Sitting of 8 March 1996

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

  Treasure Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's and Prince of Wales's consent signified.]
  9.34 am
  Sir Anthony Grant: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The House will note that the Bill is supported by all parties, and that my distinguished sponsors come from the three major parties. I am especially pleased to see in his place as one of my sponsors the former Secretary of State for National Heritage, my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke). I am grateful to him for his support.
  It may surprise hon. Members to know that the Bill seeks to replace a law that goes back to the middle ages, and that the medieval law of treasure trove provides virtually the only legal protection that currently exists for antiquities that are found in the soil of England and Wales. An eminent legal authority, Professor Norman Palmer, has aptly described treasure trove as a mediaeval lottery.
  The account of treasure trove to be found in a manual on English law written by a mediaeval lawyer called Bracton more than 700 years ago, pretty much describes the current position. I suppose that, historically, it was Richard Coeur de Lion, anxious to finance his crusades, who wanted to lay his hands on any gold and silver he could get, because we were on the gold standard in those days.
  This is an historic occasion, because to my knowledge it is the first time that the subject of treasure trove has been debated in the Chamber. The subject, which is important for all those who have an interest in our nation's heritage, has been discussed in the other place a number of times. I am delighted to raise the issue in our House for the first time.
  What is the law on treasure trove, what does it do, and why am I seeking to replace it? Only objects made of gold or silver which have been deliberately buried with the intention of recovery and of which the owner is unknown can be declared treasure trove. Someone who finds an object made of gold or silver has always had a legal duty to report it to the coroner without delay.
  552
  The coroner will decide whether to hold a treasure inquest, and the jury at the inquest is asked to decide whether the object in question was likely to have been buried with the intention of recovery, or whether it was more likely to have been lost or abandoned. I need hardly say that that is often an impossible question to answer.
  If a find is a hoard of Roman gold coins in a pot, it might seem fairly obvious that its original owner did not lose it or abandon it, but buried it for safe keeping, hoping to come back to recover it. But what if the find is a single item of gold jewellery or a prehistoric gold bracelet? How can we possibly expect to know how an object came to be deposited in the ground 3,000 years ago? But that is the question that treasure inquest juries are regularly asked to decide. To make matters more complicated, a substantial sum of money can often depend on the outcome, because, if the object is treasure trove, the finder will get the reward, whereas, if it is not, the landowner may be able to claim it.
  When a find has been declared treasure trove, in law it is the property of the Crown. In practice, that means that a museum has a right to acquire it, but the finder receives an ex gratia reward equivalent to its full market value. Any objects that are not required by a museum are returned, normally to the finder, and an independent committee has the job of determining the market value of such objects. That system of paying rewards to finders based on the full market value works well on the whole, but there are some problems.
  Responsible finders will have made an agreement to split any reward equally with the landowner as a condition of being given permission to search on his land, but not all of them do so. Hon. Members will be surprised to learn that the finder will still receive a full reward even if he has been trespassing. Under present law, under no circumstances are landowners eligible for rewards. Only if the finder has behaved dishonestly or improperly—for example, if he has concealed his find—will the Secretary of State for National Heritage pay a reduced reward or none at all.
  My Bill will, for the first time, make both landowners and occupiers eligible for rewards. That is one of the reasons why I am pleased that the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union support the Bill. Landowners and occupiers will receive rewards under certain limited circumstances—for example, if the finder had been trespassing. I want to stress, however, that in the majority of cases, where the finder has permission to be on the land, it is expected that he will continue to receive the full reward, as at present.
  So what are the problems of treasure trove? As I have mentioned, the greatest weakness is the need to determine whether the original owner of the find concealed it with the intention of coming back to recover it later, or whether he simply lost or abandoned it. It is absurd and ludicrous to think that we can understand today the motives that led owners to bury objects such as gold torts several thousand years ago, yet that question regularly arises at inquests.
  In any case, it is an irrelevant consideration when deciding whether antiquities should be preserved for the nation. My Bill would provide protection to all objects other than coins that are at least 300 years old and that have a precious metal content of at least 5 per cent., however they came to be placed in the ground. We have adopted a different definition for coins.

  553
  What is more, single objects, however important they might be, are seldom declared treasure trove, because it is generally considered that they are more likely to have been lost than deliberately buried. One good example is the Middleham jewel, discovered in Yorkshire with a metal detector in 1985, and the most important piece of mediaeval jewellery discovered in England this century. It was not treasure trove, as it could not be shown to have been deliberately buried with the intention of recovery, and it was lost to the nation.
  Another such example is the famous Sutton Hoo ship burial in East Anglia, the most important Anglo-Saxon find in this country. That too was not legally treasure trove, because it could not be shown to have been buried with the intention of recovery. As a result, it was possible for the British museum to acquire that unique find for the nation only through the generosity of the landowner, Mrs. Pretty. She would have been within her rights to sell the whole find on the market, where it would have been dispersed, but, to her credit, because of her public spirit, she did not do so.
  The second problem with treasure trove is that it includes only objects that contain a substantial proportion of gold or silver, so it affords no protection to the great majority of archaeological finds, even though they may be of great historical or cultural value. Despite a recent Appeal Court judgment that objects had to contain "substantial" amounts of gold or silver to qualify for treasure trove, each find that has occurred since then has been dealt with differently.
  Several hoards containing gold and silver objects of varying degrees of fineness have been split into parts that have been declared treasure trove, and parts that have not. What is more, many entire hoards of Roman coins are currently not treasure trove, because they are made of base silver or bronze. As there is no requirement to report them, many are legally sold and dispersed before they can be recorded, and so are gone for ever. Thus, the information they contain is lost for ever.
  Let me give the House one example. In 1986, a hoard of about 1,500 Roman bronze coins was found at Amersham. It has come to light only because the finder's mother wrote an account of its discovery in Take A Break. No record of it was ever made, because its finder sold it on the market and it was broken up shortly afterwards, all legally under present law.
  Under my Bill, all hoards of coins that are at least 300 years old will be treasure, except for those that consist just of bronze coins, in which case there will be a minimum number of 10. However—I stress this, because I heard some misleading remarks on television this morning—single coins, which are common finds, will not be treasure.
  Another anomaly of the current system is that objects that are made of base metal or other material receive no legal protection, even if they are found in association with objects of treasure. Therefore, the pots in which coin hoards are found are not declared treasure trove, even though they may be of considerable archaeological importance.
  The engraved gems from the Roman jeweller's hoard found at Snettisham in Norfolk in 1986 were not treasure trove, and that was an important find containing silver
  554
  jewellery, silver and bronze coins and a fine group of more than 100 cornelian gems. The precious metal objects were duly declared treasure trove, but the gems, the bronze coins and the pot were excluded. That is illogical. Under my Bill, the objects found with treasure would also be protected.
  I want to consider the problems of enforcement. In the past few years, a number of cases have shown all too clearly how weak the law is. At present, a person who is found guilty of concealing treasure trove can be prosecuted for theft of Crown property, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. In practice, however, there have been few, if any, successful prosecutions for such concealment, because it is virtually impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an object must have been buried with the intention of recovery.
  The prosecution of a man who was apprehended with coins from an important hoard found in 1984 in Wanborough in Surrey failed for that reason. The result is that only a small part of the hoard has been preserved, and no record has been made of the coins, many of which have ended up abroad and been dispersed.
  Another case concerned a group of nearly 600 Celtic coins, all of the same type, seized by Customs and Excise at Heathrow. An inquest was held to decide whether they were treasure trove. Two days were spent discussing such arcane matters as the religious customs of the ancient Celts to decide whether the coins had been buried with the intention of recovery, or whether there was another more probable explanation.
  The poor jury decided that the coins were not treasure trove. It is significant that even the solicitor acting on behalf of the dealer was frustrated by the subjective nature of the question that the inquest had to decide. He has since gone on record as saying:
  "Treasure trove is an anachronistic law … I hope this important inquest leads to a radical revision of the treasure trove law."
  The lesson seems to be that it is virtually impossible to enforce treasure trove law, especially if objects had been removed from the soil and had entered the trade.
  My Bill would have dealt with the problems thrown up by both those cases—first, by making the judgment whether a particular object was treasure a straightforward matter of fact; secondly, by making it an offence to fail to report treasure finds within 14 days without reasonable excuse.
  At present, the law requires finders to report treasure trove promptly. If they fail to do so, they could, as I said, be prosecuted for theft of Crown property, but, in any case, it is likely that they will receive a reduced reward or none. If we are going to have a law that covers such finds—virtually every country does—we must ensure that it can be enforced. I am not saying that my Bill will deal with all the problems of illicit excavation—such as the nighthawks who steal objects from other people's land—but it will make a start by removing the most serious deficiencies of treasure trove law.
  I have heard that some hon. Members are puzzled about why Scotland is excluded from my Bill. That is because it already has a far better arrangement, as one might expect. In Scotland, all newly discovered archaeological objects, whatever they are made of and however they came to be in the ground, belong to the Crown under the legal principle of bona vacantia.

  555
  Northern Ireland has the same treasure trove law as England and Wales, which is why it is included in the scope of the Bill, although there is a statutory duty to report all archaeological objects in the Province. In England and Wales, we provide less protection for our heritage of portable antiquities than virtually any other European country. Almost every other civilised country has passed laws to protect portable antiquities, and in all those countries, legal protection such as that proposed in the Bill is seen as completely normal.
  The Bill is backed by the Surrey Archaeological Society and the British museum. It was first introduced, in a slightly different form, by Lord Perth in 1994 in the other place. His Bill obtained the backing of all those who took part in the debate, including representatives of all parties. However, it failed in this House, because it received no time for debate.
  The Bill was drafted after consulting a wide range of interests and organisations, including representatives of the police, magistrates, coroners, landowners, district councils, county councils, museums, dealers and archaeological societies. All those organisations, including the Country Landowners Association, the National Farmers Union, the Council of British Archaeology, the Museums Association, the Museums and Galleries Commission and the main dealers' associations, have indicated their support for the reform of the archaic law of treasure trove.
  I know that the National Council for Metal Detecting is still considering the Bill. I repeat firmly that the Bill is not hostile to metal detectorists. I know that, when the Bill's sponsors have been able to explain its provisions to detectorists, most of them appreciate that fact. The Bill contains no restriction on metal detecting, but simply clarifies what should and should not be reported.
  Some metal detecting interests have, unfortunately, mounted a campaign against the Bill, totally misrepresenting it as a first step towards banning metal detecting. Nothing could be further from the truth. My noble Friend Lord Inglewood, the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage, recently gave that assurance in the report of the treasury trove reviewing committee for 1994–95. He said:
  "I want to emphasise that neither the Government, nor the European Union, has any plans to ban or restrict responsible metal detecting."
  I hope that we may hear a similar reassurance from my hon. Friend the Minister today. I personally consider that responsible detectorists have an important role to play in bringing our national heritage to light for the benefit of us all. I believe that we can all work together in this respect.
  I add my voice to Lord Inglewood's in congratulating all finders who report their finds promptly to the proper authorities. Without the co-operation of those finders, a great deal of valuable information about our nation's past would be lost. In recent years, metal detectorists have discovered many objects of great importance to the nation's heritage.
  One of the best examples is the great find of late Roman gold and silver coins and other objects made at Hoxne in Suffolk in 1992 by Mr. Eric Lawes. The find was sensibly reported by Mr. Lawes on the day of discovery, thus enabling the Suffolk archaeological unit to excavate the site the following day. As a result,
  556
  much valuable information concerning the circumstances of the hoard's burial was recovered which would otherwise have been lost.
  That is an example of co-operation between metal detectorists and archaeologists at its best. I hope that my Bill will encourage the process by bringing both parties together to work out how to operate the system for everyone's, and the nation's, benefit.
  I understand that officials from the Department of National Heritage have had a series of meetings with the National Council for Metal Detecting to discuss the Bill. After receiving a critique of the Bill from the council, three significant amendments were made to it. At a subsequent meeting, the council requested one further amendment to the Bill and clarification on another point, both of which the Department was able to give.
  I had hoped to have a meeting with the council a few weeks ago, but it was not ready for one then. However, I am always available. Our discussions with the national council are continuing, and I am ready to meet it at any time and to hear any suggestions it might have, so that we can take another look at them before the Committee stage. I do not think that I can be fairer than that.
  Lord Perth's Bill failed in 1994, and it has taken until now before the Treasure Bill could be reintroduced. I know, however, that the time has not been wasted, because the Department of National Heritage has been able to carry out discussions on the Bill with a range of interested organisations. Those discussions have served to reaffirm support for the pragmatic approach we are adopting. The Department has also been able to develop its proposals on the wider issue of the recording of portable antiquities which have now been published.
  A recent survey by the Council of British Archaeology estimated that about 400,000 archaeological objects are found each year. To put the matter in perspective, we believe that the Bill may increase the number of cases of treasure from about 25 a year at present to between 100 and 200, and some of the hoards may consist of many individual objects. I know that the Government recognise that the Bill deals with only part of the problem, and I welcome the fact that the Department of National Heritage has recently published a discussion document on portable antiquities, which contains proposals for a voluntary scheme for recording all finds, not just those covered by my Bill. I believe that the two initiatives complement each other well.
  I know that many people have worked hard on the Bill over many years. First and foremost, the name of Lord Perth springs to mind. Without his determination, his persistence and his refusal to take no for an answer, the whole project would never have got off the ground. He has been ably aided and abetted by Lord Renton and Lord Renfrew in the other place—both, happily, from the county of Cambridgeshire.
  David Graham, Stewart Lyon and Lady Hanworth of the Surrey Archaeological Society have worked tirelessly on treasure trove reform for many years, and they have been assisted by Professor Norman Palmer of University college, London, to whom I referred earlier, and Doctor Andrew Burnett of the British museum. I take this opportunity to express my thanks to them all. I am especially grateful to Dr. Roger Bland of the British museum, who has given me enormous help in the matter, in which he is an acknowledged expert.

  557
  My Bill has three aims. First, it will change the definition of treasure by removing the need to prove that objects must have been intentionally buried, by making it clear exactly how much gold or silver objects must contain to be defined as treasure, and by including objects found in clear archaeological association with finds of treasure. Secondly, it will streamline the system by making it much simpler to determine what is treasure. Thirdly, it will make the law enforceable by providing a new offence for the non-declaration of treasure.
  For finders, the Bill places no restrictions on metal detecting, while it safeguards their rights to continue to receive full rewards for their finds, except where they have been trespassing. The Bill provides landowners with the right to be informed of finds of treasure that have been reported from their land—they do not have that right at present—and it makes them eligible for rewards if, for example, the finder has been trespassing. Again, they do not have that right at present.
  The Bill will require minimal additional resources, and it will make an important improvement to the legal protection afforded to objects found in the soil of this country, which are, after all, our heritage. I stress that no one will lose under the Bill—neither landowners nor finders—except the criminal element. No one now argues that we should keep the status quo. The successful passage of the Bill will have a symbolic importance far beyond the significance of its individual provisions, as it will represent the first piece of antiquities legislation ever passed in England and Wales.
  We desperately need to do something now about the situation before all antiquities have been removed from the ground. Antiquities are a non-renewable resource, and they will be gone for ever if we do not act now. The Bill represents the best chance for making progress in an area that has eluded others for 150 years. I warmly commend it to the House.
  9.58 am
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: When my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant) opened the debate, in his usual exemplary way, I wondered whether I was entirely alone in feeling a slight feeling of nostalgia and regret on hearing that a piece of legislation that had stood the test of time—for about 700 years—was to disappear. That may seem a strange thing for a legislator to say. However, I take the view that if a piece of legislation has lasted for a long time, it is not unreasonable to assume that it might still have some useful working life.
  The idea that Members of Parliament, even those as distinguished as the gathering here today, will be able to produce a piece of legislation that is automatically better than something that has stood the test of time must be considered. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire will not take it amiss if I say that, as a Conservative, I at least start from the assumption that 700 years' worth of established history suggests a pretty good basis on which to work.
  People have said to me over the years that there is something particularly arcane about treasure trove. I am not sure there is. However it may work in practice, the law on treasure trove makes a degree of sense, and fits perfectly well with established legal principles.
  558
  As I understand it, it simply amounts to the following. Under the law of intestacy—if no will is made willing away property that has been left—the Crown automatically inherits property. That principle would apply today if one of us died and did not leave provisions. Our assets, and in some cases our debts, would be left to the Crown. It is a straightforward process that valuables without any apparent ownership should go to the Crown, and perfectly fair that the law should operate in that way.
  We live in a somewhat cynical age, however, and I am sure that somewhere some journalist is already sucking his pencil and saying to himself, "What on earth is Parliament doing spending a whole Friday debating such a subject?" That is a fair point.
  Mr. Mark Fisher: A whole Friday?
  Mr. Nicholls: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not being provocative. The question could apply to debating such a measure for just part of Friday.
  The law relating to treasure trove in its apparent and even manifest inadequacies has not featured hugely in my life. I cannot say that my postbag is full of letters from aggrieved treasure seekers or treasure acquisitionists who are upset about the state of the law. Nor are my surgeries full of such complaints. Indeed, when I get back to my constituency—like the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), I hope that it is sooner rather than later—I do not expect to be regaled with complaints about the law relating to treasure trove.
  The complaints will be rather more mundane. I shall encounter the usual traffic that comes to Members of Parliament, plus this week especially, the law relating to fish rather than treasure. Such things concern people rather more. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire said, the Bill deals with our heritage, in a sense our own memories, and it is right that the House of Commons should take time to consider them. It says much for the subject that we have managed to assemble a representation of the quality of the House rather than its quantity.
  When I realised that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire was introducing such legislation, I wondered who it was aimed at. I like his idea that there would be no losers apart from rascals and only winners, but I always feel slightly worried when I hear such proposals.
  Indeed, I have received at least one series of representations from a friend of mine over the years who is a detectorist. He has told me that he feels that legislation is inevitable, that it would be aimed against detectorisation—if there is such a word—and that it was all rather sad. I must admit that I would not have thought that of my hon. Friend, and I was reassured when I discovered that he was the Bill's promoter. I had wondered, however, whether there was not some incipient intellectual snobbery at work against strange people who put on their shell suits, take the whippet out for a walk and take a metal detector with them; that something was not quite right about them.
  It also occurred to me that the Bill might be a result of an over-emphasis on the idea that treasure should automatically go to museums. I sometimes have difficulty with that idea, too. Most of us can remember as children

