
"current British regulations forbid the x-raying of hands of healthy children … Our norms therefore remain those of [26] years ago".
The norms of Tanner-Whitehouse were based on a 1950s sample of British children of slightly under-average family income. Therefore, the use of the skeletal age of those children to determine the chronological age of applicants from third world countries was subject to two major sources of error. First, since the 1950s general standards of nutrition and skeletal maturity will have changed drastically. Secondly, there would be enormous difference between the rates of skeletal maturity in Britain and those various third world countries. From many studies it was concluded that the error inherent in the use of those skeletal techniques for age determination was something like plus or minus two years.
Not only were those techniques dangerous to the children, they were also grossly inaccurate and useless for the purposes for which they were intended. For that reason the Home Office and the Foreign Office discontinued the practice.
I was disconcerted to find from the discussion on 30th April that the practice was still continuing in the private sector. I believe that we should take the opportunity that the Bill presents to insert a provision which prevents the use of evidence based on X-rays in any procedures on immigration controls from the 1971 Act onwards. By doing so, we give effect to the BMA's recommendation, made as long ago as 1979. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the persistence with which he has pursued this issue. Each time I have heard him, I have found his case more persuasive. He has today presented a very strong case indeed, especially in the light of the opinions of the BMA.
What is unusual, and very welcome, is that we are not hearing any confrontation between the two sides of the House. We are hearing suggestions about what might be done to control unwise actions in private practice. Indeed, I understand that there is no conflict between my noble friend and the Home Office on this point.
This issue is worth thinking about especially in the light of what my noble friend said about the margin of error. The Minister may not consider primary legislation the ideal medium, but if the noble Baroness has any suggestions for constructive action they will be very welcome. It will be very nice indeed if we can reach agreement on something.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that it is relevant to bear in mind that the people who try to deceive by mis-stating their age are not children. They are bound to be adults who are not very old and are trying to claim special treatment because they say they are children. It is difficult for the immigration officers, medical people,

563
or anyone to say what those people's ages really are. If the X-ray can decide the matter, we should keep an open mind on the issue.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as I said during the earlier stages of the Bill, where there is a dispute about whether an asylum claimant is under 18 years of age, the burden of proof must lie with the applicant.
One option for the applicant is to seek an independent age assessment by medical experts. If such a report is obtained, it will be given full and careful consideration. The Home Office does not normally commission such reports and I can confirm to the House that we do not employ X-rays for age assessment. Entry clearance officers at British diplomatic posts abroad do not employ this technique either. But it is not for the Home Office to say what methods should or should not be employed by an applicant's doctor.
On the methods used, my noble friend is right. It must be a matter for the applicant and his legal representatives to discuss with their chosen medical adviser. Most importantly, it is for the doctor involved to adhere to current best practice and to abide by the latest guidelines and instructions. If X-rays are being used inappropriately, that is a problem which needs to be addressed in a wider context rather than solely in relation to immigration.
I hope my assurance that the Home Office does not employ X-rays for age assessment will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. However, I do not think it is appropriate to address their concerns in this way in this Bill.
I have listened carefully—not just tonight but also on other occasions—to the views expressed about the use of X-rays. I understand the concerns which have been raised. However, I am not persuaded that this Bill is the appropriate vehicle for dealing with those concerns. However, I would be happy to consult with my honourable friend John Horam, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, as to whether further guidance is required.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister for that helpful reply. I look forward to consulting with her about the discussion she will have with Mr. Horam. If there is a degree of risk—that is common ground between all the medical authorities and the World Health Organisation—there is a governmental responsibility to discourage the use of those techniques, particularly where that relates to statutory procedures of this kind. I agree with the noble Baroness that probably this is not the right place for the insertion of provisions which deal with health risks, and that we ought to find another opportunity for dealing with that matter in a Bill which is concerned with health. We may also, in the meanwhile, as a result of these discussions, have the opportunity of further dealings with the ethical committee of the BMA which is seized of the matter and is looking over the records of what was said and done in 1981. That committee may be able to give advice to the profession which will yield the result we
564
all want to see. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Obtaining leave by deception]:
[Amendments Nos. 37 to 41 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Assisting asylum claimants, and persons seeking to obtain leave by deception]:
Lord McIntosh Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 5, line 5, leave out ("or has reasonable cause for believing").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 42 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 which are all concerned with the conditions under which it is possible and desirable to control racketeering in immigration advice. I say immediately that we are strongly in support of the objectives of Clause 5 of the Bill. We believe that it is desirable and indeed essential that there should he controls over who gives advice. It is particularly desirable that there should not be a body of people who encourage claimants to seek to obtain leave to remain in this country by deception. In saying that, I am not for a moment admitting that I am satisfied with the definition of deception. However, there are other amendments which cover that point.
In these three amendments we are in particular concerned with the professional status of solicitors because the clause as drafted requires solicitors to second guess their clients and forces them to make judgments as to whether the story the client tells is true. That is the implication of the phrase,
"has reasonable cause for believing",
which appears at three points in Clause 5(1). To have "reasonable cause for believing" implies that the person who has the reasonable cause has obtained that reasonable cause by a course of inquiry.
I am not in any way an expert on the ethical rules which govern solicitors. However, the Law Society advises me that,
"Solicitors are under a duty not to act for a client where deception is involved, but are not required to cross-examine clients about the truth of their story".
The Law Society says that,
"The effect of the clause as drafted will be to oblige solicitors to establish the truth of a client's story, rather than to act as their representative. Solicitors will in effect be doing the job of Immigration Officers in determining the truth of an applicant's claim".
It goes on to say that,
"The burden of proof in the clause, which specifies that advisers must have 'reasonable cause for believing' a client not to have used deception is too heavy. It would be impossible in many cases to disprove that the adviser had reasonable cause for believing an application included deception".
I have taken the unusual step of reading directly from the advice given to me, and I believe to other noble Lords, by the Law Society because this is an area where the professional rules of solicitors are rather arcane. However, this point deserves the serious consideration

