Sitting of 27 June 1996

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

    Bank of England
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received urging him to make the Bank of England fully independent of Her Majesty's Government. [33405]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Waldegrave): The Chancellor has received no such representations recently.
    Mr. Brown: In view of that reply, and as the Government have been so successful in reducing interest rates and inflation over the past few years, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is absolutely no need whatsoever for an independent central bank in this country? Further, will he confirm that we are not legally obliged—under our opt-out—to become part of the central banking system of the treaty on European Union under stage 2 of economic and monetary union?
    Mr. Waldegrave: On the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I confirm that he is right.
    However, on the former part of my hon. Friend's question, I agree with the Governor of the Bank of England, who said that the present framework gives us a better chance of price stability than at any other time in his professional lifetime. Under the joint leadership of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and the Governor, to whom I pay tribute, that has been delivered.
    Mr. Betts: The Chancellor has previously said to the House that he does not believe that there will be any constitutional implications as a result of the creation of a single currency. Will the Chief Secretary tell the House whether the transfer of powers from the Government and from the House to an independent European central bank is not a significant constitutional change?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is odd for the Labour party to lead on this particular matter. The right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)—who, I take it, has gone to Scotland to try to find out what his party's policy is on devolution—recently said:
    "The Treasury rather than the Bank of England must continue to set the targets for monetary policy as well as fiscal policy."
    450
    However, at the same time, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) went to Germany. I presume that he was correctly reported by one of the German newspapers under the headline
    "The pound can go, says Blair, as he cuddles up to Kohl."
    The question is really for Labour Front Benchers.
    Sir Terence Higgins: Will the Government resist arty claims that are made for an independent central bank? I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on his recent decision to reduce interest rates, which has been completely vindicated by events. Will he consider a further reduction, combined with explanations to the public—particularly to pensioners and to those on fixed incomes—that, although nominal rates have been cut, real rates and returns on savings are far higher than they ever were, when under a Labour Government they were negative?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right—he remembers that clearly and accurately. What is more, the 20 per cent. rate of tax for savings has, in particular, helped pensioners with savings. My right hon. Friend is right: the Chancellor judged the situation correctly, to the great benefit of the country.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is there not an inconsistency in the Government's position of denying the right of a group of central bankers in London to set interest rates but, as the Chancellor acknowledged in Florence, maintaining that Britain could be a founder member of the monetary union? If that were the case, interest rates would be set by a group of central bankers in Frankfurt. Where is the logic in those two positions?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said, quite correctly, that, because of his management of the economy, Britain could be in a position to take that decision, if it chose to do so. Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, we can make that decision freely at the appropriate time. The real confusion lies not among the Liberal Democrats—who have always been consistent—but in the Labour party.
    I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman knows that one of the real bosses of the Labour party, Mr. John Monks, said recently that it will be the Leader of the Opposition's "destiny" to sign up for the single currency. That is the signal that the Labour party is giving to Europe, but it is not the signal that it is giving to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). If, by any mischance, the Labour party gets into power, the hon. Member for Bolsover will be in Opposition then, as he is in Opposition now.

    Ministerial Visits (Harborough)
    Mr. Garnier: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next intends to visit Harborough to discuss the effects of his economic policies on the local economy. [33406]
    The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): My right hon. and learned Friend has no immediate plans to visit Harborough. However, my hon. Friend's constituency is benefiting from the general

    451
    strength of the British economy, with the longest run of low inflation for almost 50 years, steady economic growth and the lowest unemployment figures of any major European country.
    Mr. Garnier: On his way to Harborough—I advise him to visit soon—will my right hon. Friend look at the speech by the president of the German BDI, in which he noted that unemployment levels in this country have fallen by 20 per cent. since their height in the 1980s while unemployment in western Germany has increased by 10 per cent. in the same period?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House requires that the supplementary question should follow the substantive question, which in this case is about a visit to Harborough and its local economy.
    Mr. Garnier: Precisely, Madam Speaker. When my right hon. Friend visits Harborough to discuss the Government's economic policies, will he draw to the attention of my constituents the quotations from the speech to which I have referred? If my constituents do not know it already, will he remind them that investors from both within and outside the United Kingdom are queuing up to do business and to set up businesses in my constituency? Following his visit to Harborough, will my right hon. Friend draw the appropriate conclusions from the information that he gathers there, for the benefit of the Opposition?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I would love to visit my hon. and learned Friend's constituency. His constituents obviously have a good understanding of the reasons why unemployment has fallen steadily in that area and elsewhere in the past few years. As my hon. and learned Friend hints, it is typical of new Labour that it is about to embrace the German employment pattern at a time when the flaws and deficiencies in that system are beginning to appear. There are now more Germans out of work than at any time since the second world war, whereas unemployment is falling in this country.

    Inflation
    Mr. Booth: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the role of his inflation target in securing sustainable growth. [33407]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): The inflation target of 2½ per cent. or less is set to deliver permanently low inflation, which is vital for delivering sustainable growth.
    Mr. Booth: As those under 50 in this country who pay attention to such things are applauding the fact that, for the first time in their lives, inflation is at its lowest level—2.2 per cent.—and as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is applauding low inflation around the world, is it not odd that almost me only group that is not applauding the success of our inflation target is those on the Labour Front Benches? Could it be that Labour is the party of high inflation?
    Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend makes a good point about low inflation and the fact that this country is enjoying a long spell of low inflation which brings stability to individuals and companies and helps to create jobs. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's point about the Labour party. We all know that the Opposition have a vested interest in running down the economy and this country. When Labour was in charge, inflation soared.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: The Exchequer will be aware that all the water and sewerage companies have produced their results for this year. They total £1.8 billion, which is four times the rate of inflation. How can that be fair in an industry which has increased its prices to customers above the rate of inflation every year since privatisation?
    Mrs. Knight: The hon. Lady's dislike of privatisation is well known. I remind her that, when her party was in charge and when it was running the then nationalised companies, those companies cost the taxpayer more than £50 million a week. Those companies now contribute £50 million a week to the public purse. They are providing a better service for customers and water industry companies have contributed much-needed investment.

    Taxation (Small Businesses)
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for alleviating taxation on small businesses. [33408]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jack): The last Budget included plans to reduce further the tax burdens on small business.
    Mr. Bellingham: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that our corporation tax is among the lowest in the world and in welcoming the Government's recent announcement about reducing rates on small businesses in rural areas? Does he agree that small businesses do not want extra bureaucracy and extra regulation—particularly that which would flow from adopting the social chapter and other social legislation from Europe? [Interruption.] Does that not illustrate the fact that the Labour party cannot be trusted when it comes to small businesses?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend takes entirely the right line. The noises from the Opposition Benches show that Opposition Members completely distrust private enterprise and lack any understanding of it. Indeed, most of them have had no experience of operating in it.
    Mr. Hain: Given the fact that the VAT registration threshold has not been raised in line with inflation, is the Minister happy that another 14,000 businesses have been forced into the VAT net?
    Mr. Jack: Many small businesses are pleased that we have increased the threshold for VAT. That has relieved them of unnecessary bureaucracy and has expanded their opportunities to be competitive in the marketplace.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate for VAT income for (a) the current financial year and (b) each of the previous two financial years; and if he will make a statement.[33409]
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: VAT receipts for 1994–95 and 1995–96 were £41.8 billion and £43.1 billion respectively. The latest published forecast for 1996–97 is £47.9 billion.
    Mr. Greenway: I welcome the rising trend announced by my right hon. Friend. Does it not compare favourably with the dismal stories put about by the dismal Johnnies in the Labour and Liberal parties—stories about declining economic activity and falling VAT receipts? Do not the figures reflect a more buoyant economy and augur well for a more cheerful future when tax cuts may in due course be made for everyone?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right. The strong and buoyant figures for consumer expenditure are feeding through into higher VAT receipts. When my right hon. and learned Friend comes back from Lyon, he will no doubt read about my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for tax cuts.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Although I welcome the increase in VAT takings and realise that money talks, will the Minister undertake to review VAT on specialist equipment for the blind-deaf, so that they can play a fuller part in a society in which they are so often isolated?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that equipment specially adapted for disabled people is zero rated—but we keep these matters under review and his comments will have been noted.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Although I am glad that VAT receipts are rising, will my right hon. Friend confirm that they are still a relatively small proportion of total tax receipts? Is he aware that in Social Democrat Sweden the VAT rate is 22 per cent., and it is on everything?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. Not only do the Swedes have a much higher standard rate but they do not have our zero rates, so their tax system is a great deal more regressive than the United Kingdom's.
    Ms Primarolo: Will the Minister confirm that he is considering introducing a statutory limit of six years on the refund of VAT campaigns? Will he confirm that he is doing so to prevent a haemorrhage of public funds and repayments, to close the gap on avoidance schemes which is opening up and to try to shore up the weak public finances that are undermining the Government's ability to do anything positive in the public sector?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: In answer to the original question by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), I announced that VAT receipts over the past few months have been extremely buoyant. For April and May, they are 12 and 15 per cent. higher, respectively, than a year ago. So I do not understand how the hon. Lady can refer to a haemorrhaging of national finances. If she is saying that the Opposition are against stopping
    454
    loopholes and avoidance schemes, that too is a most interesting announcement by an Opposition Front Bencher.

    Interest Rates
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy for interest rates. [33410]
    Mr. Waldegrave: Interest rates are set to achieve the inflation target of 2½ per cent. or less.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that low interest rates and low inflation are the prerequisites for any successful economy? Will he further agree that both conditions are currently in place, which is probably why the British economy is outperforming our principal competitors in Europe? Would he care to say what would happen to the economy if the policies of the Opposition, especially the social chapter, were implemented?
    Mr. Waldegrave: To quote Aneurin Bevan, we do not need to look in the crystal ball, we can read the book in relation to the Opposition's policies. When they were running the economy, they achieved 27 per cent. inflation. When the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reported on Britain in 1979, among its many criticisms of our economy was the fact that inflation was rising to 11 per cent. again. In its report this year, it says that the
    "United Kingdom has … become a more flexible and less inflation prone economy."
    That is the achievement that we must maintain against the Opposition's damaging policies.
    Mr. Sheldon: I welcome the reduction in interest rates and offer my congratulations to the Chancellor on his relationship with the Governor of the Bank of England, which is a pretty suitable one at present; but will he bear it in mind that the amount of research and development has declined during the past few months, a serious aspect, and that plant and machinery expenditure needs to be much higher? To deal with the shortcomings of the Government's economic policy, particular attention must be given to some form of capital allowances for plant and machinery in particular.
    Mr. Waldegrave: One of the most satisfactory features of the last period—indeed, since 1979—has been the increase in the efficiency of capital investment, which is increasing faster in Britain than in other countries. It is also very satisfactory that in the last recession Britain did not cut its investment or its research and development as much as in previous recessions. Those are both good signs for the long-term health of the economy.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a great triumph for Conservative policy that interest rates are now at a historic 30-year low? Will my right hon. Friend contrast that with the position in Germany, where industrialists are making it clear that they now realise that Germany's commitment to the social chapter is costing it hundreds of thousands of jobs? The leader of

    455
    the Labour party, in his recent visit to Germany's BDI, the convention of German industry, made it clear that he was still committed to the social chapter. His views are the views of failed old Germany's social democratic socialism.
    Mr. Waldegrave: It was indeed a comic scene when the Leader of the Opposition, having gone to Germany to tell the German Chancellor that he would sign up to everything in Europe, then had to listen to a speech by Mr. Heinkel—during which, I believe, he made his excuses and left—in which Mr. Heinkel paid warm tributes to the British economy. It would have been better if the Leader of the Opposition had stayed and listened.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Does not interest rate policy depend critically on sound public finances? As the Chancellor has admitted that there was a mistake in his Budget calculation of tax revenues, as this year's borrowing races ahead of the Government's forecast, and as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) warns in an article in Public Finance tomorrow that the Government have borrowed an extra £100,000 million during the past three years, is it not high time that the Chief Secretary quantified the mistake that was made in the Budget forecast, came clean with the House and started to tell us the true state of the public finances, and accepted the case that Labour has put forward for an independent audit of the books before the Budget in November?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It will do the hon. Gentleman a great deal of good to learn economics from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham. I am glad that he is reading his articles with attention. They are a very different kind of economics from those that he used to believe in. It will do him good to read my right hon. Friend's speeches. If the hon. Gentleman wants to look at public finances, he should first explain why, under the Labour Government—the only thing by which we can judge him—in every year on average, public borrowing was higher than it has been under the Conservative Government.
    Mr. Olner: My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford. East (Mr. Smith) was at school then.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman was indeed at school, learning the wrong economics which I am now glad to find that he is correcting by reading my right hon. Friend's speeches.

    Taxation
    Mr. Thomason: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his objectives in the field of taxation; and if he will make a statement. [33411]
    Mr. Jack: We aim to reduce the basic rate of income tax to 20p in the pound and abolish capital gains tax and inheritance tax. The Chancellor will make progress towards these objectives when it is prudent and sensible to do so.
    Mr. Thomason: I congratulate my hon. Friend on that answer, which is good news for current taxpayers and taxpayers for many years ahead. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has no proposals for hidden taxes and that
    456
    he does not have anything up his sleeve, unlike the Labour party, which has so many proposals up its sleeve that it can hardly get its arm in it?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend rightly reminds us that the Opposition are trying to fix their policies, as usual—a state of division and divide. He is right about hidden taxes. We have no plans for a tartan tax, teenage tax, European jobs tax, car tax or a windfall tax. What are dangerous are the taxes that we can see coming, on the successful and the enterprising: the higher-rate taxes proposed for those who earn a little more than £30,000.
    Mr. Winnick: Why does the Minister believe, like the rest of his ministerial colleagues, that a tax bribe before the next election will do the trick for them, when the large majority of people are paying a greater percentage in taxes than they were in 1979? That is a dismal failure, and it is unlikely that the electorate will forget it when the election comes.
    Mr. Jack: That really is rich coming from the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of a party that disguised its own tax burden on the British people by borrowing so much money—to the equivalent of another 10p on the basic rate of tax. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor is not in the business of playing fast and loose with the British economy. He made our position about future tax reductions absolutely clear in his Mansion house speech, and I commend that excellent text to the hon. Gentleman.

    Inflation
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his estimate of the rate of inflation for the remainder of 1996–97. [33412]
    Mrs. Angela Knight: In the previous Budget, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor forecast that underlying inflation would fall from 2¾ per cent. in the second quarter of 1996 to 2¼ per cent. by the second quarter of 1997. I remain confident that we are on course to meet our inflation target of 2½ per cent. or less.
    Mr. Amess: In the light of that reply, does my hon. Friend agree that the rate of inflation still matters very much? Does she further agree that, if the Government were unwise enough to adopt the policies proposed by the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, this country's trading position and its economic prospects generally would be fatally damaged?
    Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend is quite correct. Indeed, his analysis points out the terrible policies that the Labour party has on the economy, as indeed it has on so many other aspects of British life. He might be interested to know that the average rate of inflation when Labour was in control was just over 15 per cent., which meant that the average supermarket bill for an ordinary family rose by nearly £1,300 in two years. Those are the disgraceful consequences of the Labour party's absence of policy on inflation, as it is on every other aspect of the economy.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that that inflation figure was achieved by taxing the average British family by an extra £2,000 a year? Do not most British families think that that taxation policy is hurting, that it is unfair and that it is not working?
    Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman always fails to recognise how much better off people are in this country now when we have run the economy so well. He also likes to deny that the average family will be some £450 better off this year. Our economy is growing when the economies of many other countries have stalled. Our economy is creating jobs; unemployment is rising elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman should congratulate the Government rather than always trying to run the country down.

    Non-EU Countries
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will initiate studies on the relative economic performance of west European nations that have decided, after referendums, not to join the EU. [33414]
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The country to which my hon. Friend refers is Norway, which decided not to join the European Union after a referendum. We have not conducted the study that my hon. Friend describes.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Should not the Chancellor of the Exchequer be genuinely alarmed that, in the European Union, almost 20 million people are unemployed—more than 11 per cent.—and rising; that in Britain, partly because of his natural brilliance, of which he is well aware, and also because we were chucked out of the exchange rate mechanism, unemployment is around 8 per cent.; and in Norway, which voted no against all the advice from the experts who said that it had to join to save jobs, unemployment is 4.5 per cent. and falling? Is that not a certain indication that further Euro-integration is simply a recipe for mass unemployment and despair? When will the Government wake up?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Like Norway, this country has a good record on falling unemployment. Like Norway, we are determined not to catch the continental disease of tying up our labour market with regulations and red tape to such an extent that competitiveness and unemployment rises.
    Mr. Skinner: What on earth possessed the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say the other day that Britain ought to be one of the first countries to join a European single currency? Do the Government not realise the madness of the exchange rate mechanism? The last time this Tory Government tried to shadow the mark, the last Chancellor and the Prime Minister together lost £10 billion in an afternoon, and never went near a betting shop.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman has described Labour party policy on monetary union fairly accurately, but—not for the first time—he has not quoted my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor accurately. What is true is that this country would be among the first to qualify for monetary union under the
    458
    convergence criteria, if we chose to do so. That gives us the advantage of being able to choose from a position of strength whether to take the enterprise any further.

    Retail Prices Index
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which prices of which goods are monitored for the retail prices index. [33415]
    Mrs. Angela Knight: The prices of over 600 representative goods and services are monitored each month to compile the retail prices index. For example, a variety of vegetables, such as peppers, are in the index. Details of the items are published each year in "Retail Prices Index Business Monitor".
    Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Will she thank and congratulate whoever included the red pepper in the retail prices index? It reminds us of Labour every single day, because it is bitter and twisted.
    Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the red pepper ever returned to power via that lot opposite, with inflation at 26.9 per cent., it would not be long before members of the Transport and General Workers Union refused to collect rubbish in Leicester square? We would have rats as big as cats running around there. Moreover, members of the TGWU would not be prepared to dig graves, and we would not be able to bury our loved ones. Is that not what Labour is all about, always has been and always will be?
    Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend has put the case extremely well. Let me mention a couple of other things that would happen if the red pepper party, alias the Labour party, ever came to power. What would happen is exactly what has happened in the past: savings and pensions would be wiped out, unemployment would rise, companies would leave the country and the United Kingdom's competitiveness would fall.
    Mr. Connarty: Is it not true that the current inflation rate has been reached through the crushing of the consumer expectations and hopes of the British people by adding £2,000 per annum to the average tax bill of a British family? Is it not also true that, in re-estimating the level of inflation, the Chancellor should re-estimate the level of the public sector borrowing requirement, which is expected to be £5 billion higher than his original estimate, and was £10 billion more last year than he had estimated? Is it not true that the national debt now amounts to £380 billion, having increased to that level over the past five years? We are storing up massive inflation for the British people.
    Mrs. Knight: I always find it extraordinary when the hon. Gentleman is so cavalier about some of the successes of our economy. I remind him—as I shall no doubt do on many occasions—that, in the past 17 years, people have become considerably better off. They have more goods at home than they had in the past, and they will be £450 better off in the coming year. We have brought down the borrowing requirement. When we look at the list, which country do we find has the lowest mortgage rate for 30 years, which has the lowest basic rate of tax for over 50 years, which has lower unemployment than any other major European country and which has had the longest

    459
    period of low inflation for 50 years? Which country is number one in Europe for foreign investment? The answer is this country, under a Conservative Government.

    Economy
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the findings of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report on the state of the British economy. [33416]
    Mr. Waldegrave: The recent OECD report on the British economy confirmed and endorsed the success of the Government's economic policies across a broad front. The OECD expects the economy to continue growing at a healthy rate, with low inflation and falling unemployment.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to evaluate the OECD report of 1979, and has he compared that with the report this year? Does not such a comparison show that in the intervening 17 years of Conservative Government, almost every economic indicator has improved substantially? Have not living standards improved substantially in that time? Is it not self-evident that if living standards are to double in the next 25 years, as is the Prime Minister's wish, we must have a Conservative Government for the next 25 years?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. No one would have dared to make such a well-founded pledge, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has, in 1979 when, as the report shows, the economy was in collapse. You would rebuke me, Madam Speaker, if I read much of the report, but I remind the House that the OECD said:
    "By the end of 1978, British external competitiveness was at its worst level since 1966"—
    another Labour year—whereas now, international cost competitiveness remains sound. That is the fundamental truth.
    Mr. Gapes: Can the Minister confirm that in 1979 approximately half the number of people were out of work than is the case today? Can he confirm that five years ago, the work force in this country was 26 million, but that today, it is only 25 million?
    Mr. Waldegrave: There are more people in work now than there were then—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I believe that that is correct; I shall write to the hon. Gentleman if I am not correct. Much more fundamental is the point that the economies on the continent of Europe that have followed the advice of the hon. Gentleman and his Front-Bench colleagues since 1979 have had a far worse unemployment record during those difficult years than we have. That is the point. What matters is the future. Who is better now? We are better than the social democrat countries. Who will be better in future? The Conservative answer brings low unemployment; the Opposition's brings high unemployment.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the key factors in the improvement in the competitiveness of the British economy has been the success in controlling inflation? Does he also agree that
    460
    that success would be put at risk if we allowed wage rates to rise by caving in to disputes in the public sector, whether in the Post Office or on the tube, or if we introduced a minimum wage which would put up employers' costs and feed through into inflation? Would it not be a disaster to let either of those things occur?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The 1979 report described truthfully the disastrous state of British labour relations. The Labour party should be called on clearly to condemn today's unnecessary strike on the underground system because sensible mediation is on offer from the employers. I suspect that it will not do so because many Labour Members are sponsored by the relevant unions.
    Mr. Darling: Given that the OECD has said that the British Government's deficit is the second highest in the G7, has the Chief Secretary any confidence that the Government will meet their borrowing target this year, when they have missed the target in each of the past four years?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The public sector borrowing requirement is on a steady downward trend; there is nothing wrong with the public finances of this country. The hon. Gentleman would have a greater right to criticise if at any time in the past few years he had given an opinion on whether tax should be higher or lower and on whether interest rates should be higher or lower, or if he had given any other opinion on the management of the economy. The right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who is unable to be with us today because of Scottish problems, has never given advice on those issues.

    Government Spending
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest percentage target for cuts in overall Government spending for the financial year 1997–98. [33417]
    Mr. Waldegrave: Our plans are to hold overall public expenditure in 1997–98 at the same level in real terms as it was in 1995–96. The Government's target is to reduce general Government expenditure as a share of national income to below 40 per cent., and to reduce it further if possible.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend note that defence expenditure is a lower proportion of general expenditure than it has been previously? Has he studied the defence White Paper which shows that, in real terms, expenditure on defence for the three years from now will remain more or less constant? Those figures are based on an underspend last year of £500 million and, therefore, represent cuts. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the Treasury regards the defence of the realm as the first duty of any Government? Will he ensure that funds are made available to our overstretched armed forces to improve recruiting and to give them the equipment they require to carry out their extremely difficult task?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I pay tribute to the way in which the armed forces and my right hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence have reshaped the forces after the end of the cold

    461
    war to ensure that that first duty is properly met. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that no Conservative Government will take risks in that area.
    Mr. Soley: What estimate has the Minister made of the increased spending required for bovine spongiform encephalopathy payments?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The best estimate that I can give the hon. Gentleman on BSE is that additional spending this year will be around £1 billion, gross spending over the next three years might be around £2.5 billion, or around £2 billion net of predictable receipts from the European Union.

    Interest Rates
    Sir Michael Shersby: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the effect on the average mortgage payment of recent reductions in interest rates. [33418]
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The cuts in mortgage rates over the past year will leave the average mortgage payer about £400 a year better off.
    Sir Michael Shersby: Does my hon. Friend agree that average mortgage payments are now about £107 a month lower than they were in October 1990—even allowing for mortgage interest relief at source—that the affordability index is now excellent, particularly for first-time buyers and that there is strong evidence that they are coming back into the market in large numbers?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, my hon. Friend is spot on. House prices are relatively low compared with average earnings, so property is a good buy. Meanwhile, the four interest rates cuts since the Budget have been followed by mortgage interest reductions. That is good news for millions of borrowers and has helped to continue the steady increase that is fully sustainable in house prices.
    Mr. Chisholm: In spite of the fact that our interest rates are higher than those in any G7 country apart from Italy and that the City expects interest rates to rise in the next year, is it not the case that interest rates have not fallen in order to help mortgage payers, but because of fundamental weaknesses in the economy with manufacturing in recession and manufacturing investment in decline?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman may be disappointed that the British economy is now performing extremely well by international and historic standards. Mortgage interest rates are now below 7 per cent.—the lowest level for about 30 years—compared with a rate of more than 11 per cent. under the last Labour Government.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his success in reducing interest rates? Does he agree that that is best achieved by applying a national monetary policy to national economic conditions and making sure that we have a balanced economic framework to produce the best outlook for a generation?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I agree that it is an impressive achievement in monetary policy. My hon. Friend also knows that we have no immediate plans to transfer monetary policy to anyone other than the Treasury.

    Manufacturing Output
    Mr. Rooker: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what fiscal proposals he has to stimulate manufacturing output. [33419]
    Mr. Jack: All businesses will benefit from the tax cuts in the Budget and the four interest rates cuts announced since last December.
    Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister accept that Britain should be first and foremost a manufacturing nation? Notwithstanding contributions to the economy from other sectors, is it not a tragedy that our manufacturing base contributes less to the economy than financial services? Is it not the case that although manufacturing industry does not exist to create jobs, it must create wealth and we are slipping too far behind?
    Mr. Jack: In reply to the hon. Gentleman's first question—what a contemptuous statement on all those who work in the City, banking and other financial institutions and who generate so much of our invisible wealth. However, I share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for manufacturing industry. It is a pity that he did not mention Rockwell Light Vehicle Systems which has invested £7.9 million in the west midlands, Everset Frozen Food, an American company which has invested £28 million there and Mann and Hummel, a company that makes air filters, which has invested £13 million in the west midlands. Nor did he mention the 58 German companies fleeing the social chapter to invest in manufacturing in the best place in Europe to make things.
    Mr. Forman: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is not so much special fiscal measures, but the right overall economic climate, with low interest rates, low inflation and minimum regulation that is necessary to support our manufacturing?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The flexibilities in the British labour force and the excellence and strength of our economic policies have made us attractive and the number one place for inward investment in Europe.

    Venture Capital
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the Coopers and Lybrand report on the venture capital industry. [33420]
    Mr. Jack: The report finds that the United Kingdom venture capital industry is the largest in Europe and has made an important contribution to the growth of most of the venture-backed firms surveyed.
    Mr. Dykes: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government have given very strong psychological support to venture capital companies, the trust and systems and

    463
    that the companies promoted under those systems have shown astonishingly above average growth in comparison with general indices?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The venture capital trust that the Government have backed has taken £150 million and the enterprise investment scheme is prospering. The British venture capital trust recently commissioned a report from Coopers and Lybrand that showed that over the four years from 1990 to 1995, sales of venture capital-backed companies had risen by 34 per cent.—five times faster than the FTSE 100 companies. That shows the tremendous response of those venture capital companies.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June. [33395]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the G7 summit in Lyons.
    Mr. McFall: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Scotland's recent statement that, if the Scottish people endorse a Scottish Parliament in a referendum, no future Conservative Government would abolish it? Will the Deputy Prime Minister give a commitment on that?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am very interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's view of Labour's policy in Scotland, but that was yesterday's statement. Labour's policy in Scotland is a shambles. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the Leader of the Opposition, when campaigning for the Labour leadership in 1994, said:
    "I believe firmly that we should legislate in our first year for the establishment of a Scottish Parliament."
    Just the other day, Labour's Scottish spokesman said:
    "We have no proposals for a referendum because we want to legislate early and quickly for this outstanding commitment, and that is clear party policy."
    Now what have we got? Without consulting the Scottish Labour party, the parliamentary Labour party or most of the Shadow Cabinet, the Labour leader has panicked. He has sold out his promises to Scotland at the first whiff of anxiety in middle England. It is called policy making by focus group. I can well remember Labour running Britain with beer and sandwiches in Downing street, but running Scotland over pasta and Chianti in Islington is quite another thing.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June. [33396]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Arnold: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a side effect of such a policy which would anger the people of Kent, who would find themselves with a regional Government run from Guildford on the other side of London? Is he also aware that the people of Kent and those in the other English regions would be fed up with more politicians, bureaucrats and taxes imposed on them?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I can allay my hon. Friend's anxieties because the next Government have no plans to introduce regional assemblies.
    Mr. Rooker: Can I ask the Deputy Prime Minister about Government policy, which will give him time to calm down? Will he confirm today's reports that the Treasury has told the Ministry of Defence that cuts of £1.6 billion in defence equipment will be required this year if the sell-off of married quarters is blocked? Does that not show that the purpose of the sales has nothing to do with the good of service personnel, but is simply a short-term fix for the Government's finances? Is it true that service families could be required to move against their will for non-military reasons so that an estate can be parcelled up for sale as a whole?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: May I, in the time-honoured courtesy of the House, welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box in the absence of any member of the shadow Cabinet prepared to come here today? [Interruption.] Again, following the time-honoured courtesies of the House, may I say to the deputy leader of the Labour party—who has sadly had an accident to his leg and has received excellent treatment under the NHS—"Come back soon, John. We know it's hurting, but we know it's working" [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The deputy Prime Minister has a question to answer.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Madam Speaker, that is a timely reminder of the reason why I am standing here. The hon. Gentleman and his party are keen on a fundamental defence review—we do that every year.
    Mr. Rooker: Madam Speaker, I know that I am new at this, but I thought that the Deputy Prime Minister was paid a lot more than I am to answer questions. We are dealing with real people, such as the RAF officer's wife—now widowed—who moved for military reasons eight times in two and a half years, and a British Army colonel with distinguished service in Bosnia who moved 23 times in 23 years for military reasons. They did that because they had the comfort of knowing that suitable quarters would be available at the right time and in the right place. Has the deputy Prime Minister not received the letter from the Secretary of State for Defence to hon. Members today, which states that
    "too many homes are in poor condition"?
    Does not the promised £100 million to upgrade the married quarters amount to less than £2,000 a dwelling, compared with the average housing renovation grant in England of £10,000? Will the Government now heed the call from the Army's Families Federation and the Royal British Legion that the proposed sale of married quarters be postponed, pending a detailed review in this House?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I notice that the hon. Gentleman has just told the House that £100 million-worth of renovation is not adequate for the task. No wonder the shadow Chancellor is not in the House to hear him make that observation. Everyone who enters service life knows that, as a condition of service, they may be expected to move as part of their obligations as members of Her Majesty's armed services.
    Mr. Couchman: Does my right hon. Friend think that the education reforms announced this week will help to raise education standards in Islington to a point where the Leader of the Opposition no longer feels it necessary to send his children out of the borough and across London every day?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes the critical point. Labour controls most of the education authorities in this country and if it had the first idea how to raise standards, it would not be calling on the Government to do it—it would get on and do it
    Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June. [33397]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marshall: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the real Prime Minister that it is all right to offer Northern Ireland devolution with a Secretary of State in the United Kingdom Cabinet and no reduction in the numbers of Members of Parliament at Westminster, but not all right to do the same for Scotland? Does he not understand that offering devolution to Northern Ireland while denying it to Scotland is a gross insult to the people of Scotland?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman can go and try to persuade the Scottish people that they want the ability to have taxes raised by a Scottish Assembly—that they want a tartan tax. If he can persuade them of that, doubtless the referendum will produce the result that the Labour party wants. But the fact of the matter is, as I said to the House earlier, that the Labour party's policies on devolution are now a shambles.
    Mr. Hawkins: Will my right hon. Friend, as a fellow Celt, reaffirm his commitment to the Union of the United Kingdom? Does he agree with me that the policies of the Labour party will destroy the Union of the United Kingdom?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that question. Nothing shows more obviously the cynical nature of the Labour party's policies than that it has different approaches for Wales and for Scotland.
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June. [33398]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. O'Brien: Has the Deputy Prime Minister seen the survey of the regions carried out by his Government, which reveals that the wealth of people in the United Kingdom is falling further behind that of people in other European countries? Has he seen that in Yorkshire crime is higher, deaths in the first year after birth are higher, 50 per cent. of women employed are in part-time jobs—that is more than anywhere else—and truancy in secondary schools is greater than anywhere else? This is the record of 17 years of Tory Government. What is he going to do about it?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should take the trouble to look at the base source of years on which that report is based. The fact is that those were 1993 figures. If the hon. Gentleman looked at the recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figures he would find that our economy was forecast to grow faster than any other European economy this year and next year, that we have the fastest increase in employment, the highest proportion of our people in work and an 800,000 reduction in unemployment. The Conservative party in power will preserve the competitive edge of the United Kingdom, which means that 40 per cent. of all inward investment into Europe comes into the United Kingdom.
    Sir Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend assure me as an Englishman representing an English constituency that, should a Labour Government ever offer a referendum to Scotland, he will campaign for a referendum in England on whether those Labour Members of Parliament should retain their votes in the Westminster Parliament?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that the answer to that question will have to come from the party that is proposing so divisive a proposal for the United Kingdom. Labour Members of Parliament will have to answer the question first raised by the then hon. Member for West Lothian, now the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who has not yet received an answer because there is no answer. The question is why Scottish Members of Parliament should have powers in Scotland as well as powers in England which would be denied to English Members of Parliament in respect of Scotland.
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June. [33399]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mullin: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that last night's European football championship, watched by 28 million people, could be the last to be available on independent television or the BBC? What plans does he have to prevent Mr. Murdoch's pay television from

    467
    kidnapping major sporting events in the future? Or is this another case of the party that promises more choice, delivering less?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I did not need to fly 13,000 miles across the world to try to ingratiate myself with Rupert Murdoch. If I may address the substance of the issue, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the Premier League recently entered into a contract under which some £700 million will be injected into the sport, in addition to the remarkable benefits from the lottery in support of sport—all created by the present party in Government as a result of the creation of independent television and the establishment of the lottery. The Labour party should recognise that under this Prime Minister more has been done for sport than by any Government since the end of the war.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend condemn the disruption on London Transport today, which inconvenienced thousands of my constituents and hundreds of thousands of Londoners? Will he compare that disruption with the positive policy of the Government of upgrading the Northern line, extending the Jubilee line, building the Heathrow to Paddington link and improving the docklands light railway?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I unreservedly condemn those who put the public to such inconvenience. I would welcome the support of the Labour party for that condemnation, but I know perfectly well that I will not
    468
    get it because a significant number of Labour Members are sponsored by the unions that caused the trouble in the first place.
    Mr. Clapham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June. [33401]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Clapham: The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that the Secretary of State for Social Security in 1993 tried to add a sweetener to the bitter pill of the Deputy Prime Minister's colliery closure programme by introducing awards for miners who were suffering from chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Later, it proved that the diagnosis criteria were too restrictive and the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council has carried out a further study that was reported to the Secretary of State for Social Security earlier this year. I understand that he has accepted its recommendations but nothing has yet been done. Will the Deputy Prime Minister try to ensure that those recommendations are implemented before Parliament rises for the summer because elderly miners in my constituency and throughout the country are dying of dust?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I will consider that point as a matter of urgency.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the Leader of the House set out the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business of the House for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 1 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Broadcasting Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 2 JULY—Completion of remaining stages of the Broadcasting Bill [Lords].
Motion relating to the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance and Claims and Payments) (Amendment) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 3 JULY—Until 2 o'clock there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Proceedings on the Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Bill.
Proceedings on the Social Security (Overpayments) Bill.
THURSDAY 4 JULY—Until about 7 o'clock motions on the Structural and Boundary Change Orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 5 JULY—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 8 JULY—Remaining stages of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [Lords].
Motions on the Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) Order and the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order.
TUESDAY 9 JULY—Opposition Day [18th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Motions relating to the Occupational Pension Schemes Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 10 JULY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Education (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 11 JULY—It is expected that there will be debates on motions for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 12 JULY—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 3 July, there will be a debate on European water policy in European Standing Committee A.
The House may also wish to know that it is proposed that on Wednesday 10 July there will be a debate on maritime policy in European Standing Committee A and a debate on the EC budget and the financial perspective in European Standing Committee B.
Subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the summer recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 25 July and return on Monday 14 October.
[Wednesday 4 July: European Standing Committee A—European Community Documents: a) 8600/94; Ecological Quality of Water. 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).] Wednesday 10 July: European Standing Committee A—European Community Document: 6813/96; Maritime Policy. Relevant European Committee Report HC 51-xxi (1995–96). European Standing Committee B—European Community Documents: a) COM(96)300; EC Preliminary Draft Budget for 1997. b) 6431/96 + COR 1; Financial Perspective. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports a) HC 51-xxiii (1995–96). b) HC 51-xix (1995–96) and HC 51-xxii (1995–96).]
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 Hahon 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.
TUESDAY 9 JULY—Occupational Pension Schemes Regulations.
The relevant regulations are as follows:
The Occupational Pension Schemes (Pensions Compensation Board Limit on Borrowing) Regulations 1996; The Occupational Pension Schemes (Mixed Benefit Contracted-out Schemes) regulations 1996; The Occupational Pension Schemes (Requirement to Obtain Audited Accounts and a Statement from the Auditor) Regulations 1996; The Occupational Pension Schemes (Member-Nominated Trustees and Directors) Regulations 1996.]
Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for again giving as nearly as possible two full weeks of business. His statement has obviated the need for one of my questions. The school holidays started yesterday in Scotland and it is important for hon. Members' families to know the recess dates.
Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange an early debate on data protection in view of the decision yesterday by the British Medical Association that general practitioners should not sign up to the proposed NHS data network? There is obvious concern that too many people other than doctors will gain access to confidential reports about patients. There are reports that the Government have resisted the British Medical Association's suggestions on ways to protect sensitive information. We believe that patients are entitled to know that their medical records are secure from anyone who wants to probe on the network, whether employers, banks or insurance companies.

471
In view of the Deputy Prime Minister's ignorant—I was going to say inadequate—response to the points relating to married quarters, will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on early-day motion 1040?
[That this House notes that the Government proposes to sell all Ministry of Defence married quarters in England and Wales, including those occupied by service families as well as empty properties, to developers; further notes that this will leave service tenants dependent on a declining number of properties leased back for 25 years; notes that most of the properties can be exchanged by the developer with a neutral arbitrator, rather than the tenants or the Ministry of Defence, deciding whether or not exchanges are permitted; notes that the arbitrator will have to base his decision on set criteria which are vaguely worded, so that developers with expert legal advice will be able progressively to cream off the best estates; notes that steep rises in rents and the downward ratchet on the number of homes leased back, embodied in the proposed scheme, will progressively reduce and break up married quarter estates; notes that, especially at a time of overstretch, and poor recruiting and retention these estates play a vital role in maintaining the morale of service families and the maintenance of the regimental system; and calls on the Government to dispose of surplus estates, to provide homes for civilian families but, before selling any estate with service tenants, to consult the tenants on the estate, to report to Parliament on the outcome of the consultation and to table an affirmative resolution in both Houses.]
Such a debate would enable hon. Members on both sides of the House to put service families' concerns to the Government across the Floor of the House before their houses are sold over them.
If reports are correct that, before the recess, a White Paper is to be published on the legal aid service which is purported to be the biggest shake-up in its 46-year history, the relevant Minister should make a statement in the House so that hon. Members can check on the price of justice for their constituents.
Mr. Newton: I have no plans for a debate on data protection, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. There is probably disappointment in some quarters of the House that we are not rising earlier than I have announced today, and I cannot envisage the possibility of too many more debates unless the hon. Gentleman wishes to press to be here into August.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Ministry of Defence married quarters. I do not accept that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's answers were inadequate. I say clearly—as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on Tuesday at Prime Ministers questions—that is it the Government's belief and firm intention that the sale will improve the quality and management of service housing to the benefit of those about whom the hon. Gentleman is concerned.
We expect and intend to publish a White Paper on legal aid, and I note the hon. Gentleman's request for a statement.
Finally, in the spirit of the approaching holiday season, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his work rate this afternoon.
Mr. Tim Renton: I should like to press my right hon. Friend for one more debate before the recess. Has he seen early-day motion 953?
[That this House deplores the steep decline in serious reporting and analysis of politics and current affairs in the United Kingdom; notes that this decline has gathered pace in recent times, with increasing emphasis on personalities rather than policies, and on trivia rather than substance; notes the growing contrast both with the past in British journalism and with certain high quality daily newspapers in other countries; and suggests that the editors of those national papers that aim to contribute significantly to opinion-forming should demonstrate a more serious and less personal approach, and seek to achieve more balanced coverage and comment in relation to public issues and political development.]
It is signed by 54 hon. Members from both sides of the House and calls attention to the steep decline in the serious reporting and analysis of politics and current affairs in the United Kingdom. It calls on the editors of the high-quality daily newspapers to seek to achieve more balanced coverage and comment in relation to public issues and policy development.
The competition among the broadsheets, between the broadsheets and the tabloids, and between the broadsheets and television and radio seems bound to continue. As the subject concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House, will my right hon. Friend find time as the Broadcasting Bill nears its conclusion for a debate on the subject in the House? In the dog days as we near the summer holidays, it seems appropriate that a debate on the issue should be led by that guardian of the media's probity, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage.
Mr. Newton: The two days' debate on the Broadcasting Bill next week may provide my right hon. Friend and others with an opportunity to make their point. I entirely accept that it is a serious one and his remarks will have struck a chord in various parts of the House. On a lighter note, quite apart from the difficulties of organising further debates for the reasons that I have mentioned, I would hesitate to provide time for a debate when, according to what my right hon. Friend has said, it would not even be reported.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on nurses' pay in view of the report published by the Royal College of Nursing on 17 June, referred to in early-day motion 1018, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)?
[That this House notes the report, Broken Promises, on the state of local pay in the nursing profession, published on J 7th June by the Royal College of Nursing; notes the report's findings that only 111 out of 488 NHS trusts have made pay offers to nurses above the 2 per cent. national pay award; notes that this has demoralised many nurses and done nothing to allay the problems of recruitment which the NHS currently faces; notes that many nurses have lost all confidence in the independence of the Pay Review Body; calls for a single national pay review body-far the whole NHS to remove the inequalities in consideration of pay rises between professions and occupations in the health service; and further calls for an annual increase in nurses' pay by at least the level of national inflation.]

473
Nurses feel aggrieved that the Government's predictions that awards would be topped up have not materialised. Does the Leader of the House agree that that is a matter for real concern and that the Government should explain to the House their response to the position reported by the Royal College of Nursing?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has asked his question courteously and, in the same spirit, I will draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. The hon. Gentleman requested a debate, but the House spent all day yesterday debating the health service. If the Liberal Democrats had not been able to make that point in yesterday's debate, I would have been surprised.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Am I right to infer from what my right hon. Friend said that when we come back on 14 October, it will be to complete the unfinished business of this Session? If I am right, when will we have the state opening of the new Session?
Mr. Newton: I cannot go so far as to give the date that my hon. Friend has requested, but I can certainly confirm that we shall come back on 14 October to complete the business of the present Session.
Mr. David Winnick: Given the Prime Minister's record of luck, will we have an opportunity next week to ask him not to declare his preferences publicly when an important event like yesterday's takes place? If he had not, we might have stood a better chance of winning.
Mr. Newton: I can only imagine what would have happened had the Prime Minister, or any of us, said anything other than England when asked whom we wanted to win.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend go further and agree to a debate on Euro 96 so that we can congratulate the England team on a splendid performance in every possible way?
Mr. Newton: That sounds like a genuinely good idea and, even if I cannot provide a debate, I am happy to join in the good wishes and congratulations expressed to the England team for the way in which it has performed throughout the competition.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his answer on NHS records? He will be aware that if any member of NHS staff discloses patient details, he or she is subject to immediate disciplinary action and to dismissal. It would be the ultimate horror if it were possible for a clever computer hack to gain access to the intimate details of patients' records. Unless the Government can assure us that that will not happen and unless the Secretary of State will confirm that in the House, doctors and patient record controllers in the health service must give a guarantee to their patients that they will not put details on to the NHS computer.
Mr. Newton: I see no need to reconsider my earlier answer, not least because it did not say anything. I merely said that I would draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to the observations that have been made and, of course, I will also draw his attention to the hon. Lady's observations.
Mr. Peter Viggers: May I join the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) in urging the Leader of the House to allow an early debate on the Government's proposals for Ministry of Defence housing? Is not it clear that many hon. Members suffer from a serious misapprehension about the Government's intentions? Those of us who have studied the subject in detail have been completely convinced about the Government's determination to improve housing for service personnel and that the present proposals will do that. A debate would enable those facts to be made clear.
Mr. Newton: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who probably knows as much about these matters as any Member of the House and whose opinion on them is well respected. I hope that what he said will be taken carefully into account by those who have made different points.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Reference has already been made to the issue of MOD housing in which I have a constituency interest. Is the Leader of the House aware of the great interest in the decisions on defence procurement that must be taken soon, not least of which is the decision on the replacement for the Nimrod, which is based in my constituency at RAF Kinloss, and the replacement of the radar system for the search-and-rescue Sea King helicopters? Can he assure us that the Secretary of State for Defence will make an announcement on the decisions clearly and publicly in the House and not through a planted question?
Mr. Newton: I shall bring the hon. Lady's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend. I draw her attention to the fact that Defence Questions will take place on Tuesday 9 July. I am well aware of the level of interest in these matters, as my constituency contains a significant number of people who work in defence-related industries.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House agree to an urgent early debate on the nature of our constitution and the proposals for constitutional reform? People who seek to destroy our constitution do so at their peril, and they do so for reasons of gimmickry, not principles of genuine reform.
Mr. Newton: I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks, and I shall bear in mind his request for a debate on this matter—even though it may not be possible to arrange one before the summer recess.
Ms Joan Walley: The Leader of the House was in the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) referred to the chronic bronchitis and emphysema regulations for former miners. Will he give us an assurance that there will be an early debate on this issue before the summer recess so that the

475
recommendations of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which I believe have been accepted, can be fully implemented?
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said a few moments ago, except to say that I too—not least in my capacity as a business manager—will be making inquiries about the point that was raised. Obviously, I have a close interest in this matter, as I was the Minister responsible for the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council and related issues for many years.
Mr. John Butcher: Will my right hon. Friend give us his best estimate of the day on which we will debate the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body in relation to the pay of Members of Parliament? Does he agree with me that he should—as Leader of the House, in his all-party mode—seek to negotiate assurances from the leaders of all the parties in the House that there will be a genuinely free vote and that none of them will seek to take party advantage from the debate?
Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's points, but I cannot give him the date on which the debate will take place. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister expects to receive the Senior Salaries Review Body's report later today and, of course, the Government wish to consider its recommendations carefully. We are aiming to publish the report on 4 July—the date on which we will also make known the Government's views. Today, I will write to the leaders of the other parties on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is absent in Lyon. I will send them a copy of the report and offer them the opportunity to comment to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister before it and our views are published.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will have heard the Deputy Prime Minister give an assurance that an incoming Conservative Government would not introduce assemblies in Scotland or in Wales. Will the Government begin to govern Northern Ireland at the same level as they are governing the rest of the United Kingdom? I have pressed for a meeting of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee for a long time. This week, a decision was taken by the Northern Ireland Office to scrap two education boards, against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Newton: I shall focus on the hon. Gentleman's request for a meeting of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee which, as I have said before, is under active consideration. Provided that we are sure that arrangements can be made that are acceptable to all parties in Northern Ireland, we will be happy to arrange for that. I hope that we will be able to do so before the summer recess.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate next week on early-day motion 1053, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher)?
That this House notes with sadness that for the first time in its history the TUC is led by a General Secretary who through his advocacy of early entry into EMU is prepared
476
to connive at an increase in unemployment, particularly in the manufacturing and traded goods sectors; regrets that the General Secretary is prepared to serve the interests of a European political elite at the expense of British and European trades unionists and other workers; and calls on the TUC to sack the General Secretary for his betrayal of his members' interests and lack of intellectual rigour in examining the pros and cons of EMU.]
It regrets that the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress proposes the return of Britain to the EMU in the immediate future. Is it not a shame to see—yet again, as in the days of old—the General Secretary of the TUC advocating policies that would damage the employment of his members in the manufacturing sector, purely so that he can follow the misguided policies of the Leader of the Labour party?
Mr. Newton: The answer to my hon. Friend is yes.
Mr. Alan Simpson: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate about the adequacy of the current voluntary agreement between the Government and the tobacco industry in light of some serious breaches of that code? On 3 August the Gallagher tobacco company will stage a rave dance event in Nottingham as part of the Renaissance Silk Cut tour. It openly advocates smoking and it will give away free cigarettes to the young people who attend the event. I wrote to the Minister in May complaining about the company's activities and I was appalled to receive a reply recently saying that the Government propose to take no action against that flagrant disregard of the terms of the agreement. The House should debate whether, in light of the Government's inaction, the voluntary agreement is an adequate means of pursuing a reduction in cigarette smoking among young people.
Mr. Newton: I will bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. John Marshall: May we have an urgent debate on early-day motion 1016?
[That this House welcomes the initiative of Her Majesty's Government in appointing Sir David Hannay as their special representative for Cyprus; and wishes him all success in the achievement of a just solution of lasting benefit to all the citizens of the Republic of Cyprus whatever their ethnic origin.]
Does my right hon. Friend accept that the continued division of Cyprus is intolerable and that it is wrong that people should be denied the right to live in the houses and in the villages where their families have lived for generations? Many people welcome the appointment of Sir David Hannay and we hope that some action will be taken in the not too distant future.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend and of others expressed in the early-day motion regarding Sir David Hannay's appointment. The Government are determined to strengthen our efforts to help to secure a negotiated settlement in Cyprus.
Mr. David Alton: Like every other hon. Member, this morning the Leader of the House will have received from the hon. Member for

477
Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) a survey conducted by an organisation that is examining the connection between violence and the levels of violence transmitted on television. Included with the report is a letter from the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) urging hon. Members to support two new clauses to the Broadcasting Bill which are on the Order Paper and which we hope will be selected and debated on Monday. They represent modest attempts to monitor the level of television violence and to do something effective about it. Will the Leader of the House promise that he will consult his Cabinet colleagues over the weekend so that that all-party move might be facilitated without unnecessary controversy or delay when the matter is debated on Monday?
Mr. Newton: I take that to be a public representation in advance of next week to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. I shall ensure that she hears of it. I must acknowledge that I have not yet had time to study the material to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I reiterate the requests of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) for a debate on the sale of the married quarters estate? Would that not give us the opportunity to provide the assurances that people need in view of the anxieties that some in the House have whipped up unnecessarily in recent days? Would it not also expose the Opposition for what they are: a party that seeks a review of the policy but does not have a proper response to it?
Mr. Newton: That is more impressive support for the Government's position. My hon. Friend is my constituency neighbour and I know that he represents the important garrison town of Colchester.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When may we have a debate about ferry safety and particularly the dangers of the so-called roll-on/roll-over ferries? Is it not a disgrace that three quarters of our ferries are still as dangerous as the Herald of Free Enterprise and the Estonia? In that debate we could congratulate Norway, which has made safety improvements to all of its ferries. Why must we wait until 2002 before British ferries are protected in the same way?
Mr. Newton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might like to put that question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport when he is here on Monday 8 July.

Point of Order
3.54 pm
Mr. Michael Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 11 June I was wrongly named by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) in an early-day motion. I had to wait two or three days until it was eventually amended. In the meantime, the hon. Gentleman had persuaded 30 Conservative Members, including seven knights of the realm, to sign his EDM.
I am deeply concerned to find 45 such motions on the Order Paper attacking individual Members—representing 5 per cent. of all EDMs this Session.
Would you, Madam Speaker, use your good offices to persuade hon. Members to stop these personal attacks? And if they make mischief, as the hon. Member for Gravesham does, would you ask them to name the correct Member and have the courtesy to write a letter of apology? I have yet to receive one from the hon. Gentleman for his misdeed.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. This refers to early-day motion 981, which includes a quotation from the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) in which he condemns the leader of his party, in the context of education policy, as saying, "Do as I say, not as I do."
I am at fault in that I thought the hon. Gentleman concerned represented Falkirk, East. Within two days it was pointed out to me that I actually meant the hon. Member for Falkirk, West; so I went to the Table Office and asked for the constituency to be corrected in the EDM. I also orally apologised to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) in—of all places—the Members' Cloakroom.
Madam Speaker: The least I expect of all Members of this House when they go into print, especially on the Order Paper, is that they do their homework first and know which Member they are attacking. In other words, they must get it right.
Secondly, I have a copy of the early-day motion in front of me. It was signed by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and 29 other Members. All I can say about those other Members is that they put their signature to the motion without knowing what they were signing. I deprecate that.
I also deprecate the personal attacks in these early-day motions and across the Floor of the House. Increasingly as we move towards a general election we are concerned with the policies of the parties in this House, not with individual Members or personal attacks on them.
I appeal to the House: when Members go into print, they should do their homework and get it right; and let us stop these personal attacks which I see daily on the Order Paper and which I deprecate.

ESTIMATES DAY
[2ND ALLOTTED DAY, 2ND PART]
ESTIMATES DAY
  ESTIMATES, 1996–97
    Class II, Vote 1

      The Commonwealth
      [Relevant documents: The first Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 1995–96, on the future role of the Commonwealth (House of Commons Paper No. 45-I), the Government's Observations thereon (Cm. 3303) and the Government's Expenditure Plans 1996–97 to 1998–99—Foreign and Commonwealth Office including Overseas Development Administration (Cm. 3203).]
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That a sum not exceeding £343,886,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1997 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on its salaries, building and other accommodation services, and administration and those of HM Diplomatic Service, official information services, sundry services and loans and payments in connection with catering services.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
      3.56 pm
      Mr. David Howell: The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs welcomes the opportunity of a brief debate on its recent report on the role of the Commonwealth. I should explain right away that we did not alight randomly on this subject for a report; we responded to what we felt was a strong steer, in the sense that opinion about the Commonwealth in this country may be undergoing a considerable change. There suddenly seems to be a new awareness of the value of the club of Commonwealth nations, vastly varied though their cultures and geography may be. They are spread around the entire planet.
      There may be all sorts of reasons for that new awareness. The old issue that bedevilled all Commonwealth gatherings from the 1960s to the 1980s—the hated apartheid system in South Africa—has vanished, thank goodness. In part, the new interest may be due to the fact that several countries have joined or tried to join the Commonwealth in recent times. South Africa, of course, is a recent re-entrant, and Mozambique and Cameroon have also arrived in the team. A club that is growing and which people want to join cannot be entirely moribund.
      Our studies seemed to suggest, however, that there was a harder and deeper reason for the British to think again about their Commonwealth connections. Contrary to many political utterances, sometimes of a rather pessimistic nature, and to the slant of a good deal of British foreign policy, Britain's trade and capital investment is noticeably tilting away exclusively from Europe and towards Asia, which happens to include several of the major Commonwealth countries, and Latin America.
      It is the realisation that there is a shift in the centre of gravity of the entire planet, in political and economic terms, making areas of the world which we might have
      480
      felt we had cut our ties with and were not important, suddenly much more important to the present and the future, which makes us look at the Commonwealth through an entirely different lens.
      Just to give hon. Members a flavour—I promise not to produce too many statistics, although there are some telling ones in the report—in 1994, 44 per cent. of Britain's total overseas earnings, visible and invisible, came from EU countries. That is obviously a significant chunk, so there could be no question of ignoring that. But during the past decade, some 80 per cent. of all British overseas investment, direct and portfolio, or so the estimates suggest, has gone outside Europe—about 40 per cent. to the United States and at least 20 per cent. to areas of the Commonwealth.
      If one looks at the destination of our investment, some of which is recorded as going into Europe but which goes through the Netherlands and out again, the figures are even more striking. It could be—we have this figure in our report—that almost 30 per cent. of all our overseas investment is in the Commonwealth compared with about 13.9 per cent. in the EU. Those are our assets, our interests, and it is in our national interest to promote and strengthen those assets.
      No one—I make this point clearly—or no one with a business or political nose or any sense of history is, I hope, arguing that Britain should disengage from Europe, although one hears the odd voice on those lines. Certainly, those figures do not lead to that conclusion. What they do is to cause us to question whether Europe, and western Europe in particular, is Britain's only interest, as some of our policies sometimes seem to suggest. National economic interest, in terms of looking after our assets and opening up new markets, now seems to pull us towards other regions as well.
      It is arguable that Europe's sagging significance in the overall pattern of British business activity, or the relative reduction in its significance, is a reflection of the lower growth in Europe in recent years in contrast with the fact that there never was a recession in Asia; the growth simply continued right through the European and Atlantic recession years and produced an amazing recession-free performance.
      But there are even longer-term influences at work than just those short-term movements in the business cycle. For instance, one of the brightest spots in Britain's strengthening economic relations in terms of capital flows, investment and expanded trade, visible and invisible, has been Australia. The media say that Australia is pulling away from the Commonwealth because it is thinking about a President rather than having Her Majesty the Queen as its Head of State—it has its reasons for that—but that has nothing to do with the reality.
      The reality is that we are now closer to Australia, and to New Zealand as well—two of the world's most dynamic modem economies, not just dependent on agricultural products—than ever we were at the height of empire or in the days when the Commonwealth was called the British Commonwealth.
      Another huge new market is emerging inside India. Admittedly, it is a vast area of high-income activity surrounded by a sea of poverty, but the numbers are gigantic. Another Commonwealth country that is becoming a major factor in the entire world economic system is Malaysia, despite our quarrels from time to time with that country's outspoken leader.

      481
      When I think about the G7 conference, which is just about to happen, it seems increasingly absurd that the emerging markets, as we call them, of three great countries, which will be heavyweights in the world economic order—India, China, which is obviously not in the Commonwealth, and Brazil, which is also not in the Commonwealth—are not included in the G7 summit. The days of the G7 summit complex may be coming to an end.
      That is the background against which our report reaches its central and explicit conclusion that the Commonwealth is acquiring a new significance in a rapidly transforming world, and that British policy should bring that major change to the forefront of its thinking. Our report concluded that the Commonwealth of yesterday, still quite strong in British perceptions and in some quarters, has given way to something quite new and not yet fully appreciated.
      In our report, we say that, far from being a "club" of countries all too ready to criticise and make demands on the former imperial power—that is us—the Commonwealth is rapidly metamorphosing into a network with quite different interests and ambitions. In particular, we pointed to the gigantic sub-governmental network of links that brings together the group of nations—there are now 53 of them—in a way that simply does not exist in any other corner of the earth. There are the regional blocs. We know all about Europe. There is the UN. We know all about that. But there is nothing to compare with this extraordinary network of intimacy that the Commonwealth today turns out to be.
      In our inquiry, we encountered two disappointments. We were struck, first, by the rather cautious and downbeat initial memorandum from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Although it was very helpful and provided many papers, its initial memorandum was a bit faint, although we were happy to note that the evidence that Ministers subsequently gave the Committee sounded a much more positive note. Secondly, we were struck by the absolute disinterest and incomprehension about these matters in the daily newspapers. The so-called "heavies" seemed to have lost the capacity to handle and evaluate new concepts and ideas of this kind. They have squeezed out the wiser and more reflective writers in favour of the trivia masters and the superficial political commentators.
      We were disappointed but not surprised that the British dailies paid no attention to the recent report. We were also pleased that—by strong contrast—some of the weeklies and the excellent BBC World Service understood the importance of what we were trying to say and supported strongly the thought that the Commonwealth matters increasingly. That was very welcome, but the report's conclusions lead us to more than mere thoughts. We recommended something much stronger: a whole new strategy to reinforce bilateral Commonwealth ties, to sustain the overall Commonwealth organisation and to deploy the advantages that Commonwealth membership gives us far more systematically, both in diplomatic endeavours and in the furtherance of Britain's worldwide commercial interests.
      To anyone who suggested that we propose some great new bureaucratic layer in the Commonwealth, I would reply that that is not what we say at all in the report. We do not want to impose additional administrative structures on an international network, which has emerged of its own accord and which is emerging even further while we speak. In our view, the secretariat does a good job and
      482
      makes a significant contribution, but we are talking about the bilateral ties and the need within our own national administration, and certainly within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, for minds to be more focused than in the past on our Commonwealth role and the potential that it gives us—this is quite a cynical calculation—as a trading nation to develop our own interests.
      In hard, practical terms, that means, as we recommend, greater readiness to speak up for the interests of our Commonwealth friends in the various forums of the world to which Britain belongs. We are a great "belonger" and club member. As Baroness Chalker, Minister for Overseas Development, reminded our Committee as a witness, we are the one country of the 15 in the Union that is also one of the 53, which gives us a leverage and a position that should be used more effectively.
      Similarly, we expect our fellow Commonwealth members to speak up for us more effectively in the other great forums of the world that are increasingly significant in determining our future and prosperity—the Asia-Pacific economic forum structure and the Association of South-East Asian Nations. More focus also means giving renewed Government attention to the educational and cultural interchanges that used to characterise the Commonwealth and which must not be allowed to languish. In some instances, we were concerned that they were tending to languish. On the contrary, they should be fostered more energetically than ever.
      In our report, we argue that that should apply particularly to instruments of promotion of Britain's interests and of diplomacy such as the BBC World Service, the British Council and the diplomatic wing of the Foreign Office itself. We are glad to note that—as a result, I hope, of some raising of voices in the Foreign Affairs Committee, and other pressures—the threat to the British Council's budget has been eased somewhat; but: it still seems that there has been a failure to convey to the policy makers just how much value and resource can be added to Britain's basic economic strength through the effective use of those agencies. As our report points out, at a time when they should be expanding, they are being cut back to a dismal extent.
      According to evidence given to the Committee but not included in the report, the National Audit Office estimates that every pound spent by the diplomatic wing on reinforcing its posts in the emerging markets—including, as we discovered, many in Commonwealth countries—produces £80 in extra earnings for Britain. The Treasury's response has been to slice tens of millions of pounds off the diplomatic budget, and therefore billions off British overseas earnings and British potential. We are forced to conclude that any more of what the geniuses in the Treasury have called economies and savings will make life extremely expensive.
      Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast,: I recently visited Japan with the Select Committee on Health, where I had first-hand evidence of the role played by the British Council, along with the embassy, in promoting British interests. Unfortunately, we received the same message: that the Treasury did not fully appreciate the importance of the investment and the responsibilities involved. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said about our role in the Commonwealth as a whole.
      Mr. Howell: What the hon. Gentleman has said confirms our impressions, although, as I said, the pressures on the British Council's budget have been eased, as a result—I hope that this will not embarrass my right hon. Friend the Minister—of some doughty fighting in the Foreign Office for the modern interests of this country, and for updating people's out-of-date views about what really matters when it comes to protecting and promoting those interests. The new focus for which we have called means recognising, in shaping our industrial and trade policies, that the interests and opportunities for British business now lie as much in the emerging markets—many, as I have said, in Commonwealth countries—as in the European markets that are geographically nearer to home.
      Although our Committee divided into small groups, it covered a good deal of ground throughout the planet, visiting Commonwealth countries. A comment that we heard repeatedly was that Britain's Commonwealth connections, and the integration in a global network of communications and friendships that goes with them, were the envy of our trading competitors. Those competitors cannot understand why we, the British, have not exploited them to greater advantage. Here we are, at the centre of a gigantic system of world communications in which either Mandarin Chinese or English is being learnt—those will be the only languages left that matter to the entire commercial planetary business—yet we do not seem to have realised the full potential that lies before us, and the full possibilities of what could be a glittering global asset: the Commonwealth network. That network is ready made and inherited—perhaps through luck rather than good judgment, but it is there for us to use.
      Perhaps it was understandable that, for a few decades after the end of empire, there would be a period of trauma and uncomfortable adjustment, and that people would feel that perhaps the Commonwealth was all to do with a better yesterday. However, it should never be forgotten that the unwinding of the British empire was, for the most part, an amazingly peaceful and constructive affair, despite one or two tragedies.
      That era is over and so is its successor phase of decolonisation. In the closing words of our report, we state:
      "A new global pattern opens out in which the competition to maintain, let alone advance, living standards will be more intense than ever."
      That is especially true of countries in Europe, as we are. The report continues:
      "In this new situation the United Kingdom has both friends and opportunities."
      Who are those friends? They turn out to be our old friends who are also our new friends. They should be embraced, so that the British interest can be promoted in a firm and friendly way and so that the network of the Commonwealth, which is one of the most remarkable developments of the modern age, can be used to the benefit of all who live in it and, indeed, of all mankind.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Peter Shore: Our terms of reference in the study on the future role of the Commonwealth were extremely wide and included the implications for United Kingdom foreign policy. The study encompasses an enormous range of matters—
      484
      economic, cultural, educational, parliamentary and political—and the unique web of relationships that we have. There are 53 countries, including ourselves, in the Commonwealth, amounting to one quarter of mankind. It is an enormous connection.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, spoke effectively about our economic and trading relationships with the Commonwealth. They require—and will obtain—a new emphasis because, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, many of our Commonwealth partners are now engaged in the process of economic development, of a most spectacular kind in some cases. Malaysia has been mentioned. If, as we all hope, the Indian sub-continent, especially India itself, takes off, it will make a profound difference to the world economy. We have a strong interest in being part of that.
      The right hon. Gentleman also very properly referred to our cultural and educational links with Commonwealth countries—which are of enormous benefit to us and, I hope, equally to them—in terms of our continuing understanding and our continuing influence on those who become part of the elite in the Commonwealth.
      It is not possible to overemphasise the importance of the English language in the network of relationships. It is one of the two or three factors that continue to hold the Commonwealth together in a truly remarkable way. Whenever I visit the Indian sub-continent in particular—and this is almost 50 years after the ending of the Raj—I am able to converse in English not just with high officials, but with many people in quite humble spheres of life. That is impossible in any other part of the world except, increasingly, in the European Union, where English is becoming the lingua franca, if I can use that odd expression in this context. That is enormously helpful to us.
      As the report is so wide ranging and as the right hon. Member for Guildford has spoken about trade, investment, cultural links, the World Service and the British Council, which play an important part, I shall concentrate on a subject of very great importance in our report, which reflects another of the major new developments in the Commonwealth.
      Those who follow Commonwealth history will know that at the Harare Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 1991, the Commonwealth gave itself a new direction. It issued the following declaration:
      "We pledge the Commonwealth and our countries to work with renewed vigour, concentrating especially in the following areas: the protection and promotion of the fundamental political values of the Commonwealth; democracy, democratic processes and institutions which reflect national circumstances, the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, just and honest Government … human rights, including equal rights and opportunities for all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed or political belief."
      That declaration was unanimous and in one sentence it committed the Commonwealth and its 50-odd member states to democratic government and human rights.
      In the period between the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Harare and that in Auckland, New Zealand, a few months ago, important and beneficial changes have occurred in the Governments of many Commonwealth countries. Malawi at last got rid of Dr. Hastings Banda; Zambia ended its long experience of one-party, one-President rule, as did Tanzania; and important progress continues to be made in Uganda.