  559
  being taken around museums, which 20 or 30 years ago in no sense stimulated one's awareness of the past and desire to know more about it—so many dusty covers on wet days to walk around and look at. All that is changed and I accept that. Museums are now entertaining places. If the driving force behind the Bill had been to ensure that oiks were not going round finding things and keeping them, and that instead articles could be safely locked up in a museum, I would have had some difficulty with it.
  A great many things go into museums that never see the light of day again, because there is simply not enough display space. I therefore find it slightly difficult to accept that an item is lost for ever to the national heritage because it is discovered, sold and retained in private hands, rather than filed, categorised, archivised and locked away in a vault for ever to safeguard the national heritage.
  That point was also made by the discovery of a hoard in 1985 in Normanby in Lincolnshire of no fewer than 47,912 base silver coins, to which my hon. Friend referred in passing. The briefing that I have says that it took several members of the British museum staff well over a year to clean and study all the coins. While reading that, I wondered whether it was so terribly important that all those coins should be filed away in a museum for ever instead of, perhaps, being sold on the open market.
  Having said that, one appreciates the problem at once of ensuring that all the information that can be gleaned from a hoard is gathered, although one has to think what precisely is the point of confining all the coins in a museum. It is legitimate to question precisely what is behind the Bill.
  I am also concerned not only as a legislator but as a lawyer about the fact that, the moment we try to cure one set of anomalies, we usually create another set. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire is a lawyer, and I know that he will also have paid particular regard to that.
  We might need to consider the fact that the law of treasure trove concerns composition and depends on the degree of silver and gold in any items acquired, which is almost approaching the matter from the wrong angle. Since we are talking about the preservation of the national heritage, an item—my hon. Friend implicitly referred to it—can be of the utmost significance and interest even if it is not valuable in scrap terms if it were melted down and sold. We therefore have to be careful in changing the law, so as not to latch on to the conventional value of an item, because anomalies will occur.
  I notice that, even in a relatively straightforward Bill, clause 1(1)(d)(i) is quite complex, because it states that something is capable of being treasure providing that it is found in association with other treasure. That suggests right away a degree of anomaly because unless there is one conventionally valuable item at a site, everything else will not be deemed treasure.
  That concerns me greatly, because other examples can be cited. For instance, I understand that bronze coins will not qualify as treasure unless at least one conventionally valuable item is found with them. That suggests problems. Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain why that should be so.
  I am similarly concerned that, if only one item were found, it could not be treasure trove. That points to a practical difficulty. One might not always know whether
  560
  one has found just one item. If one finds one item in one field and another in another field, are they associated finds? Presumably not—that is an easy point. The far harder point to resolve is what happens if one finds one item, and 20, 30 or 40 yd away one suddenly finds another. One of the problems of trying to cure anomalies with legislative weaponry is that it creates other anomalies. I not quite sure what the answer is, and I can imagine that such situations will cause problems.
  Although ownership is not a major shortcoming of the Bill, it needs to be addressed. My initial reaction to the Bill and the work that has been done on it was that, if we were going to take a fairly radical approach—if we were no longer to work on the basis that treasure deliberately hidden with retrieval in mind belonged to the Crown, and that, if it had merely been abandoned, the finder would be entitled to it—such an approach should reflect modern reality and common sense. That would surely mean dealing with the question of ownership. If an item or piece is found on land, the assumption should be that the person on whose land it is is the owner. That was the position from which I was originally coming.
  To be fair, however, it can be seen there are difficulties with that approach. If the underlying intent or purpose of the Bill is to preserve examples of the national heritage, there may be a case for saying that the rights of property and ownership must be overridden so that the national heritage is to benefit. If we have to go that far, however, the assumption should still be that the person who would derive the advantage—the reward, perhaps—should be the owner of the land.
  There have been extraordinary cases in which the owner of the land has not benefited. I think that my hon. Friend referred in passing to a case at Donhead St. Mary. A hoard of iron age gold coins was declared to be treasure trove. It was discovered by metal detection. The hoard was valued at £5,210. The Treasury decided to reduce the reward to £2,000 because the finder had been convicted for searching on a scheduled monument.
  The person who received the ultimate reward had acted, by any stretch of the imagination, in a thoroughly meretricious way. Apparently, the landowner was aggrieved that he was not entitled to any reward. We can imagine that he might well have felt aggrieved. It surely defies any sense of justice and common sense that, if something is found, it is not the owner of the land who is rewarded but the trespasser as well.
  An even more shocking case took place at Burton Overy, where 282 silver coins of the 17th century were found by an electrician while working in the loft of a house. The coins were declared treasure trove. In due course, it was the electrician who received the reward and not the owner of the house. That may appeal to some people's ideas of egalitarianism. It is the marvellous story of an electrician—a humble working man—who changes a plug and walks off with treasure trove worth £9,700.
  That is slightly troubling. I would like to think—I hope that the issue will be clarified in due course—that the person who would benefit under the Bill in those circumstances would be the owner of the land, not the person who simply comes upon treasure trove.
  These are matters that might be of interest, or almost of reassurance, to honest and reputable detectorists as against those who are not. There is no injustice in saying that it

  561
  is the owner of the land who should benefit, not the finder. The relationship between owner and finder should be straightforward enough.
  If someone goes on to someone else's land with metal detection equipment, he must ask permission to do so. If he does not request that permission, he is a trespasser, and should not be entitled to benefit from the fruits of his trespass. If someone wants to go on someone else's land with a metal detector, presumably he would say to the owner of the land, "I have a certain expertise in the handling of this detection equipment and I know where to look. If I come on to your land and I find something, can we split any reward that might be offered?" If the answer is "Push off', "No", "I want the lot", or "I shall not split it with you in that way", no bargain has been reached. In those circumstances the owner is not prepared to share the fruits of the other person's expertise, there is no contract, there is no problem and no injustice.
  In any normal case, the assumption should surely be that the owner will derive the advantage, not the finder. The situation is entirely different, however, if no one knows where the owner of the land is to be found. I would have great difficulty if the only claim that someone had for reward was the mere fact of having found treasure trove, even though there was an owner.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend think that the enactment of the Bill might lead to some rogue metal detectorists going on to land without seeking permission, in the hope that they will retrieve some treasure and be able to make off with it, as opposed to going through the legitimate process of making a bargain with the owner of the land?
  Mr. Nicholls: That depends on the person. I have no reason to think that detectorists belonging to a properly constituted and properly set up organisation will not try now to make a bargain or to arrive at some accommodation. If someone has no interest in the heritage and in doing things properly, or in recognising the rights of ownership, he is likely to go on to other people's land. That will be the position whether or not the Bill is enacted. I am troubled that, under current law, and conceivably under the Bill if enacted, someone who is trespassing—someone who is not present under the terms of any arrangement—will still be in a position to derive some advantage having found treasure trove.
  What will be the balance of reward between the owner and the finder? The Bill does not make that entirely clear. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire said that there would be an obligation under the Bill for reasonable efforts to be made to find the owner of the land. I am not sure how significant that is in reality. In most instances, the identity of the owner of the land would be obvious. If there is an obligation to make some rudimentary inquiries, what would be the purpose of so doing? What is the balance to be between ownership and occupation?
  It is clear that a great deal of work has been done in putting the Bill together. There is no doubt that the motives behind it are entirely lawful. The measure is designed to try to preserve the national heritage. Given that a detectorist has told me of his concern that
  562
  Parliament would introduce legislation that would weigh heavily against detectorists' interests, I am heartened by what my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire has said.
  I have read the Bill carefully to discover whether it could be used against responsible detectorists. I have found nothing in my reading of it that should give concern to those people. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying, in effect, that he would make himself available to them at any time, anywhere, to meet their concerns.
  At the same time, I have two abiding concerns. First, in linking the nature of treasure trove to things that are valuable per se or where there is a range of items including one that is valuable, it seems that we are creating an artificial barrier that may stop us protecting particular finds, hoards or acquisitions that could be of great interest to archaeologists, and have an interest far greater than their face value.
  Secondly, if we, as Conservatives, are to overturn 600 or 700 years' worth of established law, and even if we are to stop country lawyers such as myself having an occasional day out to attend an inquest at which we can ask ourselves thoroughly obscure questions on treasure trove and recite our various Latin tags—in other words, if we are to upset arrangements that have stood the test of time—we should ensure that those who benefit are the national heritage and property owners.
  There should be no more cases of people trespassing on other people's land and deriving an advantage from so doing. If I ever find that I have employed an electrician who once used to practise at Burton Overy, and that he ferreted in my house trying to find where my predecessors had buried their goods, I think that I shall be prepared to reach an accommodation with him. The idea that, having fitted a plug, he can go off with treasure and instruct a country lawyer to oppose me at a local inquest, claiming that he has a better right to the treasure than I have, offends my sense of natural justice. I think that it would appal my bank manager as well.
  10.18 am
  Mr. David Shaw: The Bill raises a subject of considerable interest to my constituents. Dover has the great advantage that we are always making new discoveries in the form of rare coins or rare pieces of Roman antiquity. In Dover recently, we discovered a bronze age ship that extends Dover's history back through some 4,000 years. When the House contemplates the millennium celebrations for the year 2000, we in Dover feel that the House has not got a true perspective. Dover has a much longer historical perspective.
  There have been many local finds in Dover, especially those that go back to Roman times. Julius Caesar tried to land at Dover, but its fortifications, though built well before Dover castle, were such that he could not, and he had to scuttle up the coast to Walmer. We have commemorated the fact that he managed to get ashore there in difficult circumstances despite it being well defended by my former constituents. The defence was so good that many Roman soldiers lost possessions. Detectorists and others take great pleasure in discovering rare Roman coins and other artefacts on the beaches and around Dover and Walmer.
  Excellent artefacts, coins and other antiquities that we have been able to secure locally can be found in the Dover museum. I hope that the House will not object to a small

  563
  advertisement for Dover museum. Anybody interested in rare Roman coins and antiquities would do well to spend a weekend enjoying what is on offer at our excellent museum. It is situated by the White Cliffs Experience, which runs through the history of life in Dover over some 2,500 years. Many Roman coins and other local artefacts have been placed there for tourists to enjoy. I am sure that my colleagues will want, on their holiday trips that use our excellent ferries, to stop off briefly in Dover for a good visit to the museum.
  Our national heritage is of unquestionable importance, and the Bill must be considered in that light. There will be concern about whether the rights of individuals will be limited and genuine freedoms that have been secured over many hundreds of years unfairly dealt with.
  We must be conscious of those freedoms, to ensure that we do not discourage a legitimate leisure industry. Many people get much enjoyment from using metal detectors or other methods to discover the nation's antiquities and coins of Roman and other periods. It would be tragic if we passed a Bill that acted as a disincentive to such people, many of whom have served the nation well in discovering rare coins and other pieces that have ended up in our museums.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant) on making a powerful argument. We certainly need better arrangements. Britain does not have codified law, and it is good that we do not. Most hon. Members find judge-made law much more satisfactory. Occasionally, Parliament must tackle situations such as this, which for hundreds of years have had no real statutory framework, and lay down some principles. There is a strong argument that the time has arrived to lay down those principles, especially if we can achieve a fairer balance between landowner, discoverer, owner—if he is still around—and the national interest.
  Considerable concern was expressed about the previous Bill on this subject, which was introduced by Lord Perth. I received letters from detectorists in my constituency saying that it was too restrictive of legitimate private interests. That is why I was pleased to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire has tried to work with the National Council for Metal Detecting, and that efforts are being made to accommodate its concerns and fears. Provided that the landowner agrees and has been consulted, it a respectable pursuit to go out and look for our antiquities and rare coins. I do not see why we should pass anything in Parliament that would discourage that.
  However, we also have a responsibility to try to reconcile that freedom with the national interest, so that future generations can get the enormous pleasure that the many people who visit Dover museum and the White Cliffs Experience get from the rare finds on display, and so that we can increase the number of those finds.
  I find nothing more intriguing than taking my young son, who at six is perhaps a little young fully to appreciate the Roman finds, to the museum and the White Cliffs Experience so that he can learn about the nation's heritage and the history of Europe. Such discoveries are one way through which we can teach young people about our history. He has been fascinated by Roman times, and we must do everything possible to ensure that there is a never-ending series of discoveries.
  564
  As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire said, many discoveries are made each year, and a considerable number of them, appropriately, end up in museums. I hope that all the principles that I have enunciated will be taken on board, and that the National Council for Metal Detecting and other organisations or individuals with legitimate concerns can be accommodated.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend on clause 1, which is one of the clearest to come before Parliament in some time. It is clear that we are not talking about one or two minor finds, but that there would have to be at least 10 non-precious metal coins in a find before the legislation would apply. That is a good safeguard for people who make casual finds.
  Clause 2 deals with the powers of the Secretary of State. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on that, because considerable powers would be given to the Secretary of State by the Bill. I am pleased that clause 11 provides for a code of practice about the how the Secretary of State should exercise those powers. It is important that Parliament should have a clear understanding of the matter.
  I hope that the Minister will be able, during the Bill's passage, to set the record straight in Hansard, so that everyone can be clear about how the powers will operate. We do not want them to change rapidly or become too onerous, based on a bit of advice about which Parliament might not have been informed. We should not always tie Select Committees by legislation into the operation of an Act of Parliament, but it would be helpful if the Minister could say that reference would be made to Parliament, perhaps through the Select Committee, before changes to the code of practice were made.
  In clause 6, the Secretary of State has the right of disclaimer. That is an important provision that needs to be amplified. I hope that it will be covered by the code of practice.
  Clause 7 talks about doing away with the jury. I notice that there are some 40 to 60 inquests a year by coroners. It would be interesting to know the Minister's thoughts on the way in which juries might operate in future. It would appear that a jury can be convened by the coroner if he or she feels that it is appropriate, but it is important that the coroner has a clear understanding of the circumstances which the Minister or the Secretary of State might consider required the convening of a jury.
  I notice that clause 8 establishes a fine of £5,000 or up to three months' imprisonment for contravention of the legislation. Parliament tends to establish fines which are supposed to last 20, 30 or 40 years. Even at the low rate of inflation that we have now, £5,000 might not be high enough to act as a disincentive to people to breach the clauses of the Bill.
  I suggest that it might be worth legislating for the future and perhaps considering allowing the fine to be raised to a more realistic figure. We must especially bear it in mind that people might contravene the legislation because they have made a very valuable find and do not want to go through the procedures. It is important that the fine should act as a disincentive. It clearly will not do so if someone decides to breach the legislation because his find is worth perhaps £100,000 and the fine is only £5,000.
  I see that, under clause 10, the Secretary of State will be able to determine rewards based on a market value to be determined by the Secretary of State, as he or she

  565
  thinks fit. I hope that that means that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will set up some form of procedure under which experts are involved.
  I think that our Secretaries of State are wonderful—of course I do, coming from this side of the House—but they might have some difficulties based on their previous experience in life in precisely determining a market value. I therefore hope that some experts will be involved who will understand how the right balance can be determined between the finder, the owner and the occupier of the land.
  I look forward to reading the annual report that clause 12 requires. I am glad that legislation is now beginning to require annual reports. As an accountant, I have been used in business to seeing annual reports produced every year. Indeed, many companies produce quarterly or six-monthly reports.
  One of the discoveries one make on entering Parliament is that the annual reports that Governments have produced over the years have not been so sophisticated or open in terms of providing information as one would have liked. It is good news that the Government have improved all the annual reports for all Government Departments and that those reports are in much better shape than previously. I hope that, when this annual report is produced, it will be a worthwhile one that will give a lot of information about some of the treasure finds over the previous year.
  Perhaps at this stage, without straying off the subject, I might make a plea. The other day I went to the Vote Office and asked for the annual reports of each Government Department that are normally published in February. They are still not available. Those of us who like to get at the figures of Government make a particular plea that the reports do not become antiquities or treasure trove, and are not vastly out of date by the time they are published. I hope that Ministers in various Departments will take note of that request.
  In conclusion, the Treasure Bill should, on balance, be advantageous and beneficial to the country. It should be seen as good news by pretty well all the interested parties here. I am sure that it could be improved still further with minor amendments, to make sure that the concerns of the National Council for Metal Detecting are taken on board. In that way, we can be certain that this Bill will adopt fairness between the discoverer, the landowner and possibly the owner, if he or she is still alive, of the property that has been discovered and, of course, the national interest. I welcome the Bill, with the proviso that we should try to maximise the number of people whose concerns have been taken on board.
  10.34 am
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a small contribution to the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant) on his success in introducing the Bill, which is long overdue—perhaps several hundred years overdue. The Bill will clarify some of the problems that have arisen, particularly in recent years. Unfortunately, I have no personal interest to declare in relation to the Bill.
  It is important to ensure that we preserve our heritage. Tourism is the fastest-growing industry in the world, and Britain has more than its fair share of visitors—a number
  566
  which is increasing at a massive rate. One of the greatest attractions of Britain to people who come from abroad is our history and the artefacts that have been gathered over a long period.
  Britain does that awfully well. Museums are littered throughout the country—north, south, east and west. They attract people from all over the world to come and see some of Britain's real history. I hope that the Bill will lead to the discovery of more artefacts, and will enable people who use metal detectors to go out with more knowledge about what the law sayd, and without the uncertainty which has been the problem to date.
  One of the main purposes of the Bill is to designate what is treasure trove and what is not. The Bill is right to make it clear that objects which contain at least 5 per cent. by weight of gold or silver and are at least 300 years old are treasure trove. Up to now, treasure trove has been defined as objects which contained "substantial amounts" of gold and silver. For goodness' sake, the position is problematic enough as it is. Who is to state what is substantial and what is not? The specific declaration in the Bill of what is and what is not treasure will be beneficial.
  Then there is the problem of coins that do not contain 5 per cent. of gold or silver, but are discovered in hoards. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said that there would be difficulties in defining a hoard. How close together would the coins have to be before they were so designated? If someone with a metal detector discovers a coin one day, goes back another day and finds a coin not too far from the first, and then on a third day finds another, will that be considered a hoard? There may be a problem there. I hope that, in Committee, the definition of a hoard can be examined again, so that everyone can be clear about it.
  The magazine British Archaeology said:
  "The Bill's main aims are to remove the obligation for coroners' juries to read dead minds".
  That is right. It is problematic for a jury to work out whether someone buried something so that it would be discovered at a later date. It is right to remove that problem, and regard anything that is found as treasure.
  The previous loophole has led to the loss of some treasure, including, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire said, the Middleham jewel, which was worth £2.5 million. Other finds, perhaps not of such great value but of great archaeological interest, may also have been lost.
  The Bill also clarifies what would happen with items found in association with treasure trove. As has been said, a number of coins could be discovered in a pot that is of great archaeological interest; the coins have to be designated as treasure, whereas the pot does not. In such cases, the find associated with the coins would be classed as treasure.
  Mr. Nicholls: Has my hon. Friend thought of another problem? If one coin cannot be treasure trove, what will happen if there is a massively important find of artefacts with only one coin? The whole find would disappear from the ambit of the Bill, whereas one extra coin would have made all the difference. That is obviously nonsense, but nonsenses can arise. Is that the sort of thing that my hon. Friend wants clarified in Committee?
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Yes. The Secretary of State will have flexibility to designate
  "additional classes of object as treasure".
  Let us take the case of one coin being found in association with a number of important archaeological artifacts. I am not certain whether the Secretary of State will be able to say, after the find has been made public, "I am going to reclassify all that as treasure."
  I am not sure whether the powers will be retrospective and whether something that has already been found can be drawn within the ambit of the Bill. I hope that we will deal with that in Committee. However unlikely it is that a number of artefacts will be found in association with only one coin, it is possible, and the last thing we want is for such artefacts to be lost to the nation, or even taken abroad, which could be a problem. That needs to be sorted out.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) said, we need as much clarity as possible about the powers that the Secretary of State would have, so that everyone knows in what cases they would be used. We are delighted with our present Secretary of State, but one cannot judge who will hold that position in 20 or 30 years, so I hope that those powers will be clearly defined, and that we will know the constraints placed on that person.
  Another main point of the Bill is that finds that are likely to be treasure must be reported to the coroner within two weeks, which is extremely useful. The maximum penalty for deliberately concealing the finds will be three months imprisonment, or a fine of £5,000, or both. That might sound severe, but it is absolutely right.
  We are talking about preserving Britain's heritage. It is important for finds to be reported because there could be additional treasure in the area. I assume that people will know that archaeological experts in universities and museums will be notified of the finds. They might be attracted to the spot to find out whether anything else is there.
  I have nothing against people who use metal detectors, but if the find is notified to the coroner and made public, experts who know a little more about the subject matter can become involved and perhaps even supervise more digs in the area to find out whether anything else is to be found. That could enhance the heritage and the archaeological finds in the area. I am pleased, therefore, that that provision has been included in the Bill. The more finds we can discover, the better it will be for everyone.
  I am also delighted that the coroner will be able to make reasonable efforts to ensure that occupiers and landowners are informed of any reported find of treasure on their land. That brings me back to the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge mentioned—the electrician who found coins in a loft. Any electricians who want to come to my house are welcome to do so—they would be lucky to find anything.
  There are vast tracts of farmland in my constituency, as in many others, and some of the villages there are well known to archaeologists. In Ribchester, for example, if one wants to do anything to one's house, such as adding a porch or a garage, one has to notify the planning department, which notifies archaeologists at the neighbouring university, who have to decide whether they want to do a dig before any building takes place. That shows how problematic the situation is, but that is the right course of action.
  568
  It is therefore right that landowners should be informed of reported finds of treasure on their land. We have talked of trespassing, and it would be appalling if someone discovered treasure on someone else's land and was able to make off with it and be given its full value. That is absurd.
  Even after the Bill is enacted—as I am sure it will be—we will not be able to rectify the problems caused by the rogue. People will still go on someone's land, find treasure and make off with it, and we will never be able to stop that, but at least we will know what the law is. I am sure that people involved in metal detection will want to ensure that any rogues in their midst are brought to book as quickly as possible, because they give all metal detectorists a bad name. That problem must be sorted out as quickly as possible.
  Clause 7 would give the coroner the discretion to summon a jury to a treasure inquest, thus speeding up the process considerably. I believe that it might also reduce the cost of working out whether something is treasure. The Bill also clarifies the coroner's duties, thus making them somewhat easier.
  The Bill requires that a code of practice be prepared to deal with rewards, after consultation with interested parties. Will those include metal detectorists and those in the archaeological community? It is right to draw up a code of practice, and the Bill will not become fully operational until that code is known. I hope that a number of associations and interested parties will be consulted.
  People will want to know what the rewards are going to be. For example, if metal detectorists find something on someone else's land, they will know that they will get half the value of the find and the landowner will get half, or they might even reach some sort of deal whereby the landowner gets 75 per cent. and the finder 25 per cent.
  Mr. Nicholls: That is the point. It is a question of reaching an arrangement. If one cannot come to terms—if the landowner would not allow someone to wander over his land with a metal detector if he does not get a big enough share—a deal will not be done. It would be wrong if no attempt were made to reach a deal, or if someone tried to rat on a deal and hang on to what they had found. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a question of making an arrangement with the owner of the land and adhering to it?
  Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that the position will become far clearer with the passage of the Bill. I suspect that, because of the publicity that will result from its passage, many more landowners will be far more conscious of what they might have and be keen—one never knows—to invite metal detectorists on to the land to try to find something, but under the arrangement that, if they do find anything, the landowner gets half and the finder gets half. That will become far more transparent.
  We have heard about some of the reservations of metal detectorists about the Bill, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire made it clear that it is not anti-metal detectorist, but quite the reverse. We often see them operating in our constituencies—I find it slightly bemusing, but there they are, either alone or with the whole family, traipsing over fields and looking hopefully for some find.