565
of government. The Law Society, and this House, deserve a considered reply to these amendments. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I was rather surprised to hear the noble Lord say that he was in sympathy with the general objectives of Clause 5. Is the noble Lord telling the House that he believes the objectives of this clause are confined to dealing with racketeers?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall leave the noble Lord to answer that question for himself.
Section 25(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 contains, and always has contained, an offence of facilitating the entry of an illegal entrant. The offence is committed where a person facilitates the entry of someone,
"whom he knows or has reasonable cause for believing to be an illegal entrant".
The words "knows or has reasonable cause for believing" have not caused any problems since the 1971 Act was passed, and have been incorporated into the two new offences which would be created by Clause 5(1) of this Bill.
These amendments would delete "reasonable cause for believing" from the three offences, the existing illegal entry offence and the two new offences. I understand, from discussions we had earlier in Committee, that this change may have been prompted by a desire to protect those who have a legitimate interest in providing advice and assistance in immigration cases, particularly lawyers. It was felt that it would be difficult for any adviser to disprove that he or she had reasonable cause for believing that an application with which they were involved included deception.
I would make two points. The first seems to be fundamental. It would be necessary to prove that an adviser knew or had reasonable cause for believing that deception was involved in order to secure a conviction. That is rather a different matter to the adviser disproving knowledge or belief of deception. I am afraid the noble Lord got that point wrong. Evidence would have to be assembled to prove the case.
My second point concerns the wording of the offences if the amendments were accepted. The standard of proof required to secure a conviction would be absolute. It would have to be shown that the adviser knew. This provides the easy get-out clause for precisely the people against whom the new measures are aimed. They could plead ignorance and stand a very good chance of being acquitted.
In conclusion, I have not been persuaded that the phrase "or has reasonable cause for believing" should be removed from the offences, because to do so would be to reduce the chances of convicting immigration racketeers, an aim which has received considerable support on all sides of the House.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may deal first with the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I accept that Clause 5 contains matters other than dealing with racketeers. But those other
566
matters are the subject of amendments that we tabled at Committee stage and again on Report since many were not debated in Committee. We are, as always, concerned with the detail of the Bill, and concerned to see that the Bill expresses properly objectives which we can share.
There are occasions when Bills are wholly unacceptable, and when that happens we express blanket disapproval. However, the general objective of cleaning up the immigration advice business, so to speak, is one shared by all parts of the House and, however defective, that is the principal purpose of Clause 5.
I listened carefully to the Minister and accept that the burden of proof is that it has to be shown that the adviser knew about the deception rather than that he has to satisfy himself first. For that reason alone this is not an amendment I propose to press. I was particularly interested in what the Minister said towards the end of her reply; that is, that in determining the case there was a strict definition of "knows". I do not see that in Clause 5. I am not suggesting that the Minister should expand on it at the moment. I want to read carefully what she said and be sure that I understand its import. If that is the case, then it is possible that the anxieties of legitimate immigration practitioners—not only lawyers, but also those who work for charities and local organisations—are met in the wording of Clause 5. I am not satisfied that that is the case at the moment. I want to read what the Minister said and think about it before the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 43 to 45 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 5, leave out lines 14 to 17 and insert ("which is done—

(a) by a person otherwise than for gain, or in the course of his employment by a bona fide organisation whose purpose it is to assist refugees; or

(b) in relation to a person who has been detained under paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to this Act, or has been granted temporary admission under paragraph 21 of that Schedule;").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, had we discussed Amendment No. 43 I would have told the House that there is a case for tightening up the protection in Clause 5(2) for advisers. That is what Amendment No. 46 involves.
Amendment No. 46 is in response to the concerns raised at a previous stage and I expected them to be raised again tonight. I should say at the outset that it has always been the intention that this offence should be firmly targeted at the activities of immigration racketeers. It has never been the intention that the introduction of the new offence should have an adverse effect on the provision of lawful and legitimate advice and assistance to those seeking asylum in the United Kingdom.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the Minister proceeds perhaps I may say that I am not responsible for Amendment No. 43. The anxieties expressed at Committee stage are expressed in Amendments Nos. 47 to 49, which we have not yet

567
moved. The Deputy Speaker has not yet advised the House that they would fall through pre-emption if Amendment No. 46 is agreed to. My understanding was that we would deal with those amendments—which express our concerns—at the same time as Amendment No. 46, if only for the pre-emption reason.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may add that I did not move Amendment No. 43 because I understood that Amendment No. 46 had been tabled in part to deal with the issues that we raised at an earlier stage. I wanted to hear what the noble Baroness had to say and also save the time of the House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am simply saying that I am responding to concerns. Nothing I say on Amendment No. 46—I hope the House will accept that amendment—will preclude anything that noble Lords have to say on Amendments Nos. 47 to 49. I reserve my right to respond to those amendments after they have been spoken to by noble Lords.
The existing defences to the new offence set out in the Bill provide that it will not apply to activities done otherwise than for gain, or in the course of employment by a bona fide organisation whose purpose is to assist refugees. It has been recognised that these defences were incomplete in as much as they do not protect those people such as lawyers who have a legitimate and lawful interest in providing advice, assistance and representation to asylum seekers who have applied for asylum on arrival in the United Kingdom.
The amendment is the consequence of the recognition of the lacuna in the defences available to the new offence following consideration of the points previously raised about the scope of the offence. It provides that where a person has been detained under paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act or has been granted temporary admission under paragraph 21 of that schedule, assistance, advice or representation provided to that person will fall outside the scope of the new offence. This will mean that there will be no prospect of a prosecution for the new offence being considered where a lawyer provided his services to an asylum seeker who has been temporarily admitted pending the resolution of his port asylum application.
The acceptance of this amendment targets the new offence even more firmly at immigration racketeers, and clearly exempts those who have a legitimate interest in assisting asylum seekers who have arrived in the United Kingdom. I commend it to the House.
11 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 49. The amendments seek to improve the proposition put forward by the Minister, although technically they are amendments to the Bill unamended. Nevertheless, the points would still apply as amendments to the Bill as amended by the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 46.
I welcome what the Minister said. I think it helps us and Amendment No. 46 takes the process further forward. Amendment No. 47 seeks to replace the word
568
"gain" with "remuneration" because "remuneration" is, if anything, wider than "gain" and it would therefore cover organisations where people do not get any financial benefit directly. Amendment No. 48 seeks to leave out the words "employment by" and insert "work for". The adviser may not technically be "employed by" an organisation. He may "work for" an organisation in a voluntary capacity. Therefore, the amendment widens the concept and ensures that the scope of the clause would affect more people than the narrower definition in the Bill. With regard to Amendment No. 49, the Bill as now drafted uses the words "bona fide organisation". Amendment No. 49 would add,
"a partnership, company or other legal entity",
and so on. That would allow for organisations which are not, strictly speaking, within the definition of "bona fide organisations". For the avoidance of doubt, these should be included.
I have some difficulty with a point that is not the direct subject of an amendment. I refer to the use of the word "refugee" in the original wording of Clause 5. Indeed, it is included in the amendment to which I am speaking and it is included in the Government's amendment. I hope that would not limit the help to asylum seekers. Elsewhere in the clause there is reference to "asylum seekers" but in this instance there is reference to
"a bona fide organisation whose purpose it is to assist refugees".
I am not sure whether that is a mistake or whether it is deliberate. If it is deliberate, it means that there would be no help to asylum seekers. If it is a mistake, I hope we can find some way of rectifying it.
Earl Russell: I welcome the government amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me if, nevertheless, I probe it a little. It is the duty of this side of the House to look gift horses in the mouth so I shall try to do so.
I am concerned about the meaning of the word "gain". The noble Baroness gave me an assurance at Committee stage which I much welcomed, that those who work for airlines who assist anyone intending to claim asylum would not be found guilty under this clause. Since then I have received advice from the Immigration Law Practitioners Association which, in noting the noble Baroness's assurance, nevertheless say that the courts may think otherwise. That is a guarded but strong pronouncement. It gives me a certain amount of anxiety. I hope I am in order in asking the noble Baroness to check that once again.
I heard and welcome, because I believe that they are crystal clear, especially in the light of the case of Pepper v. Hart, the assurances that she gave about solicitors. But what about the case raised by the Immigration Law Practitioners Association of a lawyer on holiday abroad who meets someone, for the sake of argument, in Sri Lanka who wishes to claim asylum. The solicitor gives him advice and then undertakes to take on his case in this country when he arrives. Is that person in jeopardy under the clause or not? It is a perfectly possible scenario and I am not clear how the clause would apply to it.