      485
      Commonwealth election observers and Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegations have been sent to a number of Commonwealth countries to witness general elections and report on their fairness or otherwise.
      At this point, I pay tribute to the Commonwealth Secretariat. It is a small organisation, yet it is the Commonwealth's only continuing collective permanent organisation. It does a remarkably good job in sponsoring Commonwealth observer missions, advising on democratic practices in other Commonwealth countries as well as administering technical and aid programmes.
      The House might be interested in the following figures, which I found shocking. In 1994–95, the total cost of the Commonwealth Secretariat—the Commonwealth's only continuing central organisation—including not only the secretariat, but the fund for technical co-operation, the science council and the youth programme, was £33 million. The British contribution was 30 per cent., or £10 million. The secretariat itself accounted for just under £9 million.
      Perhaps I should remind the House that we pay a net contribution of £2,500 million a year for our membership of the European Union. We might reflect upon that figure in comparison with our ludicrously inadequate contribution to the Commonwealth organisation and the Commonwealth Secretariat.
      Inevitably, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office distributes its resources similarly. We reported:
      "In numerical terms, out of a total of about 3,500 United Kingdom based staff, 87 staff within the FCO deal with Commonwealth issues, 80 in geographical and policy departments and seven in the Commonwealth Co-ordination Department."
      That is not exactly a large investment of highly trained intellectual and diplomatic resources.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when I raised with the Foreign Office and Baroness Chalker my worry about the fact that, as European institutions become ever larger in Africa, the British contribution becomes smaller, I was told that I should not worry because, of course, it is all very nice and polite, and on the departure of the British assistant head of delegation—I was particularly talking about Lesotho—there would be an extra appointment of an agricultural adviser, who would work from the EU offices? Is my right hon. Friend at one with me in not being absolutely convinced that that is quite the same thing?
      Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend illustrates the minuscule resources that, in recent years at any rate, we have been prepared to deploy.
      I have emphasised the Harare declaration and the commitment to the promotion of democracy and human rights throughout Commonwealth countries. Last year, at the Heads of Government meeting in Auckland, the Commonwealth took major new steps to promote democracy and human rights, which were extremely significant and which have been quite inadequately reported.
      First, the Commonwealth agreed to enhance the capacity of its secretariat to provide member Governments with advice, training and other forms of technical assistance in promoting the Commonwealth's fundamental political values, especially the democratic
      486
      process and procedure. Such enhancement of the Commonwealth Secretariat implies a certain strengthening, an investment, in the Commonwealth Secretariat here in Marlborough house.
      Secondly, and very importantly, where the CHOGM—as it was called in Auckland—perceived that a member country was
      "clearly in violation of the Harare declaration and particularly in the event of an unconstitutional overthrow of a democratically elected Government",
      it committed itself to take measures to encourage the restoration of democracy. Those measures range from the public expression of collective disapproval to a number of bilateral and multilateral sanctions by other Commonwealth countries.
      Among the measures, of course, is suspension of Commonwealth membership—public denial of the rights of a Commonwealth member that has infringed the Harare declaration to take part in and attend other Commonwealth meetings. If the offending Government persist in violating the principles of the Harare declaration for more than two years, I think that there is the threat of complete expulsion. That measure is important and I shall illustrate it in connection with Nigeria, which is feeling the heat of ostracism by the Commonwealth.
      Thirdly, the New Zealand Heads of Government conference agreed to establish the so-called Millbrook Commonwealth action programme, which is a committee consisting of Foreign Ministers from eight Commonwealth countries—I think that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), may be our representative on it—plus the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, to provide an implementing mechanism. So, not content with public meetings and yearly or two-yearly condemnations, an on-going committee of pretty senior members of the Commonwealth was set up to look at the carrying out of any recommendations made by the Heads of Government, continuing the pressure on those who have fallen short of the Commonwealth's standards of democracy and human rights.
      Three Commonwealth countries were selected at Auckland for particular attention: Sierra Leone, Gambia and Nigeria, whose military regime was suspended from membership. Considerable pressure has been put on the Nigerian Government since then, but I am sorry that, only two days ago, the threat of immediate Commonwealth sanctions was dropped because of disagreement—I think—among the Millbrook group. I should be grateful to hear more from the Minister of State when he replies to the debate. It was disappointing that immediate action was not taken, because Nigeria's response so far has been inadequate.
      The sanction package agreed at Auckland includes a ban on weapon exports to Nigeria, visa restrictions on members of the regime and their families, an end to sporting links and the withdrawal of education facilities. I understand that Britain and other EU countries operate most of those sanctions against Nigeria, but their impact would be greatly reinforced if the Commonwealth as a whole agreed to collective action. Canada will go ahead in any case and impose sanctions, and New Zealand is expected to follow suit. It is good to know—and I should be grateful if the Minister confirmed this—that sanctions will be back on the agenda at the Foreign Ministers'

      487
      meeting in September. If Nigeria has not made significant improvements in its human rights record and in its progress towards the restoration of democracy, I hope that sanctions will be imposed.
      In our report, we urged the Government to take the lead in promoting democracy in the Commonwealth. We said that we would like to see a strengthening of the Harare declaration and, in particular, the specific recognition that real democracy entails the right to organise opposition parties and to remove existing Governments via a free and fair election. It would be helpful to have that on the record. With that in mind, I was disappointed that the Secretary of State's response to the report stated:
      "The Government is not persuaded that an attempt at this stage to amplify the Harare declaration, through incorporating more precise definitions of democracy, would be either acceptable to other Commonwealth governments or achievable."
      I hope that that is only an interim response.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a real test of whether there is sustainable and substantial progress towards democracy—the existence of an opposition party—would be failed by a country such as Uganda? However, the current Government of that country are massively more credible and more democratic than their predecessors, and Uganda is clearly on the route to democracy, although without an opposition party.
      Mr. Shore: I agree with my hon. Friend that the direction and pace of improvement away from non-democratic forms of government to properly democratic ones is important. It would be helpful to have a standard that could be accepted by all countries as to what it means to be a democracy and to safeguard human rights. Britain is hosting the next Heads of Government meeting in 1997 in Edinburgh, and I hope very much that we shall make the extension of democracy and human rights the very centrepiece of the meeting.
      There are clear links between us in the Commonwealth. There are economic, trade and investment links, and there are the links that come from our shared historical experience. There are also educational and cultural links, as well as the link through the frequent use of the English language. If we could add to those links another common bond—that all of us subscribe to democracy in politics and to human rights—it would be an added reinforcement to all that the Commonwealth stands for and would help to link it together.
      4.33 pm
      Sir Colin Shepherd: Many thanks, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in the debate. I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), for selecting this topic for examination by his Committee. I congratulate him and all the members of his Committee on the success of the work that they have done on behalf, I believe, of the Commonwealth, not only of the United Kingdom in the Commonwealth.
      My right hon. Friend's work has accompanied me on a number of voyages to different parts of the Commonwealth. It has become almost a standard work
      488
      of definition for the Commonwealth because of its careful exploration of the various networks involved in it. As such, it will be a valuable work of reference for a number of years not just because it may point not only to how the United Kingdom sees the Commonwealth but how the Commonwealth sees itself. It is particularly valuable for that.
      I shall restrain myself to two specific dimensions of the report. The first is the strength of affinity that I find when I visit the Commonwealth on parliamentary business. That strength of affinity makes me embarrassed or sometimes more than embarrassed at the lack of awareness of the Commonwealth in Britain. The report will be helpful in heightening that awareness.
      The report refers to the need to sustain the Commonwealth Institute because for 100 and some years it has been the mechanism by which we have sought to increase awareness of the Commonwealth and its predecessors within our own country. The House will be aware of the traumas that the Commonwealth Institute has gone through in the past four years or thereabouts.
      I welcome the commitment to the Commonwealth Institute in the Government's response, but I should like to see a stronger commitment. I should like the Government fairly and firmly to affirm their belief in the need to press our public to gain a better understanding of this unique organisation, which is so much part of the fabric of our life and of what we take for granted.
      It is interesting to note that the undercurrents are there. We have recently said farewell to the Canadian high commissioner Royce Frith, who has returned to Canada. He had a unique success in Britain in arranging, possibly accidentally, for every fishing vessel to be bathed in the Canadian flag and still not upsetting his host Government. Underlying that was the unspoken reflection among our public that the Commonwealth was important to us, even though we take it for granted and do not really understand how it affects us.
      I want to see the Commonwealth Institute enabled to do its work. I have to point out to the House at this time that I have a slight vested interest in that I am a governor of the institute. I see a former governor sitting across the House and I am certain that he shares my views. Let us do all that we can to increase awareness among our people, using whatever mechanism is possible and bearing in mind the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford when he introduced the report that because we do not fight one another we do not get much press coverage. There is an immense amount to be done in that respect.
      The second aspect about which I wish to speak, is the reference which pops up throughout the report to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. With a United Kingdom hat on, I welcome the reaffirmation of Her Majesty's Government's continued support for the work of the association. It is important, without a doubt. Wearing the international chairman's hat that I am currently privileged to wear, I wish to say how important it is to all 134 branches of the CPA that Her Majesty's Government so strongly affirm the work of our association.
      I was delighted that the Committee not only took evidence but explored it and reported so positively on the work of the CPA. As has been said, we were singled out in the Harare declaration as having the task of spreading the

      489
      message of parliamentary democracy. Especially in the years since 1981—though before then as well—we have set out to discharge those obligations. We have enormously expanded the work that has been directed to that. We have increased the number of seminars that we run.
      We responded in advance to the report's admonition to do more to encourage countries seeking to establish parliamentary democracy. I must mention the two missions that we sent to South Africa before 1994. The first, under my predecessor, in 1991 was helpful in creating awareness of the support that was available. It was reinforced by the mission that I led in November 1993 when the transitional constitution was being set up. It was useful in providing the reassurance that there was a great network of assistance waiting in the wings to help in any way possible. Immediately after the 1994 elections, the Commonwealth was delighted to receive South Africa back into membership.
      We have run into difficulties in that the more that we have achieved, the more we have been asked to do. We are almost inundated with requests to do what we say that we can do. However, we are a small and lean organisation, not a rich one. We are led by our able secretary general, Arthur Donohue, the former Speaker of the provincial assembly of Nova Scotia. He has a team of 12 people over the road at Millbank. They work hard and effectively but they are increasingly stretched and the question of financial resources arises.
      We are exploring ways to increase our gearing. We are halfway through a programme of parliamentary workshops for southern African parliamentarians. That is a new development that we have been exploring. It is a combined exercise between the CPA and the Overseas Development Administration, operating through its British development division in southern Africa. We have put together a programme of five workshops aimed at bringing into the net the new parliamentarians of South Africa and its provinces and putting them alongside the parliamentarians of the front-line countries. We are three down with two to play. Co-operation is working well with the BDDSA.
      We have been working with the Commonwealth secretariat to develop programmes for training officials. That is another important dimension of the southern Africa exercise. While we as parliamentarians have been bending our minds to the development of the parliamentary skills of southern Africans, it is vital to provide the back-up of parliamentary clerk or secretaryship. It has been lacking for the want of means to build it up. The House has a distinct part to play in that, both through the CPA and through the House of Commons Overseas Office. We need to find more ways to act in cahoots with other governmental agencies to expand our work. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister would heed that. We need ministerial intervention to smooth the path and open doors to enable us to develop our activities.
      I thank the Commonwealth parliamentarians who have participated in the parliamentary workshops. I have called in resource people from Malaysia, Mauritius, Singapore, the Bahamas, Grenada, Australia, Zimbabwe, Botswana and Kenya. They have all dropped what they were doing and given me a week of their time in southern Africa to progress the work. I will call on a lot more people before I am finished. As the Commonwealth expands, as I believe it will continue to do because of its activities, it
      490
      becomes increasingly important to sustain that network, which is dependent on the ability to communicate with one another.
      I agree with the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) that the English language is vital. I recently visited Namibia and was delighted to find how much the English language has developed there. That means that it feels very much part of the Commonwealth. Mozambique is still weak in the English language and must be given all possible help to make its membership meaningful and relevant beyond the few. We must make certain that Cameroon is supported so that it, too, can become part of the family and can communicate without interpreters. Participation and direct conversation are important.
      We must all lend a hand to new countries as they are embraced by the Commonwealth. I liken that process to the laying on of hands when a bishop is enthroned. We should all come together when new members join to give them our common strength so that they realise the strength and power of the organisation that they have joined and prosper from it accordingly.
      4.47 pm
      Sir David Steel: It is a pleasure to follow the chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the hon. Member for Hereford (Sir C. Shepherd). I pay tribute to the work that he and his organisation do, which is of immense value around the world. I apologise to the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) who opened the debate. The debate came on early and I was trapped elsewhere on the premises, so I missed his speech. I congratulate him on the tone and constructive content of the Select Committee report. My party has no member on the Committee and so can claim no part in its authorship, but it is worth while.
      I agree that the Commonwealth should not define its role too narrowly. It should be willing to be a little more adventurous in dealing with some of the trouble spots among its members. When Her Majesty the Queen opened the Auckland conference last year, she neatly summed up our feelings when she said that she wanted the Commonwealth to be
      "a significant force for good in a troubled word"
      When we consider some of the problems in the Commonwealth—such as in Kashmir and Sri Lanka and the disputed elections in Zanzibar—we see that there is plenty of scope for that force for good to use its influence.
      Like others, I should like to refer to a number of developments in the Commonwealth. I agree with what the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said about the situation in Nigeria, which has been a difficult test for the Commonwealth. Senior world statesmen like Pierre Trudeau, Malcolm Fraser, Helmut Schmidt and Sir Shridath Ramphal have all been taking a much harder line than the present member Governments of the Commonwealth. My Liberal colleagues in Canada are anxious to introduce a trade embargo now, without waiting for further developments. Those factors remind us that the secretariat is, by definition, limited in its scope. The Commonwealth is not an association of Parliaments or nations; it is an association of Governments—that limits its role and function. We therefore have to be sympathetic to the secretariat all the time as it has to deal with its own members.

      491
      I echo the sentiments of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney and hope that the unit which is monitoring the progress, or lack of it, in Nigeria's return to true democracy, will be fierce in its activities. The trouble with unilateral trade sanctions, as have been taken by my friends in Canada, is that unless collective action is taken, one nation's trade embargo becomes another's business opportunity—that is a sad fact of life. I fear that the Government in Nigeria will simply laugh all the way to the next execution unless the Commonwealth takes concerted action in future to return Nigeria to the straight and narrow.
      There are perhaps less obvious derogations from the demands for good governance in recent activities in other countries. In Zambia, the constitution has been amended in an artificial manner to rule out the possibility of ex-President Kenneth Kaunda standing again in the elections. That sort of constitutional manipulation should be condemned by all true believers in the Commonwealth principles. From discussions that I have had with political parties in Ghana, that country appears to be heading to elections conducted by an election commission that is not truly independent of the Government.
      I agree with what the chairman of the CPA was saying; I think that our role in promoting democracy, which was highlighted in the report and the Government's reaction to the report, is perhaps the single most relevant issue for us to tackle. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney was one of the team in Bangladesh during the recent election. He will know that I was there just before the election as part of a team from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance—an excellent new international organisation. I only wish that Her Majesty's Government could find the pennies to join and support it instead of sitting on the sidelines. That team, which was there before the monitors arrived and before the election started, had a crucial role to play in ensuring that on two issues—I will not go into the details here—the election preparations were correct so that the monitors could survey the election process. So often in the past we have sent monitors to observe elections which are flawed before they start. In Bangladesh, that was avoided, partly thanks to the presence of the team from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
      Although I am glad that Her Majesty is head of the Commonwealth, we in Britain should be careful that we do not say to other potential democracies that the Westminster model is automatically the ideal one—that is not necessarily so. It was interesting to find that in Bangladesh the people have resolved their problems by what I believe to be a unique mechanism. They created an interim Government, during whose office an election was held, presided over by the former Chief Justice. That is not something that one finds in the canons of Westminster or in any other constitution-making processes in the Commonwealth, but it is something that Bangladesh has evolved for itself and that has so far worked—touch wood.
      Reference has been made to the disappearance of the Banda regime, with all its human rights atrocities, in Malawi. That was achieved through a procedure that was not particularly approved of, either here or by the Commonwealth. It was achieved through a referendum on
      492
      whether there should be multi-party democracy. We always believed that it was obvious that there should be, so we saw no reason for a referendum, but it provided the mechanism in the particular circumstances in Malawi; it was successful and got the Government off the hook. People voted in large numbers. It led to an election and to the victory of President Muluzi, whose first action was to shut the appalling prisons in which people such as Orton Chirwa had died— I commend the President for that.
      We should not be too high-minded and believe that we in this Chamber have all the solutions that we can export to other countries, which can devise their own solutions to resolve their difficulties. As others have said, the key is that countries should be seen to be moving in the right direction. As today's report shows, Gambia and Sierra Leone are perhaps moving in the right direction and—as the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said—Uganda obviously is, but they have not reached the standards of multi-party democracy that we would wish to see.
      As we are talking about countries moving in the right direction, I should like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that one of the Commonwealth countries with which we have the closest connections, Kenya, appears to be moving in the wrong direction. I visited Kenya with the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) a few months ago—indeed, I am a regular visitor to the country of my former residence. It is worrying that, after the elections in 1992, instead of progressing towards the development of multi-party democracy, Kenya has regressed.
      I agree with those who have said that we should be looking towards a series of standards by which we can judge whether countries are moving forwards or backwards. If we were to do so, there should be five criteria on which to judge whether or not a country is an acceptable democracy.
      The first criterion is whether the electoral commission is independent. It is self-evident that if the electoral commission is simply a body appointed by a Government and, as in Kenya, draws up constituencies to suit the convenience of the Government party, the election is flawed before it starts. The second principle involves the freedom of political parties and the rights of assembly. It is intolerable that, in Kenya, even Members of Parliament are required to have a licence before they can hold a public meeting. The third obvious standard for democracy is that the judiciary should be independent, which is not the case in Kenya. If the judiciary can be lent on, or can be appointed or dismissed at the Government's will, the last resort of appeal, which is essential in electoral matters, does not exist.
      The fourth, perhaps obvious, principle is the transparency and accountability of Government, without which corruption can thrive and, as in the case of Kenya's most recent election, public funds can be used to help fund the election campaign of the ruling party. Accountability and transparency are essential. The fifth criterion is the freedom of the press and freedom of access, particularly to the broadcasting media.
      If we establish criteria along those lines, which are pretty general and unspecific, we can measure whether people score five out of five, one out of five or, as in Kenya's case, nought out of five. What shall we do as the Kenyan elections approach—presumably they will be held next year? Do we say that it has a multi-party system with

      493
      a series of, admittedly, chaotic and divided opposition parties? Will Kenya go through the process of a multi-party election? Shall we send Commonwealth observers and other observers to an election which I believe is fatally flawed? I hope not: we must dig in our heels and warn well in advance that the country is not moving towards the sort of multi-party democracy that is acceptable by international standards, so it cannot expect a rubber-stamp endorsement or mechanisms to be brought into play to ensure that people are putting the right bits of paper in the right ballot boxes. I feel strongly about that subject, but I am sorry to have taken so much of the House's time on it.
      The Foreign Affairs Select Committee report rightly refers to the BBC World Service as the spearhead of policy and the Committee found the official approach to the World Service, and the British Council, frankly incredible. Since the report came out, we have heard about the proposed reorganisation of the BBC. I wish to express strong anxieties about the fact that the BBC overseas radio service will come under BBC radio generally, which in turn will come under television generally. The distinctive service from Bush house will simply be enveloped in the great bureaucracy of the BBC. That will be highly dangerous because the role and influence of the World Service will be diminished.
      Commonwealth countries account for more than 60 per cent. of the World Service's global audience. That is 89 million listeners. I shall give some examples of the audience size for foreign language broadcasts: for Hindi, the audience size is 20.4 million; for Urdu, 19.8 million; and for Hausa, 12.1 million. By countries, the audience penetration across the language barrier is also high: in Kenya, the audience is 38.3 per cent.; in Nigeria, 37.5 per cent.; and in Pakistan, 21.9 per cent. By any standards, the World Service is a powerful influence for good in the world and it is absurd that we allow new management arrangements in the BBC to threaten its independence and effectiveness. I hope that the Government will have something to say on the matter.
      We have not had a debate on Hong Kong for some time and it is a very important Commonwealth country. Hong Kong, as distinct from its larger neighbour, believes in the rule of law, the accountability of Government and the freedom from corruption of officials that so bedevils China. I wish to make a specific criticism of the Government. Earlier this year, the Chinese Government appointed the committee that will oversee the transition. We all knew that the Chinese Government were opposed to the democratic Legislative Council, but they left off that committee any member of the Democratic party, which was clearly the most successful party in the internal Hong Kong elections. Our Foreign Secretary, when asked about that, said that it was "a pity". A pity? It is an outrage that that was allowed to happen.
      We will not get anywhere with the mainland Government of China if we take such a weak stance towards them. The Government of China believe that they are being strong by behaving in that way. I take the opposite view because they are a weak Government, as demonstrated by their threats of censorship of the media and their unwillingness to recognise the democratic forces that have existed in the colony. If the Chinese Government really believe in the "one country, two systems" that they have signed up to, they should not be planning—as they are—to subjugate Hong Kong to the standards that exist in mainland China.
      494
      The Government should learn the lesson of the situation in Hong Kong. Only last week or the week before, the Chinese Government warned the Americans that if they did not "cool down"—to use the Chinese Government's phrase—on the whole trade and copyright issue, the Chinese might transfer more of their trade to Europe and away from America. That is an example of how we could all be picked off one by one. Whether we are dealing with Nigeria's internal problems or with China and Hong Kong, there is no substitute for a global stance and the Commonwealth has an important part to play in that.
      5.3 pm
      Sir Jim Lester: It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate because we are discussing something that we all care about, as has been shown by every speech so far. I remind my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) that, in preparing its report, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee was careful to avoid a conflict between our membership of the European Union and the value of the Commonwealth. Of course, it was a pleasure to work with my right hon. Friend, who adds so much to the wisdom of the Committee.
      I have been a member of the Select Committee for a long time and the report before us today is one of the most satisfying with which I have been involved. We tend to consider current problems—for example, the Bosnian situation—but we also take a long view and look to the future, which leads to our most fascinating and valuable work. I hope that this report will be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Sir C. Shepherd) suggested, a seminal report that will give all the member countries of the Commonwealth a chance to rethink their positions in it and how best we can develop it in the next century.
      We noticed on our travels that some countries have not thought about the future of the Commonwealth. They accept its existence, like a comfortable old slipper, but they have not thought what will happen if the situation changes. The fact that we provoked consideration of the Commonwealth's future was valuable in every country that we visited. Perhaps the most lukewarm response that I heard came from ex-Prime Minister Seaga of Jamaica, who analytically and coolly said that we could not invent the Commonwealth today, but that he was convinced from his experience as Prime Minister of Jamaica that we are better off with it than without it. That was the coolest expression of support for the Commonwealth; the rest were much more enthusiastic.
      One of the report's major suggestions is that, in our changing world, it would be valuable for trade Ministers to meet regularly. We recognise that most Commonwealth countries are in different trading regions and that we have the World Trade Organisation, but we felt that it would be advantageous for trade Ministers to meet, in the spirit of the Commonwealth, to discuss various problems and how to develop an intelligent global trading system. The Government's response to our report stated that the last meeting was in 1960, which was a long time before most of the trade organisations started. Perhaps we should organise an ad-hoc meeting of trade Ministers in Edinburgh in 1997 as a preliminary to a more permanent arrangement.
      The finance Ministers' meeting has been incredibly valuable. The new finance Minister in South Africa told me that I would not believe how reassuring he found it to

      495
      attend the meeting and receive immediate warmth and help from his colleagues. That gave him the confidence to take on his difficult role. The meeting of finance Ministers has been used to deal with the problem of debt relief, which is close to many of the hearts of hon. Members present in the Chamber. Debt relief will be one of the big issues to be considered at the Group of Seven meeting in Lyon this week, and we have constantly pressed for action on debt relief because of our experience in the Commonwealth. We raised the issue at least twice at the Commonwealth finance Ministers' meeting.
      As parliamentarians, we know the great value of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, but more than 200 other organisations include the word "Commonwealth" in their titles. For many reasons, including professional and technical commitment, people join across the Commonwealth and provide enormous help and assistance to each another. For example, there is a Commonwealth Dental Association, and the assistant to the Prime Minister of Jamaica was pleased to tell me that she is a member of the Commonwealth Planning Association. I suspect that most of us do not know about even a fraction of the organisations that exist and carry the Commonwealth forward. We should pay tribute to the people who, through thick and thin, retain a commitment to, and an interest in, the Commonwealth. I hope that they have been encouraged by the Committee's report.
      However, not everything is fine in the Commonwealth. I refer to concerns in relation to education. Many of the leaders of Commonwealth countries have been educated in the United Kingdom, and they value that education. The President of India told me that there are two sorts of people in the world: those who have been educated at Cambridge and those who have not. Obviously, he was educated at Cambridge; I am one of the ones who was not.
      Many Commonwealth leaders regret the fact that, partly because of the cost and partly because of the changing system, their children and grandchildren do not have that opportunity. Many people come to the United Kingdom for their education, providing us with one of our main sources of earnings. I believe that we must carefully consider the availability of education in Britain for the future leaders of Commonwealth countries, particularly for those of the poorer countries.
      Cultural colonisation is affecting the Commonwealth. The United States of America produces a tremendous number of television programmes and sells them cheaply throughout the world—its programmes are broadcast 24 hours a day. I have witnessed the effect that this has had on my children and on my grandchildren. It is not all harmful, but it orientates them in a different direction.
      People in the Caribbean have a diet of American television. Youngsters on the islands now play basketball and baseball instead of cricket. When I first visited the Caribbean, people played cricket on every corner with an old cabbage and a stick, and we have seen the results when they have played us in test matches.
      Younger people in the Commonwealth do not have an appreciation of it and do not understand it. We cannot blame them for that; they see very little about the Commonwealth. For example, the Commonwealth games—the friendly games—cannot be shown in the Caribbean because it is not broadcast by American
      496
      television and it is of no general interest to the American television audience. We have to be wary of this cultural colonisation; we must ensure a balance.
      The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) read out figures that show that 38.3 per cent. of Kenyans listen to the BBC World Service, which is a good counter to any control that the Kenyan Government might have on their domestic publications. Unfortunately, we do not assess the value of what we spend, in terms of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or of these important institutions. We must support organisations that maintain our cultural link.
      During the course of the Committee's careful research, we visited Africa—we visited all the regions of the Commonwealth. People in Africa have many ideas about the future of the Commonwealth. They are in the process of changing their economies and they trust any official or person who is sent to them by the Commonwealth to give them honest and cogent advice. They are, however, a little more wary of other multilateral organisations, which although they may have marvellous curriculum vitaes perhaps do not understand them quite so well and therefore do not know how to begin to help with such changes.
      The former Members of Parliament, clerks and others in Uganda feel deprived because their country is not currently a member of the CPA. We rightly did not let Uganda join because it did not fulfil the conditions. In Uganda, we had an open debate about the future of the Commonwealth, about Uganda's desire to rejoin the Commonwealth and about the support on which it relies from the Commonwealth.
      A number of hon. Members have referred to South Africa. One of the most moving things that we saw in Soweto was a Commonwealth police team—not just a British team—training new recruits to the community police. The team comprised a female police inspector from India, people from Zimbabwe and British police men. They were working together to help to change the military police—with military ranks—to community police. The population realised that straight away. When they were brought into a police station, they would say, "Can that lady over there in the light blue uniform deal with me, rather than the people in the other uniform? I know that she is one of the new community police".
      In one sense, South Africa has been the source of the problems of the Commonwealth. During the height of the difficulties, I remember us debating the issue and saying that the Commonwealth represented so much more than just the problems of South Africa—that there were so many links to the Commonwealth. Happily, we have got over that issue. South Africa has reaped a harvest of assistance from other Commonwealth countries in facing up to its problems. One recognises the value of the Commonwealth, and its value to its members.
      I believe that the Government's response to the Committee's report, which I have not had time to analyse in detail, is not the last word but the first step in the continuing dialogue between the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, the House and the Government to ensure that we recognise the value of the Commonwealth and that we give it the resources that it needs to do the job adequately. I hope that once we have had a chance to read the carefully crafted words of the Government we will be able to have another debate.

      497
      I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who led the Committee so well, that this is a valuable report. I suspect that it will be talked about and used for a long time to come.
      5.17 pm
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee is very good. I am not a member of the Committee. I have been struck by the vigour of the ideas and by the thoughtful work of the Committee, on which I congratulate its members. The report will refocus the attitude of Parliament, and a lot of other Parliaments, on the real role of the Commonwealth. I shall not reiterate the important points that hon. Members have already made because we all agree with them.
      I shall, however, highlight some of the matters that I think are essential. On several occasions, I have been chosen by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to monitor election procedures, such as in Malawi, or to take part in seminars on parliamentary procedure, such as in Kenya. Hon. Members do not realise the tremendous work that the CPA does at every level—week in week out, day in day out. With astonishingly little money, it produces fantastically good results.
      For example, in Malawi I saw how an enormous sum provided by the United Nations was not producing the same efficiency or response as the work of the multinational CPA team, which comprised parliamentarians able to deal with the day-to-day problems of the elections and to respond to the real needs of local people, who had not had an election for many years. Local people desperately needed to know that they were doing the right things. The Commonwealth Secretariat proved what could be done by people who know what they are doing and who are determined to provide constructive assistance. If we handed the monitoring of elections in Commonwealth countries to the Commonwealth Secretariat and gave it a proper budget and the right back-up in terms of people and facilities we could solve many of the problems in states that desperately want to return to a democratic system of government. The Foreign Office should take that issue on board, as it is not addressing it at present.
      Hon. Members who have spoken have been so polite that I hesitate to be my normal self, but I believe that the Foreign Office is frightfully mealy mouthed about the Commonwealth. It says, "Yes, we think it is a good idea", but it is so preoccupied with supinely following the European institutions that it does not put enough money or energy into supporting the Commonwealth. I am particularly concerned about the movement of British diplomats from sub-Saharan Africa. Those officers perform an enormously important function and provide specialist knowledge and support. Britain should not take two or three steps back simply because of the emergence of the new South Africa and because of the changing roles in the region and say, "Someone else can fulfil our role". That approach is not only wrong but wrong headed.
      For example, when I returned from a visit to Lesotho I sought a meeting with Baroness Chalker. I was concerned that the movement of Foreign Office officials around sub-Saharan Africa was apparently producing different emphases within the existing approach. I was worried too about the growth—the excrescence—in the number of
      498
      large European Community embassies in African countries, which appears to cut across the Commonwealth's role. One does not want to be paranoid, but one begins to wonder what is going on when one is confronted with large buildings staffed with European officials who operate on budgets that are three or four times larger than the budget of the British in those areas and who appear to be doing their own thing without consultation.
      Baroness Chalker accepted that my concerns were perfectly legitimate and she undertook to consult about whether there was proper co-operation between the European Community and the British and the staff on the ground. She responded to my concerns in a letter to which I referred when I rather rudely interrupted my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). She said, in effect, "Don't worry about it. Everything is all right. They are all frightfully polite to us in the EC. Anyway, when we move people from our commission offices we send someone to the EC establishments to act as an adviser and that makes it all right". That is a load of nonsense.
      The Commonwealth promotes relationships among equals. That is what pleases me enormously about the Commonwealth: we no longer talk in a passé manner about how we can hand on our best British traditions. The Commonwealth is creating its own traditions within the framework of a democratic system that originated here and which we had the privilege and the ability to develop in fits and starts over many hundreds of years. The Commonwealth is using that framework to create democratic systems that contribute to development and stability in countries not only in Africa but throughout the world. That is very precious: we should be proud of our place in the scheme of things.
      The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is not the only organisation that performs noble work. It does a fantastic job and I pay tribute to the tiny number of staff who work flat out and perform important tasks every day of the week. I pay tribute to other organisations within the Westminster system that we do not always think about. The Clerks have their own association and they constantly exchange information and develop relationships that are important to emerging Parliaments, which seek contact not only with elected representatives but with those who can provide independent advice. The Speaker and her deputies play an important role in exchanging information with other Speakers and presiding officers from Commonwealth Parliaments. The exchange of support and experience is essential.
      I hope that those functions will be valued more in the future. It is not simply a matter of coming to the Chamber and saying, "Oh yes, we think it is a very good idea". We must put some money, effort and, above all, some muscle into it. We should say, "We have a chance for a new start—let's get on and do something positive for a change". The report highlights some positive ways forward and, in that sense, it is very encouraging.
      Against that, one must set the Government's attitude to the BBC World Service and the British Council. The Government seem to regard the British Council simply as an organisation that makes money out of teaching English. The teaching of English is a tremendously important task, but it serves the equally important function of giving people access to books and papers and to a different culture. It seems strange to talk about our daily

      499
      newspapers in the context of British culture, but we do have brilliant writers and artists and we should make our culture accessible.
      I have seen medical students and doctors in Commonwealth countries rushing to read the British Medical Journal and The Lancet with an energy and a commitment that is not always evident among British doctors. We have much to contribute at every level and in every profession and we should value that role.
      I am deeply concerned about what is happening to the BBC World Service—it would be quite wrong not to raise that issue. The World Service does not simply broadcast news and current affairs around the world, although it performs that role very well, but holds competitions for playwrights, such as the one run by the African service that produced some remarkable writing from new African playwrights. We should build on those achievements and not allow them to die. The BBC World Service produces many special and individual programmes that will be lost to listeners if decisions about its future are made by the large British domestic administration.
      I am second to none in my admiration for the BBC, but the domestic BBC plays a different role from the BBC World Service. If it is left to a strange commissioning process within the BBC, we shall lose the quality programming that makes the World Service unique. It is no accident that many people in Britain prefer to listen to the BBC World Service—although it is not targeted at that audience—because of the quality and the breadth of its programmes. The BBC World Service realises that there is a world beyond the tabloids, and its journalists and reporters are prepared to write and to broadcast programmes that are so fundamental that I am horrified at any suggestion that the reorganisation will change the way in which the service operates. That could only damage the service. I hope that an incoming Government will change that state of affairs quickly by applying considerable pressure to the governors and the administration of the BBC.
      In one of her more enlightened moods, Madam Speaker asked me to take over her responsibility for a little organisation called the Commonwealth Countries League. It is a tiny charity that uses all its money to support, throughout the Commonwealth, girls who need help to go to secondary school or even university. Some of the stories about the children involved are very moving.
      There was, for instance, a case of identical twins whose parents could not afford to send both of them to school, so they were having to take turns—one week on, one week off—going to school. We were asked for a tiny sum to give them the chance of an education. The league consists of a small group of dedicated women who, entirely by their own efforts and by running a huge fair once a year, support many girls in this way throughout the Commonwealth. Of course it is just a tiny drop in the ocean of education problems facing sub-Saharan Africa— I do not want to mislead the House about that—but the vital work goes on because of the commitment of these women. They come in every colour, shape and hip measurement, and they are of varying educational backgrounds; but they come together to do their best to raise cash for girls throughout the Commonwealth—a practical demonstration of what the Commonwealth is all about.
      500
      The Commonwealth is an equal partnership of people who do not necessarily share a religious or domestic background or even the same political ideas. Still, they believe that this strange gossamer-like organisation, which has grown out of an imperial past into a strong and worthy body, needs our support, now and for the future. They look to every elected Member of this House to understand the importance of the organisation and to commit themselves to it from now on.
      5.31 pm
      Mr. Mark Robinson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and his colleagues on the Select Committee on producing the most positive report on the Commonwealth to have emanated from Government and parliamentary sources in a very long time.
      I must declare an interest of a sort: I worked for the Commonwealth Secretariat for six years and had the privilege of serving as a member of the board of the Commonwealth Development Corporation for four. I have experienced the contrast between the Commonwealth and the United Nations, whose secretariat I have also worked for. There is a great difference between the large bureaucracy of the United Nations and the tiny secretariat that supports the Commonwealth. Ministers go to the United Nations and talk at the assembled company; they deliver their speeches, attend a dinner and then go away. But when Ministers go to Commonwealth meetings and Members of Parliament come to CPA meetings, they talk to each other. I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester), who talked about the importance of ad hoc meetings. I know of one clear example of their importance.
      I was privileged to service the Foreign Ministers' ad hoc committee that considered Belize. It met in New York while the UN General Assembly was in session and it played a key role in bringing Belize through the process of independence, against the background of a hostile neighbour state which was threatening Belize but which was eventually prevailed on to allow its independence to take place. Peer pressure from within the region was the cause.
      A great deal can be achieved in small, informal meetings. I have sat in on three Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings, with the task of helping to formulate the resulting communiqués. I noticed that new Heads of Government often arrive with cynical views of the Commonwealth. I think in particular of one Head of Government who went on to be a distinguished chairman of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Malaysia—a complete convert to the Commonwealth family.
      The reason for this is simple: it is that, at these meetings, Heads of Government talk to each other. The meetings are held in private rooms where politicians' utterances are not being recorded for the press or the outside world, so they can speak freely. When historians come to look at the Commonwealth, as they so often do, it will be seen that an outstanding example of its role and work was the transition to an independent Zimbabwe. There may be differences of opinion about what happened, but it is certain that without the Lusaka agreement—between the Heads of Government who were meeting in Lusaka—there would

      501
      have been no Lancaster House conference. It was because Baroness Thatcher, President Kaunda and the leaders of the Commonwealth were able to sit down together to achieve progress that agreement was reached.
      What is more, the process snowballed. Namibia's independence, although a UN exercise, was another link in the process and the Commonwealth played an important role in it. The same applied to the process of South Africa's independence. I have not forgotten the surprise expressed by the current Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, at his reception by President de Klerk on his first visit. He had been warned that the Commonwealth was not popular in South Africa and that his meeting was likely to be short and terse. It proved not to be. They talked for a long time and held a second meeting which helped to break the ice and change the attitude of the then South African Government to the Commonwealth. That in turn was important to the process of transition that followed.
      The British Government in their dealings with what some call the new Commonwealth have not always in the past acted as initiators, because of a view that the process of decolonisation was still under way and that it might not be a good idea for Britain to be seen as the dominating partner in the Commonwealth. Times have now changed, however, and there is plenty of scope for Britain to take the initiative in the Commonwealth family. That is one of the key messages of the Select Committee's report.
      We should note how the attitude of many Commonwealth member countries to economic policy has changed. No longer do we hear the language of state socialism; no longer is the parastatal concept dominant. Instead, the private sector is now at the heart of these economies, with an important role to play. That is why the Commonwealth private investment initiative is likely to be so significant. I hope that we will offer it strong backing, just as I hope that the CDC will be allowed an expanded role in helping the emerging economies of many Commonwealth states to link up with global business.
      I have visited some of the CDC's projects and seen the success of its equity participation in many of them. I have also seen the enthusiasm of the local investors. If we put our minds to it, we and the other more developed member countries can build on that success.
      As has been emphasised in the debate, we have a common language. Nor should we underestimate our common systems. We have a common system of government. Bureaucracies operate in different ways but they have come from the same antecedent. A host of Commonwealth organisations, some governmental and many non-governmental, meet in a variety of expert fields which service themselves with only tiny amounts of money. That produces an enormously strong interchange of ideas.
      That has great value in diplomacy. That was one of the earliest lessons that I learnt as a junior official at the United Nations. When I worked in the Secretary General's office I had to get to know ambassadors at the highest level. The quickest way to get on first name terms with a Commonwealth ambassador was the link of education. It may be obvious, but from the moment that it was established that one had gone to Middle Temple and the other to Gray's Inn, both are friends. That happened at ministerial level too, whether it was two Ministers who
      502
      had gone to the London School of Economics or shared the same university. It was a bond to be struck immediately through which business could be effectively transacted and agreement reached.
      We must not neglect in our diplomacy the importance of such links in helping to break down barriers in negotiations such as those on the general agreement on tariffs and trade because we span so many regional organisations. In the Commonwealth we do not attempt to dictate, but to converse; we attempt to discover what mechanisms might lead to the removal of blockages to a successful negotiation.
      Yesterday I listened to a brilliant and wonderful speech by His Royal Highness Prince Hassan El Bin Talal, the Crown Prince of Jordan. He does not represent a Commonwealth country, but he was saying things that were pertinent and relevant to what we have been talking about this afternoon. He spoke about the cultural and religious differences in the world which come out of great historic tradition. The only chance that we have of defeating the extremists is by understanding each other. In those great religious and cultural traditions, there is a strong centre of moderation and common sense. I mention that because the Commonwealth crosses religious divides, just as it crosses cultural divides, which is enormously important to its members' ability to understand one another.
      Britain needs to make better use of this wonderful asset that it has at its disposal. We have that opportunity when it comes to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh in 1999. We have heard how small is the budget of the Commonwealth Secretariat, as is the budget of the Commonwealth. But within the Commonwealth family, small amounts of money go a long way, provided that they support sensible and constructive initiatives that are free from the burgeoning bureaucracy that we see so often in the large family of UN specialised agencies.
      The finance initiative to which I have referred is just one example of what could be achieved, but there have been many initiatives in health, education, trade and industry. We need to pick up those opportunities and develop them at Edinburgh. I am sure that we shall be able to do so in a constructive manner. In doing so, we shall win and continue to win the good will of our Commonwealth partners, who are so important to the success of our diplomacy across the globe.
      5.44 pm
      Mr. Ted Rowlands: The Select Committee's inquiry changed my perception of the Commonwealth, not because I do not have any Commonwealth connections—I do. For the greater part of 30 years I have had connections of one kind or another with Caribbean or African political contacts and colleagues. As the hon. Member for Hereford (Sir C. Shepherd) said, I was a governor of the Commonwealth Institute, and I underline and reiterate what he said. It would be an act of vandalism if the Commonwealth Institute closed. That would send a catastrophic signal, so I hope that common sense will prevail.
      In some ways, despite all those contacts, I had become part of the defensive mentality about the Commonwealth. Speaking about the Commonwealth made one feel old, as if it was no longer relevant to the current generation of young people either within Britain or the Commonwealth.

      503
      As our Chairman expressed so forcefully with regard to economic and commercial matters, as we went around I was struck by the enormous potential of the Commonwealth network. We had not appreciated how much more political, economic, commercial, cultural and social traffic it could take.
      The energies that we have consumed in trying to resolve our relationship with the EU have in some respects diverted our attention from the wider role that Britain can and should play, certainly in the Commonwealth. The C in FCO—the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—has been very much a Cinderella in recent years. I hope that the Committee's report will mean that some of those in the Department will attach greater importance to our relationships with and the potential of the Commonwealth.
      The most stunning and vivid part of our inquiry was our visit to the Indian sub-continent, where I had never been before, and, in particular, to Bangladesh. I had a completely false image of a country in total destitution. But I was astonished by the vibrancy and energy of the emerging early modern capitalism that is evident on the river banks in Dhaka which will lead to considerable economic and commercial development in the Indian sub-continent.
      I felt that I was witnessing, in a completely different environment, the emerging capitalism of my constituency 150 years ago. We talk a lot about the development of democratic political institutions. There is another reason why it is extremely important that political and economic democratic institutions should take root in many of the emerging Commonwealth countries. Democratic political representation has been the means by which capitalism has been civilised. The past 150 years in my constituency have seen the process by which electorates grow in franchise, grow in political pressure, as expressed through political representation, and have progressively tried to civilise capitalism.
      If there is to be, as everyone now preaches, a free market, and a capitalistic view of the development of Africa and Asia—I support entirely the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which plays an important role—there will also be huge inequalities. The lack of development in so many parts of Africa and Asia at the moment could be transformed into considerable economic and commercial growth, but with huge divisions in their societies as a result of the inequalities that go with such a system. The countervailing force to check that unbridled capitalism will be the development of political and democratic institutions. That is the function that political representation has played in the development of the full-blooded democratic system in this country in the past 150 years. It will have to play that role in the emerging countries of the Commonwealth if the economic growth that is promoted by free-market ideas and private investment occurs. Political institutional development will be an important factor alongside any economic development that might be created by know-how funds and the valuable role that the CDC and others will play in growing economies within the Commonwealth.
      I now come to the chapter in our report that deals with the cultural diplomacy of the Commonwealth. We forget—perhaps because we have taken it for granted for
      504
      far too long—the fantastic appetite of the young generation in the third world, but particularly the Commonwealth, for education. Anyone who spends just half an hour in the British Council library will see queues of young people—and not so young people—waiting to use the facilities, the telephone calls that pour in for language lessons, and the demand to take exams. I was told by my parents, in Treorchy, in the Rhondda—I could not have been long out of the womb—to do my homework, because that was the way to get out of the pile and to progress. We can find that fantastic instinct everywhere, but particularly in the Indian sub-continent. It is through the English language and British institutions that new generations of young people seek their salvation and their emancipation.
      Education is an act of emancipation. It strikes me as appalling that we are, in 1996, a rich and powerful country, yet we are cheese paring on such things as Commonwealth scholarships, the British Council's budget and the BBC World Service. Perhaps in the usual convoluted discussions of the Public Expenditure Survey Committee those cuts can be justified, but I ask the Minister to take the message to Ministers, particularly his Treasury colleagues, that the cumulative effect of those cuts is that people feel that we do not care. I understand that Ministers care—Baroness Chalker has a tremendous track record on this, so it would be wrong to make such an allegation—but the cumulative effect of individual decisions made in a PESC round, perhaps to give a tax cut here or offer some alternative there, impact on emerging countries, whose younger generation look to Britain to provide and service their educational emancipation.
      The hon. Member for Somerset and Frome (Mr. Robinson) spoke about the political chemistry that occurs as a result of educational contact, because of a common language and shared values. That was certainly true in the years that I spent in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, when I dealt mainly with Commonwealth countries.
      There is much cross-party support on this issue. I make a plea to the Government to think again about the cumulative impact that the various cuts and changes have on our relationships with people as well as Governments. The cuts are damaging the whole concept. I hope that, if nothing else, our report has shown us all that the Commonwealth is not some nice, sentimental, ancient concept, but that it has a future and that it can go into the 21st century, as long as the British Government, British people and British Members of Parliament support it in the practical and sensible ways that we suggest in our report.
      5.55 pm
      Mr. William Cash: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and other hon. Members, on both sides of the House, who have spoken. I was sitting in my office in Millbank when I saw the debate on the monitor, and I felt very strongly that I wanted to be here to participate rather than just observing it at a distance by satellite.
      One thing that is characteristic of the debate and the people who participate in it is the deep sense of commitment to something which, as the report shows, is of immense importance, not only in terms of our history but in terms of the future of the emerging world and

      505
      global markets. It binds together hon. Members in a way that other things do not. I believe very strongly that the report should be read by as many people as possible. I pay tribute to the Minister, and, indeed, to Baroness Chalker, for the tremendous work that they have done in relation to the Commonwealth. It is fair to say that the latter has dedicated the greater part of her political career to an interest in those matters.
      I also pay tribute, although he is not here at the moment, to the Chairman of the Select Committee, who has produced a highly original report. Every member of the Committee deserves congratulations on having gone straight to the heart of an enormously important question about the future of so many different countries, which have cultural, political and language ties, and with an enormous commitment to those who can teach us a great deal but who at the same time frequently need our help.
      I listened this morning to a report about the problems of the increasing desertification of Africa. There is a massive ecological problem there, and people are bound to starve on a massive scale unless others who are in a position to help them get together and do something about it. It is those thoughts and the broader—if I dare use the words— moral objective that lie at the heart of my interest in a reduction of debt.
      As some hon. Members will be aware, there is a motion on the Order Paper in my name with more than 300 signatures, seeking the reduction of debt, which is a terrible burden, and much of it was accumulated not through any fault on the part of the countries concerned, but primarily because the change in the nature of government in some cases led to massive civil war. I am thinking in particular of Uganda, which, as many hon. Members have said, has gone through that period of transformation in a highly satisfactory direction and yet had such accumulated problems that, were it not for the President who has just been elected, it simply would not have been able to achieve what it has achieved.
      When we think about the civil wars that are conducted on the Floor of the House and in other contexts, we should bear in mind the fact that President Museveni went into the bush to defeat a dictator who was in charge of a regime that committed appalling atrocities—with, I believe, 26 men and 26 rifles. He went into the Lowero triangle, and managed to turn his country around. We have always associated such political heroism with our own country, but it can be seen elsewhere.
      We should pay attention to the concluding observations in chapter X of the report:
      "We have heard … in our inquiry, and we do not tire of repeating … that Britain's Commonwealth connections, and the integration in a global network of communications and friendships which go with them, are the envy of our trading competitors. Surprise is expressed that this country has not utilised them to greater advantage."
      A number of hon. Members referred to the personal relationships, and to the bond that exists. In my final remarks, let me try to demonstrate my commitment to the enterprise. We are talking about our future, and the future of other Commonwealth countries. We are talking about a major factor in the development of the global networks—not just about trading opportunities, or whether we should insist on improvements in human rights in return for trading advantage. There is an enormous opportunity for this country to participate in a growing and vibrant network, which I believe we should continue to stimulate and encourage.
      506
      I congratulate the Select Committee on its report, and, in anticipation of my right hon. Friend the Minister's speech, urge the Government to continue their good work. I also congratulate the Commonwealth itself on the way in which it has developed over the past 20-odd years.
      6.2 pm
      Mr. Donald Anderson: I join the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) in paying tribute to the Chairman and distinguished members of the Select Committee, who have produced an excellent report. I have spoken to a number of old Commonwealth hands, who have been as one in praising it and expressing the hope that it will focus public opinion on the opportunities that exist, challenging people not only in this country but throughout the Commonwealth.
      The report is timely. As the New Zealand Prime Minister, Jim Bolger, observed in the most recent issue of The Parliamentarian, the Commonwealth has reached a turning point. At the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting at Auckland in November, key decisions were made on how best to implement the proposals presented to that meeting, and points were made about the criteria for membership. I believe that the ghosts of the Commonwealth past have largely been exorcised. Those of us who began our political careers in the 1950s and 1960s remember debates about decolonisation that tended to cloud our more objective view of the Commonwealth. Some of those debates, such as the one about Rhodesia, continued; then, in the 1960s, the question of European Community entry supervened. During that debate, the Commonwealth was paraded by some as an alternative to what I consider to be our natural trading region. The Select Committee and its Chairman, however, have made good points about the new challenges that are presented in the global trading and communications system, in which the old distances have become less relevant.
      In the late 1970s and the 1980s, debates on the Commonwealth were soured by the situation in South Africa, making objective discussion in parliamentary and international forums much more difficult. It is instructive to observe how far we have come in terms of attitude to the Commonwealth. Ten years ago, at the beginning of August 1986, a special Commonwealth conference on South Africa was held at Marlborough house. Venomous remarks were made by Members of Parliament, British newspapers and, dare I say, senior sources in the Government. I have looked through the newspapers of the time; one Member of Parliament was quoted as saying:
      "the Commonwealth only costs us money; we give them aid; they kick us in the teeth and send their drop-outs to stay here."
      One Member, Anthony Beaumont-Dark, called the Australian Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, a "ranting hypocrite", and there were some pretty horrendous briefings from Downing street. I was in the corridors of Marlborough house at the time.
      There were editorials on the theme, "Do we really want the Commonwealth? Is the old club falling apart?" That was only 10 years ago, but we have travelled a long way since then—largely because South Africa, which constituted the obstacle or blocking mechanism, is no longer a symbol of offence. It has become a symbol of opportunity, providing a model for what the Commonwealth can do, and is doing, for its many members.

      507
      Like many hon. Members, I was fortunate enough to be in South Africa in April 1994, at the time of the election. It is, perhaps, the most blissful memory of my political life so far. I saw people queuing to vote, the black servant standing alongside the white employer, and felt joy that the votes of both were of the same value. We now look forward to welcoming President Mandela next month, in Westminster Hall: we are well aware of the significance of that. It could all have been very different had South Africa not had a leader of such towering historical significance and humanity—who was, of course, helped by the Commonwealth network. Sometimes it failed, as was the case with the Eminent Persons Group in 1986, but the Commonwealth Secretary-General, Emeka Anyaoku, played a quiet but effective role behind the scenes.
      The Government who played such a destructive role in the mid-1980s now act effectively as an advocate for South Africa. In March this year, they pressed our European Union partners to agree to a scheme enabling the Commission to discuss a free trade area with South Africa. The role that we can play in our own regional grouping as advocate for the Commonwealth in respect of South Africa and the West Indian island banana trade can be replicated by other Commonwealth countries in their own regions—for instance, by Canada in the north American arrangement, and by Malaysia and the south-east Asian nations in theirs. Thus our role in respect of South Africa sets a precedent. I hope that Singapore and Malaysia can use their trading clout and commercial expertise across the regions to help a number of African Commonwealth countries.
      South Africa is also involved in our United Kingdom aid programme, not only through our contribution to improving the efficiency of the public service and the police, but through our helping to integrate the armed services—the old MK and the old South African Defence Force. South Africa is now normalised and the Commonwealth can go forward without the hang-ups and the souring effect that South Africa caused in the past.
      As the Foreign Affairs Committee well shows, the Commonwealth can provide for all its members an important instrument of foreign policy—networking within the family across a range of problems. That raises the question of the qualifications for membership. The issue was addressed at the CHOGM in Auckland, when Cameroon was admitted to the Commonwealth. Cameroon has had a colonial relationship with the United Kingdom, but Mozambique, which has a different language and no colonial relationship with the United Kingdom, was also admitted. Now Rwanda is knocking at the door.
      How does one have a creative relationship with countries at the edge, especially when there is a danger of a turf war with the French-speaking countries? One thinks of Angola, Rwanda and, possibly, Burundi in that context. If there is a Commonwealth, there is a non-Commonwealth. What are the links that are sufficient to bring members together? I know that that question is now being looked at in detail as a result of the decisions made in Auckland.
      The key point is that the Commonwealth is a dynamic organisation. We find that, rather than the Commonwealth losing members, countries can see the advantage for them
      508
      in being a member. All the Southern African Development Community countries, with the exception of Angola, are members of the Commonwealth. Mauritius, situated off the coast of Africa, is another Commonwealth member; that very successful country has joined SADC recently.
      Co-operation on democracy is vital, as has properly been said. The Auckland conference was a turning point as it showed that there was a determination to build on the Harare declaration on human rights of 1991 and to strengthen the means by which the Commonwealth could signal its disapproval of human rights violations.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who is a doughty fighter on behalf of Commonwealth interests, made a point about the Commonwealth's monitoring of elections. We must look carefully at the respective roles of the Commonwealth Secretariat and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, whose tie I and the hon. Member for Hereford (Sir C. Shepherd) proudly wear. There is a danger that the Commonwealth Secretariat, which represents Governments, will be constrained in commenting on whether an election is proper, although it will have a key technical role in providing assistance before elections. I have seen at first hand the way in which it helped to mould and therefore to legitimise the elections held some years ago in Guyana, but there must come a point at which, rather than be part of an election process that is clearly a charade, the Commonwealth must withdraw.
      A few years ago, I was about to go, on behalf of the Carter Foundation, to monitor an election in a west African country. The foundation took the key decision that it would devalue its own legitimacy in terms of election monitoring if it participated in that election. I was personally pleased that, at the last minute, the foundation said that it was cancelling the visit. I hope that the Commonwealth will be equally robust in recognising that it must preserve its credibility in such cases and that the secretariat and Governments, when saying, '"Yes, we will provide technical assistance," will realise that pronouncing on elections is best done by parliamentarians. The dividing line between the role of the secretariat and the role of parliamentarians must be clearly defined.
      In its bipartisan report, the Committee comments that our Government are not sufficiently committed to the Commonwealth. Examples can be given, such as the rather limp memorandum that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office first delivered to the Committee. Other examples have been given by colleagues, such as the Commonwealth Institute and the World Service. Colleagues have pointed to the fact that the operating budget of the World Service for the years 1997–98 has, in real terms, been cut by £8 million. That is part of the cheese-paring to which my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) referred.
      There are other problems. I personally am irritated by the fact that the Commonwealth has not addressed problems such as the security interests of smaller nations. When the Maldives were attacked in the mid-1980s, for example, books were written and conferences held. Such matters have now fallen entirely outside the frame. We need to look together at the way in which the Commonwealth can co-operate to protect smaller nations.
      We have a new Commonwealth from which, as I said, the old ghosts have been exorcised; the old hang-ups have gone. We can now look forward with confidence.

      509
      I entirely follow what has been said in the report about the importance attached to meetings of Finance Ministers, and I hope that similar meetings of Trade Ministers can be held. I hope that the Government are already preparing for the Edinburgh CHOGM next year.
      I believe that we shall have another Government by that time—a Government who not only are more committed to the human rights role of the Commonwealth, but who will look at ways in which trade relationships can be enhanced. We have a new era in the Commonwealth with new possibilities, away from some of the illusions of the past. I believe that although the Government can be criticised for the uncertain signals—indeed, contradictory signals—that they have given in the past, they should prepare for the meeting at Edinburgh next year, to ensure and enhance the potential of the Commonwealth in the new circumstances.
      6.17 pm
      Ms Glenda Jackson: I admit to a sense almost of despair about some aspects of the debate. Some hon. Members seemed to argue that the reason for supporting the Commonwealth and for ending the cheese-paring, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) called it, in the organs that are so necessary in strengthening ties and links in the Commonwealth, was exclusively this nation's self-interest. They presented the Commonwealth as possibly yet another major market for this country and as an avenue for greater investment by this country in the other nation states of the Commonwealth.
      I am prepared to accept the argument of economic self-interest as long as we realise that, in our concern to retain those strong economic ties, we must not turn a blind eye to the exploitation of child labour or endorse the use in certain African countries of fertilisers and pesticides that are banned here and elsewhere and have the most appalling effects on the workers who spray those substances on their fields. I am prepared to accept the economic argument as long as we do not close our eyes to the total lack of trade union rights in certain parts of the Commonwealth and the murder of trade union activists in other Commonwealth countries.
      I was not happy to hear the Commonwealth presented yet again as a club. In my view, the essence of the Commonwealth and the reason why the Government should increase financing to contributing organs based in Britain, which disseminate information throughout the Commonwealth, is that it has the potential to be a perfect model of the future of the world. It can be the means by which independent nation states, regardless of colour, creed, religion and tradition, can acknowledge the simple humanity that all individuals share, through a shared history that has been by no means essentially calm. Some nations have survived terrible tragedies, and they have managed to overcome their difficulties, to forge a concept of a world in which all peoples can live together in harmony and develop their economies—but not at the expense of other nation states. That seems to me the central reason for supporting the Commonwealth and its real value in a world that is continually restructuring itself—not the exclusive one of economic self-interest for Britain, or even for the developing nation states within the Commonwealth.
      I also found it interesting, if slightly depressing, to hear criticism of certain countries within the Commonwealth. There was also undoubtedly criticism from hon. Members
      510
      on both sides of the House of the British Government. On a recent visit to New Zealand. strong criticism was expressed to me of the failure of this Commonwealth country to speak out in support of another Commonwealth country against atomic testing by a nation state that is not part of the Commonwealth.
      I support the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) in that we should not presuppose that we are the exclusive arbiters of what constitutes the best form of democratic government. Although we expect all member states of the Commonwealth to be committed to democratic government, how individual member states reach that goal is particularly fascinating. They have to find their own ways to democracy and freedom.
      All hon. Members thoroughly support and endorse the essential requirement that all Commonwealth states be committed to human rights. I have had reason to raise in the Chamber the absolutely appalling actions of Nigeria and its abuse of human rights as they impacted quite directly and specifically on one 13-year-old boy who lives in my constituency.
      I still find it incomprehensible that the Commonwealth, working in common with the rest of the world, has not found some means to impose sanctions on Nigeria. I take on board the argument that, without unity of purpose and a world agreement to impose sanctions on Nigeria, they would not work. I refer to economic sanctions, but the ability to work with other power blocs and nation states within the United Nations should be an integral part of the Commonwealth. It should be able to bring home to Nigeria the unacceptable nature of its present regime, not only because of the appalling suffering of millions of Nigerians under that illegal, cruel and intemperate regime, but because it will be harder for other Commonwealth countries that are attempting to craft their own way towards democracy to take the necessary—and sometimes risky— steps and leap into the dark if the richest and most populous country in Africa is allowed to get away with such appalling actions. I hope that the Commonwealth will not neglect that issue. It cannot be ignored, as it impacts upon the entire Commonwealth when one state so blatantly ignores calls for the most basic human rights.
      Hon. Members on both sides of the House have stressed the importance of education and the enormous gift that Britain was able to give in stimulating a desire for education. One such example is a constituent of mine. He is from Kenya, but has dual nationality. He came to Britain having obtained a place at university and was somewhat shocked to discover that he was not expected to pay in-country fees, but was charged tuition fees as if he and his family had no association with Britain and he was a foreigner. As he had considered himself to be a citizen of the Commonwealth, he found that not only shocking, but extremely disappointing.
      I hope that the Government will take that on board and accept that, although it is a long time since Commonwealth countries regarded themselves as colonial countries, Britain still treasures education, human rights and a democratic system of government, and is prepared to commit itself to defending those principles and ensuring that all peoples throughout the world should eventually benefit from them. When Commonwealth citizens discover that Britain does not keep true to those ideals, they feel disappointed and almost betrayed.

      511
      Mention has been made of the importance of the World Service, and I cannot underline that too strongly. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester) gave the House some incredible figures. Millions, if not billions, of people around the world listen to the World Service. It must be the cheapest Internet that the world has ever known.
      Individuals in emerging countries do not always have access to electricity, to tap into the vast network that we are told information technology is making available to the whole world. It is not available to all the world, but radio is available to individuals or to a group of people listening to one tiny transistor radio. It would be a disaster if the extraordinary service that the World Service has provided over so many years were subsumed into a rationale or reconsideration of what broadcasting is about, with radio not being as important as television and the Commonwealth not being able to hold a candle to Europe and America. The loss of the World Service would be grievous.
      It would be wrong, too, to believe that the British Council is essential only to teach the English language. It has taught for many years, and its teaching is valued in ways that are impossible not only to define but certainly to put a value on. The British Council provides a two-way street. Often, it stimulates in Commonwealth and other countries what is then creatively returned to us.
      I am grateful for this opportunity to enter the debate. I value the concept of the Commonwealth. I believe that the majority of hon. Members value the concept too, and anything which we can do and which the Government can be urged to do to underline that value to the people of this country and, indeed, the rest of the world, is to be treasured.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: My congratulations go to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), as they do to other members of the Committee. All reports that are debated in Parliament receive the usual platitudes, but this report is important and of very high quality.
      In recent years, the Government have undervalued the role and importance of the Commonwealth. My party has a long association with the Commonwealth. At the end of the war, a Labour Government brought the Commonwealth into being, and under Harold Wilson's Government, the Commonwealth secretariat was established. It is true, however, that, even in the Labour party, such ties have faded over recent years.
      There is a profound case to be made about self-interest and a genuine enlightened view of the world—as well as, perhaps, about the interface between the two and Britain's global role. Even if the Commonwealth did not exist, we could not invent it. Since it does exist and we do not need to invent it, we should take maximum opportunity of the benefits and advantages that it presents. The right hon. Member for Guildford certainly made some very significant points about the economic advantages of Commonwealth membership, which, as a nation, we must examine in depth.
      The Commonwealth offers a common language, which is of great significance. There is a little debate, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East
      512
      (Mr. Anderson) referred, on how far we should expand the Commonwealth if it breaches the principle of linguistic unity. Such a breach, of course, has already happened to a degree with the addition of Cameroon and Mozambique, but, in both those countries, massive efforts are being made to ensure that English is in common use.
      The Commonwealth is not just about language but common attitude and common institutions that allow access to different Commonwealth markets—not just to others for Britain but, increasingly, to other Commonwealth nations for Commonwealth nations. Britain was once at the centre of the wheel, but now, because of the world internet that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) described, it is no longer. It is simply one part of the very complicated chain of communication. We should value that, and accept that a quarter of the world's population live in Commonwealth countries. Indeed, the rapid population growth in the Indian subcontinent means that that relative proportion is likely to increase. That presents a massive economic zone and means that those who are prepared to use that economic coming together for common purpose and common wealth can do so to collective advantage and not only for narrow self-interest.
      There are reasons for membership above and beyond those of narrow self-interest which, from a British perspective, we must pursue. Labour in Government will ensure, for example, that we begin to establish a role for the Commonwealth section in the Foreign Office in informing attitude and policy across the range of policy formation. We must ensure that we do not ignore the importance of the connection.
      Rather like my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East I think that it is important to establish that the choice for Britain is not an artificial one of either Europe or the Commonwealth. That is unreal—it always was. With more complicated trade and patterns of exchange, it will become increasingly necessary for us to maximise advantages for ourselves and the world by operating across a range of different economic areas. The advantage of the Commonwealth connection is that it links us to almost every major economic bloc on the planet. It is of clear and direct interest to Britain to do relatively well in accessing the markets provided by the Commonwealth.
      Labour in government would certainly want to pick up on the point that the Select Committee made about the need for greater concentration on how the Commonwealth comes together economically. We would use the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh in 1997 to establish a Commonwealth economic development plan. We ought to begin to consider fair but free trade in the Commonwealth. We also ought to consider sustainable development and investment in the Commonwealth. We need to recognise, however, that Britain has a responsibility to our Commonwealth partners. Quite soon, the question will loom large about the succession to the Lomé 4 procedures. It is not simply in Britain's direct interest but an obligation to our Commonwealth partners to ensure that they have acceptable and fair access to the important European market, especially those in the Caribbean.
      One of the Select Committee report's suggestions concerns the role of meetings between trade ministers. Certainly, Labour in Government would want to ensure annual meetings of Commonwealth trade Ministers. It is

      513
      important to begin to establish such connections. The Select Committee's recommendation is therefore very important.
      It is also worth picking up the Select Committee's comments on aid. I hope that the Minister will take them on board. There is increasing concern that the way in which the fundamental expenditure review seems to be easing the Caribbean out of the aid equation and the Commonwealth into a lesser role in that equation will do no good, not only to Britain but to others in the Commonwealth who still depend on some kind of support.
      That point was made to me yesterday by the Prime Minister of one of the Caribbean islands when we were discussing access to European markets and the possibility that Caribbean bananas could be excluded from such markets. He made the simple point that where one can no longer grow bananas, one can grow marijuana. If we offer that choice to our Commonwealth partners, the decision will be taken not at governmental level but by those who are driven by poverty and economic opportunity. If we want to avoid that we must offer some practical and sensible assistance, whereby economic development and investment allows development in those economies so that they can continue to trade in the Commonwealth and gain access to European markets.
      I want to devote the rest of my remarks to the unique role that the Commonwealth performs in human rights and what, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate said, we would regard as what Britain has given to the world. Our pride in the British democratic tradition makes sense only if we can say that we are putting it into practice.
      The Commonwealth has made great steps. Indeed, it is one of only two global institutions—the other one, of course, being the United Nations. By definition, the United Nations must take on board all-comers. It is important that membership is not restricted. But the Commonwealth operates with a different set of principles that allow us to state that common values and attitudes must be brought to bear.
      The steady development from Singapore in 1971 to Harare in 1991 of a Commonwealth perspective on what is acceptable for members has been very important. Even more important was putting some practical bones into the body, which took place at Auckland last year. At that meeting, the Commonwealth ministerial action group was set up to act in a practical way to see to what extent human rights and democracy were being put into practice within the Commonwealth.
      Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend referred to a "steady development" since 1971, but I have a vivid memory of trying to get our Commonwealth partners to come out against Idi Amin and failing hopelessly. It has been a more recent development, and that is why it is very welcome.
      Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. The developments were steady in terms of rhetoric, but almost non-existent in terms of action. Even now, one of the problems that bedevils the Commonwealth is that if we accept that it is necessary to have unanimity of purpose, we will always end up moving at the pace of the slowest. The Commonwealth will therefore not be effective in applying pressure to those who fundamentally breach its levels of
      514
      democracy and human rights. We must do better, otherwise the Commonwealth will fail to take the opportunities that are presented to it.
      The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) referred to the situation in Kenya, a country that is moving towards an election that no one can be confident will be free and fair. One must doubt whether the Select Committee's definition of a free and fair election will be applied—namely giving an opportunity to the Kenyan public to easily get rid of one Government and replace it with another. In those terms, the elections will fail the central test of democratic acceptability. It is not acceptable for the Commonwealth monitoring group to return to Kenya—they went there four years ago—and say that the elections are free and fair. The report suggests that the Commonwealth imprimatur of free and fair elections remains a coveted accolade, and it must remain so, but it will be devalued if we accept as legitimate elections that simply are not.
      The role of the Commonwealth in election monitoring is one to which hon. Members have paid tribute, and that role must continue and be intensified. But it can be carried out properly only if we are prepared to say on occasion that we will not simply accept that a particular exercise in pseudo-democracy is up to the standards that we expect.
      The biggest failure that we have seen, I am afraid to say, occurred this week, when the Commonwealth ministerial action group met the Nigerian Foreign Minister in London. The record of Nigeria since the military coup in 1993 has been outrageous. It is not a matter of a marginal breach of standards. It is an absolute outrage that we have been prepared to deal with this country in such a kid-gloved manner. The president-elect is serving a life sentence for the crime of claiming to be the legitimately elected president of Nigeria. That is outrageous. Even the person who deposed him from power is now serving a life sentence, which goes to show the even-handedness of that brutal regime. A few weeks ago, the wife of the president-elect was murdered. That is a human outrage, but it is also a political crime of the highest magnitude. There is very little belief in Nigeria that that murder was not committed at the behest of the authorities.
      The murder—or so-called judicial execution—of Ken Saro Wiwa and his fellow Ogonis last year prompted the Commonwealth to take action. We ought not to have sat back this week and said, "It doesn't matter" because it does. The Nigerian Government are now insisting that when political parties form—even in a country as big as Nigeria—they must have a membership of 1 million people, and they must pass various regional tests. No political party in Britain proportionately would be able to match that test, and the result would be that we would all have to disinvent ourselves.
      We also know that the civil rights of the population of Nigeria are honoured in the breach. The Commonwealth ministerial action group stated that both sides—that is the Nigerian Government and the action group—had constructive dialogue that needed to continue. That says something, or it says nothing. On the one hand, the Canadians went home in disgust and imposed their own sanctions, as they could not accept the conclusions suggested by, I am sorry to say, the British Government among others. Sir Sonny Ramphal, the former Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, made clear that he was embarrassed by the Commonwealth's inaction on

      515
      this occasion, and talked about the need for more serious action and to examine oil sanctions against Nigeria— something for which my party has called for some time. We must examine the case for real sanctions against the Nigerian Government.
      If the Commonwealth is to become the vision of the new world that we all want—a world where the democracy and human rights standards that we enshrine are practised around the world—it must play its role with a sense of purpose. If we cannot take tough action against Nigeria by introducing economic embargoes or by taking action against the brutal people of the military regime, the Commonwealth will fail the test it sets itself. In doing so, it will fail not people in Britain, but people of good will throughout the world and the victims of brutal regimes that we could affect if we had that sense of purpose.
      6.45 pm
      The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I am sorry that I do not have long to comment on this important, well-informed and often passionate debate. The Government warmly welcome the report and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary stated in his observations, we share its central conclusion—that in an increasingly global political system, the Commonwealth has great present and potential value for all its members. I pay tribute to the members of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir D. Howell)—the Chairman of the Committee—and to the officers and officials of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in the United Kingdom and abroad.
      I wish to emphasise two points early in my speech. In terms of the history and the size of our contribution and the importance of the Commonwealth links to the UK, it is perhaps understandable that there are those who think that Britain is in charge of the Commonwealth. That is simply not so. It is no longer the British Commonwealth, and we cannot and should not allow it to serve an exclusive British interest. There is no senior member, and we all have an equal place around the table.
      As the Commonwealth covers 53 countries and more than a quarter of the world's population, and because at its Heads of Government conference every two years it pronounces on all international issues, it is a uniquely important body. There is, therefore, the danger of overestimating what it can do. But the Commonwealth is not a treaty. It is a voluntary organisation from which some members have chosen to leave and which some countries who are eligible have chosen not to join. It has no military or defence personality, nor does it now have any supranational economic authority.
      We must look at the Commonwealth with a sense of realism and proportion, as that is vital. Far from leading us to a conclusion that the Commonwealth does not have a distinctive role, it should help us to identify precisely what the role is. I would like to say a word first for Britain and then for the other Commonwealth members. For Britain, there is great value in being a member of the Commonwealth. It provides a special nature in our bilateral relations with 52 other countries, and this asset is worth preserving and working hard at. Secondly,
      516
      Commonwealth links in education, law and economic policy all contribute to making the global international state system more stable and, through that stability, more prosperous.
      We should not ignore the argument—as some may choose to do—that as more Commonwealth countries become more prosperous, the common language and a host of other affinities that have grown over hundreds of years can be translated into valuable investment and trade opportunities. Those trade opportunities are not just of benefit to us, but to the reciprocal countries. We must help them—as we do, for instance, through the Commonwealth Development Corporation—to increase their prosperity. To ignore our prosperity ignores prosperity and progress for them.
      Britain's central and pivotal role in the Commonwealth gives us a special influence for reform through discussion with 52 other countries and, indeed, they have a special influence over us. As I said earlier, no country has to belong to the Commonwealth. No President or Prime Minister is obliged to attend the two-yearly Commonwealth Heads of Government conference in person. If the Commonwealth is to remain an asset, it must be seen to be valuable by all its members. I believe that by the vast majority it is. In practice, this means that Britain cannot expect to table proposals that accord with British interest and simply see them adopted ipso facto as Commonwealth views. That was clear from the discussions on nuclear testing in the Pacific at the last CHOGM in New Zealand and no doubt it will be the case again, but at the same time, as we have done on global trade issues in the past 10 years and ways of tackling the heavy debt burden of several Commonwealth countries, we can get our point across and have it endorsed. We can use that to advance international negotiations in a way that we favour, but only provided that we show a sensitive concern for the priorities and anxieties of fellow Commonwealth members.
      As we have set out in the Government's reply to the Select Committee's report, our record since the new Commonwealth context emerged in 1990 is a creditable one. The Harare declaration, the encouragement of multi-party elections, the promotion of high human rights standards by Governments, a strong stance against military government, and an imaginative programme of Commonwealth help to countries trying to re-establish democratic accountable civilian government are all laudable. The establishment in Auckland last November of the Commonwealth ministerial action group to monitor Commonwealth member Governments' consistency and compliance with the Harare declaration has been a success, although the greater successes are yet to be seen. Britain has been at the forefront, if not the instigator, in most of those developments.
      We have also used our bilateral relationships with Commonwealth countries to good effect by keeping in close touch with other countries. That is important to us when problems arise, as they must from time to time. We have improved relationships with all our peoples. We have put a huge effort in the past five years or more into our relations with India. They are now closer and more useful on virtually every front. As the Government's reply to the report describes, we are putting a major effort into revamping our links with Australia and New Zealand. The value and depth of our relations and the deep contribution that we make to each other are not always recognised today. I believe that through these programmes we will make progress and renew our links.