  569
  I do not know whether they are lucky every time. I suspect that it is like fishing and one does not catch something every time. I have caught something on only one occasion when I have been out fishing. Metal detectorists probably have to make a massive investment of their time and, even after years, might find little, if anything at all. The Bill might encourage them to go out knowing clearly what is treasure, and the procedures for reporting treasure trove to the coroner and the landowner.
  If the legislation leads to more artefacts being found, metal detectorists will be providing us with a great social and historical service, and we should encourage them to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire said that he anticipated greater finds of treasure after the Bill's passage, which should be welcomed.
  What about after the treasure has been found? Will museums have the ability to say, "We are very interested in this—it should be put on display so that the nation can enjoy this artifact or treasure"? I am concerned that, if there is a substantial increase in the amount of treasure found, museums may not be able to buy it. I am worried that the treasure will go on to the open market, be bought by someone abroad and lost to this country for ever.
  If it is likely that there will be more treasure on the market, museums should be in a position to buy it. I ask the Minister to examine that issue, because I do not want to see the treasure leaving this country. Will museums be able to get funding or assistance from other bodies?
  No one else has mentioned the national lottery. If museums were able to get access to some of the substantial sums that have been made available through the successes of the lottery, the country would benefit. I hope that that idea can be examined, although there may obviously be problems with capital and revenue purchases.
  I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge: that we do not want to see the treasure going into museums and then being locked away. If that were to happen, it might as well have been left in the ground. I hope that museums will be imaginative with the type of treasure and artefacts they obtain. We want to see treasure put into museums as part of the living history of the United Kingdom, to show our youngsters how important history is and how we have developed. If museums can afford to buy the treasure, it will enhance everyone's life.
  I have two questions on the Bill. The first is whether it will be a graverobbers charter. From what I can make out—perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire would like to say something if I have it wrong—the current position is that graves are fully protected by law and licences are needed to open them, but gold and silver objects discovered at an unknown burial site might qualify as treasure. I hope that the position will be made absolutely clear. The last thing any hon. Member wants is for people to think that they can start digging away at known and designated cemeteries and burial sites; that would be dreadful.
  My second question is whether the Bill will criminalise innocent people who fail to report finds because they did not know that they should have done so. That may always
  570
  be a problem, but I understand that the Bill specifically states that any person who has a reasonable excuse shall have a defence against a possible prosecution for failing to report treasure. Obviously we need clarity in the system, but also some flexibility. We should ensure that there is understanding for a young person, for example, who is given a metal detection kit for Christmas, starts wandering around and finds something of great value, unbeknownst to him or her, fails to report it and is in breach of the law.
  Once this Bill becomes an Act, perhaps metal detection kits should contain the code of practice as part of their packaging. As with electronic products, the instructions should be read before "plugging in". People could read the instructions before they go on to the land, and start to enjoy discovering some of Britain's hidden treasures.
  10.53 am
  Mr. John Whittingdale: I apologise to the House for not being present at the start of the debate, but I have been trying to follow it. I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant) on introducing the Bill. If it is successful, it will represent the first change to legislation on treasure trove since Richard the Lionheart first ruled that gold or silver that had been hidden with the intention of recovery by the owner belonged to the Crown.
  King Richard's original purpose for that legislation was to line the Crown's pockets to make ready for battle. I can understand the Treasury's wish to boost revenue going into the Exchequer by any possible means, but I do not think that that is the reason why the current legislation remains on the statute book. Our currency is no longer gold-based—which some people may regret—and the legislation has now become a means by which we are able to afford at least some protection to our heritage, by ensuring that historic finds can be purchased by the Crown for cataloguing and display.
  As some hon. Members have already said, the current law is substantially flawed and riddled with anomalies, with the result that much of our heritage is being lost as more and more relics are dug out and kept or sold without first being reported. That is happening, in part, because of the actions of unscrupulous individuals, but also quite frequently because people do not understand or are not aware of the current law.
  We are exceptionally fortunate in this country because of the wealth of history and antiquity that forms our heritage, but much is still not known. The existing records and objects of the past have been studied and analysed, and they may still have some new surprises to bring forward, although it is much less likely now. To find out more about our history, we will have to depend on new discoveries, and the vast majority of those are likely to be found buried in the ground.
  Some objects, when discovered, will immediately tell us more about their provenance and about our history. They may come from a certain period or have a marking on them that indicates their age, but many more will be something of a mystery. Crucial in interpreting the significance of those objects will be the location in which they were buried and their depth in the ground. Anyone who has been on an archaeological dig will know of the painstaking, enormously slow process that is involved in

  571
  uncovering objects. The precise position in the ground of every revealed object and its proximity to other finds is carefully recorded.
  When people come along who are not experts or who are not necessarily interested in the history of an object, but whose main motivation is simply to try to uncover a pot of gold, and they root around without paying much attention to the archaeological importance of their finds, the archaeological information is lost. All too often, they simply chuck aside anything that does not immediately appear to have a monetary value.
  In recent years, there have been a number of attempts to change the law to deal with that problem. In particular, an enormous amount of work was done by the Earl of Perth in 1994, and by Lord Abinger in 1981. I can understand the frustration they must have felt, having devoted so much effort to updating the law, only to find that their efforts were unsuccessful, not because of opposition in either House but because of a lack of parliamentary time. I hope that they will feel that the work they undertook was not wasted, because it is of immense value today as we debate this bill.
  As has already been said, the law currently covers only gold and silver objects that can be proved to have been stored for safekeeping and subsequently not recovered, and it does not necessarily take into account their historic worth. There is no proper penalty in law for those who do not report finds of treasure trove to the relevant authority, and landowners have no rights over those who make finds on their land. The Bill will deal with the inadequacies of existing legislation in three ways.
  First, as we have heard, the Bill will apply to all objects which are found to contain at least 5 per cent.—or less for hoards of more than 10 coins—by weight of gold or silver, and which are at least 300 years old. Any items found in the same hoard will also be covered, regardless of the material from which they are made. For example, the pottery container holding the coins may often be of greater historical significance than the coins themselves, and it should, of course, be afforded the same protection in law.
  Secondly, the need to prove that objects have been stored rather than lost is to be removed. Hoarding through burial was in times past a common event—anyone who has dipped into Samuel Pepys's diary will know that he and his father were unable to recover all their hoarded coins from the garden, because the coins had been dispersed in the soil—but it is often almost impossible to prove that objects have been stored rather than lost unless the find is too large to have been accidentally lost by the former owner.
  Museums should have the opportunity to acquire any find considered to be historically important, regardless of how it came to be buried. It is the absence of legislation such as this that has allowed much of our heritage to pass into the hands of private collectors, many from abroad, without our museums having the opportunity to examine or catalogue the objects prior to their sale. Of course, that is not the case in Scotland, where all objects whose original owners cannot be traced are the property of the Crown, not the finder or landowner.
  Furthermore, I understand that the Bill does not mean that our museums will suddenly be cluttered with all sorts of undesired objects. Finds will be passed to museums only if the museums wish to acquire them for their
  572
  collection, and if they have the necessary funds to make the purchase at a market price. I am advised that no central fund for the acquisition of such articles will be established, and, should a museum not be interested in securing the article, or should the funds not be available, the item will be returned to the finder.
  Thirdly, the Bill introduces for the first time a requirement that anyone who finds what he suspects to be treasure must report the find within 14 days. I understand that that is already the position in Northern Ireland. Failure to notify the authorities within that period will become a criminal offence. Thus, for the first time since the middle ages, the law on treasure trove will have teeth.
  I understand that the Bill has received great support from the police, magistrates, coroners, landowners, councils, museums and archaeological societies, but I am aware that there is still some opposition to it, mainly from metal detectorists. I believe that many of the people who pursue metal detecting as a hobby are honourable people who wish to behave responsibly. Indeed, many of them make a valuable contribution by uncovering items that would not otherwise have been found.
  The code of conduct laid down by the National Council for Metal Detecting is exemplary. It states that those who pursue metal detecting should not trespass, should ask permission before venturing on to private land, should report unusual historic finds, and should be aware of the law relating to archaeology. Such provisions are very welcome, but the difficulty has been that they have not always been followed by less scrupulous people. That is something that the Bill will at last deal with.
  One or two other concerns have been expressed, and it would be wrong of me not to mention my constituent, Mr. Fearnley of Maldon, who wrote to me this week outlining his worries about the Bill. He suggests that the Bill would deprive landowners of what is at present their property. My understanding is that that is not entirely correct, that the Bill in fact respects the right of property and has, as a result, attracted the support of the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union.
  Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is touching on an important point, which has especially concerned me. Does he agree that the assumption should be that the landowner rather than the finder should receive any reward, especially if the finder was not on the land with the owner's permission? Does he accept that it would be very welcome if the Bill made that very clear?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I agree. I think thet it is because the Bill covers that point that it has attracted the support of organisations such as the Country Landowners Association.
  Although I welcome the Bill and the provisions that will clarify and extend existing protection considerably, I believe that there is a need to go still further. The Bill refers only to treasure, and treasure is very strictly defined. It must have at least some gold or silver content, and the Bill will clearly be a major improvement in respect of the protection of such items, but there is a need for a much more wide-ranging measure to cover all portable antiquities.
  Some protection already exists in legislation covering ancient sites and monuments, but not all ancient sites and monuments have yet been discovered. By the time we

  573
  have agreed that something is an ancient site that should be afforded protection, we may be too late and many of the artefacts there may have been lost. I hope that, in due course, we shall re-examine the law in this respect.
  This issue is one in which I take a particular interest, like my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire, and, indeed, the Minister, who is a close neighbour of mine. We represent areas rich in history. Maldon is, of course, famous as the site of one of the first battles, just over 1,000 years ago, but finds in my constituency go much further back. Recently, there has been a major discovery at Elms Farm of an iron age settlement that is around 2,000 years old.
  English Heritage has given a grant of £1 million for the excavation of the site—the biggest grant that it has ever awarded. There has already been an enormous wealth of discoveries which have told us much about iron age Britain and, subsequently, about Roman Britain, because the Romans settled there later. About 20,000 artefacts have been uncovered, but the vast majority—indeed, practically all—are not made of gold or silver but of wood, pottery or stone. Unless one is fortunate enough to discover gold or silver objects, and thus be covered by the Bill, finds are still not adequately protected.
  Only a few months ago, there was a find at the other end of my constituency of one of the biggest early Roman settlements. I understand that it is one of the very few places that Claudius visited when he came to this country. A temple and theatre have been uncovered there.
  That site needs protection, and I hope that there may come a time when we can consider how best to protect our archaeological heritage, so that all artefacts that may have some significance are saved and it is not possible for those people who simply want to make a quick buck by uncovering some gold to trample all over such a site, do irreparable damage and destroy much of what could have been of enormous value in our attempt to uncover our history.
  The Bill will extend existing protection, and will be enormously valuable in protecting some of our heritage. In due course, I hope that we can go further still and re-examine ways in which we can best protect that heritage and learn more about it for our children and grandchildren.
  11.8 am
  Mr. Mark Fisher: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this interesting debate and to explain why the Labour party is happy to support the reasonable and constructive Bill introduced by the hon. Member for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant). I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the several people whose work has preceded the debate and the Bill's formation, particularly Lord Perth. I also join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Dr. Roger Bland, without whose expert guidance and notes I suspect we should all be a lot less well informed than we are today.
  As many hon. Members have said in the debate, the existing law dates back to 1195 and was introduced for totally different reasons. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the law in respect of treasure is in a chaotic and illogical state. Many people feel that it is the worst and
  574
  weakest framework in Europe—perhaps with the exception of the system in Belgium. If someone is digging in his garden, it matters in law whether that garden is in Scotland, or England or Wales. If someone discovers something, he owns it as long as it is not gold or silver. He need not tell anybody about it or bring it to a scholar's attention. He can put it on his mantelpiece, shove it in his garage, break it up and dispose of it although it may be of enormous archaeological, historic and cultural significance.
  At present, there is no requirement for that person to respect the importance of his find or to do anything with it, which cannot be right. Equally, if the find contains gold, the position changes, which is illogical. The hon. Gentleman's Bill sensibly clarifies and reforms crucial elements of legislation.
  I particularly welcome the clarification on the issue of intentionality. It is clearly impossible to say what somebody was intending 2,000 or 3,000 years ago. The intention is sometimes clear—for example, if the find is discovered in a burial chamber, where it was likely to have been recovered at a later date. But it is often impossible to judge intent: the intentions are buried underground—buried in time. It is impossible for us to detect the intent; it is unfair to ask a coroner's jury—of all the unlikely sets of men and women—to try, retrospectively, to judge the intent.
  As a result of such difficulties, there have been idiotic cases such as that involving the Middleham jewel—the late 15th-century reliquary which was found in a Yorkshire field in 1986. The jury could not decide on the intent, so the find was not covered by treasure trove and was sold at Sotheby's for £1.43 million. The case was brought to a happy conclusion in terms of our cultural heritage only because the Yorkshire museum was able to acquire the find—all credit to it for doing so.
  I welcome the hon. Gentleman's point about clarifying the precious metal content. In 1990, an amazing iron age hoard was found at Snettisham, but because it was a mixture of torcs, bracelets, ingots, coins and scrap metal—which had no huge value, but was important architecturally—it was not covered by treasure trove. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the important find at Hoxne which, because it included tableware, was in a different category.
  Mr. Nicholls: Is there not a problem because, even under the present excellent Bill, a hoard that is immensely important in terms of our national heritage, will be beyond protection if it does not include the appropriate silver and gold content? Is that not the sort of issue that might be clarified in Committee?
  Mr. Fisher: I am sure that the subject will be discussed in Committee, although we have had an interesting near-Committee-stage debate today, with observant points being raised by Conservative Members. The issue needs to be clarified, although I suspect that some aspects will be covered by the Government's forthcoming code of practice.
  I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for South-West Cambridgeshire recognises the problem of hoards that do not have gold content. Many hon. Members will remember the long saga of the Icklingham bronzes of Mr. Browning in Suffolk throughout the 1980s—the

  575
  bronzes were stolen and eventually appeared in New York. Unfortunately, they were not covered by treasure trove because they were bronze, although they were important Roman bronzes.
  The Bill's scope is important; reference has been made to the excellent work of the treasure trove reviewing committee and its very good annual report. An enormous range of finds come under the treasure trove, including bronze-age torts found in interesting circumstances when erecting a farm fence. A set of bronze age bracelets were found by two women called Mrs. Beatrice and Mrs. Ferguson while they were gardening—an interesting way of enlivening a Saturday afternoon's gardening.
  I commend the interesting report to hon. Members; it mentions an extraordinary scattering of Roman coins all over the country. Silver denarii, radiates and brass sestertii have been found all over—in Suffolk, Gwynedd, Manchester, Leicestershire, Essex, Dorset, Lincolnshire, river banks, woods, moors, marshes and fields. Clearly, the Romans were careless about spreading gold and silver over their realm. The report is an amazing piece of work by the treasure trove reviewing committee: it shows how important the subject is; why we should improve the law and why the hon. Gentleman should be commended on introducing this sensible and constructive measure.
  Hon. Members recognise that there has to be reform, but the question is: what sort? In his interesting contribution, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) took what can best be described as the small "c" conservative approach. He seemed to say, "It is working quite well, so we should leave well alone." We have not heard quite so much this morning from the libertarian wing about repealing all laws and leaving it to the finder-takes-all principle. I was surprised by that, but I wondered whether the hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) might be beginning to take that approach.
  It would be an extremely dangerous approach to adopt, which would focus attention on the Sutton Hoo burial ship, which was not treasure trove. If we had a policy of finder takes all, the Sutton Hoo find could have been—were it not for the extreme responsibility of the woman involved—kept in a garage, broken up or sold off. Anything could have happened to something that was perhaps the most important Anglo-Saxon find of our generation.
  The reformist wing includes the extreme radical position of those who believe that all the current measures should be scrapped because they are not working and we should introduce a new, comprehensive piece of legislation. That was the position adopted by the Museums Association at its 1994 conference. The approach was articulately and intelligently argued by Mr. Tim Schadla-Hall, the museums director in Leicestershire. It is a coherent approach which, to some extent, the hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon seemed to adopt; it can be intellectually justified.
  It is arguable whether any Government would have the time and the ability to get it right from the outset. It is an intellectually respectable, interesting and logical position, but it would be difficult to get such a law right. When other countries such as Turkey and Italy have introduced such legislation, they have encountered enormous problems in enforcing it. Many people feel that, because such legislation is unenforceable, it drives more of the
  576
  stuff underground in those countries. Therefore, although the policy is logical, there are genuine problems with it—but I do not dismiss it.
  The hon. Member for South-West Cambridgeshire has taken a sensible, pragmatic, reformist position. He has recognised the cultural public interest and balanced it against private interest. Crucially, he realises that the measure needs to be workable and enforceable, and needs to balance criminality against good practice. I was a little surprised and confused by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) who, in an interesting contribution, at one stage seemed to say that we should criminalise the fellows committing such action, but then to say that it would be terrible to criminalise them. I was a little confused about his position on criminality in relation to some of the issues, but his contribution was interesting.
  The Bill should command general support on both sides of the House—it has support outside the House. The Labour party wants to associate itself very strongly with this position. The Bill is not hostile to metal detectorists. Indeed, the National Art Collection Fund's 1994 report paid tribute to the work of metal detectorists and said that 10 times as many important brooches have been found since 1988 because of such work than had been found before then—but it did not quite say that that period saw the rise of the metal detector in this area, the new technology working for archaeology.
  Most metal detectorists are extremely responsible people and do it not out of gain but out of genuine interest. The Bill does not threaten them in any way whatsoever. The annual report of the treasure trove reviewing committee states that all but five of the 27 cases reviewed by it in 1994–95 were found by metal detectorists. It is recognised that most metal detectorists play an important role. The National Metal Detecting Association is only too aware that this debate was provoked because of the looting of Wanborough, and that, if it had not occurred, we would not be where we are today. That was an irresponsible, and damaging act—Celtic coins were looted. Not all people who work in this area act with good sense or with a constructive attitude.
  I look forward to the Minister's speech. I hope that the Government will endorse the Bill. I hope that he will tell us a little bit more about the code of practice, which I understand is forthcoming. Will he tell us when the code of practice is likely to be put into effect and what areas it will cover? For example, will it cover guidelines on registration of a wider range of portable antiques or the obligation to report all finds? Will the code of practice go so far as to license all excavations, as occurs in Northern Ireland? Will the state have the right to claim any find of archaeological importance, as occurs in Scotland? Will the Minister, under a code of practice, encourage a network of designated museums and centres for reporting finds? We already have a network in Leicestershire, Norfolk and the museum of London. If that were extended, it would be helpful and constructive, and fit very well with the hon. Gentleman's Bill.
  I hope that the Minister will also say something about the problems of enforcement. How will the Government react to that? How will they encourage people to act responsibly? Counties such as Norfolk issue leaflets, and there is clear and public guidance to people on how to react when they discover a find. That sort of constructive attitude, if supported by a voluntary code that the Government introduce, would be welcomed by the Labour party.