569
The same question might apply to a journalist who found himself assisting an asylum seeker. If the journalist were to produce copy out of it, as journalists usually do, he might risk coming within the scope of the clause. I am also concerned about the tightness of the words,
"whose purpose it is to assist refugees".
Many Churches wish to assist refugees. It is not their primary purpose to do so, but many people in them regard it as one of their legitimate purposes. As the Church of Scotland warned the Home Office in May, some of them intend to continue to do so regardless of how this clause is interpreted. That presents the prospect of the sort of Church-state clash which I hope that this country will continue to try to avoid.
The Minister rightly said in the case of Mr. Tong that sanctuary has been repealed. Wearing my other hat, I am happy to confirm that. It is repealed by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act 1624. Nevertheless, the conviction that the Church must give help because it believes that it is its religious duty to do so is quite strong. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, reminded the House when we were in Committee that although sanctuary has been abolished in common law it has not been abolished in canon law. Are we going to see the Church prosecuted under this clause in cases like that of the Church of Scotland or the Church which has temporarily sheltered Mr. Tong? If so, I believe that the Government are heading for the type of confrontation which both sides would be wise to avoid, if possible.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Perhaps I may add to my noble friend's questions one or two additional ones. As the noble Baroness will know, the lawyers are very concerned indeed about constraints as to what extent they will be acting legally within the terms of this Bill. I shall pursue two of the issues that were raised in the discussion. The first concerns the kind of advice a lawyer can give in advance of somebody coming to this country. I have referred to it before in this debate because it is important, and that is the situation that will arise next year in Hong Kong. Many thousands of Hong Kong residents know people in this country and have close links with them. They are friends and colleagues and in some cases they have been in the same law firms and shared responsibility for legal matters in the same firms. It is very probable that a Hong Kong resident seeking asylum, for reasons which we have already discussed in this House and for other reasons, will approach his friend or colleague in order to ask for advice about the effects of this Bill, for example. Clearly, advice about how the Bill operates, about the necessity to make plain the minute one arrives that one is seeking asylum, and about the possibility of being returned to a third country, would be very valuable to someone seeking, or succeeding in getting, asylum in this country.
Therefore, I should like to ask the direct question whether such advice, not given for remuneration but nevertheless given in advance of the applicant coming to this country and announcing his intention of seeking asylum here, would or would not be caught by the terms
570
of Clause 5. If somebody approaches a lawyer whose firm is concerned with many other issues (of which the pursuit of advice to asylum seekers is only one) would that also fall foul of Clause 5? Those are extremely important points. It is important that lawyers know exactly what is and is not legal in offering advice to clients. It would be helpful if the Minister could say a little more about the points that we have raised so that we can answer those who have approached us on this matter.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendment No. 47 adds nothing to the understanding of Clause 5(2). "Remuneration" means wages or salary and "gain" not only includes those meanings but could also include payment in kind or property.
I cannot believe that it is intended that immigration racketeers should be able to take advantage of the defences available in Clause 5(2) to the new offence of facilitating the entry of any asylum claimant simply by taking payment in kind or property rather than in money. That, however, would be the likely outcome of adopting this amendment.
It appears that Amendment No. 48 is intended to widen yet further the defence set out in Clause 5(2) of the Bill, which would become Section 25(1A)(b) of the 1971 Act, to include the activities of voluntary workers as well as the employees of bona fide refugee organisations. That is unnecessary because voluntary workers who do not derive any gain from their activities are already covered by the defence which would become Section 25(1A)(a).
I have just outlined Amendment No. 46 which widens the defences to the new offence and which is the Government's response to earlier concerns about the scope of the offence. This now means that where asylum claimants are detained or given temporary admission under powers in Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act, those who provide them with advice, representation or other assistance have a defence from prosecution for the new facilitation offence.
The Government believe that the inclusion of this additional defence firmly targets the new offence at illegal racketeering activity and ensures asylum claimants are not prevented from receiving legitimate advice and assistance because those who would normally provide such assistance are afraid of prosecution. It is the Government's firm belief that, with the addition of the government amendment, anyone acting lawfully in providing advice or assistance to asylum claimants who have arrived in the United Kingdom, will be able to avail themselves of one of the defences set out in Clause 5(2), thus avoiding any prospect of prosecution.
Amendment No. 49 goes much further than would be provided for in Clause 5(2) as it would be amended by Amendment No. 46. It would allow any employee of an organisation which claimed that its purposes included,
"the provision of information, assistance or representation to refugees"
to avail himself of the defence which would become Section 25(1A)(b) if the amendment is accepted. Clearly, it is a relatively simple matter for an