      517
      The Commonwealth multilateral link provides a canopy for our relations, but it is not a substitute for the hard and imaginative work required to translate those links into closer and more beneficial relations.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Hanley: I will give way to the hon. Lady, but I have been left very little time.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister struggles through the canopy of cliche. Is he thinking of referring to the report?
      Mr. Hanley: If the hon. Lady had not opened her mouth at that moment, I would have come immediately to the report, but there we are. I know that a little dig is common from that quarter.
      I am a passionate fan of the Commonwealth. I was an elected member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association United Kingdom executive body. I will do all that I can to ensure that Commonwealth relationships increase and improve. Recommendations 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 in the report are on trade. Trade is one element in the bilateral relationship between the United Kingdom and all countries, including our Commonwealth partners. Senior officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry are directly responsible for pushing those relationships. We have teams in the United Kingdom and overseas dedicated to promoting bilateral trade with the Commonwealth. Those officials ensure that we make the best use of our Commonwealth ties, but not solely for our benefit, as I have said before. It is for the mutual benefit of all our people. That is not a cliché.
      We will continue to negotiate for Commonwealth countries generous access to the European Union single market whenever we can. We push forward their views when formulating our policy in EU trade negotiations.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: There was a Commonwealth sugar agreement. It is carried on to some extent in Lomé. Will the Minister remind his colleagues in the European Union that the same principles of universal trade might well apply in some way to banana traffic?
      Mr. Hanley: That is an important issue for many countries in the West Indies. I will certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments.
      We most certainly have not forgotten that we are, as my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development said, one of 15 and one of 53. My right hon. and noble Friend mentioned that in her evidence to the Committee.
      Recommendations 32 to 39 are on Nigeria. We have seen just this week at the meeting of the Commonwealth ministerial action group how the Commonwealth can play a very active role in promoting democracy and protecting human rights. The third meeting of the CMAG was attended by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development. They expressed the
      518
      Commonwealth's displeasure at recent events in Nigeria. We hope that that will pave the way for further progress towards meeting the Harare principles.
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Hanley: No. I am sorry. We have set down a clear timetable and a clear time scale for action. If there is not progress by the meeting in September, further action will certainly be taken. All other matters are still being considered, both with our colleagues in the United Nations and in the European Union. The Commonwealth is not alone in this matter.
      Recommendation 42 is on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. We warmly welcome the Select Committee's support for the work of the CPA and we have emphasised that in our reply. Its work produces excellent results. The high commissioners from our overseas posts have frequently mentioned to me how much both they and their host Governments welcome these exchanges. I am sure that many of the hon. Members here will also know, from personal experience, just how right they are.
      Recommendation 50 is on Commonwealth membership for Cameroon. We have taken careful note of the Committee's comments on admitting Cameroon to the Commonwealth. We accepted, with our other Commonwealth partners, that significant progress had been made by Cameroon towards meeting the principles of the Harare declaration. Commonwealth membership will further advance those efforts and the great pool of experience and advice that comes from being a Commonwealth member can only be good for Cameroon's development.
      Recommendations 52 to 59 deal with the role of the Commonwealth now. We agree with the conclusions of the report that
      "the Commonwealth is acquiring a new significance in a rapidly transforming world and that United Kingdom policy-makers should bring this major change to the forefront of their thinking."
      That sums up fairly well the findings of the Committee. The days of disagreements over the problems in South Africa are now well behind us and we have now entered a new and exciting time for Commonwealth relations.
      Recommendation 60 is on the FCO and the Commonwealth. I can assure right hon. and hon. Members that the FCO continues to place high importance on the Commonwealth within the workings of the office. The Select Committee's suggestion of separate objectives for the Commonwealth in the FCO's annual mission statement is well taken. The changing role of the Commonwealth needs to be reflected in the way in which we look at it. The Select Committee has helped us to see a number of new linkages and for that I am grateful.
      The British Council now serves in 229 posts in 109 countries. When the Government came to office it served in 108 posts—we have more than doubled the record— and in 79 countries—we now serve in 30 more. There have been no post closures due to the efficiencies that the Treasury has required of us in this last year.
      The World Service reaches more people than ever in its history at this moment—140 million. That is a record of success. It is wrong to say that the imposition of efficiency requirements has decimated the service. As for

      519
      the reorganisation of the World Service, that is a matter for the BBC. It has agreed to continue to ensure that our role and our essential requirements are maintained.
      The introduction to the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs notes that the Commonwealth is in a period of rapid change and is today operating in a vastly altered international context. The Government fully agree with this. Who could not? Events in recent years, notably the resolution of the problems in South Africa mean that we have taken a fresh look.
      In recognition of the changes that have taken place, we have for the first time in 20 years invited Commonwealth Heads of Government to meet in our country. The Heads of Government conference in Edinburgh in October next year is an opportunity for us to show our support for the Commonwealth as an association. The conference will, as ever, be a chance to discuss with fellow members the many issues that are important to us all. They include the role that industry can play in economic development; the role of investment, both local and overseas, in promoting economic growth; and what Commonwealth voluntary organisations can do to make the lives of the citizens of our countries, especially those suffering deprivation, more rewarding and humane.
      There is much work to do and the Government are eager to take it forward. Commonwealth officials will meet in London in October to discuss the agenda and arrangements for next year's conference. I hope that the conference will enable the Commonwealth to set its agenda for the challenging years ahead. The FAC's report has been a valuable component in the Government's thinking. I am sure that we will draw heavily on its ideas well into the future. The Government thank the Committee for its excellent work and the House for this debate.
      It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [21 June], to put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings.

ESTIMATES, 1996–97

  Class II, Vote I
  Resolved,
  That a sum not exceeding £343,886,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1997 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on its salaries, building and other accommodation services, and administration and those of HM Diplomatic Service, official information services, sundry services and loans and payments in connection with catering services.

  Class II, Vote 2
  Resolved,
  That a sum not exceeding £113,862,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year
  520
  ending on 31st March 1997 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on grants and subscriptions etc to certain international organisations, contributions in respect of international peacekeeping forces, special payments and assistance, scholarships, military aid and sundry other grants and services.

  Class II, Vote 3
  Resolved,
  That a sum not exceeding £90,870,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1997 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on payments to the British Broadcasting Corporation for external radio broadcasting and monitoring services and for contractual services in connection with FCO relay stations.

  Class II, Vote 4
  Resolved,
  That a sum not exceeding £53,824,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1997 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the British Council.

  Class II, Vote 5
  Resolved,
  That a sum not exceeding £799,755,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1997 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Overseas Development Administration under the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 on the United Kingdom overseas aid; including financial and technical assistance to governments, institutions, voluntary agencies and individuals; capital and other subscriptions and contributions, including payments under guarantee, to multilateral development banks and other international and regional bodies; emergency, refugee and other relief assistance; pensions and allowances in respect of overseas service including contributions to pension funds (including payments under the Overseas Pensions Act 1973, and grants in lieu of pensions); and on global environment assistance; loans to the Commonwealth Development Corporation under the Commonwealth Development Corporation Acts 1978–1995; expenditure on the Turkey Ankara Metro mixed credit Aid and Trade provision project; payments to Crown Agents under the authority of the Crown Agents Act 1995; costs in connection with privatising Crown Agents and the Natural Resources Institute; running costs, related capital expenditure and other administrative costs including for the Natural Resources Institute (an executive agency); and payments (under the authority of the European Communities Act 1972) to certain beneficiaries of the Gibraltar Social Insurance Fund.
  Under the Resolution of the House of 18th June and the Order of the House of 21st June, these Estimates are to be considered in so far as they relate to the future role of the Commonwealth, and any Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the five Motions in the name of Mr. Michael Jack will be put not later than Seven o'clock.
  The First Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 1995–96, on the future role of the Commonwealth (House of Commons Paper No. 45-I), the Government's Observations thereon (Cm. 3303) and the Government's Expenditure Plans 1996–97 to 1998–99-Foreign and Commonwealth Office including Overseas Development Administration (Cm. 3203)

  Gospel Oak-Barking Line
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLaughlin.]
  7 pm
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss investment in the Gospel Oak to Barking line. The Minister knows about the line's problems. If he did not know, I am sure that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) has related his experiences when he visited the line last year. It lived up to its reputation. The train was cancelled and we spent 45 minutes waiting on a cold platform for the next train, which came only because the train going in the opposite direction was stopped short of its destination to come back and pick us up.
  The line has enormous potential. It could be part of an outer north London orbital route. It could provide easy journeys between points that are difficult to reach by other forms of public transport. Everyone agrees that it is grossly underused because of the serious reliability problems. No one has suggested that the line is valueless; it could be a useful service. The trouble is that people have been saying that for 20 if not 25 years, but little has changed. I suspect that the service is poorer now than it was 20 or 25 years ago. I will not repeat the graphic description of the line given by hon. Member for Epping as that would be to use unparliamentary language.
  The consequences of the lack of investment are felt in the service. In charter period 54, there were 210 cancellations out of 968 services. In charter period 56, there were 284 out of 1,209. In both periods, the cancellation rate was more than 20 per cent. The cancellations are caused mainly by rolling stock and infrastructure failures. I shall discuss that and the investment decisions on them.
  The line has had aged rolling stock since the decision in the early 1960s not to electrify. There was a short period when some new diesel units were used but that did not work terribly well. Apart from that, it has always had cast-offs from other lines. As other lines were electrified or improved, the cast-off diesel units went to this line. The present units are more than 30 years old. In the longer term, we will need new, modern, reliable trains.
  Some immediate questions need to be considered. The lease on the existing units will soon run out and their failure rates suggest that they may be beyond redemption. I understand that North London Railways is considering using class 141 diesel units, which are cast-offs from west Yorkshire. That may be a short-term answer, but I have some doubts about it. They would need major refurbishment before they could be remotely regarded as reliable. There is no commitment to provide the money for that. Many people feel that they would be unsuitable because they have a smaller capacity. Shortage of space for prams and bicycles is a problem.
  Recently, under the Government's cycle challenge scheme, £79,000 was awarded to improve cycle-rail integration on the line. That involved cutting cycle channels on station stairways to allow people to get bicycles on and off trains. The trouble is that Railtrack is being obstructive about reaching agreements on their installation. It is demanding all sorts of guarantees from local authorities and asking them to take responsibility
  522
  for accidents, compensation and the maintenance of the channels. Those problems are largely the result of Railtrack having to draw up new leases with the various users of the line.
  It is likely that some of that £79,000 will not be spent because of the difficulties in getting agreement between local authorities and Railtrack. It would be helpful if the Minister could examine that problem to discover whether anything can be done to resolve it. It is ludicrous that the Government have agreed to spend the money but that it is not being spent.
  What are the responsibilities of the rolling stock leasing companies for such lines? Is there a formal requirement for them to supply suitable rolling stock? Are their activities in any way subject to the scrutiny of the Rail Regulator? If not, should that be considered?
  There are several hundred bridges and viaducts in a surprisingly short distance on the line, which is largely built on them. The bridge across the River Lea on the edge of my constituency is so weak that two trains cannot be allowed on it at the same time. That problem is compounded by the outdated signalling. Because the signal box at Leytonstone was taken away, there are no signals between Wanstead park and the bridge. If a freight train is sent along the line, it has to be held at Wanstead park until the whole track is clear through to the Lea valley. That causes enormous disruption to passenger services, which run only once every half an hour.
  Those long gaps have implications for safety. I am sure that the Minister will recall the crash at Wanstead park in 1995. A freight train had to be held there as there was nowhere else, other than the weak bridge that it had to cross further along the line, for it to be held. As a result of an error at the previous station on the line—Woodgrange park—there was a crash at Wanstead park. If there had been modern signalling or if the there had still been a signal box at Leytonstone, that crash might have been avoided.
  If the Minister has travelled on the line, he will be aware of the poor condition of most of the stations: they are run down, there are no indicators and there are no staff most of the time. In 1995–96, under the transport policy and programme system, a joint local authority bid won some welcome money from the Government for station improvements on the line worth £200,000. As a result, Leytonstone station was modernised and about a third of the cost was contributed by Railtrack.
  In 1996–97, when the local authorities jointly wanted to continue the work and made another bid, it was rejected. There was no money for 1996–97, although some was granted for bridge repairs under objective 2 European regional development funding. None of that money has come through this year. The local authorities have been told that there will be no more funding until a business plan for the line has been agreed.
  What does the Minister expect from that business plan? Does he expect and want private sector money to be used in the business plan? If so, I am concerned. I know that the Government want to bring in private sector money and I do not object in principle to private sector money being added to public sector spending, but if there is to be a plan that demands private sector money I am doubtful about where it will come from. I can think of no major firms or developments near any of the stations that it might be possible to persuade to invest private sector

  523
  money. I believe that there have been problems on the west London line in attracting the levels of private sector finance that were anticipated.
  I hope that we shall not hold up investment in the Gospel Oak to Barking line—thereby stopping money coming in through the TPPs—while we wait for a business plan that proves to be completely unrealistic in its expectations. I am told that Railtrack has some investment plans; it has been suggested that it might be prepared to spend up to £500,000 on one station and significant amounts on other stations, but all that investment seems to be on hold while we wait for the business plan. We need investment now if the line is not to deteriorate further.
  Some of my comments have related to the short term and to what can we do to stop the line deteriorating further. Perhaps we need more reliable rolling stock, but if the line is to prosper in the longer term we need to do more. We should not consider it in isolation; we need to consider how it could link to other lines to form an outer north London orbital, which will require electrification and modern trains. That seems to be the only way in which we are likely to achieve a reliable service, with 15-minute intervals between trains, that will attract people to use the line. North London Railways has estimated that it could increase passenger usage by 50 per cent. if the service was reliable, and I suspect that that is an underestimate. Indeed, if we were to link the line with other services and to use more modern trains, that figure would be a gross underestimate.
  There is a possibility of investment to provide new stations. In my area, a station at the Baker's Arms at the junction with Lea Bridge road, where there are shops, could be a possibility. I know that other Members with constituencies along the line could suggest other places where new stations and links could usefully be constructed.
  It would be helpful if the Minister could give his view on the wider issues. What are the Government's plans for outer north London? We know that the London planning advisory committee still believes that an outer London north orbital route could be useful and that the line could be a useful part of it. It would be helpful to have some encouragement on that. We need to know what the Minister believes can be done to ensure that passengers enjoy something better than they do at present.
  Could the regulator be asked to examine what is happening to ensure that Railtrack and the operating companies provide a service? They are certainly not providing a worthwhile service at present. When the Minister considers the issue he should bear in mind that the comments that I have made tonight, that I have seen in writing and that I have heard in speeches over the past year or two have all been made for 20 years or more. People who use the line are getting fed up of hearing the same promises about what might happen in the future. They stop using the line because it does not provide a reliable service and because they do not believe that the necessary investment will be made to provide services.
  It is time that we started to take action; otherwise, the line will deteriorate to such an extent that nothing can be done to salvage it. All it needs is for one bridge to collapse in the wrong place and it will be impossible to run
  524
  services along the length of the line. We should not leave any rail service that could be as useful as this one in that sort of state.
  Ms Margaret Hodge rose—
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I notice that two hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. Do they have the permission of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and the Minister to speak?
  Mr. Gerrard: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has been informed.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is essentially the hon. Member for Walthamstow's debate and contributions to it should complement it.
  7.17 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I should not dream of being anything other than complimentary to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), so the suggestion that I would say anything uncomplimentary about him cuts me to the quick and I am sure that it also offends him deeply.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. For the sake of clarification, I should say that by complementary I meant that any further contributions should essentially add to what the hon. Member for Walthamstow has said, and should not be separate speeches.
  Mr. Corbyn: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker—as in milk in coffee.
  I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the debate. My hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow and for Barking (Ms Hodge) and I have all lived somewhere near the line for a long time. In previous incarnations as members of relevant local authorities, we have all been involved in campaigning about the line. In 25 years, I have never lived more than half a mile away from the Gospel Oak to Barking line—I was closest when I lived just 10 yards away for some time. The line was not too noisy as there was not much traffic on it. In some ways I wish that it had been noisier as that would have shown that it was more frequently used.
  Many of us have been involved in campaigning for the line, and, as the Minister will be aware, over the years there have been many questions and early-day motions about the line. It was a frabjous day when we persuaded the Minister for Transport in London to travel on the line. I could not join him on that day; in some ways I am glad that I did not as I have a copy of the letter that the Barking and Gospel Oak line committee sent to him in February, shortly after his visit. It stated:
  "As passengers stood and shivered on decrepit stations waiting for 35 year old decrepit 'Heritage' trains to finally turn up— suffering delays and cancellations just as you did when you visited the line—they might well have found it hard to believe that they were commuters in the capital of a major industrial country nearly at the end of the 20th Century."
  It described the line as being run on latter-day Heath Robinson principles. I never saw a copy of the Minister's reply, but I hope that it was full and detailed and that he

  525
  remembered his freezing hours on stations on the Barking to Gospel Oak line. He has never been back. While the summer is still with us, I invite the Minister for Railways and Roads to travel with us on the line. We will hope that the train does not break down, but if it does we can show him the sights of north and east London.
  In this short debate, we should pay tribute to the Barking and Gospel Oak Line Committee, which for many years, with the support of all the local authorities along the line, has worked to keep the issue before the public and to keep pressure on British Rail, Railtrack and Ministers. I also wish to pay tribute to North London Transport 2000 for the work that it has done to keep the line in the public eye, and to the borough councils, especially to Waltham Forest, which has produced an excellent submission for the Department about investment in the line.
  Local people and local organisations recognise and value that beautiful line and the role that it could play in reducing road traffic in the area. Local groups do not have attitudes of deep hostility to British Rail or Railtrack: they wish to work with them and with North London Railways for a better and improved service.
  A couple of years ago, the line celebrated its centenary. Historic as it is, it presents a fantastic opportunity for the 21st century if we use some imagination. Anyone who has to travel on the line will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has pointed out, travel in rolling stock that is at least 30 years old. That interests the trainspotter brigade on Sundays—when there is a Sunday service—but is not good for people who use the line to get to work, because the trains frequently break down and that affects the rest of the service.
  The other problem with the line is that the connections are not well thought out. For example, I recently travelled to Sudbury, near Ipswich, to address a pensioners' meeting. I live near the Barking to Gospel Oak line, as I have explained, so I decided to take the line to Barking, board a main-line train to Manningtree and then go on to Sudbury. Had I done it that way, the journey would have taken three and a half hours each way because of the lack of connections. It was quicker to go to Liverpool Street and, tragically, it would probably have been even quicker to have driven there.
  A lack of imagination in the timetable is only one of the line's problems. The limited connection at Gospel Oak with the North London line is temporarily closed because of the widening of the tunnel under Hampstead heath. With a bit of imaginative investment in the signalling system, trains could run more frequently on the Barking to Gospel Oak line; through trains could run to Watford, Willesden and round the west London link to Battersea; trains could run directly into King's Cross and Liverpool street; and a whole range of services could be available.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has rightly drawn attention to the need for investment in the bridges along the line, the rolling stock and the track bed. I suggest that substantial investment in signalling could lead to a massive increase in potential usage of the line.
  My constituency contains two of the line's stations. One is Crouch Hill, which is an attractive station with a country station atmosphere. The problem is that when the station is unstaffed early in the morning and late at night, people simply do not feel safe because they may have to wait an hour if a train is cancelled or if they miss the
  526
  half-hourly connection. The other station, Upper Holloway, is just below a busy main road, which is usually clogged with traffic—today was a classic example—with one person in every car while there are empty rail lines all around. That station is not well kept: it is dirty, damaged and covered in graffiti. People do not feel safe standing on the platform to wait for a train. Staffed stations might cost money initially, but it would be recouped in no time at all because passengers would feel safe using them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow mentioned the possibility of new stations. Islington borough council, with Waltham Forest and others, has consistently argued for new stations on better sites that are better managed all along the line. I feel strongly about the possibility of a new station at Tufnell Park. It would be simple to build and there is plenty of space alongside Junction road about 200 yd from Tufnell Park station on the Northern line of the underground. A connection to the underground would be very valuable, because the Barking to Gospel Oak line has few connections, apart from Blackhorse road, with the underground system.
  As well as the safety of stations, we should consider the question of accessibility. Stations have no lifts or escalators and no thought has been given to wheelchair access. Access for someone with a bicycle or carrying children poses the same problems. I recognise that it would take a big programme to make all the stations accessible, but we should start somewhere by converting the stations that would be easy to convert and by ensuring that new stations are completely accessible.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow mentioned the need for new trains on the line. The experience of the Barking to Gospel Oak line mirrors that of a country railway in the 1960s. The main line gets diesel trains and electrification and the small country line gets a parade of fantastic steam engines for a few years before it is scrapped. The Barking to Gospel Oak line carries the history of commuter railway trains because they are handed down, as clothes are handed down in a family. Why cannot we have new trains and an electrified line? We should use some imagination, get cars off the roads and get people and freight on to the railways.
  I fear that rail privatisation will mean a general lack of investment, interest and concern in the future of the line. Some people believe that the authorities are waiting for a bridge to collapse or a major accident to happen so that they can close the line. It has been suggested that the line should become a light rail line, but I would be cautious about that. It would remove the possibility of using the line for heavy freight, as a freight bypass or as a feeder line for the main-line system.
  I invite the Minister to come on a journey along the line while the weather is nice. He will enjoy it and we will show him the sights. He can then put pressure on for real investment to make the line of real value to everybody in north London.
  7.28 pm
  Ms Margaret Hodge: I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on securing the debate and I hope that my contribution will complement his. I have an important constituency interest in the line and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for an opportunity to share with the House the intolerable

  527
  suffering that my constituents and other regular users of the line have to endure. I also have a personal interest because I live near the line, like my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), and my children use the line, when they can, to get to school.
  The plight of the Barking to Gospel Oak line was brought to my attention at the turn of the year because my postbag was full of complaints about the poor service. For that reason, on Valentine's day, I led a delegation of local people and user groups to the Department of Transport to present the Minister for Transport in London, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) with some special Valentine cards. The Valentine cards did not—despite his reputation to the contrary—express undying affection for the Minister, for his politics or for his policies. The cards asked him to ensure that passengers had a regular and reliable service. For a Valentine's wish, that was rather restrained. Alas, despite this event and despite my correspondence with the Minister, the future for the line still looks bleak.
  The accolade "the misery line" has long been granted to the London-Tilbury-Southend service, which is the other line that runs through Barking—I believe that the Department of Transport has it in for Barking—but the Barking to Gospel Oak line appears to be vying for that undesirable title. For example, in 1995, one in 15 of the trains was cancelled. In December 1995, almost one in five trains was cancelled.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow referred to the passenger charter period. In March to April, almost one in four trains was cancelled. I shall compare that with other lines. For example, in the four weeks ending 29 March—a slightly different period—one in 100 trains was cancelled on the Thameslink service, which is another London service.
  I am not talking about the odd late train or even one or two cancellations on the Barking to Gospel Oak line; I am talking about a complete and utter breakdown of the service. It is a tragedy; a comedy of errors; a complete farce. It seems that the Barking to Gospel Oak line is being deliberately run down. Why else is the service using 36-year-old diesels? So great is the state of disrepair that the trains are actually rotting. For example, on 5 February, coach No. 51400 had to be closed—while the train was in service—because it developed a hole. Can hon. Members imagine running a train with a coach that is so rotten that it is dangerous? It was probably wise to close the coach, but what a way to run a service. That example clearly demonstrates the lack of investment in, and the downright shoddy state of, the service.
  However, the service need not be like this. The line fulfils a vital function, both in its place in the local transport system and in the overall wider London transport infrastructure. In fact, some of the journeys possible on the line by other means could take significantly longer—perhaps up to an hour longer. Alternative ways of reaching certain destinations by public transport could also involve numerous changes between buses and tubes—which could put many people off making their journeys by public transport.
  As has already been pointed out, the line feeds into other lines and other routes. The most imaginative scheme was put forward in 1975 by the London rail study group—
  528
  the same plan detailed the original proposals for Thameslink and cross-rail. The plan suggested linking several routes—including the Gospel Oak to Barking line and the West London line to give a through route from Clapham to Barking. However, despite the low initial set-up costs, the plan never came to fruition.
  The same fate befell the proposed electrification of the line in 1955. Frankly, it is unforgivable that the line has been neglected for so long. Despite the neglect and the problems, my constituents continue to use the line—for many, it remains the only means of travel. I refer to Miss Katy Andrews—who does not own a car—who lost her job because the train service between Blackhorse Road and Upper Holloway was so unreliable that she was late for work too often.
  I hope that tonight the Minister will take the opportunity to state his views on the status of the Barking to Gospel Oak line. My constituents need answers from the Government. If the Government are truly committed to public transport, they will guarantee the improvements to the service. It is not acceptable for the Government to pass the buck to the operators, North London Railways. The Government must provide direction, commitment and support. North London Railways stated in a letter that I have in my possession:
  "Performance on this route has indeed been extremely poor over the past two months … The rolling stock is … some 35 years old and as such requires a very great deal of attention if it is to maintain anything like an acceptable level of reliability."
  The letter also confirms that North London Railways is looking to replace the stock in April 1998. That wait is unacceptable to me, to my constituents and to the users of the line. Does the Minister think that it is acceptable?
  I must confess that I have learnt that there might be some replacement trains before 1998. However, perhaps I am misleading the House by calling them trains—at best, they are a stop-gap measure. Ten class 141 units— basically a Leyland bus body on a rail chassis—will be making their way on to the Barking to Gospel Oak line at some time in the near future. Far from causing jubilation among the users, my constituents and the user groups who are fighting for the line, many feel that these smaller trains are unsuitable because of the insufficient capacity for peak times. Also, these buses—not train carriages—have no space for prams or bicycles. In addition, the class 141 units appear to require major works mechanically and internally before they are properly fit for use. As I understand it, the owners—the rail stock operating company is Porterbrook Leasing—have not made a commitment to improve the trains without a contract from the train operator.
  I believe that to foist these so-called trains on passengers is cruel and unfair, given the plethora of problems that they have already been forced to endure. The use of so-called trains, cobbled together from buses, is symptomatic of the Government's approach to the railways. They do not care that train services are being run down by stealth under the dogma of their privatisation plans. Bus consortiums are winning train contracts and, in the end, it is likely that buses will ferry passengers along the routes once serviced by trains.
  What guidance will the Minister be issuing to North London Railways in relation to renewing the rolling stock? Or will he wash his hands of his responsibilities and let the suffering continue? If the Government were

  529
  truly committed to public transport, it would guarantee improvements to the stations and to the track. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has already referred to the £200,000 of TTP money that was allocated for improvements for 1995–96. Why has no money been allocated for the current financial year? The Minister sent me a letter in March, in which he stated:
  "A significant feature of the settlement was that it has to be arrived at during a period of severe restraint on public expenditure, with consequential pressure on the available funds … Given the overall funding pressures … we felt that it could not be supported in 1996–97 against competing bids."
  The Minister must admit that something is wrong. The excuse that these necessary and vital improvements are ignored because the pool is insufficient demonstrates, beyond doubt, the long-term neglect of the Government in relation to investment in essential infrastructure projects. What a dreadful legacy to leave for a future Labour Government.
  However, it is not only the stations and the rolling stock that are past their sell-by date and in need of urgent overhaul—rather like the Conservative Government, the tracks and the bridges are falling apart.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. With the greatest respect, it is not the hon. Lady's Adjournment debate but that of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). He has already given the House the benefit of his experience, which was supplemented by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). It is not acceptable that the hon. Lady's speech should run the risk of being longer than the original speech.
  Ms Hodge: I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my speech should not be longer than the original Adjournment speech. I have been keeping my eye on the clock to ensure that I stay within the timeframe and I assure you that I shall do so.
  If the Government are serious about their commitment to public transport, the Minister must make a commitment to the long-term future of the line. In a letter to me of 17 May, the hon. Member for Epping Forest said that the franchising director would look at aspects of the long-term replacement of rolling stock when bids were invited for the North London Railway franchise. He assumed that they would be based on an increase in freight traffic. What is the basis of his assumption that there will be an increase in freight traffic?
  Tonight's debate has given my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow and other local Members of Parliament like me the opportunity to express the anger and widespread and serious concerns of those who depend on the line to go to work, to visit their families and to travel easily across that part of the capital. The Government have let the line decay, but it must not be allowed to die. If the Minister does not promise specific action in his response tonight, the people who use the Barking-Gospel Oak line will demonstrate their anger through the ballot box. That cannot happen too soon.
  7.41 pm
  The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I thank the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) for raising on the Floor of the House the issue of investment in the Barking-Gospel Oak line. I am
  530
  also grateful for the contributions of the hon. Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Barking (Ms Hodge). I shall accept their kind invitations to visit the line—particularly as I am now aware of its importance in conveying the hon. Lady from her home to her constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) has a pressing engagement out of London, but I could not pass comment on whether there is any connection between that engagement and his recollections of his visit.
  The line clearly has other supporters, such as the Gospel Oak to Barking Line Improvement Now Group— which sent the valentine cards to my hon. Friend—and London First. It is also clear that the present state of the line and the reliability of its services worry many people—a good number of whom were prompted to send about 700 valentine cards to my hon. Friend earlier this year. The cards asked for a 15-minute reliable train service every day throughout the year, with a good information system. That sounds a simple request, but the answers are more complex than the question implies.
  Services on the line are provided by North London Railways. The line's infrastructure and its rolling stock are extremely old. The route is carried predominantly on viaducts and bridges—I am told that there are 467 bridges between South Tottenham and Woodgrange Park stations alone. The bridges carrying the line over the River Lea require the most urgent attention and currently a speed limit is imposed on all trains travelling over that section of track.
  There are also limitations—which have been described tonight—on the line due to old signalling and the lack of intermediate signalling between South Tottenham and Woodgrange Park stations. That means that a train cannot enter that section until the preceding train has left it. The journey time over that section is 19 minutes, and the implications for train frequency are obvious.
  The rolling stock comprises first generation two-car diesel multiple units that are more than 30 years old. Although the train operator has increased the number of units available to run the service in an attempt to improve reliability, cancellations occur all too frequently. Further units will become available from the West London line in the next few months, but a longer-term solution is clearly required and a number of proposals are being considered. North London Railways is discussing with rolling stock companies the possibility of using more modern refurbished units, although it is unlikely that they would be available to enter service on the line before the latter half of 1997. However, that may not be a permanent solution to the problem.
  Resources have been sought through both the transport policy and programme mechanism and the European regional development fund regime. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow said, there was a successful bid in 1995–96 which contributed £200,000. It was announced when my hon. Friend visited the line on 15 December 1994. However, as the hon. Lady said, bids for TPP resources are competitive and my Department must make a judgment about which bids offer the best value for money. I am not surprised—in view of my local government background—that local authorities can propose many more good projects on which to base bids than we can afford to fund.
  The London borough of Waltham Forest has also submitted bids under the ERDF regime seeking £176,500 for a bridge strengthening programme and a feasibility

  531
  study. That bid was assessed against both the overall ERDF public transport objectives and the other bids competing for resources. Although the bid was within the "acceptable" category, once again there were insufficient resources available globally to enable the bid to succeed. No further bids have been made.
  The Government office for London has advised about the need for a business case or plan that will establish the line's problems and opportunities—I think that the problems are clearly understood and have been described well tonight. It is important to identify also the opportunities that will be a prerequisite for any future investment decisions. The opportunities that the line offers and its potential for connecting services to other parts of the network mentioned during the debate are a helpful start.
  So much for the history of the line, but what does the future hold? I do not share Opposition Members' pessimism that privatisation has nothing to contribute—quite the contrary. I believe that privatisation of the railway offers a new future for this line and for other lines where we have successfully franchised services.
  As to infrastructure, Railtrack has told us that it believes that the line offers a number of exciting opportunities for future development. Unlike British Rail before it, Railtrack is able to undertake the necessary long-term planning with confidence. Investment decisions about rail infrastructure are no longer prey to the vagaries of the annual public expenditure settlement. The financing of investment programmes has been moved from that environment into the more dynamic environment of private financial markets. Decisions can now be taken on a commercial basis to improve services. I hope that this line will benefit and, in that context, the development of a business plan for the line is important. I shall return to that point in a moment.
  As for the train operators, the privatisation process through franchising will also bring benefits for railway users, not just on this line but more widely too. There is for the first time a contractually guaranteed level of train services that will guarantee the future of every line and station on the network. So I think that hon. Members will see, when the franchise is let, that the stations on the line and the continued operation of services over it will be secured contractually by the agreement into which the operator will enter with the franchising director.
  The passenger service requirement, which covers areas of particular interest to passengers—the frequency of trains, the stations they serve, journey times, first and last trains and weekend services—is drawn up against the background of an unprecedented amount of consultation with the users of services, with passenger representatives, and with local authorities having an opportunity to comment on the services that they would like operators to provide.
  Moreover, many franchisees have committed themselves to providing improvements beyond the specified level—for instance, their contracts with the franchising director have included commitments to provide new or enhanced services and new or refurbished rolling stock. When assessing bids for a franchise, the franchising director is instructed to take account of any offers of contractual improvements to service level or quality that go beyond the specification. Only this week there has been a successful bid for Chiltern, including new rolling stock and the
  532
  provision of security at 11 major stations. That will make passengers feel more secure, in the way that has been called for. There will be 50 secure cycle ranks at Marylebone station and 250 at other stations on the network, to facilitate rail-cycle journeys. Both on Chiltern and on LTS, new rolling stock has been provided as part of the package, and there has been a proposal for a new station at West Ham by the LTS franchisee.
  The Office of Passenger Rail Franchising will shortly be developing the draft passenger service requirement for NLR. It will set out the contractual requirements for the services to be provided. It is clearly important, in following the guidance, that the PSR should be based closely on current service levels, and that the depressed level of patronage that has arisen from the reliability problems should not be taken as the base. I understand from the franchising director that the PSR will be set on the basis of an expected increase in patronage following the completion of the engineering works that currently so adversely affect the operation of this service. Consultation will then take place with the official consultees.
  On 11 June, the franchising director invited applications to pre-qualify to receive an invitation to tender for this franchise. The deadline for applications is 12 July. It is expected that an ITT will be issued later this year, and that the franchise will be transferred to a private operator in the early part of 1997.
  The question of investment in the line was raised early this year at a meeting of the London consultative committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London. As a result, a meeting is shortly to be held between the Government office for London, representatives of the boroughs, the ALG, London First, Railtrack and North London Railways, to discuss future funding options for the route. It is in that context that a business plan for the line becomes so necessary.
  We have told the boroughs and others that both the ERDF bid and the 1996–97 TPP package bid, in highlighting the need for a feasibility study for the line, drew attention to the need to take a hard look at the economic justification for investment. Officials in the Government office will endeavour to play a full and useful part in the development of the business plan and in identifying the means by which it can be funded.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North asked about the provision of facilities for cycle users. I shall make further inquiries into the matter and write to him—
  Mr. Corbyn: And the disabled.
  Mr. Watts: Indeed. I will also copy the letter to other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate.
  I have spoken about the line's history and its current problems which reflect the low priority that has been given to this line while in the public sector. I believe that its transformation in the private sector, through the franchising process and because of the successful privatisation of Railtrack, will deliver a brighter future for the Barking to Gospel Oak line. I look forward to arranging a visit at a fairly early date, when I shall be delighted to be shown the problems facing hon. Members' constituents.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eight o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Violence Against Women
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends to take to increase the protection available to women from violence and the threat of violence. [34410]

  Mr. Maclean
  On 17 June, my right hon. and learned Friend published a consultation paper entitled "Sentencing and Supervision of Sex Offenders". The proposals in that paper would help to protect women by strengthening arrangements for the supervision of sex offenders, by requiring those offenders to notify the police of their address and by extending the powers of the police and Prison Service to take samples for the purposes of DNA testing.

  The Government are also committed to combating domestic violence vigorously. Inter-departmental groups of Ministers and of officials were set up in 1993 to co-ordinate an effective and concerted response to domestic violence. Both groups are due to meet shortly to review and develop initiatives aimed at promoting more co-ordinated national and local responses to the problems associated with domestic violence.

  Although the risk of becoming a victim of violent crime is relatively low, it can be reduced still further. Since 1988, almost 23 million copies of "Your Practical Guide to Crime Prevention" has been distributed. This Home Office booklet includes advice to women on how to minimise their risk from violence.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police and clear-up rates, Staffordshire 1979–1995

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Theft of a vehicle

  Theft from a vehicle

  Year

  Number of offences

  Clear-up rate Per cent.

  Number of offences

  Clear-up rate Per cent.

  Number of offences

  Clear-up rate Per cent.

  1979

  2,755

  35

  2,876

  41

  4,415

  28

  1980

  3,085

  29

  3,325

  38

  4,186

  23

  1981

  3,565

  38

  3,248

  41

  5,968

  27

  1982

  4,304

  41

  3,130

  40

  5,842

  28

  1983

  5,177

  34

  3,224

  40

  6,082

  28

  1984

  5,783

  42

  3,081

  35

  6,181

  27

  1985

  5,516

  44

  3,394

  34

  6,423

  38

  1986

  6,250

  31

  4,640

  34

  7,386

  28

  1987

  6,520

  29

  4,376

  33

  8,333

  25

  1988

  6,337

  37

  4,859

  41

  9,287

  39

  1989

  5,430

  39

  5,960

  39

  8,946

  29

  1990

  7,639

  30

  7,077

  42

  12,601

  28

  1991

  9,846

  35

  9,290

  37

  15,382

  27

  1992

  12,570

  22

  11,507

  30

  16,710

  20

  1993

  13,833

  22

  10,853

  30

  16,758

  19

  1994

  12,637

  24

  9,638

  27

  16,320

  20

  1995

  12,090

  30

  8,775

  26

  14,970

  20

  Littlehey Prison
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many suicide attempts there have been at Littlehey prison during the last three months. [33800]

  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. Chris Mullin, dated 27 June 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of suicide attempts there have been at Littlehey prison during the last three months.
  From 18 March to 19 June there were three reported suicide attempts at Littlehey prison.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met members of the Prison Governors Association to discuss changes in the level of the prison population. [33709]

  Miss Ann Widdecombe
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met national representatives of the Prison Governors Association on 9 February to discuss Prison Service spending. The association's concern about rises in the prison population was among the subjects raised, both at the meeting and in correspondence arising from it.

  Crime (Staffordshire)
  Mr. Brian David Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what were the clear-up rates of recorded(a) car break-ins, (b) car thefts and (c) burglaries in Staffordshire in each year since 1979; [34340]

  (2) how many recorded car thefts there were in Staffordshire in each year since 1979; [34389]

  (3) how many recorded domestic burglaries there were; in Staffordshire in each year since 1979; [34347]

  (4) how many car break-ins were recorded in Staffordshire in each year since 1979. [34388]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is provided in the table. Please note that information for theft from vehicles has been provided for "car break-ins".
  183
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average age of people convicted of(a) car theft and (b) burglary in Staffordshire in the latest year for which statistics are available. [34341]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information for 1994 on the number of offenders convicted at all courts in the Staffordshire police force area by age is given in the table. Data for 1995 will not be available until the autumn.

  Number of persons convicted at all courts of (a) car theft and (b) burglary offences in the Staffordshire Police Force Area by age, 1994

  Burglary

  Age

  Car theft1

  Domestic burglary

  Non domestic burglary

  Total burglary

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  —

  1

  —

  1

  12

  1

  1

  1

  2

  13

  8

  4

  3

  7

  14

  16

  9

  9

  18

  15

  22

  9

  11

  20

  16

  45

  15

  20

  35

  17

  67

  40

  31

  71

  18

  60

  23

  39

  62

  19

  42

  30

  37

  67

  20

  40

  37

  26

  63

  21 and under 25

  53

  94

  99

  193

  25 and under 30

  224

  39

  53

  92

  30 and under 40

  12

  22

  34

  56

  40 and under 50

  2

  5

  4

  9

  50 and under 60

  —

  1

  1

  2

  60 and over

  1

  —

  —

  —

  All ages

  393

  330

  368

  698

  1 Car theft includes the indictable offences of aggravated vehicle taking—injury to person, damage to property of car; theft from vehicles; theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicle car and the summary offences of stealing and unauthorised taking of a conveyance and aggravated vehicle taking where criminal damage of £2.000 or under.

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

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the conviction rate for retail store robbery and till snatches in(a) Tamworth and (b) Staffordshire in each year since 1979. [34476]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average value of items stolen in recorded domestic break-ins in each year since 1979 in(a) Staffordshire, (b) the west midlands and(c) the United Kingdom. [343421

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the average value of items stolen in recorded domestic burglaries in Staffordshire and the west midlands for 1993 and 1994 is provided in the table. Data before 1993 are no longer available, and data for 1995 are not yet available.

  Similar information for England and Wales covering 1979 to 1992 is published annually in the Command Paper "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", copies of which are available in the Library. Information on Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the Secretary of State for each Department.
  184

  Average value1 of items stolen from domestic burglaries recorded by the police, 1993–1994

  Police force area

  1993£

  1994 £

  Staffordshire

  714

  795

  West Midlands

  1.048

  1.053

  England and Wales

  991

  1,002

  1Excludes offences where value was recorded as nil.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average value of items recorded as stolen from cars in Staffordshire in each year since 1992. [34348]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the average value of items stolen from cars in Staffordshire is not generally published separately from total offences of theft. However, information for 1993 and 1994 is provided in the table. Data for 1992 are no longer available, and data for 1995 are not yet available.

  Average value 1 of items stolen from thefts from cars recorded by the police in Staffordshire, 1993–94

  Police force area

  1993£

  1994£

  Staffordshire

  255

  250

  1 Excludes offences where value was recorded as nil.

  Female Genital Mutilation
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proposals he has to modify regulations to facilitate the granting of asylum to women asylum seekers who claim that they are seeking to avoid genital mutilation in their countries of origin; and if he will make a statement; [34159]

  (2) how many women asylum seekers have sought asylum over the past 10 years on the grounds that they are seeking to avoid genital mutilation; how many were granted asylum; and if he will make a statement. [34160]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The statistical information requested is not held centrally.

  To qualify for refugee status, applicants need to show that they have a well-founded fear of persecution based on one of the reasons contained in the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees. Those who do not meet the requirements of the 1951 convention may nevertheless be granted exceptional leave to remain if there are compelling humanitarian reasons for their doing so. Cases are considered in the light of their individual circumstances.

  Women Police Officers
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women police officers in the metropolis have referred employment grievances to industrial tribunals in each of the last five years; and how many of these cases have been dismissed. [34758]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Commissioner informs me that the information requested is not available before July 1995. Since July 1995, the Metropolitan police have dealt with 49 applications to industrial tribunals by women police
  185
  officers. Of these cases, 10 have been withdrawn, three were settled and six dismissed. The remaining 30 cases are outstanding.

  Hoax Calls
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the annual number of hoax calls to the emergency services in each of the last five years(a) in Bolton, (b) in the north-west and (c) nationally, indicating the approximate cost of each call-out; [34408]

  Malicious false fire arms attended by local authority fire brigades in the North-West of England and United Kingdom, 1990–94

  Year

  Cumbria

  Cheshire

  Greater Manchester

  Lancashire

  Merseyside

  United Kingdom

  1990

  660

  1,604

  11,610

  3,474

  6,249

  137,540

  1991

  807

  1,548

  13,191

  4,305

  6,562

  148,112

  1992

  1,013

  1,457

  11,972

  4,745

  6,451

  160,302

  1993

  1,242

  1,398

  11,135

  4,201

  6,846

  155,169

  1994

  1,004

  1,491

  10,461

  3,868

  7,048

  149,201

  Source:

  Home Office.

  Royal Commission on Criminal Justice
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to issue a final response to the report of the royal commission on criminal justice. [35118]

  Mr. Maclean
  I have today placed in the Library a copy of the Government's final response to the report of the royal commission on criminal justice.

  The royal commission made 352 recommendations. The Government have accepted, wholly or in part, 204 recommendations and 58 remain under consideration in the light of other initiatives and developments. The Government have decided not to implement 46 recommendations. The remaining 44 recommendations are not primarily for the Government, but the response indicates the action that the Government understand to have been taken.

  Parole Board
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Parole Board will become an executive non-departmental public body; and how its functions will alter. [35119]

  Mr. Howard
  A commencement order has been made that will bring into effect on 1 July 1996 section 149 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This will establish the Parole Board as an executive non-departmental public body. The statutory functions of the board will not be affected; the changes are essentially administrative and will make the board more accountable for its performance. A copy of the board's management statement and the financial memorandum will be placed in the Library.

  Staffordshire Police
  Mr. Brian Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for Staffordshire police force the(a) number of serving officers, (b) number
  186
  (2) if he will list the annual number of hoax calls to the fire service in each of the last five years (a) in Bolton, (b) in the north-west and (c) nationally indicating the approximate cost of each call-out; and if he will make a statement. [34409]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the number of times the police attend a hoax call and on the cost of so doing is not available centrally. The readily available information on malicious false alarm incidents attended by local authority fire brigades in the north-west and the United Kingdom is shown in the table. Information on cost is not collected centrally.

  of officers on the beat, (c) average police pay in real terms and (d) cost of the service in real terms for each year since 1979. [34346]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the number of serving officers is set out in table 1. Information on the number of officers specifically assigned to beat duties is not available. Estimates of the number of offices on patrol duties are available from 1989 and are also set out in table 1.

  Information on average police pay and total force expenditure is available only from 1988–90 and is set out in table 2.

  Staffordshire police Total force strength and number of patrol officers

  Police strength

  Patrol strength1

  Month/year

  All ranks

  Year2

  Number of officers

  April 1979

  1,980

  —

  —

  March 1980

  2,051

  —

  —

  March 1981

  2,096

  —

  —

  March 1982

  2,086

  —

  —

  March 1983

  2,080

  —

  —

  March 1984

  2,090

  —

  —

  March 1985

  2,066

  —

  —

  March 1986

  2,087

  —

  —

  March 1987

  2,113

  —

  —

  March 1988

  2,135

  —

  —

  March 1989

  2,164

  —

  —

  March 1990

  2,187

  1989

  1,278

  March 1991

  2,217

  1990

  1,300

  March 1992

  2,176

  1991

  1,091

  March 1993

  2,179

  1992

  1,304

  March 1994

  2,208

  1993

  1,234

  March 1995

  2,231

  31994–95

  1,314

  March 1996

  2,209

  41995–96

  1,302

  1 Based 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.

  2 Collected per calendar year—as at 31 December each year.

  3 The basis of collection changed in 1994 to the financial year. Figures now taken as at 31 March.

  4 Provisional.

  187

  Staffordshire police Total expenditure and average pay and allowance per police officer (at 1995–96 prices)

  Year

  Total force expenditure £

  Average pay and allowances per officer1 £

  1988–89

  81,550,0002

  24,298

  1989–90

  84,499,0002

  24,665

  1990–91

  93,196,000

  26,780

  1991–92

  96,446,000

  27,335

  1992–93

  99,778,000

  27,644

  1993–94

  103,652,000

  27,487

  1994–95

  105,514,000

  27,777

  1995–96

  106,681,0003

  n/a

  1996–97

  111,128,0003

  n/a

  1 Estimated by dividing total pay and allowance expenditure by total police strength as shown in Table 1.

  2 Excludes capital and loan charges expenditure (information not readily available).

  3 Estimated expenditure.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to ensure that each legislative measure put forward by his Department contains a compliance cost assessment(a) relating to small firms and (b) in respect of which small firms have been consulted. [34126]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 26 June 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 26 June, column 119.

  Locks
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken by his Department to encourage the purchase of British manufactured locks in the establishments under the control of his Department. [34568]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 26 June 1996]: 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.

  £

  Organisation

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Prisoners' Wives and Families Society 1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16,331

  17,426

  —

  Prisoners' Families and Friends

  5,980

  6,279

  7,130

  6,820

  7,127

  7,697

  8,236

  13,400

  13,527

  —

  Partners' of Prisoners and Families Support Groups

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25

  20

  20

  —

  Bourne Trust

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  Halow (London)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.5

  5

  —

  Halow(Birmingham)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15

  16.5

  4

  —

  Halow (Bristol)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  10

  —

  Aftermath

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  15

  —

  —

  Prison Link

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  10

  —

  Female Prisoners Welfare Project

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  —

  —

  —

  188
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. David Winnick, dated 27 June 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about measures to encourage the purchase of British manufactured locks.
  The Prison Service is required to comply with the requirements of public competition laws when letting a contract for the supply of locks. This is done irrespective of the country of origin.

  Immigrants (Marriage Breakdown)
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) women and (b) men admitted to the United Kingdom on probation as a spouse were refused leave to remain due to the breakdown of the marriage before the end of the 12-month probationary period in (i) 1993, (ii) 1994 and (iii) 1995; and in each case what proportion of these marriages broke down due to the spouse seeking settlement having suffered domestic violence from the settled spouse. [34733]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  A decision to grant or refuse an application for indefinite leave to remain made on the basis of marriage to a person settled here would normally be taken at the end of the 12-month probationary period. The numbers of women and men refused leave to remain at that stage, which include those admitted as a spouse and those who married in this country, are given in the table. Allegations of domestic violence are not separately recorded.

  Refusals of applications for indefinite leave to remain on the grounds of marriage 1993–95

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Women

  300

  370

  440

  Men

  330

  410

  490

  Prisoners (Family Support)
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial assistance his Department has provided towards prisoners' wives and families support groups annually since 1986. [33903]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Details of financial assistance given to prisoners' wives and families support groups are as follows:
  189

  £

  Organisation

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Federation of Prisoners' Family Support Groups

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15

  25

  2

  —

  Total

  5,980

  6,279

  7,130

  6,820

  7,127

  7,697

  78,236

  124,731

  86,953

  —

  1Figures for 1986–87 to 1992–93 not available.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Appeals
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on progress with developing a model for appeals against enforcement action. [35080]

  Mr. Freeman
  A new model mechanism for appeals against enforcement action has been set out in S.I. 1678, which was laid before Parliament today.

  This new model provides for a speedier and cheaper way of resolving disputes on enforcement of regulations. At the same time, it incorporates procedures that will ensure every opportunity is made available to business to resolve disputes informally without having to resort to the appeal process.

  The model has been developed through wide consultation with the business and regulatory community, drawing on best practice from existing appeal procedures.

  Features of the model include: rights to make representation before formal action is taken, unless urgent action is necessary; provision for an appeal tribunal to be set up by the Minister responsible for the legislation, to resolve disputes that cannot be resolved informally; time limits for each stage of the appeal process; appeals to be considered on their merits by the tribunal; assistance with an effective and efficient resolution of disputes, for which pre-hearing reviews will be encouraged; and, where appropriate, the decision of the tribunal can be based on written submissions only, avoiding the time and costs of oral hearings.

  Each tribunal will be made up of a legally qualified chairman assigned from a panel appointed by the Lord Chancellor in England and Wales and the Lord Advocate in Scotland; a member who is expert in the field; and a member representing business. Each tribunal will be supported by a registrar to provide for active case management.

  The model is designed to apply across a wide range of policy areas. The rights to make representations at an early stage have already been implemented by the Environment Agency and for health and safety legislation. They will shortly be applied to food safety and building regulations, and later in the year to fire safety and consumer affairs.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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
  190
  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. [33498]

  Mr. Willetts
  The table gives available sick pay and compensation costs for the Central Cabinet Office, including No. 10, and the executive agencies for which I am responsible.

  Part A: Sick pay

  Minor £

  Major £

  Cabinet Office and its Agencies

  1991–92

  1,313.28

  Nil

  1992–93

  694.28

  Nil

  1993–94

  8,935.80

  Nil

  1994–95

  11,595.20

  4,663.88

  1995–96

  COI

  1991–92

  Nil

  Nil

  1992–93

  Nil

  Nil

  1993–94

  Nil

  10,549.02

  1994–95

  Nil

  1,399.17

  1995–96

  Nil

  Nil

  There were no reported fatal injuries.
  Part B:

  Compensation paid to employees, their families or members of the public:

  Nil return from all Departments/Agencies except COI: 1 case 1994–95 £90,000 paid to employee.

  Incidents involving information technology:

  COI: 1 case 1993—Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI).

  Incidents involving expenditure of more than £5,000 (costs of sick leave may not all fall in one financial year):

  OHSA: 1 case 1994–95—fall.

  CCC: 1 case 1994–95—fall/slipped whilst patrolling perimeter fence.

  COI: 1 case 1993–94—RSI.

  PACE, SAFE and TBA have Nil returns for all categories and all years.

  HMSO—The information is not held centrally and can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Not all work-related injuries incurred sick pay.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [33496]
  191
  Mr. Willetts
  The information requested from the Cabinet Office, its agencies, the Central Office of Information and HMSO is as follows:Cabinet Office and its Agencies:

  1991–92: Nil

  1992–93: Nil

  1993–94: One

  1994–95: Three

  1995–96: Five

  Central Office of Information:

  No occasions. On no occasion was the Health and Safety Commission involved.

  HMSO:

  The information is not held centrally and can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [33499]

  Mr. Willetts
  The Cabinet Office, its agencies, the Central Office of Information and HMSO all have rolling programmes of maintenance which are designed to ensure that working conditions meet acceptable health and safety standards. They also respond to specific concerns as they arise. Information on this type of expenditure is as follows:

  Cabinet Office and its Agencies:

  1991–92: Nil

  1992–93: Nil

  1993–94: £6,700

  1994–95: £48,600

  1995–96: £109,700

  Central Office of Information:

  Nil.

  There are no incidents involving information technology.

  HMSO:

  The information is not held centrally and can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [33497]

  Mr. Willetts
  The information requested from the Cabinet Office, it agencies, the Central Office of Information and HMSO is as follows:

  Minor

  Major

  Cabinet Office and its Agencies

  1991–92

  54

  Nil

  1992–93

  66

  Nil

  1993–94

  81

  Nil

  1994–95

  95

  Nil

  1995–96

  127

  1

  192

  Minor

  Major

  Central Office of Information

  1991–92

  21

  Nil

  1992–93

  13

  Nil

  1993–94

  3

  11

  1994–95

  Nil

  Nil

  1995–96

  3

  Nil

  Minor injuries consisted mainly of paper cuts, minor bruises and pulled muscles reported to first aiders. There were no minor injuries related to information technology.

  1 The one major injury in COI in 1993–94 was related to information technology.

  There were no reported fatal injuries.

  For HMSO, the information requested is not held centrally and can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will list the constituencies he has visited in the past three months on official business and the constituencies he intends to visit in the next three months; and if he will make a statement. [34390]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In April, I gave the Allsebrook lecture at the university of Ulster in Jordanstown in my capacity as Minister without Portfolio. My diary for the next three months has not yet been finalised, but I always do my best to give prior warning to hon. Members when I visit their constituencies in an official capacity.

  Competitiveness
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what was the cost to public funds of producing "Competitiveness: creating the enterprise centre of Europe". [34060]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 June 1996]: Final figures are not yet available, but I expect my Department's costs for the production and launch of the White Paper and related products to be in the region of £380,000.

HEALTH

  Desogestrel and Gestodene
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the formal written request of 11 October 1995 to the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products that matters relating to desogestrel and gestodene be considered by that committee received the prior approval of Ministers. [33980]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 30 April, column 499.

  Myocardial Infarction
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 1995 to the hon. Member for Gordon, (Mr. Bruce),Official Report, column 1152, if he will name the studies relating to myocardial infarction which were made available to the Committee on Safety of Medicines on 13 October 1995; and if he will list the data included and vehicle of publication of those results and what results remain unpublished. [33979]
  193
  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave him on 7 March, column 321–22 and on 9 May, column 243.

  Licensing Authority
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the means by which the Licensing Authority has, since 1 January 1995, implemented its responsibilities to the European Medicines Evaluation Agency. [33985]

  Mr. Malone
  The Licensing Authority implements its responsibilities under the European drug regulatory system through adoption of the following European directives: the Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations Etc.) Regulations 1994, (S.I. 3144, and European Council Regulation 2309/93.

  Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what procedure referrals are made to the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products by the United Kingdom [33981]

  Mr. Malone
  Formal referrals to the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products must comply with the provisions of Council directive 75/319/EEC, as amended by directives 83/570/EEC and 93/39/EEC.

  Matters may also be placed on the agenda of meetings of the CPMP for information and discussion.

  Unique Patient Numbers
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number and proportion of hospitals, and the number and proportion of general practitioner practices, which now have systems in place to handle the unique NHS patient number. [33990]

  Mr. Horam
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 June 1996, c. 669]: I regret that there was an error in my previous reply.

  The final sentence should have read:
  "At the end of May 1996, the number of practices with this capacity was 5,700, which is 67 per cent. of all computerised practices".

  Free Prescriptions
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of providing free prescriptions and optical and dental treatment to students for each year since 1992–93. [34279]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is not available.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate how many people suffering(a) schizophrenia, (b) manic depression and (c) other severe mental illness receive free prescriptions; and if he will make a statement. [34103]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available. In 1996–97, we expect 85 per cent. of prescriptions to be dispensed free, thanks to our extensive exemption 194
  arrangements, which are among the most generous in Europe. Many people with mental health problems will benefit from these.

  Consultant Anaesthetists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current salary range for consultant anaesthetists in the NHS; and how many NHS trusts offer salaries in excess of the range. [34427]

  Mr. Malone
  The current salary range for hospital medical and dental consultant staff is £41,760, to a maximum of £64,690, which includes discretionary points. This applies to consultants employed on national terms and conditions of service. Consultant staff employed on trust contracts may be remunerated in excess of this range. Information on the number of consultant staff on trust contracts is not available centrally.

  Nurses' Pay (NHS Trusts)
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts have made a pay offer additional to the pay award to nurses recommended by the Nurses and Midwives Pay Review body on 8 February. [34641]

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those hospital trusts in the west midlands that(a) have made pay offers to nurses and (b) have not made pay offers to nurses at the latest convenient date. [34660]

  Mr. Malone
  The timing and structure of local pay offers is a matter for local national health service management. It is for each trust to decide whether to make public the position it has reached.

  Mental Health Act Commission
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish his Department's response to the sixth biennial report of the Mental Health Act Commission. [35117]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have written to Lady Runciman, chairman of the Mental Health Act Commission, enclosing a detailed response and have today placed these documents in the Library.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has given to health authorities on the supply of wheelchairs to disabled people. [33730]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have recently issued HSG(96)34 to health authorities. This gives guidance on the provision of indoor-outdoor powered wheelchairs, which the Government have made available on the national health service for the first time.

  Mr. Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list those health authorities which no longer supply wheelchairs to disabled people unable to walk outside their homes; [33731]

  (2) what provision he proposes to make to ensure that disabled people who are occasional users of a wheelchair have access to a wheelchair suitable for their needs. [33732]
  195
  Mr. Bowis
  Wheelchair services are the responsibility of health authorities. It is for health authorities and the wheelchair service centres that provide the service to set their own criteria and priorities.

  Mr. Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many wheelchairs are currently on loan from the NHS; and if he will breakdown the ages of the users into the following groups(a) 10 to 20 years, (b) 20 to 40 years, (c) 40 to 50 years, (d) 50 to 60 years, (e) 60 to 70 years, (f) 70 to 80 years and (g) 80 years-plus. [33733]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is not available centrally in the form requested.

  Mr. Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what correspondence he has had with the Royal Associations for Disability and Rehabilitation regarding the wheelchair service offered by Sandwell health authority; and if he will make a statement. [33734]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have seen the correspondence between Mr. Bert Massie of the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and my officials, It is for health authorities to set their own criteria for the provision of wheelchairs within the increased resources available.

  Stored Embryos
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is currently being carried out on stored frozen embryos. [34581]

  Mr. Horam
  Research in the United Kingdom involving frozen embryos requires a licence from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. At present, there are no licences granted for such research. As for previous research, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on 26 January, column 415.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the arrangements for identifying the donors of stored embryos. [34582]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. member to my letter of 14 May to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton). This was placed in the Library following the reply I gave the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on 25 June, columns 85–6.

  Hospital Wards
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what are the minimum requirements for the amount of space surrounding a bed in an NHS hospital ward; and what weight is given, when setting such requirements, to evidence on(a) the avoidance of cross-infection, (b) the ability to provide effective bedside diagnosis and treatment, and (c) the need for confidential discussions between patient and carer; [34761]

  (2) what guidelines exist to govern (a) the minimum provision of facilities and (b) the amount of space surrounding beds in NHS hospital wards; who enforces such guidelines; and what data he collects on adherence to such guidelines; [34763]
  196
  (3) what are the minimum requirements for provision within NHS hospital wards to ensure adequate (a) toilets, (b) bathrooms, (c) sluice rooms, (d) consultation areas, (e) treatment areas and (f) administration areas. [34766]

  Mr. Horam
  Guidance on facilities to be provided in different types of hospital wards and recommended bed spaces is detailed in design guidance (health building notes) produced by National Health Service Estates, an executive agency of the Department of Health. The recommended amount of space surrounding a bed varies in accordance with the level of dependency of the patient, from 7.2 sq m in an adult acute ward to 25.5 sq m for a bed in intensive care.

  A number of factors are considered in the recommendations, including the nature of bedside activities, the avoidance of cross-infection, the clinical equipment used and the associated ergonomic requirements, as well as patients' privacy.

  Rather than proposing minimum requirements, the guidance suggests an appropriate mix of bed areas, sanitary facilities, clinical treatment areas, consultation and office spaces, depending on the nature of the condition of the patient.

  It is for NHS trusts to take appropriate advice. Health building notes are intended to give good practice advice and guidance on the briefing and design implications of planning new buildings and of adapting or extending existing buildings. The guidelines are not enforced, and data on adherence to them is not available centrally.

  Community Fundholding
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of GPs, GP practices and patients covered by community fundholding as at 1 April 1996; and what proportion each figure is of the total numbers of GPs, practices and patient population. [34760]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is shown in the table.

  Community

  Percentage of total

  General Practitioners

  960

  4

  Practices

  419

  5

  Patients

  1.8 million

  4

  Sources:

  Community fundholding data from regional offices as at 1 April 1996. Data about all GPs from October 1995 GP Census.

  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many companies within the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme received each rate of return; how many exceeded their targets; and how many failed to reach their targets for each of the last three years for which figures are available. [34764]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available for reasons of commercial confidentiality. The Department last month published a first report to Parliament on the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme, which provides an overall assessment of the operation of the scheme. Copies of the report are available in the Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  United Nations Secretary-General
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the candidates who are currently under consideration for the post of Secretary-General of the United Nations. [34566]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, UN Secretary-General, declared his intention to stand again on 19 June. The one other formally declared candidate is Mr. Nicos Rolandis, Cyprus.

  Female Genital Mutilation
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received concerning the ritual practice of female genital mutilation; and if he will make a statement. [34166]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We receive occasional correspondence and this subject is also considered by the UN Commission on Human Rights.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about which countries tolerate female genital mutilation; what discussions he has held with the leaders of such countries regarding it; and if he will make a statement. [34167]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The UN special rapporteur on violence against women monitors this practice in accordance with her mandate. At the Commission for Human Rights in April, the United Kingdom co-sponsored a resolution stressing the rapporteur's recommendation that states have a duty to enact and enforce legislation against the perpetrators of acts such as female genital mutilation. There have been no bilateral discussions.

  Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Ambassador Ramaker's proposal that a comprehensive test ban treaty should enter into force after five years if 75 states have signed and ratified it. [34753]

  Mr. David Davis
  Her Majesty's Government's position is that, for it to be a fully effective non-proliferation measure, the comprehensive test ban treaty must have as parties the declared nuclear-weapon states and all other states with a nuclear capability and which are not otherwise prevented from testing by other international agreements to which they are parties. The formula proposed by Ambassador Ramaker on 20 June, but not incorporated into his revised text, does not meet this requirement.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's assessment of the implications for international security of a lengthy delay in the entry into force of a comprehensive test ban treaty. [34754]
  198
  Mr. Davis
  We believe that the earliest practicable entry into force of the treaty on the basis of universal adherence would best serve the interests of international security.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on whether the 37 states with seismic stations or radionuclide laboratories must sign and ratify a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty before it enters into force; and what is the reason for this policy. [34755]

  Mr. Davis
  Her Majesty's Government's position is that, for it to be a fully effective non-proliferation measure, the comprehensive test ban treaty should have as parties the declared nuclear-weapon states and all other states which are not otherwise prevented from testing by other international agreements to which they are parties. The formula referred to in the question, which appears in the chairman's draft text, meets these requirements and is therefore acceptable to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the verification procedures as outlined in the draft comprehensive test ban treaty will come into effect only once the treaty has entered into force. [34756]

  Mr. Davis
  Once the treaty has been opened for signature, a preparatory committee will be established in order to make the necessary arrangements for the treaty organisation and the verification regime. This work can be expected to take at least two to three years. These arrangements must be complete before the treaty enters into force. Equally, entry into force is self-evidently necessary before the verification system can be operational.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on allowing a comprehensive test ban treaty to enter into force before India, Pakistan and Israel have signed the treaty; and if he will make a statement. [34757]

  Mr. Davis
  I refer the right hon. Member to my earlier answer.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union. [34980]

  Mr. David Davis
  The forthcoming business will be:

  SUBJECT: MONTHLY FORECAST OF BUSINESS FOR JULY 1996

  1. The following Councils are scheduled: 8 July: ECOFIN

  10 July: Social Welfare (Informal)

  11 July: Social Welfare (Informal)

  11 July: Labour Affairs (Informal)

  12 July: Labour Affairs (Informal)

  15 July: General Affairs Council

  16 July: General Affairs Council

  19 July: Environment (Informal)

  20 July: Environment (Informal)

  199

  22 July: Agriculture

  23 July: Agriculture

  25 July: Budget

  2. The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  8 July: Ecofin Council

  Approval of the provisional agenda;

  Approval of the list of "A" items;

  Presentation of the Irish Presidency's ECOFIN programme: open debate;

  Follow up to the Florence European Council;

  Examination of the Austrian convergence programme;

  Excessive government deficit procedure: recommendations (a vote may be requested on this item;

  ELISE (possible item);

  New guarantee system for EIB lending to third countries (possible item);

  Preparation of structured dialogue with the CEECS;

  SEM 2000 interim report by the Commission;

  Fight against fraud: Commission's annual report 1995;

  Other business.

  ECOFIN will be followed by a meeting with CEES at 4.00 pm, and an informal dinner for CEEC Finance Ministers at 7.00 pm, hosted by the Presidency.

  10–11 July: Social Welfare Council (informal)

  Long-term unemployment.

  11–12 July: Labour Affairs Council (informal)

  Long-term unemployment.

  15–16 July: General Affairs Council

  Agenda not yet available.

  19–20 July: Environment Council (informal)

  Agenda not yet available.

  22–23 July: Agriculture Council

  Set aside rate for 1997–98

  Arable base area flexibility

  Price fixing (possible item)

  Reform of the fruit and vegetable regime (possible item)

  Bananas (possible item)

  Plant health: solidarity and responsibility (possible item)

  BSE (possible item)

  25 July: Budget Council

  1997 preliminary draft budget

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the animal welfare issues for which his Department has responsibility. [34305]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  [holding answer 25 June 1996]: We have no direct responsibility for animal welfare issues. We closely follow international animal welfare issues and ensure that foreign policy considerations are taken into account in the handling of these issues.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) United Kingdom legislation, (b) EU legislation and (c) international treaties, conventions or other obligations concerning animal welfare for which his Department has responsibility. [34306]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  [holding answer 25 June 1996]: None.
  200
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list by group, division or other work unit the number of grades of staff working within his Department on animal welfare issues. [34307]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  [holding answer 25 June 1996]: The environment, science and energy department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office employs one DS7 (HEO equivalent), one DS9 (EO equivalent) and one AO dealing with animal welfare issues.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Russian Government about their plans to drill into the freshwater lake lying under the Antarctic ice cap; and if he will make a statement. [34430]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.

  None.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Air Operations International
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when Air Operations International applied for company registration within the United Kingdom; and if it currently holds such registration. [34027]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The index of company names held by the Registrar of Companies shows no registration in the name Air Operations International and there is no application currently being processed in that name. Records covering the past 20 years show no indication of a company having used the name Air Operations International.

  Airlines (Receivership)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action was taken by (i) his Department and (ii) the official receiver as a result of(a) Sultan Air, (b) Time Air, (c) Omega Air and (d) Air Operations Europe going into receivership. [34026]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  After extensive research, it does not appear that companies or firms with any of these names are the subject of receivership or any other insolvency proceedings in the United Kingdom.

  Coal Authority Site (Featherstone)
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what directions have been given by his Department pursuant to paragraph 13(1) of schedule 1 to the Coal Industry Act 1994, to the Coal Authority in relation to the authority's efficiency and effectiveness in the disposal of assets, with particular reference to its ownership of a site at Green lane, Featherstone. [33872]

  Mr. Page
  The Secretary of State has made a determination as to the financial duties of the Coal Authority pursuant to paragraph 13(1) of schedule 1 to the Coal Industry Act 1994. That determination is set out in the authority's annual report and accounts 1994–95,
  201
  a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The restored opencast site at Green lane, Featherstone is owned by British Coal.

  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what directions have been given by his Department, pursuant to paragraph 14(2) of schedule 1 to the Coal Industry Act 1994, to the Coal Authority in relation to retention of receipts for the financial year 1995–96; what directions he has given in relation to the realisation of further receipts from the disposal of assets for the current financial year; and what directions he has given to expedite the realisation of such receipts from the disposal of such assets as those held by the Coal Authority at Green lane, Featherstone. [33871]

  Mr. Richard Page
  The Secretary of State has given one direction to the Coal Authority pursuant to paragraph 14(2) of schedule 1 to the Coal Industry Act 1994 concerning the retention of receipts. That direction is set out in the authority's annual report and accounts 1994–95, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The restored opencast site at Green lane, Featherstone is owned by British Coal.

  Offshore Oil and Gas Licensing
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the companies and location of activities which received awards in the 14th round of offshore oil and gas licensing; and if he will make a statement. [34780]

  Mr. Page
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy on 14 June 1993,Official Report, columns 409–11 in reply to my hon. friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn). Information on this topic is also available in the Library of the House.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the average age of capital stock of machinery in manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom relative to(a) the United States of America, (b) Japan, (c) France and (d) Germany. [33413]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  A paper recently published by the DTI and Cabinet Office, "The UK's Investment Performance Fact and Fallacy", available in the Library of the House, outlines the available evidence on the relative age of the UK's capital stock of machinery. The evidence, from trade surveys and studies of similar plants in different countries, finds UK machinery to be of a similar age to that in other major countries.

  Technology Foresight Programme
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria he uses to evaluate the success of the technology foresight programme. [34633]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The aim of the foresight programme is to build partnerships between the science base and industry, with the ultimate objective of using the UK's strengths in science and technology more effectively to increase national wealth and improve the quality of life. In the short and medium term, we are evaluating the success of the programme using a range of intermediate 202
  criteria, including: numbers actively involved in the programme; the scale of networking activity generated; the level of industry participation in collaborative projects with the science base addressing foresight priorities; and the number and value of public sector R and D programmes initiated or enhanced in direct response to the foresight recommendations.

  Terrorist Damage
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will instigate a scheme for payments of compensation by Government for terrorist damage on the British mainland through the Compensation Agency in accordance with the Northern Ireland model. [34661]

  Mr. Nelson
  No. Insurance to cover damage caused by acts of terrorism is available in Great Britain, with the support of the Government-backed scheme established under the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993. Such insurance has not been available in Northern Ireland for many years.

  Director General of Fair Trading
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to publish the report by the Director General of Fair Trading for the year 1995. [35112]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The 22nd annual report by the Director General of Fair Trading has been published today. It covers the period from 1 January 1995 and 31 December 1995. Copies of the report have been laid before Parliament.

  Public Limited Companies
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department intends to publish the consultative document, referred to in the recent competitiveness White Paper Three, on the question of whether public limited companies should be required to report details of their payment practice in their accounts. [35114]

  Mr. Page
  The Government recognise that late payment is a serious problem for small businesses and sire committed to tackling it. With the aim of helping to promote a "prompt payment culture", the DTI has been developing proposals on providing more public information about the payment practices of public limited companies.

  A consultative document outlining our proposal for extending the Companies Act 1985 payment policy disclosure to cover payment practice as well is being published today. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the Houses.

  The consultative document sets out the method to be followed when reporting payment practice and includes draft regulations, which would be introduced next Session, if supported by the results of the consultation. Comments should be submitted to the company law directorate at the DTI by 27 September.

  Radiation Illness
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of damages claims for
  203
  radiation-induced illness settled annually for the past five years in the United Kingdom nuclear industry; what was the average settlement for each of the years; and how many cases were attributable to the Magnox stations and how many to the advanced gas-cooled reactor stations. [34328]

  Mr. Eggar
  The compensation scheme for radiation-linked diseases is a nuclear industry voluntary scheme for determining compensation due to employees who develop radiation-linked diseases. Since it was introduced in 1982, and up until the end of 1995, compensation payments have been awarded to 63 cases, with almost £3 million in compensation being paid. This is against a total number of claims arising of almost 500.

  The employers and unions from the organisations participating in the compensation scheme agreed that, in order to protect the identification of individual claimants, information on successful claims will be provided only for the compensation scheme as a whole. Details on compensation scheme payments are contained in an annual press statement. I am arranging for copies of the 1995 statement to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Electronic Batons
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 13 June,Official Report, column 270, on electronic batons, what is the title of the marketing research report referred to. [34441]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 25 June 1996]: The title of the marketing report referred to in my answers of 28 March, Official Report, column 733, and 13 June, is "Police and Public Security Requirements for Equipment and Services in the Countries of the Arabian Peninsula".

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Female Genital Mutilation
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial assistance and other forms of aid he has given over the past 10 years to the United Nations agencies that are attempting to eliminate female genital mutilation; and if he will make a statement. [34161]

  Mr. Hartley
  Many of the UN agencies to which we contribute are tackling the problem of female genital mutilation in their programmes but it is not possible to determine what proportion of our contributions have been used specifically for this purpose.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions in the last 10 years he has provided financial and other assistance, in terms of health education, to countries that have implemented, or are seeking to implement, local campaigns to eliminate female genital mutilation; and if he will make a statement. [34163]

  Mr. Hanley
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with his ministerial colleagues in the context of 204
  the EU multilateral aid programme concerning countries that tolerate female genital mutilation; and if he will make a statement. [34164]

  Mr. Hanley
  There have been no recent discussions between Ministers on this subject in the context of the EU multilateral aid programme. We continue to work closely with other member states to ensure the implementation of the 1995 development council resolution on gender equality.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) on what occasion in the last 10 years he has refused foreign aid to countries on the grounds that their Governments tolerate female genital mutilation; and if he will make a statement; [34162]

  (2) what proposals he has to increase foreign aid to countries that are taking action to eliminate female genital mutilation; and if he will make a statement. [34165]

  Mr. Hanley
  We believe that the best means to bring the practice of female genital mutilation to an end is to change attitudes: for example, through seedcorn initiatives for reproductive health and women's empowerment programmes. We support measures to this end and continue to express our views in wider dialogue with relevant governments.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much Overseas Development Administration funding in 1995–96 was provided specifically for work in developing countries with disabled people. [34382]

  Mr. Hanley
  Providing assistance to people with disabilities forms an integral part of many of our programmes in developing countries. No central record is kept of grants made.

  Mr. Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much of the money made available to British non-governmental organisations by the Overseas Development Administration in 1995–96 was provided specifically for work in developing countries with disabled people; and if he will make a statement. [34383]

  Mr. Hanley
  The ODA made available £2,397,419 in 1995–96 to British non-governmental organisations specifically for work with disabled people in developing countries.

  The Overseas Development Administration recognises that disabled people are often among the poorest and most vulnerable in society. We aim to assist disabled people to participate in development through a process that creates economic independence and self-help and in which they are involved in the decisions and planning that most closely affect them.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Halesowen Magistrates Court
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will give his approval
  205
  for the work to be carried out at Halesowen magistrates court to allow the amalgamation of the Halesowen and Stourbridge bench. [33843]

  Mr. Streeter
  Yes

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June. [33654]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June. [33655]

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 June. [33404]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the G7 summit in Lyon.

  Unemployment (European Union)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the level of unemployment in the EU. [33400]

  The Prime Minister
  Unemployment was one of the issues discussed at the European Council in Florence. The European Council confirmed the priority attached to tackling unemployment and agreed to carry forward the strategy agreed at the Essen European Council in December 1994, which recognised the primacy of action by member states and recommended a number of lines of action reflecting this Government's approach.

  Parliamentary Delegation (OSCE)
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Prime Minister what changes he has made to the United Kingdom delegation to the parliamentary assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. [35115]

  The Prime Minister
  The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir Russell Johnston) has been named as a substitute for the Liberal Democrat party.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Tour Visitors (Access)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what action is planned to improve access to the Palace of Westminster by tour visitors. [34668]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  This is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend.

  Crypt Chapel
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee for what reasons the Crypt chapel is not included in the line of route when it is not in use. [34671]
  206
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The Chapel of St. Mary Undercroft in the Crypt is not suited for visits by Members' parties of up to 16 in number on the lint; of route due to the restricted access from Westminster Hall and the limited space available. However, parties of visitors up to six in number personally escorted by an hon. Member may be admitted to the chapel from 12.30 pm to the rising of the House on sitting days only.

TRANSPORT

  Ferry Safety
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what will be the impact of the recent Stockholm agreement on safety standards on ferries operating to and from the United Kingdom. [35121]

  Mr. Norris
  The Stockholm agreement is a major achievement. It will provide substantial extra protection for those who travel on ro-ro ferries. Ferries operating to and from United Kingdom ports must demonstrate, within a tight time scale, that they meet a stringent basic survivability standard and that they can cope with a considerable amount of water on the car deck.

  The requirements of this significant agreement go beyond the worldwide application of the demanding SOLAS 90 standard, as agreed in the International Maritime Organisation last November. Ferries connecting ports in the United Kingdom with neighbouring countries will meet a higher standard for sea-going voyages than will similar vessels operating outside the specified area, as will those on similar UK domestic services.

  A list of ferries, showing the dates by which each must meet the new standard, has been published today. Copies of the list have been placed in the Library.

  The list shows that about 100 sea-going passenger ro-ro ferries currently serve United Kingdom ports. The majority of these vessels already have such a high survival capability that further limited modification is not required until the latter part of the agreed time scale. This shows the robustness of the ro-ro fleet, which will be fortified yet further by the application of the new standard.

  Merchant Shipping Bill
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish a draft Merchant Shipping Bill; and if he will make a statement. [35243]

  Sir George Young
  A draft Merchant Shipping Bill has been published today for consultation, and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The draft Bill contains clauses to implement those recommendations in Lord Donaldson's report "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas", Cm 2560, which the Government accept and which require legislative change.

  The draft Bill contains important provisions that will be widely welcomed. Taken with the measures already implemented since the Donaldson report, they represent a significant step forward in protecting the marine environment and raising safety standards.
  207
  The most important clauses cover: enabling powers to require ports to prepare waste management plans and to take other measures to improve provision and use of waste reception facilities, and increased fines for illegal discharge of waste all of which were part of the package of measures announced by my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping on 24 January; temporary exclusion zones at sea to allow safety zones to be placed around shipping casualties or structures on grounds of safety and/or pollution; widening intervention powers to cover all cases of significant degrees of pollution, not just pollution "on a large scale" as at present; enabling powers to change shipowners for port state control inspections, emergency response measures and standard setting activity; and enabling powers to implement new instruments providing for improved compensation payments to victims of marine pollution.

  The draft Bill also proposes a number of minor amendments to merchant shipping legislation.

  My Department is also publishing today consultation papers on sub-standard and uninsured ships and on the responsibilities of local authorities and port authorities in oil pollution response. Subject to the outcome of consultation on these papers, further draft clauses will be prepared as appropriate.

  Departmental Management Plans
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his Department's management plans for 1996–97. [35123]

  Sir George Young
  I have today published the Department of Transport's departmental management and efficiency plan 1996, summary report. This gives details of how my Department will use its administrative resources in 1996–97 and also reports on efficiency achievements and reviews planned. Copies of this document have been placed in the Library.

  The "Transport Report 1996", Cm 3206, presented to Parliament in March 1996, set out my Department's expenditure plans for 1996–97 to 1998–99. It is supplemented by the business plans published by each of my Department's executive agencies and placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Fisheries (Safety)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the consultation and consideration by the Marine Safety Agency on a code of safety practice for fishing vessels under 12m to be concluded; how he proposes to deal with the recommendations arising from this consideration; what representations he has received about the time taken to consult on and consider this matter; and if he will make a statement. [34794]

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

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. George Foulkes, dated 27 June 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about the Marine Safety Agency's proposed Code of Safe Practice for Fishing Vessels under 12m in length.
  208
  The technical standards in the Code are almost complete and consultation with the fishing industry on how the Code should be implemented is still underway. The consultation process will encompass the timescale for implementing the Code and the means of applying it. A statement will be made when agreement is reached with the fishing industry.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the consequences for safety in the east Shetland basin of the withdrawal by Shell Expo of the Bell 212 helicopter search and rescue facility from the beginning of 1997; and if he will make a statement. [34793]

  Mr. Norris
  The helicopter referred to has been provided by Shell Expo as an additional service and is not a declared UK search and rescue facility. Search and rescue responsibility is met by the Coastguard helicopter based at Sumburgh. Arrangements exist with Norway for the provision of a SAR helicopter based in the Norwegian sector if it is available. In addition to the declared facilities, Shell has advised that two extra pilots will be on standby overnight at Sumburgh to respond to medical emergencies using its own S61 helicopter.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much money from the Arts Council lottery funds has been awarded to the(a) Queen's hall, Hexham, (b) Dovecot arts centre, Stockton and (c) the Royal Court theatre, London theatres; and for what specific proposals. [33243]

  Mr. Sproat
  No award has been made to the Queen's hall, Hexham from the national lottery. The Dovecot arts centre has received an award of £16,000 towards the costs of a feasibility study for the development and extension of its existing premises. There have been two awards to theatres named "Royal Court". The Royal Court Theatre Foundation in Liverpool has received £50,000 towards urgent repairs of the 1930s listed grade II theatre. The Royal Court theatre in London has received £15.8 million towards renovation and development costs. This is the only award to theatres in south-west London.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will commission regular reports from the Office of the National Lottery on the measures it is taking and has taken to ensure that the lottery draw is conducted honestly. [34371]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 25 June 1996]: I have no plans to commission regular reports from Oflot on the measures that is taking and has taken to ensure that the lottery draw is conducted honestly. The director general is required to report to me each year on the exercising of his function. This report will cover his responsibility to ensure that the lottery is run with all due propriety.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what additional resources he estimates will accrue to the BBC as a result of the recent decision to charge for television licences in second homes. [34325]
  209
  Mr. Sproat
  Latest estimates from the BBC indicate that the change in the interpretation of the licensing regulations for second homes may raise around £1 million in additional television licence fee revenue, net of refunds for full, unexpired quarters of the licence term.

  Sport (Inner Cities)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the contribution of sport to inner-city life. [34477]

  Mr. Sproat
  Sport has an important role to play in improving the quality of life for people living in inner-city areas.

  In July 1995, the Government published the sports policy statement "Sport: Raising the Game", which detailed plans for improving the opportunities for young people everywhere to take part in sport. A follow-up statement is to be published this summer detailing the action that has been taken over the past 12 months.

  In addition, the Sports Council, as the statutory distributor in England of national lottery funds for sport, has established a priority funding initiative aimed at attracting more applications from areas of sporting and social deprivation. Up to 90 per cent. lottery funding is now available for projects from identified urban areas of sporting deprivation. The council will also provide up to 80 per cent. of the capital cost for dual use projects that link schools with their communities and local clubs.

  Tobacco Sponsorship
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the total spent through tobacco sponsorship on(a) sport and (b) the arts in 1994–1995; and how much has been spent each year since the voluntary agreement came into effect. [34765]

  Mr. Sproat
  There is no agreement with the Department governing tobacco sponsorship of the arts, and the Department does not hold information on arts sponsorship expenditure by the tobacco industry. The amount spent each year by tobacco companies on sports sponsorship in the UK, up to and including 1994–95, are as follows:

  1976–77: £3,226,000

  1977–78: £3,349,000

  1978–79: £3,679,000

  1979–80: £3,813,000

  1980–81: £4,720,000

  1981–82: £5,474,000

  1982–83: £7,193,000

  1983–84: £7,314,000

  1984–85: £7,349,000

  1985–86: £8,252,000

  1986–87: £7,699,000

  1987–88: £5,911,000

  1988–89: £5,329,000

  1989–90: £7,253,000

  1990–91: £7,630,000

  1991–92: £8,981,000

  1992–93: £10,403,000

  1993–94: £7,576,000

  1994–95: £8,062,000

  210
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much has been spent on tobacco sponsorship of(a) motor racing, (b) snooker, (c) darts, (d) cricket and (e) Rugby League under the terms of the voluntary agreement in each year since 1990. [34762]

  Mr. Sproat
  Records are not kept of the amount spent on tobacco sponsorship on each individual sport. The voluntary agreement on sponsorship requires tobacco manufacturers to inform the Government of the expenditure incurred in each year on sports sponsorship in the United Kingdom. The amounts since 1990 are as follows:

  1990–91: £7,630,000

  1991–92: £8,981,000

  1992–93: £10,403,000

  1993–94: £7,576,000

  1994–95: £8,062,000

  Home Shopping
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what further consideration she has given to ensuring that broadcasters have the opportunity to offer home shopping features on analogue terrestrial television. [35201]

  Mr. Sproat
  Following discussion of this issue during the Committee stage of the Broadcasting Bill, my officials have explored the way forward with home shopping interests and the Independent Television Commission. In the light of those discussions, I believe that we can meet the concerns expressed in Committee by executive action rather than a new clause. I am confident that at its July meeting the ITC will agree to amend its rules on advertising breaks to allow extended home shopping segments in the night hours on terrestrial television channels.

  For the future, the ITC has also said that it will review its rules on advertising breaks as a whole in the light of the final outcome of current negotiations for a revised EU directive and the allocation of airtime available to home shopping will form a part of this review. Should home shopping become established on the terrestrial channels within existing airtime allocations for advertising on these channels, the experience accumulated will also be relevant to decisions about how policy might evolve in the future, and the possibility of further change to ITC rules is not excluded.

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the financial commitments made on behalf of the Government and by the Millennium Commission in connection with the capital costs of the millennium exhibition, separately identifying arrangements covering financial risk by private sector partners. [34438]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 25 June 1996]: No financial commitments have been made on behalf of the Government in connection with the capital costs of the millennium exhibition. The Millennium Commission is prepared to award a grant of up to £200 million. The involvement of the private sector is under negotiation.

  Lottery Awards (North-East Derbyshire)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the grants awarded from the national lottery fund to sporting organisations in North-East Derbyshire. [34092]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 26 June 1996]: There have, to date, been no awards made to sporting organisations in North-East Derbyshire. Derbyshire as a whole, however, has benefited from 19 awards to sports organisations, totalling £1,588,294.

WALES

  Prescribing Costs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide figures for prescribing costs for each of the years 1990–91 to 1995–96, for general practices, set out as(a) continuing non-fundholders, (b) first wave fundholders, (c) second wave fundholders, (d) third wave fundholders, (e) fourth wave fundholders and (f) fifth wave fundholders. [34323]

  Mr. Hague
  Information is not held in the form requested. Prescribing costs for fundholders and non-fundholders for 1994–95 and 1995–96 are as follows:

  Expenditure (£000s)

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Fundholders

  72,573.594

  93,830.025

  Non-fundholders

  172,273.066

  169,708.742

  Higher Education Expenditure
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the public expenditure on higher education in Wales, excluding public expenditure on student maintenance, both in cash terms and in real terms, and expressed as a percentage of(a) estimated Welsh gross domestic product and (b) estimated United Kingdom gross domestic product for each financial year since 1989–90; and what is planned for (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98 and (iii) 1998–99. [34317]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on Wednesday 26 June 1996, columns 154–55.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of school leavers went directly into work in the last year without training(a) in Wales and (b) in each TEC area. [34278]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The precise information requested is not available. Twelve per cent. of pupils leaving school in Wales in summer 1994 were in full-time employment at September 1994.

  GCSE
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the GCSE average point scores for(a) each twentieth group and (b) the cumulative twentieth groups of 15-year-old pupils ranked according
  212
  to their average point scores for (i) 1993 and (ii) 1994 in respect of (1) all pupils, (2) pupils in the grant-maintained sector, (3) pupils in the independent sector and (4) pupils in the local education authority maintained sector, giving the numbers of each group of the whole cohort in each case. [33394]

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

  Ambulance Policy and Advisory Group
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 24 June,Official Report, column 50, if he will list the dates of the meetings subsequent to 16 January 1995 of the Welsh ambulance policy and advisory group attended by his officials; and what were the main subjects discussed. [34785]

  Mr. Hague
  The dates of meetings of the Welsh ambulance policy advisory group attended by my officials are:

  16 January 1995

  5 April 1995

  28 July 1995

  15 September 1995

  6 October 1995

  17 November 1995

  16 February 1996

  1 April 1996

  14 June 1996

  Discussions covered a wide range of ambulance operational and policy issues.

  Welsh Office Publications List
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will arrange to place future issues of the Welsh Office publications list in the Vote Office. [34401]

  Mr. Hague
  Future issues of the annual Welsh Office publications list will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit the Employment Service office in Mold road, Buckley, Flintshire. [34747]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has no plans to visit the Employment Services office in Mold road, Buckley at the present time.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make it his policy to keep open the Employment Service office in Mold road, Buckley, Flintshire; [34748]

  (2) how many Employment Service offices in Wales have been closed since 1992. [34749]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Responsibility for the Employment Service in Wales rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
  213
  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet(a) Buckley town council and (b) Flintshire county council to discuss the proposed closure of the Buckley Employment Service offices. [34750]

  Mr. Jones
  No. Responsibility for the Employment Service in Wales rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 March,Official Report, column 169, if he will make a statement about his plans for Wales with regard to powered wheelchairs and financial aid for wheelchairs. [34751]

  Mr. Hague
  Discussions on the future provision of wheelchair services in Wales are continuing. Decisions will be taken when detailed advice is available and has been fully assessed.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of general practitioner practices in Wales as at 1 April 1996, which were(a) total fundholding, (b) conventional fundholdings and (c) community fundholding; how many patients in total were covered by each category of GP; and what proportion this represented of the total patient population. [34767]

  Mr. Hague
  As at 1 April 1996, in Wales, there were:

  (a) Four Total Purchasing Pilot Projects involving 14 practices' with a combined list of 130,251 (4.44 per cent. of the population);

  (b) 197 Standard Fundholding practices with a combined list of 1,424,535 (48.54 per cent. of the population); and

  (c) 13 community Fundholding practices with a combined list of 39,876 (1.4 per cent. of the population).

  1 These practices are included in, not additional to, those in sub-para b).

  South East Wales Ambulance Trust
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultation he has had with the chairman of the South East Wales ambulance trust concerning his financial accounting proposals relating to those partially built Mercedes Benz Lifestal ambulances which have been paid for but will not be completed for trust use. [34759]

  Mr. Hague
  None; this is currently an operational matter for the trust.

ENVIRONMENT

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total number of houses or flats sold by each of the London borough authorities since 1980. [33706]
  214
  Mr. Clappison
  Information on sales of council houses and flats reported by each English local authority for financial years from 1979–80 and a cumulative total of sales to the end of December 1995 is available in the Library.

  Clinical Waste
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) which countries export clinical and medical waste to England and Wales for high temperature incineration; and if he will make a statement. [34036]

  (2) what recent discussions have taken place with the Irish Department of Health concerning the export of medical and clinical waste to England and Wales; and if he will make a statement; [34038]

  (3) what plans he has to modify the regulations governing the importation of medical and clinical waste; and if he will make a statement; [34039]

  (4) if he will list the names and locations of those companies in England and Wales which are licensed to import medical and clinical waste for high temperature incineration; and if he will make a statement. [34037]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government's policies on exports and imports of waste from and to the United Kingdom are contained in the United Kingdom management plan for exports and imports of waste which was published on 16 May 1996. The plan has legal effect, and came into force on 1 June 1996.

  The Government's policy proposals for waste exports and imports were initially outlined in a statement by the then Minister for the Environment and Countryside, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) on 15 June 1994. The Department consulted on its proposals, in the form of a draft plan, during February and March 1995; the European Commission and other EC member states, including the Republic of Ireland, were also consulted at this time.

  Under the plan, imports of waste for disposal are generally banned, in line with the principle of self-sufficiency in the disposal of waste. However, exceptions to this policy occur in cases of emergency, or where the exporting country does not have, and cannot reasonably acquire, suitable disposal facilities of its own.

  Representations were received from the Irish Government, to the effect that they produce certain hazardous wastes in sufficiently small quantities overall per year that the provision of new specialised disposal facilities in Ireland would be uneconomic. As a result of these representations, the Government decided to exclude the Republic of Ireland from the phase-out of imports of waste from other EC member states for high temperature incineration at facilities capable of operating at temperatures in excess of 1100 deg C. Thus, Irish waste destined for high temperature incineration, including some categories of clinical waste, will continue to be allowed access to UK facilities. Imports from the Irish Republic of clinical or other waste destined for low temperature incineration, however, are not permitted under the plan.

  In 1994–95, the latest year for which figures are available, the following European countries exported hazardous wastes to the United Kingdom for high

  215
  temperature incineration: Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. Wastes were also imported for high temperature incineration from Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Mozambique, Norway, Thailand, Turkey and Venezuela. Data are not available on the origin of these wastes by economic sector-clinical, medical, industrial, and so on.

  There are four sites in England and Wales which are licensed as high temperature incinerators as defined in the plan; these are listed:

  Rechem International Ltd.: Pontypool

  Rechem International Ltd.: Southampton

  Cleanaway Ltd.: Ellesmere Port

  Leigh Environmental Ltd. Killamarsh.

  We have no plans at present to modify the regulations governing the importation of medical and clinical waste into the United Kingdom. However, the question of clinical waste imports has recently been raised informally with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health by the Irish Minister for Health. As a result, we understand that the Irish Government are considering making a formal request for a temporary dispensation to continue imports of clinical waste for low temperature incineration. We will consider any such request on its merits.

  Mercury (Disposal)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made in persuading the lighting industry to take greater responsibility for the safe disposal of mercury. [33866]

  Mr. Clappison
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on Monday 22 April 1996,Official Report, column 1. I have no further information to add.

  Contaminated Waste (Disposal)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the proposals and sites currently under consideration for the dispersal of contaminated waste. [33842]

  Mr. Clappison
  Applications for waste management licences are made to the Environment Agency. The agency is required to maintain a public register of licence applications made to it and of licences which it has granted. Whether a particular site would take contaminated waste would depend on the terms of the licence granted by the agency.

  Environmental Standards (Job Creation)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the number of jobs likely to be created by higher environmental standards announced in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [33907]

  Mr. Clappison
  The effect of higher environmental standards on competitiveness and jobs is complex and depends on a number of factors, including the design and implementation of each particular standard. Chapter 7 of the third competitiveness White Paper, which was recently published by the Government, outlines some of the issues.

  Parapox Virus
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the spread of parapox and its effect on the red squirrel population. [33853]

  Mr. Clappison
  No research into the parapox virus has been commissioned by my Department.

  I am aware of work being undertaken by the Institute of Zoology in identifying the virus in red squirrels and understand that the institute is working in association with wildlife trusts under the north-west red alert scheme, which enables a number of trusts in the north-west of England to collect red squirrel carcases. We will continue to follow this work with interest and await its outcome, together with any recommendations that are forthcoming.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account he took of the unit costs for(a) cavity wall insulation and (b) heating system upgrade as set out in the home energy efficiency scheme proposals for change when setting the current HEES budget; and if he will make a statement. [34242]

  Mr. Clappison
  The two measures mentioned by the hon. Member are not presently provided under the home energy efficiency scheme. Their costs were not, therefore, relevant factors in determining the current level of funding. The Government are consulting on possible alterations to HEES, and will consider whether any changes are desirable in the light of that consultation.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the responsibility of(a) the local authorities and (b) the Valuation Office in ensuring that the correct rateable reference is used to calculate the liability of individual businesses for business rates. [34482]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Valuation officers, who are employed by the Valuation Office agency, are responsible for compiling and then maintaining an accurate non-domestic rating list for each billing authority in the country. Local authorities are required to inform the valuation officer for their area of any information which suggests that a list requires alteration.

  Building Inspectors
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he plans to monitor the performance of approved inspectors appointed under the provisions of the Building Act 1984. [34366]

  Mr. Clappison
  As with local authority building control, the Department conducts no formal monitoring of the performance of approved inspectors.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he plans to allow new approved inspectors appointed under the provisions of the Building Act 1984 to compete in the new house building sector. [34368]

  Mr. Clappison
  The existing approved inspector— NHBC Building Control Services Ltd.—has in place, as a statutory requirement, a scheme of insurance which has
  217
  been approved by the Secretary of State for building control work in relation to dwellings. An applicant for approved inspector status who has a similar scheme of insurance approved by the Secretary of State will, subject to demonstrating technical competence and being awarded approved inspector status, be allowed to operate as an approved inspector in the new house building sector.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to appoint further corporate approved inspectors under the provisions of the Building Act 1984. [34365]

  Mr. Clappison
  The appointment of further corporate approved inspectors is expected by late summer.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what period of authorisation he intends to adopt for the appointment of new approved inspectors under the provisions of the Building Act 1984 prior to a review of their appointment. [34367]

  Mr. Clappison
  Under the provisions of the Building (Approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations 1985, an approval by the Secretary of State of a corporate approved inspector remains extant until withdrawn. The appointments are not subject to periodic review.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to apply to new approved inspectors appointed under the provisions of the Building Act 1984 the same regime of departmental authorisation and performance monitoring as that applied to NHBC Building Control Services Ltd. [34369]

  Mr. Clappison
  Under the provisions of the Building (Approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations 1985, corporate approved inspectors such as NHBC Building Control Services Ltd. are approved by the Secretary of State. There is no regime of departmental authorisation beyond the approval process. As with local authority building control, the Department conducts no formal monitoring of the performance of approved inspectors.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement in response to the representations by the Deregulation Committee about the transfer of costs from the private sector to local authorities and the completeness of his Department's consultation in relation to the Deregulation (Building) (Initial Notices and Final Certificates) Order 1996. [34370]

  Mr. Clappison
  In the 14th report of the Deregulation Committee, it was noted that the transfer of costs to local authorities that would be incurred by the Deregulation (Building) (Initial Notices and Final Certificates) Order 1996, if enacted, may not be as significant as first appeared. On this basis, the Committee indicated its willingness to accept the transfer in this case. It did, however, raise the issue of whether in principle it is acceptable to transfer costs from the private sector to local authorities as a result of deregulation orders, which is an issue that should not be addressed by my Department in isolation.

  The comments of the Committee on the completeness of the consultation have been noted, and will be addressed should the occasion arise again. However, the Committee
  218
  reported that the flaws in the consultation would have no harmful effect because the proposed changes would not undermine necessary protection.

  Government Regional Policy
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the roles of the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration as(a) central co-ordinator of Government policy towards the south-west and (b) regeneration sponsor Minister for Leeds, Bradford, Batley and the Thames gateway. [34362]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Prime Minister has asked the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration to act as central co-ordinator of Government policy towards the south-west. Working with colleagues in the relevant Government Departments, the Minister is taking a close interest in the broad issues affecting the whole of the south-west, but is focusing particularly on the concerns and interests of the counties of Devon and Cornwall.

  The Minister is continuing to discharge his responsibilities as regeneration sponsor Minister for Leeds, Bradford, Batley and the Thames gateway. His role is to support and promote Government regeneration initiatives through contact with civic and business leaders and other local interests; to act as a channel for communicating local concerns to ministerial colleagues; and to share with sponsor Minister and other colleagues experience and ideas relevant to regeneration.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what instructions or guidance have been given to the regional director of the Government office for the south-west on the implications of the appointment of the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration as central co-ordinator of Government policy towards the south-west and the way in which the Government office should relate to him. [34364]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The appointment of the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration as a central co-ordinator of Government policy towards the south-west does not change the accountability of officials in the Government office for the south-west to Ministers in the four Departments of which they are part.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the terms of reference given to the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration in his capacity as a central co-ordinator of Government policy towards the south-west. [34361]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Prime Minister has asked the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration to act as a central co-ordinator of Government policy towards the south-west. The Minister will be working with colleagues in the relevant Departments looking at the broad issues affecting the whole of the south-west, and focusing particularly on the concerns and interests of the counties of Devon and Cornwall.

  Domestic Waste
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the average calorific value of domestic waste per cubic metre and the subsequent average reduction in this estimated value after the removal of recyclable components; and if he will make a statement. [34344]

  Mr. Clappison
  The composition and density of household waste varies significantly between households, and so it is not possible to give a meaningful average calorific value of domestic waste per cubic metre. Typical calorific values fall in the range of 9.5 to 11 megajoules per kilogram.

  A summary report1 of research carried out by AEA Technology entitled "The Impact of Recycling Household Waste on Downstream Energy Recovery Systems", which was published in June 1995, concluded that all of the various source separation options for recyclable materials which were considered increased—rather than decreased—the calorific value in megajoules per kilogram of the waste feedstock. However, they also reduced in total the amount of energy that might be recovered from a given amount of waste. The report therefore concluded that the introduction of source separation schemes for recycling household waste does not prejudice energy recovery from the residual waste.
  1 Available from the Renewable Energies Bureau, ETSU, Harwell, Didcot, Oxfordshire 0X11 ORA, Tel 01235 432450, reference number B/RR/00286/REP.

  Regeneration
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the terms of reference given to regeneration sponsor Ministers listed in figure 32 of the Department of the Environment's annual report for 1996. [34363]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The role of sponsor Ministers is to support and promote Government regeneration initiatives in their area through contact with civic and business leaders and other local interests; to act as a channel for communicating the local concerns of their area to ministerial colleagues; and to share with sponsor Minister and other colleagues experience and ideas relevant to regeneration.

  Local Government Ombudsman
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the circumstances under which the local government ombudsman considers cases referred more than 12 months from the day when the complainant first thought that maladministration was occurring; and what plans he has to introduce legislation to record such circumstances in law. [34498]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Under section 26(4) of the Local Government Act 1974, the local government ombudsman may conduct an investigation into a complaint outside the 12-month period if he considers it reasonable to do so. In any such case, it is for the ombudsman to decide on the facts of that individual case whether it would be right to exercise his power to investigate. The local government 220
  ombudsman's current arrangements for handling complaints are being considered as part of the second stage of the review, which was announced on 12 February 1996 by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, Official Report, column 402.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many cases the local government ombudsman has handled in each year of his existence. [34500]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The number of cases handled by the three offices of the local government ombudsman service in England is as follows:

  Year

  Complaints received

  Complaints determined

  1974–75

  473

  355

  1975–76

  2,249

  1,916

  1976–77

  2,277

  1,930

  1977–78

  2,464

  1,519

  1978–79

  2,116

  2,031

  1979–80

  2,181

  2,105

  1980–81

  2,434

  2,303

  1981–82

  2,706

  2,501

  1982–83

  2,743

  2,763

  1983–84

  3,034

  3,019

  1984–85

  3,389

  3,284

  1985–86

  3,502

  3,134

  1986–87

  4,059

  3,853

  1987–88

  4,229

  4,158

  1988–89

  7,055

  5,961

  1989–90

  8,733

  7,290

  1990–91

  9,169

  9,104

  1991–92

  12,123

  10,713

  1992–93

  13,307

  14,057

  1993–94

  14,253

  13,718

  1994–95

  15,525

  15,140

  1995–96

  15.226

  16,344

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of recent assessments made of the performance and level of service of the local government ombudsman. [34502]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  As announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration on 12 February 1996,Official Report, columns 402–03, the second stage of a review of the local government ombudsman service is currently in progress. Copies of the report on the first stage of the review, which examined the need for an independent system for the investigation of complaints, were placed in the Library of the House on that date. The second stage will focus particularly on the efficiency and effectiveness of the local government ombudsman service as an investigatory body.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many complaints he has received regarding the local government ombudsman office's handling of cases in each year since the office was established. [34499]
  221
  Sir Paul Beresford
  Detailed records of this information are not kept by my Department. As announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration on 26 June 1995,Official Report, column 534, we have received more than 200 written representations expressing some dissatisfaction about the operation of the local government ombudsman service since 1 January 1994.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff are currently employed at the local government ombudsman's office. [34501]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  At 1 June 1996, 213 staff were employed by the three offices of the local government ombudsman service in England.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current budget allocation for the running of the local government ombudsman's office; and if he intends to review its funding. [34503]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The local government ombudsman service is funded by a grant made annually by my Department from the revenue support grant. The grant for 1996–97 is £6.7 million, in addition to which a further £600,000 is available to the service from its own resources—reserves and income earned. The funding of the local government ombudsman service is currently being considered as part of the review which was announced on 12 February 1996 by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing, and Urban Regeneration,Official Report, columns 402–03.

  Green Ministers
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish summaries of the discussions and actions agreed upon following the meetings of Green Ministers. [34573]

  Mr. Clappison
  Green Ministers decided not to publish summaries of their discussions but agreed to publish a list of contact addresses in each Government Department where inquiries on green issues could be directed. A copy of the list is in the House Library. They also agreed to publish a series of case studies which show what measures Departments have taken to ensure that environmental considerations are taken into account in policies and programmes.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the next meeting of Green Ministers is planned; and what will be on the agenda. [34574]

  Mr. Clappison
  The next meeting of Green Ministers will take place later in the summer. The agenda has not yet been drawn up.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which Government Departments were present at the last meeting of the Green Ministers; and which were represented by a Minister. [34575]

  Mr. Clappison
  All Green Ministers attended or were represented at their last meeting.

  "Policy Appraisal and the Environment"
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff are employed within his 222
  Department with responsibility for ensuring that "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" is used by all Government Departments. [34576]

  Mr. Clappison
  It is for individual Government Departments to ensure that "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" is used within their Departments. Within my Department, no staff have exclusive responsibility for this task.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance has been issued to the Government regional offices to ensure "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" is used in decision making at regional level; and if he will place a copy of that guidance in the Library. [34577]

  Mr. Clappison
  All Government Departments were advised to use "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" when it was published in 1991. Copies were distributed widely within the Department of the Environment, including the regional offices.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what monitoring is(a) currently undertaken and (b) planned of the use of "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" by Government Departments and Government regional offices. [34578]

  Mr. Clappison
  No monitoring has been undertaken, but the Department is about to appoint consultants who will evaluate the degree to which "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" has been used by Government Departments, and will make recommendations as to how the integration of environmental considerations into policy making in government can be reinforced.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will announce the name of the new chairman of the Local Government Commission for England. [35270]

  Mr. Curry
  Professor Malcolm Grant, the current deputy chairman of the Local Government Commission for England, has been appointed chairman of the commission with effect from 1 July 1996 when Sir David Cooksey's term of appointment is completed. To retain the current membership of seven commissioners a new member has been appointed, Mr. Robin Gray, who takes up post on the same day.

  Hedgerows
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government expect to publish the draft Hedgerow Protection Regulations for consultation; and if the Government propose to introduce the hedgerow protection scheme by July. [34572]

  Mr. Clappison
  Section 97 of the Environment Act 1995 requires that hedgerow protection regulations are subject to consultation and approval by both Houses under the affirmative resolution procedure before they can come into effect. We expect to publish the draft regulations for consultation later in the summer, with the aim of laying the regulations in Parliament by the end of the year.

  Purchase Grant Scheme
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to consult on detailed proposals covering the remaining counties of England to exempt small rural settlements from the purchase grant scheme; and if he will make a statement. [35271]

  Mr. Curry
  In March, we issued a consultation paper on how we propose to exempt small rural settlements in England from the new purchase grant scheme. The paper set out the way we propose to implement the designation in England, and invited comments on our general approach, and on the detailed proposals for the first 15 counties and areas. In May, we issued a consultation paper that covered a further 15 counties. Comments were sought from local authorities, housing associations, rural groups and other interested parties.

  We have today issued a supplement to those papers, which gives detailed proposals for the final 15 counties: Norfolk, North Yorkshire, Northamptonshire, Northumberland, Nottinghamshire, Somerset, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Surrey, Suffolk, Tyne and Wear, Warwickshire, West Midlands, West Sussex, West Yorkshire.

  Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies of papers for each individual county or area, including copies of any maps needed, have also been placed in both Libraries.

  Housing Investment Trusts
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that housing investment trusts can benefit from the same accounting rules as other investment trusts under the Companies Act 1985. [35272]

  Mr. Curry
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), has agreed, in principle, to extend the definition of investment companies in section 266 of the Companies Act 1985 to cover properties of the type to be held by housing investment trusts so that the same reliefs are available to those companies. As there is a need to consult on any proposal to amend the Companies Act, and to ensure that wider accounting treatment issues are considered thoroughly, it is unlikely the necessary amendment could be introduced this year. We would expect the required order to be laid before the House early in the new year.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list by group, division or other work unit the number of grades of staff working within his Department on animal welfare issues; [34301]

  (2) if he will list (a) United Kingdom legislation, (b) EU legislation and (c) international treaties, conventions or other obligations concerning animal welfare for which his Department has responsibility; [34300]

  (3) if he will list the animal welfare issues for which his Department has responsibility. [34299]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 25 June 1996]: The animal welfare issues for which my Department are responsible include zoos, the keeping of dangerous wild
  224
  animals, the ban on the use of certain methods of killing or taking of birds and wild animals, leghold traps and some aspects of the transport of endangered species.

  These issues are covered by the Zoo Licensing Act 1981, the Dangerous Wild Animal Act 1976, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the EC Leghold Trap Regulation 1991 (EC No. 3254/91 and EC No. 1771/94). Provisions on accommodation and handling during the transport of endangered species are reflected in existing EC regulations (EC No. 3626/82 and 3418/83) which govern the implementation of the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora.

  The wildlife and countryside directorate is responsible for animal welfare issues among its other duties. The grades and approximate number of the directorate's staff involved are:

  Director (Grade 3): less than 1 full-time equivalent

  Assistant Secretary (G5): less than 1

  Principal (G7):less than 1

  Higher Executive Officer: 1

  Executive Officer: 1–2

  Administrative Officer: Assistant: 1–2.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Department Offices
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent on Employment Department office refurbishment in Swansea before its sale; and what were the sale proceeds. [34483]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Alan Williams, dated 26 June 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the cost of the Employment Department office refurbishment in Swansea.
  The refurbishment of one of my offices in Swansea started in February 1994. The work was essential for the following reasons;

  (i) to meet our organisational requirements at that time in order to efficiently deal with the needs of the business;

  (ii) to fulfil our lease obligations to maintain the standard of our estates responsibilities ie redecoration and maintenance/upgrade of the heating system;

  (iii) to meet health and safety requirements by upgrading light levels to ensure compliance with the Health at Work Act.

  Subsequent to these alterations taking place our operational requirements changed and. in order to meet these and to continue to improve the delivery of services to our clients, the decision was taken to fully integrate the functions undertaken at Grove House with those at my other Jobcentre in High Street.
  Although the premises have not been open to the public since September 1995, the Employment Service has continued to use the premises for its business and will do so until the lease break at the end of June 1996.
  By maintaining the standard of the office, the refurbishment will greatly offset any dilapidation claim the landlord may have against us at the end of our tenure in June.

  225
  There were no sale proceeds as the building is leasehold, not freehold. Disposal of our lease in June will realise savings of £42,500 rent and £20,000 rates per annum to the ES. Additional running cost savings of £10,500 per annum in respect of fuel, utilities etc, will also be achieved.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many callers and inquiries have been handled at the Buckley Employment Service premises in(a) 1994 and (b) 1995; [34728]

  (2) if she will review her decision to close the Employment Service premises in Buckley, Flintshire; [34730]

  (3) if she will visit the Employment Service premises in Buckley, Flintshire; [34727]

  (4) if she will meet the (a) Flintshire county council and (b) Buckley town council to discuss the future of the Employment Services premises in Buckley, Flintshire; [34729]

  (5) how many Employment Service premises have been closed since 1992; and if she will make a statement. [34731]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Robert Home to Mr. Barry Jones, dated 27 June 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me, in the absence of the Chief Executive, to reply to your questions concerning the closure of die Buckley Jobcentre, Flintshire later this year.
  In response to your question about the number of callers and enquiries that have been handled at the Buckley Employment Service (ES) premises in 1994 and 1995,1 am unable to provide the precise information you ask for. Jobcentres are not required to collect this information as a matter of course, however the following information does provide a good indication of regular callers at Buckley:
  The number of clients claiming benefit and signing each week averaged 300 per week for 1994 and 270 per week for 1995.
  The number of job submissions each week averaged 156 per week for 1994 and 170 per week for 1995. (These figures are not necessarily in addition to the number of clients signing as many would be submitted to job vacancies on their signing day.)
  Since 1992, ES has closed 37 offices nationally.
  The ES always keeps its operations under review and the decision to close Buckley Jobcentre was not taken lightly. Buckley is a small town 2½ miles from Mold. Mold ESJ offers clients the full range of ES services. There is a regular bus service every 15 minutes between Buckley and Mold and other ESJs within easy reach are Wrexham (12 miles) and Shotton (6 miles). The ES can do more to help its clients through its larger offices which offer the full range of ES services than small offices which offer only a limited service. Office closures are also linked to the ES programme to bring Jobcentre and Benefit Services together under one roof, a policy now required by the ES' role in the delivery of the Jobseekers' Allowance.
  In respect of your request that the Secretary of State visits the ES premises at Buckley and meets Flintshire County Council and Buckley Town Council, perhaps the most appropriate course of action would be for the District Manager, Ted Pinch and the Director for Wales, Bernard Pearce, to meet with you to discuss Employment
  226
  Service provision in Buckley and Flintshire. Should you wish to contact Ted Pinch, his telephone number is 01978 203500 and Bernard Pearce can be contacted on 01222 380705.
  I hope this is helpful.

  All-work Tests
  Mr. Alan Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what is the administration cost per claimant of referrals to adjudication where a doubt has arisen about availability for work, actively seeking work, or willingness to accept work; [34788]

  (2) how many adjudication decisions have been made on questions of availability for work, actively seeking work and willingness to accept work, where the adjudication officer considered claims related to the application of the student regulation for part-time study; [34786]

  (3) how many adjudication decisions have been made on questions of availability for work, actively seeking work and willingness to accept work, where doubts have arisen (a) from the student questionnaire "People Attending Training and Further Education Courses", (b) as a result of voluntary activity and (c) as a result of part-time employment. [34787]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Robert Home to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 27 June 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me, in the absence of the Chief Executive, to reply to your questions about adjudication decisions relating to unemployed people who are undertaking courses of training or further education, doing voluntary work or who are in part time employment.
  Unfortunately, information is not available in the form you have requested.
  Information about the number of adjudication officer decisions and opinions, is contained in a published document entitled "Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions". This provides information on all the main entitlement questions arising on claims. Copies of this document are held in the Library of the House. The latest available information relates to the quarter year and year to 31 March 1996.
  However, no statistics are held specifically in relation to availability and actively seeking work decisions on claims made by people who complete student questionnaires, declare participation in voluntary work or are in part time employment.
  I am unable to state the administration cost per claimant where referral to adjudication is necessary because of doubts on these questions. Information on administration costs is not broken down in this way.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Jobcentre Computers
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice has recently been received from the Furniture Research Establishment concerning the steps necessary to make safe the new jobseeker's allowance computer systems in jobcentres; what action her Department is taking in respect of this advice; what is the estimated cost; and if she will make a statement. [34792]
  227
  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Robert Home to Mr. Stephen Byers, dated 27 June 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question, in the absence of the Chief Executive, about the advice received from the Furniture Industry Research Association (FIRA) concerning electrical safety, the action being taken in respect of this advice, and the estimated cost.
  Following the recent accident at Bamsbury Jobcentre we have taken immediate steps to improve safety. The risk which we have to deal with arises not so much from the installation of new personal computers as from the cabling of electrical equipment generally. We have instructed staff to make visual checks of all cables which pass through or near their desks for signs of damage. We have also brought forward our regular six mondily check of electrical appliances. Costs arising from these actions will depend on the faults found, but are likely to be small.
  As an additional precaution we asked FIRA for advice about die earthing of desks. FIRA are providing technical specifications for our electrical contractors to enable them to begin a programme of earth bonding desks. Initial estimates are that the programme will cost around £1.75 million. The exact figure will be available when the technical specifications have been fully costed.

  Supported Employment Programme
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what changes will be made to the entry procedures for the Employment Service's supported employment programme as a result of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and if she will make a statement. [35116]

  Mr. Forth
  We have recently completed a public consultation on the entry criteria for this programme. The consultation was announced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People in January 1995 in the publication "Ending Discrimination against Disabled People". A substantial majority of those responding were in favour of keeping the current entry criteria apart from the modifications needed to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

  Entry to the programme is currently based on registration under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 and judgments by the Employment Service on a disabled person's capability of undertaking open employment. The Disability Discrimination Act amends the 1944 Act by introducing a new employment right and a new definition of disability. Once these apply, towards the end of 1996, registration as disabled will cease.

  We have decided that the current entry criteria—that disabled people should be 30 per cent. to 80 per cent. productive relative to a non-disabled person and that they cannot otherwise obtain or retain employment on account of the severity of their disability—should continue to apply. Once registration as disabled has ceased, all disabled people entering the programme will need to comply with the definition of disability in the Disability Discrimination Act. Disabled people who were on the register on 12 January 1995 and on the date the new employment right comes into effect will be deemed to be disabled for the purposes of the Act without having to provide other evidence of disability.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans he has to review the CSA computer system; [33827]

  (2) what plans he has (a) to revise and (b) to rebuild the CSA computer system. [33814]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the chief executive of the Child Support Agency to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), on 20 June,Official Report, column 603.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) for what period of time the Child Support Agency is authorised to keep records of cases of former clients on its computer systems; [34313]

  (2) what safeguards are applied to ensure that data held about former clients by the Child Support Agency cannot be accessed; [34312]

  (3) in what circumstances data relating to former clients of me Child Support Agency is held on the Child Support Agency computer system after a case is closed; [34316]

  (4) how many cases of former clients of the Child Support Agency whose cases have been closed still have records on the Child Support Agency computer system; [34314]

  (5) what requirements are placed on the Child Support Agency to delete the records of former clients whose cases have been closed. [34315]

  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 Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 27 June 1996:
  In the absence of Miss Chant, the Chief Executive, I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency Computer System (CSCS).
  Under the Data Protection Act 1984 the Agency is empowered to retain information for as long as mere is a business need. There are no other requirements placed on the Child Support Agency to delete records whose cases have been closed other than the Data Protection Act.
  The 6th Principle of the Data Protection Act is that "Personal Data held for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or purposes."
  All accesses to the CSCS require the input of a unique Personal Identification Device (PID) which registers the access on an Audit trail which is subject to management checks. In addition all devices use password techniques which prevent unauthorised access. Standard physical security practices are in place near all Agency terminals.
  Users of me CSCS are also restricted by the system, to updating only those areas of the system which are relevant to their duties.
  Data which have been archived off the CSCS cannot be retrieved through me system, but hard copy records can be obtained by authorised users.
  In the case of nationally sensitive or locally sensitive cases only designate officers with a higher security profile are allowed access to that case.

  229
  At present all closed cases are retained on die CSCS. A programme to introduce archiving and weeding of data has begun and some redundant data which have been superseded is already being removed from all cases.
  There are business reasons why the Agency needs to retain data for a specified period after the case is closed ie. enquiries, appeals, monitoring of cases for Secretary of State targets.
  There are also circumstances where it would be necessary to retain data for a longer period. This would be applicable where "Good Cause" for not pursuing a case has been established; in such a case the Agency is not permitted under its regulations to pursue the same case in future. There are other instances where it is in the best interests of Agency clients to retain data. For example, where DNA testing has been undertaken the Agency would not wish to go over ground previously covered with a client in the event of a repeat claim.
  The picture is complicated by the fact that a person may be linked to more than one assessment unit or case. Thus an assessment unit may be closed but die individual personal records may still be considered active if they are also linked to another open case. Similarly a person can legitimately leave an assessment unit, for example a non qualifying child, and their record closed but the actual assessment unit remain open and active.
  There are currently approximately 650,000 closed cases on the CSCS which represents 38% of the 1.7 million cases on die system. There are approximately 753,000 personal records which are regarded as "inactive" on die computer system which represents approximately 20% of the total 3.8 million person records on the file. These personal records include records of children.
  Whilst the Agency accepts the principle of removing or archiving much data from closed cases there are nevertheless important reasons to retain some evidence of legitimate clients in the event of repeat applications. It is important mat such records are retained for a longer period.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the forthcoming changes in respect of eligibility for family credit; what steps were taken to advise recipients of the changes; and what estimate he has made of the likely average impact of the changes upon single parents. [33844]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  From 2 July, family credit awards will terminate when the last remaining dependent child in a family leaves full-time, non-advanced education. We have written to all families who may be immediately affected and a further letter will be sent around 2 July to all such families to give information about the new rules. From 2 July, information will be included on award notices and on forms and leaflets.

  Of me 287,000 lone parents who receive family credit, we estimate that under 4 per cent. will be affected by the change. The impact will depend on how many weeks of the 26-week family credit award remain when the child leaves school.

  Income Support
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were disqualified from income support under the notional income rules in respect of earnings of(a) the claimant and (b) the claimant's partner in the year 1995–96. [34215]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available.
  230
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Independent Tribunal Service will inform the Benefits Agency in writing of the outcome of the tribunal hearing in Harrow on 4 June in respect of an appeal by Miss B. D. (ref. youth training 138196D), against the withholding of income support. [34224]

  Mr. Evans
  The Benefits Agency will be informed of the result of the hearing during the week commencing 24 June 1996.

  Child Care Allowance
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total spending on the child care allowance(a) during 1995–96 and (b) since its introduction. [34229]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information is not yet available for the full financial year 1995–96, or for the expenditure on the child care disregard in housing benefit and council tax benefit. Expenditure in family credit and disability working allowance is provisionally estimated at £17.8 million between introduction of the disregard in October 1994 and February 1996. The latest date for which information is available.

  Benefits
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average number of hours worked by(a) lone parents and (b) couples who claim (i) family credit, (ii) disability working allowance, (iii) housing benefit and (iv) council tax benefit. [34238]

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

  Family credit and disability working allowance: average weekly hours worked by recipients

  Family credit

  Disability working allowance

  Couples

  33.9

  28.9

  Lone parents

  24.9

  23.9

  Note:

  1. Data for family credit and disability working allowance, is for October 1995 and January 1996 respectively.

  2. Figures for housing benefit and council tax benefit are not available.

  Source:

  1. Family Credit Statistics Quarterly Enquiry October 1995.

  2. Disability working allowance 100 per cent. count of claims January 1996.

TREASURY

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations have been made to him on recent VAT receipts. [33421]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We receive many representations on VAT receipts.

  Beer Duty
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to bring duties on beer into line with those in other EU member states. [33423]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Any change that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor makes to the level of beer excise duty will be a matter for his forthcoming Budget deliberations. In reaching his decisions he takes account of all relevant factors, including the rates of duty applied by our European partners.

  Transfer Pricing
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many inquiries into transfer pricing abuses have been carried out in the last three years; and what estimate he can give of revenues recovered. [33424]

  Mr. Jack
  The Inland Revenue keeps multinational companies' tax affairs under constant scrutiny and any evidence of non-compliance with the transfer pricing legislation is carefully investigated. In the last three years inquiries by the Revenue's head office international specialists generated more than £500 million additional tax. Further significant amounts of tax were generated by work in the Revenue's oil taxation office and its local office.

  Public Finances
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations have been made to him recently on the state of the United Kingdom's public finances. [33425]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not received any such formal representations recently.

  The public finances are improving steadily, with the PSBR on a clear downward trend.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the benefits of the private finance initiative to London. [33426]

  Mr. Michael Jack
  Projects with a capital value of over £3.7 billion have been agreed in the last year in and around London. These include the channel tunnel rail link, which has a capital value of £3 billion; a new fleet of trains for the Northern line of the Underground, with a capital value of £400 million; the creation of 170 new housing units in Waltham Forest with a capital value of £15 million; and the Croydon tramlink deal, which has a capital value of £160 million. Many more are under consideration. Comprehensive details of small-scale projects or projects by region are not held centrally.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants have been given formal training on the private finance initiative; and what plans his Department has to increase awareness of the private finance initiative among all Government Departments. [34579]

  Mr. Jack
  Nearly 2,000 civil servants have already attended or are currently booked to attend the PFI training course announced at Budget time last year. The private 232
  finance panel hopes that between 5,000 and 10,000 will be trained in total. Government Departments, other public sector bodies and private sector organisations now run more specialised PFI courses and training of their own.

  Other measures to ensure that all civil servants involved with the PFI are fully informed about it include the publication of a comprehensive handbook "Private Opportunity, Public Benefit: Progressing the Private Finance Initiative"; "Guidelines for Smoothing the Procurement Process"; and a series of case studies, the latest of which is "Report on the procurement of custodial services for the DCMF prisons at Bridgend and Fazakerley". The "Private Finance Journal", provided under contract for the private finance panel executive, publishes regular information about the initiative. Departments are increasingly developing guidance and newsletters of their own, specific to enhancing knowledge of the PFI in their own areas.

  Investment
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase levels of investment in the United Kingdom. [33427]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Industry is expanding capacity as needed. In 1995 manufacturing investment was over 7½ per cent. up on a year earlier, and almost 15 per cent. higher than in 1993. Virtually all independent forecasters expect whole economy investment to accelerate in both 1996 and 1997.

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the economic effects of current investment levels in the United Kingdom. [33430]

  Mrs. Knight
  Investment in recent years has been sufficient to underpin sustained economic growth, rising most in sectors where it has been needed to prevent capacity constraints.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of disincentives to business investment in the current tax systems. [33433]

  Mr. Jack
  The Government's on-going programme of tax reform has sought to create a climate in which businesses can thrive and invest and where individual initiative and risk taking are rewarded. Lower marginal tax rates and a stable economy are the best ways to encourage investment. The UK has the lowest main rate of corporation tax of any major industrialised country and a particularly favourable regime for small firms.

  Taxation
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the economic impacts of current levels of taxation. [33428]

  Mr. Jack
  The Government have sharpened work incentives for individuals by cutting the basic rate of income tax from 33 to 24 per cent., the lowest rate for 50 years. Likewise, by cutting corporation tax rates, from 42 per cent. to 24 per cent. for small business and from 52 per cent. to 33 per cent. for other businesses, we have
  233
  created the conditions under which wealth can grow. GDP has risen by 35 per cent. in real terms since 1979.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from(a) business leaders and (b) politicians overseas regarding privatisation. [33431]

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor frequently meets business men and politicians from all over the world, and the success of the British Government's privatisation programme and the lessons it holds for other countries is often a subject of discussion at these meetings. For instance, he has recently been visited by senior Government representatives from as far afield as China, South Africa, New Zealand, the Netherlands and the state of Sâo Paolo in Brazil.

  The promotion of British expertise in privatisation and private finance was also one of the primary objectives of the Chancellor's trip to South Africa in March, during which he addressed the South Africa Foundation, a group representing 50 top South African companies.

  Mansion House Speech
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received in response to his speech at the Mansion house on 12 June. [33434]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. and learned Friend's speech at the Mansion House was well received.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [33452]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The table gives the number of reported accidents in the Treasury, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, the Office for National Statistics, Paymaster, the Valuation Office and the Royal Mint in each of the past five years:

  1991: 7011

  1992: 1,382

  1993: 1,299

  1994: 1,462

  1995: 5841

  1 Data for Customs and Excise are not available for 1991 and 1995.

  The Health and Safety Executive was involved on six occasions.

  The Inland Revenue does not hold health and safety records centrally and could provide this information only at disproportionate cost.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the reasons for the change in the level of manufacturing output less food, drink and tobacco between 1989 and 1995. [34478]
  234
  Mr. Waldegrave
  A detailed breakdown of the latest data on manufacturing output is shown in table 2 of the "Index of Production First Release for April 1996", which was published by the Office for National Statistics on 11 June. The Government pay close attention to all national accounts data, including those for manufacturing output, in monitoring and analysing developments and trends in the UK economy.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from organisations and individuals concerning the use of the public sector borrowing requirement as the primary instrument of fiscal control. [34431]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A number of representations have been received by Treasury Ministers.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of using(a) the public sector borrowing requirement and (b) the general Government financial deficit as the primary fiscal control regime. [34415]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The PSBR is a cash concept which covers the whole public sector. It has the benefits of continuity, comprehensiveness and timeliness of data. But the Government also monitor and publish projections of other fiscal indicators, including the GGFD.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his current estimate of the public sector borrowing requirement for 1996–97. [33429]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Budget projection of 1996–97 PSBR was £22½ billion. An updated forecast of the PSBR will be published in the summer economic forecast on 9 July.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement over the next six months. [33432]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Budget projection of the 1996–97 was £22½ billion, a fall of £6½ billion compared with the Budget estimate of the PSBR in 1995–96. An updated forecast of the PSBR will be published in the summer economic forecast on 9 July.

  Financial Management Certificate
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the submissions his Department received on a financial management certificate. [25595]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Public responses to the consultation document, "Responses to the Financial Management Certificate Consultation Document", are now available in the Libraries.

  Securities and Investment Board
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the annual report of the Securities and Investments Board to be published. [35078]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  A copy of the board's report, made in accordance with section 117 of the Financial Services Act 1986, was laid before Parliament today. The
  235
  report covers the period from 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996. Copies are now available in the Libraries of the House.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate of the cost of the measures taken to deal with the BSE crisis so far. [35122]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The latest estimates, updating those given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the hon. Member of Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) on 26 April at columns 321–22, are shown in the table:

  Estimated cost of measures in the UK taken in response to BSE

  (£ million)

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Total cost over three years

  Net cost borne by the UK

  848

  516

  623

  1,987

  Net contribution from the EU

  189

  232

  62

  483

  Total cost

  1,037

  748

  685

  2,470

  This reflects an increase over the previous estimate of £40 million to the total cost over the three years from £2,430 million.

  The table includes the following measures:

  (a) the compensation and destruction arrangements for cattle over 30 months of age which cannot now enter the food chain.

  (b) the calf slaughter premium;

  (c) the package of aid for the renderers and the abattoir and cutting industries announced on 3 April and 16 April respectively;

  (d) the feed recall scheme;

  (e) additional running costs for the agriculture departments.

  The figures for the net contribution from the EU take account of both the UK's contribution to additional EU spending and the effect of additional receipts on the UK abatement.

  The figures do not include either the costs of increased beef intervention or the costs of the accelerated cattle slaughter programme, for which precise estimates are not yet available.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effect on the public sector borrowing requirement in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98 of the BSE crisis in United Kingdom farming, including the associated compensation measures; and if he will make a statement. [34752]

  Mr. Clarke
  The direct costs of BSE measures in 1996–97 will be met either from existing departmental programmes or from the contingency reserve. Spending plans for 1997–98 also contain an unallocated reserve for meeting unforeseen commitments; BSE costs in 1997–98 will be met from this reserve. Because the reserve is part of the public expenditure control total for each financial year, there is no reason to change the published forecasts of public sector borrowing in 1996–97 or 1997–98 as a consequence of BSE measures.
  236
  The estimated aggregate impact of BSE measures on gross domestic product is small, although there will be a significant impact on certain sectors of the economy. So there are not likely to be any significant indirect effects on the PSBR.