  577
  Will the Minister also put it into a slightly wider context and say something about the international context and whether, if ever, the Government will ratify the 1970 UNESCO treaty to put an international context on all this work? I hope that the Government publish a good code of practice as a codicil almost to the Bill. The Labour party congratulates the hon. Gentleman on his Bill, and hopes that it gets speedy passage through Committee.
  11.23 am
  The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant) for bringing forward the Bill. He has done a tremendous amount of hard work—he has dug up detailed, esoteric and recondite work and presented it to us. I expect that he will have a hard and detailed time in the Committee stage. There has been a long, and not always satisfactory, history to this measure. A number of hon. Members have paid tribute to the work—which was frustrated—that was done in another place during previous attempts to get provisions of this nature turned into an Act. While it was frustrating at the time for noble Lords, their hard work has helped my hon. Friend prepare the Bill and it will shortly see fruition in an Act.
  Secondly, I shall refer briefly to some of the comments that have been raised by my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who spoke for the Opposition. Thirdly, I shall say something about the Government's position and take up the words of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and put it in a wider context so that, on Report, we will have in our minds the Government's discussion document on portable antiquities, the treasure trove reports and the consultations which will take place about the guidance that will fill in any detailed aspects of the Act.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire will want to comment in more detail, as this is his Bill. He made an extremely thoughtful contribution. There are a number of sides to this Bill: the interests of the finders, the interests of the landowners and the interests of the nation—which can be subdivided into museums, individuals and individual displays where the public may see the objects that were discovered. The objects should be recorded and their provenance should be ascertained and set down for future generations so that they know the importance of them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said that it was right that not everything should necessarily go into museums when they are discovered, and it is the Government's intention that not everything should go into museums. As my hon. Friend's Bill makes clear, there will be times when museums are offered objects but do not want them. They will then be returned to the finder, who can do with them as he or she wishes. My hon. Friend also said that he did not want objects mouldering in the cellars of museums and never seen by the general public. However, he also said that museums have changed in the last few years.
  Hon. Members will know that I am currently looking at a museums review, which the Government have not held since 1928. What my hon. Friend's Bill says about treasure and the consequences of the consultation
  578
  document on portable antiquities will be fitted in with what we are hoping to do about museums. It will be put into a wide context.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge referred to the difficulties of defining when an object is found in association and when it is not. He asked whether an object found near where others were previously found—perhaps a field away—will be associated with the previous objects. These matters will be discussed in Committee, and they will be the subject of consultation. There are doubts and uncertainties about these matters. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central asked me to say something about a code of practice. We will ask the detectorists, the police, the Country Landowners Association, the National Farmers Union and landowners for their representations and about exactly how they think such matters should be best decided.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Teignbridge and for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale)—or perhaps I should say the battle of Maldon—made an important point about striking a balance between the rights of the detectorist or the finder and those of the landowner. It is a difficult one to strike. A problem arises under natural justice. If someone is trespassing on someone else's land and finds something on it, does it not belong to the person who owns that land, even if he never knew of the find's existence and never knew that he owned it? Those are difficult questions and we must direct our minds to their solution. We shall do so the guidance.
  I support what my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, the Opposition spokesman, and my hon. Friends have said about the Bill not being directed against detectorists. It should help the responsible detectorist. My wife is quite obsessive about detectors and I have more piles of rusty nails and old horseshoes than any man would wish to shake a stick at, but I certainly do not want to see her obsession in any way calmed down—within reason, at any rate. Let me add the Government's assurance that the Bill is not anti-detectorist. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central has said, the increase in the number of important finds in the past few years is in large measure due to detectorists. We should encourage responsible detectorists, and the Bill will do so.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will my hon. Friend clarify one point? If an item of what used to be termed treasure trove is found on land, who will be able to claim compensation for it under the Bill? How will that be decided? I am sorry to be obtuse, but I simply do not understand it.
  Mr. Sproat: I do not think that my hon. Friend is obtuse at all. One cannot be obtuse about something which is not set down clearly. The matter has not been set down clearly in the Bill because it will be considered in the code of practice and the guidance. The matter will be clarified thereby; it is not intended to clarify it in the Bill, only to indicate that it will be clarified.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) courteously apologised to the House for his absence now. He had a previous engagement arranged for later this morning, but he was keen to take part in the debate. I am sure that we are all glad that he did so. I welcome his welcome of the Bill and the fact that he agrees that we

  579
  must not discourage responsible detectorists. In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge, he asked how the Secretary of State's powers will be decided. I repeat that that will be a matter for us to consult fully on when the Bill has passed through the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dover also made an interesting point, to which no doubt we shall return in Committee, about whether a fine of £5,000 is too small. Common sense tells us that, if a man reckons he has his paws on £100,000-worth of Roman coins, he will not care very much about a fine of £5,000 or even a possible prison sentence of three months. We shall want to reconsider that matter and the necessity or otherwise of index-linking the value of the fine in later years.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) made an extremely interesting speech, in which he also referred to the Secretary of State's powers. I have already said that the extent of those powers will be a matter for consultation, but of equal interest to the House is that what the guidance then determines should be the way in which the Secretary of State behaves will be subject to affirmative resolution in the House. We shall therefore have a chance to return to that matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge also asked what might happen about any changes that are necessary. It is rather like the discussion about television sports rights and what is or is not a listed event. Similarly, decisions will have to be made on what is or is not treasure. If it appears to us that things have been left out which ought to have been put in, the Secretary of State will consider the matter and proposals will be put before the House and will be subject to affirmative resolution. We are not just building flexibility into the Bill, but building into it a flexibility about which the House will have the chance to say, "Yes, we agree," or "No, we do not agree." That element of choice should be included in the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley and others expressed concern about a graverobber's charter and about whether the Bill will criminalise innocent finders. Those are extremely important points and I should like to make it clear to the House that there is no question whatsoever of detectorists being able to break into graves to inspect them. Graves are protected by other laws and they will remain so protected. I can give a total guarantee that the concerns that my hon. Friends have rightly expressed have been taken care of.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley expressed natural concern that we must not criminalise innocent finders. That is so and why the Bill provides that if a discoverer has a reasonable excuse, it will be taken properly into account. For example, someone may dig a trench and happen to find a tort lying there. He may not realise what it is, put it aside and forget about it. Given that that person was just digging a trench and not looking for antiquities, he would have the type of reasonable excuse that would prevent him from being challenged for not reporting the find under the Bill. I am sure that the House may want to return to that in Committee, but I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire has dealt with the matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley suggested that detector kits should include a short statement on people's responsibilities when they find something. That was an extremely good idea and a good
  580
  example of how such debates raise points about which no one had thought. Certainly I had never thought about that and I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire had thought about it, either. No doubt manufacturers will want to take account of my hon. Friend's very good suggestion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon spoke about the hard work done in the Lords. It is worth while to emphasise how grateful we are for that. I hope that their frustrations are now sublimated in the warmth they feel now that their hard work is about to produce something that looks as though it will get through the House. My hon. Friend also raised the important point of considering the Bill in the widest possible context, and I will come to that when I express the more general Government attitude to the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central gave a general welcome to the Bill, and we very much welcome that. I am always impressed by the amount of extremely arcane information that he has to hand. He quoted that a find worth £1.43 million had been sold at Sotheby's. I do not know how he finds all that information, let alone remembers it. It is nice to have his support.
  The hon. Member spoke about the illogicality of the Coroners Act 1988 and the fact that it related only to gold and silver. Not only that, but following a ruling from that splendid lawyer, Lord Denning, the Act relates to a "substantial" amount of gold and silver. When we are considering matters of law, we should always be careful about trying to pin down provisions to such and such a per cent. The exercise of common sense and judgment is something that lawyers should never subtract from their ability to shine upon any particular problem. However, possibly in this case saying that finds relate to 5 per cent. of gold or 5 per cent. of silver makes matters clearer.
  I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his invention of the word "intentionality". I am not sure that I do congratulate him on that, but perhaps I should say I congratulate him on his ingenuiality on thinking up such a word. It is ridiculous to expect a coroner's court in 1996 to be able to say whether Ethelred the Unready meant to put a pot with 10 gold coins in the earth.
  I thank the hon. Gentleman greatly for his general welcome of the Bill. I will cover in more tedious detail, starting right now, some of the points that he made about what other European countries do or do not do.
  The Government very much welcome the Bill. It is a much-needed piece of legislation and I was greatly encouraged to hear the general support it received from all sides of the House. I noted, too, the particular welcome the Bill received from the Opposition. I hope that that means that it will have an easy passage in the sense of well wishing, but perhaps not quite such an easy passage. There are many details which I am sure the House will quite properly wish to look at more closely.
  My Department has had responsibility for treasure trove for nearly three years and has been able to place it firmly within its overall responsibilities for archaeological and cultural property. We have made extra resources available for that responsibility, and the Department certainly accepts the need to reform this antiquated law.
  If someone finds an object of gold or silver, he should report it to a coroner who will then decide whether to hold a treasure inquest. The coroner will take expert advice, usually from the British museum or the National museums

  581
  and galleries of Wales or the Ulster museum. If it is declared treasure trove, the find is the property of the Crown. In practice, this means that a museum has a right to acquire it, but the finder is rewarded with its full market value. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon will be especially keen to hear that. He will know that in other countries in Europe, to which sometimes he has a slightly ambivalent attitude, do not always give full market value. However, under the Bill we shall continue to do so.
  On average, about 25 finds a year are declared treasure trove, 90 per cent. of these being coin hoards, although there are also occasional finds of prehistoric gold torcs and Roman and mediaeval jewellery or plate. During the year April 1994 to April 1995, there were 27 cases of treasure trove. Of those, 25 were coin hoards, the other two being finds of gold torcs, and 16 of the finds were acquired by museums intact. In another five cases, all coin hoards, museums acquired a selection of coins, while in another six cases, once again all coin hoards, the complete finds were returned to their finders. Those statistics, tedious as they may seem, demonstrate to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley that sometimes museums get them and sometimes they do not. There is proper machinery to judge exactly what should be done
  In 1977 the treasure trove reviewing committee was set up with the responsibility of advising the Secretary of State on valuations. The committee was established to provide independent scrutiny of treasure trove valuations and it currently contains four members drawn from universities, the trade and collectors. The committee's current terms of reference are
  "to determine valuations for items brought before it which correspond as closely as possible, taking account of all the relevant factors, to what might be paid for the object(s) in a sale on the open market between a willing seller and a willing buyer; and to submit an annual report to Treasury ministers".
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central has already expressed his admiration for those reports and I concur with him.
  Two changes have recently been made to the committee's procedures to instil the greatest possible public confidence in its working. First, finders are invited to submit valuation evidence of their own—they can thus commission their own valuations from experts—and secondly, the committee has established a panel of expert advisers drawn from the trade to whom it can turn in cases of difficulty.
  We are in full agreement with the committee, the British museum and the National museums and galleries of Wales that the best way to encourage finders to report their finds is to ensure that the committee's valuations should not only reflect the market value of the finds in question but should be seen to do so.
  A recent valuation case demonstrates how we aim to achieve that. In September 1993 the great find of Roman gold and silver coins and other objects from Hoxne in Suffolk was declared treasure trove and in the following November the committee agreed a total valuation of £1.75 million for it. The British museum's valuation report was some 50 pages long and the committee also obtained three independent valuations, which were all within 7 per cent. of each other.
  582
  There was some initial criticism of the valuation in the metal-detecting press. One tabloid newspaper put a £10 million price tag on the find before it was known what it contained, thus raising expectations unreasonably high. To allay those criticisms and to promote open government, the valuation papers were released publicly and they have received favourable comment in coin collecting and metal detecting magazines. We think that this method of determining the amount of rewards works very well, and it is not our intention to change it should the Bill be successful.
  The Government believe that the treasure trove system performs a vital service in safeguarding for the nation some of the most significant finds from the soil of England and Wales, but the law is limited in scope in an irrational way. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire has said, it relates only to objects with a substantial gold or silver content, reflecting its origins as a means of raising revenue for the Crown, rather than of preserving the most important archaeological finds for the nation. The objects are treasure trove only if the jury decides that they were probably buried with the intention of later recovery—a fact which may be virtually impossible to decide after 2,000 years or more.
  Clearly, the current law cannot protect our archaeological heritage to the extent that we would like, and we support this effort to introduce a more appropriate system.
  One of the most curious features of treasure trove is that the English law does not apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. I do not know why my brief states that that is curious, because the same pertains in hundreds of other matters. In Scotland, all newly discovered archaeological objects, irrespective of whether they are precious metal or regardless of whether they were hidden or lost, belong to the Crown under the legal principle of bona vacantia. I pronounce it slightly differently from my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire, who I am sure got it right.
  Although the Crown chooses to exercise its claim only in certain cases, this means that in Scotland all archaeological objects must be reported, and the Crown can claim those which it believes to be sufficiently important. The system works well and enjoys general acceptance.
  Northern Ireland has the same treasure trove law as England and Wales, which is why it is included within the scope of the Bill, but there is also has a statutory duty to report all archaeological objects in the Province, and the Northern Irish law also states that one needs a licence to search for archaeological objects with a metal detector.
  In the Republic of Ireland, for example, a law was passed in 1993 which made all archaeological objects the property of the state. It is an offence to own or trade in archaeological objects from the soil of the Republic and the law contained retrospective provisions requiring all privately owned antiquities found in the Republic to be reported within three months of the enactment of the law. Metal detecting is outlawed and metal detecting magazines are banned. Those measures might seem draconian to us, and they are certainly a long way from the Bill's proposals, but they enjoy widespread support in the Republic, where it is thought to be entirely right that the nation's archaeological heritage should be protected in this way.

  583
  Hon. Members have mentioned what happens in other countries, and it is interesting to know the geographical and historical background to the legislation. A survey of legislation in 17 other European countries shows that the legal protection afforded to portable antiquities in England and Wales is more limited in scope, more permissive and also more liberal in its treatment of finders than in virtually any other country in Europe. Only Belgium, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said, has a weaker legal requirement to report finds and provides legal protection to a smaller range of objects than England and Wales.
  In most countries, all archaeological excavation is controlled and metal detectors can be used only under licence, and those are not normally given to treasure hunters, the only exceptions being the Flemish-speaking part of Belgium and some of the Scandinavian countries. We have no controls on the use of metal detectors in this country—except on scheduled sites—and the Bill contains no restrictions on their use.
  Lastly, as regards rewards, the practice in England and Wales of paying the finder the full market value as assessed by an independent committee, is more liberal than in most countries, in many of which the reward bears little relation to the market value. All these countries have passed laws to protect their heritage of moveable archaeological objects this century. They see that as a completely natural and proper thing to do.
  When viewed against that background, the Bill will make only a modest change to our current law. It will make only a very minor adjustment to the current requirement to report finds; it will extend the rights of the Crown only in a very modest way; it will not impose any restrictions on the use of metal detectors, and it will not change the practice of paying rewards assessed at the full market value.
  The Government view treasure trove reform, important though it is, as just one part of the problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire said, the great majority of archaeological objects will still fall outside the scope of the Bill. A recent survey undertaken by the Council for British Archaeology on behalf of English Heritage has estimated that, every year in England and Wales, as many as 400,000 objects of archaeological interest are discovered. That is in addition to finds discovered during professional archaeological investigations. Such finds include not only coins and other metal objects, but fragments of pottery and other artefacts. Occasionally, those finds—known as "portable antiquities"—may have great monetary value, but, on the whole, their importance lies principally in their archaeological interest.
  The Government believe that it is important to distinguish between the two aspects of the problem: the public acquisition of finds and the recording of them. Treasure trove provides a mechanism whereby the national and local museums have, in effect, the right of first refusal to certain finds, providing that they can find the money to pay full rewards for them to the finders.
  On the subject of recording, there is widespread agreement that the reporting of finds, so that they can be properly recorded, is of key importance, more important often than public acquisition, but the Bill will make only limited adjustments to the classes of objects that are legally required to be reported—for example, hoards of
  584
  base-metal coins—and there would continue to be no legal requirement to report other important categories of finds.
  For that reason, last month, my Department published—the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central properly asked me about this—a discussion document on portable antiquities. It seeks views on possible measures to improve the recording of all archaeological objects, not just those covered by treasure trove law or its proposed replacement, in the belief that current arrangements are, except in one or two sectors, not working well.
  The Government accept that there is an urgent need for action to record those objects as they are irreplaceable and of great importance for the nation's heritage. The discussion document considers the relative merits of voluntary and compulsory systems for the recording of finds. Under a voluntary system, the Government would draw up, in consultation with representatives of museums, archaeological organisations and metal detectorists, a voluntary code of practice for the recording of archaeological objects found in England and Wales. We believe that, if it is to be effective, the code would need to be accompanied by a campaign of education to encourage finders to report their finds.
  One of the advantages of such an approach is that it would not require primary legislation and, thus, providing general agreement for it can be obtained, it could be introduced with minimum delay. There is evidence that a voluntary code of practice is the option most likely to receive the widest support. In the Government's view, in their way, those proposals are as important as my hon. Friend's Bill.
  I would like to stress that the Bill places no restrictions on the use of metal detectors and the Government have repeatedly stressed that any detectorist behaving in a law-abiding manner will have nothing to fear if the Bill becomes law. I think that all hon. Members have said that that is the wish. My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear me repeat the assurance that he asked for recently given by my noble Friend Lord Inglewood in his foreword to the report of the treasure trove reviewing committee for 1994–95. Neither the Government nor the European Union has any plans to ban or otherwise restrict responsible metal detecting.
  In that same foreword, my noble Friend noted that all but five of the 27 cases of treasure trove recorded in the report were found with the use of metal detectors and he congratulated all those finders who reported their finds promptly to the proper authorities. The report for the first time named the finders. Without their ready co-operation, a great deal of valuable information about our nation's past would be lost. The Government willingly acknowledge that, in recent years, metal detectorists have discovered many objects of great importance for the nation's heritage.
  My hon. Friend has described the meetings that officials from my Department have had with the National Council for Metal Detecting to discuss the Bill. He has made a generous offer that he will discuss at any time or place, within reason, any point that it wants to make. I hope that we will have the benefit of that discussion in Committee so that no one will say afterwards that they did have a chance to say what they believed.
  The Government view the Bill as a modest measure to extend the protection currently afforded to certain finds of gold and silver coins and objects to a slightly wider