571
organisation to make such a claim when in fact it is merely a cover and the organisation is actually engaging in illegal, racketeering activity. It cannot be right that a defence to this new facilitation offence could be so readily available to people engaged in such activities.
The noble Earl referred to airline employees. I am fairly confident about what we said earlier, but I should like to consider further what I said originally and to confirm that that was correct. If I have to modify it, I shall do so.
We do not believe that the lawyer abroad would be in danger because his activities would be too remote from the entry of an asylum seeker here. The noble Earl also made reference to sanctuary in churches. Their actions are protected by this amendment because it applies to asylum seekers who have arrived and presented themselves to the authorities in the first instance. The noble Baroness Lady Williams referred to Hong Kong. The giving of advice to a person who is abroad is too remote from the entry of the asylum seeker to fall foul of the clause. I cannot read the note that I have before me. If the noble Baroness will forgive me, I shall write to her on the Hong Kong point.
11.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness warmly for her answers. I ask one other question that she has not yet answered. Would a church be counted as falling within the words
"a bona fide organisation whose purpose it is to assist refugees"?
It is not the first way I would have thought of describing a church.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure that it is a church. What matters are the people in the church and the relationship between the activities of those people and the asylum seeker. If they are volunteers acting in a wholly lawful way they will not be caught by the measures in Clause 5. We know that some church activity is engaged in harbouring illegal entrants, which is a very different matter.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am not sure that I am allowed to speak. I do not believe that I am.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I apologise for not informing the House that if Amendment No. 46 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 47 to 49 owing to a pre-emption. However, I understand that those three amendments have been grouped together.
On Question, Amendment No. 46 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 47 to 50 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No.51:
Leave out Clause 5.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purport of this amendment is to leave out Clause 5. Even with the welcome assurances that the noble Baroness has just given, I am still under the impression that it is no more true that Clause 5 is directed against racketeers than that the Bill is directed against bogus asylum seekers. In
572
neither case is any attempt made to distinguish between the genuine and the bogus. The Bill purchases on both equally. It is a bit like the Tom Lehrer approach to shooting: one sits there looking cute and when anything moves one shoots.
Other issues arise from the clause, one of which is: what is an illegal entrant? To probe that a little further, the judgment of the Appellate Committee of this House in Naillie in 1993 was that a person who entered without a valid passport intending to claim asylum was not an illegal entrant. A Home Office briefing which was provided while this Bill was before another place suggested that one of the purposes of the Bill was to repeal the judgment in Naillie. I hope the noble Baroness can tell me that that is not so. Naillie rested on the distinction between people who land and are in the airport and those who attempt to gain entry. If the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, were in her place she would confirm that that must be a valid distinction; otherwise, all transit passengers would require immigration papers, which would mean a vast amount of extra work.
It seemed to me that there was no good reason to object to the judgment of the House in the Naillie case, so I hope that we can be told that the Bill is not intended in any way to reverse it. The key point in that case was whether there was a third status between illegal entrants, legal entrants, and asylum seekers of the third status—whether they were made legal by the wish to claim asylum. That is a crucial question.
The next point that arises is the question of deception under Clause 5(1)(c). I shall not go through all the long argument I had with the Minister about the status of the in-country applicant—whether that involved deception or not. If she could not go through that in her sleep by now, I would be surprised. But I think she must understand that I believe that assisting someone to claim in-country remains a legal activity. It must concern me that anyone else professionally involved, who believes the same as I do and acts on their conviction, is running the risk of conviction under the Bill. That is something that is liable to breed martyrs, and that is something which tends to lead all governments into trouble. It concerns me rather deeply.
I am also deeply worried about Clause 5(1)(b) which makes it an offence to assist people who intend to claim asylum. Claiming asylum is a perfectly legal activity. There is no reference to deception in Clause 5(1)(b). It surprises me deeply to find attempting to assist people to do something legal made a crime in that way.
I have taken advice, and I find that the only other case where it is a crime to assist someone to do something legal is the suicide pact. I do not believe that the cases are parallel. This clause will do a great deal of mischief. I remain deeply opposed to it. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I wonder whether I might briefly put two questions to the Minister about Clause 5. The first is one that I raised in relation to the previous amendment. It relates to the use of the word "refugees" in at least one instance in the clause when in other instances the words "asylum claimant" are used. I wonder whether the use of the word "refugees" is