  Financial Services Act
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to amend the Financial Services Act 1986 as recommended by the Law Commission's report (No. 236) on fiduciary duties and regulatory rules. [35120]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  At the time of the reference to the Law Commission in 1990, there was some concern about the possible mismatch between regulatory rules and common law fiduciary duties owed by firms. Structural changes of the financial markets in the mid-1980s, particularly with firms offering a wide range of financial services, increased the potential for such conflicts. This led the DTI, in April 1990, to refer the issue to the Law Commission. A parallel reference was made to the Scottish Law Commission. Since then, responsibility for this area has passed to the Treasury.

  The Law Commission's report represents a thorough review, which has exposed whether the original concerns were indeed well founded and has led to an informed consideration of all the issues. As the Law Commission's report recognises, since consulting on this issue regulatory and legal developments have helped clarify the relationship between fiduciary duties and regulatory rules. Both Law Commissions recommend that legislation would be desirable to clarify the effect of Chinese wall arrangements, so as to provide statutory protection to firms which comply with regulatory rules against any claims for breach of fiduciary duties arising out of the use of such arrangements.

  Consultation with relevant representatives within the financial services sector suggests that there is now sufficient confidence in the effectiveness of Chinese wall arrangements, without concern of exposure to possible legal uncertainties. Experience of operating under the financial regulatory system, with few practical problems of the sort feared in 1990 avoids the need to amend the Financial Services Act in this respect.

  Abortion
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many late abortions were performed in the latest year for which figures are available in pregnancies of 24 weeks or more; if he will indicate the numbers and percentages of those abortions which were performed on each of the legal grounds; and what numbers and percentages of those abortions were performed by each of the six doctors who performed the largest number of such abortions. [34259]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 25 June 1996]: In 1993, 74 abortions were performed in England and Wales beyond 24 weeks of gestation (residents and non-residents).
  237
  The breakdown by statutory ground is:

  Number

  Percentage of total abortions beyond 24weeks

  E (alone)1

  73

  99

  F or G2

  1

  1

  Total

  74

  100

  Statistical information is not produced about individual doctors.

  1to save the life of the pregnant woman, or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.

  2that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

  Mrs. Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many abortions have now been performed in total under the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967; and how many and what percentage of those abortions were performed in emergency to save the life of the mother. [34261]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 25 June 1996]: The total number of legal abortions performed under the Abortion Act 1967 in England and Wales from 1968 to the end of September 1995 was 4,177,665. During this period 140 abortions—0.003 per cent. were performed in an emergency, certified as immediately necessary, to save the life of the women.

  Higher Rate Tax
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what proportion of taxpayers are currently paying tax in each £10,000 band of income above the current starting point for higher rate tax. [34570]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 June 1996]: Available estimates for higher rate taxpayers in 1996–97 are given in the table. It is not possible to provide reliable estimates for bands of taxable income above £100,000.

  Taxable income range1

  Number of taxpayers (thousands)

  Proportion of taxpayers

  £ per year

  25,500–30,000

  680

  0.026

  30,000–40,000

  750

  0.029

  40,000–50,000

  300

  0.012

  50,000–60,000

  150

  0.006

  60,000–70,000

  80

  0.003

  70,000–80,000

  50

  0.002

  80,000–90,000

  30

  0.001

  90,000–100,000

  20

  0.001

  Over 100,000

  110

  0.004

  Total

  2,200

  0.085

  1 Taxable income is defined as gross income for income tax purposes less those allowances and reliefs which are available at the taxpayer's marginal rate.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of raising the starting point for higher rate tax by an additional(a) £5,000 and (b) £10,000; and how many and what proportion of taxpayers will be affected. [34569]
  238
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 June 1996]: The full year cost of increasing the basic rate limit and the number and proportion of people affected at 1996–97 income levels are given in the table.

  Increase in basic limit (£)

  Cost in full year(£ billion)

  Number of taxpayers affected(million)

  Proportion of taxpayers affected

  5,000

  1.5

  2.2

  0.085

  10,000

  2.5

  2.2

  0.085

  Venture Capital Trusts
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has so far been invested in venture capital trusts; how many of the trusts have invested in new businesses; what percentage this represents of the total; what sums have been invested; and in how many businesses. [34120]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 June 1996]: The first 12 venture capital trusts between them have now raised over £160 million in the first few months of the scheme. It may not be possible to obtain an impression of the profile of their investments until they have published reports on the first year of their activities.

SCOTLAND

  Clinical Waste
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what plans he has to modify the regulations governing the importation of medical and clinical waste; and if he will make a statement; [34034]

  (2) if he will list the names and locations of those companies which are licensed to import clinical waste for high temperature incineration; and if he will make a statement; [34040]

  (3) which countries export clinical waste to Scotland for high temperature incineration; and if he will make a statement. [34035]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Government's policies on exports and imports of waste from and to the United Kingdom are contained in the United Kingdom management plan for exports and imports of waste which came into force on 1 June 1996.

  Under the plan, imports of waste for disposal are generally banned, in line with the principle of self-sufficiency in the disposal of waste. However, exceptions to this policy occur in cases of emergency or where the exporting country does not have, and cannot reasonably acquire, suitable disposal facilities of its own.

  There are no licensed high temperature incinerators, as defined in the plan, in Scotland. Therefore, medical or clinical waste is not imported for high temperature incineration in Scotland.
  239
  There are no current plans to modify the regulations governing the importation of medical and clinical waste into the United Kingdom.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions have taken place with the Irish Department of Health concerning the export of clinical waste to Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [34033]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by the Under-Secretary of State, for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), regarding the Government's policies on the imports and export of waste.

  Shields Report
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what consultation he intends should take place with local authorities in Scotland in respect of the changes to public health departments proposed by the Shields report; [34397]

  (2) pursuant to section 6.1.1 of the Shields report, what arrangements are currently in place across Scotland for communication and liaison between directors of public health and local authorities. [34447]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There is no formal consultation on the Shields report or the NHS management executive letter that implements it. In their capacity as designated medical officers, directors of public health have the opportunity for regular contact with local authorities. A recent management executive letter emphasised the contribution designated medical officers could make to increased collaboration with local authorities on health matters, bearing in mind the potential the new single tier structure for a co-ordinated approach to health improvement. I would expect any proposed changes at local level in consequence of the Shields report with implications for local authorities to be the subject of discussion between the health boards and local councils concerned.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes in the numbers of those employed by health boards in Scotland he estimates will result from the implementation of the Shields report recommendations. [34446]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The most recent estimates suggest health board management and administration spending will average £13.28 per head in 1996–97. A £10 per head target therefore implies a reduction in spending of one quarter. There may well be consequent reductions in administrative staff.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what assessment he has made of correlations between levels of health and overall expenditure by health boards in Scotland; and if he will list the available date by health board; [34448]

  (2) for what reasons the committee which prepared the Shields report was not required to consider links between levels of mortality, morbidity and social and economic deprivation. [34449]
  240
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The revenue funding allocation formula for health boards is based on population adjusted for age, sex and morbidity. The data are given in Scottish health authorities revenue allocation tables published annually by the information and statistics division of the common services agency of the national health service in Scotland. The committee reviewed the roles and responsibilities of health boards. Considering links between levels of mortality, morbidity and social and economic deprivation was not therefore in the committee's remit.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list evidence on the effectiveness of different models of health promotion delivery presented to the committee preparing the Shields report evaluated by his Department; and with whom consultation took place on this part of the report; [34450]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the recommendations contained in section 6.1.2 of the Shields report in respect of arm's length delivery of health promotion. [34456]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A number of health boards in Scotland already contract with NHS trusts for the delivery of health promotion services. The report suggests that all boards should consider contracting for this service element in order to evaluate the service on a more objective basis. The letter implementing the report suggests that the contract would normally be with an NHS trust, but that other models that improve local partnerships may be appropriate.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if funds for health service development will be exempted from target costs for health board management and administration of £10 per head of population set out in the Shields report. [34451]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The purpose of the £10 target is to produce additional funds for health care and developments for patients.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to section 6.1.1 of the Shields report, if directors will retain the right to independent comment and the publication of independent reports on all matters affecting the health of their local population. [34452]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Section 6.1.1 of the report makes it clear that the committee would not wish to undermine the freedom of directors of public health to make an independent report or statement about the health of the local population.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the recommendations contained in the Shields report, if health boards will be permitted to keep centrally those functions which they consider necessary to protect and promote public health. [34453]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The report makes it clear that protecting and promoting public health is a key responsibility of health boards. However, it is not necessary for all of the services to be provided by boards themselves.
  241
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) for what reason the Shields report committee was not required to analyse variations in expenditure on management and administration between health boards in Scotland; and to what extent such analysis was required to be carried out on the basis of individual functions or departments across health boards in Scotland; [34454]

  (2) for what reason the Shields report committee was not required to analyse variations in expenditure between health boards in Scotland; and to what extent analysis was required to be carried out on the basis of individual functions or departments. [34455]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Shields committee was given figures showing that the variation in management and administration was from £10.46 per head to £18.82 a head in mainland health boards based on their 1994–95 annual accounts. Health boards themselves have analysed the variation in costs and numbers of staff across 10 functions. This work was aided by the Accounts Commission.

  Forestry Commission (Land Sales)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how much money has been raised from the sale of Forestry Commission woodland in each year since 1981; [33808]

  (2) what is the percentage of Forestry Commission woodland sold with public access protected (a) from 1981 to the latest available date and (b) from 1989 to the latest available date; [33805]

  (3) if he will list all Forestry Commission woodlands currently for sale, and indicate for each one which English or Welsh county or Scottish region it falls in; and if an access agreement has been made with the local authority guaranteeing continuing public access; [33806]

  (4) how many Forestry Commission woodlands have been sold in each year since 1981, indicating for each year (a) the number sold without access to the public protected and (b) the number sold with access to the public protected. [33804]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 20 June 1996]: The subjects of the questions relate to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. Gordon Cowie, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Gordon M. Cowie to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 27 June 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of woodlands sold, the money received from their sale, the percentage sold with public access protected and the woodlands currently for sale.
  In the early years of the disposal programme no distinction was made between sales of woodland and sales of other land and properties and it is not possible to give you a breakdown of how much money has been raised specifically from the sale of Forestry Commission woodland areas for each year since 1981. However, we do know the proceeds from the sales of all our properties (including woodland areas) by year and this is shown below:-

  Year ended 31 March

  Total receipts (£ million)

  1981

  4.5

  1982

  6.9

  1983

  14.6

  242

  Year ended 31 March

  Total receipts (£ million)

  1984

  23.6

  1985

  22.1

  1986

  17.0

  1987

  14.7

  1988

  13.1

  1989

  12.4

  1990

  13.0

  1991

  12.0

  1992

  14.5

  1993

  9.9

  1994

  17.4

  1995

  12.1

  1996

  14.6

  You asked for information about public access from 1981 to 1989 to the latest available date. I attach a list of all woodlands sold with completed public access agreements. You asked for information from 1981 but the arrangements for public access agreements were only introduced in October 1991 and the list, therefore, only covers disposals since then. You will see that at 31 March 1996, there had been 48 sales of woodland with completed agreements totalling some 1724 hectares. In addition, there have been 13 sponsored sales to the local authority or other nominated body totalling 2644 hectares have been sold with public access protected. During the same period, there were 679 other sales totalling 35578 hectares. Sales with protected access comprised 8% of the number and 7% of the area sold.

  You also asked for information about Forestry Commission woodlands currently for sale. I attach a list showing all the woodlands currently on the market with the details you have asked for and those with a continued public access (CPA) agreement being asterisked.

  You asked about the number of woodlands sold since 1981 and whether they were sold with public access protected. Lists of all Forestry Commission disposals for the years 1981–1995 are placed yearly in the Library of the House of Commons and I enclose copies of these for your use. They contain details of all sales of Forestry Commission land. The numbers of sales with access to the public protected are given above.

  Sales with completed public access agreements as at 31 March 1996

  County/region

  Name

  Area(ha)

  Date sold

  1993 Wales

  Gwent

  Graig Syddi

  28

  November 1993

  1994 England

  Derbyshire

  Birch Wood

  24

  February 1994

  Derbyshire

  Britton Wood

  6

  March 1994

  Derbyshire

  Kings Lot and Longway Bank

  12

  March 1994

  Humberside

  Sutton Wood

  33

  July 1994

  North Yorkshire

  Gateforth East

  28

  March 1994

  North Yorkshire

  Moreby Wood

  33

  April 1994

  Wales

  Clwyd

  Nant y Ffridd (1)

  52

  1June 1994

  Clwyd

  Nant y Ffridd (2)

  23

  1June 1994

  Dyfed

  Allt y Gwydre

  14

  March 1994

  Dyfed

  Court Wood

  19

  September 1994

  Dyfed

  Factory Wood

  3

  March 1994

  Dyfed

  Taldrum Wood

  5

  March 1994

  Dyfed

  Tan y Lan

  32

  March 1994

  Dyfed

  Ty'r Dopa

  14

  April 1994

  Powys

  Castlering

  14

  June 1994

  Powys

  Granner Wood

  10

  August 1994

  Powys

  Hilltop

  5

  April 1994

  Powys

  Taylors Wood

  42

  October 1994

  Powys

  Tir y Gof

  47

  December 1994

  243

  Sales with completed public access agreements as at 31 March 1996

  County/region

  Name

  Area(ha)

  Date sold

  1995 Wales

  Clwyd

  Foel Uchaf

  18

  July 1995

  Dyfed

  Blwch Newydd

  8

  December 1995

  Dyfed

  Cwmere

  19

  June 1995

  Dyfed

  Penfarch

  24

  May 1995

  Dyfed

  Penwenallt

  5

  November 1995

  Gwynedd

  Coed Glygyrogwen

  110

  November 1995

  Gwynedd

  Pant y Wrach Lot 3

  27

  November 1995

  West Glamorgan

  Decoy Woods

  14

  July 1995

  Scotland

  Borders

  Gala Blocks

  127

  August 1995

  Grampian

  Lochlait Wood

  90

  July 1995

  Grampian

  White Cow Wood

  444

  October 1995

  Grampian

  Wood of Wrae

  50

  November 1995

  Highland

  Rinuden Plantation

  88

  July 1995

  Strathclyde

  Crispie

  13

  December 1995

  Tayside

  Cowden Wood

  20

  March 1995

  1996 England

  Isle of Wight

  Timber Copse

  8

  January 1996

  Kent

  Stone Wood

  11

  March 1996

  Wales

  Dyfed

  Pont Henri

  14

  March 1996

  Dyfed

  Allt Llyn Dyfrion

  11

  March 1996

  Gwent

  Coed Howell

  31

  March 1996

  Gwent

  Craig Y Merchant

  25

  March 1996

  Gwynedd

  Ffridd Fach Ddeiliog

  17

  January 1996

  Gwynedd

  Gilrhos

  29

  February 1996

  Gwynedd

  Glyn Covert

  7

  March 1996

  Gwynedd

  Gwinllan Y Gaerwen

  9

  March 1996

  Gwynedd

  Pentre Cogwen

  9

  February 1996

  Scotland

  Grampian

  Auquharney Lot 2

  44

  February 1996

  Grampian

  Auquharney Lot 3

  8

  January 1996

  Total area to date

  1,724

  Total number to date

  48

  1 One sale but agreements with two separate LAs.

  List of Forestry Commission woodland areas currently for sale

  England

  Name of property

  Area (ha)

  CPA agreement

  Berkshire

  Channers Wood

  15.0

  Buckinghamshire

  Howes Wood

  5.0

  Mercers Wood

  6.0

  Cornwall

  Port Eliot

  76.0

  Prideaux

  24.0

  Treworgey Wood

  17.0

  Wheal Par

  5.0

  244

  List of Forestry Commission woodland areas currently for sale

  England

  Name of property

  Area (ha)

  CPA agreement

  Cumbria

  Birks Wood

  8.0

  Chalk Plains Wood

  40.0

  Devon

  Deershill

  11.0

  Knowle Wood

  8.0

  Hampshire

  Crawley Down

  28.0

  Redcap and Catham

  14.0

  Whitelands Copse

  12.0

  Lancashire

  Tithe Barn

  8.0

  Norfolk

  Foulden Broom Covert

  6.0

  West Rudham Woods

  78.0

  North Yorkshire

  Haxby Plantation

  50.0

  Hayton Wood

  56.0

  1—

  Hazel Wood

  51.0

  1—

  Hazelhead

  94.0

  1—

  Kilburn Thicket

  12.0

  Robsons Spring Wood

  43.0

  Skelton Banks

  7.0

  Nottinghamshire

  Dilliner Wood

  20.0

  Roe Wood

  47.0

  Shropshire

  Coed Detton

  14.0

  Somerset

  Frys Wood

  24.0

  Higher Bitcombe

  30.0

  South Yorkshire

  Green Springs Wood

  12.0

  Old Park Wood

  41.0

  1—

  Owston Wood

  64.0

  1—

  1 Indicates CPA agreement.

  Scotland

  Name of property

  Area (ha)

  CPA agreement

  Grampian

  Auchinroath Plantation

  62.0

  Auquharney, Lot 1

  81.0

  1—

  Badiebath Woods (B&BDC)

  46.0

  Balmakewan (3222M)

  0.6

  Highland

  Craskie Woods

  49.0

  Creag Dhubh

  97.0

  1—

  Glencannich Wood

  70.0

  Kishorn Plantation

  67.0

  1—

  Muchrachd Wood

  29.0

  Orbost Plantation

  575.0

  Tor Clunes and Castle

  138.0

  1—

  Spynie

  Strathclyde

  Ardbecknish

  119.0

  1—

  Ardchonnell II

  222.0

  245

  Scotland

  Name of property

  Area (ha)

  CPA agreement

  Crookedstane

  347.0

  Docherneil

  82.5

  Ford

  57.0

  1—

  Little Clyde

  650.0

  Tayside

  Ardlebank

  43.0

  Dundurn

  680.0

  Newbigging and Braedown

  413.0

  1 Indicates CPA agreement.

  Wales

  Name of property

  Area (ha)

  CPA agreement

  Clwyd

  Blackthorn Covert

  21.5

  Coed Melin Y Moch

  12.0

  Gwrych Castle Woodlands

  49.0

  Dyfed

  Allt Cil Y Llyn Fawr

  2.5

  Allt Hengeraint

  18.6

  Allt Wig Wen

  8.2

  Allt Y Gigfran

  18.0

  Brynamlwg

  9.0

  Byrn Wichell

  15.0

  Cefn Wig

  19.0

  Cilflower Wood

  3.0

  Crossway

  4.5

  Cruglas

  6.0

  Ffynon Rhys

  32.2

  Gelli Gwenyn

  16.0

  Martletwy Wood

  18.0

  Penhill Wood

  4.0

  Rhos Maes Crug

  5.0

  Ty'r Shyme

  6.0

  Gwent

  Craig Yr Arail

  58.0

  Gwynedd

  Aberdunant, Lot 5

  16.5

  Amnodd Wood

  87.5

  Cefn Glas

  12.0

  Cwm Prysor

  56.0

  Gwinllan Rhos Ddu

  10.0

  Rhiwbach and Tyddyn Bach

  106.0

  1—

  Powys

  Y Wern

  453.0

  1—

  West Glamorgan

  Craig Ynysgollen

  10.0

  Nant Y Stalwyn

  44.0

  1 Indicates CPA agreement.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures are being taken to improve public access in Forestry Commission land which(a) has already been sold off and (b) may be sold in the future; and what further options are currently under consideration. [33807]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 20 June 1996]: We encourage private owners to allow public access to their woodlands, irrespective of whether the woodlands were previously owned by the Forestry Commission. We also provide grants to help private owners provide facilities for public recreation.
  246
  The Forestry Commission encourages public access to all its woodlands, subject only to legal constraints or considerations of safety, irrespective of whether the woodlands may be sold in the future. The commission is now increasing and enhancing its recreation facilities for day visitors; promoting access on foot by identifying its forests on Ordnance Survey maps and by placing distinctive "Walkers Welcome Here" badges at the entrances to forests; and encouraging local residents and visitors to take advantage of the many leisure activities that are possible in its woodlands.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the occasions on which a Minister from his Department has made policy statements about continued public access to forests when Forestry Commission land is sold off, indicating the name of the Minister and the date and context of the statement in each case. [33803]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 20 June 1996]: The information is as follows:
  16 June 1989, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in a statement to the House of Commons about the Government's future plans for the disposal of Forestry Commission land;
  21 November 1990, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in a statement to the House of Commons about continued public access to woodlands disposed of by the Forestry Commission;
  September 1991, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in "Forestry Policy for Great Britain", published by the Forestry Commission;
  19 July 1994, by right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in a statement to the House of Commons about the Government's conclusions from the forestry review;
  August 1994, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in "Our Forests: The Way Ahead", (Cm 2644);
  26 March 1996, by me in a statement to the House of Commons setting out the revised procedures for protecting continued public access.

DEFENCE

  Customer Charters
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the customer charters which are currently in use within his Department and its executive agencies and (b) the charters which have been withdrawn. [32830]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department keeps no central record of the customer charters which are currently in use. Many areas of the Ministry of Defence have drawn up statements of the service standards which they have committed themselves to provide to internal or external customers as appropriate. Of the Ministry of Defence's agencies, the Pay and Personnel Agency and the Meteorological Office have customer charters. The Defence Secondary Care Agency and the Queen Victoria School abide by the national patient's charter and the Scottish parents charter, respectively. None of the Department's agencies' customer charters has been withdrawn.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons files with the classmarks WO 188/473–4, WO 188/652 and WO 188/656 recorded at the Public Record Office concerning the work of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down are currently retained by his Department; and if he will consider opening them under the open government initiative. [34467]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Arrangements are being made to review the papers listed at the Public Record Office under references WO 188/473–4, WO 188/652 and WO 188/656 to establish whether release into the public domain is now possible. I will write to the hon. Member on completion of the review process.

  Property Sales
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the amount of revenue received by his Department from the sale of ex-military accommodation in the United Kingdom during 1995. [34632]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The receipts from the disposal of married quarters are not recorded separately from the receipts from the sale of other property and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Overall disposal receipts for financial year 1995–96 were £63.4 million.

  Decimomannu
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the last RAF deployments to Decimomannu will take place; what range facilities will be used for the training currently undertaken at Decimomannu; and what is the estimated saving from ceasing to use Decimomannu. [34642]

  Mr. Soames
  It is currently envisaged that RAF flying will cease at Decimomannu in autumn 1997. Some of the training currently undertaken there will be transferred to existing ranges in the UK and Germany, where spare capacity exists. It is expected that the decision to withdraw from Decimomannu will save some £8 million to £10 million per annum.

  RAF Deployment (Arizona)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the dates of the next scheduled RAF deployment to Marine Corps air station Yuma, Arizona. [34643]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 12 March 1996,Official Report, column 509.

  Procurement Costs
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list his Department's 25 most expensive current procurement projects; what was the original estimated cost of each of these projects at today's prices; what is the current estimated final cost of each of the projects; and if he will list the delays in the in-service dates of these projects. [33999]
  248
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department's most recent annual "Major Projects Report", MPR95, to the Committee of Public Accounts, lists the current 25 most expensive projects and details the original estimated cost, the current cost estimate and the delays in the in-service dates. A copy of this document is in the Library of the House.

  Army Equipment
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the trends in the availability of Warrior vehicles, Challenger tanks and the multiple-launch rocket system, as indicated by the Army's battlefield equipment reliability returns, have improved over the past three years; and if he will make a statement. [34460]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The battlefield equipment reliability return system was introduced during 1994 and BERR data are not therefore available for the whole period. However, the figures obtained from Army equipment availability reporting systems indicate that availability rates for Warrior and Challenger 1 have improved considerably over the past three years. Both these vehicles have consistently achieved availability rates in excess of 90 per cent. when deployed to Bosnia. The multiple launch rocket system fleet was undergoing a major base modification programme during 1994–95, which meant that availability rates for this equipment fell. Although two of the three MLRS regiments have undertaken operational tours in Northern Ireland during 1994–95, there has been a slight improvement in MLRS availability over the last year.

  Roll on/Roll off Ferries
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the purchase by his Department of two roll on/roll off ferries; and if he will state the nationality of the crews to be deployed on these ferries. [34457]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  A number of possible enhancements to the civil and military strategic lift available to the Joint Rapid Development Force have been examined. In the short term, the intention is to issue an invitation to tender and take subsequent contract action to charter one roll on/ roll off ship, for transporting lead elements of the JRDF.

  The longer-term option, for the second of the two vessels required, include new build, the purchase or lease of an existing vessel and the involvement of the private finance initiative.

  Subject to the outcome of tender evaluation, the options for crew would be either Royal Fleet Auxiliary or nationals from countries in NATO or western Europe.

  Royal Navy (Fuel)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much feel was allocated to the surface flotilla in 1995–96; and how much is planned for 1996–97. [34458]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information requested is shown in the table, in cubic metres. The figures for 1995–96 show the quantity of fuel procured for issue to the surface flotilla. The figure for marine gas oil is approximate because its use is not centrally controlled after budgets
  249
  have been agreed. The figures for 1996–97 reflect current plans; actual amounts will be governed by operational circumstances during the year.

  FY 1995–96

  FY 1996–97 225,000

  Dieso F761

  209,000

  225,000

  Marine gas oil

  20,000

  33,000

  1 Fuel produced by refineries to specific NATO standards.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much fuel was purchased for allocation to the Royal Navy fleet in 1992–93. [34459]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Total quantities of fuel purchased in 1992–93 are shown in the table. These include fuel purchased for shore establishments and vessels other than Her Majesty's ships, as well as those for allocation to the fleet. Segregation of quantities for allocation to the Royal Navy fleet alone could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost.

  Dieso F761: 596,000 cu m

  Avcat F441: 46,000 cu m

  Marine Gas Oil2: 35,000 cu m

  1 These fuels are produced by refineries to specific NATO standards.

  2 Commercially supplied fuel for ships.

  Correspondence
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to answer the correspondence he has received from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West concerning the sale of his property in Rosyth to the Home housing association. [34795]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence wrote to the hon. Member today.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to ensure that each legislative measure put forward by his Department contains a compliance cost assessment(a) relating to small firms and (b) in respect of which small firms have been consulted. [34142]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding reply 26 June 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on Wednesday 26 June 1996, Official Report, column 119.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Licensing Authority
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date he last attended a meeting in his role as a member of the Licensing Authority. [33849]

  Mr. Moss
  The Licensing Authority does not meet to consider its functions under the Medicines Act 1968. There is no statutory requirement for such meetings to be held.

  Pacific Institute
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what expenditure has been incurred by each department in respect of courses delivered by the Pacific Institute. [34088]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Expenditure incurred by the Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office in respect of courses delivered by the Pacific Institute is:Department of Environment: £90,000.
  The DOE also has a contract with the institute for the supply of the institute's investment in excellence programme to its staff with delivery being undertaken by the Department's trainers over three financial years. The contract is formulated on a per capita basis for some 8,500 staff and it is estimated will cost in the region of £750,000. In addition, £11,000 has been provided through the Making Belfast Work initiative to enable a version of the investment in excellence programme to be made available to disadvantaged groups.
  Department of Finance and Personnel: £4,200.
  Department of Economic Development: £12,194.
  The Departments of Agriculture, Education, Health and Social Services and the Northern Ireland Office have not incurred any expenditure in respect of the Pacific Institute.

  Citybus and Ulsterbus
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cars are currently provided to managers to service their work who are employed by Citybus and Ulsterbus; and what is the cost of the provision of private mileage in respect of cars provided to managers in Citybus and Ulsterbus. [34072]

  Mr. Moss
  Currently, 40 managers employed by Citybus and Ulsterbus are provided with cars. Information on the cost of private mileage is not readily available.

  De Lorean Case
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what have been the total legal fees to date incurred in the Government's lawsuit against Arthur Andersen and Co. in the De Lorean case. [34565]

  Mr. Ancram
  The amount of legal fees incurred in the Government's action against Arthur Andersen and Co. in the De Lorean case is a matter between the Government and their lawyers. Disclosure while the legal action continues would not be in the public interest.

  Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to publish revised codes of practice prepared under article 65 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, and when he intends to publish a code of practice on tape-recording of interviews under article 60 of the same order. [35079]

  Sir John Wheeler
  My right hon. and learned Friend has today laid before both Houses draft codes of practice prepared under articles 60 and 65 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 with the intention of making an order to bring the codes into operation from midnight on 28 July 1996. The drafts were
  251
  prepared following wide consultation last year. They cover the exercise of stop and search powers and the searching of premises and in regard to the treatment, questioning and identification of suspects by police. A draft code of practice on the tape-recording of interviews has also been included with the revised codes laid today.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for further changes to the administration of the Child Support Agency. [35204]

  Mr. Moss
  I am pleased to announce that a new Child Support Agency compensation scheme has been introduced in Northern Ireland following its introduction in Great Britain.

  The scheme includes a provision to make compensation payments for delays in issuing maintenance application forms, MAFs, which are issued to the parent with care, and maintenance enquiry forms, MEFs, which are issued to the absent parent.

  Where the assessment is completed before 1 April 1996, compensation will be considered where a delay exceeding three months, for which the agency is culpable, and which leads to a loss of opportunity to receive child maintenance which would otherwise be received, occurs. Where the assessment is completed on or after 1 April 1996, however, payments will be made if the delay exceeds one month, unless the agency needs to make further inquiries before issuing a MEF, when the delay period will be two months. The respective delays in cases where the assessment replaces an existing court order are six months, two months and four months.

  Additionally, a new type of consolatory payment will be introduced. In cases where the agency is culpable of sending a MEF to a person who is not the parent of the child, or children, in question, that person will be entitled to a consolatory payment of £100 to compensate for the upset and inconvenience caused by this error. This new payment will apply where the MEF is issued on or after 1 April 1996.

  These changes build on the existing arrangements which cover other losses incurred as a result of maladministration. They should ensure that compensation reaches those who do not receive an acceptable level of service in this area from the agency. The new arrangements mean the Child Support Agency now has a

  Financial year

  Higher education expenditure excluding student maintenance (£ million)

  Higher education expenditure including student maintenance (£ million)

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  1989–90

  102

  128

  155

  194

  As percentage of UK GDP

  0.019

  —

  0.029

  —

  1990–91

  101

  117

  176

  204

  As percentage of UK GDP

  0.018

  —

  0.032

  —

  1991–92

  97

  106

  207

  226

  As percentage of UK GDP

  0.017

  —

  0.036

  —

  252
  compensation scheme which has been designed in the light of experience to meet the special circumstances of its responsibilities.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Northern Ireland Prison Service intends to publish its 1996 corporate and business plan; and what performance targets have been set for 1996–97. [35205]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Northern Ireland Prison Service's 1996 corporate and business plan was published today. For 1996–97, the following key performance targets have been set:

  1. To ensure 100 per cent. security for prisoners in high and top-risk categories; and to ensure at least 99.5 per cent. security of prisoners in medium and low risk categories.

  2. To ensure that the number of significant breaches does not exceed 7.9 per 100 prisoners.

  3. To increase the proportion of prisoner places with access to sanitation at all times of the day and night to 100 per cent.

  4. To achieve an average 10 per cent. improvement in constructive activity hours.

  5. To conduct a customer satisfaction survey of visitors in each establishment; and to complete an extension to the visitors centre at Her Majesty's prison, Maghaberry.

  6. To extend eligibility for sentence planning to life sentence prisoners and to ensure that at least 50 per cent. of all eligible prisoners have a sentence plan and that all new committals who are eligible and who want a sentence plan will have one within three months of the date of committal.

  7. To ensure that the average cost per prisoner place does not exceed £76,329.

  8. To achieve an average of five days' training per member of staff.

  Higher Education Expenditure
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list public expenditure on higher education in Northern Ireland, including public expenditure on student maintenance, in(a) cash terms, (b) real terms and (c) expressed as a percentage of United Kingdom gross domestic product, for the financial years from 1989–90 to 1998–99; [34093]

  (2) if he will list public expenditure on higher education in Northern Ireland, excluding public expenditure on student maintenance, in (a) cash terms, (b) real terms and (c) expressed as a percentage of United Kingdom gross domestic product for the financial years from 1989–90 to 1998–99. [34094]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 26 June 1996]: Public expenditure on higher education in Northern Ireland for the financial years 1989–90 to 1998–99 is as follows:
  253

  Financial year

  Higher education expenditure excluding student maintenance(£ million)

  Higher education expenditure including student maintenance(£ million)

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  1992–93

  98

  103

  229

  240

  As percentage of UK GDP

  0.016

  —

  0.038

  —

  1993–94

  103

  105

  244

  248

  As percentage of UK GDP

  0.016

  —

  0.038

  —

  1994–95

  121

  121

  253

  253

  As percentage of UK GDP

  0.018

  —

  0.037

  —

  1995–96

  132

  128

  260

  253

  As percentage of UK GDP

  0.019

  —

  0.037

  —

  1996–97

  127

  120

  259

  245

  As percentage of UK GDP

  0.017

  —

  0.034

  —

  1997–98

  127

  117

  260

  240

  As percentage of UK GDP

  0.016

  —

  0.033

  —

  1998–99

  127

  115

  263

  238

  As percentage of UK GDP

  0.015

  —

  0.031

  —

  1. Student maintenance expenditure has been taken to include all student support expenditure including tuition fees and loans.

  2. Financial year figures for 1989–90 to 1995–96 are actual out-turn, figures for 1996–97 to 1998–99 are planning figures.

  3. Real term figures are calculated at 1994–95 prices.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cattle Slaughter Scheme
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that injured cattle are given priority in abattoirs during the bovine spongiform encephalopathy culling programme. [34107]

  Mrs. Browning
  One of the key principles of the allocation of slaughtering to abattoirs under the over-30-month slaughter scheme is that the slaughter of casualty animals should be given priority. Special arrangements have therefore been made for the handling of such animals. Cattle which are unfit to travel or injured can be slaughtered on-farm by licensed slaughtermen and subsequently transported to a designated slaughterhouse on a dedicated day or direct to an approved incinerator for disposal. A freephone service provides farmers with a single contact point to arrange for the efficient and humane slaughter of casualty animals.

  Ruminant Protein Feed Ban
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what agency had responsibility for policing the ruminant protein feed ban introduced in 1988. [34432]

  Mrs. Browning
  The state veterinary service and local authorities are jointly responsible for policing the 1988 ruminant protein feed ban in ruminant feed and subsequent legislation.

  Cod Prices
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the wholesale and retail price of cod for each quarter period in the past two years. [34335]
  254
  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is shown in the table. The average retail prices are for fresh cod fillets. The available data for first-hand selling prices relate to average landed values for whole fish.

  Period

  Retail price (p/kg)

  Average landed value (p/kg)

  1994

  Quarter 2

  582

  95

  Quarter 3

  584

  98

  Quarter 4

  577

  112

  1995

  Quarter 1

  549

  95

  Quarter 2

  555

  83

  Quarter 3

  551

  87

  Quarter 4

  555

  97

  1996

  Quarter 1

  1451

  89

  1 Not comparable with earlier quarters because of changes in specification.

  1. The average retail prices are based on price information used by the Office of National Statistics in compiling the Retail Prices Index.

  2. Landed prices throughout this table are based on realisations for first hand sales of fish to all outlets, i.e. for human consumption and also for other uses such as fish meal and animal feedingstuffs. The average value is based on the total landings by the UK fleet, i.e. landings by UK vessels into both the UK and abroad.

  Slaughterhouse, Nuneaton
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the closed slaughterhouse situated in Nuneaton. [34407]

  Mrs. Browning
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the premises of ABP Ltd. The Abattoir, Saint Mary's road, Nuneaton. These premises are licensed under the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995. Decisions about its future are a commercial matter for the company.

  Beef Ban
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the assumption that the United Kingdom fulfils all its obligations and commitments agreed at Florence, when he expects the beef ban to be lifted in its entirety. [34741]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by the Prime Minister on 24 June,Official Report, column 21, on the outcome of the European Council, Florence.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans next to publish a report on bovine spongiform encephalopathy. [35203]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A further report on BSE in Great Britain will be placed in the Library of the House on Monday 1 July. Copies will also be made available at the royal show.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure the safe disposal of fleshings from the hide of BSE cull cattle; and if he will make a statement. [33649]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 25 June 1996]: The whole bodies, including the hides and fleshings, of cattle confirmed or suspected of having BSE are destroyed.

  Fleshings and trimmings from hides of other cattle aged over 30 months must be stained with tartrazine, kept separate from other by-products and removed in a sealed container to either an officially approved rendering plant or an incinerator for destruction.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to change the quarantine rules for pets coming to Britain from(a) Australia and (b) other countries. [30252]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 21 May 1996]: The Government have no plans to change the current import regulations for pet animals entering the UK.

  Slaughtered Cattle
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle were slaughtered in the United Kingdom under the 30-month scheme in the weeks beginning(a) 6 May and (b) 13 May. [32453]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 12 June 1996]: The number of cattle slaughtered under the scheme for the weeks in question was (a) 5,873 and (b) 21,260.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) United Kingdom legislation, (b) EU legislation and (c) international treaties, conventions or other obligations concerning animal welfare for which his Department has responsibility. [34294]
  256
  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 25 June 1996]: The information requested is as follows:

  Domestic legislation

  Welfare of animals on farm

  Docking and Nicking of Horses Act 1949 (Ch 70).

  The Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Act 1954 and 1964 (Ch 46 and Ch 39).

  Veterinary Surgery (Exemptions) Order 1962 (SI 1962 No. 2557).

  Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (1966 Ch 36).

  Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 (1968 Ch 34).

  Veterinary Surgery (Exemptions) Order 1973 (SI 1973 No. 308).

  The Docking of Pigs (Use of Anaesthetics) Order 1974 (SI 1974 No. 798)

  The Welfare of Livestock Deer Order 1980 (SI 1980 No. 593)

  The Removal of Antlers in Velvet (Anaesthetics) Order 1980 (SI 1980 No. 685).

  The Welfare of Livestock (Prohibited Operations) Regulations 1982 (SI 1982, No. 114).

  The Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) (Amendment) Order 1982 (1982 No. 1626).

  Veterinary Surgery (Exemptions) (Amendment) Order 1982 (SI 1982 No. 1627).

  The Welfare of Livestock (Prohibited Operations) (Amendment) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No. 114).

  Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (Schedule 3 Amendment) Order 1988 (SI 1988 No. 526).

  Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (Schedule 3 Amendment) Order 1991 (SI 1991 No. 1412).

  The Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 (SI 1994 No. 2126).

  Welfare of animals at market

  The Welfare of Animals at Markets Order 1990 (SI 1990 No. 2628).

  The Welfare of Animals at Markets (Amendment) Order 1993 (SI 1993 No. 3085).

  The Welfare of Horses at Markets (and other Places of Sale) Order 1990 (SI 1990 No. 2627).

  Welfare of animals during transport

  The Transit of Animals Order 1927 (SI 1927 No. 289).

  The Transit of Animals (Amendment) Order 1927 (SI 1927 No. 399).

  The Animals (Sea Transport) Order 1930 (SI 1930 No. 923).The Transit of Animals (Amendment) Order 1931 (SI 1931 No. 750).

  The Transit of Animals (Sea Transport) (Amendment) Order 1932 (SI 1932 No. 4984).

  The Transit of Animals (Amendment) Order 1939 (SI 1939 No. 5842).

  The Horses (Sea Transport) Order 1952 (SI 1952 No. 1291).

  The Horses (Sea Transport) Amendment Order 1958 (SI 1958 No. 1272).

  The Export of Horses (Veterinary Examination) Order 1966 SI 2966 No. 507).

  The Export of Horses (Excepted Cases) Order 1969 (SI 1969 No. 1742).

  The Export of Horses (Protection) Order 1969 (SI 1969 No. 1784)

  The Transit of Animals (General) Order 1973 (SI 1973 No. 1377).

  The Transmit of Animals (Road and Rail) Order 1975 (SI 1975 No. 1024).

  The Importation of Animals Order 1977 (SI 1977 No. 944)

  The Export of Horses and Ponies (Increase in Minimum Values) Order 1978 (SI 1978 No. 1748).

  257

  The Transit of Animals (Road and Rail) (Amendment) Order 1979 (SI 1979 No. 1013).

  The Export of Animals (Protection) Order 1981 (SI 1981 No. 1051).

  The Transit of Animals (Amendment) Order 1988 (SI 1988 No. 815).

  The Welfare of Poultry (Transport) Order 1988 (SI 1988 No. 851).

  The Welfare of Poultry (Transport) (Amendment) Order 1989 (SI 1989 No. 52).

  The Welfare of Animals During Transport Order 1994 (SI 1994 No. 3249).

  The Welfare of Animals During Transport (Amendment) Order 1995 (SI 1995 No. 131).

  Welfare of animals at slaughter

  The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995 No. 731).

  Other legislation which have welfare implications

  The Animals (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 1927 (SI 1927 No. 290).

  The Animals (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 1938 (SI 1938 No. 5674).

  Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (Ch 55).

  Animal Health Act 1981 (Ch 22)

  Animal Health Act 1981 (Amendment) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No. 3293).

  EC Legislation

  EC Directive 88/166 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens kept in battery cages.

  EC Directive 91/628 on the protection of animals during transport.

  EC Directive 91/629 laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves.

  EC Directive 91/630 Laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs.

  EC Directive 91/119 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing.

  EC Directive 95/29 ammending EC directive 91/628 on the protection of Animals during transport.

  European Conventions

  European Convention for the protection of Animals kept for farming purposes.

  European Convention for the protection of animals during international transport.

  European Convention for the protection of animals for slaughter.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by group, division or other work unit the number of grades of staff working within his Department on animal welfare issues. [34295]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 25 June 1996]: The number of posts complemented in the Ministry's animal welfare division and welfare at slaughter section and the associated sections of veterinary staff based at Ministry headquarters is as follows:

  Number

  Grade 5

  1.5

  Personal Sec

  1.5

  G7

  4

  SEO

  3.75

  HEO(D)

  2

  HEO

  4.25

  EO

  5.55

  AO

  5.5

  AA

  7.5

  258

  Number

  Typist

  0.8

  Veterinary Advisers

  2.5

  Livestock Transport Adviser

  1

  For the veterinary field service, analysis of work recording data for 1995–96 show that the following full-time equivalent staff years were spent on animal welfare by broad grade band:

  Staff years

  Veterinary grades (GB)

  49.0

  Technical grades (GB)

  11.5

  Administrative grades (England)

  5.4

  Total

  66.9

  The above figures do not include time spent by the Veterinary Laboratory Agency, the Meat Hygiene Service or ADAS on welfare matters, or the time of other officers of the Ministry—senior officials, lawyers, press officers and others—who spend part of their time on animal welfare.

  EU Agriculture Council
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Luxembourg on 24 to 26 June; and if he will make a statement. [35202]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I represented the United Kingdom at this Council, accompanied by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Following the decision by Heads of Government in Florence to increase the amount of financial aid for EU beef farmers affected by the current crisis, the Council unanimously allocated 850 mecu among member states for urgent income support measures. Of this, I secured some £112 million for UK fanners, which, at about 15.5 per cent. of the total sum, compares favourably with our 13.8 per cent. share of the EU beef cattle herd.

  The Council discussed in detail the Commission's proposals to set CAP prices for 1996–97 and to reform the EU fruit and vegetable regimes. It reached no conclusion on these dossiers and will resume discussion on them at its July meeting. However, in order to avoid a legal hiatus, the Council unanimously adopted five regulations setting prices at the same level as currently apply, in sectors where regulations are due to expire on 30 June.

  At my request, the Agriculture Commissioner undertook an urgent review of the arrangements applying to malt export refunds and agreed to make appropriate proposals in time for the 1996–97 export season to ensure stability and confidence in this important sector, taking account of the need for market balance and the EU's international commitments.

  I pressed the Commission and incoming presidency for early progress on the proposals to improve the welfare of veal calves. I also supported a German request for urgent steps to be taken on the welfare of hens in battery cages.
  259
  The Council adopted by qualified majority (Germany and Sweden voting against) a proposal concerning the financing of veterinary inspections. It adopted by qualified majority, with Germany and Greece opposing, a
  260
  proposal to reduce the entry price relating to imports of sour cherries. The Council also appointed Dr. Bart Kiewiet as President of the Community Plant Variety Office.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

BBC Charter and Agreement
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
On what date the new BBC Charter and Agreement will come into effect; and on what date the up-dated producer codes will come into effect.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, the new BBC Charter and Agreement came into effect on 1st May. The new impartiality code is due to be produced in July and the updated producers' guidelines are expected to be published in the autumn.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, that is rather late. If we can bring in the new Charter and Agreement on 1st May, it is a pity that we cannot also bring in the new codes which will react on the BBC and the new functions and responsibilities of the governors to see how they are working. Can the Minister assure us that the code will be published and both read and put into action by the new structure of the BBC?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the new obligations on the BBC have been in place since 1st May. I can confirm that the new arrangements impose a much more rigid regime and the new requirements will be vigorously enforced by the BBC, as the new Chairman of the Governors, Sir Christopher Bland, made clear.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, is the Minister aware that under the new management structure announced to conduct the BBC under its new Charter and Agreement, the World Service is to be absorbed into a single unit? Given that the great reputation of the World Service is based particularly on its unique and separate identity, can the Minister assure the House that its distinctive values and news priorities will be maintained within that uniform structure?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is for the BBC to decide how best to make its arrangements. It is early days, but I can confirm that the characteristics and quality of the World Service, which are so well regarded both in this country and abroad, will be maintained.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that in the new Agreement there is a new clause—Clause 4—which specifically calls for public consultation before the BBC makes any material change to the nature of its services? The radical change in the structure that has been put
1008
forward has major implications for the service to which the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, referred. That took place with no public consultation, either outside or inside Parliament, and indeed with no consultation with the most senior management in the BBC. Is that not a breach of the spirit of the Agreement?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I want to make clear that the clause to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, refers relates to objectives for the Home Service. We are talking about the way in which the BBC internally organises itself. What is being done therefore falls outwith the scope of the matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, refers.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am sure that everyone shares our admiration for the World Service, which is held in high esteem worldwide. As I understand it, it is to be quite separate from the domestic services. Can the Minister confirm that the cuts being made by the Foreign Office amount to £4.8 million from the capital budget this year and another £4.1 million in the operating budget in the following year, leaving a shortfall of £8 million? Are there any plans to do anything about that?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I understand that the BBC is confident that by the application of greater efficiency it can retain the level of services it is currently able to deliver.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the BBC World Service will be maintained to the same high level of quality it has enjoyed over the years and that there will be no changes?
Lord Inglewood: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when certain amendments were tabled and withdrawn during the passage of the Broadcasting Bill through this House and through Parliament, it was on the understanding that the Charter and Agreement would give the governors not just the right, but the obligation to exercise control over some of the more idiosyncratic and radical elements of the producers and presenters in the BBC? Can he give us an assurance that those producers and presenters who put on programmes in the BBC will be required to obey the new codes of practice and not just use them as an interesting basis for discussion?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is correct. The powers of the governors were defined and further identified in the new charter. Adherence to the producers' guidelines is an essential part of the job of those working for the BBC. A failure to adhere to those guidelines is a serious disciplinary matter.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is not a single individual in the whole of Bush House who agrees—
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I am sure it will be helpful if we take one question at a time.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the undertaking that he has just given to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, does not agree with the Minister's own undertaking that this great and memorable broadcasting service will be maintained in the manner in which it has been maintained? On the one hand, one cannot introduce government control at second hand and, on the other, say that everything will be the same as before.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, seems to have misunderstood. There is no question of government control being imposed at second hand. The Government, legislating through the Charter and Agreement, laid down certain general guidelines as to the modus operandi of this independent organisation. It is within those guidelines that the BBC will function independently.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is not a single individual in Bush House who agrees with the proposals made by Mr. John Birt? What provision is there in the Charter for safeguarding the World Service from being destroyed, thus cancelling out an asset which is not only of value to the people of Britain, but to the whole world?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, over-reaches himself. What he has said is not the case, but merely a generalisation. It is part of the terms of reference of the BBC to have a world service. There is no question of it being dismembered or anything else.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he has any hope that we shall in future, under the new producer code, see soap operas which represent the more orthodox views of family and society, which I believe will be generally favoured in this House, as opposed to some of the rather strange values which are put forward in soap operas? Does he have any further hope that one day we might also see a play about the Falklands War which represented it as a justifiable war, which was well managed, successful and in which honourable men fought bravely and overcame their opponents in an honourable manner?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the manner in which the BBC operates is within the constraints of the proper rules of impartiality, good taste and decency. Subject to editorial decisions to broadcast these matters, I have not only the hope but the expectation that we shall see such programmes.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—
Baroness David: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Stoddart!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us believe that it is simply not good enough to say that the BBC should decide how to maintain this service? This is a matter for the country and for Parliament. Does the Minister agree that Parliament has a great interest in what goes out over the airwaves to the world which gives an impression of Britain? Is the Minister further aware that many of us are getting fed up with the bad publicity that this country so often gets and that the World Service is the medium through which that can be corrected? I should like to have an assurance from the Government that not only will the revenue for the service be maintained but will be improved.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I have already said, the qualities of the World Service are recognised not only by the Government but, clearly, by your Lordships' House as well. The way in which the BBC was established was recommended by the Select Committee of another place. The Government agreed that that was right in their White Paper The Future of the BBC. The matter was debated in both Houses of Parliament. Although there were a number of dissenting voices the general consensus clearly was that this was the right way to proceed. Against that background the World Service will be operated in that way.
Baroness David: My Lords—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, we have the luxury of only three Questions today. With your Lordships' permission it might be sensible to confine ourselves to perhaps two more questions on this subject. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Annan, will kick off.
Lord Annan: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain how the World Service is going to be maintained at its present level when, as I understood him to say, £8 million are being taken from the Foreign Office Vote for that service? Is it true, as rumour suggests, that many of the specialised people who work in Bush House, broadcasting in foreign languages, are going to be disbanded?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I shall answer the noble Lord's second question first, which is that I am not in a position to know the answer. I shall write to the noble Lord. The World Service obviously has to operate within budgetary constraints, as does the rest of government. As I have mentioned earlier, within those constraints we believe that there is considerable capacity for increased efficiency, which will mitigate the impact of those cuts on the service that is provided.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what are the means and the sanction by which the undertaking my

1011
noble friend has given can be honoured, in particular as regards the World Service, on which I made my maiden speech in this House?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I of all Members of your Lordships' House am most aware, Parliament takes a very great interest in matters relating to the BBC. I have no doubt that your Lordships will be only too ready to draw the attention of the Government to the concerns that they may have and, in particular, if noble Lords felt that there were severe threats or otherwise to the future of the World Service. That is the way in which Parliament can register its interests.

MV "Derbyshire": Loss Investigation
3.19 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider their refusal to permit a representative of the Derbyshire Families Association to be present during the further investigations concerning the loss of MV "Derbyshire" which they announced on 3rd May 1996.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, we have given sympathetic consideration to the request from the Derbyshire Families Association that it should be represented on, or have a degree of control over, the return to the ship. We have concluded that this would not be appropriate. The association is one of a number of parties with an interest in the outcome of the return expedition. For one of those parties, but not the others, to be represented on the return expedition could lead to suggestions that the findings lacked balance or objectivity.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that since that terrible incident, with its heavy loss of life, many of the next of kin, including the spouses and children of the men who died, have also passed on without knowing how their husbands and fathers died? At this stage, would it not be an act of great compassion, for which the Government could earn some plaudits, if they were to allow the surviving next of kin the right to appoint an appropriate representative to go on that exercise and to put forward a view on return? I am not suggesting that anyone would try to produce a phoney report, but surely after all the time that has elapsed and all the people who have passed on, the Government can recognise that they would gain some credit by such an act of compassion. I cannot see any reason at all why they should not do that.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we are sympathetic—I personally am very sympathetic—to the concerns of the Derbyshire Families Association. I pay tribute to its work over the past 16 years since the terrible and tragic loss of that vessel. It is because of the association's work that the issue is still largely in our thoughts. However, we must remember that the return expedition
1012
must be foolproof, for want of a better word, in terms of objectivity because it could lead to the reopening of the formal inquiry. That is why we believe that, in the long-term interests of finding out what actually happened and securing agreement on it, it would not be appropriate for a representative to accompany the expedition.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does not the Minister recognise that there is a world of difference between people who have suffered the most appalling bereavement and those with other interests such as the insurers, shipowners and cargo owners whose interest cannot he as profound? Does not the Minister also recognise that those involved in the association have suffered a great sense of injustice over a considerable period—some 16 years—that their case was not being listened to and that consequently all that they are asking for, as I understand it—perhaps the Minister will confirm the position—is for somebody to be present simply to observe what happens at the investigation? Therefore, instead of adopting an attitude of sympathy, would not the Minister be wise to offer a positive means of expressing that sympathy and to review what he has decided not only with a sense of urgency but, as my noble friend said, with compassion?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I recognise that members of the Derbyshire Families Association have a special interest on compassionate grounds, having suffered the terrible loss of their families and friends. However, although the other interested parties have a different interest, it is nonetheless a strong interest. I hope that the Government have shown their seriousness about getting to the bottom of the issue and finding out the real benefits for maritime safety by agreeing jointly to fund such a major expedition in two parts so long after the event. We are dedicated to finding a proper solution to the issue. That is why we have decided to take forward the mission in two parts. If there was an easy and proper solution to this, I would certainly take it. However, I really do not believe that we can allow anything to threaten the objectivity of the results of the expedition.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, what if the Minister were to secure an undertaking from any representative duly appointed by the Derbyshire Families Association that there would be no interference with the investigation and that the representative would be there purely and simply as an observer? Given that there has been a large measure of suspicion among the bereaved about indifference on the part of the Government over many years until fairly recently and until the International Transport Workers Federation initiated the inquiries, does the Minister recognise that to undertake in a positive and constructive manner what my noble friend asks would allay those suspicions?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's contribution to the debate, but I hope that the suspicions to which the noble Lord alluded can be put to one side by the very fact that we appointed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, to conduct an independent assessment of the matter. The

1013
noble and learned Lord produced a full report which recommended returning to the wreck site. That is what we have done and I hope that that puts firmly to one side any suspicions which the association might have.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the assessment paid a considerable tribute to the efforts of the Derbyshire Families Association to get the matter further investigated and to keep it before the public eye? Will the Minister also confirm that the recommendation suggested that an expedition return to gather evidence, not to reach conclusions? There will no doubt be a later stage when the evidence can be examined. The Minister may wonder what contribution an observer can make which the Derbyshire Families Association and others have not already made by suggesting to the expert technical advisers what they should be looking for. If there is any suspicion that the expert technical advisers are in any way biased in favour of any particular solution, I personally can assure the Minister that that is not the case.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his contribution. I confirm what he said about the conclusions of the report and about the fact that this is an evidence-gathering mission which will take place in two stages. I concur with the noble and learned Lord that the purpose must be to gather evidence in as objective and professional a manner as possible. That evidence will then be debated before firm conclusions are reached.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if at some later stage blame were to be apportioned to one party or another, it would be tragic if, by virtue of an act of compassion in allowing observers to go on the mission, that party could attempt to wriggle out by saying that the families had been given a special privilege which had not been accorded to him?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. That is the point that I have been trying to put across, but my noble friend does it much better. The results of the expedition could lead to the reopening of the formal inquiry. I firmly believe that it is in the best interests of the families to be at arm's length from the independent assessment stage so that there is no question, accusation or taint of anything other than an objective and independent assessment of factual evidence.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I join the rest of your Lordships' House in expressing my appreciation to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, for the magnificent report which he produced on the subject? I thank the Minister for his expressions of personal deep sympathy for the people involved. However, I get the impression that the decision has been taken by somebody higher than the Minister. If that is the case, will the Minister take this issue back to the person concerned and make him aware of what has been said in your Lordships' House today?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it was my decision.

Euro '96: Nationalistic Press Reports
3.28 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action, if any, they consider appropriate to counteract recent expressions of nationalism in certain newspapers in connection with Euro '96.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, newspapers are subject to the criminal law and can be prosecuted for breaking it. Breaches of the industry's code of practice are for the Press Complaints Commission. Matters of tone, taste and content are for the editors, proprietors and publishers. The Government believe that the application of existing rules and imposition of the relevant sanctions where appropriate are sufficient to define the limits beyond which newspapers should not go.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his rather guarded and narrow reply. Does he agree that anyone who saw the matches in this tournament, particularly those last night, could not fail to be impressed by the general conduct of players and fans, and that the whole event has been a great success? Does he also agree that patriotism is one thing but nationalism is another, and that certain sections of the popular press have ignited, deliberately or otherwise, an unfortunate fuse of xenophobia, of which they must have been aware, which amounts to extraordinary irresponsibility and so must take some share of the blame for the sad events last evening?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Viscount is right. The love of one's country does not imply contempt of others, which is the unattractive characteristic of xenophobia and mutated nationalism. He is right when he says that Euro '96 has been a great success, albeit marred by the behaviour of certain fans last night. The comments in the newspapers to which he referred might not have been the cause of what occurred but must have contributed to it.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, is it not a fact that, despite the efforts of some newspapers to stir up racial hatred, there was absolutely no evidence of it at any of the venues where these matches were played? The matches have been played in a spirit of excellent good sportsmanship. Does my noble friend agree that yesterday the real fans were at Wembley and not in Trafalgar Square? Is it not right to pay tribute to those who have organised Euro '96 for having produced an extremely successful championship, although it is not quite over? I believe that the football authorities of Europe and this country, the police and indeed our team have tried throughout to do their best.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the traditional British value of fair play has been very much in evidence throughout these championships, which have been a great success. My noble friend is right when he says that a good deal of this is due to the hard work put in by the officials and organisers, and also those involved in the

1015
games themselves. I add my congratulations to the English and Scottish teams, both of whom acquitted themselves excellently. Although it was a disappointment, I should also like to say "well done" to Germany.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I acknowledge the earlier remarks of the Minister about the criminal law, Press Complaints Commission and other bodies in pursuing errors of taste in the press, but can the Minister inform the House whether any expression of regret has been made to our partner and ally, the Federal Republic of Germany, for the disgraceful and vulgar expressions of Germano-phobia which have appeared in the press in recent weeks and are in marked contrast to the remarks of many noble Lords in the recent debate on Anglo-German relations?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I understand that the editor of the Daily Mirror, one of the newspapers principally associated with the comments that have been made, has made an apology. These events are deeply regrettable. I am still not entirely clear what, if any, proceedings may flow from these events, so I must be slightly guarded in my remarks. As I understand it, the British Government have made no formal comment to the German Government about this affair.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that football is a splendid, strenuous game which is to be much encouraged and should not be compared with war, which is quite terrible?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that if the newspapers wish to continue to control their own affairs they must do so more effectively in future if government control, which nobody wants, is not to be reintroduced? Does the noble Lord agree that in particular the Daily Mirror is guilty in this matter and possibly an apology is insufficient?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is clear that the Daily Mirror has gone beyond the bounds of acceptable manners and decency in this respect. It is for the newspapers as a whole to make sure that they conduct themselves in a manner that enables them to play their part in the important British way of organising these matters—through self-regulation. They probably have more responsibility than anybody else to ensure that this element of British liberties is retained.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does my noble friend believe that expressions of European nationalism—and perhaps in future more violent expressions than those to which this Question refers—are more likely to occur under the federal socialist
1016
superstate desired by Herr Kohl and others than under the Europe of free nations desired by Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend sets up a false antithesis, to which I need not reply.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that we are in danger of making rather heavy weather of this matter? Certainly, the tabloid headlines were crude and juvenile. Equally, they were obviously tongue-in-cheek, which admittedly is a form of humour not always appreciated in other countries. Does the noble Lord agree that the real problem is that far too many vigorous young men watch sport slumped in front of television sets and not nearly enough get onto playing fields to practise these sports and thereby work off surplus energy?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I can understand why those responsible for these headlines may try to laugh them off as a jolly joke, but I do not believe that it is as simple or as straightforward as that. The noble Lord refers to young men watching football on television. I was slumped in front of the television last night.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the bulk of the remarks which gave such gross offence were in last Monday's papers. Is it not the case that in the past three days a number of other newspapers have expressed themselves forcefully about these remarks, which in itself proves that self-regulation can be made to work?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the general revulsion caused by these comments is undoubtedly evidence of the fact that collectively those responsible for them went too far.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we on these Benches associate ourselves with the very proper and responsible approach of the Minister to a very serious issue.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that my friend and lodger, who happens to be a German, thought it much safer to watch the television in the safety of my living room?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am sorry to hear the remarks of my noble friend, which I understand.

Business of the House: Asylum and Immigration Bill
3.39 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the House proceeds to the next business, I feel obliged to inform the House of the progress, or lack of it, in consideration of the Asylum and Immigration Bill. Noble Lords will recall that last Monday the

1017
Government indicated their intention to introduce major new amendments at Third Reading next Monday to override the judgment of the Court of Appeal given the previous Friday. In negotiation the Government Chief Whip was good enough to agree that there should be a recommittal of the relevant parts of the Bill to hold a Committee stage before the matter proceeded to Third Reading. I expressed my gratitude to him for that.
However, the understanding that we then had—it was only verbal and was not in writing—was that we would see the government amendments yesterday. The government amendments in their final form reached me only within the last hour. Earlier versions were in such a form that it was impossible to fax them to advisers. I have not been in any position to table amendments to the government amendments, or even to consider several pages of very complicated amendments and notes on amendments. This is simply not the way to conduct very serious business which has attracted the attention not only of the newspapers but large parts of the country who have been concerned about the destitution in which asylum seekers have been placed by the regulations passed in February of this year, as Lord Justice Simon Brown has said.
Not only is the matter itself a serious one but the procedure is an attempt to overturn a ruling of the High Court and involves serious issues as between secondary and primary legislation. I do not feel that we on this side are capable of dealing with the amendments with the seriousness that they deserve. I ask the Minister concerned whether she is prepared either to postpone the Committee stage, and therefore subsequently Third Reading, for a very short time—a day or two will suffice—or, if it is impossible to postpone the Committee, at least not to hold Third Reading on the same day so that serious consideration can be given to the new government amendments and any amendments to them.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for sending me today a preliminary draft of the government amendments and then what I understand to be the final draft of the government amendments. He will, I think, agree that there are profound legal differences between those two texts. I had begun a legal consultation on the first text, and now find that the point upon which I was taking advice no longer exists. I am, therefore, in the same difficulty as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
I understand that haste is difficult for all parties, but is haste so desperately needed that there is no time for a few days' postponement? The issues which involve a conflict between two Acts of Parliament, and between an Act of Parliament and, as some see it, our international obligations, are very complicated indeed. They are issues that might have exercised, had they gone there, the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House for a very long time. I do not have those skills. I should welcome some more time.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister also bear in mind that it is not just noble Lords on the Front
1018
Benches but one or two others of us who have taken part in the whole of these proceedings on the asylum Bill? For example, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and my noble friend Lady Williams and I have seen neither the preliminary nor the final amendments.
It is unreasonable to expect me, between now and Monday, to master those apparently enormously complex amendments. In view of the small number of your Lordships who took part in proceedings in Committee and on Report, it would not have been too much to ask that the noble Lord let us have copies too. When the noble Lord replies, will he say how we are to reply to people who are telephoning us constantly—I had a telephone call only this morning—asking our advice as to what happens to the benefits which were taken away from those people and which were restored to them by the Court of Appeal, and whether they can claim at least the benefits which apply until the new amendments are passed, if they are?
3.45 p.m.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, perhaps I could appeal to the Leader of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, did at least address the point that there are those interested in this matter other than the Front Benches. It may be that the Front Benches are in great difficulty not just in understanding what will be put to the House on recommittal but because they will also need to consult.
The strength of this House is the membership of the House, and not necessarily the relationship between the three Front Benches. I suggest to the Leader of the House—I know because of his long family connections with this place that he will be aware of this—that great importance should be attached to giving all of us who participate by speaking or, what is perhaps more important, by voting a reasonable opportunity to see the amendments as they are drafted and, if necessary, to consult.
This is a revising Chamber. At least that is the function which we have regarded as being perhaps our most important function. We cannot revise without some degree of understanding of what is being placed before the House. As I have said before, the House is all its Members; it is not an agreement or disagreement among the three Front Benches. We have in this House a great many of what I call the "independents". We who belong to a party may be in a better position than they are. They perform, in a sense, the most important function by providing a balance between the two sides of the House.
I say to the Leader of the House—I have said it before, and I hope he will not mind it being said again from someone who has been involved with business management—that the leadership of the two Front Benches has an inherent duty to protect the interests of the ordinary Members of this House. If we are to deal with important legislation, however contentious it may be, adequate time should be made available, taking into account the composition of the House.
We are not full-time Members. We do our best, but the Government should show greater understanding towards the requests that my noble friend has made.

1019
I say just one last thing, because it touches upon a previous debate. Despite what the Minister said when he dealt with the Statement, this is a new matter. It is a matter, true, that has been debated on Motions on Orders, but it is a new matter in so far as concerns this piece of legislation.
This House has always been careful about considering new legislation within a Bill. This change to the Bill may be necessary, but at this very late hour we should have a proper opportunity to understand what is being proposed and to be satisfied before we are asked to vote upon it.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Leader of the House bear in mind that there is a postal strike until midday tomorrow? That seems to point us in the direction of delay and postponement.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will listen carefully to what my noble friend on the Front Bench and other speakers have said, because we are getting too fond of passing through Parliament legislation which is defective and which is seen to be defective when it is too late. It would be a disaster if the Court of Appeal, having ruled against the Government on this issue once, was able to rule against them again because the correcting legislation was again defective. That is why it is important that Members of the House, and Members of another place, should have adequate time to consider the revised legislation.
There is one other point I wish to make. The Prime Minister himself—I agree with him, and I think that many in the House will agree with him—said only yesterday, I believe it was, that Parliament was rushing too many Bills through Parliament too quickly. Apparently he is going to propose that we have two-yearly Sessions starting in March. The Leader of the House shakes his head, perhaps he can give us a progress report on that. Let me just tell the House what I believe to be the case from a reading of the responsible press. It is that we are going to have a great deal more time to consider fewer Bills so that we can consider them properly and not make so many mistakes.
I urge the Leader of the House and the noble Baroness to take seriously what has been said and to try to meet that criticism.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, for those Back Benchers and others who wish to become involved in the Bill, perhaps I may say that cols. 702–736 of Hansard give excellent background reading if they wish to be prepared for the debate on Monday.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, perhaps the House will allow me to speak briefly on the point in response to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. My right honourable friend trailed the idea not of one opening of Parliament every two years but continuing an opening of Parliament once a year, and looking forward to the second year in terms of what legislation might be brought forward in the interests of a cause which I know both he and I hold very dear. Yet again, I suspect that noble Lords' reaction
1020
to what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, called the "responsible press" confirms me in my unjustified prejudice that the phrase is a contradiction in terms.
I am extremely sorry that a number of noble Lords, in particular such distinguished noble Lords as the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Shepherd, have expressed such serious reservations about the timing of the tabling of the amendments in relation to the consideration on recommitment. I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, as I know he recognises, that it is absolutely imperative that the Leader of this House should do all he can to ensure that the interests of the whole House are considered above the interests of the Government, however tempting it might be to do the latter. I assure your Lordships that that is always at the front of my mind. It is in that spirit that my noble friend the Government Chief Whip has established such harmonious relationships with his opposite numbers. We must always seek to arrange business by negotiation and arrangement. I am particularly sorry that on this occasion, in respect of what I agree is an important matter, noble Lords should feel that they have a cause for complaint.
I believe that my noble friends Lord Mackay and Lady Blatch in particular have made every effort to keep the House and those noble Lords who are particularly interested thoroughly informed about the matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, agreed, the issue is not new. I suspect that in the network of paths of legislation in your Lordships' House this is probably one of the most heavily and frequently trodden and has been during the past few years. Indeed, we know from the enormous number of Hansard columns on the subject that on previous occasions the House has fully debated and pretty strongly endorsed Her Majesty's Government's policy on benefits for asylum seekers. Your Lordships have already had the benefit of what always seems to me to be a remarkably detailed grasp of the matters under discussion, evidenced by noble Lords opposite. That grasp is always most strongly evidenced by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It is significant that those who have such a mastery of what is proposed are the very ones who say that they need more time in order to extend their already considerable knowledge.
Of course, it has taken some time to draft the amendments. The matters are complex. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will acknowledge that my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish has already circulated and placed in the Library a full briefing of what is at stake. As your Lordships are aware, on Monday he made a full announcement to the House of the Government's response to the judgment of the Court of Appeal and gave notice of our intention to invite the House to amend the Bill to restore the position. I was grateful for the acknowledgement of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that my noble friend the Government Chief Whip readily agreed to his suggestion that a Motion should be moved to allow the new amendments to be debated in Committee and to permit full exchanges without constraints on Third Reading. My noble friend and the noble Lord came to a rapid agreement on that.