  585
  range of archaeological finds, and to iron out some of the anomalies of this mediaeval law. We are not aware of any reasoned case for the retention of the law of treasure trove, and none has been suggested during the discussions that have taken place on the Bill with the many organisations that have an interest in it, including the National Council for Metal Detecting—although we are still in discussion with it—and landowners. Under current law, it is necessary to prove the motive of an individual. As hon. Members have said, it is unreasonable to expect a coroners jury to decide that in every circumstance.
  The Bill's main aim, therefore, is to clarify exactly what type of find should be reported and will be treasure. At present, that is unclear; my hon. Friend's Bill makes it clearer. The Bill strikes a fair compromise between the interests of finders and landowners, but we shall consider that further in the consultation paper.
  Detailed guidelines on how the Secretary of State for National Heritage is to pay rewards will be set out in the code of practice provided in clause 11. That code will be drawn up in consultation with interested parties. As a further safeguard, the code will have to approved by each House of Parliament before the Bill can take effect. As I have made clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley, the Bill will not allow people to look for treasure in graves. Innocent finders will also be protected.
  At the same time, the Bill has great flexibility because it contains a provision that gives the Secretary of State the power to add or to remove categories of object from the Bill. I hope that we are building in fairness, flexibility and an opportunity for the House to return to the matter. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire again, and I look forward to the consideration of the Bill in Committee.
  11.55 pm
  Sir Anthony Grant: With the leave of the House, I will make a brief response because my hon. Friend the Minister has dealt with nearly everything that had been asked about. I am grateful for the support from both Front Benches and to all hon. Members who have spoken because they have all made sensible and helpful speeches, all of which will be extremely helpful in Committee. Nearly all the points have, I believe, been matters of detail and I assure my hon. Friends that I shall take them carefully on board.
  Because of the warm response to the Bill, I hope that it will have a speedy journey through the labyrinth of procedure and will reach the statute book in the not too distant future.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) rightly asked about what the definition of a hoard is and about how scattered it would have to be. We shall have to satisfy him about that in or before the Committee. He dealt with ownership. I emphasise again that the Bill is a change in the law. For the first time, landowners—whom he was concerned about—will have certain rights. Again, we shall consider whether they are adequate.
  We should not forget someone else: the owner. My hon. Friend feared an electrician coming to his house and finding something of benefit. If my hon. Friend had a predecessor in title who said, "Hey, just a minute—
  586
  all those coins are mine: I left them by mistake when I sold the house," his claim as the true owner, which he could prove, is established. That is covered by clause 4. The problem is that, in most cases, the original owners lived possibly 1,000 or 2,000 years ago.
  Mr. Nicholls: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for pressing him on this point. I do not understand how a code of practice or guidance can clarify what seems to be a fundamental point. It would have to be sorted out by statute. Where there is no predecessor in title, in the sense that the possibility is remote, it is wrong that a finder should have rights over and above the owner of the property in which that hoard was found. That should be clarified. It is a policy decision about whether the finder or property owner should have the right. I do not understand how such a fundamental point can be dealt with in guidance.
  Sir Anthony Grant: We will consider that matter carefully, but four factors are involved: first, the original owner, who can usually rarely traced in these cases; secondly, the rights of the finder; thirdly, the rights of the landowner or occupier; and fourthly, the rights of the nation. All those must be reconciled. To some extent, my Bill provides the framework for getting this right for the first time. The law has not been satisfactory for a long time. We shall consider closely what my hon. Friend says.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), and my hon. Friend the Minister referred to the enforcement provisions. I was rather surprised because I had feared that someone would say that we were being too draconian. It seems as though we are being too lenient and wishy-washy. We will look at that point. However, I advise my hon. Friends that the issue of penalties gets entangled in Home Office regulations and standards, and in comparisons with other provisions.
  Many years ago, I introduced a Bill on oil in navigable waters. We had a great struggle with the Home Office to get what we thought was an enormous penalty for people who discharged oil in navigable waters. We then discovered that it was totally inadequate and we trebled the fine. We shall have to see how we get on here; I was interested that people were concerned about the fines.
  I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley that there will be no question of being ferocious or savage towards people who have genuine reasons for not reporting a find. Clearly, our famous word in law, "reasonable", can be interpreted perfectly reasonably in such a case.
  I am so glad that every hon. Member who has spoken has emphasised, as I sought to do, that the Bill is not an attack on the excellent activity of metal detecting. I point out the concessions that we have made to the national council since Lord Perth's Bill was considered in the House of Lords. I mention four items that the council raised on which we have made concessions. One is the number of coins with a precious metal content of less than 5 per cent.; we have raised the figure to 10 under clause 1.
  The Crown will now have the power to disclaim objects that have been submitted as potential treasure under clause 6; that change is in response to the national council's request. Coroners will now have discretion on whether to summon a jury to a treasure inquest under

  587
  clause 7. Coroners—this was the final request that the council raised—will now be required to inform finders if a treasure inquest is to be held and to ensure that they are given the opportunity to examine witnesses under clause 9.
  All four concessions were made at the request of the national council and are changes made since the introduction of Lord Perth's Bill. It therefore cannot be said that we have been unreasonable in the way in which we have responded. If the council wants to make any other points, it has only to let us know. If the council lets me know, I shall meet members of it. If the requests are sensible and reasonable, we shall accommodate them in Committee.
  I repeat that responsible metal detectorists have a great contribution to make in the future recovery of our heritage. In that spirit and because of the warm support given by the House to the Bill, I can say that this is a moment of history. If the House gives a Second Reading to the Bill, it will preserve our history for the benefit of present and future generations.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  Leasehold (Reform) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  12.2 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  It gives me great pleasure to move the Second Reading this morning. I pay tribute to the many hon. Members, past and present, who have spent so much time trying to reform our leasehold law. I refer especially to Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, who was one of the first pioneers in the area and who worked so hard on behalf of many leaseholders in his constituency.
  His work was subsequently taken up by the present holder of the seat, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn), who I am delighted to see in his place today. His solution to the problem of commonhold was described, in that wonderful and admiring phrase used so often by civil servants, as an elegant solution. I am also grateful to the sponsors of the Bill, many of whom have joined me today, and to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) who has been a great supporter of commonhold over the years.
  I begin by explaining why the Bill was called the Leasehold (Reform) Bill. When I was successful in the ballot, I was very concerned about the position of leaseholders, and I wished to do something to help them. I am glad that the Government took up my concerns, and that they have included some measures to help leaseholders in the Housing Bill which is currently in Committee. However, the issue of commonhold was not included. It is an unknown form of property law in England and Wales, and I wished to pursue it. That is why the Bill, although called the Leasehold (Reform) Bill, concentrates entirely on commonhold.
  All of us remember that the manifestos of the three main parties contained a commitment to commonhold. The reason was that so many of us had, for a long time, been aware of the problems facing leaseholders. I had many meetings with leaseholders in the run-up to the general election, and, as soon as the election was over, at almost my first surgery, the real problems faced by leaseholders were brought home to me in case after case.
  As a seaside town, Hastings is not full of the large mansion blocks with which so many of my colleagues have had to deal. We have many smaller properties, where the freeholders have often been families who have decided to move out of the family home, and have divided the home into flats. Inevitably, time passes and the original freeholder dies. The estate decides to sell the freehold, and suddenly, the leaseholders find that they have freeholders of whom they have no knowledge.
  The first case that came to my attention was very obvious. On the sea front in Hastings, scaffolding had been erected outside a house several months before I was elected. That scaffolding is still there. The lady who owned the first-floor flat has now had to leave a derelict building. She has lost all her savings, and she has lost her property. The reason was that the freeholder behaved in the most disgraceful way; the problem has not yet been solved.
  Similar problems were raised at surgery after surgery. For a while, a steady stream of leaseholders came to complain that their freeholder had instructed the building

  589
  society with which the leaseholder had a mortgage to increase the mortgage to cover the cost of repairs. Without a word to the leaseholder, the building society had agreed to the freeholder's request. People who had budgeted carefully to pay their mortgage were suddenly faced with huge increases in their monthly bills, yet there was no redress.
  We also found that there were problems with insurance. In one case, the roof of a building was blown off in the 1987 storm. The freeholder got the insurance money, yet the flat is still not wind and waterproof. There are endless problems with maintenance and repairs. I will not go into the details of those problems, because I am sure that they are familiar to every hon. Member.
  One problem faced by leaseholders as a group is that they have no control over the size of the bills for repairs that are presented to them. They often dispute the bills and get their own surveyors, who produce their own schedule of works, which is completely at variance with that of the freeholder. There is then an intransigent stand-off, which is of benefit only to the legal profession.
  Because of the various problems that have emerged, our local evening paper, the Evening Argus, ran a series of articles. I am sure that London Members here could duplicate the campaign that was run in Hastings, and could give many more details.
  One organisation based in Brighton controls 7,000 flats throughout the country. The residents of many of those flats are finding exactly the same problems as those I have described. When 7,000 flats are on one person's books, one is dealing with a major company, not just a small freeholder.
  Mr. Toby Jessel: My hon. Friend referred to London Members, and cases that had come up in her surgery. Has she carried out any comparison with London Members—perhaps with those who have been in the House quite a long time, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) and myself—to ascertain whether the extent of surgery cases about leaseholding, including leaseholding of flats, has at all diminished since the 1980s or the 1970s?
  Despite the needs that she has described and that have given rise to her Bill, is it not possible that the number of surgery cases concerning leaseholding has diminished for the past generation? Perhaps in general the leaseholders' regime is already better than it was a decade or two back.
  Mrs. Lait: If my hon. Friend speaks in the debate, I am sure that he will say whether his caseload has diminished. As a new Member, I have certainly not found any diminution in the number of cases on the subject.
  In fact, I had a gentle disagreement with my local paper's editor, who is not from Hastings, about whether an article that I had written on my Bill for the paper should be published. I suggested that he might find it very interesting if he published the article, because I assured him that it was a problem in Hastings. Much to my amazement, let alone his, for the first time ever, my article prompted letters addressed to me rather than to the paper. I have, as a consequence picked up at least another half dozen leasehold cases.
  590
  I am therefore not convinced that, in my part of the world, the problem has gone away. I very much hope that the amendments to the Housing Bill will help leaseholders.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing this excellent measure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) has called me in aid, may I say that problems faced by leaseholders in my constituency have increased over the past year? The situation has no doubt been aided by the splendid campaign organised by the Evening Standard. I applaud my hon. Friend because, in a constructive way, she is trying to tackle problems, and I hope that she will get every support from Her Majesty's Government.
  Mrs. Lait: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that very helpful support. The exchange between my hon. Friends and myself has shown that there is a problem not just in London but wherever leaseholding as a legal form exists.
  One of the much more dramatic problems that has emerged since 1993 for small blocks of flats in my constituency is the leaseholders' difficulty in purchasing their freehold. I have referred previously to Doreen Slennett, who has been trying to purchase the freehold from the freeholder, who happens to share the same address as the managing agents. That is just one of the loopholes in the law that leaseholders are finding more and more offensive. I very much hope that we shall begin to see an end to leaseholders' difficulties in asserting their legal rights.
  I have described the problems that leaseholders have faced in my constituency, and I am sure that we will hear many more. Taken together, they show that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with long leasehold as a form of property holding. That is recognised not only by those of us with huge surgery caseloads but by all the main parties. As I mentioned, they all supported commonhold in their manifestos. I have also had support from the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the British Property Federation, which I understand has been reassured by some of the larger London estates it represents that they support the introduction of commonhold.
  The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors also supports the Bill, as do leasehold organisations such as the campaign against residential leasehold abuse. I have received many letters from supporters—I know that some of them are here today—who are very keen that commonhold, as an alternative to leaseholding, is introduced, so that they can convert their leaseholds into a freehold in a commonhold association. Campaigns run by local and national papers have been mentioned—those run by the Evening Standard and The Times are known. It is accepted that the system of leasehold is under severe strain and that we should be introducing commonhold, which is the purpose of my Bill.
  Commonhold exists in practically every other country in the world in one form or another. When I came south from Scotland, I was amazed to come across the leasehold system; it does not exist in Scotland. Scotland has managed for many years with a system of property law which operates in the notorious tenements of Glasgow as well as the blocks of flats in Edinburgh's New Town where I lived when I was first married—where, although

  591
  common parts are held individually, everybody is responsible for them and knows precisely the extent of their responsibility. It has worked very satisfactorily. It is therefore a shock to discover the difficulties in England.
  There is commonhold in Australia. Mr. Tim Sebbage, who is working in Germany but has a leasehold on a flat in London, has given me a great deal of advice on how the German system works. It sounds very similar to the Scottish system, and works very satisfactorily.
  My Bill, which is fairly slim as Bills go, but probably quite thick for a private Member's Bill, sets out the principles of commonhold. It goes no further than that, because I very much wanted to be able to debate the principles of commonhold. When commonhold is introduced into English and Welsh law, it will probably initially be of most use to those who are building new developments. One of the criteria for a commonhold association will be that it can apply not only to domestic developments but to mixed developments.
  There is often contention in developments where shops are underneath leasehold flats and it is not possible to enfranchise. If a developer wishes in future to produce a mixed development and sets up a commonhold association, each person who buys a freehold in that development will be able to work with others in ensuring that the management of the block is undertaken by themselves. That is a sensible way forward. It will encourage a diversity of developments instead of a monolithic approach. Given the long-term disfavour into which leaseholding is falling, it may be a way forward for freeholders who decide to get out of leaseholding and to establish a mixed development themselves.
  Let us say, for example, that a block has ground-floor shops. The freeholder can sell the freehold to shops and the leaseholders can acquire their leaseholds. They can then together establish a commonhold association. We shall see long leaseholding as a form of property ownership wither on the vine.
  Existing and successful leasehold associations would not necessarily wish to move to commonhold. I suspect that, in practice, there is not a great deal of difference in the way in which they would carry out their business. My Bill, however, would give them the opportunity to make the move if they wished to do so.
  A key feature of the Bill is that it provides for both the setting up and winding up of a commonhold association. We are all aware that neighbours sometimes fall out—there has been some local newspaper coverage of that subject recently. Should an association need to be wound up, it is crucial that provision should be made for that process.
  The system set out in the Bill is probably the most sensible way forward. If it is necessary to wind up an association, the effect of the Bill would be to convert each freeholder's interest in the association in a share. When the association is sold, in whatever way, the commonholder will have a share of any assets realised. At the same time, they would have to be liable for any debts of the association. One hopes that most associations would be run in a way that ensured that there would be no such debts.
  I am conscious that I have attracted a great deal of support for my Bill today. That being so, I shall not talk for much longer. I shall merely say that commonhold is the missing part of English and Welsh property law.
  592
  I accept that it represents a radical change. It may be regarded as unusual for a Conservative Member to introduce radical legislation—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am glad to know that we are all awake. It is sometimes necessary, however, to produce a radical solution to a problem, and especially one that has dogged so many of us for so long.
  I believe that commonhold offers hope to leaseholders. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to promise me significant progress on commonhold. Not only many Members on both sides of the House but millions outside this place want to see the introduction of commonhold as soon as possible.
  12.23 pm
  Mr. Piara S. Khabra: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) on introducing the Bill. It represents a progressive step forward, but, in my view, it is a conservative effort on the hon. Lady's part. I do not think that the Bill goes far enough in providing the rights that leaseholders need for their protection.
  I shall comment briefly on the history of some of the legislation that has been introduced in response to the weaknesses of leasehold reform as embodied in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. In addition, the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 was inadequate and ineffective. Many leaseholders have been disappointed by these reforms. High expectations have led leaseholders to demand clear and effective legislation from the Government.
  Leaseholders are lobbying their Members to put pressure on the Government to introduce positive legislation. I have received many inquiries from my constituents.
  Leasehold is a form of residential tenure. It is a throwback to feudalism, as every Member knows. It gives exceptional privileges and powers to landowners. It enables them to retain an interest in land and property, while at the same time selling leases for limited periods. At the end of each of these periods, the landowner can sell a further lease. By this means, a relatively few landowners have been able to accumulate substantial fortunes through the ownership of land. Leasehold has concentrated wealth in the hands of the few rather than the many.
  The case for reform is overwhelming. Britain is almost unique in the world in retaining the leasehold system. In other countries, different and more modern arrangements have developed to achieve a better balance between the interests of landowners and those who occupy residential property and to enable individuals to enjoy the benefit of freehold, even where they live in blocks of flats.
  Over recent decades, the weaknesses and injustices inherent in the British leasehold system have been increasingly highlighted, but reform has been a long time coming. The first—and to date the most effective—reform of the system was Labour's 1967 Leasehold Reform Act, which gave leaseholders living in houses the opportunity to buy out the freehold interest or obtain an extension of their lease. Many thousands of people have benefited from that Act. The 1993 Act involves such complex procedures and red tape that few, if any, leaseholders have benefited from it.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not tragic that, when the 1993 Act went through, Labour Members, with one