573
significant and whether it is meant colloquially to cover asylum seekers or whether technically we might not be running into difficulties by talking about organisations that assist refugees and thereby excluding organisations that assist asylum seekers—those being the main people about whom we are talking, given that we are talking about claims for asylum.
I should have thought that technically it would be better if we did not use the word "refugee" in a loose way, and that therefore we should use the words "asylum seeker" rather than "refugees" here. I do not know whether the Minister has a view on that, but that is how it seems to me.
Perhaps I may put another question for clarification. Given that there are some safeguards contained in Clause 5, am I right in thinking that in so far as there is protection, that protection is only for those advising asylum seekers as port or "on entry" claimants and not those helping in-country claimants? I wonder whether there is a difference there, and that we are giving greater protection to one set of advisers and less to others, or whether I have misunderstood the way in which Clause 5 operates.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is clear from correspondence with me, and his previous contributions to the debates on the Bill, that the noble Earl does not care for the idea that those who facilitate the entry of asylum seekers to the UK should be liable to prosecution. It is not a new idea. Section 25(1) of the 1971 Act has always made it an offence for any person to facilitate the entry of illegal entrants to the UK. The case law is clear. If a person assists another person to pass through the immigration control, using deception, or bypassing the control completely, that person is an illegal entrant, and—
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister saying that an asylum seeker is an illegal entrant? If so, she is contradicting the judgment of this House in the Naillie case.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no, I did not say that. The noble Earl is putting quite the wrong interpretation on the matter. I am saying that helping someone to pass through by deception is illegal. I shall repeat what I said. Section 25(1) of the 1971 Act has always made it an offence for a person to facilitate the entry of illegal entrants to the United Kingdom. The case law is clear. If a person assists another person to pass through the immigration control using deception, or bypassing the control completely, that person is an illegal entrant, and the person who facilitates the entry is guilty of an offence under Section 25(1). This is irrespective of whether the facilitator acts for personal gain, or if the illegal entrant so assisted goes on to make a claim for asylum.
That is the current position. We have previously made clear that the new offence of facilitating the entry of an asylum seeker has been introduced to plug a hole in our existing immigration legislation which was exposed by legal judgments, and defences will be available to those who facilitate the entry of an asylum seeker. I will not
574
rehearse those defences again as they have already been covered in detail, but suffice it to say that this new offence does not criminalise the act of seeking asylum. Its aim is to combat those who make profit by facilitating the entry of asylum seekers, and in that aim it has been broadly welcomed by all sides during the consideration of the Bill. Doubts have been expressed about the scope of the offence and the defences to it, and the Government have responded to these doubts by bringing forward an amendment which tightens the focus of the offence.
Clearly, the noble Earl does not share the broad welcome which, as I have just said, has been given to the idea that the activities of facilitators should be stopped. Not only would he remove the offence of facilitating the entry of asylum seekers from the Bill, he would also remove the other new offence; facilitating the acquisition of leave to remain by deception as well. I find this difficult to understand. I can see no argument for protecting the activities of those who run bogus educational establishments and marriage rings, who obtain their profits by encouraging others to break and circumvent our immigration laws. No one should be in any doubt that the profits available to those engaging in such activity are considerable, and consequently this problem will not go away simply by ignoring it.
Those who encourage others to circumvent our immigration laws are not motivated by altruism. Their only concern is personal aggrandizement. I believe, and the Government believe, that we must have effective powers to deal with these people. This is what Clause 5 provides, and this is what this amendment would remove. I think it will be clear that I see no merit whatever in this amendment, and I strongly urge the House not to accept it.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to refugees. There is no special significance in this. As he said, the colloquial reference is "intended", as most organisations are called refugee organisations. I do not believe that there is anything disparaging there. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to an illegal entrant as defined in Schedule 1. It is our intention to reverse Naillie because that case held that a person could avoid prosecution for facilitation if that person assisted claimed asylum on arrival. As regards the noble Earl's other point, assisting to claim asylum in-country is legal. That is the purpose of my Amendment No. 46.
I hope that the clause will remain part of the Bill. It is important. It has wide support inside this House, in another place and in the country generally. The truth is that we believe that gaining at the expense of vulnerable people who are attempting to gain entry to this country is an important issue. Racketeers do exist and they profit from their evil activities. The offence is needed. The defences against this clause are set out in subsection (2). They provide the necessary safeguards for those acting lawfully. I argue that the clause should remain part of the Bill.
11.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness is now putting words into my mouth. I apologised to her for

575
doing so and I hope that she will return the compliment. The noble Baroness is suggesting that I am trying to assist racketeers. I do no such thing. My objection to this clause is that it purchases equally on the innocent and the guilty. I am in favour of imprisoning burglars but I am not in favour of imprisoning the whole population because there happen to be some burglars among it. It is a very vital distinction.
I am in favour of measures against those who do evil if they are aimed at the people who do the evil. It is that test which this clause and this Bill have failed totally. The noble Baroness says that it has always been that way but 1971 is not always. However, I shall let that pass.
I shall not take the noble Baroness through the whole of the argument between us about what constitutes deception. She places some things under that heading which I do not. I do not intend to pursue that argument but I believe that she is doing a great deal of harm here.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for raising the question of the word "refugee". It is interesting because it is a word which may be interpreted in more than one way. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, may be in part reassured by the way in which the word has been interpreted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, judging in this House in the Khaboka case in 1993. He said that the term "refugee" must be taken as encompassing asylum seekers who subsequently have their refugee status accepted. He said that it is common sense and a natural reading also of the words of Article 31(1). The term refugee means what it says. It will include someone who is only subsequently established as being a refugee. I hope that that is clear to both sides of the House.
This argument will continue in the next Parliament, no matter who is in office. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 52:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
REGISTRATION OF IMMIGRATION PRACTITIONERS
(" .—(1) It shall be an offence for a person who is not a qualified person within the meaning of this section to undertake for reward (whether by himself or through his servants or agents, or otherwise) the business of giving advice to, making representations on behalf of or acting as the representative of a person in respect of a matter to which subsection (2) of this section applies unless he is registered as an immigration law practitioner with the Immigration Practitioners Registration Authority ("the Authority") established under this section.
(2) This subsection applies to applications to—

(a) an immigration officer, or

(b) the Secretary of State for the Home Department, or

(c) the Department for Education and Employment,

made by or on behalf of another person who does not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom for—

(i) leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom,

(ii) asylum in the United Kingdom,

(iii) revocation of a decision to deport that person from the United Kingdom,

(iv) a residence permit or document, or

(v) a work permit.

(3) For the purposes of this section, "qualified person" means a person who is—

(a) a lawyer who is subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Law Society or Bar Council in respect of any services which relate to a matter to which subsection (2) above applies;

(b) an employee of an advisory organisation or registered charity approved by the Authority; or

(c) an employee of a qualified person who is registered under this section.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(5) Proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) above may be brought only by the Authority.
(6) It shall be the duty of the Lord Chancellor to appoint such person or persons as he considers to be fit and proper to constitute the Authority.
(7) It shall be the duty of the Lord Chancellor to make regulations to give effect to the establishment of the Authority under this section, which may include provision for—

(a) fees payable for applications for registration;

(b) requirements for registration, including requirements as to—

(i) how the Authority is to be satisfied of the competence of a registered person to act as an immigration practitioner,

(ii) the proper management of the business of a registered practitioner,

(iii) the keeping of records,

(iv) the supervision of employees, and

(v) such other professional standards in the carrying on of a business as are considered necessary;

(c) powers to impose conditions on registration and to cancel registration where there has been a failure to comply with any such conditions;

(d) the giving of written notice of lists of approved organisations, decisions to register, refusals to register and revocations of registration; and

(e) such other matters so as to regulate the procedures to be adopted where the Authority is minded to refuse a registration or revoke a registration.