1021
I understand that this morning the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, received a letter from my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish enclosing draft amendments, which required only minor refinements, together with a full explanation of their effect. That communication was copied to other Front Bench spokesmen and was also placed in the Library. Therefore, they were available to the whole House in the way that I think the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, would approve.
Since then noble Lords have also received a copy of the final amendments as they will be tabled. That allows all of this afternoon and all day tomorrow for noble Lords to prepare their own amendments. I had hoped that the House would agree that those arrangements were properly helpful. In view of what has been said, and despite what has been said, I doubt whether it would be in the interests of the House as a whole to rearrange next week's business at this late stage. But my noble friend the Government Chief Whip will always be prepared to listen to further representations through the normal channels. Those further representations are always welcome. Meanwhile, I should be misleading the House if I did not say that my judgment, for what it is worth, is that there has been ample time and that the interests of the House are that it should proceed to the further consideration of this business as scheduled on Monday. After all, as my noble friend Lord Mackay pointed out, this is a matter on which there appears to be a considerable command of the issues at stake among, in particular, Opposition spokesmen.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the matter should not be prolonged because there is no Motion before the House. But unless there is a change of heart there will be a Motion before the House on Monday.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the question at issue is not of courtesy but of practicality. Will the noble Viscount think again about his assertion that there is no new matter involved? I would agree that the withdrawal of benefits is not a new matter. However, the view of the Court of Appeal that the withdrawal of benefits conflicts with the right to seek asylum is new. That matter needs the most careful consideration. I must express my regret that the noble Viscount has taken the line that he has.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I apologise for entering the House only a moment or two ago. I came immediately I saw the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. The statement was difficult to anticipate. There are grave matters concerning our acceptance of some of the international conventions and treaties which we have signed. The noble Lord shakes his head but without consultation he can know no more than the rest of us whether that is the case. As Members of this House who are most concerned about British respect for international law, we need time to consult and discover whether that is so. That is another reason why we believe the matter to be exceptionally accelerated.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may respectfully put forward a point of view different
1022
from that put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I have now read the transcript. I agree that there was a very complex, difficult issue on which the court was divided. However, it was a simple issue in essence. It was simply whether the regulation was ultra vires.
On Monday, we shall not be concerned with the complexity of that issue. I have not seen the draft of the amendment but I know that other noble Lords have done so. However, it will not be complex in that form; it will be, as my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish said, to put into the statute in primary legislation the intention of the Government. That may take drafting and it may raise difficulties. I accept what was said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I, too, would have liked to have seen the document and have a little more time. However, surely one must balance that against whether the issue is so important that one should upset the working schedule of your Lordships' House.
4 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Leader of the House said that he agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the interests of Back-Benchers must be looked after as well as those of noble Lords on the Front Benches. How would anyone on the Back Benches have known that those documents had been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House at half-past eleven this morning? If they take away documents and draft amendments tomorrow, how will they be able to lodge them in time to appear on the Marshalled List when there is a notice on the collection box in the Lobby which says that nothing that is posted by first-class post, even today, will reach its destination until Saturday morning? That means that if noble Lords draft amendments in the course of the remainder of today and post them even as early as half-past five this afternoon, they will not reach the Public Bill Office or the Clerks until Monday morning. Therefore, they cannot appear on the Marshalled List.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I believe that I detect a sense of deviousness here. Surely if a Motion or amendments were placed before your Lordships which met with the general approval of the majority of noble Lords, I suspect that we should not have all these rather emotional arguments used, although they are understandable, about the apparent shortness of time.
It seems to me that there is a way in which those who are diametrically opposed to the principle of these matters may be trying to appeal to the emotions of this House by using the vehicle of shortness of time and being unable to be prepared.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I ask the noble Viscount to withdraw the charge of deviousness.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I bitterly resent being called devious.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I entirely withdraw any suggestion that any person or party is being devious. If I gave that impression, I apologise and withdraw it unreservedly. It seems to me that there is

1023
probably more concern about the substance of the matters to be dealt with rather than the validity of the apparent shortness of time argument. Unfortunately, there is now less time available than there would have been had we not gone down this route in the first place. There is the whole of Friday and, quite frankly, there is the weekend. Sometimes, we must burn a little bit of midnight oil.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Leader of the House whether he will enable the whole House to settle this matter on completely non-partisan lines. From time to time both the role and the composition of your Lordships' House are widely discussed not only in Parliament but outside. In order to emphasise the important role which this House occupies in the whole of the United Kingdom Parliament it is repeatedly and very justifiably emphasised that one of our functions is that of revising legislation which comes from another place. Surely in those circumstances, where responsible representations have been made to him and without creating any precedent whatever for the matter to be raised frivolously, and on the basis of what has already been said, not only by my own Front Bench but more seriously perhaps by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, the noble Viscount should follow his own precepts, regardless of his own party position, and say that in these circumstances it is necessary for the House to perform its revising function correctly and with due time. In that hope, perhaps the noble Viscount will accede to the request made to him by my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, of course I am distressed that I should find my own judgment at variance with that of so many respected Members of your Lordships' House. I shall certainly undertake to reflect on the matters that have been raised in a spirit of co-operation and in the best traditions of your Lordships' House.
But I must reiterate—bearing in mind that I have undertaken most seriously to reflect on what noble Lords have said—that the point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway really is worthy of consideration by noble Lords who have voiced their objections. I must reiterate also that the substance of the point has been rehearsed time and time again in your Lordships' House.
Of course, I undertake to reflect further on this matter and I shall endeavour to do so dispassionately, as I know your Lordships would expect me to do. But I hope also that your Lordships will accept that I find arguments on the other side persuasive. If that is the judgment of my noble friends and I, then the promise made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is something that we shall have to face in due course, but I hope that we shall be able to avoid that eventuality.

Education Bill [H.L.]
4.5 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has
1024
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 Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

School Inspections Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: 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 Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Offensive Weapons Bill
Read a third time.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. It would be churlish not to express gratitude to the honourable Member in another place, the Member for Sutton and Cheam, for all the work and initiative which he put in to getting the Bill going in the first place and for piloting its passage through another place. Before formally moving that the Bill do now pass, I express my thanks to my noble friend Lady Blatch for her help, for her department's help and for all the ready assistance which has been given to me by officials of her department in preparing to carry this Bill through your Lordships' House. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Companies (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1996
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) rose to move, That the regulations laid before the House on 5th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: The main aims of these regulations are, first, to reduce prices overall for a range of Companies House services, and, secondly, within the overall reduction to increase certain charges where higher unit costs have become unavoidable.
Companies House Executive Agency, in undertaking the functions of the Registrar of Companies, has succeeded in meeting its targets to reduce unit costs, thus creating a surplus of revenue over costs. The general reduction in prices is intended to eliminate this surplus.
The regulations, however, provide for limited increases, notably in the charge for a standard fee search, from the level of £3 set in 1991 to £3.50 to reflect the costs of meeting a diminishing requirement for this particular service and to avoid cross-subsidisation by others. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 5th June be approved
[22nd Report from the Joint Committee.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Security Service Bill
4.11 p.m.
Report received.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1.
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
(". The Security Service, in exercising its functions under or in consequence of this Act, shall have regard to the following general principles—

(a) the rule of law is paramount;

(b) the means of investigation must be proportionate to the gravity of the threat;

(c) the more intrusive the technique, the higher the authority should be to authorise its use; and

(d) except in emergencies, less intrusive techniques must be preferred to more intrusive ones.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this Bill, both at Second Reading and in Committee, I emphasised the support of the Opposition for the general principle behind the Prime Minister's statement at the Conservative Party Conference, that he sought to put on a more established basis, a legal basis, the role of the law enforcement agencies, including the police and the Security Service.
This Bill is the first part of that programme of objectives which the Prime Minister set out. As I said at Committee stage, it is in some ways the most difficult part, not necessarily in drafting terms, but because this is the part which extends the responsibilities of the Security Service, although we have not yet seen the other parts of the Prime Minister's package which are to provide a statutory basis for law enforcement agencies. Therefore, because this part comes before Parliament earlier than the rest of the package I thought it appropriate, as has happened in other legislation in this Session, to seek to add to the Bill a statement of general principle underlying this new role for the Security Service. I have taken that statement of general principle from Canada.
Noble Lords who follows these things will be aware that in the 1970s there was a series of scandals about the unauthorised activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. An inquiry was set up under Justice McDonald, which led to a Royal Commission in 1981, which
1026
produced a report called Freedom and Security under the Law. I believe, having read unfortunately only extracts from that report, it is a very valuable statement of the principles on which the work of the police and the security services in a free society should operate. In the Royal Commission's report the general principles are set out in this form: the Security Service,
"shall have regard to the following general principles—

(a) the rule of law is paramount;

(b) the means of investigation must be proportionate to the gravity of the threat;

(c) the more intrusive the technique, the higher the authority should be to authorise its use; and

(d) except in emergencies, less intrusive techniques must be preferred to more intrusive ones".

These are Canadian words and they may not fit immaculately into English legislative speak. I believe that they will have a resonance to your Lordships, and that you will feel, reading them, that they express the basic principles which we all feel about the role of law enforcement agencies. I believe that they follow and point up the concerns which the Prime Minister expressed in his speech, and which underlie the purposes of this particular piece of legislation.
As a result of the Royal Commission, Canada set up the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, which took over the functions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for internal security. It is headed by a director-general, but it also has an inspector-general who has the responsibility of reporting to Parliament and making judgments about the propriety of the activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Under the legislation which governs the work of that service, an application for a warrant, of a kind we are considering in Clause 2 of this Bill, has to be approved by the solicitor-general and has to be made to a judge in writing. We shall come to that issue when we consider later amendments.
I believe the Canadians have something to teach us in this matter. Having had difficulties in the 1970s, they have shown a responsible approach to the whole issue of the statutory basis of the work of law enforcement agencies. As I understand it, their reforms have been successful; and they have been successful, at least in part, because they are based on the general principles set out in Amendment No. 1.
The House has agreed, as recently as in its consideration of the Family Law Bill, that a statement of general principle can be, under certain circumstances, a valued addition to legislation. I believe that this reflects what the Prime Minister intended from this legislative programme. I commend the amendment to the House.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I do not doubt the good intentions of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in moving this amendment, but frankly I do not think it is suitable for legislation. It states opinions and does not enact law with any precision which would be considered binding on those who have to observe the law and, indeed, upon

1027
the courts. Different judges would take different views as to what should be the application of some of these phrases.
Perhaps I may go through them. First, the amendment says:
"The Security Service, in exercising its functions under or in consequence of this Act, shall have regard to the following general principles—

(a) the vile of law is paramount".

That is merely a statement of opinion of the obvious. It is merely a repetition of a well-known constitutional principle, but it does not get us anywhere in relation to this Bill. Secondly,
"(b) the means of investigation must be proportionate to the gravity of the threat".
That would be good advice to those who will be responsible for administering the law when this Bill is passed, but it is a matter of opinion in every case. If this point were to be brought before juries, juries' decisions would vary enormously on the same set of facts.
Thirdly, there is another statement of opinion:
"(c) the more intrusive the technique, the higher the authority should be to authorise its use".
There is no listing of the techniques, but I am glad there is not because I do not think we should go into that sort of detail. The amendment uses the words,
"the higher the authority should be to authorise its use".
I do not think there will be a multiplicity of authorities authorising use here. It just will not be so. Finally, it says:
"(d) except in emergencies, less intrusive techniques must be preferred to more intrusive ones".
There again, it is good guidance to give to the Security Service in the years to come, but to try to tie them down in law to a statement of this kind does not seem to me to be a way to legislate. I hope the Government and your Lordships will not accept this amendment.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, when I first saw the amendment on the Marshalled List I was not at all clear as to its purpose. However, I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said when moving it, and to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. On reflection, I believe that there is a great deal to be said for the proposed new clause. I certainly understand the reason why the noble Lord Lord McIntosh, brought it forward. I believe that I was the only Member of your Lordships' House who, in a debate on the humble Address, expressed some hesitations about the Bill which was then foreshadowed. I expressed those hesitations again on Second Reading and, indeed, in Committee.
I recognise what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said—the Minister has reminded us of it from time to time, quite rightly—namely, that the Bill has in its purpose all-party support. However, the longer we have discussed it the more concerned I have become that, in pursuing a good cause—by which cause I mean dealing with organised crime—we may be making constitutional changes which, although not apparently significant
1028
today, may turn out to be the thin end of the wedge over a period of time in terms of many of the freedoms that we take for granted today.
I understand the points contained in the proposed new clause. They are controversial only to a very minor degree. They might, therefore, seem too obvious to require a particular statement here. However, for the very reason that I mentioned, if there is no place for such a clause in the Bill and no endorsement of those sentiments, the difficulties that we have in amending the legislation will stand on record as a failure of your Lordships' House.
Although we shall return to some of these issues later, I remind your Lordships that we have not found it possible to define organised crime in the way foreshadowed and anticipated by the remarks made by the Prime Minister last autumn. We have found it difficult to find a way to deal with an adequate complaints procedure, although we shall return to the issue later. But, perhaps the most important question of all—and, again, we shall discuss it soon—involves the contents of Clause 2 which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, ensured were debated in Committee.
Bearing in mind the difficulties that we have experienced thus far in making progress with the changes which many noble Lords believe are desirable, I believe that there is much merit in the proposed new clause. Whatever the course the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, chooses to take as regards whether or not to press the matter to a Division, I hope that the Minister will find it possible to endorse the principles enshrined in the proposed new clause.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene, especially as I have not, unfortunately, recently seen the text of the original Act on the functions of the Security Service. However, although I entirely respect the motives of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in putting forward such views, I should be extremely surprised if the Security Service does not in fact already operate in the way suggested. Therefore, the provision seems a little unnecessary. Indeed, no sensible intelligence officer would do something complicated and dangerous if he could achieve the same admirable result by doing something simple and lawful.
As I believe my noble friend Lord Renton said, there is, in practice, only one authority—namely, the Secretary of State, or so it has always been—as regards the granting of warrants and all those acts which have to be approved because they raise problems of danger and law. It is slightly insulting to the service—I do not believe that it is intended to be so—to suggest that it does not operate in that way. In the last legislation on the service, I assume that it was made pretty watertight that some matters had to be referred upwards and others had not.
There is, of course, a long history of case law in both services as regards what one refers on and when one should do so. But I repeat: no sensible intelligence officer would do something more intrusive if he could do something less intrusive. The Canadian case is not really relevant; indeed, there were many other problems

1029
involved. It happened long ago and it is too difficult to go into the details. There was a need for tightening up quite a lot of screws in that case. However, I do not believe that that is necessary as regards the legislation now before us. I should regret seeing such a provision becoming, perhaps, a rod with which to beat the service at a future stage in some difficult legislative battle.
I feel real anxiety about the lack of certainty and clarity which still exists about what will happen with the authority and with the police. I look forward to those points becoming much clearer. However, although the proposed new clause is entirely honourable, I believe it to be unnecessary.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I do not believe that there is a very real difference of opinion here. Certainly that does not appear to be the case from the remarks made by my noble friends Lady Park and Lord Renton. The noble Lord's amendment advances a series of principles which should guide the work of the Security Service under its new function. I am happy to be able to say that the work of the Security Service is already guided by those principles through a combination of existing legislative provisions and internal mechanisms. Indeed, three of the four principles in the amendment are set out in the second edition of the Security Service booklet, which was published earlier this year, as fundamental principles governing the service's work. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree that the amendment is unnecessary.
First, the amendment restates the primacy of the rule of law. In the course of our discussions on the Bill, I have already given the assurance that individual members of the Security Service are subject to the law—both criminal and civil—but I am happy to restate that assurance now. Of course the rule of law is paramount, that is absolutely clear. This is certainly one of the fundamental principles to which the Security Service adheres.
Secondly, the amendment will impose a test of proportionality so that the most intrusive techniques can be used only when the threat is suitably serious. As a related requirement, less intrusive techniques should be preferred to more serious ones. Underpinning both those principles is the desire to ensure that the most intrusive investigative techniques are not used inappropriately or unnecessarily. Again, that is a fundamental principle for the Security Service and one which the Government fully endorse. Hence, the legislation governing the most intrusive techniques already makes specific provision to that effect.
Section 2(2) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 prevents the Secretary of State from issuing warrants authorising interception unless,
"he considers that the warrant is necessary"
for the stated statutory purposes which include,
"preventing or detecting serious crime".
In defining the word "necessary", the Act goes on to say that the Secretary of State must consider,
"whether the information which it is considered necessary to acquire could reasonably he acquired by other means".
1030
There is a similar provision in the Intelligence Service Act 1994, governing the issue of warrants authorising the entry on, or interference with, property. Section 5(2) requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the action is likely to be of substantial value in assisting the Security Service to pursue its statutory functions and that the objective of the action,
"cannot reasonably be achieved by other means".
In other words, for the two most intrusive means of investigation there is already a statutory requirement for them to be used only as a last resort.
The fact that that "last resort" test requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that other, less intrusive, techniques could not be used, demonstrates the emphasis which is placed in the legislation on restricting the authorisation of the most intrusive techniques to a suitably high authority. For both types of warrant, the personal authorisation of the Secretary of State is required. In both cases, the Secretary of State's exercise of his power to issue warrants is overseen by a senior member of the judiciary in the form of the relevant commissioner. Once again, I would suggest that the existing legislation meets the concern underpinning the amendment's wish to see a higher authority authorising more intrusive techniques.
For general methods of investigation which do not require the issue of an interception or property warrant, the actions of the Security Service are under the control of the Director-General of the Security Service. I do not believe that it would be helpful to the service's operational effectiveness if we were to attempt to specify how the Director-General should apply or delegate his authority in relation to general methods of investigation. The principal is very properly covered in the internal mechanisms controlling the service's day-to-day work. The clear exception to this is where techniques are involved which require serious intrusion into the privacy of members of the public. On those occasions the legislation is clear and the safeguards are robust—the personal authorisation of the Secretary of State is required, with oversight from a commissioner. In conclusion, these principles are extremely important—a fact which has been publicly recognised by the Security Service and endorsed by the Government. Where it is sensible to translate those principles into practical legislative safeguards it has already been done. That is why principles (b), (c) and (d) of this amendment are already addressed in the existing legislation. Principle (a), which reminds us that,
"the rule of law is paramount".
is not specifically addressed in the legislation because, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, it should not be necessary to restate that the rule of law is paramount. There is nothing which could detract from such a clear and fundamental principle. I hope therefore that the amendment will not be pressed.
4.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for his support for this amendment. However, the case for the amendment has been most effectively made by those

1031
noble Lords who have spoken against it. They combined the claim that it is unnecessary with the claim that it might be too restrictive on the members of the Security Service. That confirms all of my fears. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and the Minister all objected to the idea of a statement of general principles in this form. I remind the House that just this afternoon we shall consider Commons amendments to the Family Law Bill. I believe it was the noble Baroness, Lady Young—I am sure she had the support of all noble Lords opposite—who inserted in the Family Law Bill a clause of general principles that,
"The court and any person, in exercising functions under or in consequence of Parts II and III, shall have regard to the following general principles—

(a) that the institution of marriage is to be supported".

There are further principles as regards practical steps to save a marriage and as regards dealing with marriages which have irretrievably broken down. So the House has only recently inserted, in a kind of preamble to a Bill, a statement of general principle which is certainly as wide-ranging and as unexceptionable as the repeated declaration of the primacy of the rule of law.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that the comparison the noble Lord makes is almost an odious one. As regards recognising the institution of marriage, that can be a subjective judgment on the part of many people. However, to honour the rule of law as paramount should not be a subjective judgment. It is an absolute principle that we would all expect to see honoured by whomever it concerned.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am a most enthusiastic supporter of general principles rather than going into too much hypothetical detail. But a general principle must be one which is enforceable in law and not merely a statement of opinion or merely a guide to good conduct.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, are we saying that support for the institution of marriage is enforceable in law? Many lawyers will make a good living for many years to come as a result of different interpretations of what is meant by general support for the institution of marriage.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, that is exactly the point that I made about intrusive techniques.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not hear what the noble Baroness said.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, my concern was that if the phrase about intrusive techniques in the noble Lord's amendment were to stand, it would be exploited by lawyers in exactly the way that the noble Lord suggested. That is my point; not that I think the service would be vulnerable but that there would be considerable efforts to exploit the matter in the courts.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is an interesting point. The Minister subsequently explained that principles (b), (c) and (d) are already contained—
1032
either in exactly those words, or in similar words—in instructions to the Security Service. I am not quite sure of her words, but I believe she referred to some document which describes how the Security Service should operate. The noble Baroness is opposing the idea that it should appear in primary legislation. I remind her that this Bill contains—in primary legislation—detailed prescription for the supervision of the work of the Security Service in support of police forces and detailed prescription for the way in which warrants will operate. Is it not entirely appropriate that we should at the same time bring out into the open and into legislation the basis on which these changes are to be made? I believe that what we are saying in this amendment is entirely consistent with the objectives of the Prime Minister in his admirable defence of a statutory basis for law enforcement agencies. I am not convinced by what the Minister has said. I am certainly not convinced by the arguments made by those on her Benches. I wish to seek the opinion of the House on this amendment.
4.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 122.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Monson, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Avebury, L.

Nicol, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ogmore, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Peston, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Rea, L.

Carter, L.

Richard, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

David, B.

Russell, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Desai, L.

Seear, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Shepherd, L.

Dubs, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Fitt, L.

Stallard, L.

Geraint, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Grey, E.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hamwee, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thurso, V.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Tordoff, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Hylton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Warnock, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kilbracken, L.

White, B.

Listowel, E.

Wigoder, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

McNair, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Molloy, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Monkswell, L.

Winston, L.

1033

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Inglewood, L.

Abinger, L.

Kenyon, L.

Addison, V.

Knights, L.

Ailsa, M.

Knollys, V.

Aldington, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lindsay, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Liverpool, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lucas, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lyell, L.

Blaker, L.

McConnell, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brentford, V.

Marlesford, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Bumham, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Butterworth, L.

Milverton, L.

Cadman, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caldecote, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Campbell of Cray, L.

Mottistone, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mountevans, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mountgarret, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Munster, E.

Courtown, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Newall, L.

Cuckney, L.

Norrie, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Northbourne, L.

De Freyne, L.

Northesk, E.

De L'Isle, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Donegall, M.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Pender, L.

Downshire, M.

Pike, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Quinton, L.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rathcavan, L.

Flather, B.

Rawlings, B.

Gainsborough, E.

Renton, L.

Goschen, V.

Renwick, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Romney, E.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L

Seccombe, B.

Halsbury, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Strange, B.

Harmsworth, L.

Strathdyde, L. [Teller.]

Harrowby, E.

Sudeley, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Swansea, L.

Henley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Holderness, L.

Tenby, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Teviot, L.

Hooper, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Howe, E.

Trumpington, B. [Teller.]

Ilchester, E.

Ullswater, V.

Westbury, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.45 p.m.
Clause 1 [Functions of Security Service]:
Lord Avebury: My Lords, perhaps before we take Amendment No. 2 I could raise a matter which arises out of the statement made by the Leader of the House in answer to questions.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is wholly improper in the middle of the Security Service Bill.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will bear with me for a second. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House made a statement that documents concerning the Asylum and Immigration Bill had been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House at half-past eleven this morning. I am afraid that inadvertently he misled your Lordships. After that, I went immediately to the Library to ask for the documents so that I could begin considering the amendments. Complaints had already been made, as the noble Baroness may have noticed, about the shortness of time available within which those who are involved with the Bill had to consider matters. The time available is even shorter than anyone thought because the documents were not there.
Baroness Blatch: Order! My Lords, I suggest that the noble Lord goes to see the Leader of the House and the usual channels and does not use this Bill for this purpose.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, with regard to the usual channels, the fact is that inadvertently the Leader of the House has misled the House by saying that documents were in the Library when they were not. The House has the right to hear a statement from Ministers as to exactly what is going on, given that the House has been misled—inadvertently, I repeat.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would be at least courteous for noble Lords to see the Leader of the House to press their point. They can leave him to decide how he will deal with the point, rather than using this Bill as an opportunity to raise a point of order. As the noble Lord knows, I am in no position to answer it because it is not my subject. At this stage, it is a matter for the Leader of the House.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 23, at end insert—
("(4) After sub-paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 1 to the Security Service Act 1989, there shall be added—
"(3A) The Tribunal shall submit to the Intelligence and Security Committee established under section 10 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 details of every determination made by it in relation to any function carried out by the Service under section 1(4) of this Act, its reasons for that determination and the relevant background papers.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment relates to the system of control of the Security Service which is set up under the Intelligence Services Act 1994. I begin by expressing my gratitude to the Minister for sending me details, some of which I had not had, of the tribunal system and the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
In the amendment, we propose not that there should be a general reporting of all cases undertaken by the Security Service in performing the functions provided for in the Act, but that the tribunal which deals with only a small proportion of the cases which the Security

1035
Service undertakes, should have the responsibility of submitting details of determinations made to the Intelligence and Security Committee. I do not know how many determinations are made by the tribunal in the course of a year, but the proposal will not be an enormous burden.
On the other hand, it is important that the Intelligence and Security Committee should have the raw material on which it is to base its judgments which must form the basis of its annual report to the Prime Minister. If it is to consider the working of the two services, it must know what complaints have been made and how they have been dealt with by the tribunal. I acknowledge that most complaints made to the current Security Service Tribunal appear to be unjustified. The annual reports of the Security Service Commissioner confirm that. So much the better and so much the more reason why the Intelligence and Security Committee should have the basis on which it can say with confidence to the Prime Minister and ultimately to Parliament that the vast majority of complaints are unjustified.
However, even if they are not justified and are not upheld by the tribunal, they may not all be misconceived. Some complaints, even if they are not upheld individually, could illustrate more general problems in the functions and working of the services. The committee ought to have the information in order to fulfil its own functions adequately. I say that with some trepidation in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, but I believe that the amendment is—as it is intended to be—helpful to the work of his committee and helpful to the working of the 1994 Act. It deserves the serious consideration of the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I must confess that I am somewhat puzzled by the purpose behind this amendment. It seems to be confusing the purpose of the independent Security Service Tribunal, which exists to investigate complaints against members of the Security Service, and the independent Intelligence and Security Committee—the ISC as it is known—which exists to provide a measure of parliamentary scrutiny of the work of all the intelligence agencies.
We discussed the issue of complaints against the Security Service at some length during the previous stages of the Bill and will no doubt do so again when we come to discuss the new clause that has been tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Rodgers. I am sure therefore that the House is already somewhat familiar with the mechanisms that exist for dealing with complaints that are made against the Security Service. I do not want to go over the same ground again, but let me just remind the House that the Security Service Tribunal, which was set up for this very purpose, consists of three senior members of the legal profession, who are independent of the Security Service.
If the tribunal upholds a complaint, it can order the Security Service to discontinue an inquiry, destroy all records relating to that inquiry and order that redress be given to the complainant. Not only that, but the tribunal is obliged to make a report on the matter to both the Security Service Commissioner and the Secretary of
1036
State so that, should the complaint be symptomatic of a wider problem in the service, the necessary remedial action can be taken.
On the other hand, if the complaint is not upheld, the complainant is told only that. There is good reason why the tribunal does not give reasons for its decisions. As things stand, the unsuccessful complainant does not know if he has been the subject of a legitimate inquiry by the Security Service or if the service has taken no interest in him. It would be most unfortunate if potential targets of the service were able to use the complaints procedure to confirm, or otherwise, that the service had taken an interest in them.
That is the role of the tribunal. The Intelligence and Security Committee is a committee of senior parliamentarians, including my noble friend Lord Blaker, which has the remit of examining the "expenditure, administration and policy" of the intelligence agencies. It was certainly never envisaged that the committee should have any role to play in the complaints process and I must say that I am at a loss to know what the ISC would be expected to do with all the information that this amendment envisages it would receive from the tribunal, including, incidentally, information on all the complaints that were not upheld. It also seems odd that the tribunal should be required to give reasons for its decision to the ISC when, for the very good reason that I have outlined, it does not give them to complainants.
The Security Service Tribunal and the ISC are two important—but distinct—elements of the accountability arrangements that govern the work of the Security Service. They both have important tasks to perform and both do so, if I may express an opinion, efficiently and effectively. However, it is important to realise that these functions are separate and it would be unwise to confuse the two. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is reassured and will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not intend to press the amendment, so the second part of the Minister's hopes will indeed be fulfilled. However, I am not at all reassured by her remarks. The point about the tribunal is that its proceedings are entirely secretive—very much in contrast to the work of the Police Complaints Authority.
I should not mind quite so much if the tribunal were secretive where issues of national security are concerned; but the tribunal is secretive in all cases. As the Minister said, complainants or persons under investigation are not informed about what is going on. Again, I quite understand if that happens for reasons of national security. But we are now talking about functions in support of the activities of police forces. We are talking about the investigation of serious crime. We are talking not about the generality of the work of the security services but about their work in support of the police. In those circumstances, the analogy for the complaints procedure ought not to be the secretive complaints procedure for the Security Service, but the more open complaints procedure of the police.

1037
Perhaps I have the protocol wrong in suggesting that Parliament, through the Intelligence and Security Committee, should be the point at which these matters become available to outsiders—which those senior parliamentarians are—so that they may comment upon them. No doubt the amendment is defective in that way. Most amendments are. However, the principle behind it, that complaints procedures for the functions under the Bill should be more comparable to those of the Police Complaints Authority, is still valid. It will be dealt with in later amendments. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
ANNUAL REPORT OF INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE
(". At the end of section 10 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, there shall be added—
"(8) In its annual report the Committee shall report separately on the activities of the Security Service under section 1(4) of the Security Service Act 1989.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again, this amendment relates to the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee. It makes a quite modest demand which I shall introduce very briefly; namely, when the committee produces its annual report it should give separate consideration to the activities of the Security Service which are performed under Section 1(4) of the Security Service Act, which is implemented by Clause 1 of this Bill.
I imagine that the Intelligence and Security Committee will wish to do that in any case. Clearly, it is a matter of public interest how the Security Service performs those functions. I hope that this very small amendment will have the support of government and of members of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is justified in asking that the Committee's report shall refer to the activities under Section 1(4) of the 1989 Act as confirmed and extended by this Bill. My only doubt is whether the committee would be obliged to do that anyway. I have not considered from the legal point of view whether the amendment is necessary. However, the noble Lord's point needs to be covered in one way or another.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, as the only Member of this House who is a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, it is appropriate for me to say a very brief word on this matter. I cannot speak for the committee as a whole; I can speak only for myself. Indeed, I am a relatively new member. However, I am confident that the committee will carry out whatever burden or obligation is laid upon it by Act of Parliament. There is no question about that.
1038
Secondly, I wish to remove what may be an anxiety on the part of some noble Lords that the committee does not attach much importance to this subject compared to the other subjects with which the intelligence and security services deal. The committee, as one of its early acts, issued a special report on this whole subject of dealing with organised crime, which fully demonstrates that it takes the matter very seriously indeed.
Finally, if one imposes on the committee an obligation to report separately on the activities of the Security Service on this particular subject, why should not one impose a similar obligation in relation to the other activities of the Security Service or of the other intelligence and security services? They are all important. This one is important; but the others are, too.
Lord Knights: My Lords, I am a little doubtful about this amendment. My particular concern is that, as with the first two amendments, we seem to be laying up trouble for ourselves when we consider the other aspects of this package introduced by the Prime Minister later in the year. We are talking not only of the activities of the Security Service but also about the activities of the police service. If the Intelligence and Security Committee is to report separately on the activities of the Security Service in relation to this matter, later in the year will we be asking the Police Complaints Authority to report on the same activities of the police? The two cannot be dealt with in isolation. The matter should be dealt with as a whole in the Bill and this item should not be dealt with separately. The same remarks apply to Clause 1.
5 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Renton, we welcome the spirit behind the amendment. The Intelligence and Security Committee—the ISC—is an important element of the accountability arrangements that govern the Security Service and the other intelligence agencies. Not only that, because it is made up of parliamentarians, it is one of the key ways that the intelligence agencies remain accountable to your Lordships and to the members of another place. I know that members of the Committee, of whom my noble friend Lord Blaker is a distinguished representative of your Lordships' House, take their duties to "examine the expenditure, administration and policy" of the intelligence agencies very seriously.
I am confident that the ISC will want to carry out its responsibilities in regard to the Security Service's new serious crime function. Last December (at which point my noble and learned friend Lord Howe represented this House on the Committee) the committee published a special report on that very topic which concluded that the Security Service had distinct skills which it could bring to the fight against organised crime. It made similar comments in its annual report for 1995, which was published in March of this year. It gave a very clear hint that it would keep an eye on this issue when it said: "Our interest will be to see that the working arrangements for any such organisation enable the Agencies to pursue their supporting roles effectively".

1039
Having said that, I do not think it is right for us to tell the ISC, which is, after all, an independent committee, how it should carry out its functions. It may want to include a separate section in its annual report on the Security Service's serious crime work. Equally, it may want to make more general observations about the service's work across its functions. It may want to draw attention to a particular aspect of the service's work, or even a particular problem, that affects all of the service's functions. Similarly, it may want to draw comparisons between the Security Service's serious crime work and that of other agencies. It may want to report to the Prime Minister on the implications for the other functions of the Security Service of its work against serious crime. It may even want to produce a separate report on the issue, as it has done before. All of these matters could be made more difficult if the ISC was required to have a separate section in its annual report on the Security Service's serious crime work.
As the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, commented, why should that aspect of the Security Service's work be dealt with separately? More than that, these are surely matters for the committee and it would be wrong to tell it how to structure its report or to constrain it from presenting the information that it has in the form that it wants.
I have every confidence that the committee will give all due scrutiny to the Security Service's serious crime work, as it does to all other aspects of the work of the intelligence agencies. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already given a commitment in another place that the Prime Minister will always seek to publish as much as possible of any ISC report dealing with the Security Service's new function.
I hope that in the light of this the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will agree that it would be better not to tie the hands of the ISC in the way that the amendment proposes and that he will consider withdrawing it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have no difficulty in withdrawing the amendment. The purpose of the amendment, as the Minister knows, was to get her to talk, on the record, about the way in which the ISC will prepare its report and the consideration that it will give to the new functions.
It is self-evident that if Parliament imposes new functions on a service, it will require supervision and some reporting back of what happens. Like the Minister, I have no doubt that the ISC will wish in its report to include a section or sections referring to the functions which are added. The question of whether or not it is on the face of the legislation is a secondary issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Warrants]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) A warrant issued on the application of the Security Service for the purposes of the exercise of their function under section 1(4) of the Security Service Act 1989 shall only he granted by a judge of the High Court or Court of Session.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 deal with the very grave concerns that were expressed in Committee about provision for warrants in Clause 2 of the Bill. At the time we were only able to discuss them, no doubt due to my inadequacy in drafting amendments, on the Motion that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill, and for obvious reasons we did not press that to a Division.
Our concerns were about the difference in regime for warrants between the Security Service and the police forces they are helping in the pursuit of serious crime. The Government acknowledged the factual basis of our concern. There are two regimes for intrusive warrants. One regime applies to the police where there is adequate judicial control of warrants for arrest and search of property, but inadequate control of warrants for intrusive surveillance; that is, entering property and installing bugging devices and the various activities concerned with telephone tapping or the interception of mail.
It is acknowledged that although the police carry out those activities, they see themselves as being at risk of being accused of criminal trespass if they exercise the powers which they have assumed to themselves and which they have been assumed by the public and Parliament to have. It is acknowledged that the powers of the police are not entirely satisfactorily dealt with by legislation. The Minister stated that subsequent legislation would put that situation right. I accept that that is a genuine desire.
The second regime is that which applies to the Security Service, acting in accordance with the functions given under the Act. It is proposed that they should operate in regard to warrants under the same regime which applies to the rest of their functions, the normal functions of a security service concerned with national security and related matters. That regime provides for the warrants to be authorised not by the judiciary but by the Secretary of State.
The Minister rightly corrected me when I said that the Secretary of State can readily delegate his powers under the Security Service legislation. I accept what she said, that it is strictly reserved to the Secretary of State under his hand and that only in emergencies can an exception be made. My objection is not that the Secretary of State can delegate too easily his powers under the legislation. However, my objection is that it is the Secretary of State advised by the Executive rather than the judiciary who have the power to authorise warrants. That situation still remains.
I still believe that the concerns expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, are valid. I do not know whether he has had any further thoughts since our Committee stage, and I do not know—because I have not discussed it with him—whether he feels able to support this amendment. He spoke powerfully in favour of the principle that intrusive warrants of this kind—warrants which go to the heart of the power of law enforcement agencies to interfere with an individual's privacy and activities—should be judicially authorised rather than authorised on the recommendation of the Executive. That is the basis of Amendment No. 4, and I understand that Amendment No. 5 seeks to achieve the same objective. I beg to move.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I want to speak primarily to Amendment No. 5 standing in my name. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, its purpose is similar to that of Amendment No. 4 but it seeks to approach the same problem in a different way.
Earlier this afternoon I said that from these Benches we had expressed anxiety about this Bill from the start—from the Queen's speech and at each stage thereafter. But perhaps I can say in parenthesis, as this may be my only opportunity to do so, that I am grateful to the Minister who has been helpful at all stages of the Bill, both on the Floor of the House, in Committee and also in correspondence. I notice that I omitted to thank her for her letter dated 6th June which dealt with an opinion obtained by Liberty and I now do so. Nothing which I have said or will say today bears upon the determination and helpfulness that the noble Baroness has shown in bringing this Bill to the House, nor does it cast doubt on the argument that she has frequently set before us, that the Bill had all-party support in another place, as it does here in so far as it seeks to deal with organised or serious crime as we are now bound to call it.
Though the principle of using the Security Service to fight organised crime is one that attracts us all, in my view, in practice, the consequences of deploying the Security Service in support of the police is potentially alarming. It is that matter to which Amendment No. 5 is addressed. The Minister said in Committee, and may well say again today, that our anxieties are unjustified. She may refer, for example, to long-standing co-operation with Customs & Excise. I am sure that she is right about the experiences of the past and I hope that she is right about the future as well. However, over the years the powers of this Bill, if it is passed as it stands, could turn out to be one step too far.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred to the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, in Committee. I see that the noble and learned Lord is in his place today. He said,
"I believe that what is being proposed in Clause 2 of the Bill is a major constitutional shift".—[Official Report, 10/6/96; col. 1530.]
If indeed it is a major constitutional shift, it is something which this House should address. If this House decides that it does not want to amend the Bill, nevertheless it is important that the anxieties of a number of noble Lords are placed on record.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, spoke about his amendment and clearly explained its purpose. In Committee he was succinct when referring to the absence of a judicial trigger, and it is that absence of a judicial trigger that my amendment seeks to remedy, as indeed does his. Amendment No. 5 seeks to fill that gap by requiring a High Court judge to approve the issue of a warrant.
It may be that the amendment is defective in drafting and, if so, no doubt the Minister will say so. But I hope that she will address the substance of the matter. If it is only a question of drafting, I am sure that she will be able to advise the House at the final stage of the Bill on the way in which that can be remedied.
1042
I hope that the Minister will not say that it would be inappropriate for a High Court judge to second-guess a Minister. We had a debate in your Lordships' House not more than two weeks ago on the whole question of the role of the judiciary, initiated from the Opposition Benches by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. The Lord Chancellor replied to that debate. He said nothing that I could judge on that occasion-5th June—which cast any doubt upon the present arrangements for judicial review, uncomfortable and unpopular though some of the recent outcomes have been for the Government. Therefore he did not seek to dispute the role of the judges in that respect.
I looked at the leaflet which the Minister kindly sent to those of your Lordships who participated in the debate at Second Reading. It refers to the role of the commissioner and says that,
"The Act establishes the Commissioner who is a senior judge, independent of the Government, who keeps under review the issue of property warrants".
The Minister herself, in the debate in Committee, referred to a judge having an additional oversight—I believe that was her expression. I would be interested if the Minister could explain more fully exactly how, using her words, the commissioner has an additional oversight or, using the words in the leaflet,
"keeps under review the issue of property warrants".
Whatever the senior judge may do, the fact that he does it at all and that this is part of our present legislation—set out clearly in this leaflet as it was set out by the Minister herself—if a judge is at present responsible for surveillance of the acts of the Home Secretary, I cannot see that there can be any objection to a High Court judge being an extra safeguard for the citizen by being required, in the terms of my amendment, to approve an order of this kind. As I say, it is an extra safeguard for the citizen which is not a trifling matter; it is not ephemeral, but goes to the heart of our fundamental and long-cherished freedoms.
I am sure that your Lordships' House and those who have followed this matter from the outside will be reassured if we introduce an element of this kind into the Bill. It is not beyond the capacity of the Minister to draft such an amendment and it would be a safeguard which we should all welcome. It would not in any way detract from the proper role of the Home Secretary nor, least of all, undermine the privileges and responsibilities of your Lordships' House.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: My Lords, at Committee stage I expressed inadequately and confusingly my anxieties in regard to Clause 2 of this Bill. I asked whether I had got hold of the wrong end of the stick as to its constitutional impact. I have still not heard anything to suggest that I had. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me as I spell out in more detail what is the constitutional threat that I see this clause presenting.
In this country we have never had a written constitution. I listened to the Prime Minister last night expressing in ways with which I agree his confidence in

1043
our freedoms; that freedoms are our constitution. Those freedoms are based on the common law of England, Wales and Scotland. Under the common law nobody can enter into my house, take my property or come onto my property in any way save in limited circumstances to which I shall turn in a moment. If the police, a member of the Security Service or of the Army come to my door and I can get to a judge in time, they will be restrained by injunction.
Our basic freedoms and privacy in our homes are secured under the general common law of this country. If you once take those freedoms away nothing is left in our constitution which, to the extent to which the law is effective, can protect our freedoms. The inability of the state under executive warrant to come into my house to seize my goods was established in the pillar of our constitution in the decision of the courts in Entick v. Carrington in 1757, saying that the Minister was in no different position from any other person. I was glad to hear the Minister say recently that it is obvious that the rule of law prevails. So it is and so it should be.
In relation to police matters experience has shown that there have to be exceptions to the inviolability of the home, which is preserved by the common law. So I hope that there can be no misunderstanding that over the years Parliament is sovereign. It can take away our liberties by legislation, I hope after due consideration but not otherwise. In relation to police matters for many years they have had the power to enter and search, but only under a warrant granted by a judge and ahead of the invasion of private rights and on satisfying an independent person that there is a need for that to happen. What has never happened in policing matters hitherto, since Entick v. Carrington, is proposed in this Bill almost by accident; that is to say, an executive warrant enabling entry into English property; the burgling and bugging of it, under executive warrant, which is the very thing that has been fought by the law and all interested in liberty, for many hundreds of years.
I ventilated this matter at Committee, but I still have not had any explanation. All that is said is that under the security services provisions this can be done already. The position is complicated and I shall deal with it as shortly as I can. The functions of the secret intelligence service under the 1994 Act include supporting the prevention and detection of serious crime. Therefore, that part of the Security Service has a function in relation to crime. However, its function applies only in relation to persons outside the United Kingdom. More important and more relevant for present purposes, the right to enter property does not apply to any property inside the British Isles. It is not right that currently the Home Secretary has any right to authorise entry into property in the United Kingdom in relation to foreign intelligence services. Under the Security Service Act, until now the security services have had no policing function, and that is the purpose of this Bill. In their security functions they have power to get an executive warrant from the Home Secretary to enter premises for the defence of national security.
So far as I can see, what has happened casually, in a House which has remarkably few people in it, is to carry over from the national security, twilight, Smiley's
1044
People world, into the every day life of policing, excessive powers of a kind that this country has always resisted and which are basic to its freedom. Given the way in which the media in recent times occasionally treats judges, I make it quite clear that I am not soft on crime. I am dead against serious crime, especially drug-related crime. Those who know better than I do say that the addition of the security services into the fight against it is a good thing. In that case I am for it. What I am not for is the carry over of powers, which are unhappily necessary in the context of national security, into a policing function enabling a member of the Executive to sanction entry onto private property without prior judicial warrant.
I am speaking perhaps rather too seriously, but I believe it to be a serious matter. At Christmas time there are stickers on cars saying, "Puppies are not just for Christmas". This Bill is not just for this Government and the present position, but forever hereafter until your Lordships seek to repeal it. I am not suggesting for a moment that this Government, the Home Secretary, let alone the Minister, will abuse the new Act, because they will not. But we are not just legislating for this Government or the next, of whatever party; we are actually impairing the constitutional freedoms of the individuals of this country. To my mind that should not be done by a side wind by an empty House—it is empty now, but perhaps it will be fuller later when it comes to voting. People should be considering what is being done.
In the light of what the Prime Minister said last night, I hope that there are people on both sides of this House who, although they support the main structure of the Bill, will think again about whether it is really desirable that in policing matters there shall be rights to bug and enter, covertly and not covertly, exercisable for the future against people corresponding to those protesting at the Newbury by-pass and the poll tax and against whom warrants under this new Act can be issued, even although not by this Government. But not all governments in 100 years' time are going to be scrupulous. I hope that there are Members of this House, including the Government, who think that this is a step which deserves further consideration before it slides through, almost by a side wind.
Lord Cockney: My Lords, I apologise for wishing to speak on the Security Service Bill and the amendments at this stage, having unfortunately not been able to be present during the Second Reading or all of the Committee stage. However, I would like to explain briefly why I do not support the amendments. It is for a fundamental and basic reason—that is, that we should preserve, in as many respects as possible, the separateness between the Security Service and the law enforcement agencies.
Their respective roles are quite different and distinct. As noble Lords know, the Security Service has no executive powers; it is an intelligence organisation and, while having a statutory identity now, it is essentially a secret service. If one reflects on the nature of its work, countering terrorism, subversion and espionage, it must remain a secret service. The noble Lord, Lord Knights,

1045
reminded us in his notable contribution at Committee stage, that the Security Service and the police have a long history of collaboration and joint operations, especially in the field of counter-terrorism and, since October 1992, the Security Service has assumed the lead role in combating the IRA. I understand that it currently remains an effective relationship, well illustrating that the services can work together with existing control and accountability arrangements.
Although it has been decided that at the invitation, and under the operational control, of the National Criminal Intelligence Service the Security Service may, if so invited, provide support in fighting serious crime, I do not see that as justifying changes in accountability in view of the elaborate arrangements which already exist. The Security Service has developed certain operational techniques, especially in dealing with terrorism and espionage, which could have an application—again, if so requested by the police—in fighting serious crime. It is worth remembering that many terrorist organisations engage in serious crime and organised crime for fundraising purposes.
As to introducing a new judicial factor with regard to the granting of warrants, my understanding is that the present exercise of ministerial judgment and responsibility is based on intelligence factors, not often involving issues that call for a judicial standard of proof. Intelligence factors have a relevance to the operational techniques which might be used when fighting serious crime. The judicial element which is introduced through the oversight arrangements can, in effect, validate Ministers' judgments.
Finally, I think that the most effective way of limiting the role of the Security Service in this one area and the best way of avoiding the turf wars which can always develop is to maintain strictly the separateness of the two services.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Knights: My Lords, I return again to the point that I made a few moments ago. We are now debating not simply the powers that may be given to the security services, but the powers which will be sought for the police service later this year. I think that we need to keep that in mind when we decide what to do with regard to this amendment.
What worries me about the amendment is that it seems to suggest that the security services can move in one way for part of their work but in another way when they are engaged in the criminal field. However, in many cases there is very little difference between the two. What is the difference between terrorism and espionage and organised or serious crime? There is nothing more organised than the terrorism which is conducted by the IRA. Where do we draw the line? If we are to deal with such organisations and with some of the organised crime groupings which we have been told are a tremendous threat to this country—no one has denied that—secrecy has to play a part. It has to be at the heart of some of the investigative work that is carried out.
1046
The security services have the power or the authority now to get a warrant to intrude into premises to bug them—there is no other word for it—when dealing with terrorism. It seems to me that there is very little difference, if any, between dealing with that and dealing with other crimes involving the same type of activity, and explosives and firearms which may not normally be regarded as "terrorism". My dictionary tells me that "terrorism" is,
"systematic intimidation as a method of governing or securing political or other ends".
It seems to me that someone who is seeking to blackmail a supermarket chain by way of adulteration of its products could fall within that definition of "terrorism". It would certainly be "organised" and it would certainly be "serious". If such activities are to be regarded as terrorism when they are dealt with by the security services, bringing forward the authority to get an intrusive warrant, it is splitting hairs to decide in other cases that that is not appropriate and that the intrusive approach cannot be used.
I indicated previously that to my knowledge, which is now a little out of date, the police without any judicial authority occasionally intrude and place bugs when dealing with terrorism. After all, it is only 18 months since dealing with terrorism in the form of the IRA was taken away from the Metropolitan Police. While they were responsible for investigating such crimes in this country, they would obviously undertake the same activities as the Security Service.
I also wonder whether the special skills of investigation are not being played up a little too much with regard to the Security Service. Such investigation involves the bugging of premises in order to obtain information and intelligence. Senior police officers who have been involved in such activities over the years must have the same kind of skills and need the same kind of authority to obtain the information and intelligence on which they are to base their actions. What is the case for having differing methods of obtaining intrusive warrants according to the function which the Security Service is undertaking? If it is not appropriate for members of that service to have such a warrant when dealing with serious crime, how can it be any different when they are dealing with what is regarded not as serious crime but as something else; namely, espionage or terrorism? I really do not see how one can discriminate or differentiate between the two activities.
My feeling at the moment is to oppose the amendment so that the security services do not have to decide whether they are dealing with one kind of activity rather than another and, on the basis of that, where to go for a warrant. I would much prefer to give them the same powers in connection with serious crime as they currently have for what is not at the moment said to be serious crime but something else, and to leave the whole question of intrusive warrants and whether we are or are not going too far until we reach that matter later.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I apologise for not having been present throughout the whole debate. Given that there is now a great deal of activity outside the House concerning the extraordinary affair of the handling of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, to

1047
which I have had to give a fair amount of attention this afternoon, I have not been able to follow the whole of this debate although I had the good fortune to hear the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson.
The matter which concerns me today is exactly that which concerned me on the last occasion we considered this Bill. It was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Knights. I refer to the question of how we can possibly maintain a system in which the Security Service is given the powers which are set out in the Bill and the police, who will be dealing with exactly the same issues in, arguably, the same investigation, operate under non-statutory Home Office guidelines. Frankly, it makes no sense whatever.
The Minister's answer is to say, "There is nothing to worry about. We shall be looking into this and introducing legislation in the next Session of Parliament", but that is no answer at all. We are talking about a government who have at the most another seven or eight months in office. Of course, they may be re-elected, but the next Session will be exceptionally short. There is therefore no certainty that any legislation introduced by the Government—that is, assuming that such legislation is introduced at all—will be enacted before the end of this Parliament. The serious issues which have been raised by the noble and learned Lord are simply not addressed adequately by the arguments which have so far been adduced by the Minister.
As far as I am concerned, the central issue is that of separateness between the treatment of the Security Service which, however unsatisfactory this clause is, will at least be acting under some form of statutory provision, and that of the police, which will not be in that position.
To repeat the point that I made on the last occasion, the noble Baroness will be aware that the Association of Chief Police Officers has repeatedly put this matter to the Home Office and has been fobbed off with the explanation that the Government will legislate as soon as they have an opportunity to do so. However, for the reasons I have given I do not believe that that is an answer because of the limited period of the current Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Cuckney, who has experience in this area stated, by implication, that it was necessary to avoid turf wars between the police and the Security Service. I agree with him. In the past there have been such turf wars between the police and Customs and Excise in the course of drugs investigations. That is something to be avoided at very nearly all cost. But for the reasons I have indicated I do not believe that it is desirable to maintain this degree of separation. I believe that in an arguably short period of time substantial tensions will arise between the police and Security Service because of the different statutory frameworks under which they will operate. The Security Service will at least have a clearly defined statutory position but the police will have nothing, except non-mandatory Home Office guidelines. That causes me serious disquiet and, rather more importantly, serious disquiet to a large number of senior police officers.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, there is no doubt that this is an important issue. The amendments seek to introduce a new role for the judiciary in authorising property warrants in pursuance of the Security Service's new serious crime function. I am grateful for the interventions of my noble friend Lord Cuckney and the noble Lord, Lord Knights. Of all noble Lords in this House, they speak with direct experience of these matters.
The involvement of the judiciary at this stage of an operation by the Security Service when the primary focus is likely to be the gathering of intelligence is a novel and, I suggest, an unnecessary departure from the existing arrangements. The present system works well, safeguarding the public interest while meeting the needs of the Security Service. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers would introduce an even more novel concept, namely the idea of a system of dual authorisation involving both the Secretary of Sate and a High Court judge under which the Secretary of State would not be allowed to take a decision until he had the consent of a member of the judiciary.
The safeguards surrounding the issue of property warrants already incorporate a role for a senior member of the judiciary. The Security Service Act 1989 made provision for the appointment of the Security Service commissioner, an office which is currently held by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith. The duties of the commissioner include overseeing the exercise of the Secretary of State's power to issue property warrants and investigating complaints relating to the interference with property. If he finds that a warrant has been improperly issued or renewed he can order the warrant to be quashed and compensation to be paid. This is a very important safeguard. I suggest that this is a more appropriate avenue for judicial oversight than the prior approval of individual warrant applications which is envisaged by these amendments. There would also be practical difficulties. I will deal first with the system proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, whereby ministerial authorisation would be replaced by judicial authorisation for property warrants under the Security Service's new serious crime function. It is quite feasible that the service could be investigating a drug trafficking operation which was being used to fund terrorist activity. This blurring of the functions was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Knights. This would be relevant to the Security Service's new serious crime function and its existing national security responsibilities. In these circumstances, although the service would know under which of its statutory functions the operation had been initiated there could be some property warrants which had been authorised by the Secretary of State and some authorised by a High Court judge. This is unsatisfactory. It is important that there should be a single authority who is responsible for granting the warrants required for a single operation.
Turning to the system proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, there would be a wasteful duplication of effort if the High Court judge and the Secretary of State both carried out identical functions of approving warrant applications. This could have the effect of reducing the

1049
Secretary of State's role to that of rubber-stamping the decisions of the judge. It could also limit the operational effectiveness of the Security Service if, in an urgent operation, the consent of a High Court judge had to be secured before gaining ministerial authorisation.
It is not just the practical problems about which we are concerned. There must also be grave doubts about whether the authorisation of this type of warrant is an appropriate function for the judiciary. There is an important distinction between property warrants now issued under the Intelligence Services Act and search warrants issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which are authorised by the judiciary. Search warrants are overt and are normally disclosed to the subject of the warrant at the time of their execution. Property warrants, by contrast, are covert and will not be disclosed at the time of their execution. The only way in which the subject of a warrant could become aware of its existence would be in the course of any subsequent court proceedings. Given that property warrants will often be issued for the purposes of intelligence gathering rather than the collection of evidence, there is a good chance that these warrants will never be disclosed to their subject. This would be a new departure for the judiciary. Rather than the openness and independence of the normal judicial process, judges would be involved in the covert development of operations. This may be seen as a threat to their impartiality by placing them firmly in the law enforcement camp.
If the desire to involve the judiciary stems from a wish to see independent oversight, I suggest that the present system under which the commissioner applies the principles of judicial review to determine whether the Secretary of State has acted properly in granting a warrant is preferable. The commissioner, who must hold or have held high judicial office, is in a position to take a common view across all property warrants, whereas if all warrants are to be approved by a High Court judge prior to consideration by the Secretary of State the duties will have to be shared between a group of judges.
I listened carefully to the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson. But it is important not to undervalue the significance of the requirement for the warrant to be authorised by the Secretary of State. It is a major hurdle that warrant applications should have to be so authorised. As the legislation presently stands, the personal authorisation of the Secretary of State is required in every case. Even in urgent cases where the Secretary of State is unavailable to sign the warrant personally, it is the practice for the authorisation to be given by the Secretary of State over the telephone to a senior official who completes the signing of the warrant under his authorisation.
The Secretary of State is an entirely reliable and trustworthy authority to grant warrants, particularly when the existing legislation provides a set of additional safeguards. In the commissioner's most recent annual report published earlier this month Lord Justice Stuart-Smith confirmed that he was satisfied that the Secretaries of State had properly exercised their powers under the Act. Furthermore, this reliance on the
1050
Secretary of State to authorise Security Service warrants accords precisely with the existing arrangements for securing the accountability of the Security Service. Under the Security Service Act 1989 the service is ultimately accountable to the Secretary of State. This reflects the sensitive and covert nature of the service's operations. The authorisation of warrants is a logical extension of this accountability, and at present all Security Service warrants, both interception and property, are authorised by the Secretary of State. The fact that the Secretary of State authorises all warrants greatly simplifies the application of consistent standards and makes it easier to identify problems. In addition, the authorisation of warrants offers the Secretary of State an important insight into the Security Service's operations, which provides an extra control on the service's activities.
I should like to run quickly through the other safeguards governing the issue of property warrants. I have already referred to the requirement for warrants to be authorised by the Secretary of State and the oversight role of the commissioner. The legislation also specifies that the action to be taken will result in the service obtaining information which cannot reasonably be obtained by other means and is likely to be of substantial value in assisting the service to carry out its functions. The Secretary of State must also be satisfied that arrangements are in place to control and restrict the disclosure of information gained in this manner.
In summary, we have a system for authorising those property warrants, which is carefully regulated and surrounded by an appropriate set of safeguards. The system has worked well for the authorisation of warrants in respect of the security services' existing functions. The requirement for warrant applications to be authorised personally by the Secretary of State is an important and effective safeguard which complements the accountability arrangements for the Security Service.
In addition to all of that, there are well-established arrangements for supplying independent judicial oversight of the Secretary of State's decisions, in a manner akin to the process of judicial review, through the role of the commissioner. Those arrangements are robust. They take full account of the intrusiveness of the powers we are discussing. They would not be enhanced by either of the amendments, and therefore I hope that the House will not accept them.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, would she care to add that there is a further safeguard which I did not hear her mention; namely, that the Secretary of State is answerable to Parliament for his decisions in such matters as this as in other matters, and can be questioned about them in Parliament?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can give an absolute and unequivocal answer to that. Of course that is right. Not only that, it was this Government who put all of that on a statutory footing and thus opened up this whole area of activity. It is important that we balance how the intelligence services work, and will work in future in support of the police with the openness, as far as is practicable, of full accountability to Parliament.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I am still not clear, having now asked twice, whether the Government accept that this Bill involves constitutional change, but say that expediency justifies it, or whether the Government say that there is no constitutional change here. It is an important point.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is indeed an important point. The powers of the security services are not being extended constitutionally, or in any other way. It is a new area of activity to which all the existing systems will be applied. The Home Secretary will give his authorisation to warrants which will incorporate the new function that will be given to the security services under the Bill.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister will deal with a point that I raised, which is the continuing concern of the police service about the different treatment accorded it as compared with the Security Service as a result of the passage of this legislation. What precisely do the Government propose to do to deal with those concerns?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have to be repetitious in my answer to the noble Lord because I have answered the question, I think, more than once. The Government intend to legislate—they have made that clear—at an early opportunity. Even given the timetable that has been mentioned by the noble Lord, the Government are continuing the preparatory work for that legislation. We made it clear on Second Reading and in Committee that the Government see the Bill as a piece of free-standing legislation which will not preclude further legislation to deal with matters concerning the police.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when we first discussed this clause, I set out three objectives for our consideration of Clause 2. The first was that there should be congruity between the warrant powers of the police and those of the security services when they are, in effect, doing the same thing: when they are working together under the functions as described in Clause 1.
It is acknowledged, and I have to acknowledge, that that will not be achieved by anything we do during the consideration of the Bill. As the Minister has just said, that will have to be done in a broader Bill which will be introduced at the earliest opportunity. So, I give up on that one! There is nothing that can be done.
The second was to seek an assurance that there will be no tacit extension in the Bill—nothing is said on the face of the Bill—of bugging powers for anyone; in other words, no one, as a result of the Bill, will have greater power than they now have. That cannot be achieved. There will have to be legislation to set out more clearly than the legislation does at the moment the extent of the warrant power of the police and of the security services.
1052
However, before we leave that point, I must remind the House that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, has now asked three times for an answer to the question as to whether there are constitutional implications. He explained clearly that he meant the constitutional implications of the extension to the Executive of the power to invade the privacy of British people in their own homes. He did not receive an answer. The conclusion must be drawn from that that there is indeed an extension of the powers of the Executive, advising the Home Secretary on what can be done by the security services, acting in support of the police.
Our third concern was that there should be, as there is now for property warrants by the police, judicial rather than Executive authorisation. Again, there has been no adequate answer to the questions posed or the issues raised. Some of the debate has, I think, been based on a severe misunderstanding of what Clause 1 says.
The noble Lord, Lord Knights, said that the security services should not have to make decisions as to whether they are dealing with one kind of case or another. Clause 1 makes it absolutely clear that when they are acting in support of the police in that way they are doing so under the conditions of Clause 1; they are acting under authority which is expressly given; and there should and can be no confusion whatever as to under what authority they are acting.
If the Minister then says, as she did, that there is a blurring of functions between the two, and the actions can be initiated under a single authority but can go back to another authority, then she casts doubt on the effectiveness of Clause 1 in drawing the distinction between the new functions of the security services and the original functions. That would lead me, if it were true, to worry even more about the separation of powers which is provided for in Clause 1.
The Minister referred to the role of the judiciary and doubted whether members of the judiciary were the right people to deal with these covert operations. Plenty of police operations are covert. The investigation of serious crime has always been covert. No one does this, if they can avoid it, under the glare of publicity. I cannot tell whether the Minister is seriously suggesting that there is something different about the serious crime which will be investigated with the collaboration of the security services, or whether she is saying that the judiciary is not fit to deal with covert operations of this kind.
I remind the House that the judiciary has historically been involved in covert operations. The judiciary has the responsibility, for example, of examining all papers, even concerning national security, which are given immune certificates by Ministers. We do not need the Scott Report to remind us of that. It was the judge who had to decide about the applicability of the evidence in the Matrix Churchill case. There have been many cases in the past. There is no doubt that the judiciary is privy to the secrets of state and has been so on many occasions. The judiciary is certainly capable of dealing with individual issues as to whether a warrant of this

1053
kind is appropriate. That does not mean, to use the Minister's words, that the judiciary would be involved in the covert development of operations. The judiciary is not directing or involved in operations by making a decision in accordance with law as to whether a particular warrant should be granted. It is an individual judicial decision; it is not a policy decision as to the direction of operations.
None of the answers that have been given convinces me that the Government have truly appreciated the fundamental points which were raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson. The extension of bugging powers, the extension of these warrants, from the judiciary to the Home Secretary—to the Secretary of State—is a fundamental change, as the noble and learned Lord rightly pointed out.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I rise with the leave of the House to say that I am accused of being deliberately evasive to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson. I referred not to an extension of powers but to adding a new function and applying the existing powers to that new function. If the noble and learned Lord is talking about domestic properties, perhaps I may point out that the Security Service already has and is able to exercise property warrant powers if it is in the national security interest.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: My Lords, if the Minister looks at Hansard she will see that I said exactly that. What is changed is that in policing activities for the first time in the United Kingdom since Entick v. Carrington in 1757, whatever the date, the Home Secretary and the Executive are taking the power to enter, bug and burgle. I believe that I am right about that. I have checked the matter carefully and I believe that the Minister is agreeing with what I am saying. That is what I see as the constitutional change.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the record will show that I did not say that the Minister was being deliberately evasive. I said that the noble and learned Lord had asked his question three times and had not received an answer. That is not being deliberately evasive. I am not casting aspersions on the honour of the Minister. I am merely saying that there is no answer; the Government do not have an answer to the question which the noble and learned Lord has posed.
In the absence of an answer it must be the case that the noble and learned Lord is right in saying that what the Bill proposes is the overturning of the judgment of Entick v. Carrington in 1757 which stated, and I paraphrase, that a Minister is like any other person; he has no power to burgle or invade the privacy of the home of a citizen of this country. That is the basis on which Amendment No. 4, which provides for judicial authority rather than ministerial authority, is based and I put that question to the House.
6.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 107

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Monson, L.

Browne-Wilkinson, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Chorley, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rea,L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Dubs,L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkland, V.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. [Teller.]

Geraint,L.

Gladwin of Clee, L. [Teller.]

Russell, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Seear.B.

Grey.E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hamwee, B.

Stallard, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hoffmann, L.

Thurso, V.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Tordoff, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Turner of Camden,B.

Jeger, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wallace of Saltaire,L.

Kennet, L.

Warnock,B.

Kilbracken, L.

Whaddon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

White, B.

McNair, L.

Williams of Elvel.L.

Mishcon, L.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Gardner of Parkes,B.

Addison, V.

Goschen,V.

Ailsa,M.

Halsbury, E.

Aldington, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Harmsworlh, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Henley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hertford, M.

Blaker, L.

Holderness, L.

Blatch, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Boardman, L.

Hooper, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Inglewood, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Jakobovits, L.

Braine of Wheatley.L.

Kenyon, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Keyes, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Knights, L.

Burnham,L.

Lauderdale, E.

Butterworth, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Cadman, L.

Leigh, L.

Caithness, E.

Lindsay, E.

Caldecote, V.

Lucas, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lyell,L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McConnell, L.

Chalker of Wallasey. B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Clark of Kempston, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Courtown, E.

Macleod of Borve,B.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Marlesford, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mersey, V.

Cuckney, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Milverton, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Denham, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Donegall, M.

Mottistone, L.

Downshire, M.

Mountevans, L.

Elton, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Erroll,E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

1055

Newall, L.

Seccombe, B.

Northesk, E.

Shaw of Northstead,L.

Norton, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Sudeley, L.

Oxfiurd,V.

Swansea, L.

Park of Monmoutb, B.

Swinfen, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Prentice, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L

Quinton, L.

Trumpington, B. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Ullswater, V.

Rathcavan, L.

Wharton, B.

Rawlings, B.

Wise,L.

Renton, L.

Wyatt of Weeford,L.

Romney, E.

Young, B.