  593
  or two Conservative Members, repeatedly spelled out that it would not achieve anything like what the Government claimed that it would?
  Mr. Khabra: I agree with my hon. Friend. That shows that we have been more concerned about giving rights to the leaseholder than have the Conservatives.
  The 1993 Act made so many concessions to the interests of the big landlords that its whole purpose was effectively undermined. As a result, only a few leaseholders have been able to buy out freeholds. The present legislation is complex, and difficult for the public to comprehend. Many of the people who come to my surgeries do not understand the law, and have to go to solicitors. They find it difficult to get satisfactory answers, even after paying large fees. We need the new commonhold tenure, which will extend to leaseholders new opportunities to own and manage their homes.
  The Government's current leasehold reform proposals are inadequate and likely to end in disaster, as did the previous ones. This is another feeble effort by the Government to mislead leaseholders. The Government do not have the courage to confront the vested interests of large landlords, who are known to make donations to Tory party funds.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I have been listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry that he is trying to turn the debate into a partisan shouting match. Matters relating to commonhold and leasehold are necessarily complicated. It is not as easy as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  Will he comment on the Government's five specific amendments to the Housing Bill which in large measure deal with many of the problems about which he complains? They would close the loophole of the right of first refusal, separate forfeiture procedures because of the dispute on service charges—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. It would be better if the hon. Member sought to catch my eye to make a speech later, because this is meant to be intervention.
  Mr. Khabra: I said at the beginning of my speech that I appreciated what was being introduced, but it does not go far enough, or provide the rights that leaseholders need. I am also aware that the five recommendations to which the hon. Gentleman refers have not yet been published.
  Furthermore, the Government are adamant in their refusal to introduce commonhold as an alternative to the present rotten leasehold system. Although they pledged to do so in their last manifesto, that is yet another broken Tory promise. For too long, leaseholders have been treated in a shabby way. They have been right to demand that the Government take positive action to find a long-term solution to end their misery, rather than tinker with the present discredited system.
  I am sure that many Members of Parliament have received letters from constituents who are worried about the demands made by unscrupulous landlords and managing agents for extortionate service charges. They
  594
  are being intimidated, and threatened with forfeiture of their properties. There is widespread concern among leaseholders throughout the country about the lack of protection and safeguards against abuse under the existing legislation.
  Some constituents of mine have written me a letter about the problem that they are having with their landlord. I should like to quote the relevant parts of the letter. Mr. David Thompson and Miss Yasmin Mirza wrote:
  "Dear Mr. P. Khabra,
  We are writing to you, as first time buyers who purchased the above property in November 1994, on a 125 year leasehold, with the hope that you may be in a position to help, or advise the best way forward with regard to us buying our freehold.
  We purchased the property from Dao Heng Bank Plc, who at the time were also the freeholders. At the time of purchase we had been informed by the acting Estate Agents that there would be an opportunity in the future for us to buy the freehold. This was one of the main contributing factors for our purchase of the above property.
  In June of last year, to our surprise we received notification from Dao Heng's solicitors … that the freehold had been sold to Cyril Freedman Ltd, alias our new landlord. Following on from this notification, we also received a letter from our new landlord, Cyril Freedman, requesting that we make an interim payment for the sum of £450.00, in lieu of 'service charges' …
  The above property is in a building comprising of eight individual flats, converted in 1989, and hence all tenants are recently new to the property. Having discussed our concerns regarding the freehold sale with fellow tenants, it was apparent that the majority of tenants were also led to believe that they should of had the opportunity or at least had an interest in buying the freehold. After further discussions one of the tenants approached her solicitor for further advice.
  The solicitor advised that, as tenants, we should have received 'First right of Refusal' for the purchase of the freehold, and that we should serve notice on Cyril Freedman Ltd under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 … We were also informed by our solicitor that we had a requisite majority, ie) the names and signatures of four qualifying tenants, but if we wanted to formally respond under this Act we had to do so within 30 days of receiving notification of the sale.
  Unfortunately due to these timescales we were unable to gain further signatures, as some of the tenants were on holiday, and the notice had to be served in a matter of days.
  We have since received confirmation from the remaining tenants that, had they been available at the time, they would have been more than willing to put forward their names. Like most of the tenants we were at the time not aware of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, giving tenants 'First Right of Refusal'".
  I must emphasise that the new Bill should contain a provision that full information should be made available to all leaseholders who want to buy their freeholds.
  "On the 31st July 1995, having issued follow up letters through our solicitor we had still not received a response from Cyril Freedman Ltd. At this point we were advised and actually issued through our solicitor court proceedings, for a 'Declaration Order' namely that we have the requisite majority in respect of Qualifying Tenants and an Injunction Order requiring the Landlords to serve us with the requisite information under the Act …
  The appointed management agent for Cyril Freedman Ltd is David Glass Associates (DGA), and for reference both Cyril Freedman and DGA reside at the same address!!
  We have since received various threatening letters from DGA, chasing up the outstanding payment of £450.00. In one of their more recent letters they stated that they 'will serve proceedings for forfeiture of the lease and possession' of our flat. On the advice of our solicitor we have responded to these letters, explaining that we are taking legal proceedings under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987."

  595
  What a scandal. I will not quote the rest of the letter, as it is not relevant.
  I urge the Minister, therefore, to incorporate new clauses in the Bill, including: a right to manage; sanctions against the failure of landowners to abide by existing legislation; fairer and simpler valuation procedures; and streamlined rules for enfranchisement to cut through unnecessary red tape preventing leaseholders from buying the freehold of their homes.
  Anything short of those measures will not give leaseholders the opportunity of freehold ownership. In other words, the so-called party of ownership should put its money where its mouth is.
  12.37 pm
  Mr. Dudley Fishburn: Since I entered the House, eight years ago, I have introduced eight commonhold or leasehold reform Bills. In 1992, I was made "Radical of the Year"—to take up the phrase used earlier—because of that fact. "Bore of the Year" would have been a more appropriate title—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is certainly true that on none of those occasions did I match the eloquence and skill of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) in bringing this legislation before the House.
  My hon. Friend did not merely make a good speech—this is not an Opposition motion or the fluffing out of a ten-minute Bill—but presented a complete piece of well-thought-out, skilfully crafted legislation in a truly elegant Bill that shows many of the hallmarks of the work and effort put in by the Lord Chancellor's Department during the many years that we have been trying to get commonhold on the statute book.
  I was slightly depressed by the previous debate on treasure trove, which was trying to put a mediaeval law right and bring it up to the late 20th century. We want a law on commonhold in the late 20th century to put an 18th-century law right—a single judgment on which all leasehold is based, which makes it impossible to enforce a positive covenant.
  Now, some 200 years later, we are finally close to being able to allow the millions of our citizens who live in multi-occupancy flats and apartments to have the same rights of freehold as those living in suburban houses. The intention is to provide them with the rights that are enjoyed everywhere else in the world. It is extraordinary that, for example, the American system of a co-operative or condominium is not allowed under English or Welsh law. It is extraordinary that the way in which millions of Europeans live in apartment blocks—"copropriété" as it is called—is not allowed under English or Welsh law.
  The Bill is in such a complete state that it could be passed as it is. It sets to rights the very real concerns expressed by many people living in leasehold property without the right of freehold. With only 38 clauses, it steers its way sensibly and clearly through a legal minefield—no other aspect of the law is more difficult than property law.
  One has to ask why the Bill has taken so long and why, alas, we fear that it may take longer still. I hope that I shall not be described as cynical, but perhaps the answer is that the House enjoys adversarial politics so much that any measure that is not widely opposed does not get noticed. Perhaps if the hon. Member for Greenwich
  596
  (Mr. Raynsford), who has done so much to advance the cause of commonhold, were to say that the Bill was an evil Tory plot to extend the rights of home ownership, Conservative Members would get a little more excited about it. However, I know that the hon. Gentleman would not say such a thing. Perhaps the proposal has been in the doldrums for so long precisely because no one is criticising it.
  In 1987, the Law Commission came up with its review. It was the result of problems that had existed for 10 or 20 years and whose ferocity was mounting. The problems did not start in 1987, but it was the first clear sign that our Law Officers were unhappy with the law.
  In 1991, the then Minister for Housing and Planning, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), made a speech that lightened the hearts of many of us. He said:
  "The Government have decided to introduce for England and Wales a scheme providing for the freehold ownership and communal management of flats and other interdependent buildings with shared facilities. This new scheme, called commonhold, was proposed in 1987"
  by the Law Commission. He went on:
  "It is proposed that commonhold should be available for all types of land use—whether residential or commercial … In addition to providing for the freehold ownership of flats and other relevant properties, the scheme would establish standard democratic management arrangements".—[Official Report, 12 July 1991; Vol. 194, c. 1239.]
  That speech is a distant but clear echo of what my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye said today.
  It is worth looking back to that 1991 debate because it underlines my point, which is that everyone is on the same side in this instance. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), who was then the Opposition spokesman on housing, welcomed the proposal; Sir Hugh Rossi, who was then the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, welcomed it; the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) welcomed it, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), who has long had an interest in the subject. Mr. William Benyon, who then represented Milton Keynes and who was a fierce opponent of much leasehold reform, welcomed the commonhold proposals.
  That was an early sign of the extent of the agreement. Then came the party manifestos. Both the Conservative party manifesto and the Labour party manifesto contained a clear commitment to commonhold. I know that the Conservative party's manifesto contained that commitment, because I put it in myself. The hon. Member for Greenwich probably placed the commitment in his party's manifesto.
  The measure is favoured by the big estates, which were my bitter opponents during the process of leasehold reform. Credit should be given where it is due: the first organisation to float a commonhold paper—before even the Law Commission—was the Grosvenor estate. It has said throughout that it is a sensible, progressive and overdue reform of the law.
  The measure has been favoured by Back Benchers who were opposed to leasehold reform. In my last feeble attempt to introduce a commonhold Bill into the House on 17 May last year, I carefully gained the support, in a

  597
  ten-minute Bill, of a number of hon. Members who had opposed leasehold reform, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), who had spoken out with great effect against some of the measures in the leasehold reform Bill. He supported the commonhold measure, as did my right hon. Friends the Members for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) and for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott), my hon. Friends the Members for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) and others.
  It is important for Ministers to realise that there is a universal thrust in support of the measure. It is favoured not just by those hon. Members I mentioned but by Members of another place, who did so much to scupper the leasehold reform proposals. It is supported by academics and by building societies and the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which realise at first hand how much better it would be to be able to advance a mortgage on an apartment or a flat underwritten by a freehold—that is to say, a commonhold—than one underwritten by the dwindling asset of a complicated lease.
  The measure is supported by developers—a point touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye—because developers who are building a project from scratch do not want to be left with a residual freehold once they have sold the leasehold; they want to be out of the property. They would much rather those people who had bought into the shops, the shopping mall and the flats above it were the owners of that property. The developers could make the development and be gone.
  What went wrong? Why has the measure taken so long to reach this stage? There are two reasons: the first is that, the more the Bill was worked on—after the initial Law Commission report and the 1,000 replies, all of which supported commonhold, were sent to the Lord Chancellor's Department—the more complicated it became. I remember seeing the proposals for commonhold at one stage and they looked like two thick telephone books—they were, perhaps, bigger than the Scott report. Clearly, the matter had got out of control, as more and more people put in bells and whistles—80 pages were devoted to winding up commonholds.
  It is quite remarkable that my hon. Friend has managed to produce a well-worked-out piece of legislation that extends to 38 clauses, in which the winding up of commonhold is reduced to 11 clear and legally apposite clauses. We have pulled back from the enormous wad of legislation that might have come out of the Lord Chancellor's Department had we adopted commonhold earlier. I know that the Cabinet Committees that look at these things always met the representative of the Lord Chancellor's Department with a sigh as he came in bearing the two enormous and heavy tomes that were to constitute such a simple new form of land tenure. This real difficulty has now been surmounted by the Lord Chancellor's Department, which has done so much work, and by my hon. Friend.
  We also have not got as far as we should have because commonhold has been caught up with leasehold reform. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye made it very plain this morning that, although we are here under the official title of the Leasehold (Reform) Bill, this is a commonhold Bill—therefore, it is a particular delight to see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary,
  598
  Lord Chancellor's Department in the Chamber, and not someone from the Department of the Environment. The Bill is about the law rather than about housing.
  Commonhold is not a leasehold reform measure, although, in Standing Committee on the last Leasehold (Reform) Bill, the hon. Member for Greenwich and I made much play of the fact that we should have commonhold in it. We received many reassurances that it was not necessary to have commonhold in the Bill because it was to come along soon and would be on the statute book, perhaps even ahead of the leasehold reforms. However, that has not happened, and much progress is to be made.
  As a result of the difficult battles over the leasehold reforms, when something comes to the Government's business managers with leasehold reform on it, they carefully—and quite understandably—shuffle it to the bottom of the pile and the danger signals flash. How many dukes will be leaving the Tory party if this measure goes through?
  There are no such dangers in relation to this measure. As I said earlier, everyone—not least the landlords and the property industry—wants this measure. I hope that the message will go out clearly from this morning's debate that this issue should not make danger signals flash, but has the support of those who are interested in getting a proper form of property tenure.
  The Bill has the support of the building society industry because it knows that commonhold is a better bet for lending money on than a diminishing leasehold. It knows that, once this measure is adopted, the market will work and that a commonhold flat that comes on to the market will command a premium over a leasehold flat. A first-time buyer will say, "Here are two similar properties—which would I rather have? Of course, I would rather have one that has a commonhold underpinning it, because I know that I will not have a diminishing asset." As Conservatives, we believe in the market—it is the market, not politicians, that will make this measure a huge success. It is our job to act as midwives and to ensure that it is legally possible.
  The other great advantage will be that every commonhold property will have the same rights and—let us not forget this—the same responsibilities as every other commonhold property. Every leasehold property in the land has a different set of rights, responsibilities and small print. There will be an enormous simplification of the law.
  Mr. Jessel: Can my hon. Friend make it clear whether he thinks that the Bill would diminish the choice of those who want purposely to select a diminishing asset? Supposing a man aged 75 wanted to move to a smaller home and preferred to buy a flat with just 25 years to run on its lease, so that he could spend more in the remaining years of his life on expensive holidays. Would the Bill diminish the range of flats available for such a man to choose from?
  Mr. Fishburn: No, it would not. There will still be a variety of leaseholds available, particularly in the shorter-term market, because leaseholds under 21 years will not even be covered by the enfranchisement rights in the Bill. Therefore, all leases under 21 years would tend to remain as leaseholds and would not become commonholds.

  599
  For the reasons I have already made clear, no measure is better designed for the last year of a Parliament than the Bill. No measure is better for inclusion in the Queen's Speech in the autumn of this year in the months running up to the election. The Cabinet fixes the contents of the Queen's Speech in May and early June each year, so this debate is opportune and well timed.
  If we are able to show the Minister that both sides of the House would be happy to see the well-worked-out commonhold measure on the statute book and that it could pass through the House of Commons and the House of Lords in the necessarily feverish atmosphere before the general election, it is highly likely that the Bill will be adopted in the Queen's Speech. I look to the hon. Member for Greenwich to reassure us that, should such a measure be included in next year's legislative programme, his party will do its best to see it reach the statute book.
  The Bill is now ready to be adopted. It is ready—perhaps 200 years late—to become part of British law, and I hope that it will do so.
  12.56 pm
  Mr. David Congdon: First, may I make it absolutely clear that I greatly welcome the Bill? Although it is unusual to be keen to be here on a Friday morning, I was pleased to have the opportunity to listen to the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) and for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn), who made a good case for commonhold.
  Like many hon. Members, I have had to deal with the great difficulties of constituents who have experienced problems with the leases on their properties. From earlier debates, it is clear that, in many parts of London, the only way in which to buy property is to buy one on leasehold. That in itself is a reason for reform. Many of my constituents have come to my surgery and recounted the great difficulties they have had through high service charges and in buying their freehold under previous legislation. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), I greatly supported the campaign by the Evening Standard to introduce further changes to the law.
  I must confess, however, to a great sense of deja vu. When I first came to the House in 1992, one of the great measures of that Parliament was the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill. It was an enormous Bill, and my impression was that it would solve all leasehold property problems almost at a stroke, and would give many rights to leaseholders. It is a matter of great regret that the experience of my constituents since then has revealed that, for various reasons, that Act has not succeeded in achieving its objectives.
  I am not a lawyer, so I cannot say why the Act has failed its objectives in law. I know that there have been all sorts of debates about the extent to which the Upper House decided to dilute that legislation. Perhaps its Members should share much of responsibility for the failure of that legislation's objectives.
  I re-read the Second Reading debate on 3 November 1992 to remind myself what was then promised. There was great optimism that the leasehold reform measures would achieve the desired objective. In that debate, the Secretary of State promised that there would soon be a commonhold Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington alluded to that. Why have we not had on the
  600
  statute book a measure with such universal support? I echo the plea to the Government seriously to address that issue.
  On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that half of all leaseholders found problems with their freeholders. That is an astonishing proportion. If the measures in that Bill and in the current Housing Bill, which may be amended to strengthen the rights of leaseholders, and the measures in this Bill, take effect, they will go a long way towards redressing the imbalance.
  I am not a lawyer, and I do not profess to understand the intricacies of property law. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington spoke about two big volumes that almost equal the size of the Scott report and deal with one aspect of commonhold. I congratulate him on producing a Bill that is at least small. I confess that I do not understand every clause, because lawyers have a wonderful way of drafting legislation that makes it difficult for us mere mortals to understand. I suppose that that is why we pay so much when we seek their advice.
  I understand that the property tenure of leasehold is unique to England and Wales. There is debate about why there is such a property tenure at all, but I understand that the Bill does not seek to abolish the tenure—perhaps it should. The Bill provides the opportunity in law for the right to have commonhold as a tenure, and that must be right, because the public are greatly confused. Many of those who first enter the property market buy a flat or a maisonette, and there is often no choice between a freehold and a leasehold property.
  Back in the long distant days of 1972, when I got married, I sought to buy a property at a time of gazumping. What a difference there was in the property market at that time: I should not like to see the return of gazumping. Property prices were going up fast, and our only choice was a recently built maisonette in south Norwood. It was leasehold, and we paid ground rent. Fortunately, there were no problems, but we did not have the choice of buying freehold.
  People come to my surgery and say, "I own my property but I have a terrible problem. I have a bill of £2,000 for repairs, and I do not understand it." When I hear that, I think, "Hang on, this person owns his property." I have to pinch myself to appreciate that, although he owns it, he does not, because someone else can put difficult obligations on him. That is why I strongly oppose leasehold tenure as a form of property ownership: it is neither one thing nor the other.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington introduced a ten-minute Bill last year, and I have read the excellent speech that he made then. His speech today was also excellent. My hon. Friend said that, if his ten-minute Bill had been passed, within a generation there would be no leasehold. I am not sure about the length of a generation, but I am sure that my hon. Friend was absolutely right.
  I have a brief comment about a matter that is part of the general debate about leasehold reform. The Bill does not tackle the difficult problem facing the limited group of leaseholders who decided to purchase their local authority flats. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington to consider whether there might be a way of dealing with the problem.