(8) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be laid before Parliament in draft and shall be subject to approval by resolution of each House.
(9) Where the Authority has reasonable grounds to suspect that—

(a) the terms of registration have been breached, or

(b) an offence under subsection (1) above has been committed by a person who is neither a qualified nor a registered person,

it may apply by written information to a circuit judge for a warrant to enter premises occupied by or on behalf of such a person, or other premises specified by the Authority where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that documents or other records will be found belonging to or held by such a person which relate to matters to which subsection (2) above applies.
(10) Any written information made under subsection (9) above must state the grounds for suspicion and the class of documents or records that the Authority considers will be relevant to the discharge of its duties under this section.
(11) Where the Authority has entered premises pursuant to a warrant issued under subsection (9) above it may take possession of any such documents or other material found on the premises as are specified in the warrant; and it may hold such material solely and for so long as is necessary to discharge its duties under this section; and it may not disclose such material to any person other than in

577
the course of discharging its functions under this Act save to the owner of the documents or to such other persons as the owner may have authorised.
(12) There shall be a right of appeal to the High Court against a refusal of registration or the imposition of any condition on registration or the revocation of registration by the Authority; and no revocation of registration shall have effect while any such appeal is pending.
(13) In this section, "to undertake for reward" means to carry out an activity in return for payment to which the person carrying out the activity is entitled, whether by contract or otherwise.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, here we are concerned not with racketeers but with people who give advice to those seeking help with our immigration and asylum procedures. The people who give help may be qualified lawyers—usually solicitors—or they may be other types of advisers. One of the difficulties in trying to bring some sense and an element of regulation into this area is that the advisers range from those who are legally and professionally qualified to those who are unqualified but may still provide a very high standard of help and advice.
It is probably right that the regulation, the control, of qualified solicitors should be left to the Law Society. There are individual solicitors, a minority, who do not give good advice. Anyone who has dealt with individuals who have had difficulty with our immigration and asylum procedures will occasionally find, as I have, a solicitor who is not sufficiently experienced in this area to give proper advice to applicants. We all know that this is the case and we know that such people are outweighed numerically by those who are excellent lawyers. But it is not easy for a person seeking help to know who is or is not good when the individual seeking that help is a stranger to this country. But the question of qualified solicitors who are not as good as they might be in that regard is better left to the Law Society rather than setting up another regulatory system.
Amendment No. 52 is therefore concerned with advisers, but those who are exempted from the proposed new system are what are called qualified persons; and qualified persons would be lawyers or barristers, employees of an advisory organisation or registered charity, approved by the new authority to be established, or an employee of a qualified person registered under this section.
The intention of this new clause is that a new authority should be established, entitled the immigration practitioners registration authority, and that would be for individuals not covered by the provisions regarding qualified persons, to which I have already referred. The purpose of this authority would be to oversee the work of individuals and organisations that give advice, to make sure that they conform to certain standards. The authority would have the power to prevent individuals or organisations from practising if they did not meet those standards. They would have power to impose restrictions on registration and also to cancel such registration.
I know this is a very difficult area. Some individuals may not be qualified but I know from personal experience that individuals who work for organisations, and do so voluntarily, provide a high and excellent
578
standard of advice. Often they have the additional advantage of being able to speak the language of the claimant they are advising. I do not say for a moment that individuals who do not have a formal qualification in this field cannot give good advice: many of them do. Unfortunately there are others who exploit the situation. All people who take an interest in these matters—I have come across them myself—know that there are people who charge money for referring people in need of help to a Member of Parliament. They say that they alone have access to Members of Parliament, which of course is not true. There are others who charge money for giving poor advice or misleading information, missing appeal dates, and so on. It is these people who exploit innocent, unsuspecting asylum seekers. They take their money but do not provide the help. This new clause would therefore provide an element of regulation so as to ensure that when people go for advice they at least get advice which meets a minimum standard, that they are not exploited and that the system works reasonably properly.
Our immigration and asylum laws are very complicated—they become more complicated with each new piece of legislation—and so it is not surprising that people should need professional help and advice all the way through, and know what their rights are. This new clause would help significantly in this, leaving the regulation of solicitors to the Law Society, as I said before. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I added my name to this amendment, not because I necessarily subscribe to every detail of the scheme which is proposed, but because I believe that some sort of registration is absolutely necessary. I was the more convinced of that when I read the Law Society's memorandum which set out a number of considerations regarding the activities of unlicensed practitioners. These made one's hair stand on end. They showed clearly how the whole system can be disrupted by the incompetence of some of these people. I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said: that many of these people may be unqualified but nevertheless give a very good service to their clients. However, there is a penumbra of them whose service is grossly inadequate and actually very harmful to the clients themselves.
I recently dealt with the case of an individual who had applied for asylum and had consulted one of these so-called advisory organisations, which I think consisted of a single individual. The man kept on asking what had happened to his case and the practitioner wrote back saying that the matter was under control and that he was in detailed consultation with the Home Office. Eventually he found out, when the practitioner went out of business, that he had not written to the Home Office at all and the Home Office, thinking that the person had deliberately refrained from getting in contact, issued a notice of intention to deport. That was entirely the fault of the individual who was pretending to give advice, while taking money for so doing, when in fact he had done nothing whatever.
It is absolutely necessary to have a system of regulation to deal with such people. However, I am not competent to say whether the system proposed by the