[*The Tellers for the Not-Contents reported 107 names. The Clerks recorded 109 names.]
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.12 p.m.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) Those parts of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and guidelines issued in association with that Act which relate to police searches of premises shall apply to the Security Service in the exercise of their function under section 1(4) of the Security Service Act 1989.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a number of amendments in Committee sought to introduce elements of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act into this Bill. This is a further similar attempt in Clause 2 and it is very limited in scope. The amendment states:
"Those parts of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and guidelines issued in association with that Act which relate to police searches of premises shall apply to the Security Service in the exercise of their function under section 1(4) of the Security Service Act 1989"—
in other words, the functions with which this Bill is concerned.
There are two possible government responses to the amendment. The first is that it is unnecessary; in other words, that those guidelines will apply. The second is that it is undesirable and that they should not apply. I hope that the Government will give the first answer and that I shall be able to withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as I have said countless times, the Bill before your Lordships confers no new powers on the Security Service. Rather, it allows the Security Service to use its existing powers in a new area. Among these powers is the ability to seek from the Secretary of State a warrant authorising "entry on, or interference, with property"—so called "property warrants". As has been pointed out, such a warrant could be used to enter a property to search for information.
It is important to appreciate that such searches would, by definition, be covert in nature and would often be conducted without the knowledge of the property owner.
1056
The intrusive nature of such a power is recognised by the fact that warrants require the personal authorisation of the Secretary of State and he may only issue such a warrant if the desired result could not reasonably be achieved by any other means.
The police are able to undertake similar actions on authorisation from a chief officer. This is something we have discussed during the Bill's earlier stages and, as your Lordships are aware, the Government have accepted that the present situation is unsatisfactory and intend to introduce early legislation to put police intrusive operations on a clear statutory footing.
It is important to realise that such covert searches, whether undertaken by the police or the Security Service, are very different from the kind of searches that are regulated by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The searches which that Act deals with are the kind authorised by a magistrate or court. I remind your Lordships that the Security Service has no executive powers, and is not to be given any, and cannot apply for such search warrants.
The searches that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act deals with are overt and are normally conducted with the full knowledge of the owner or occupier of the property. The code of practice governing such searches reflects this. It therefore contains provisions stipulating that a search must normally be undertaken at a reasonable hour of the day and a requirement that the searching officer should initially attempt to communicate with the occupier of the premises and must identify himself.
This is all a far cry from the kinds of searches that the Security Service may be authorised to undertake and, I am sure your Lordships will agree, the provisions to which I have just referred, and others, would be most inappropriate for the Security Service. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will understand why we are unable to accept his amendment.
However, I assure your Lordships that even if the Security Service cannot be bound by the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act codes of practice, there are still a multiplicity of safeguards surrounding the issuing of property warrants. As I have already mentioned all such warrants have to be personally authorised by the Secretary of State and he can only authorise one if the end sought cannot reasonably be achieved by other means. Beyond that, the issue of all warrants is subject to independent scrutiny by an independent commissioner who is a senior member of the judiciary.
In the light of what I have said, in particular as regards the inappropriateness of the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act for the kind of searches that the Security Service may seek to carry out, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I feared as much. That was the wrong answer. To summarise brutally, the Minister is saying that the Security Service will not abide by civilised standards. I do not think that the police often do so. I do not think that breaking down

1057
the door at six o'clock in the morning, which is not uncommon, sometimes with the press present, is in accordance with Police and Criminal Evidence Act guidelines, but it seems to happen quite a lot.
I am deeply disappointed that the Minister does not recognise the need to have something comparable with Police and Criminal Evidence Act guidelines. If they have to be altered to fit the circumstances of the case, then so be it. But there should not be the complete divorce from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act when these operations are being carried out in this country against serious crime and the police are also involved. There should not be a dual standard. I am disappointed but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 13, leave out ("either").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 7 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 8. Both are concerned with the definition of "serious crime" which is used for the purposes of Clause 2 but not used for the purposes of Clause 1.
The more I read the definition used in subsection (3B), the more I think that virtually any kind of crime could be covered by this definition. There are two elements in it. First, it involves the use of violence. That is not serious violence or any particular kind of violence but violence which,
"results in substantial financial gain or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose".
That is not an illegal purpose but any common purpose, whether protesting about the poll tax, drowning one's sorrows about Euro 96 or protesting against the Newbury bypass. One does not have to agree with any of those issues to say that those are legitimate occasions and it is very difficult to determine who is or is not responsible for an offence at such a mass occasion.
The second part of the definition is that:
"the offence or one of the offences is an offence for which a person who has attained the age of twenty-one and has no previous convictions could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years".
I acknowledge that that is tougher than it seems on the face of it. I acknowledge that it does not refer to all crimes which have a maximum sentence of three years or more. It means that for a first offender, an adult could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and, to that extent, the provision is more limited.
Now we come to the problem. Having defined the offence which is called a serious crime in paragraph (a), in terms of the circumstances in which it takes place and the purpose for which it is committed, and in paragraph (b), as regards the seriousness with which the courts will consider it, the two points are linked, not by an "and" but an "or". In other words, there is a possibility that some conduct which involves the use of any kind of
1058
violence or is part of a demonstration by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose, even if paragraph (b) does not apply, will still come under the category of serious crime. Conversely, if the offence meets the conditions of paragraph (b), even if it does not involve,
"the use of violence, results in substantial financial gain or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose",
it still meets the definition of serious crime.
It is difficult to imagine what is not covered by serious crime as defined in the provision. At the very least, the Government should agree to make both paragraphs necessary parts rather than alternative parts of the definition. I beg to move.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, Amendment No. 7 gives me an opportunity to put on record once more one key fact. Ministers have made clear throughout the Parliamentary passage of the Bill that the Security Service's work in the serious crime field will be directed against organised crime. The service will be tasked to act against crimes against which its special skills and expertise can most effectively be deployed. The National Criminal Intelligence Service will ask the Security Service to employ those skills against organised crime.
That point was a key element of the conclusions of the inter-departmental/inter-agency working group, to which I referred in opening the Second Reading debate, and which met last year to consider what contribution the Security Service might make to the fight against organised crime. So let there be no doubt that the Security Service will be acting against organised crime. No statutory definition of what is organised crime exists and the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place recommended that effort should not be wasted in trying to create one. That is the reason why the Bill refers to serious crime. Nevertheless, on the basis of the assurances that have repeatedly been given, and which I am happy to reinforce—that the Security Service will be deployed only against organised crime—I hope your Lordships will accept that some of the more fanciful speculation of the kinds of minor crimes that the Security Service might be set against is utterly without foundation.
The definition that is in Clause 2 of the Bill was carefully chosen. It was picked because it exactly replicates the definition that is contained in the Interception of Communications Act 1985. It is the definition that is used to govern the issue of serious crime interception warrants to the police, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and those intelligence agencies that already have a serious crime function. The definition has been in place for more than a decade, there have been no problems, and it has worked well.
Warrants issued under the Interception of Communications Act are subject to scrutiny by an independent commissioner. None of the three distinguished members of the judiciary who have held the office of Interception Commissioner—the noble and learned Lords, Lord Lloyd, and Lord Nolan, and Lord Bingham of Cornhill whom we were delighted to

1059
welcome to your Lordships' House yesterday—has ever found cause to complain about this definition of serious crime, which is further evidence of its efficacy.
There are good arguments for consistency in legislation. In particular, it would be odd if the Security Service were to find itself subject to different definitions when applying for interception warrants and property warrants, as would be the consequence of passing this amendment. This is especially true as the service may well find itself needing to apply for both kinds of warrant in the same case. In such circumstances it would seem illogical if a different test of serious crime were to pertain.
In the light of the obvious benefits of consistency combined with the knowledge that the definition has been around for 10 years in different legislation, and has worked well—and noble Lords do not have just my word on that, but that of three very distinguished independent Members of your Lordships' House—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister used the amendment as an opportunity to reiterate the Government's determination to pursue organised crime with all the legitimate means at their disposal. Therefore I can use the amendment as an opportunity to reiterate our support for that objective, and for the fundamental principle of this Bill in seeking to provide additional weapons in the fight against organised crime.
I am glad that I am not a lawyer because if I were I should be worried about the way in which the Minister always refers to organised crime when referring to the objectives of the Bill, although the word "organised" does not appear as such. However inadequate it may be, and however remote the analogy may be between this and the previous legislation, I appreciate that the definition of serious crime has been used before, and I appreciate the virtue of consistency in legislation. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 7.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]

Family Law Bill [H.L.]
6.25 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene at this stage just to ensure that I have the right papers with me. I have a Marshalled List of the Commons amendments and I have a copy of the amendments that it is proposed to be moved in that respect. However, I do not have something which we generally have on such occasions; namely, a list of the Government's recommendations on our consideration of such amendments. It would not surprise me if my noble
1060
and learned friend intends to ask the House to accept all the Commons amendments. That is perhaps why we do not have the usual document which is supplied to us. Nevertheless, I just want to be sure that I have not missed a document which I might need.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble and learned friend correctly anticipates my intention. I intend to invite your Lordships, along with one of my colleagues, to accept all the amendments that the Commons have proposed to the Bill without any further amendment or qualification. I suspect that that is the reason why we have no document setting out different points of view in respect of the various amendments. I believe that my noble and learned friend has all the documents that I have, except possibly those containing some additional help in prompting me as to what to say when I come to make recommendations to your Lordships about particular amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (82) as first printed hr the Commons.]
COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1 page 1, line 12, leave out 'to save it' and insert ', whether by marriage counselling or otherwise, to save the marriage'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. In speaking to this amendment, I wish to speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 20, 27, 28, 40 and 41. I am very pleased to present these amendments to the House. I am well aware of the concern felt by many Members of the House about the provisions of the Bill in relation to marriage counselling. That was eloquently expressed by many noble Lords and right reverend Prelates during the passage of the Bill through the House. This group of amendments has, I believe, improved the provisions of the Bill in this respect and will therefore, I trust, meet with the approval of your Lordships.
I shall deal, first, with Amendment No. 1. It builds on the suggestion made to the House during the passage of the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard; namely, that we should have a general principles' clause at the beginning. The other place has obviously warmly endorsed that and has used it to elaborate somewhat the provisions that it thought should be made in that respect. Indeed, the amendment raises the profile of marriage counselling by ensuring that it is referred to within the clause.
Amendment No. 20 provides that one of the purposes of the information meeting is to provide parties with the opportunity (and to encourage them to take it) of attending a meeting with a marriage counsellor. Amendment No. 27 provides for regulations to specify the way in which such a meeting must be held and to specify the qualifications and appointments procedure for marriage counsellors carrying out such a meeting. Amendment No. 28 provides for such meetings to be free to those who qualify for legally-aided mediation on a non-contributory basis.

1061
Amendment No. 40 provides that when making grants under Clause 20, the Lord Chancellor shall pay particular regard to the desirability of services being available when they are first needed. Your Lordships may remember that I sought to make that point repeatedly during the time that the Bill was in your Lordships' House. I believe it to be extremely important that, where money is available, it should be applied to provide for services when those services are first needed, otherwise it may well be that matters have gone too far for any real help to be effective. The amendment makes clear that proper emphasis will be given to services aimed at preventing relationship breakdown before a couple reach the point where they are, sadly, considering divorce.
Amendment No. 41 introduces a new clause which provides for the funding of marriage counselling during the period for reflection and consideration. Marriage counselling under this amendment will be state funded for parties who are eligible for non-contributory legal aid. The provisions give the Lord Chancellor the powers to prescribe the circumstances in which the provision of funded marriage counselling is subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor to ensure that standards of service can be set and maintained.
I believe that the amendments strengthen the Bill in precisely those areas which have been of most concern to your Lordships in this House. Such concerns have been taken up in the other place.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I welcome in particular Amendment No. 1 which will give a high profile to marriage counselling as a distinct process designed to save a marriage. I have no doubt that this group of amendments significantly improves the Bill. It is also particularly welcome that a purpose of the information meeting is to encourage the party or parties who attend to take up the opportunity of marriage counselling with a view to saving the marriage.
The effect of Amendment No. 28 is to provide a level playing field between marriage counselling and mediation because the meeting with a marriage counsellor will be free for those who qualify for legally aided mediation on a non-contributory basis. Likewise, by way of Amendment No. 41, marriage counselling during the period for "reflection and consideration" will be state funded, again, for those eligible for non-contributory legal aid.
The intent of Amendment No. 40 is to ensure that marriage counselling is available at the time when it is "first needed" and—it is to be hoped—before the marriage has broken down. I believe that this group of Commons amendments accords a rightful high priority to marriage counselling as a means of saving marriages and that it establishes a balanced scheme for the provision of such counselling.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, from these Benches I should also like to support the amendments. I do so
1062
especially because of the advantages given before conciliation. During the earlier stages of the Bill, we pressed the point that that was a very important matter and one for which finances ought to be made available. Therefore, we are extremely glad to see that that will now be incorporated in the legislation.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I, too, very much welcome the amendments. I particularly welcome the provision that marriage counselling should be made available at the earliest possible moment. Certainly all assistance in aid of marriage is 10 times more useful if it is available as soon as trouble appears in the marriage.
I have only one question to ask; namely, what is the cost of the counselling services which are now to be provided? That must have been agreed with the Treasury. It is most important that we should know that and, indeed, the total cost involved as regards the measures in the Bill.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I, too, should like to support this group of Commons amendments. We discussed the issue at very considerable length during our deliberations on the Bill. If I have any regret, it is that some of our amendments were not accepted at an earlier stage. However, that is a rather grudging thing to say and, on the principle of better late than never, I am very pleased that the amendments were made to the Bill in the other place.
I should like to reiterate one concern that I have about counselling services. I recently received a piece of literature from Relate. It is quite interesting in that, on looking through the document, one has to read two sections of it before marriage is even mentioned. The literature claims at the beginning that Relate,
"is Britain's leading couple counselling agency".
I really feel—and this is a serious point—that there is a very real distinction in life between marriage and co-habitation. I have always believed that the Bill should buttress marriage and that the counselling services employed ought to be doing just that and not be involved in other forms of what are today called, "alternative lifestyles".
When my noble and learned friend comes to answer the question posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I hope that we will learn what sums of money we are talking about. Indeed, where government money is involved, we must ensure that it really goes to organisations whose function in life is to support marriage. We must be absolutely clear on that point.
Having said that, I welcome anything which encourages couples to stay together. One of the more encouraging statistics that we heard about at an earlier stage is the fact that between 20,000 and 30,000 couples start divorce proceedings each year but do not proceed to the end. We really must try to encourage more couples, who feel that they have to start counselling, to go back together before divorce occurs.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I also wish to support the amendments. The noble and learned Lord the

1063
Lord Chancellor was kind enough to mention the debates that we had when the Bill was passing through this House. I share the concerns expressed about counsellors, especially those of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Indeed, that matter was referred to in our original debates. Since the Marriage Guidance Council changed its name—it has done so at least once, or, perhaps, a number of times—to Relate, it seems to be distancing itself from marriage as such; that is, in terms that we understand. I am worried as to where all the counsellors will come from to carry out the provisions set out in the amendments.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, asked: where will the money come from? They are all important questions. It is great that we have achieved at least the sense of our amendments, but the questions that remain are: who will the counsellors be? Who will counsel the counsellors? I know that there are many Church organisations which have excellent counsellors, but who will counsel the vast army of counsellors which will probably be needed as a result of this new industry of counselling?
I am also worried about the quality of the training of many of the counsellors—that is, those who currently practise and those who will become counsellors. I repeat: who will the counsellors be; who will counsel and train them; and, finally, where will the money come from?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for the support for the amendments that I have received from all parts of the House. As regards the point raised by my noble friend Lady Young which was taken up to some extent by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, I should point out to the House that the Bill makes clear that it is marriage support services and marriage counselling that are in issue from the point of view of support. Therefore, in respect of the clauses we are discussing, there is no question of this Bill authorising counselling in relation to alternative lifestyles. The divorce provisions are relevant only to the situation of marriage. As regards the costs, my noble and learned friend—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord leaves that subject, I did not speak upon that point but I wish to ask him how will the marriage guidance service be supervised. Will it be supervised by the Government? Will another organisation be set up? How are we to ensure that marriage counselling is about counselling to save marriages?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the provision of counselling will be in the hands of a number of organisations which offer services. However, they will do so under contract or under grant. The grants will certainly be offered under conditions that make it clear what the nature of the service is and the standard of service to be provided. I do not envisage a whole army of counsellors. I have read some suggestion of that in some pieces of paper. However, I do not envisage that at all. I envisage support for a high quality service.
1064
When the Bill was in this House previously, I said I believed that marriage counselling was capable of being monitored in quite an effective way, because one can ascertain to what extent the consequences of counselling have produced continuation of marriages. I believe that can be effectively monitored. We shall put in place effective monitoring as part of the arrangements. That is also important in relation to costs. I have tried to explain before to your Lordships that I believe it is much easier to get money if you show you are saving a lot of money, than if you are not. If this provision works—as I hope it will—the result should be quite substantial consequential savings in respect of other matters such as housing, benefits and the like. Therefore I believe that monitoring the results of the applications of these amendments is important.
The costs of marriage counselling are comparatively cheaper than are the costs of the provision of legal aid under the present arrangements. Of course there is the additional grant which we presently give under the general powers. I have explained that pilot studies will be conducted before we bring the divorce and mediation parts of this Bill into effect. As this Bill comes into effect I anticipate that it will be possible within the total budget that is presently allocated for legal aid to make quite a substantial shift in favour of marriage counselling. Apart from the grants which are presently separate, I anticipate that the overall result of this Bill will be cost neutral.
We want to encourage a variety of counsellors and a variety of help. One area where counsellors are sometimes situated with particular effect is in association with family medical practitioners. I believe that a good family doctor sometimes has an opportunity of picking up signs of difficulty in a marriage before any other professional adviser is likely to have notice of that difficulty. I wish to keep as flexible arrangements as possible in place, but I believe that this is something that—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord leaves that point, would I not be correct in thinking that he of all people would want to encourage those in the legal profession, as soon as a client comes to them in regard to matrimonial affairs, to be fairly good trained counsellors themselves? They could do so much good.
6.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, of course there are different circumstances in which clients approach lawyers. There are some people who are able to afford to have a reasonably continuous legal service. I heard someone say that some people complained there were too many lawyers in the United States. In fact there are too few lawyers there because not everyone can have his own lawyer; people have to share lawyers.
The point I was trying to make earlier is that the medical practitioner may well, because of his continuing relationship with patients, have an opportunity of detecting difficulties early. Often lawyers are approached rather later in the course of a problem arising. I entirely agree with the noble Lord,

1065
Lord Mishcon, that the legal profession should be sensitive about trying to do that. I know there are many lawyers who are extremely good at helping people to overcome their difficulties and keep their marriages going. I know that some of your Lordships will readily identify some such lawyers.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend is finally allowed to settle down, he mentioned that he expected a substantial shift in resources from legal aid to counselling. Could he at least put a figure on that, and also, desirably, on the total cost of the counselling service?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is quite impossible to do that at the present moment because the precise nature of the arrangements require to be taken into account. My information is that the hourly charges in respect of counselling are very much less than the corresponding charges in respect of legal aid. I hope that there will be more take-up of counselling with the result that there will be less need for legal aid either as regards advice or representation in proceedings. The arrangement this Bill is based on is that the overall cost will remain no greater than the cost of legal aid in respect of the present services, plus the amount which is presently the amount of the grant to the marriage guidance services. Obviously, the precise costs will depend very much on the take-up of that provision. I certainly hope we can encourage that take-up so that the amount that is allocated ultimately to marriage counselling rather than to legal aid is as high a proportion as the practicalities allow.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 1, page 1, line 22, at end insert; and
(d) that any risk to one of the parties to a marriage, and to any children, of violence from the other party should, so far as reasonably practicable, be removed or diminished.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.
Together with this amendment I wish to speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 30, 31, 42 and 62. Amendment No. 2 inserts in the general principles clause the principle,
"that any risk to one of the parties to a marriage, and to any children, of violence from the other party should, so far as reasonably practicable, be removed or diminished".
This principle will guide me in making regulations under the Bill, for example, as to attendance at information meetings or attendance at a mediation assessment meeting. It will also inform the actions of those conducting such meetings, mediators and anyone else exercising functions under Parts II and III of the Bill. So in a sense it is a further building on the work of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, when the Bill was in this House.
Amendments Nos. 30, 31, 41 and 62 introduce into Schedule 1 a further exemption to the requirement of Clause 9 that financial arrangements must be decided upon before a divorce or separation order can be
1066
granted. Your Lordships will remember that I regard that as quite an important part of our proposals. Having regard to the considerations before the other place, the additional exemption has been inserted. It will apply where there is an occupation order or non-molestation order in force in favour of the applicant, or a child of the family, against the respondent, provided certain requirements have been fulfilled and that delay would be significantly detrimental to the welfare of any child or seriously prejudicial to the applicant.
I believe that it would be wrong for a divorce to be denied on the ground that financial arrangements had not been settled when domestic violence by the respondent is or has been present in the family, provided the applicant has made every effort to comply with the requirements as to the parties' financial arrangements for the future. It should be no part of the law regulating divorce that the victims of domestic violence should be locked into such destructive relationships because the other party to the marriage will not co-operate in making financial arrangements for the future. In my submission to your Lordships, I am anxious to preserve the general principle, but that I regard as a wise exception.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, Part IV of the Bill is about domestic violence. It started as a separate Bill in this House and then was hijacked in the other place by certain Members of the noble and learned Lord's party there. I shall not cause him pain by saying any more. It is to his great credit that he brought back the substance of its provisions as part of this Bill. He could have lost both his Domestic Violence Bill and this Family Law Bill, but he has lost neither.
Structurally, the substantial incorporation of the old Domestic Violence Bill into this Bill has resulted in there being a division between the domestic violence provisions and the divorce and separation provisions. To my mind the real significance of the group of amendments from the other place is that they draw attention to the overlap between the two sets of provisions when domestic violence or the threat of it is a feature of the divorce process. As the noble and learned Lord said, that is the significance of Amendments Nos. 30, 31, 41 and 62.
The failure to agree financial arrangements as a bar to the making of a divorce or separation order should not apply—and I agree with the noble and learned Lord—where there is an occupation order or a non-molestation order in being against the respondent in favour of the applicant or a child. That should be the case where the applicant has genuinely tried to arrive at an agreement about the financial arrangements but without success, when no such agreement is in reasonable prospect and when the delay in the grant of divorce would seriously prejudice the applicant or be seriously detrimental to the welfare of any child. I agree, therefore, that these are beneficial amendments.
Finally, I particularly welcome Amendment No. 2, an amendment moved by my party in the other place and accepted by the Government at the Commons Report

1067
stage. As the noble and learned Lord said, it adds to the general principles clause the requirement that the court and any person exercising functions under Parts II and III shall have regard to this new general principle:
"that any risk to one of the parties to a marriage, and to any children, of violence from the other party should, so far as reasonably practicable, he removed or diminished".
The noble and learned Lord has been good enough to acknowledge that it was my noble friend Lord Stallard on these Benches who was the author of the idea that the Bill should include a general principles clause. From this Front Bench I supported it in principle, as did the noble and learned Lord, who was hospitable to the suggestion, as the other place proved to be.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that as a result of the amendments in the other place, the clause has been significantly improved. Also, as we noted in our discussions on Amendment No. 1, Clause 1 has been further strengthened by the other place in another important way: a high profile has been given to marriage counselling as a distinct process designed to save a marriage. For those reasons, I welcome this group of amendments.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I too welcome the group of amendments and extend a particularly warm welcome to Amendments Nos. 2 and 42. In doing so, I pay tribute to the part played by both the other two Front Benches in bringing it about.
When I first started a debate on domestic violence in this House in 1990, I was told that it was the first time the subject had been discussed in either House of Parliament in a period of 10 years, whereas the picture has totally changed now. The prominence of the issue is much increased. For that, I give the warmest thanks to the noble and learned Lord for Part IV of the Bill and for the persistence he has shown in getting it towards the statute book. In that regard he has enjoyed the entirely involuntary assistance of the Daily Mail. It is a remarkable example of the law of unintended consequences. The practical wording of the amendments seems to me good and helpful and I am glad to see them.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope that I am not being a pedant, but when the noble and learned Lord replies perhaps he could inform the House, if there is any point in it, why there is the word "and" in the first line of the amendment, and not "or".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in Clause 1 the principles are cumulative in effect. For example,
"that the institution of marriage is to be supported"
is to be taken with the other principles. Principle (d) will be the last provision, so that principles (a), (b), (c) and (d) are all to be taken into consideration at all times.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sorry but I believe that the noble and learned Lord did not understand my point and perhaps it was unintelligible. I was looking at the first line of principle (d) in the amendment:
"that any risk to one of the parties to a marriage,"
1068
I should have thought the next word should be "or",
"to any children, of violence",
not "and".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I misunderstood the noble Lord and thought he meant the "and" at the beginning of the amendment. However, the same point applies. Any risk to one of the parties to a marriage and to any children, if there is such a risk, must be minimised. In other words, all risks must be minimised. On the whole I prefer the wording of the amendment to the alternative proposed by the noble Lord. I have great authorities on grammar immediately on my left, but that is my own view. I hope that your Lordships will agree with it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, if the word is "and", the provision must mean a risk both to the children and to one of the parties. If the word is "or", it can be to either of them.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I offer the opinion that the amendment means both:
"any risk to one of the parties to a marriage, and [any risk] to any children, of violence from the other party should, so far as reasonably practicable, be removed or diminished".
So either risk, so far as is reasonably practicable, should be removed or diminished. The noble and learned Lord will recall that there are some decisions of the courts where the courts have been ready to read "and" as "or" if the purpose of the clause so requires. For my own part I think that there is no risk in leaving the clause as currently expressed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 3, page 2, line 30, after (6)' insert 'or (13)'.
7 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 15. Amendments have been tabled to Amendments Nos. 7 and 15 and we shall return to those in a little more detail when they are moved. However, I wish to deal with the group now.
This group of amendments deals with the period for reflection and consideration. Noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lady Young, the noble Lords, Lord Stallard and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, expressed the view that the period as set at 12 months was not long enough. It was felt that this was especially the case where children were involved or if one of the parties did not consent to the divorce. However, other noble Lords had expressed equal concern that lengthening the period would be detrimental to the welfare of children by increasing uncertainty, or that it might be considered as a system of two-tier marriage.
Amendment No. 15, which was passed on a free vote in the other place, strikes a balance that is to be commended at this stage. We discussed amendments

1069
similar to this when the Bill was before this House, but none of those ultimately moved included the provisos in Amendment No. 15.
Amendment No. 15 provides that, where there are children or one of the parties objects to the divorce, the period for reflection and consideration shall be extended by six months. However, it provides safeguards, meaning that the extension may not be made in cases where remedies against domestic violence have been obtained—that is automatic; such remedies have been obtained, the extension does not take place—or where the court is satisfied that further delay would be significantly detrimental to the welfare of children.
That is a very important safeguard. During our discussion of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Young and carried to a Division at Third Reading in this House, I expressed concern about the effect that it might have on children. I mentioned a number of children's charities, and that those concerned with these matters had expressed that anxiety to me.
I emphasise strongly that Members of the other place, in their consideration of this matter, took very full account of that concern. They put into this amendment the proviso that, where the court is satisfied that further delay would be significantly detrimental to the welfare of the children, the extension does not apply. That gives the court a very clear and full authority in this matter to have proper regard to the effect on the children. "Welfare" is the general word used.
Some have not fully taken on board this important exception. The noble Lord, Lord Habgood, has tabled an amendment, with which we shall deal in a little more detail. But in substance, this point is provided for very clearly.
This is the area in which a free vote was contemplated, both here and in the House of Commons. I regard it as extremely important that, on matters involving important issues of conscience, Parliament should be prepared to legislate. We ought not to shy away from important matters of that kind simply because issues of conscience are involved. Not long ago, two of my noble friends wrote to a newspaper to raise questions concerning life support systems for people in a persistent vegetative state. They asked whether that sort of subject should be referred to Parliament. I express no view about that. I wish merely to point out the need for the mechanism of free votes to be used to resolve matters involving issues of conscience. That is the proper mechanism by which Parliament can legislate on such matters.
In a Committee of the whole House the other place, on a completely free vote, resolved in favour of this formulation. This would be a matter for a free vote in this place, were any of these amendments to be put to a Division. However, I wish to express very strongly my own view that if we are to be able to legislate satisfactorily in this area, unless there is a very strong reason to differ, it would be right for this House to consider as very important the result of a free vote in the other place.
Noble Lords may remember that when the result of the free vote was published a number of commentators described it as a government revolt. I find it difficult to
1070
understand how revolt is possible when the Government takes no position on a matter and allows a free vote. That was true for my part, and for my colleagues in the other place. Once the Second Reading had taken place and the Committee of the whole House had been charged with the clauses on which free votes were to take place, the Government expressed no particular view and did nothing to advance any, in order that a fully free vote should take place.
Naturally enough, next morning I was asked about the matter. My express opinion then was that the only way in which this kind of issue could be satisfactorily addressed was by my accepting wholeheartedly the result on the free vote in the House of Commons. That I have done, consistently, since. I believe that is wise.
This is a matter for a free vote. Your Lordships are all free and utterly independent. However, I suggest that if matters of this kind are to be legislated for properly in government time as they should be when they are central to our national life, we must do what we can to respect the result arrived at by a democratic free vote in the other place.
The other amendments in this group are consequential on Amendment No. 15. Amendment No. 3 provides that, where the court has both an application for a divorce order and a separation order before it under Clause 3 and the period for reflection is extended, the court is entitled to proceed with the separation order rather than only the divorce order. Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 7 amend Clause 4 to prevent parties circumventing the extra six-month time period set out in Clause 7 by obtaining a separation order after 12 months and immediately applying to convert it into a divorce order. Obviously that would be to subvert the purpose of Clause 7. This provision was inserted in consequence of the passing of Clause 7 in its present form. The amendments will make the time period in Clauses 4 and 7 consistent. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, in some respects the Bill was a better Bill when it left this House. In many other respects it has been improved by amendments that have been promoted by my party in the other place.
I adhere to my view that a year for reflection and consideration is generally sufficient. Therefore, I appreciate the reasons for the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, Amendment No. 15A, which he will move shortly, although for reasons that I will explain I do not feel able to offer my support to that amendment.
The other place took the view on a free vote that if one of the parties wants 18 months, then 18 months it shall be; or where there are children, 18 months it shall be, regardless of the wishes even of both parties, but subject to a discretion in the court to take the further six months out where the court is satisfied that further delay would be significantly detrimental to the welfare of the children.

1071
That provides a satisfactory means of dealing with my concern which, in common with other noble Lords, I have expressed a number of times during our consideration of the Bill: that unnecessary delay and uncertainty would be in many cases detrimental to the interests of the children. I have confidence that the courts will be well able to identify the very many cases where that concern would be justified, so that the further six months should come out in those cases.
On the whole, I am content with this aspect of the amendments. Under the amendments one of the parties is able to insist on 18 months—and I do not doubt that this point will be the burden of the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, when he moves Amendment No. 15A—even where no sensible purpose can be achieved by withholding a divorce for the further period of six months. That is why I was persuaded by the noble and learned Lord in the first instance that 12 months was right in the generality of cases.
We should remember that under the present law there can only be a divorce on the grounds of separation after two years if the parties consent and five years if they do not, in separation cases only, so 18 months is better than five years.
It is true that the quickie divorce on grounds of adultery is these days the rapid line of exit from a failed marriage, but, as many of your Lordships, including myself, argued in our consideration of the Bill, the quickie divorce disfigures the institution of marriage. We must therefore bear in mind that the quickie divorce has gone under the Bill. I believe that the abolition of the quickie divorce and the fault principle is in the interests of the institution of marriage and of the development of sensible agreed arrangements for the future for the benefit of both the parties and their children.
The position that I adopt is that the totality of the provisions governing the delay period and the Bill as a whole are a package which noble Lords should accept.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 15A when it comes to be called in its place. Meanwhile, I should like to respond briefly to the noble and learned Lord's comments on free votes.
I am entirely in agreement with the general framework of what he has said. My noble friend Lady Seear remarked that it was spoken like a true rebel. There is no higher praise. Like the noble and learned Lord, I cannot understand how there can be said to be such a thing as a government defeat on a free vote. We are discussing these matters in a non-party spirit. I do not believe that any party can gain credit or discredit.
It has always been my understanding that on a free vote Bill the two Houses count equal. That is the principle which this House adopted in the War Crimes Bill. The basic argument for the primacy of another place is that the Government should be able to get their business through. If the Government have agreed that there is a free vote, then we may vote freely regardless of the fact that another place may not agree.
In regard to representing the people, if one looks at the opinions of the Houses it is by no means self-evident that on a non-party issue the opinions of another place
1072
automatically represent the people in a way that we do not. We may vote according to our consciences and as we are, or are not, persuaded by the arguments.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, in my view the amendments have substantially improved the Bill. I am convinced that the provisions are now in a form that will enable the court to do justice and promote welfare generally in all the circumstances that have been envisaged. It is on that ground, rather than attaching any magic significance to a free vote in the other place, that I venture to support the Commons amendments.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, these are clearly very important amendments and I am very glad to support Amendment No. 15 which extends the period of reflection and consideration up to 18 months. That is an issue upon which I moved in this House. It is a matter of regret, and I think I wrote down my noble and learned friend's exact words when he said that the Government expressed no view in another place. It is sad that they expressed a view here. We will not debate the relative merits of free votes in another place and free votes here. That is a subject also on which I would have a great deal to say.
I am glad about the 18 months and I accept the qualifications. I am glad about the ending of the quickie divorce. I never thought that it was a good thing and I am pleased that we shall see an end of it. It is unbelievable that throughout the stages of this extraordinary Bill the quickie divorce, which came in by statutory instrument in 1977 under the Labour Government, now presumably being reversed by the Bill, could not be dealt with without all of these complicated measures.
I am glad about the extension because I have always felt that it was quite wrong that one party should be divorced against the wishes of the other at the end of a year without any reason needing to be given.
I realise that there is not a majority in this House or in another place on the issue of fault, but I believe that the institution of marriage has been weakened by removing the moral basis of it and by removing the concept of fault. It has also weakened the legal basis. That is something we shall come to regret very much in the future. If American experience is anything to go by, it will ultimately increase, and not decrease, the number of divorces. I wish to place that view on the record.
This is a Bill about which I have very grave doubts, but I think that Amendment No. 15 is an improvement. I am very glad that it came through on a free vote in the Commons and I am pleased to accept its provisions.
Lord Habgood: My Lords, perhaps I may take guidance as to whether it would be helpful for me to speak to my amendment now or wait until we reach the relevant clause.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in so far as guidance from me may be useful, there is no harm in speaking to the subject matter now. However, I have the impression that because of the form of the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, it may be convenient to discuss the detail when I call the amendment in the form in which it appears as an amendment to the amendment. There is a grouping which makes it possible to take the amendment now, but the narrow substance of the issue may be better dealt with at that time. My noble friend is going to give us further advice.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, further to what my noble and learned friend said, in the chronological order only Amendment No. 3 is moved at this time. All the other amendments are open to being spoken to as they arise.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
4 Clause 4, page 2, line 35, after 'while' insert '—
(a)".
5 Page 2, line 36, at end insert '; or
(b) subsection (3A) applies.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 en bloc. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
6 Clause 4, page 2, line 42. at end insert 'once the requirements of section (Welfare of children) have been satisfied.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.
In moving this amendment I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 29, 34, 53, 59, 60, 61, 103 and 128. This group of amendments is concerned, first, with the links between the divorce procedures to be established under this Bill and procedures under the Children Act 1989 and, secondly, with the representation of children in family proceedings.
Section 41 of the Matrimonial Clauses Act 1973 provides a procedure which acts as a bridge between divorce proceedings and procedures under the Children Act. Your Lordships will remember that considerable reference was made to this when the Bill was before the House at an earlier stage. It provides a mechanism which enables the court to decide whether, in the light of the arrangements made or proposed, it should exercise its powers under the Children Act in order to protect a child. These amendments re-enact the substance of Section 41 of the 1973 Act as it relates to divorce and separation on the face of this Bill and extend the list of factors which a court should take into account when deciding whether the circumstances are
1074
such as to require it to exercise its powers under the Children Act. These now include: a requirement to regard the child's welfare as paramount; a requirement to have regard to the wishes and feelings of the child concerned in the light of his age and understanding and the circumstances in which those wishes were expressed; a requirement to have regard to the conduct of the parties in relation to the upbringing of the child; the principle that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the welfare of the child will be best served by the child having regular contact with those who have parental responsibility for him and with other members of the family; and a requirement for the court to have regard to any risk to the child which may be caused by the actual or proposed arrangements for the child's future.
The main thrust of this amendment remains as it was following an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Elles and supported by many other noble Lords. The current amendment adds to the factors included in my noble friend's amendment, to which the court shall have particular regard on the evidence before it when making a decision as to whether the circumstances of the case require it, or are likely to require it, to exercise any of its powers under the Children Act 1989. The amendment also re-enacts what was Section 41 of the Matrimonial Causes Act procedure and so brings that procedure on to the face of this Bill in relation to separation and divorce cases. At the time Section 41 was amended during the Bill's passage through this House, the procedure remained part of the Matrimonial Causes Act and so was amended by paragraph 23 of Schedule 8.
In consultation with the children's organisations during the passage of this Bill in another place, it was decided that it would be helpful to have the full text of this procedure on the face of the Bill and also to enhance its provision. Essentially, however, the function of the court under this procedure remains the same as under the current law; namely, consideration of whether there are children of the family to whom the section should apply and, where there are any such children, whether it should exercise any of its powers under the Children Act 1989. The court has no jurisdiction, therefore, to make a residence or a contact order under this provision. Such orders, if they are to be made, must continue to be made under the Children Act itself. In exercising its jurisdiction under that Act, the court will apply the welfare criteria set out in Section 1(3) of that Act.
In order to clarify the status of the various factors set out in this amendment, I should point out that their purpose is to guide the court when it is deciding whether or not it should exercise its Children Act powers. These factors are not intended to change any of the provisions of the Children Act itself. In particular I would point out that the reference to conduct in subsection (4)(b) is intended to mean conduct towards the child by its parents and not conduct between the parents towards each other. I believe that there has been some misunderstanding about that.
Turning to Amendment No. 53, the Government believe that the voice of the child should be heard in proceedings regarding his or her welfare. The existing law already makes provision for the representation of

1075
children in a number of ways: by a panel guardian ad litem and/or a solicitor in public law proceedings under the Children Act 1989; via the report of a welfare officer, again under the Children Act 1989; through the offices of the Official Solicitor in private law proceedings in the High Court and county court; and under Section 10(8) of the Children Act 1989 a child may bring his or her own application and be represented. In addition, Commons Amendment No. 46 (to Clause 24) which we shall be discussing later would require the proposed code of practice for publicly funded mediators to require mediators to have mechanisms in place to take account of the interests and wishes of children during mediation between spouses. It is important that, in relation to a child's residence and contact, those matters are taken into account. I have no wish—and when we discussed this matter before I understood your Lordships to have no wish—to embroil children unnecessarily in conflict with their parents. However, this issue relates to the welfare of the children themselves and the arrangements being made for them.
Amendment No. 53 empowers the Lord Chancellor to make regulations across a wide range of family matters, including domestic violence cases. It will be important to ensure that any such arrangements complement existing arrangements, do not duplicate them and so far as practicable, do not place children at risk or exacerbate conflict between spouses by unnecessarily dragging children into disputes between their parents. That will be a difficult and sensitive task and I shall wish to consult widely with both the children's organisations and with those who currently represent the interests of children in court proceedings before attempting to devise an effective system and to make any regulations under this provision.
As I said, we have time to do that, particularly in relation to the divorce and mediation part of this Bill. I shall, therefore, wish to consult widely on that aspect.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, it is right to join the noble and learned Lord in acknowledging the credit that should be given to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for the incorporation of a list of factors which the court must take into account when deciding whether it should exercise its powers under the Children Act 1989. Commons Amendment No. 34 significantly extends that list.
The court must regard the welfare of any children of the family as paramount when considering whether it should exercise its powers under the Children Act. Also it must have regard to the wishes and the feelings of the child concerned. Usefully it extends the general principle that the welfare of the child is best served by regular contact not only with those who have parental responsibility directly for the child, but also with other members of the family.
I offer a general welcome to this group of amendments. The clauses are an important contribution to the welfare of children. They are fully in tune with the new and increasing contemporary awareness that a child is a person in his or her own right and not merely an object for concern. So the divorce court must now have regard to the interests and views of the children.
1076
They will now have a right to be consulted about the proposals which the parents are making for the future in which they have a vital interest and, if need be, to be represented separately in proceedings. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 53. It gives the Lord Chancellor the power to make regulations for the separate representation of children. I believe that that is already the law in Scotland under Section 6 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and although it is early days, it seems to be working well there.
There is too often a temptation for divorcing couples to believe that because they have come to an amicable settlement and have made themselves happy, the children must also be happy. Sadly, frequently that is not the case and to the high cost of a failed marriage there must be often added a child who has gone off the rails or a daughter or son who ploughs his or her examinations. Of course, the courts can only do so much. They cannot heal the hurt to a child at losing one of its parents, if that is what happens; but at the very least it can focus on the needs of that child and ensure that, amid the clamour for dissolution and the squabbles over money and the house, the voice of the child is also heard.
In particular, we welcome Amendment No. 53 which empowers the Lord Chancellor to make regulations across a wide range of family matters including domestic violence cases. We agree with the noble and learned Lord that this is a sensitive and difficult task. In particular, we welcome his expressed desire to consult widely on these matters with the children's organisations and with those who derive their expertise from their experience gained from representing the interests of children in court proceedings. We welcome these amendments.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, has done me the favour of making the speech that I was going to make, so I can be very brief. I simply add that to my mind these are the most important amendments that have come to us from the other place. I particularly welcome the fact that they will enable the provisions of the Children Act 1989 to be dovetailed with the provisions of this legislation. The only point I wish to add now—and I hope I am in order in doing so—is that these amendments, especially the new Amendment No. 34 which inserts the new clause, which is the operative clause in this group of amendments, make the proposed Amendments Nos. 7A and 15C unnecessary. I hope that I am not out of order in anticipating that.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I welcome this group of amendments. I particularly thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, for their kind remarks about my noble friend Lady Elles. Unfortunately, she is unable to be in her place this evening. I know that she greatly welcomes these amendments and particularly Amendment No. 34, which incorporates many of the points which she raised.
Baroness David: My Lords, I join in the general welcome for this group of amendments. I ask the noble

1077
and learned Lord two questions about Amendment No. 53 dealing with the separate representation of children which I welcome very much.
Is Section 8 of the Children Act included, bearing in mind that Section 8 orders have been perceived by judges and by childcare law and social work practitioners as a pressing lacuna in the present law? We would like to receive confirmation—because we are concerned—that panel guardians ad litem will be involved in private law proceedings given that in future we cannot depend on Family Court welfare officers being qualified social workers following the recent withdrawal by the Home Office of probation officers from social work training.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, when this Bill first came before your Lordships it was very thin indeed in its consideration for the welfare of children of broken marriages. That was entirely consonant with the long tradition of divorce reform which looked almost exclusively to the welfare of the parents. There was constant talk of a "dead marriage" even though there might be living young children to whom the parents had a living responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, implied that point.
During the course of our deliberations a noble Lord whom we all hold in very high respect actually talked about the parties, "being locked in a loveless marriage" as though a marriage with young children is other than quite exceptionally loveless. Normally, parents love their children. Their passion or even affection for each other may have deteriorated, but they still have a responsibility and other than in exceptional cases they have love for their children. It cannot properly be spoken of as a dead marriage or being locked in a loveless marriage.
One of the features of the Bill in your Lordships' House was the significant strengthening of the provisions relating to children. I join in the tributes that have been paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, in that regard. The amendments in the other place have continued that and strengthened the Bill so that now, as regards divorce reform, I trust that we shall never again talk of a dead or loveless marriage where there are children but that, on the contrary, in all consideration of marriage and divorce reform the centre of our consideration shall be the children of the marriage.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I welcome Amendment No. 34 in particular. It seems to be an improvement on the existing arrangements in undefended divorce cases. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, the existing mechanism derives from Section 41 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. In its original form, the court was required by that section to have a hearing to consider the arrangements the parties had made or proposed for the children of the family. That section was altered—most people would say that it was watered down—by the Children Act 1989 to such an extent that there is nowadays no actual hearing before a judge. A statement of arrangement for the children is still put before the court by the parties, but in the vast majority
1078
of cases the court does not actually meet the parties themselves, it simply reads what they have put their names to.
The new clause, which stands as Amendment No. 34, amplifies the existing Section 41 procedure. I assume that the procedure under the new clause will also depend upon there being filed with the court a statement by the couple as to the arrangements proposed for the children. I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he has formulated procedures to deal with this: what concerns me is the reference in what will be new subsection (4) to the court having regard,
"on the evidence before it, to",
there then follows a list of matters. In my mind, that begs the question of how, in practice, the court will have evidence before it of the different matters set out in that subsection. Is there going to be in place a specific mechanism to enable the court to be informed properly in every case of the wishes and feelings of the children, and so on? If these provisions are to work, there must be a proper mechanism in place to ensure that the court has before it the best information available at the time.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may say how very much I, too, welcome the new clause represented by Amendment No. 34. However, I have one question for the noble and learned Lord. It arises from the use of the word "exceptional" in subsection (2)(c), which reads:
"there are exceptional circumstances which make it desirable in the interests of the child that the court should give a direction under this section".
Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord what, to his mind, should be the court's mental direction in following the word "exceptional". Will we not have many cases in which in the circumstances it is desirable that the order should be made, but in one case a judge may well feel that he cannot regard the circumstances as "exceptional"—no guidance on that is given in the amendment—whereas another judge may think that he can regard that word loosely? Why is the word "exceptional" there?
7.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may take that short question first. The ordinary rules with regard to the granting of a divorce are stipulated and, ordinarily, there will be an entitlement; but where something more is required, there may be a need for postponement of the divorce notwithstanding what otherwise would be an entitlement.
The phrase "exceptional circumstances" appears in the current law, as the noble Lord knows. I have sought advice from those who exercise this jurisdiction and I am advised that no difficulties have so far been experienced. Something must be very special in situations where it is right to postpone the divorce until these powers have been exercised in connection with the Children Act procedure, where otherwise there would be an entitlement. My main point, however, is that all that we have done is to adopt the current phrase. If one wants to minimise legal argument, one is wise to adopt the current phrase unless there are some difficulties with its operation.

1079
Reverting to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady David, Section 8 of the Children Act 1989 is not included in Amendment No. 53 because Children Act proceedings are outside the scope of this Bill, as we are advised. On the rule-making powers under the Children Act, I believe that I may deal with such matters under the rule-making powers available under the Children Act.
On the point about panel guardians, I have indicated that we shall consult widely not only about the types of proceedings, the categories of case and the particular circumstances in which separate representations should be available, but also on the type and nature of that representation. We shall want to consider all types of possible representation in order to decide what is appropriate in different situations.
I turn now to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. When the Bill was before us previously, I mentioned—perhaps more than once—that I would expect to provide (under the powers that I have to require matters to go before the court in the form of the statements that are necessary) to consult widely, particularly with children's organisations, about the way in which important factors can be brought out so that the judge—a district judge, presumably, or a judge at whatever the level may be—will have before him or her in the statement the kind of information that would throw light on whether the powers under this section (and therefore under the Children Act) require to be exercised in the particular circumstances of the case. That is the nature of the evidence that I have in mind. As the noble Lord correctly said, the efficacy of the clause depends on having such a scheme in place. As I have said, that is my intention and, again, I shall wish to consult widely about it.
I am grateful for the support that these amendments have received and for the considerable agreement on this aspect of the matter. I welcome particularly what my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale said. I believe that divorce reform is best conducted in a government Bill where it is possible to deal with a much wider range of matters than is normally possible when trying to carry out divorce reform through a Private Member's Bill, as has often been the case in the past.
In view of the various well deserved compliments that have been paid to various Members of your Lordships' House, I feel that it is appropriate for me to mention that the very last piece of business which my late noble friend Lady Faithfull attended in your Lordships' House was the concluding stage of this Bill when it was before us previously. All of us who remember her knew of her concern for children. I am sure that she would have been delighted to know that at long last we have made some considerable improvements as a result of having her help and I am sure that she would have welcomed the sum total of these amendments. It gives me particular pleasure to honour her memory in this way at this stage.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
7 Clause 4, page 2, line 42, at end insert—
'(3A) Subject to subsection (3B), this subsection applies if—

(a) there is a child of the family who is under the age of sixteen when the application under this section is made; or

(b) the application under this section is made by one party and the other party applies to the court, before the end of such period as may be prescribed by rules of court, for time for further reflection.

(3B) Subsection (3A)—

(a) does not apply if, at the time when the application under this section is made, there is an occupation order or a non-molestation order in force in favour of the applicant, or of a child of the family, made against the other party;

(b) does not apply if the court is satisfied that delaying the making of a divorce order would he significantly detrimental to the welfare of any child of the family;

(c) ceases to apply—

(i) at the end of the period of six months beginning with the end of the period of reflection and consideration by reference to which the separation order was made; or

(ii) if earlier, on there ceasing to be any children of the family to whom subsection (3A)(a) applied.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 7
7A Clause 4, in subsection (3A)(a), after ("made") insert ("and the court considers, on the evidence before it, that it will be in the best interests of the child for this subsection to apply").
Lord Habgood: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 7.
Amendment No. 7A is consequential upon my other amendment, Amendment No. 15C. I should like to speak to both, with the emphasis on Amendment No. 15C. The purpose of Amendment No. 15C is to modify the impact of the Commons amendment, which extends the period of reflection by six months when there are children under the age of 16 in the family, by making the extension discretionary rather than mandatory. Amendment No. 7A simply brings the provision for separation into line with this. It provides that a separation order may not automatically be converted into a divorce order when one or both of the parties apply to the court for extension of the period of reflection on the grounds that there are children under 16. The main point of both amendments is that any extension of the period of reflection relating to children should not be automatic but should be considered by the courts when there appears to be a need for it.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has already said that Amendment No. 34 makes my amendments redundant. I do not believe that this is so. Amendment No. 34

1081
relates to Clause 10 which deals with exceptional circumstances, to which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has already referred, whereas my amendments refer to what may be called the ordinary process under Clause 11. These amendments in no way undermine the main provisions of the Bill as it has now been returned to us. They would not weaken the power to extend the process to 18 months when one party did not consent to the divorce. When there is a clearly established need to devote more time to the process in the interests of the children, it is right that that time should be given.
My amendments make provision for that. But they place the onus on the court to impose this rather than dispense with it, as the Bill now stands. Dispensation is possible only when there is an occupation or non-molestation order in force, which may be a very tight restriction, or when the court decides that there may be significant detriment to the interests of the children. Much will depend on how the courts use the power to dispense.
I acknowledge that the difference which my amendments make may be small in practice if the courts adopt a proactive role. Whether the courts will adopt that role is another matter; whether they will be able to do so in reasonable time is another matter still. Whether they will become clogged up with more business than they can manage by having the power of dispensation is a very serious consideration. I accept that this may work in different ways, some of which may be significant and some not. Nevertheless, I believe that there are important principles at stake here which this House ought to have another chance to consider. I am encouraged in this by a speech by Mr. Peter Bottomley in another place. In the light of what has already been said about the debate in the other place, I believe it is worth reading part of his speech. Referring to this particular argument about children, he said:
"That argument did not take place in Committee of the whole House, but I do not think that, after 9 p.m., after a fairly full day on Report, it is right to think that, in two or three minutes, probably under pressure from the business managers even though there might be a free vote, we can rehearse all the arguments.
I simply ask that we put this idea to the other place when it considers the amendment we have made".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/96; col. 612]
Therefore, the question to be asked is whether, if these amendments are passed, this House will be going against something which the other place has debated thoroughly. It certainly thoroughly debated the question of when one party did not consent to the divorce. I have no objection to the extension of the period of reflection to 18 months in that case. But I submit that it did not adequately discuss the particular issue which arises when there are children.
I recognise that politically there may be a risk in taking this Bill back to another place with an amendment. But, given Mr. Bottomley's invitation, I do not believe that this house can be accused of seeking, as it were, to reverse a carefully considered decision against that other place. The motives for making this change and adding an extra six months when there are children in the family are entirely admirable. But all
1082
noble Lords recognised in the lengthy debate on this point that divorce was bad for children, that it should be discouraged whenever possible and that children should be given every possible protection. It does not follow logically from such admirable intentions that automatic extension of the divorce process when there are children in the family is good for them. The argument is a non sequitur.
As my amendment recognises, extension of the period may be necessary; in other cases it may not. As we were reminded by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in our debate, the main voluntary agencies concerned with the welfare of children urged against an automatic extension. I have a list of 18 such agencies. That list includes all of the most famous organisations which deal with children. They support these amendments and have urged me to propose them. We also have to consider Section 1(2) of the Children Act, which states:
"In any proceedings in which any question with respect to the upbringing of a child arises, the court shall have regard to the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child".
Therefore, my first reason for moving these amendments is that the automatic six-month extension confuses proper concern for the welfare of children with what in many cases may turn out to be a largely symbolic and possibly harmful gesture in lengthening the process. My second reason follows closely on the first. By making the presence of children in a family the basis of automatic extension the Bill will place them at the focus of the divorce process in a manner which may lead to subsequent recrimination. "But for you", says an aggrieved parent, "all this could have been settled months ago". This is not as unlikely a scenario as one may think. We should not underestimate the potential for divorce to create feelings of guilt, not least in the children of the marriage themselves.
The Bill is deeply concerned with the well being of children, but I believe that it would be wise to place the emphasis on extending the time for making a settlement on their behalf as and when it is needed rather than on making some children feel unnecessarily that they are a further complication in what otherwise might have been a straightforward process.
My third and final reason for wanting to see these clauses amended is that, as they stand, they subtly change the public perception of a marriage by drawing a legal distinction between a marriage with children and a marriage without children. Of course, having children brings additional responsibilities, but those are the responsibilities within the state of marriage—a state which I believe should carry the same implications for everyone. It is a state which is based on mutual consent. It is taken on for life, whether or not there are children, and it is a serious business to break it.
If we create a category difference, implying that it is, in legal terms, a more serious business to break a marriage with children—I am not saying that it is not more serious emotionally, but I am saying that in legal terms it is a more serious business to break a marriage with children—then I believe we have taken a step

1083
towards a different concept of marriage—a more utilitarian one in which the focus is not on the state of marriage itself, but on estimates of possible harm.
It is because I believe deeply in the holy estate of matrimony that I want to preserve the law whereby all marriages are legally equivalent, and let the issue of possible harm be treated as a separate matter for decision by the courts. I hope that latter point carries some resonances with Members of your Lordships' House so that, even if in the end we decide this matter pragmatically, it remains clear that we want to safeguard marriage as it has been traditionally understood. Although my amendments may seem to lower the hurdles on the road to divorce, I believe that they strengthen our understanding of marriage as well as safeguarding the interests of children. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 7A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 7, be agreed to.—(Lord Habgood.)
Lord Harmsworth: My Lords, my name is down to Amendments Nos. 7A and 15C. As the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, said, Amendment No. 15C is a substantive amendment and Amendment No. 7A is a consequential one. I speak to these amendments with a measure of humility because I did not speak at earlier stages of the Bill. I know that the subject matter of the Bill is deeply felt, and quite rightly so, by your Lordships. All the more so perhaps because we are considering amendments from another place. We have already heard some of the constitutional points that we should be bearing in mind. I hope that my noble friend Lord Renton will contribute further points if he has any to make.
Although the amendments are fundamental, in effect they are gentle. What is important is that they strengthen the Bill—one of the major roles of your Lordships' House and one for which it is rightly famous.
The noble Lord, Lord Habgood, said that the amendments in no way undermine the Bill's main provisions, and will not weaken the power to extend to 18 months the period for reflection and consideration.
I am certain that if the Bill becomes law, as I hope it will, it will not be long before all possible routes to short-cut the system will be tested. If there is a short cut, before long it will be well-trodden.
As drafted, there are two categories of marriage: couples with no children under 16, and couples with children under 16. One thing I do not like about it is the automaticity of the extra six months that is triggered by the fact that a child under 16 is involved. That presents scope for harm to the children. The two amendments neatly and easily remove that danger. I do not like the two-tier system. The provisions are unnecessary in so far as there are many safeguards already built in for the protection of the children.
My fear is that the Bill, as currently drafted, will result in couples wanting a quicker divorce, using the children to achieve their end. That is something that your Lordships and Members of another place have, throughout the Bill, wished to avoid.
1084
Parents have a card to play: the significant detriment to the child's welfare. The children would, as the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, said, become the focus of litigation. That is an avoidable danger. The faster and more flexible resolution of the situation which the amendments provide will bring the Bill into line with the central tenets of the Children Act and with Clause 1(c)(ii) in which there is the positive requirement that
"a marriage which has irretrievably broken down and is being brought to an end should be brought to an end … with questions dealt with in a manner designed to promote as good a continuing relationship between the parties and any children affected as is possible in the circumstances".
That is a positive approach to the problem.
I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that the amendments make the work of the courts easier. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has already said words to that effect. The amendments would clarify and strengthen their position.
On the constitutional points, the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, said that my honourable friend Mr. Bottomley in another place has asked Members of this House to move the amendments. He pointed out the lateness of the hour at which they were considered, and the circumstances.
I support the amendments. They are innocuous in so far as they do not change anything fundamentally but improve and clarify the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will support the amendments.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I, too, support the amendments to which I have put my name. When the Bill was last before us, we had lengthy arguments about whether it was in the best interests of children for the parents to stay together for the sake of the children or to release the children from a marriage which was on the rocks. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has just given your Lordships an echo of those arguments. I shall resist the temptation to respond.
The noble Lord, Lord Habgood, has brought to this—I would hesitate to describe an amendment concerned with the welfare of children as a judgment of Solomon—at least a judgment of great wisdom. The noble Lord said that one case is not exactly like another, and for that reason the decision as to whether it is in the interests of the child is best taken by the court. I agree with him. I am delighted that he put down the amendment, and I warmly support it.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I can see the point of the amendment tabled by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Habgood. However, I am not persuaded that the point is important enough in practice to differ from the Commons. I am not persuaded for the reasons which he acknowledged in moving the amendments most persuasively. I do not believe that in practice it will make much difference if the court has to decide whether it is in the best interests of the children for the 12 months to be extended to 18, or for the court to have to decide whether to abbreviate the 18 months to 12, if satisfied that the making of the divorce would be significantly detrimental to any child of the family. I am

1085
not satisfied that in practice there will be any material difference between the operation of the two approaches and therefore I am not persuaded that we should differ from the Commons in line with the noble and right reverend Lord's two amendments.
Finally, I wish to comment on the noble Lord's two tier marriage point. My view is that a year for reflection and consideration is adequate both where there are children and where there are not. However, another view has prevailed in the other place and it must be accepted that when contemplating breaking a marriage there is more to think about when there are children than when there are not. I find the two tier marriage point a little too abstract and I do not support the amendments.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, do I understand that in putting the argument that this is not important enough to persist with he attempts to impale the House upon a fork? Either an amendment from the other place is not important enough to be worth changing or it is too important to take the risk. Would he agree that it is not in the interests of this House to allow itself to be impaled upon that fork?
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I do not recognise the fork. I simply see no difference in substance between the two approaches and therefore I oppose making a change which I regard as unnecessary.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I hope very much that the House will not agree with the amendment tabled by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Habgood. I do not accept for one moment his argument about two tier marriages. The view that I and a great many of my colleagues have taken consistently on this Bill is the need to buttress marriage. I should have preferred to have a two year period for reflection. Under the 1969 Act, if one party did not consent the period was up to five years.
However, I accepted that in life one must consider all the arguments and must frequently compromise. I accepted that in the case of a couple who have no children and both agree to the divorce one year is long enough. That is not in any way to undervalue marriage. A divorce is a tragedy in any event. In the case where there are children I wish to see the period extended to 18 months and I completely accept the qualifications to that which were made in another place on a free vote and which I am glad to see.
As I read the amendments tabled by the noble and right reverend Lord he is saying that in the Commons amendment the period is kept to 12 months where the court believes that it would be significantly detrimental for the period to be longer. Commons Amendment No. 7 makes consequential amendments to the arrangements for the conversion of a separation order into a divorce order. It has been agreed to extend the period by another six months if there is a child of the family under the age of 16 but the noble and right reverend Lord's Amendments Nos. 7A and 15C tack on the phrase:
"and the court considers, on the evidence before it, that it will he in the best interests of the child for this subsection to apply".
1086
It seems to me that the amendments would require the party who objects to the divorce to prove that a six months' extension is in the best interests of the children. That would put children at the very centre of the dispute as to whether the period should be 18 months or one year. I should have thought that that was not in the best interests of children or of achieving the least acrimonious settlement following the divorce. I do not follow the advantages of the amendment and I hope that it will not be agreed to.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I should try to reassure the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Habgood, about the effect of Clause 4 upon the two amendments. The provision in Amendment No.6,
"once the requirements of section (Welfare of children) have been satisfied",
invokes Amendment No. 34. We must bear in mind the opening words of that amendment, which are:
"In any proceedings for a divorce order or a separation order, the court shall consider",
and there appears a list.
As the issue has been brought into Clause 4 I do not see how the court could fail to consider the matters under Amendment No. 34, which are set out and which invoke the Children Act 1989, the opening words of which provide that when deciding any case under this Act the welfare of the children shall be paramount.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, having listened carefully to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Habgood, there is no way in which I can support the amendments. Despite what the noble Lord said, marriage is very different when there are children and when there are not. Although a divorce in which there are no children is a disastrous situation it is easier to sort out, for instance, the financial and housing matters. When children are involved there is much more to be contemplated; for example, the educational needs, the future emotional needs, the housing needs and the financial strains which are inevitable following a divorce. For all those reasons I believe that Amendment No. 34 is the best that we can hope for and I hope that this House will not overturn it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I too oppose the amendments moved by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Habgood. I am surprised that he has insisted that children make no difference to a marriage. After all, marriage is about having children more than anything else. It is my belief, and I expressed it in Committee and on Report, that children mean that there at least three people to be considered in any matters of divorce and not just two.
As was pointed out, the interests of children are often different from the interests of the parent. They should therefore be paramount and it will take a great deal longer to settle those interests to suit the children and not the parents. That is why I believe that it is necessary to have the extra period of six months. I do not believe that it should be qualified in the way that the

1087
amendments suggest. It may only be a matter of nuance but, on the other hand, it may be more important than that when it comes to the practicalities. I believe that the safeguards set out in subsection (3B) are adequate to deal with any difficult situation.
The amendments proposed by the noble Lord will in fact increase the difficulties of the divorce in that parents will seek to use their children in arguments before the court to reduce the time from 18 months to 12 months. In that case, the children become a sort of marital football between the parties. For those reasons, I shall certainly oppose the amendments moved by the noble Lord and, indeed, I hope that he will decide not to press them.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have said already something about this matter but I should like to express my submissions to your Lordships a little more fully.
First, the amendment that the House of Commons has proposed is not automatic in the sense that the court has a power to disapply it in a situation where the postponement would be significantly detrimental to the welfare of any child of the family. Therefore, there is an overriding and important power in the court in respect of any damage to the welfare of a child of the family.
The second point that I wish to make is that the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, pointed out that he does not wish to distinguish, from the point of view of the marriage itself, between a marriage with children and a marriage without children. The obligations of the marriage as between the parties are substantially the same. Of course, when children come into the world as a result of a marriage, there are new obligations to the children which both parents have as a result of that fact. But the nature of the marriage itself is not affected.
The point that I make in response to that is that the noble Lord's amendments will permit postponement of the divorce where there are children. Therefore, he has also to recognise that from the point of view of the divorce arrangements, they will be different or may be different in a case where there are children as affecting the divorce itself. Of course, there are other arrangements but, as affecting the divorce, the noble Lord's amendments, equally with those which have been passed by the Commons, give a different status to a marriage where there are children from where there are none. That is because in the case of a marriage with children, there is a power in the court to postpone the divorce to the 18 month period or the additional six month period according to the situation of the children.
The next point that I wish to make echoes a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. In practice, the difference between those two formulations will be relatively small because if it is in the best interests of the children that the divorce should be postponed, it is likely not to be detrimental to their welfare. On the other hand, if it is not in the best interests of the children that the divorce be postponed, it will be detrimental to the welfare of the children. Therefore, those are mirror images, the one of the other.
I should like to make one other point which was made by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner during our discussions on Third Reading on the amendment moved
1088
by my noble friend Lady Young. Of course, at that time, that did not contain the power of the court to disapply the extension. My noble and learned friend said that in a case where there are children—and my noble friend Lady O'Cathain also made this point—the arrangements are likely to be more complicated and take more time to sort out than if there are no children. So it is highly likely that, in any event, the arrangements will take a good part, if not the whole, of the 18 months. Therefore, there is very little in it.
I suggest respectfully to your Lordships that the difference in practice between the amendment proposed by the noble Lord and the amendments which the Commons have passed is not sufficient to justify the view that we should invite the Commons to reconsider. It is true that the matters were discussed on a free vote as part of a Committee of the Whole House. We must remember, at least I wish to remember, that the House of Commons ultimately passed all the provisions of this Bill with a very large majority. It had a majority of 418 in favour of the Bill which is quite unusual in relation to the Third Reading of a Bill. Therefore, the package as a whole has been very forcefully endorsed.
Of course I understand the concerns of the children' organisations and others. But I feel that those considerations were well before the House of Commons because they were expressed very fully in our debate on Third Reading. The amendment moved on Third Reading embraced those points and, indeed, as some of your Lordships may remember, I read out a very succinct communication from well-known children's charities making those points.
The House of Commons has taken account of that by giving the court the power to disapply that extension where it would be detrimental to the interests of the children that that extension should apply. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, will feel that this matter has been considered again in your Lordships' House but that, having regard to all the circumstances and the stage which we have reached, it would not be wise to press this amendment.
I give that view as a personal view. Of course, this is a free matter. But having considered as carefully as I can and with a great deal of sympathy the point of view of the children's organisations, I think in practice the court is likely to distinguish in no degree between those two formulations and that the House of Commons has dealt quite reasonably with the point.
Lord Habgood: My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken on the amendment and in particular to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for what he has just said.
Despite what has been said, a certain confusion still persists. It seems to me that there is still an important difference of principle at stake here. While I accept readily that distinctions occur within marriages and within the divorce process where there are children, those distinctions arise out of perceived difficulties. Clearly, where there are perceived difficulties, the process needs to be changed.

1089
I am exercised about the long-term implications of having two categories of marriage because that is in effect what the Commons amendment would provide. Therefore, I regret that as an ex-Prelate, I am speaking on a moral plane about something which concerns me and many other people very deeply.
I recognise also that there are difficult political issues at stake here and I am not sufficient of a politician to be able to judge the political risks in all this. Indeed, I have already shown my political incompetence by quoting from a speech in another place and naming the person concerned, for which I apologise humbly. However, it seems to me that your Lordships' House is full of people with much more political nous than I have and that that insight would carry the day if I were to divide the House.
I am also conscious that 18 agencies have formed a coalition to sponsor these amendments and they are looking to me to see that this matter gets a fair hearing. I find myself in a tremendous quandary. I have no wish to create difficulties, but I feel that in fairness to those people it would be right for this House to make a decision. I shall leave it to the politicians to decide what is the wisest course to take, while trying to continue my assertion that on the moral level there is a substantial point at stake here. I therefore ask the House to make this decision.
On Question, Amendment No. 7A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 7, negatived.
On Question, original Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
8 Clause 5, page 3, line 4, leave out from 'statement' to 'has' in line 9.
8.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8, and with this amendment I would like to speak to Amendments Nos. 32, 35 and 36. Amendments Nos. 8 and 32 amend Clause 5 and Clause 9. Clause 5(1)(a) requires that where the division of pensions may be involved the statement of marital breakdown was made by statutory declaration. These amendments remove that requirement and instead require that where the division of pension assets may be involved any declaration relating to the couple's financial arrangements, which accompany the application for a divorce or separation order, must be a statutory declaration. These amendments do not affect the principle of pension splitting.
Amendment No. 35 paves the way for introducing pension splitting on divorce. It replaces the parts of Clause 15 relating to England and Wales, and Amendment No. 36 removes those parts from Clause 15, leaving behind a part which attempts to extend Amendment No. 35 to Scotland.
As I said at an earlier stage of this Bill, the Government are fully committed to the principle of pension splitting and we acknowledge the strength of feeling on this matter. While we have stated our belief that legislation in this Bill is premature we have, nevertheless, accepted the desire to
1090
see the principle of pension splitting on the face of the Bill, and so made no attempt to overturn the original Clause 15 in the other place. As I pointed out to your Lordships, that clause expressed the principle but did not will the means to put it into practice. The amendment before us today attempts to will us the means, in the absence of a full policy, by giving a range of delegated powers to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. It is not clear that even these wide powers would be capable of delivering full policy when that is settled.
Clearly, those who proposed this amendment in the other place are well aware of the range of changes likely to be required. Thus they have given my noble and learned friend powers to amend by regulation, not only secondary, but also existing primary legislation, and via the negative procedure at that. Furthermore, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will have to use these powers to make important changes to pensions and tax law.
I have some reservations about this Henry VIII procedure, having been taught by a few of your Lordships the intricacies of this historic debate. Our work on pension splitting has already identified a considerable number of issues which, under this clause, would demand changes to regulations. That work is on course for the publication of a Green Paper at the end of July. I am sure your Lordships will welcome that. In that Green Paper we will raise all the key issues associated with pensions splitting, and seek the views of interested parties. It will look into, for example, such issues as whether state as well as non-state rights should be included, what rights a non-scheme member's spouse should be given, what obligations scheme managers should have, and to what extent their discretion should be fettered.
We will then proceed with developing a full package of policy proposals and afterwards we envisage publishing a White Paper, followed by legislation as soon as is practicable. We believe that this is a better way to proceed, not only for those who are likely to use pension splitting, but also for the pension industry and other non-divorcing scheme members.
I am convinced that further primary legislation will be necessary. However, I am mindful of the strength of feeling on this issue. The House obviously wishes to see pension splitting on the face of this Bill, and despite my reservations concerning Henry VIII procedures, I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
9 Clause 5, page 3, line 27, leave out 'more than one year' and insert 'one year ("the specified period")'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12.