  601
  In some ways, such leaseholders are in a much more difficult position than people who lease private flats. One of the distinct differences is that, when they lease a flat from the local authority, they are often in a minority in the block of flats; the others remain local authority tenants.
  Unlike a private landlord, a local authority often spends large sums of money refurbishing the block of flats. I have two serious examples. In the first, the council is doing the usual work—putting in new windows, central heating, kitchens, bathrooms and the like—at a cost per flat of roughly £8,000 per year. For someone who has bought a £40,000 council flat for, say, £24,000 after the discount, to spend £8,000 against one's will on the property's refurbishment is an enormous burden.
  The other example is even worse. In blocks of flats where, understandably, the local authority wants to put overcladding on the outside to keep flats totally watertight, with all the refurbishment, the cost ends up at a staggering £22,000 per flat. Some of my constituents are faced with such a bill. They cannot afford to pay that £22,000. It is unlikely that they will secure a mortgage, because the property is not worth much money. They are often in a worse position than leaseholders of private property.
  Although it might be possible in law to strengthen their position dramatically and to give them many more rights, the matter needs to be considered, because, for leaseholders, such bills are unacceptable and make the concept of owner-occupation meaningless.
  Mrs. Lait: I hope to reassure my hon. Friend that, under commonhold, it will be possible, under certain conditions, for people whose freeholder is the social landlord to have commonhold, but the issue is more likely to be dealt with under the housing legislation that hon. Members are considering.
  Mr. Congdon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that bit of optimism. It could be a big bit of optimism if the Housing Bill achieved that effect. I was pleased that, on 18 January. the Secretary of State for the Environment announced that he would introduce, I think, five measures to strengthen leaseholders' position. I do not mind whether changes to the Housing Bill or to a commonhold Bill achieve the desired objective, which must be that anyone who aspires to home ownership is encouraged to own a home, and, having acquired it, really owns it. They must not be in the crazy position whereby bills of a magnitude that they cannot afford can be imposed on them.
  Those people have no control over those bills and, to all intents and purposes, the ownership of the property is meaningless to them. That must be changed. In that spirit, I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's Bill and hope that the Minister will be able to say when the Government will introduce a suitable measure to deal with that serious anomaly.
  1.8 pm
  Sir Sydney Chapman: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to be called. I apologise for an overlong intervention on the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) and will do penance by making a short speech.
  602
  I join my hon. Friends in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) on introducing this important and radical Bill. For reasons that she explained, she calls it the Leasehold (Reform) Bill. She need not worry. It has nothing to do with leasehold reform; it involves the new concept of commonhold.
  The other week, the Government Whip on duty instigated a debate by moving the Adjournment of the House. At the end of the debate, the Government's supporters were encouraged to vote against the Adjournment of the House. We did. If my memory serves me correctly, we won the Division by one vote, and the Government Whip on duty immediately moved the Adjournment of the House. I am trying very hard to learn about the procedures of this House.
  Constituents have raised three particular grievances about this area of the law. First, a number complained that they thought that, under legislation, they had the right of first refusal to buy their freeholds. In fact, the owner went over their heads and sold the ownership to another party. It is absolutely right that, as a matter of urgency, we should reinforce part 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 to deal with that problem, through stiffer penalties or whatever.
  The second principal concern that has been expressed to me by constituents is that there are sometimes two freeholders who affect the property in which they live. In one case, the building itself is owned by one freeholder, while the ground immediately in front of it—if the leaseholders do not get control over that ground, living in the property is nonsense—is owned by another freeholder. That problem should be addressed.
  Perhaps my strongest criticism concerns cases in which a leaseholder tries to deal with a freeholder when he or she has been presented with what he or she regards as unfair service charges, and is then immediately threatened with forfeiture procedures. That is quite wrong. There are other problems, but those are the main ones.
  I am especially pleased—my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) mentioned this—that, on 18 January, the Secretary of State for the Environment announced that he would table five amendments to the Housing Bill. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) has reminded us that they have not yet been dealt with. Whether those amendments will be dealt with on Report or in Committee I do not know. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can enlighten us on that point. I know that the Government have acted.
  I take up one point made by the hon. Member for Southall. Introducing legislation in this complex area means that we may find that there are still loopholes, or areas that have not been covered. I think that the Government are going about the matter in the right way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East said that he would like the leasehold concept to disappear. I think that there is a case for leasehold, and I pray in aid my own humble property. I occupy the ground floor of a very modest property, and somebody else occupies the first floor. I would rather deal with a managing agent representing the freeholder than with the person upstairs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."] That is not a reflection on the person who lives upstairs, whose sex I will not give. He—[Laughter.] He could equally say, "I do not want to

  603
  deal with the gracious gentleman who lives downstairs, because he is not there 52 weeks in the year, and I may not know where to get hold of him." There is a case for leasehold; it has an important part to play. More importantly, leaseholders should have the right to buy the freehold or to enter the new concept of commonhold.
  The Bill has 38 clauses. I very much took to heart what my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) said about the complexities of these matters. They are difficult, and we must look at the whole matter carefully.
  I join my hon. Friends—and, I am sure, the hon. Members for Greenwich and for Southall—in paying tribute my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington. I am told that he is not standing at the next election. That will be an undoubted loss for the parliamentary Conservative party, as I would like to think it will be for the whole House. I pay tribute to his skill and perseverance in proposing all the commonhold Bills over the past eight years. I am glad that his surrogate, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye, looks as if she will achieve the aim of his hard work.
  I back the Bill. It is timely. I hope that it is not the last year before the next election, to take up the point made my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington. I am very happy to remain in the House until well into May next year, and see a new Session, but that is not matter for me. I commend the Bill to the House.
  1.15 pm
  Mr. Piers Merchant: I very strongly support the concept of commonhold and therefore the Bill. As far as I am concerned, the sooner commonhold is introduced the better. I regard it as a piece of unfinished business, not only because there is a clear and extant Government pledge to bring in commonhold but because I do not regard leasehold enfranchisement, important though that is, complete without commonhold. Indeed, I originally very strongly supported leasehold enfranchisement on the understanding that commonhold would be swift on its heels to make it a more effective and manageable innovation.
  I am greatly impressed by the initiative shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) in promoting the Bill. She is very assiduous in the House and is known to be so in her constituency. It is typical of her to use this opportunity to introduce a measure that will directly benefit her constituents and that springs from her experience of constituency case work.
  To an extent, I have experienced the problem of heavy constituency case work arising from leasehold problems. It is somewhat ironic that in the first case that I handled—an elderly lady who faced a one year's service charge bill of more than £20,000 because of major works planned for the property in which she lived—the freeholder's company happened to be based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye, which of course I do not at all hold against my hon. Friend. The Bill is excellent and she is doing the House a great favour by introducing it.
  There are two principal reasons why I support commonhold. The first springs from the cases that I have mentioned—Showing the clear inadequacy of leasehold and the necessity to find measures that can overcome such problems. The introduction of commonhold is therefore
  604
  very important to the success of enfranchisement. It is also important to bear in mind the sort of problems that are increasingly emerging as a result of leasehold. Incidentally, I find that the weight of case work and other problems caused by it are increasing.
  I certainly accept some leasehold arrangements work perfectly satisfactorily. Indeed, I was a leaseholder in a very happy arrangement with a managing agent and a freeholder who owned the property. The problem is that happy arrangements are dependent not so much on the operation of the law on the good will of the landlord. If that good will is not present, or if a bad landlord purchases the freehold, the whole happy arrangement collapses.
  There are two particular sorts of unhappy consequence. One is where a rapacious freeholder simply buys properties to use leaseholders as milch cows to generate cash. There are many easy ways in which they can load unreasonable charges on leaseholders. There are many complex arrangements available to freeholders, which I shall not go into, to enable them to raise money from leaseholders. In such cases, it is not surprising that leaseholders wish there to be a remedy. It is unsatisfactory that the law as it stands cannot easily provide that remedy.
  The arrangement goes wrong also when the freeholder is essentially a property speculator and buys a property because he or she—or it, if it is a company—sees an advantage in developing it. There was an especially good—or bad—example of that in my constituency. The firm of managing agents and the freeholder had a close relationship. Indeed, it was suggested by some that they were the same people. They bought properties because they saw the possibility of extending them upwards and downwards—in other words, developing basements and attics and adding on, as it were, to increase capital values and to generate the extra income that would ensue.
  The only way of overcoming such problems is by radically changing leasehold law. Commonhold is one important way of achieving that.
  My second reason for supporting the concept of commonhold so strongly is that I believe that English property law needs a new form of tenure. Commonhold answers that demand. I rather agree with my hon. Friend the Member for hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon), who said that he would like to see leasehold disappear. I regard it as an anachronistic form of tenure. Perhaps it should have withered on the vine along with socage, frankalmoin, serjeanty, copyhold and other forms of mediaeval property holding which eventually disappeared in 1660 or 1925, or at some stage in between.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) said, leasehold has been under a question mark for 200 years. Its origins, however, date back even further than that. It is necessary to bring the law up to date and tidy it by doing away with such a form of tenure. The introduction of commonhold would be a major step in that direction and would considerably improve and clarify the law.
  There is another problem that might be taken up as we examine the Bill or through the tabling of amendments to it. It might also be taken up in another form of leasehold reform. The problem is that leaseholders may remain as a minority in a building, and are therefore unable to enfranchise and unable to take advantage of commonhold. In that situation, there remain significant weaknesses that

  605
  we must try to remove. I compliment the Government on their planned amendments to the Housing Bill, which to an extent will address the problem. There are, especially, the problems of forfeiture and the ability of leaseholders to challenge unreasonable service charges that are imposed on them by freeholders. That is one of my basic reasons for supporting commonhold.
  I remain extremely concerned about leaseholders of local authorities or, in the case of my constituency, of Broomleigh housing association, which took over the property in question from the council. That association has imposed extremely high service charges on a number of leaseholders—in some instances in excess of £25,000 for one year—for capital works. Such sums are often considerably more than the property's original purchase price. The people involved are incapable of paying such service charges, which are completely unreasonable. The matter has been handled badly. There is some evidence that, while the handling has been improved, the law behind it has not yet been adjusted accordingly.
  Mechanisms are needed to prevent unreasonable service charges from being levied. Last year, I introduced a ten-minute Bill which proposed measures to deal with that. Some of them have been taken up by the Government's amendments to the Housing Bill. I was especially keen on capping the charge that could be imposed in any year. Reasonably set, that would enable landlords still to carry out their duties and exercise their freedoms but would also have protected leaseholders. I hope that that, too, can be considered as part of the overall reform of leasehold law, of which I believe commonhold is an important part.
  For all those reasons, I strongly support this reform, which I regard as part of a package of leasehold reform measures, some of which have already been carried out and some of which are yet to come. It is a complex matter; property law always has been. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye has made a valiant attempt to make it as simple as possible, on which I congratulate her. I hope that by this Bill, or through other means, commonhold will be introduced into law as quickly as possible.
  1.25 pm
  Dr. Ian Twinn: I am grateful for the chance to speak in the debate and support my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) who has introduced this Bill to put right a wrong about which many hon. Members have spoken. The problems that leaseholders face are difficult, and often make their lives hell. It is right that the House should, as a matter of urgency, put that right. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) on his patience and determination in bringing up this matter in a sort of Brandon Rhys Williams memorial Bill. We owe it to our former colleague to ensure that Brandon's ideas are brought into law in full. That the matter is set out so simply in the Bill is a credit to all concerned.
  It does not matter whether this is part of a great radical reforming agenda or rampant conservatism. I would take being accused of being a Conservative by the Opposition and of being a radical by a Conservative Member both as compliments. I can happily live with both. It does not
  606
  matter whether this is part of leasehold reform or establishes a new agenda or form of land tenure. I regard it as reforming the leasehold land tenure system.
  Hon. Members have come to the debate because they recognise that leasehold is not working in the way that it should. That has been going on for a long time. As hon. Members have said, the Government first recognised the problem officially in the late 1980s. Draft Bills of one sort of another have been appearing for nearly 10 years. Even lawyers should be able to reach agreement among themselves in that time. However, nothing astounds me about lawyers and they may want to argue about whether it is 10, nine or eight years. That could make it take longer for them to sort it out.
  It has been said, rightly, that the Government are making valiant efforts to put right some of the wrongs. We know how leaseholders have been treated. It is sad in a way, because leaseholding can work perfectly well where there is good will on both sides. There would no need to detain the House if all landlords behaved reasonably, but it is clear that they do not. We need reform to make sure that people who are being abused by freeholders are protected.
  I am impressed by the Bill. I started my London political career in Dulwich. Lewis Silkin had brought forward the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. I was the chairman of Dulwich constituency Conservative party—after it was brought in, but not that much after. My party gave up that seat because it put forward a candidate—who later represented another seat in the House—who supported the leasehold system. That was a lesson in my political life, and it should be a lesson to my colleagues in the Government that there is a need to take action. There are political consequences when we do not put right a wrong, and this is a wrong that must be put right.
  In my constituency, I have seen the way in which the relationship between freeholders and leaseholders has broken down. Like other hon. Members, I have had case after case of abuse by people who have bought up freeholds so that they can squeeze the last drop of money out of innocent home owners who never expected that to happen to them.
  One such example is Chapel court in Bush Hill Park in my constituency. Linkproud Ltd, Empress Management and the solicitors Paul Chevalier and Linda Malthouse deserve to have their names mentioned as much as possible, especially under the cover of parliamentary privilege in connection with their disgraceful activities. They have threatened and abused leaseholders and extorted money in the most disgraceful way. It should make us ashamed that our law allows people to behave in that way. They have used bullying tactics and threatened the full force of the law to try to seize properties when small parts of bills have not been paid, and have tried to load up mortgages behind home owners.
  The Evening Standard in London has given publicity to that bunch of swindlers—that is the only thing that lawyers and solicitors protected by the Law Society can be called when they behave in this way. I am surprised that the Law Society, with its new management, has not decided to look carefully at the operations of swindlers who pretend to be respectable solicitors. I hope that the Law Society will try to redeem its reputation by looking into cases such as Chapel court.
  I shall not detain the House, because other colleagues wish to speak today. It does not seem sensible to detain the Government in getting their act together any longer.

  607
  We have heard that other countries are perfectly capable of operating a system that is fair to home owners who want to own a flat. Australia, the United States and countries on the continent of Europe do so, as does Scotland. If Scotland can do it, surely England and Wales can get its act together and put matters right. I hope that we can. As an Englishman with a little Welsh blood, I do not like to see the Scots getting away with it. The Scots can be insufferable when they have got things right. The Scots can be insufferable anyway, as anyone can, but when they have got it right they are even worse, because we know that we should be doing the same as them.
  I hope that, when the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) speaks on behalf of the Labour party today, he will give a commitment that Labour will support the measure and give full backing to the Government either by supporting the Bill today or by coming back as soon as possible with their own suggestions. The Government should do so before a general election. Opposition Members' reasons for wanting to reform the law are just as honourable as ours and they believe just as sincerely as we do that the law must be changed. There is cross-party feeling in the House that something must be done. We do not want to have to come back in the new Session to ask why commonhold is not included in the Queen's Speech. It must be included.
  It has been shown that it is easy to introduce commonhold and that it is not controversial. We are not confiscating freeholders' rights. Commonhold is an alternative. If they wanted to, freeholders could sell their rights by agreement to existing leaseholders and form commonhold associations. We are not expropriating anything from anyone. We are trying to set a fair system for land tenure that encourages owner-occupation in our society and stakeholding—whatever we want to call it, it is a good thing, and we should all support it today.
  1.33 pm
  Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: I am grateful to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) for bringing this important measure to the House. I was impressed by the detail, care and attention that she has put into the arrangement of the clauses of the Leasehold (Reform) Bill. She must have spent much time on the minutiae of the Bill, for which we should all commend her.
  I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn), who was my Member of Parliament at one time, on having brought such a measure before the House on eight separate occasions. I only regret that he will not carry on, like Fox, to the 21st occasion, until he gets his Bill through. I commend him for his efforts and for his care and attention in trying to look after his constituents and other people who have been affected.
  The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) made a thoughtful speech, but tried—without great success—to turn this into a party political issue, which fortunately it is not. If he is so concerned about protecting tenants from large landowners, why did the Labour party oppose our home ownership policies when we tried to sell council houses to tenants? After all, we are the party of home ownership—the party that believes in people owning their own properties—and our record in the past 16 years or so has proved that. We have put about
  608
  3 million people in possession of their properties at the expense of some large owners—council landlords who have not looked after their tenants as well as they should.
  I want my hon. Friend the Minister to take great note of the Bill. I hope that he will either support it today or bring forward similar legislation in the next Queen's Speech—certainly before the next general election, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) said. It is an important issue, both for the Conservative party and the people of Brentford and Isleworth, and it is, therefore, important for the Minister to assure us that it will be a matter of major legislation and concern for the Government before that election.
  I have worked on behalf of leaseholders in my constituency, particularly those in Brentford dock, where tenants have had enormous problems because their freehold has been sold underneath them, so to speak, several times; they have reached the point where they do not know who owns it. They have also had problems with, among other things, service charges, management costs, repairs and lifts. That leads me to believe that commonhold is the way forward.
  Commonhold is a freehold development in which two or more people can come together and form an association to achieve home ownership, which is an important consideration. I shall take this opportunity to explain in some detail how the system will work. A commonhold is a freehold development of two or more units which share services and facilities and so require a system for communal management and for the ownership of the common parts.
  The promoter of a commonhold—the person who establishes it—might be the developer of a new development. Many new developments are being built, new properties are being taken up, construction is taking place and the economy is reviving. Today, interest rates came down, which means that more properties will be purchased. People will want to go into the market and buy—the market is reviving. Not only the Conservative party but the Labour party should encourage that trend, and we should talk up the economy. I am rather disappointed by Labour Members, because they are always talking down the country. We want to revive confidence in the economy and the property market, and it is absolutely futile for the Labour party to talk it down, creating a sense of gloom where there is no gloom.
  A block of flats is the most obvious example of a commonhold, in which the flats would be owned on a long leasehold basis. There would be nothing in commonhold legislation to prevent commonhold from being established for non-residential purposes. Equally, the system might be adopted for commercial or mixed-use developments, and the units would not have to be horizontally divided like flats. Therefore, the system could also be used for housing, industrial estates and even shopping precincts, with flats or offices above. It could also be applied to agricultural buildings and surrounding farmlands.
  The owner of a commonhold flat or other unit—the unit owner—would, unless and until the commonhold was brought to an end, own the freehold in his unit. That ownership would automatically carry with it the right to essential passage—such as for access to gas, water and electricity—and the right to perform any communal service, such as for cleaning, maintenance, use of the

  609
  common parts and insurance of the structure. If a building had other communal facilities—such as parking, gardens or recreational facilities—the right to use them would go with the unit.
  The commonhold association, for which the Bill provides, would be a corporate body established under the commonhold legislation and run exclusively by the unit's owners, who would then own and manage any common parts as well as the services and facilities. The commonhold association would have the benefit of a charge against each unit in respect of any arrears of service charge, to give it comparable protection to that which applies to service charges under current leases.
  On the winding up of commonhold, the freehold in the individual units would automatically be transferred to the commonhold association, and the owner's right to his unit would be converted into a share of the association's net assets. The commonhold share would be calculated according to the proportions laid down for each unit when the commonhold was established. That arrangement would ensure that the value of the commonhold property, as a whole, could be realised by a single person, such as the liquidator of the association, thereby avoiding the problem that would arise if all unit owners continued to own their units.
  I should like briefly to speak about the commonhold association. The commonhold system would include a self-contained scheme for the establishment, conduct and—in conjunction with the winding up of the commonhold itself—dissolution of the commonhold to run the commonhold. The corporate body would not be established under the Companies Acts, although similar procedures would apply where appropriate.
  The creation of a corporate body would be considered appropriate for a number of reasons. The most important are: the aims of achieving a high level of standardisation; the fact that some of the more stringent requirements of the companies legislation are considered inappropriate to mutual organisations of that kind; and the restriction of the special rules about the liability of each individual, as we have seen in certain schemes set up under the Companies Acts and Friendly Society Acts.
  This measure is long overdue. As many hon. Members have said in this debate, in some ways it puts right some of our more antiquated leasehold laws and brings a new form of common ownership into its own that is in keeping with the times and the conditions in which we live. More and more young people leave home and find jobs. They want to live by themselves until they get married and to have an equity stake in property. If they are allowed only leasehold tenure, as commonly happens, it will lead eventually to conflict, as has been explained. Commonhold, however, will enable young people in particular—those who are in the job market, especially in urban areas, and flat dwellers—to have a stake in common ownership. That is highly commendable and very much in line with the Conservative party's home ownership policy. I support the Bill.
  1.44 pm
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) on her success in the ballot and her decision to introduce a Bill
  610
  on commonhold. We believe that commonhold is a key concept for future housing policy in Britain, and the hon. Lady has done the House a service by giving us an opportunity to debate it. She moved the Second Reading of the Bill with conviction, clarity and good humour, despite the frustration that she must have felt, sitting here earlier this morning watching the clock ticking away and thus watching its prospects of progressing beyond this place today fade, too.
  We heard several valuable contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House, all of whom have direct constituency experience of the problems of leasehold tenure. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra), who stayed with us until literally a moment ago and then apologised to me and, I think, the Minister for the fact that he had to return to his constituency, made the case for a more far-reaching reform. Like many other hon. Members, he highlighted constituency examples of the injustices currently faced by leaseholders.
  The hon. Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) started elegantly by admitting to eight previous attempts to introduce legislation on this subject. I acknowledge and pay tribute to his commitment over many years—like his distinguished predecessor in the Kensington seat, he has campaigned for leasehold reform and the introduction of commonhold. It is a sad comment on the reluctance of some people in his party to make progress that we are still debating the issue rather than seeing commonhold in effect. I hope that it is not that which explains his decision to leave Parliament at the coming election.
  The hon. Member for Kensington asked about my party's approach to next year's legislative programme. I have great pleasure in assuring him that the Labour party will be only too pleased to introduce a comprehensive leasehold reform Bill in the next Queen's Speech.
  The hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) expressed disappointment with the failings of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 and articulated concern about the problems associated with leasehold tenure. He highlighted the case for more safeguards for leaseholders of councils and other social landlords, and I think that he was speaking for many hon. Members in doing so.
  The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) made the case for sanctions against landlords' failure to offer first refusal to tenants under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 and sought safeguards against forfeiture of the lease being used as a weapon to coerce leaseholders into paying extortionate service charges and repair costs. I think that he spoke for many people who have similar views.
  The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) said that leasehold was simply an inadequate form of tenure and that he was looking to commonhold as a new form of tenure that he saw as a replacement for leasehold. I shall have more to say about that in due course.
  The hon. Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) also highlighted the extent to which leasehold was not working. He gave several examples of the problems confronting leaseholders and the potential abuse of the system. Rather intriguingly, he referred to the dangerous political consequences of not acting to remedy wrongs against leaseholders. Given the size of his majority, I am sure that he has every reason to raise that concern.