579
noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is the best that we could have. Nevertheless, I believe it would be useful if the Minister could say that it was the Government's intention at a future stage in the Bill's proceedings to introduce a system of regulation which would control the activities of such unlicensed practitioners who do so much harm.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to create a statutory regulatory body to supervise and oversee the activities of immigration advice practitioners. That would not include solicitors and barristers who would be classified as "qualified persons" under the scheme proposed in the amendment and, consequently, would not be required to register with the regulatory body.
I recognise that this is an area where concerns have been expressed, and I understand the view that the situation requires some response. Several noble Lords will no doubt have been informed about individual cases which may have disturbed them. There is some anecdotal evidence concerning cases of overcharging, poor advice and poor service by immigration advisers. The difficulty is that comprehensive evidence of the scale of any abuse is simply not available.
The Government question whether it would be wise to contemplate a regulatory scheme of the kind proposed here in the absence of such evidence. Let us for a moment think about the implications. The scheme involves setting up a full-blown regulatory authority by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He would be required to address the most detailed issues concerning fees, business management, record-keeping and supervision of employers. He would also have to specify on what basis he could be satisfied about the competence of a registered person to act as a practitioner, and define professional standards, presumably based on prescribed qualifications and examinations. He would, furthermore, have to justify a decision both to include a person on a register and to remove someone from it. Decisions by the authority would need to be proof to legal challenge by means of appeal to the High Court. It follows that it would need to set up investigative machinery of a kind which would add to the regulation in that area.
All that is a sizeable bureaucratic undertaking. Can we be satisfied that it is a proportionate response to a problem whose scale has not yet been identified? Further, this approach raises deeper questions about the extent to which the Government should attempt to regulate areas where, no one denies, there may be occasional abuses. In particular, it would be a significant step for the Government to attempt to regulate the market by fixing the fees. The Government have always taken the view that regulation of that kind is in principle undesirable unless a clear need can be shown for it on the basis of the social harm which would otherwise occur. Of course it is right to be alive to the prospects of exploitation. But, on the evidence available, I question whether the Government should become so directly involved as the amendment suggests. Why regulate that area of legal fee in particular? Many people can cite instances where they think that they have been overcharged for legal services, but we have not thought it proper to step in to regulate the scale of such charges.
580
That is not to suggest that the Government are complacent about the remedies available. The first point to make is that the Government have been prepared to deal with the most excessive activity of this kind where the provision of advice is linked to racketeering—I have to say that that is a measure which is not supported by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The new powers in Clause 5, which we have already discussed, deal with those who facilitate the entry of asylum seekers or where deception is practised. Where such activity is conducted under the guise of giving advice it can be dealt with under the powers in Clause 5. But concerns were expressed that such powers should not bite on legitimate activity. It would be inconsistent, therefore, to opt for regulation for activity which fell short of the scale required to generate a prosecution under Clause 5.
Furthermore, we should not dismiss the legal remedies which are currently available. If it could be shown, for example, that pecuniary advantage had been gained by deception in a particular case—I cite the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—then a prosecution could be brought.
The statutory, regulatory schemes which have been proposed during the passage of the Asylum and Immigration Bill would almost certainly involve additional public expenditure. The Bill has no money resolution. Fees payable for registration under a statutory, regulatory scheme could offset the cost of operating the scheme, but it is unlikely that such fee-income could ever completely cover the cost.
The Government have recognised the concerns which have been expressed on this subject and have responded by talking to those directly involved. Discussions have taken place with the Law Society, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, and the appellate authorities. These discussions have identified a number of issues which would benefit from greater attention, to see if any abuses or excesses can be curbed from within the system rather than by intervention by the Government in such a bureaucratic way. The Chief Immigration Adjudicator, Judge Pearl, has kindly agreed to convene at regular intervals a meeting of those concerned in the recent discussions to pursue the points which have been identified. We think it right to await the outcome of this work before considering whether any further steps are necessary.
The Government have given this matter careful thought. Despite the lack of detailed information, we are not convinced that the scale of the problem requires a solution of this kind. We will continue to discuss with those concerned what might be an appropriate response.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed response to the amendment. I fully accept that the scheme in the amendment is complex and may not be the best scheme. However, it is beyond doubt that there are difficulties. The Minister says that she is not aware of the scale of the problem. I understand that, because we do not have hard evidence. However, I suggest that the evidence which exists is a little more than anecdotal. Rather a large number of instances has

581
been quoted. If one talks to Members of Parliament with constituent responsibilities in inner cities, most will give information about advisers who have not behaved at the professional level to which asylum seekers and others seeking help are entitled.
The Minister's key argument is that the system is complex; and that perhaps the remedy was out of proportion to the problem. She asked whether regulation was necessary. If nothing is done the difficulties will continue. It is difficult for an aggrieved party to use the legal remedies that exist. If an asylum seeker has been given advice that is not adequately professional, it is extremely difficult to find a way to obtain compensation through the legal system; it probably never happens.
The Government have been a little more sympathetic in the past. I have raised the issue over the years with more than one immigration Minister. The normal response was, "This is rather difficult. It we could find a satisfactory system, we'd think about it".
I am not sure how wide Judge Pearl's terms of reference are in the investigation to which the Minister referred. If they are wide enough, I shall be content. From the way the Minister described the situation, I did not understand whether his terms of reference are wide enough to identify the scale of the problem, and to give us more details about the number of people who get into difficulties because they do not receive good advice.
While occasionally it is a matter of deception which might be covered by Clause 5—it is marginal whether that is so—more often poor quality advice received simply does not help the individual. I draw some comfort from what the Minister said about Judge Pearl's work. If the terms of reference of this work are wide enough, I shall draw even more comfort from that. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Increased penalties]:
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 53:
Leave out Clause 6.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at this late hour of the night I want only to speak briefly to Clause 6, and ask the noble Baroness to reply. One of the prime problems with this whole Bill—I think all of us in the House are aware of it—is that it embraces within its terms those whom the noble Baroness rightly describes as unacceptable, and indeed unforgivable, racketeers who live on the backs of people who have great needs and great worries. The racketeers exploit those people in every way and endeavour to make large sums of money out of them. Not a single Member of this House would condone those people.
On the other hand, there are people who are confused, worried and frightened and who find that only by pulling all sorts of strings and using all sorts of devices, including in some cases, bribing the police who are imprisoning them or holding them or torturing them, can they manage to escape from totally unacceptable and intolerable conditions. The difficulty all of us on both sides of the House have in dealing with this Bill is trying
582
to act in such a way that we catch the racketeers without damaging seriously the interests and concerns of those whom they exploit.
The penalties in Clause 6 are among the most serious penalties that can be applied in the canon of criminal justice to any crimes that anyone commits. They are absolutely appropriate for the organised racketeers who live on the back of illegal immigration. However, they are wholly and absolutely inappropriate for the confused, troubled and sometimes brave people who try to find their way to this and other countries as asylum seekers, having in many cases put their lives or those of their families at risk. I take it the noble Baroness will say that this is a matter for the courts and that as these are maximum penalties the courts will have to decide what is the appropriate penalty. However, if there is anything the noble Baroness can say about the difference between these two groups, and the extent to which justice for one can be so meted out that it does not involve injustice to the other, I for one would very much appreciate it. I shall not press the amendment to a Division. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I must confess that this amendment has come as a bit of a surprise. Clause 6 is probably the clause which has attracted least attention during the consideration of this Bill. It is a minor technical clause which addresses an inconsistency between financial and custodial sentences available for certain offences under the Act. It does no more and no less. Currently, a magistrate can impose a sentence of six months, the longest sentence which can be handed down by a magistrate, for the offences listed in Clause 6, but he can only impose a level 4 fine up to £2,500. Level 5, that is, £5,000, is the maximum fine that can be imposed by a magistrate, and it is normal for a magistrate to be able to impose equivalent custodial and financial penalties. That is all that Clause 6 does. The amendment, if accepted, would maintain the inconsistency that currently exists, and I can see no benefit in that. I would urge the rejection of this amendment, although I understand it will not be pressed. The point that the noble Baroness makes is absolutely valid. It would have to be a matter for the courts to reflect the seriousness of the offence by imposing a fine within the range of nought to £5,000.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Power of arrest and search warrants]:
[Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 6, line 3, at beginning insert ("When a person has been lawfully arrested for an offence to which this section applies").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 57.
In Clause 7(3) we are dealing with a power of entry and search which is not concerned with entry to make an arrest—that is dealt with in earlier parts of Clause 7—but with a search for evidence. Subsection