1091
The Bill has always allowed parties to suspend the passing of the period for reflection and consideration, by notifying the court that they wish to attempt reconciliation. These amendments provide that the passing of the lapse period, following the period for reflection and consideration, can also be suspended for the same reason. This will therefore encourage attempts at reconciliation right up until the time of an application for a divorce or separation order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
10 Clause 5, page 3, line 30, after 'the' insert 'specified'.
11 Page3, line 30, at end insert—
'(4A) Subsection (4B) applies if, before the end of the specified period, the parties jointly give notice to the court that they are attempting reconciliation but require additional time.
(4B) The specified period—

(a) stops running on the day on which the notice is received by the court; but

(b) resumes running on the day on which either of the parties gives notice to the court that the attempted reconciliation has been unsuccessful.

(4C) If the specified period is interrupted by a continuous period of more than 18 months, any application by either of the parties for a divorce order or for a separation order must be by reference to a new statement received by the court at any time after the end of the 18 months.'.
12 Page3, leave out line 32 and insert 'the specified period'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 en bloc.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 en bloc.—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
13 Clause 7, page 4, line 26, leave out 'one year' and insert 'nine months'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13. At the same time, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 16.
This amendment reduces the period for reflection and consideration from one year to 9 months. Amendment No. 16 provides that no statement of marital breakdown may be made fewer than three months after attendance at an information meeting. This is in order that there may be a three month 'cooling-off' period between attendance at an information meeting and the making of a statement. Other amendments which have already been debated provide that this three month period will be used to provide parties with an opportunity to have a meeting with a marriage counsellor and that the party or parties attending the meeting would be encouraged to take up that offer, although they would not be compelled to do so.
1092
It was always the intention that the extra three months given to parties to consider the information that they had received should not extend the overall period for reflection and consideration. Amendment No. 13 provides for this. Were the period for reflection and consideration to remain at 12 months, the overall period would be 15 and 21 months. The view taken on a free vote in the other place was that the overall period should be 12 months or 18 months if the six month extension were to apply.
This really gives effect to the desire that a number of your Lordships expressed, including my noble friend Lady Young, that the period of reflection and consideration should have, effectively, meant a period in which conciliation was the primary matter in issue. This is a way of arriving at that solution. I hope noble Lords will feel able to accept the amendment.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
14 Clause 7, page 5, line 2, leave out 'give joint' and insert 'jointly give'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14.
In moving the above amendment I shall speak also to quite a large number of other Commons amendments which are linked, to some extent, by their diversity, but also by the fact that they are minor. I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 54 to 58 inclusive, Amendment No. 78, Amendments Nos. 83 to 92, Amendments Nos. 95, 104, 108, 109, 113, 117 to 127 and 129 to 137. They are all minor technical, consequential and drafting amendments which do not make any policy changes.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
15 Clause 7, page 5, line 14, at end insert—
'(10) Where an application for a divorce order is made by one party, subsection (13) applies if—

(a) the other party applies to the court, within the prescribed period, for time for further reflection; and

(b) the requirements of section 9 (except any imposed under section 9(3)) are satisfied.

(11) Where any application for a divorce order is made, subsection (13) also applies if there is a child of the family who is under the age of sixteen when the application is made.
(12) Subsection (13) does not apply if—

(a) at the time when the application for a divorce order is made, there is an occupation order or a non-molestation order in force in favour of the applicant, or of a child of the family made against the other party; or

(b) the court is satisfied that delaying the making of a divorce order would be significantly detrimental to the welfare of any child of the family.

1093
(13) If this subsection applies, the period for reflection and consideration is extended by a period of six months, but—

(a) only in relation to the application for a divorce order in respect of which the application under subsection (10) was made; and

(b) without invalidating that application for a divorce order.

(14) A period for reflection and consideration which is extended under subsection (13) and which has not otherwise come to an end, comes to an end on there ceasing to be any children of the family to whom subsection (11) applied.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.15. I spoke to this amendment when dealing with Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
8.45 p.m.
MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 15
15A That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to move, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, before attempting to give the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack one last run for his money, I should like to pay tribute to the way that he has handled the Bill from the very beginning. First, I should like to pay tribute to the exhaustive—and I should imagine that the noble and learned Lord would wish to add the word "exhausting"—process of consultation that he has undertaken. As one who has many times complained of inadequate consultation, it really is incumbent upon me to pay tribute to more than adequate consultation where we find it.
Secondly, I should like to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord's skill, good humour and, indeed, the patience of the blessed Job with which he has handled the business as it has gone through the House. If it should fall to anyone on this side of the House to bring in a major piece of legislation, I can think of no better model to follow for how it should be done. But, as the Bill went through its passage in both Houses, I have also come to the conclusion that the best Bill was the one which the noble and learned Lord first put before us. In relation to Part IV, I mean the part that went through the Jellicoe procedure last Session. I believe that that is a tribute to the noble and learned Lord's skill. My intention here is to restore the Bill to the state in which the noble and learned Lord first introduced it.
On all the other amendments that we have discussed tonight we have seen the extent of the noble and learned Lord's skill in producing consensus. When I say that the best Bill was the one that he first placed before us, I do not mean the Bill that I personally would have liked most. The job of a Bill on this subject is to secure the consent of as wide a group of people as possible. I believe that the noble and learned Lord got that right
1094
the first time and that the changes which have been introduced since then have diminished the range of consent. In particular, the Law Society's withdrawal of consent to the Bill was a hammer blow of which we must take considerable account.
When a piece of legislation of this sort is introduced, it must be necessary to hope that it will last for at least a generation. I believe that the Bill the noble and learned Lord first introduced met that criterion. The Bill as we have it now, after bitter battles in the course of its passage, falls short of meeting it.
The arguments on the matter are well rehearsed. Your Lordships may be relieved to hear that I shall not go through them at length; indeed, I believe that most of us know them. The noble Baroness, Lady Young—to whose conduct during the passage of the Bill I must also pay tribute—has always argued that one preserves marriage by making divorce more difficult. However, on the other hand, I have argued that by making divorce more difficult all one achieves is making break-up more painful. I do not think that we shall reach agreement. I believe that everyone knows where they stand in that respect. Therefore, I shall not pursue the matter further.
However, people tend to come out of marriage suffering from centrifugal force, very much in the way that certain people come out of a political party when they leave it. I believe that we risk having a large number of messy and disorderly separations where people are living with one person while married to another. Further, I think that we shall see a considerable fall in the number of couples who choose to go through the ceremony of marriage.
A decline in the number of couples who choose to go through the marriage ceremony may not dismay me as much as it may dismay some of your Lordships. But, if there are couples who wish to go through that ceremony, then, to deter them from so doing when they would wish to do so, would, on good liberal principles, be something that I mind very much indeed. I believe that that will be the effect of leaving the Bill in its current form. Therefore, if we are to gain consent, especially from younger people whose attitudes to such matters are changing steadily—and it is a change which we all must in one way or another accommodate—we would do better to put the Bill back to where it was when the noble and learned Lord first presented it to us. It is to put down a marker for that position that I have decided to place the amendment before your Lordships tonight.
Moved, That this House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15.—(Earl Russell.)
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I said, so far as I am concerned, the way that one makes progress on such an issue is by free votes and then by embracing the result of that vote in carrying it forward. Of course the noble Earl is perfectly entitled to say—as, indeed, he did earlier—that the same principle of a free vote applies here. However, in the circumstances in which we are placed, and taking into account the way that the matter has developed, I humbly suggest that your Lordships would be wise to embrace the decision which the other place has taken on a free vote.

1095
In relation to the previous amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, I said that, in practice, there is not likely to be such a tremendous difference as in theory might appear to be the case. The same is to some extent true in this case. If one has a situation where the parties are not in agreement so far as concerns divorce, it is likely that the making of arrangements between them will also take quite a considerable time. One of the features of this Bill to which I attach great importance is that, before divorce is granted, those arrangements must be made. Therefore, in practice—and it is the practical rather than the theoretical effect of the law that we should look at—I believe that the results would not be very different.
For my part, as I said, it is a free matter and your Lordships must deal with it on that basis. However, I personally suggest to your Lordships that it would be wise to accept the judgment of the other place and reject the Motion to disagree with Commons Amendment No. 15.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may reply briefly. I respect the arguments about the practical issues. However, I am not quite so impressed by the arguments about the other place. I believe that this place is free to take its own view on any matter. It is free to disagree with another place when it sees fit. I do not sense among your Lordships any great appetite tonight to take the matter further, though it is a matter to which we shall return in the next Parliament. It may return in a rather more laborious form than it would have done tonight. However, I sense the mood of the House and, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 15
15B Clause 7, in subsection (10), leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

"(a) the other party objects (whether or not because of deeply held religious beliefs)—

(i) to being divorced, or

(ii) to being divorced without time for further reflection,

and applies to the court before the end of such period as may be prescribed by rules of court for time for further reflection;

(b) the application under paragraph (a) states that objection; and".).

Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15B as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 15. I shall speak briefly on this matter. I have tabled this amendment because it is my understanding that a number of Members in another place wished to have this amendment but time did not allow it to be debated. I hope I am correct in saying that an understanding was given by the parliamentary Under-Secretary, my honourable friend Mr. Streeter, that the Government would look on this matter favourably.
As it is set out, this is quite a simple amendment. It signals to the court that an objection to a divorce is implicit in Amendment No. 15. However, my Amendments Nos. 15B and 15D allow this objection to
1096
be recorded on the divorce order. The party objecting to the divorce is free to decide whether or not the objection is recorded. This is not a matter which I would think of pressing to a Division. It is quite straightforward. I hope that my noble and learned friend will say that when he considers regulations under the Bill this point may be considered. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 15B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 15, be agreed to.—(Baroness Young.)
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this amendment was in the "free vote territory" in which the Government did not express a view. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary—the Lord Chancellor is different from others in that he has a Parliamentary Secretary rather than a Parliamentary Under-Secretary, as the Lord Chancellor is not himself a Secretary, at least not technically—Mr. Streeter, indicated that he would be prepared to support this amendment if it were moved, but it was never moved.
The precise form of this amendment is open to question. I do not think I need to delay your Lordships by discussion of that in view of the way my noble friend has presented the matter. The question of the form of orders and so on is a matter that may be within the competence of the relevant rule committee; that is, a body which would have authority to deal with matters of practice and procedure. I am willing to draw the attention of that body to the matter that my noble friend has raised and await the outcome of its deliberations on that. I hope that, with that indication of the way in which I would handle this matter, my noble friend may feel that the purpose of her amendment has been sufficiently served.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that practical suggestion. I think that is the way to proceed. As I am on my feet, I must apologise to him for describing the Parliamentary Secretary in another place incorrectly. I hope I have it right now and I trust I shall not make that mistake again. I am grateful for what my noble and learned friend has suggested. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 15B.
Amendment No. 15B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 15, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15C and 15D not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
16 Clause 8, page 5, line 17, after 'meeting', insert 'not less than three months'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have spoken to this with Amendment No. 13. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
17 Page 5, line 17, at end insert
'(2A) Different information meetings must be arranged with respect to different marriages.'
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17. With this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 21 to 26 inclusive.
I am pleased to present this group of amendments to the House. I recall some of the concerns which were expressed by some of your Lordships during the Bill's passage through this House, and I believe that this group of amendments addresses those concerns. In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, expressed concern about the privacy of information meetings. Amendment No. 17 provides for meetings to be held not as group meetings but with parties attending individually, although it is drafted in such a way as to allow both spouses to attend together or with a third party to accompany them if they so wish. The noble Baroness also expressed concern about the identification and qualification of information providers. I believe that Amendments Nos. 19, 21 and 23 satisfy this concern.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26 extend the list of matters set out in Clause 8 of the Bill, about which regulations must make provision for information to be given at the information meeting. The additional points are protection against domestic violence and how to obtain support and assistance, legal representation, and the principles of the legal aid scheme and how the parties can get advice about obtaining legal aid. I would emphasise that the list now contained within Clause 8 is not exhaustive. It is still intended to pilot the information meetings extensively, and to develop the exact format and content accordingly. Amendments Nos. 18 and 22 are simply drafting amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
18 Page 5, line 28, after 'purpose', insert '—(a)'.
19 Page 5, line 28, leave out 'the party or parties attending with relevant information' and insert ', in accordance with prescribed provisions, relevant information to the party or parties attending'.
20 Page 5, line 30, at end insert- '; and
(b) of giving the party or parties attending the information meeting the opportunity of having a meeting with a marriage counsellor and of encouraging that party or those parties to attend that meeting'.
21 Page 5, line 30, at end insert—
'( ) An information meeting must be conducted by a person who—

(a) is qualified and appointed in accordance with prescribed provisions; and

(b) will have no financial or other interest in any marital proceedings between the parties.'.

22 Page 5, line 35, leave out 'and'.
23 Page 5, line 38, at end insert—
'(d) for information of a prescribed kind to be given only with the approval of the Lord Chancellor or only by a person or by persons approved by him; and
(e) for information to be given, in prescribed circumstances, only with the approval of the Lord Chancellor or only by a person or by persons approved by him.'.
24 Page 6, line 2, at end insert—
'( ) protection available against violence, and how to obtain support and assistance;'.
25 Page 6, line 4, at end insert 'and representation'.
26 Page 6, line 4, at end insert—
'( ) the principles of legal aid and where the parties can get advice about obtaining legal aid;'.
27 Page 6, line 8, at end insert—
'( ) A meeting with a marriage counsellor arranged under this section—

(a) must be held in accordance with prescribed provisions; and

(b) must be with a person qualified and appointed in accordance with prescribed provisions.'.

28 Page 6, line 8, at end insert—
'( ) A person who would not be required to make any contribution towards mediation provided for him under Part IIIA of the Legal Aid Act 1988 shall not be required to make any contribution towards the cost of a meeting with a marriage counsellor arranged for him under this section.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 18 to 28 en bloc. I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 with Amendment No. 17; to Amendment No. 20 with Amendment No. 1; to Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 with Amendment No. 17; to Amendments Nos. 23, 24, 25 and 26 with Amendment No. 17; to Amendment No. 27 with Amendment No. 1; to Amendment No. 28 with Amendment No. 1; to Amendment No. 29 with Amendment No. 6; to Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 with Amendment No. 2 and to Amendment No. 32 with Amendment No.8.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 18 to 28. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
29 Clause 9, page 6, line 42, leave out from 'section' to 'must' in line 44 and insert '(Welfare of children)'.
30 Page 7, line 6, leave out 'or'.
31 Page 7, line 7, at end insert', or
(d) those set out in paragraph 3A of that Schedule,'.
32 Page 7, line 9, at end insert—
'(8) If the parties' arrangements for the future include a division of pension assets or rights under section 25B of the 1973 Act or section 10 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985, any declaration under subsection (2) must be a statutory declaration.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 29 to 32 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 29 to 32.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am asked at the next convenient break in Business—what more convenient break can there be than this?—to make the following announcement: in the second Division, on the Security Service Bill, the figure for the Not-Contents was announced as 107. This figure should have been 109.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
33 Clause 10, page 7, line 31, leave out from 'if' to 'after' in line 32 and insert 'an application is made under section 3 or 4(3)'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 33.
This amendment simply rectifies an earlier omission in the Bill. Under Clause 10(4), after cancellation of an order preventing divorce, a divorce order can be made if an application is made under Clause 3 or Clause 4(3) of the Bill. The provision had previously failed to refer to the possibility of an application for a divorce order being made under Section 4(3), hence this amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 33.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
34 After Clause 10, insert the following new clause—
WELFARE OF CHILDREN
'.—(1) In any proceedings for a divorce order or a separation order, the court shall consider—

(a) whether there are any children of the family to whom this section applies; and

(b) where there are any such children, whether (in the light of the arrangements which have been, or are proposed to be, made for their upbringing and welfare) it should exercise any of its powers under the Children Act 1989 with respect to any of them.

(2) Where, in any case to which this section applies, it appears to the court that—

(a) the circumstances of the case require it, or are likely to require it, to exercise any of its powers under the Children Act 1989 with respect to any such child;

(b) it is not in a position to exercise the power, or (as the case may be) those powers, without giving further consideration to the case; and

(c) there are exceptional circumstances which make it desirable in the interests of the child that the court should give a direction under this section,

it may direct that the divorce order or separation order is not to be made until the court orders otherwise.
(3) In deciding whether the circumstances are as mentioned in subsection (2)(a), the court shall treat the welfare of the child as paramount.
(4) In making that decision, the court shall also have particular regard, on the evidence before it, to—
1100

(a) the wishes and feelings of the child considered in the light of his age and understanding and the circumstances in which those wishes were expressed;

(b) the conduct of the parties in relation to the upbringing of the child;

(c) the general principle that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the welfare of the child will be best served by—

(i) his having regular contact with those who have parental responsibility for him and with other members of his family; and

(ii) the maintenance of as good a continuing relationship with his parents as is possible; and

(d) any risk to the child attributable to—

(i) where the person with whom the child will reside is living or proposes to live;

(ii) any person with whom that person is living or with whom he proposes to live; or

(iii) any other arrangements for his care and upbringing.

(5) This section applies to—

(a) any child of the family who has not reached the age of sixteen at the date when the court considers the case in accordance with the requirements of this section; and

(b) any child of the family who has reached that age at that date and in relation to whom the court directs that this section shall apply.'.

35 After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
DIVISION OF PENSION RIGHTS
'.—(1) The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 25B (benefits under a pension scheme on divorce, etc.), in subsection (2), after paragraph (b), by inserting—
"(c) in particular, where the court determines to make such an order, whether the order should provide for the accrued rights of the party with pension rights ("the pension rights") to be divided between that party and the other party in such a way as to reduce the pension rights of the party with those rights and to create pension rights for the other party.".
(3) After subsection (7) of that section, by adding—
"(8) If a pensions adjustment order under subsection (2)(c) above is made, the pension rights shall be reduced and pension rights of the other party shall be created in the prescribed manner with benefits payable on prescribed conditions, except that the court shall not have the power—

(a) to require the trustees or managers of the scheme to provide benefits under their own scheme if they are able and willing to create the rights for the other party by making a transfer payment to another scheme and the trustees and managers of that other scheme are able and willing to accept such a payment and to create those rights; or

(b) to require the trustees or managers of the scheme to make a transfer to another scheme—

(i) if the scheme is an unfunded scheme (unless the trustees or managers are able and willing to make such a transfer payment); or

(ii) in prescribed circumstances.

(9) No pensions adjustment order may be made under subsection (2)(c) above—

(a) if the scheme is a scheme of a prescribed type, or

(b) in prescribed circumstances, or

1101

(c) insofar as it would affect benefits of a prescribed type.".

(4) In section 25D (pensions: supplementary), by inserting—
(a) in subsection (2) —

(i) at the end of paragraph (a), the words "or prescribe the rights of the other party under the pension scheme,"; and

(ii) after paragraph (a), the following paragraph—

"(aa) make such consequential modifications of any enactment or subordinate legislation as appear to the Lord Chancellor necessary or expedient to give effect to the provisions of section 25B; and an order under this paragraph may make provision applying generally in relation to enactments and subordinate legislation of a description specified in the order,";
(b) in subsection (4), in the appropriate place in alphabetical order, the following entries—
"funded scheme' means a scheme under which the benefits are provided for by setting aside resources related to the value of the members' rights as they accrue (and 'unfunded scheme' shall be construed accordingly);
'subordinate legislation' has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 1978;"; and.
(c) after subsection (4), the following subsection—
"(4A) Other expressions used in section 25B above shall be construed in accordance with section 124 (interpretation of Part I) of the Pensions Act 1995.".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 en bloc. I have spoken to Amendment No. 34 with Amendment No. 6 and to Amendment No. 35 with Amendment No. 8. I have spoken to Amendment No. 36 with Amendment No. 8.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34 and 35.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
36 Clause 15, page 10, leave out lines 12 to 29.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 36.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 36.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
37 Clause 18, page 12, line 9, leave out from 'time' to end of line 10 and insert 'when no application by reference to the statement, either for a divorce order or for a separation order, is outstanding.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37. Together with this amendment, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 38 and 39. Amendment No. 37 clarifies the fact that marital
1102
proceedings are to be treated as being both divorce and separation proceedings unless there is an application pending for a particular order, in which case proceedings will be treated as either divorce or separation proceedings depending upon the type of order applied for. Therefore, in a situation where a party had applied for either a divorce or separation order, and the application had then been withdrawn, the proceedings would revert to being proceedings of both types until a further application was made.
Amendment No. 39 makes it clear that marital proceedings come to an end once the lapse period has passed, only when there are no applications outstanding at that time, or after any such outstanding applications are withdrawn.
Amendment No. 38 is a minor amendment, consequential upon the amendment made in the other place, which introduced the possibility of applying for an extension to the period for reflection and consideration. Clause 4 now refers to two types of application: that for an extension and that for conversion of the separation order and it is necessary therefore to identify the appropriate type of application being referred to in this clause. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
9 p.m.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
38 Clause 18, page 12, line 12, after '4', insert '(3)'.
39 Page 12, leave out lines 18 to 20 and insert—
'( ) at the end of the specified period mentioned in section 5(3)(b), if no application under section 3 by reference to the statement is outstanding;
( ) on the withdrawal of all such applications which are outstanding at the end of that period;
( ) on the withdrawal of an application under section 4(3).'
40 Clause 20, page 12, line 34, at end insert—
'(3) In exercising his power to make grants in connection with the provision of marriage support services, the Lord Chancellor is to have regard, in particular, to the desirability of services of that kind being available when they are first needed.'.
41 After Clause 20, insert the following new clause—
PROVISION OF MARRIAGE COUNSELLING
'.—(1) The Lord Chancellor or a person appointed by him may secure the provision, in accordance with regulations made by the Lord Chancellor, of marriage counselling.
(2) Marriage counselling may only be provided under this section at a time when a period for reflection and consideration—

(a) is running in relation to the marriage; or

(b) is interrupted under section 7(8) (but not for a continuous period of more than 18 months).

(3) Marriage counselling may only be provided under this section for persons who would not be required to make any contribution towards the cost of mediation provided for them under Part IIIA of the Legal Aid Act 1988.
(4) Persons for whom marriage counselling is provided under this section are not to be required to make any contribution towards the cost of the counselling.

1103
(5) Marriage counselling is only to be provided under this section if it appears to the marriage counsellor to be suitable in all the circumstances.
(6) Regulations under subsection (1) may—

(a) make provision about the way in which marriage counselling is to be provided; and

(b) prescribe circumstances in which the provision of marriage counselling is to be subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor.

(7) A contract entered into for the purposes of subsection (1) by a person appointed under that subsection must include such provision as the Lord Chancellor may direct.
(8) If the person appointed under subsection (1) is the Legal Aid Board, the powers conferred on the Board by or under the Legal Aid Act 1988 shall be exercisable for the purposes of this section as they are exercisable for the purposes of that Act.
(9) In section 15 of the Legal Aid Act 1988 (availability of, and payment for, representation under Part IV of the Act), after subsection (3H) insert—
"(3I) A person may be refused representation for the purposes of any proceedings if—

(a) the proceedings are marital proceedings within the meaning of Part II of the Family Law Act 1996; and

(b) he is being provided with marriage counselling under section (Provision of marriage counseling) of that Act in relation to the marriage."'.

42 Clause 21, page 13, line 1, at end insert—
""non-molestation order" has the meaning given by section 39(1);
"occupation order" has the meaning given by section 36;'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 38 to 42. I spoke to Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 with Amendment No. 37, I spoke to Amendment No. 40 with Amendment No. 1 and I spoke to Amendment No. 42 with Amendment No. 2. With your Lordships' leave, I shall move them en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 38 to 42.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
43 Clause 24, page 15, line 13, leave out from beginning to 'the' in line 17 and insert—
'(6) Any contract entered into by the Board for the provision of mediation under this Part must require the mediator to comply with a code of practice.
(6A) The code must require'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 43. With that amendment, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 44 to 47 inclusive.
Amendments Nos. 43 to 46 amend Clause 24 and provide a number of important safeguards and a strengthening of the provisions in relation to the provision of publicly funded mediation. In particular they stress: the voluntary nature of mediation; that where parties are influenced by fear of violence or harm, the mediator should be in a position to identify this at
1104
an early stage and mediation should not continue; that mediators should encourage the parties to consider whether their children should have an opportunity to express their views during mediation regarding their own wishes and feelings.
These are in addition to the requirements that mediators must have arrangements in place to ensure that the possibility of reconciliation is kept alive throughout mediation and to keep the parties informed about the availability of independent legal advice.
Amendment No. 47 provides for the removal of the presumption in favour of mediation. The Government still believe that it is vital to the successful introduction of mediation into the divorce process that parties are required to attend a meeting with a mediator before they can receive legally aided representation in order to be in a better position to make an informed choice. Amendment No. 54 provides for this. This meeting will allow the mediator to help the client decide whether the case and they are suitable for mediation. This will take into account the willingness of the parties to participate in the process by virtue of the provisions of Clause 24. It is also so that the mediator may ensure so far as possible that mediation does not take place if the parties are fearful of violence or harm. Experience indicates that where parties are offered a choice between an old established service and a new service, the old service will generally be favoured, and that is because of the view, "better the devil you know". Meetings with mediators will allow parties to make an informed decision on the basis of the facts, and in the process learn of the considerable benefits of mediation for the parties and the children.
During the Bill's earlier stages a number of your Lordships expressed concern that appropriate protection be afforded to victims of domestic violence in the mediation process. Concern was also expressed that Clause 26 would result in parties being forced into mediation. In particular I recall concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, the noble Earl, Lord Russell and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I believe that the amendments address these concerns by providing the necessary protection for vulnerable parties and those for whom mediation is not suitable while also safeguarding public funds from the expense of unnecessary litigation, and demonstrating the Government's commitment to the development of mediation in family matters in this country.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 43. — (The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for recalling that in our consideration of the Bill in your Lordships' House I, along with other noble Lords, expressed serious concern that the effect of Clause 26 might be to force parties into mediation so that mediation would not be truly voluntary. I therefore welcome these amendments because they emphasise the voluntary nature of mediation. Thus, Amendment No. 47 substitutes a new Clause 26 with the effect of removing the former presumption in favour of mediation.

1105
I should make plain that my concern did not arise out of any hostility to mediation. Quite the contrary. It was born out of a concern that for mediation to be fair and to succeed it should be truly voluntary. I have no objection to Amendment No. 54 which provides that attendance at a meeting with a mediator is in effect a precondition of the grant of legally-aided representation. As the noble and learned Lord said, the parties should be free to make an informed choice between mediation and the courts; that requires such a meeting. I hope that in a large number of cases they will prefer mediation. But what is important is that where mediation has been found to be unsuitable in a particular case, the Legal Aid Board is not entitled to take account of the existence of mediation in deciding whether to grant applications for court representation.
I also welcome the amendments which are designed to ensure greater professionalisation in mediation, just as I have welcomed the amendments which we have already discussed which should lead to greater professionalism in the information meetings.
In pinning so much faith on mediation, we must appreciate that we are entering substantially uncharted seas. Amendments Nos. 43 to 46, which provide that contracts made between the Legal Aid Board with mediators must require mediators to comply with a code of practice, are particularly welcome. They enhance the quality of publicly funded mediation. For those reasons, we support the amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
44 Clause 24, page 15, line 18, at end insert—
'( ) that parties participate in mediation only if willing and not influenced by fear of violence or other harm;
( ) that cases where either party may be influenced by fear of violence or other harm are identified as soon as possible;'.
45 Page 15, line 21, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 23.
46 Page 15, line 25, leave out 'and' and insert—
'(6B) Where there are one or more children of the family, the code must also require the mediator to have arrangements designed to ensure that the parties are encouraged to consider—

(a) the welfare, wishes and feelings of each child; and

(b) whether and to what extent each child should be given the opportunity to express his or her wishes and feelings in the mediation.

(6C) A contract entered into by the Board for the provision of mediation under this Part must also include'.
47 Clause 26, page 17, leave out lines 21 to 28 and insert—
"'(3F) A person shall not be granted representation for the purposes of proceedings relating to family matters, unless he has attended a meeting with a mediator—
1106

(a) to determine—

(i) whether mediation appears suitable to the dispute and the parties and all the circumstances, and

(ii) in particular, whether mediation could take place without either party being influenced by fear of violence or other harm; and

(b) if mediation does appear suitable, to help the person applying for representation to decide whether instead to apply for mediation.

(3G) Subsection (3F) does not apply—

(a) in relation to proceedings under—

(i) Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996;

(ii) section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973;

(iii) Part IV or V of the Children Act 1989;

(b) in relation to proceedings of any other description that may be prescribed; or

(c) in such circumstances as may be prescribed.

(3H) So far as proceedings relate to family matters, the Board, in determining under subsection (3)(a) whether, in relation to the proceedings, it is reasonable that a person should be granted representation under this Part—

(a) must have regard to whether and to what extent recourse to mediation would be a suitable alternative to taking the proceedings; and

(b) must for that purpose have regard to the outcome of the meeting held under subsection (3F) and to any assessment made for the purposes of section 13B(3)."'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 44 to 47. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 43.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 44 to 47.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
48 Clause 33, page 25, line 38, leave out '(e)' and insert '(d)'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 48. With this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 49 to 52.
This group of amendments relates to Part IV of the Bill which deals with occupation of the family home and protection against domestic violence. The practical situation which Clause 38 was intended to address was the kind of case where a cohabitant without any right to occupy the home of his or her partner or former partner seeks to obtain an occupation order against the partner with the right to occupy. A graphic example of this would be where a girlfriend of a few months sought to obtain the right to occupy her boyfriend's home, over which she had no pre-existing right to occupy.
This situation is covered by Clause 33. In Clause 33(6) the court is required, in considering whether to make such an order, to consider all the circumstances, and nine specific circumstances are then mentioned. One of these—Clause 33(6)(e)is,
"the nature of the parties' relationship".

1107
and it is at this point in particular that the court should be required to take into account the fact that cohabitants or former cohabitants have not seen fit to make the same degree of commitment involved in marriage. Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 seek to focus the impact of Clause 38 on this element of the court's deliberations—in other words, making clear that Clause 38 is somewhat of an elaboration on what is already provided for in Clause 33(6)(e).
The Government hope that, where an applicant who is a cohabitant or former cohabitant without pre-existing property rights seeks an occupation order against his or her partner, the courts in practice will have regard to the fact that cohabitants have not made the same commitment as the parties to a marriage as directed by Clause 38 as amended. However, the courts will also wish to distinguish between a short-lived relationship between cohabitants and a stable and long-term relationship where a couple have lived as man and wife for a number of years. These amendments are intended to clarify this by focusing the impact of Clause 38 on the court's consideration of the nature of the parties' relationship under Clause 33(6)(e). The length of time the couple lived as man and wife is a separate consideration for the courts to which they must have regard at Clause 33(6)(f).
Amendments Nos. 48 and 51 are drafting amendments.
Turning to Amendment No. 52, the proposal to grant the police powers to obtain civil remedies on behalf of those suffering under the threat of domestic violence has its origin in the Law Commission report of 1992. However, the Home Affairs Select Committee's inquiry into domestic violence in 1993 rejected the proposal, as did the Special Public Bill Committee of your Lordships' House on the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill.
There was, and remains, concern that the police have neither the resources nor the expertise to take on this role. Interest groups were also divided on the issue, some fearing the further disempowerment of women already trapped in situations over which they had little control.
In the light of these considerations, I decided not to include such a provision in the Bill. Whatever the pros and cons of the third party approach to tackling domestic violence, it is clear that we are not yet in a position where it would be wise to embark immediately on this course.
The Government readily accept, however, that knowledge and experience in this area is growing all the time and that, for example, police domestic violence units are now much more developed and expert in this field than they once were. At this point it would be appropriate for me to pay tribute to their efforts. This is a very important matter, and it has developed well over the years. The co-ordination of local services is also improving.
There is still some way to go, all will admit. And the Government remain of the view that there may need to be a good deal more thought, discussion and research before any rules are made under this new clause.
1108
However, the new clause is purely permissive and is drawn widely. For example, it does not prescribe that it is the police who shall act as the representatives; there may be others who could more appropriately do so in consultation with the police. It also makes provision in a very special and appropriate way for the piloting of any rules made. The provision enabling piloting to take place is a quite unusual but very useful one.
It may well be that a measure of agreement will emerge amongst those concerned with the prevention of domestic violence as to the need for the provision of third party action in the way envisaged by the new clause, and for suitable pilot schemes to be devised. It would not seem sensible then to have to await a further legislative opportunity in order to provide for this rule-making power. I am grateful for the suggestion of this particular clause. As I have said, it has many advantages. It came from the Opposition Front Bench in the other place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 48.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I wish to say only a few words about the great importance we attach to Amendment No. 52. It enables rules of court to be made authorising representatives to act on behalf of another in domestic violence proceedings. For example, the police could be authorised to seek occupation orders or non-molestation orders on behalf of those entitled to do so themselves. As the noble and learned Lord was good enough to observe, this provision arose out of a new clause tabled by the Opposition at Report stage in the Commons, the principle of which was accepted by the Government. It is the Government's redraft, however, that constitutes this amendment, which we are happy to accept.
I accept that a good deal more thought and consultation will be needed before these rules can be framed. I welcome and agree with the Government's acknowledgement that thinking on this subject is moving ahead and that police domestic violence units are now much more developed than they were. In my reference to the police I should not be taken to exclude any persons other than the police from acting as representatives in these cases. As the noble and learned Lord indicated, there may be others who could more appropriately do so, perhaps in consultation with the police. I hope that consultation with the police and other interested bodies can proceed with all speed towards the drafting of rules and the introduction of pilot schemes.
I believe such consultation to be pressing and urgent. We are addressing the possibility of third parties taking action in the courts on behalf of victims of domestic violence rather than leaving it to a terrified spouse to face the awful dilemma of deciding whether to seek respite from domestic violence, invoking the wrath of the abusing partner, or to stay silent and put up with continuing assault. In most cases the third party who would take that action would be the police, but that need not always be the case. The probation service, the local authority, social services and other welfare organisations may have a part to play.

1109
The progress of the Bill through your Lordships' House and another place was highlighted by an appreciation of the widespread and appalling nature of violence in the home. It cuts across class, age and ethnic groups. It simply cannot be tolerated in a society calling itself civilised. It is estimated that upwards of 750,000 children are affected by domestic violence. That is one reason why we were so horrified by the hijacking of the original Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill in the other place for no sensible reason. What is the prospect for children who are victims of domestic violence in regard to parenting of their children? What role model will they follow with their own children?
There are women who are all too often even murdered by the their husbands. That necessarily means children who have lost their mother, and those children will also suffer while their father spends long years in prison. Any measure that enables the courts to come to grips with the problem before it gets out of hand, to warn the assaulting party that such conduct will simply not be tolerated, will reap a very rich harvest and save public cost as well as protecting the vulnerable.
I emphasise that consultation on developing the rules envisaged by Amendment No. 52 is an urgent necessity and we will desire to monitor progress closely.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is right that we should have regard to the developments mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in considering the extent to which this clause could be put into operation. It will be useful in dealing with this very important, distressing and difficult situation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
49 Clause 38, page 29, line 3, leave out from beginning to 'have', in line 5, and insert—
'(2) Where the court is required to consider the nature of the parties' relationship, it is to have regard to the fact that they'.
50 Page 29, leave out line 7.
51 Clause 45, page 33, line 5, leave out from 'issued' to end and insert 'on an application made under section 44(8)'.
52 After Clause 56, insert the following new clause—
PROVISION FOR THIRD PARTIES TO ACT ON BEHALF OF VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
'.—(1) Rules of court may provide for a prescribed person, or any person in a prescribed category, ("a representative") to act on behalf of another in relation to proceedings to which this Part applies.
(2) Rules made under this section may, in particular, authorise a representative to apply for an occupation order or for a non-molestation order for which the person on whose behalf the representative is acting could have applied.
(3) Rules made under this section may prescribe—

(a) conditions to be satisfied before a representative may make an application to the court on behalf of another; and

(b) considerations to be taken into account by the court in determining whether, and if so how, to exercise any of its powers under this Part when a representative is acting on behalf of another.

1110
(4) Any rules made under this section may be made so as to have effect for a specified period and may make consequential or transitional provision with respect to the expiry of the specified period.
(5) Any such rules may be replaced by further rules made under this section.'.
53 Before Clause 60, insert the following new clause—
PROVISION FOR SEPARATE REPRESENTATION FOR CHILDREN
4.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations provide for the separate representation of children in proceedings in England and Wales which relate to any matter in respect of which a question has arisen, or may arise, under—

(a) Part II;

(b) Part IV;

(c) the 1973 Act; or

(d) the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978.

(2) The regulations may provide for such representation only in specified circumstances.'.
54 Clause 60, page 41, line 3, at end insert—
'( ) This section does not apply to rules of court made, or any power to make rules of court, for the purposes of this Act.'.
55 Clause 62, page 41, line 15, after `that' insert 4—
(a)".
56 Page 41, line 17, leave out 'and'.
57 Page 41, line 19, at end insert '; and
(iii) the amendments of the Maintenance Orders Act 1950, the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, the Finance Act 1985 and sections 42 and 51 of the Family Law Act 1986 extend also to both Northern Ireland and Scotland; and
(b) in Schedule 10, the repeal of section 2(1)(b) of the Domestic and Appellate Proceedings (Restriction of Publicity) Act 1968 extends also to Scotland.'.
58 Page 41, leave out lines 20 to 23.
59 Schedule 1, page 42, line 6, leave out '41 of the 1973 Act' and insert '(Welfare of children)'.
60 Page 42, line 21, leave out '41 of the 1973 Act' and insert '(Welfare of children)'.
61 Page 42, line 39, leave out '41 of the 1973 Act' and insert '(Welfare of children)'.
62 Page 42, line 42, at end insert—
`The fourth exemption
3A. The circumstances referred to in section 9(7)(d) are that—

(a) the requirements of section (Welfare of children) have been satisfied;

(b) an occupation order or a non-molestation order is in force in favour of the applicant or a child of the family, made against the other party;

(c) the applicant has, during the period for reflection and consideration, taken such steps as are reasonably practicable to try to reach agreement about the parties' financial arrangements;

(d) the applicant has not been able to reach agreement with the other party about those arrangements and is unlikely to be able to do so in the foreseeable future; and

(e) a delay in making the order applied for under section 3—

1111

(i) would be significantly detrimental to the welfare of any child of the family; or

(ii) would be seriously prejudicial to the applicant.'.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 49 to 62 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 49 to 62.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
63 Schedule 1, page 43, line 17, leave out `(2)'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in Amendment No. 63. I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 64 to 66.
Amendment No. 63 extends the application of paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 so that it covers Clause 9(3) in addition to Clause 9(2). Paragraph 7 sets out the nature of declarations made under Clause 9 and there is no reason why these requirements should not apply equally to Clause 9(3).
Because of the extension of this application, Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 ensure flexibility to prescribe the particular circumstances in which requirements must be met under this section.
Amendment No. 66 was made to ensure that no one is able to challenge the validity of a divorce order simply on the grounds that information contained within the declaration made under Clause 9 is incorrect.
The amendment addresses a concern put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, in an amendment at Report stage in this House, when he sought to clarify whether the Government intended that false declarations would invalidate any subsequent divorce order.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 63—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Meston: My Lords, I wish to raise a question in regard to Amendment No. 66. Having spent probably too long over the years looking at suspect divorces, I have always had a concern about the potential misuse of Clause 9(2)(d) of the Bill which provides that one of the parties may declare that,
"he has no significant assets and does not intend to make an application for financial provision [and] believes that the other party has no significant assets and does not intend to make an application for financial provision".
It has always struck me that there is potential for misuse and misrepresentation in that clause. I have taken some comfort from the fact that the Bill properly preserves a role for the Queen's Proctor. However, Amendment No. 66 provides that,
"The validity of a divorce order … is not to be affected by any inaccuracy in the declaration".
That raises in my mind a question as to what degree of inaccuracy there must be for the divorce process to be wholly undermined. For example, if a party who ought
1112
to disclose substantial assets declares inaccurately that he has none, and moreover he ought to declare that the other party intends to make an application, but declares the opposite, why should such an inaccurate declaration not affect the validity of the divorce?
One can see that there may be situations in which the inaccuracy is trivial or innocent, though it is difficult to see, in the context of Clause 9(2)(d), how an inaccuracy could be other than substantial. It would mean that there were significant assets on one side or the other and that there was in fact an intention to make an application on the part of the other spouse. That is the only possible type of inaccuracy that could arise under that clause. It further begs the question therefore: what effect, if any, does an inaccuracy have if it is not trivial or innocent, but is a complete misrepresentation by the party making the declaration who is trying to hoodwink the court and the other party?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the intention is that these declarations should be statutory declarations and therefore any falsity contained in them will carry sanctions under the Statutory Declarations Act. In relation to the consequences of a false declaration, other remedies are available.
The point of this amendment is that it should not affect the validity of the divorce order itself. One can see that once a divorce order is granted rights may accrue as a result of that which may be awkward. That is why we made that provision.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
64 Schedule 1, page 43, line 19, after 'must' insert ', in prescribed cases,'.
65 Page 43, line 20, after 'must' insert `, in prescribed cases,'.
66 Page 43, line 20, at end insert—
'( ) The validity of a divorce order or separation order made by reference to such a declaration is not to be affected by any inaccuracy in the declaration.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 64, 65 and 66 en bloc. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 63.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 64, 65 and 66.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
67 Schedule 2, page 45, leave out lines 7 to 10.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 67. In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 68 to 77, 79 to 82, 93 and 94, 96 to 102 and 105 to 107 inclusive. This group of amendments relates to financial provision on divorce. Amendments Nos. 67 to 69, 72 to 77, 79 to 82, 94, 101, 105 to 107 are of a technical drafting nature and effect no policy change.

1113
Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 give the court power to make orders for interim lump sum payments on nullity. During the Report stage in this House the Government tabled amendments giving the court a statutory power to make interim lump sum orders in favour of a party to the marriage and a child of the family when an application for a financial provision order under the new Section 22A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 on divorce and separation is made. The Government had it in mind to give the court similar powers in relation to nullity in this House but were concerned not to come forward with amendments on nullity which would risk being beyond the scope of the Bill. I was delighted to see that the amendments were made in the other place and that they did not go beyond the scope of the Bill.
Amendment No. 93 was moved by the Government at the Committee stage of the Bill in the other place. It emphasises that it is conduct of whatever nature which it would be inequitable to disregard which is to be taken into account when the court is considering financial provision on divorce. The amendment also clarifies that the conduct to be taken into account is conduct whether it occurred during the marriage or after the separation of the parties or (as the case may be) dissolution or annulment of the marriage. The amendment does not make any significant change to the existing law. The role of conduct in ancillary relief proceedings has not changed and there is therefore no question, as has been suggested in some quarters, of conduct being introduced through the "backdoor".
The purpose of the amendment is to emphasise what the law is at present on this aspect because it was misrepresented or, at least, some people were under the impression that only particular types of financial conduct, for example, were relevant in this connection. It is right that we should make it clear on the face of the Bill what is the present law on this matter in order to avoid misrepresentation.
The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, tabled amendments to Section 25(2)(g) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 during the passage of the Bill through this House. I was unable to accept those amendments as they sought substantially to increase the role of conduct in ancillary relief proceedings, and the advice of my Ancillary Relief Advisory Group on that matter was that the role of conduct should not be increased. During the passage of the Bill in the other place, concern was expressed by my then Parliamentary Secretary that in practice there was a perception that it is only conduct of a financial nature to which the court is to have regard. I am pleased to say that the Government moved this amendment to clarify the position, as I have sought to explain. My Ancillary Relief Advisory Group is content that the amendment does not increase the role of conduct in this matter.
Amendment No. 96 was moved by the Government in the other place and extends the court's powers to make orders between parties to a marriage where one spouse has failed to provide reasonable maintenance to the other or to a child of the family (subject to the Child Support Act 1991) by giving the court a statutory power to make interim lump sum orders by way of
1114
maintenance. This extension strengthens the remedies available for financial relief during marriage and may be particularly useful to a spouse who has attended an information session during the three months from this time to the time when a statement of marital breakdown is received by the court.
Amendments Nos. 97 and 102 are consequential to the alternations to Section 27 of the 1973 Act in Schedule 8.
Amendments Nos. 98, 99 and 100 were also moved by the Government in the other place and give the court power to vary all types of property adjustment orders made before a divorce order or separation order is made and also lump sum orders made before this time. It should only be possible to apply for this power of variation to be exercised before the divorce or separation order is made and before the order takes effect. The amendment was moved to alleviate concern that the final nature of these orders may prevent reconciliation between the parties. The amendment was in addition to the powers of variation on reconciliation which were already included in the Schedule 2 to the Bill.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 67.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
68 Schedule 2, page 46, line 14, leave out from 'consideration' to end of line 15 and insert 'is interrupted under section 7(8) of the 1996 Act.'.
69 Page 46, line 30, at end insert—
'(5) In this section, "period for reflection and consideration" means the period fixed by section 7 of the 1996 Act." '.
70 Page 46, line 42, after 'order', insert 'an interim order for the payment of a lump sum,'.
71 Page 46, line 44, after 'order', insert 'an interim order for the payment of a lump sum'.
72 Page 48, line 45, leave out from 'consideration' to end of line 46 and insert 'is interrupted under section 7(8) of the 1996 Act.'.
73 Page 49, line 7, leave out '22A' and insert '23A'.
74 Page 49, line 12, at end insert—
'(5) In this section, "period for reflection and consideration" means the period fixed by section 7 of the 1996 Act." '.
75 Page 49, line 40, after '(b)' insert 'above, unless sub-paragraph (ia) below applies,'.
76 Page 49, line 41, at end insert—
'(ia) where the order is made by virtue of section 22A(2)(b) above and the application for the divorce order was made following cancellation of an order preventing divorce under section 10 of the 1996 Act, than the date of the making of that application;'.
77 Page 49, line 42, leave out 'or (d)' and insert 'above'.
78 Page 50, line 3, leave out 'an order of divorce' and insert 'a divorce order'.
79 Page 50, line 12, after 'above' insert ', except where paragraph (aa) below applies,'.
80 Page 50, line 13, at end insert—
'(aa) in the case of an order made by virtue of section

1115
22A(2)(b) above where the application for the divorce order was made following cancellation of an order preventing divorce under section 10 of the 1996 Act, the date of the making of that application;'.
81 Page 50, line 14, leave out 'such'.
82 Page 50, line 14, leave out 'or (d)'.
83 Schedule 3, page 51, line 37, after 'means' insert '—
(a)".
84 Page 51, line 38, at end insert 'or
(b) if the proceedings are for the conversion of a separation order into a divorce order under section 4 of the Family Law Act 1996, the statement of marital breakdown by reference to which the separation order was made.'.
85 Schedule 8, page 66, line 37, leave out from 'In' to 'section'.
86 Page 66, line 38, after 'applies)' insert '—
(a) in subsection (2)(a)(i),'.
87 Page 66, line 39, leave out 'and'.
88 Page 66, line 39, at end insert'; and
(b) in subsection (2)(c)(v), after "Matrimonial Causes Act 1973" insert "(as that Act had effect immediately before the passing of the Family Law Act 1996)".'.
89 Page 67, leave out lines 4 to 13.
90 Page 67, line 46, at end insert—
'Proceedings after decree nisi: general powers of court.
15B. —(1) Where a decree of nullity of marriage has been granted under this Act but not made absolute, then, without prejudice to section 15A above, any person (excluding a party to the proceedings other than the Queen's Proctor) may show cause why the decree should not be made absolute by reason of material facts not having been brought before the court; and in such a case the court may—

(a) notwithstanding anything in section 15 above (but subject to section 41 below) make the decree absolute; or

(b) rescind the decree; or

(c) require further inquiry; or

(d) otherwise deal with the case as it thinks fit.

(2) Where a decree of nullity of marriage has been granted under this Act and no application for it to be made absolute has been made by the party to whom it was granted, then, at any time after the expiration of three months from the earliest date on which that party could have made such an application, the party against whom it was granted may make an application to the court, and on that application the court may exercise any of the powers mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1) above.'.
91 Page 67, line 47, after 'divorce' insert `to'.
92 Page 67, line 48, leave out from '19)' to end of line 6 on page 68 and insert'—

(a) for "1(5), 8 and 9" substitute "15, 15A and 15B"; and

(b) for "divorce" in both places substitute "nullity of marriage".'.

93 Page 68, line 16, after '23A":' insert—
'( ) in paragraph (g), after "parties" insert ", whatever the nature of the conduct and whether it occurred during the marriage or after the separation of the parties or (as the case may be) dissolution or annulment of the marriage,";'.
94 Page 69, line 6, at end insert 'and, if the first party has already applied to the court for the making of such an order, it may dismiss the application.'.
95 Page 69, line 14, after '25C(1) and (3)', insert 'and'.
1116
96 Page 69, line 21, leave out from beginning to 'substitute' in line 22 and insert—
'—(1) Section 27 (financial provision orders etc. in case of failure to provide proper maintenance) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (5) —
(a) after "an order requiring the respondent" insert "—
(a)"; and.
(b) at the end insert ", or
(b) to pay to the applicant such lump sum or sums as the court thinks reasonable."
(3) For subsection (6)'.
97 age 69, line 27, at end insert—
'(4) In subsection (7), for "(6)(c) or (f)" substitute "(6)".
98 age 70, line 13, at end insert—
'( ) after paragraph (dd) insert—
"(de) any other order for the payment of a lump sum, if it is made at a time when no divorce order has been made, and no separation order is in force, in relation to the marriage;";'.
99 age 70, line 17, at end insert—
'(ea) any order under section 23A which is made at a time when no divorce order has been made, and no separation order is in force, in relation to the marriage;".'.
100 Page 70, line 24, after '(4A)' insert—
'In relation to an order which falls within subsection (2)(de) or (ea) above ("the subsection (2) order")—

(a) the powers conferred by this section may be exercised—

(i) only on an application made before the subsection (2) order has or, but for paragraph (b) below, would have taken effect; and

(ii) only if, at the time when the application is made, no divorce order has been made in relation to the marriage and no separation order has been so made since the subsection (2) order was made; and

(b) an application made in accordance with paragraph (a) above prevents the subsection (2) order from taking effect before the application has been dealt with.

(4B) '.
101 Page 71, line 23, leave out '(9) and (10)' and insert '(7) and (8)'.
102 Page 71, line 40, at end insert ', so far as it requires the making of periodical payments."'.
103 Page 72, leave out lines 9 to 28.
104 Page 72, line 31, leave out 'Family Law Act 1996' and insert '1996 Act'.
105 Page 73, line 4, after '22A', insert 'or 23'.
106 Page 75, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert—
"'(a) section 22A(5) (provisions about lump sums in relation to divorce or separation);
(aa) section 23(4), (5) and (6) (provisions about lump sums in relation to annulment);".'.
107 Page 75, line 17, leave out from 'etc.)' to end of line 27 and insert '—
(a) after paragraph (b), insert—
"(bb) is executed in pursuance of an order of a court which is made at any time under section 22A, 23A or 24A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, or"; and.
(b) in paragraph (c), for "or their judicial separation" substitute ", their judicial separation or the making of a separation order in respect of them".'.

1117
108 Page 76, line 53, leave out first 'is' and insert 'has been'.
109 Page 82, line 24, at end insert—
'( ) In Schedule 11 to that Act, in paragraph 6(a) (amendment of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978), for "sections 16(5)(c) and" substitute "section".'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 68 to 109 en bloc. I spoke to Amendments Nos. 68 to 77 with Amendment No. 67; to Amendment No. 78 with Amendment No. 14; to Amendments Nos. 79 to 82 with Amendment No. 67; to Amendments Nos. 83 to 92 with Amendment No. 14; to Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 with Amendment No. 67; to Amendment No. 95 with Amendment No. 14; and to Amendments Nos. 96 to 98 with Amendment No. 67. I spoke to Amendments Nos. 99 to 102 with Amendment No. 26, I think, but I am not certain—
Lord Meston: With Amendment No. 67.
The Lord Chancellor: I am much obliged. I spoke to Amendments Nos. 99 to 102 with Amendment No. 67. I spoke to Amendment No. 103 with Amendment No. 6; to Amendment No. 104 with Amendment No. 14; to Amendments Nos. 105 to 107 with Amendment No. 67 and to Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 with Amendment No. 14.
Moved, That the House do agree with the House in their Amendments Nos. 68 to 109.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
110 Schedule 9, page 82, line 31, at end insert—
'Transitional arrangements for those who have been living apart
.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may by order provide for the application of Part II to marital proceedings which—

(a) are begun during the transitional period, and

(b) relate to parties to a marriage who immediately before the beginning of that period were living apart,

subject to such modifications (which may include omissions) as may be prescribed.
(2) An order made under this paragraph may, in particular, make provision as to the evidence which a party who claims to have been living apart from the other party immediately before the beginning of the transitional period must produce to the court.
(3) In this paragraph—
"marital proceedings" has the same meaning as in section 21;
"prescribed" means prescribed by the order; and
"transitional period" means the period of two years beginning with the day on which section 3 is brought into force.'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 110, which is an amendment of some importance. With this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 111 and 112 and to Amendments Nos. 114 to 116 inclusive.
1118
Amendment No. 110 provides for those couples who have been living apart immediately prior to the new provisions of this legislation coming into force. It seeks to address the situation where parties are in the process of a two or five-year separation period, and have therefore not actually commenced divorce proceedings.
When the Bill went to the other place it provided that parties in such a position would be required to undergo the full process under the new system, with no account being taken of any prior period of separation. Following this amendment the Lord Chancellor may modify the requirements of Part II of the Bill in relation to people who have previously been living apart upon proof of such separation being produced to the court, for a transitional period of two years. I believe that the Bill with the inclusion of this provision will now avoid the difficulties which may have otherwise arisen in some cases, especially where there are children involved and further delay may be detrimental to their welfare.
The other amendments in this group are technical amendments. Amendments Nos. 111 and 112 extend the Lord Chancellor's powers to make consequential amendments to include references in other legislation to enactments amended or repealed by the Bill. Amendments Nos. 114, 115 and 116 make some technical corrections to the transitional provisions in Schedule 9. They provide that other statutes, amended in Schedule 8, shall apply in their unamended form in relation to decrees of divorce or separation granted either before the new law comes into force or under transitional provisions.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 110.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
111 Schedule 9, page 83, line 9, at end insert—
' 1A. If an Act or subordinate legislation—

(a) refers to an enactment repealed or amended by or under this Act, and

(b) was passed or made before the repeal or amendment came into force,

the Lord Chancellor may by order make such consequential modifications of any provision contained in the Act or subordinate legislation as appears to him necessary or expedient in respect of the reference.'.
112 Page 83, line 11, leave out 'paragraph 1' and insert 'paragraphs 1 and 1A'.
113 Page 83, line 20, after 'Part II' insert ', Part I of Schedule 8 or Schedule 10'.
114 Page 83, line 21, leave out from 'affects' to end of line 22 and insert '—
( ) any decree granted before the coming into force of the provision;
( ) any proceedings begun, by petition or otherwise, before that time; or
( ) any decree granted in any such proceedings;'.
115 Page 83, line 27, after first 'proceedings' insert 'or decree'.
116 Page 83, line 28, leave out from 'any' to third 'or' and insert 'such proceedings or decree;'.
117 Page 83, line 30, at end insert—
'( ) In this paragraph, "subordinate legislation" has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 1978.'
118 Page 83, line 45, leave out 'this Act' and insert 'Part IV, Part III of Schedule 8 or Schedule 10'.
119 Page 84, line 2, leave out 'this Act' and insert 'Part IV, Part III of Schedule 8 or Schedule 10'.
120 Page 84, line 12, leave out 'this Act' and insert 'Part IV, Part III of Schedule 8 or Schedule 10'.
121 Page 84, line 15, leave out 'this Act' and insert 'Part IV, Part III of Schedule 8 or Schedule 10'.
122 Page 84, line 17, leave out 'this Act' and insert 'Part IV'.
123 Page 84, line 18, leave out 'this Act' and insert 'Part IV'.
124 Page 84, line 26, leave out 'this Act' and insert 'Part IV'.
125 Page 84, line 29, leave out 'this Act' and insert 'Part IV'.
126 Page 85, line 8, leave out 'Paragraphs 9 to 12 shall not' and insert 'Nothing in this Schedule is to'.
127 Schedule 10, page 85, column 3, leave out line 21 and insert—
'Sections 9 and 10'.
128 Page 85, column 3, leave out lines 46 and 47 and insert—
'In section 41, in subsection (1) the words "divorce or" and "or a decree of judicial separation" and in subsection (2) the words "divorce or" and "or that the decree of judicial separation is not to be granted.".'.
129 Page 86, line 2, at end insert 'and",'
130 Page 86, line 4, column 3, at end insert—
'In Schedule 1, paragraph 8.'
131 Page 86, line 6, column 3, leave out '(1)(a), the words' and insert '(1), the words "subject to section 6(3) and (4) of this Act" and, in paragraph (a),'.
132 Page 86, line 9, column 3, at end insert 'and (4).'.
133 Page 86, line 31, at end insert—

'1980 c. 43

The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

In Schedule 7, paragraph 159.'

134 Page 87, line 4, at end insert—

'1986 c. 53.

The Building Societies Act 1986.

In Schedule 21, paragraph 9(f).'.

135 Page 87, line 4, at end insert—

'1986 c. 55.

The Family Law Act 1986.

In Schedule 1, paragraph 27.'.

136 Page 87, line 4, at end insert—

'1988 c. 34.

The Legal Aid Act 1988.

In section 16(9), the word "and" at the end of paragraph (a).'

137 Page 87, line 7, column 3, at end insert—
'In Schedule 11, paragraph 6(b).'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 111 to 137 en bloc. I spoke to Amendments Nos. 111 and 112 with Amendment No. 110; to Amendment No. 113 with Amendment No. 14; to Amendments Nos. 114 to 116 with Amendment No. 110; to Amendments Nos. 117 to 127 with Amendment No. 14; to Amendment No. 128 with Amendment No. 6 and to Amendments Nos. 129 to 137 with Amendment No. 14.
1120
Your Lordships will be glad to know that once I have moved, with your Lordships' leave, that the amendments be taken en bloc, I shall have completed the Motions that I wish to place before your Lordships on this matter and we now come to the last Question on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 111 to 137. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Maximum Number of Stipendiary Magistrates Order 1996
9.34 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this order is made under Section 13(4) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979. That Act set the maximum number of stipendiary magistrates outside Inner London and the City of London Commission areas at 40. This draft order seeks to increase the number to 50. No one in this House is a more ardent supporter of the lay magistracy than I am. Its role is pivotal to the administration of justice, both criminal and civil, and to the fabric of society. Its continued good health depends essentially on sufficient numbers of suitable people from all walks of life being willing to put forward their names for consideration. To aid both recruitment and achieving a balance of people from all sections of the community, I need to be aware that people should not be asked to sit too many times. For about 15 per cent. of benches where sittings are too high for comfort and where other measures are not sufficient, the deployment of a full-time stipendiary magistrate may assist in my view.
I turn to another aspect of my approach to considering whether a stipendiary magistrate appointment to a bench may be made. I use as a yardstick the view of the Magistrates' Association. Once a bench reaches a situation in which it is not possible to function without the assistance of a stipendiary magistrate I have to consider the matter. Thereafter, the issues to be considered include the structure of the bench, the maintenance of effective links among the lay magistracy, the spread of experience and how often a bench is manned by two justices instead of three, as should be the general rule. It may be that a large bench can manage perfectly well. On the other hand, it may be that it cannot.
It is my duty to ensure that justice is administered effectively and efficiently. That entails cases being disposed of with reasonable promptness and there being no build up of unacceptable delays. If there are and there appears to be no other realistic prospect of overcoming the difficulty such as recruiting more justices or temporary stipendiary assistance, clearly it would be prudent to consider bringing in a stipendiary magistrate.
The responsibility for considering whether or not it is right to bid for a full-time stipendiary rests with my local advisory committee, after consultation with the Magistrates' Courts Committee and benches in the area. I have said before, and am glad to repeat it now, that I believe in and rely upon the common sense of the magistracy. They have given their service voluntarily and they will know what is in the best interests of the administration of justice in their areas. Since 1988 the number of authorised provincial stipendiary magistrate posts has grown from 17 to 40. At no time have I had to impose a stipendiary magistrate against local wishes. There is no reason why this good sense should not continue to prevail. I hope that the House will agree to this order.
There can be no doubt that the idea of stipendiary magistrates arouses apprehensions from time to time within the lay magistracy. The theory is that there is a hidden plot to replace them, or that other options have not been pursued vigorously enough. Alternatively, the idea may be based on the belief that it is wrong for one person to be both judge and jury. I shall deal briefly with those points. There is absolutely no plot to replace the lay magistracy. It is too important for that to be even a remote possibility. The whole point of local consultations is to ensure that there is a good case for a full-time stipendiary magistrate appointment. I would wish to be assured on that point as well before authorising any full-time appointment. While I understand the worries about a single person sitting, it has to be remembered that stipendiary magistrates have played a significant role in the administration of justice since the middle of the last century, and Parliament in its wisdom has endorsed that approach.
Nevertheless, it is important to establish an understanding of the respective roles of lay and stipendiary magistrates—a point recognised by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice which reported in 1993. I therefore established a working party drawn from the lay and stipendiary magistracy, the Justices' Clerks' Society and my department to examine those roles. The working party has informed me of various steps which, if not already in existence, soon will be to build on the good relationships which generally exist. Therefore, there is a sound base on which to build for the future. A copy of the report of the working party is in the Library of the House.
I have no plans to abolish the lay magistracy, and no one in my department would advise me to do so. Outside Inner London there are nearly 30,000 lay magistrates and at present 40 authorised stipendiary posts. The strength of the lay magistracy has grown year by year from 28,667 at the end of 1989 to 30,326 at the end of 1995.
In conclusion, your Lordships will, I hope, agree that the effect of the order will be to help maintain the lay magistracy and benefit the administration of justice. Without it, it would not be possible to provide full-time stipendiary support where it now appears to be needed. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, we support the order. I take this opportunity to put on record our appreciation of the lay magistracy, both in its civil and criminal jurisdictions, and for the enormous contribution that it makes to the due administration of justice throughout the country. Just as service as a juror provides education in citizenship and makes a major contribution to citizenship, so also does membership of the bench. It is a tribute to the public spiritedness of lay magistrates throughout the country that they are willing to volunteer so much of their free time, and sometimes time made free only with great difficulty, for the administration of justice in their areas.
It is important that lay justices are a microcosm of the communities they serve and so should reflect all groups and all ages in society. So, while magistrates may be retired, so also they may be in employment, which makes it the more difficult for them to offer the time required. I believe that it would be sound policy to allow those with good reason to confine their sittings to a minimum of 26 half days. But, where targets for annual average sittings have proved to be incapable of achievement, then the case for the additional deployment of a full-time stipendiary magistrate must be considered on a case by case basis.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord that the appointment of additional stipendiary magistrates in no way calls into question the high quality of local benches. On the contrary, the issue is simply this: have the demands on the magistrates' courts in particular areas become so pressing that a serious question arises as to whether a stipendiary magistrate is needed as, as it were, an additional bolt-on resource to ensure the efficient administration of justice?
I believe the opinion of the Magistrates' Association to be that that question arises once a bench attains 250 in number. That principle seems to be right. Beyond that, we do not believe that any hard and fast rules can be laid down. All depends upon local circumstances. Where any particular court or area falls materially behind the national average delay times between first listing and completion, then clearly the question acutely arises as to whether a stipendiary magistrate in addition is required.
We therefore believe it obviously right that the statutory ceiling of 40 should be increased to 50 so as to give the necessary flexibility to make further appointments when local need demands it.
I desire to associate myself and my party with the noble and learned Lord's assurances that this additional flexibility implies no lack of confidence in, still less hostility to, the lay magistracy throughout the country. The lay magistracy is, and will remain, the backbone of the delivery and administration of justice at local level.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as a lay magistrate now on the supplemental list, I should like to query a statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine. He talked about 26 half-day sittings. When I was appointed, which I believe was in 1971, we were told

1123
that the figure was 26 half days. Some years later we were told we had to do 26 full days. I was never able to do that and I wonder what the position is now.
I remember applying to the noble and learned Lord's department to do fewer days and I would like to know what the ruling is. On the Bench on which I sat there were a number of stipendiary magistrates and there was no clash whatever. The lay members greatly valued the work done by the stipendiaries and we worked very well together.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, it may be that my information is out of date. I had certainly thought that current policy was to allow those with good reason to confine their sittings to a minimum of 26 half days. If I am wrong about that the noble and learned Lord will correct me.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in a sense, both are right. It is not easy to see why that should be. The minimum for which we ask is 26 half days but, of course, different benches may have different requirements. Depending on where one is one may find oneself on a bench which has an average higher than the minimum. Accordingly, it may well be that my noble friend found herself in circumstances where the talent was scarce and the bench felt that it needed to require a larger number of half days than the national minimum. I believe that could be the only basis on which my noble friend was on the supplemental list.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, for his support of the Motion which I have sought to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Noise Bill
9.47 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 11 [Interpretation and subordinate legislation]:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved the amendment:
Page 7, line 19, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to rectify a problem brought to our attention by the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers. It questioned the need for Clause 11(3).
As currently drafted, this subsection allows the Secretary of State to vary the amount or form of the fixed penalty under Clause 9 by different orders for different purposes. This is clearly not required.
The reason why this subsection was originally included was to allow the Secretary of State to make different statutory instruments for different purposes when there was a regulation-making power in the schedule to the Bill. When the schedule was substantially amended in another place, this regulation-making power was removed. This subsection should also have been removed rather than amended to apply only to orders under Clause 9.
At the Committee stage, I stated that on reflection we agreed with the Select Committee's view that this clause was unnecessary and undertook to amend it at Report stage. This amendment honours that undertaking. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining the amendment and also to the Select Committee for noticing this point. We are content that the amendment should be made.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, we on these Benches have looked at the Bill as it has come back to us from Committee and we welcome it in its present form. It was not unduly troublesome to us in any of its earlier stages and it is a necessary piece of legislation which we commend to your Lordships' House.
Noise is, by definition, undesirable. The permitted level of noise as defined in Clause 5 appears to us to be sensible and acceptable. It can be enforced properly because it can be easily understood.
The Bill comes to us on Report and, as we have neither question, nor comment, nor amendments to propose we are content to give the Bill our complete approval.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes before ten o'clock.

  EU: Council Meetings
  EU: Council Meetings
  Disabled People: Supported Employment Programme
  Disabled People: Supported Employment Programme
  Overseas Postgraduate Students in UK
  Overseas Postgraduate Students in UK
  European Rail Freight Terminals
  European Rail Freight Terminals
  Ferry Safety: Stockholm Agreement
  Ferry Safety: Stockholm Agreement
  Merchant Shipping: Draft Legislation
  Merchant Shipping: Draft Legislation
  Attendants: New Uniforms
  Attendants: New Uniforms
  Offices Committee: Minutes
  Offices Committee: Minutes
  Criminal Justice: Response to Royal Commission Report
  Criminal Justice: Response to Royal Commission Report
  Parole Board
  Parole Board
  Her Majesty's Birthday Honours List: Awards to Women
  Her Majesty's Birthday Honours List: Awards to Women
  Children: Enforcement of Employment Prohibition
  Children: Enforcement of Employment Prohibition
  Beef Import Ban by Non-EU Countries
  Beef Import Ban by Non-EU Countries
  Compound Animal Feeds: Ingredients
  Compound Animal Feeds: Ingredients
  Beef Export Ban: Sales to Third World Countries
  Beef Export Ban: Sales to Third World Countries
  Phosmet
  Phosmet
  Spongiform Encephalopathies: Tests for Origins
  Spongiform Encephalopathies: Tests for Origins
  BSE and CJD: Pre-clinical Diagnosis
  BSE and CJD: Pre-clinical Diagnosis
  Sulphur Dioxide Emissions: Reduction
  Sulphur Dioxide Emissions: Reduction
  Housing Investment Trusts: Accounting Rules
  Housing Investment Trusts: Accounting Rules
  Purchase Grant Scheme: Exemption of Small Rural Settlements
  Purchase Grant Scheme: Exemption of Small Rural Settlements