583
(3) provides that the offence to which this clause applies, which is defined in subsection (4) and is, basically, illegal entry, overstaying and the new offence of obtaining leave to enter or remain by deception, should be the basis for the entry for search purposes.
In Committee, we moved a number of much more radical amendments than this one. We were concerned, as the Minister will recall, about the definition of "serious arrestable offence"; with the equation between obtaining leave to enter or remain by deception in particular with a serious arrestable offence; and with some of the provisions relating to warrants and the ability for a constable or immigration officer to make an arrest without warrant. We are being very much more modest, as is appropriate at Report stage, with this amendment. What we are doing is looking back at what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, said in Committee about,
"the seizing of evidence which may help to establish one way or another whether a person is guilty of the offence as charged".— [Official Report, 2/5/96; col. 1782.]
We would not go so far as that. We do not think that we should wait for a charge before such a search is undertaken. But we do think that there should be an arrest first, and there should not simply be a fishing trip for evidence before an arrest has been made. After all, when a search is made in relation to a serious arrestable offence of the traditional kind, it is likely that the search will be for some essential piece of evidence, such as a murder weapon, a cache of drugs or something of that sort. We accept, at least for the purposes of this argument, that that sort of power is appropriate; and it is provided for under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. But surely it should be applied here only where evidence is not likely to be comparable. There is no blood-stained clothing in an immigration case. It should apply only when there has been a lawful arrest—that is the wording of the amendment—and the reference to the offence should be to the offence for which the person has been arrested rather than the offence in general.
So we do not oppose the provision for the search. We are just saying that it should be confined to the cases where an arrest has taken place and should not be a fishing trip. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this pair of amendments would fundamentally alter the power provided by Clause 7(3), so much so that they are essentially wrecking amendments.
There was much criticism of this measure when we debated Clause 7 in Committee. The criticism focused on the elevated status being given to the offences set out in Clause 7. It was argued that by adopting the power to issue warrants to search for material in connection with the investigation of serious arrestable offences which is set out in Section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for immigration offences, immigration offences are thereby placed on a par with serious arrestable offences such as murder, manslaughter and rape.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Immigration offences are not raised to the same level of seriousness as murder, manslaughter and rape as a result of the
584
measure set out in Clause 7(3). Section 8 of PACE provides a power to issue warrants to search for relevant evidence, and all that Clause 7(3) does is include the offences listed in Clause 7 among the offences to which Section 8 of PACE applies. This construction is a convenient way of providing the power to search for relevant evidence which we believe to be an important part of any concerted and comprehensive package of measures to deal with those who break our immigration laws.
Clause 7(3) provides justices with a power to grant warrants to constables to enter and search premises to search for evidence relevant to the offences listed in Clause 7(4). A justice needs to be satisfied on five separate matters before he can issue a warrant.
It appears that these amendments seek to limit justices' ability to grant warrants for fear that without that limit, warrants will be handed out indiscriminately allowing constables to undertake "fishing expeditions" on the offchance that they might find something. Clearly, that will not happen, because, as I mentioned before, the justice has to be satisfied on five separate matters before granting a warrant.
One of the matters as to which the justice has to be satisfied before granting a warrant is that an offence to which Clause 7 applies has been committed. The power to search for evidence provided by Clause 7(3) is essentially an investigative aid; the justice will have to be persuaded that an offence has been committed in order to issue the warrant, but it may be essential to obtain further evidence, through the execution of the warrant, in order to secure the arrest of the immigration offenders.
These amendments would make the power to obtain warrants a purely reactive measure, providing the means to obtain further evidence only after an arrest has been made. In any cases where relevant evidence had to be obtained in order to make an arrest, and such evidence could only be secured by searching premises, it must follow that the arrest would never be made if these amendments were to be accepted.
That is why I have referred to these amendments as wrecking amendments and why I must resist them.
Midnight
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I very much doubt whether an objective observer looking at the modest extent of these amendments and the degree to which they are less wide-ranging either than the amendments that we put forward at Committee or indeed than the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, at Committee, would concur with the Minister's view that they are wrecking amendments. She said it twice. Even after midnight that is a bit over the top.
We are dealing with a minor modification to a provision of existing legislation where it is the power of a justice to authorise entry and search of premises and the equation is being made between immigration offences and serious arrestable offences. If the Minister says that we are restricting the power of a justice to authorise warrants, so be it. That was our intention. We

585
are concerned that those warrants should not be used simply as fishing trips for evidence without any serious reason for suspicion that a person is guilty.
We must always remember that warrants of this kind are intrusions of privacy, not only of people's homes but also of public places. It is undesirable to extend the powers more than is strictly necessary for the pursuit of justice, law and order in this country. I do not accept that they are wrecking amendments. I can see, if the Minister had wanted to argue it, that we should have said that there should be at least a warrant for the arrest of a named individual rather than actual arrest. Perhaps
586
that is a further fall-back we will consider at the next stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon): My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at four minutes past midnight.

  Beef Industry: Coopers & Lybrand Report
  Beef Industry: Coopers & Lybrand Report
  Beef in Intervention: Export
  Beef in Intervention: Export
  Beef Exports from EU
  Beef Exports from EU
  Beef: Lost Sales
  Beef: Lost Sales
  Nurse Numbers
  Nurse Numbers
  CJD and BSE: Evidence for Link
  CJD and BSE: Evidence for Link
  CJD in Young People: Post-mortem Diagnosis
  CJD in Young People: Post-mortem Diagnosis
  CJD: Comparison of Post-mortem Findings
  CJD: Comparison of Post-mortem Findings
  Prisoners: Religious Artefacts
  Prisoners: Religious Artefacts
  Education in Prisons: Central Management Information
  Education in Prisons: Central Management Information
  Cycling on Footpaths
  Cycling on Footpaths
  Boundary Commission Recommendations
  Boundary Commission Recommendations
  CCTV Challenge Competition
  CCTV Challenge Competition