  611
  The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva), after making some rather over-optimistic comments about the state of the housing market—views which will not, I suspect, be shared by the millions trapped in negative equity or the 1,000 households a week which are losing their homes through repossession—gave us the benefit of his views on the complex arrangements for the establishment of commonhold associations and on other aspects of the Bill. He ended intriguingly by arguing the case for common ownership and associating it with Conservative party policy. I shall not explore that concept any further, as those with a long memory on the subject will know that it could possibly bring us into interesting territory.
  As is widely known, England and Wales are almost unique in the world in retaining a system of leasehold tenure for residential lettings. The system has many drawbacks: it gives unique advantages to landowners, who are able to accumulate and retain substantial property holdings while securing repeated capital gains through the sales of new leases as the old ones come to the end of their term. The leaseholder bears most of the costs of maintaining and improving the fabric of the property while the freeholder benefits from that investment. Not surprisingly, leaseholders have increasingly protested when the odds appear to be weighted so unfairly against them and in favour of landowners.
  In recent years, there has also been growing evidence of disgraceful abuses of the leasehold system by some unscrupulous freeholders and their managing agents. They have sought to pressurise and intimidate leaseholders, with threats of large service charges or repair costs, into meeting unreasonable demands or forfeiting their lease. The Evening Standard and its assiduous property correspondent, Mira Bar Hillel, deserve praise for exposing those shameful malpractices and for pressing the case for further leasehold reform.
  A series of leasehold reform Acts has been passed by the House. The most effective by far, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall stressed, was the Leasehold (Reform) Act 1967, which gave leaseholders in houses the right to buy out the freehold of their homes. It saved many thousands of leaseholders from the prospect of homelessness as their leases came to an end. It ensured an orderly transfer of large numbers of leasehold houses into the freehold tenure—the natural tenure for owner-occupation.
  Subsequent leasehold reform measures have focused primarily on the position of leaseholders in flats, but they have, sadly, proved less successful than the 1967 Act. The Landlord and Tenant Acts of 1985 and 1987 were supposed to give redress to leaseholders against unreasonable demands by the freeholder and against the inefficient or incompetent management of their blocks. The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 was supposed to give leaseholders in flats a similar right to enfranchise their homes as the 1967 Act had given to leaseholders in houses.
  All three Acts have failed to make a substantial impact. Landlord abuse remains rife, as the antics of Messrs. Bebbington and their colleagues Malthouse Chevalier and Co. have revealed. Those abuses have rightly been exposed by the Evening Standard. The sanctions supposedly available in the 1967 Act proved hopelessly cumbersome and ineffective—as the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet highlighted in his speech. We have also
  612
  seen how, in the past year, a large landowner, Smith's Charities, was able to sell a substantial estate over the heads of its leaseholders, with impunity and without offering the leaseholders first refusal. Ministers have been unable to point to a single case of leaseholders securing effective remedies through the 1987 Act.
  At the same time, the number of leaseholders in flats who have succeeded in buying the freehold of their homes has been small. The restrictive rules of the 1993 Act—which reflected, more than anything else, the influence of large landowners in ensuring that the Act was not effective—together with the costs of the process, which can be high, and the unbelievably byzantine rules that have to be circumnavigated by any leaseholder aspiring to acquire the freehold of their block, have provided all too many opportunities for reluctant landlords to frustrate the aspirations of leaseholders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) highlighted in his short intervention, as we warned as the 1993 Act was passing through Parliament, those loopholes and problems have prevented leaseholders from obtaining, on any significant scale, the benefits of enfranchisement that they were promised.
  Why have all the measures failed? The answer is not hard to find, and I have already hinted at it. It lies in the uncomfortably ambivalent attitude of the Government and the Conservative party towards leasehold reform. Ministers know that a radical reform package to give leaseholders effective redress against landlord abuse and the right to buy their homes is necessary. However, as Ministers remain beholden to the big landed interests, they have not been willing to give leaseholders simple, effective and cheap remedies or to introduce simple machinery to enable leaseholders to buy their freehold at a fair price.
  I am afraid that the surrender to the big landowners' interests in the Leasehold (Reform) Act 1993 was a sad example of those influences stopping a process that everyone in the leasehold field believed was right. The concessions that were made to the big landowners during that Bill's progress through Parliament produced a bureaucratic nightmare of red tape and hidden loopholes, with endless scope for escalating costs to frighten off all but the most determined leaseholder.
  What ought to be done to assist leaseholders? The Labour party published its proposals for leasehold reform last October in a policy paper entitled "An End to Feudalism". The proposals set out in that paper included, first, the introduction of commonhold as a new form of tenure for home owners living in flats. I do not claim any originality in this regard—this is a tenure that is widely welcomed by people across the political spectrum; indeed, it was contained in the manifestos of the Labour party and the Conservative party at the last general election.
  Secondly, we advocated the simplification of the enfranchisement rules to make it easier for leaseholders to buy out the freehold of their homes. Thirdly, we argued for a fairer and simpler valuation procedure to cut unnecessary costs and to safeguard leaseholders from unreasonable demands from the freeholder. Fourthly, we argued for a ruthless pruning of the complex red tape and the bureaucratic procedures implicit in existing legislation to make it easier for leaseholders to get through the process.

  613
  Finally, we argued for effective remedies for leaseholders against landlord abuse, the charging of unreasonable service charges or costs for repairs, and inefficient management. We advocated the right to manage for leaseholders so that they could take over the management of their homes if they wished to do so. These proposals have been warmly welcomed by a large number of leaseholders who have responded to our consultation and we have no doubt that they form the basis for a fully effective leasehold reform package.
  The introduction of commonhold as a new tenure for people living in flats is an important part of this package. Therefore, we obviously welcome the initiative of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye in introducing her Bill. As she pointed out, although it is called the Leasehold (Reform) Bill, it establishes the concept of commonhold and does not set out proposals for the reform of leasehold. We support the concept of commonhold.
  There is very little disagreement about the merits of a commonhold framework as against the existing leasehold system. As the hon. Lady explained in introducing her Bill, it enables people to own the freehold of their home while, at the same time, through the commonhold association owning a share in the freehold of the whole block. It gets rid of the need for a separate freeholder, and it gives the occupiers of the block proper control over the management of their homes.
  Few people, other than those who hanker nostalgically for a feudal system of landholding or who have a vested interest in retaining the status quo, will object to the concept. Indeed, my only surprise today—which has been shared by a number of hon. Members who have spoken—is that it has taken so long for legislation to introduce commonhold to pass through the House. As I have already mentioned, there were unequivocal pledges to introduce commonhold in the 1992 Conservative party and Labour party manifestos. However, as with so many of the promises made in the Conservative party's 1992 manifesto, the pledge to introduce commonhold has not been honoured.
  The hon. Lady has done her bit to try to rescue her party from the embarrassment that it must feel about this. She has arrived like a knight in shining armour at the eleventh hour, and she should be congratulated for that. Given the lack of parliamentary time available for consideration of a measure of this complexity and importance, one has to ask: why have the Government not introduced the Bill as a Government measure? One also has to ask: why are the Government not prepared now to give Government time for the Bill to enable it to progress further?
  Ministers can hardly claim that they have not had time—the manifesto pledge to which I referred was made four years ago, and a draft Bill has been floating around in the Lord Chancellor's Department since at least 1990. Ministers cannot claim that other legislative measures have kept this measure out, as we have one of the lightest legislative programmes for many years. In addition, in this very light programme, we are currently considering two Bills on housing, either of which would have been a suitable vehicle for the Government to include commonhold measures if they had wished. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that, as with so many of
  614
  the other leasehold reform proposals in 1985, 1987 and 1993, the Tory Government really do not have the political will to grasp the nettle.
  If the concept of commonhold has such wide support, why have the Government been so slow? Apart from the usual forces of inertia, and reluctance to admit that anything can be better than the British tenure system—a reluctance that I fear is rather strong in the legal profession, and presumably is quite well entrenched in the Lord Chancellor's Department—I suspect that the main force for delay is the reluctance to grapple with the central issue of commonhold as a replacement for leasehold.
  If commonhold is, as we believe it should be, a tenure that will take over within a relatively short period as the main form of tenure for people buying flats, there must be an effective mechanism to enable existing leaseholders to convert their leaseholds to commonhold. Such a mechanism would, however, once again threaten the vested interests of the big landowners. Is it therefore any surprise to see the outcome in the form of the Bill that we are debating today—I do not blame the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye, because she clearly inherited the Bill—ducking the issue of conversion from leasehold to commonhold?
  The Bill essentially provides for the establishment of a commonhold framework in new developments where the occupiers agree a commonhold framework from the outset. The provisions of clause 6, which set out the initial conditions for establishing a commonhold, are clearly most easily met in the case of a new development. They appear to have been drafted with that prospect in mind. Conversely, when we look for the arrangements for conversion from leasehold to commonhold, it appears from subsections (3) and (4) of clause 8 that that will be possible only where 100 per cent. of the occupants of the block, and indeed 100 per cent. of those holding any interest in the block, are in favour.
  I would welcome confirmation from the Minister on whether my interpretation of those provisions are correct. If it is, it will be difficult for leaseholders in existing leasehold properties to meet that condition. It only requires one occupier in the block, perhaps an elderly person who simply does not want the hassle of a change of tenure, to put an insurmountable obstacle in the way of establishing a commonhold.
  More to the point, it provides an easy loophole for any freeholder who wants to prevent his leaseholders from being able to convert to the commonhold tenure. All that that freeholder has to do is to retain just one room in the block, even if that constitutes one hundredth or one thousandth of the total accommodation, or to let it on an assured shorthold tenancy. That is all that is required to frustrate the hopes of all the other leaseholders in the block to convert to commonhold. That cannot be right.
  Once the commonhold has been established, the provisions of clause 8(7), as I understand them, allow major decisions affecting the commonhold to be taken provided they command the support of 80 per cent. of the units in the commonhold. That sensible measure is designed to prevent a single or unrepresentative voice from preventing the commonhold association from managing its affairs expeditiously. There may be questions about the choice of the 80 per cent. figure as the threshold. That could create problems, for example, in

  615
  a block of four flats where just one occupant would retain a veto over the actions of the other three. The principle of a threshold below 100 per cent. must, however, be right.
  As I understand the Bill, however, the option for overriding a simple or unrepresentative objection does not apply before the commonhold is established. That will come as a severe disappointment to many leaseholders who would like to convert to commonhold.
  Chas Johnson of CARLA—the Campaign against Residential Landlord Abuse—which has done so much in recent months to support and mobilise leaseholders who have been the victims of unscrupulous landlords, has written to me to say that the Bill does nothing to deal with the existing leasehold system and merely provides an alternative in the form of commonhold. He writes:
  "Commonhold as an optional alternative is of no real use. As a mandatory form of tenure for new and converted multi let residential property in the future (with the abolition of leasehold) it would provide an elegant form of property ownership and would be welcomed. If it is to be an option then clearly the rogues who work the leasehold scams will be more than happy to opt for leasehold."
  This dilemma is at the heart of the Bill. If it is an option only for new developments, it will play only a marginal role for many years, and may never replace leasehold as the main form of tenure for flat owners.
  A more effective measure allowing scope for easy conversion from leasehold, and with the clear objective of replacing it within the reasonably near future, will clearly be necessary, but, of course, that threatens the vested interests of the big landowners, and the Government are clearly not prepared to take on those interests.
  David Marcus, a partner in Franks, Charlesly and Co., and widely recognised as one of the country's leading experts on leasehold and related matters, makes the same point. He writes:
  "I think all those in favour of commonhold have been working on the basis that it will be a substitute for the leasehold system; this Bill is drafted on the basis that it will be an alternative system; frankly I cannot see that unless it is made compulsory that it will have any effect. It is a completely new system and I cannot see that any of the large landlords will be prepared to accept it unless they are compelled to do so. My scenario would be that it would be compulsory after a particular period of time. Once the major house builders start adopting it then a lot of others will follow in their footsteps."
  Mr. Deva: The hon. Gentleman says that the Conservative party is against the measure because it does not want to upset large landlords. But as the scheme is voluntary, how can the hon. Gentleman make that assumption?
  Mr. Raynsford: Plainly, the hon. Gentleman has not been listening closely to what I have said: the Conservative party is not prepared to introduce a scheme involving an element of compulsion which will enable leaseholders to transfer from existing leasehold properties to commonhold properties, because that would threaten large landowners to whom the hon. Gentleman's party is still financially beholden.
  David Marcus makes another valid point about the lack of reference to experience elsewhere. In Australia, the strata title system has been operating for many years with considerable success. One had hoped that those responsible in the Lord Chancellor's Department for
  616
  drafting proposals for the commonhold system, which operates on similar principles to strata title, would look closely at the Australian experience.
  One of the conclusions to be drawn from that experience is that an appropriate body to provide advice and help with the resolution of disputes about the establishment and operation of strata titles is essential. I can see no provision in the Bill for such a service, and the only body that provides expert specialist advisory services in this field, the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service, has no guarantee of funding beyond the end of this year. I hope that the Minister will tell the House how he expects the need for advice and assistance on the resolution of disputes will be handled. I assume that his Department would neither welcome nor be equipped to handle the scale of inquiries that are likely if commonhold takes off as a viable tenure. The Australian evidence suggests a figure of about 20,000 inquiries a year on issues relating to strata title.
  Clauses 3 and 5 give the Lord Chancellor's Department extensive powers to make rules and regulations. Although it may be sensible to have some of the detailed provisions—in particular, those regulations that may need to be varied in the light of experience—made by order rather than included in primary legislation, that in itself has probably helped to keep the Bill down to a manageable size compared to some of its draft predecessors. Nevertheless, it would be helpful to have an indication of how these powers will be used. Will the Minister outline the scope and main features of the commonhold constitution rules that will be made under the provisions of clause 3 and of the regulations that may be made under clause 5?
  Will the Minister clarify one of the provisions in clause 16 on the recovery of service charges? That clause specifies that service charges are recoverable from the owner of a commonhold unit, or from the person who is registered as the owner where ownership has not yet been changed on the register, or from the person who is a tenant under a long lease of the unit.
  Although I understand the first two provisions, which cover the owner or the previous owner, I am puzzled by the reference to a leaseholder. As I have stressed, the Bill appears to require 100 per cent. unanimity before a commonhold can be set up and specifies that only owners of units within the commonhold can be members of the commonhold association.
  How, then, do leaseholders come into picture? If it were possible to convert from leasehold to commonhold with less than 100 per cent. participation, we could envisage circumstances in which some residual leaseholders might remain, but that is not provided for in the Bill. If the Bill envisages the prospect of leaseholds being created by owners of commonhold units, surely, over time, that should undermine the integrity of the commonhold. I would welcome clarification on that point.
  We would want to consider further other points of detail if the Bill were to progress to Committee, but I fear that that will not happen. Although the Bill is welcome in so far as it raises the issue of commonhold—a form of tenure that we view as an appropriate framework for home ownership in flats—unfortunately, as presently drafted, it is not the right way forward if we want to open the door to a significant number of commonholds.

  617
  The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye should be congratulated on having raised the issue. In doing so, she has helped to reinforce the case for a thoroughgoing range of leasehold reform measures. Unless substantially amended, however, the Bill would not be the right vehicle in the long term for a thriving and successful commonhold sector, replacing leasehold as the main tenure for owner-occupied flats.
  We must wait for the return of another Government, with a real appetite and commitment to leasehold reform, to ensure not just appropriate commonhold measures that will allow the tenure to become the norm and to replace leasehold, but more thoroughgoing and effective remedies for leaseholders who have suffered too many abuses under the current system.
  2.10 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Jonathan Evans): In the short time that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) has left me to respond to the debate, I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) not just on her success in introducing this important matter today, but on the manner and content of her speech. She demonstrated that, in dealing with complex property law issues, she had a command of detail and could convey the essence of the Bill's proposals. I commend her for that.
  I was pleased to note that speeches were made by a number of my hon. Friends. They included my hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn), for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn), for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon), and for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva).
  I wish especially to single out my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington. He referred to his illustrious predecessor, Sir Brandon Rhys Williams. I am pleased that the bouquet was given to Sir Brandon. My hon. Friend will be unaware that my first experience in politics was as a schoolboy campaigning for Sir Brandon when he fought against Michael Foot in the by-election following the death of Aneurin Bevan. Sir Brandon played an immense part in the House. My hon. Friend has lived up to that in his time here.
  Let me make the Government's position clear. They are firmly committed to the implementation of commonhold. As my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor reaffirmed in the other place less than two weeks ago, it remains our firm intention that appropriate legislation should be introduced as soon as possible. Before I outline the steps that are being taken to advance the implementation of commonhold, it would be helpful to remind hon. Members of some of the background to the issue, most especially because of some of the comments on the period that has elapsed since the concept was first introduced.
  In a nutshell, the purpose of commonhold is to provide owners in multi-occupier developments with the means of owning the freehold interest in their homes and, at the same time, to furnish them with a system for the efficient management of the development. That will have the dual
  618
  advantages of affording owners a measure of control and security that is often believed to be lacking in long leasehold developments, although avoiding the difficulties of so-called "flying freehold" schemes. The emphasis of the commonhold system will be on co-operation between owners in the development that forms the commonhold. So long as the commonhold continues, the owner of each unit is the freeholder, and the commonhold will be managed by an association comprising the unit owners.
  The commonhold association will own any common parts and will be responsible for their repair and maintenance. That will be financed by a service charge payable by the unit owners. In certain circumstances, it will be possible to bring the commonhold to an end, in which case the ownership of the unit will automatically be converted into a share, fixed in advance, of the ownership of the entire property within the commonhold. Statutory rules will govern the conduct of the commonhold association and the rights and obligations of the unit owners in relation to each other.
  Clearly, the success of any multi-occupied building or development will depend on the existence of a satisfactory and enforceable regime of mutual rights and obligations between the people who live in it. However, that is not provided by the present law governing the ownership of freehold land. It is, of course, possible for the subdivision of a building to be organised by means of a leasehold structure, and there are doubtless many developments that operate on a perfectly satisfactory basis, especially where the tenants also have effective control of the freehold estate by means, for instance, of a jointly owned management company.
  Neither commonhold nor any other form of land tenure will ever eradicate the possibility of disputes between neighbours, as we have been reminded during the debate. However, commonhold can have considerable advantages over the leasehold system.
  The first and most obvious advantage of the commonhold system is that it will enable people to own the freehold in their homes in developments that would otherwise necessitate a leasehold structure. People naturally resent what they regard as the temporary nature of ownership that a lease confers in a property for which they regard themselves to have paid full value—an observation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East. People also resent having to pay a ground rent, which may be high, seemingly for nothing. In addition, there is no such thing as a standard lease. The wide variation in lease terms presents pitfalls and uncertainties for an intended purchaser, and does nothing to simplify or reduce the cost of conveyancing.
  Furthermore, a lease is a declining asset and leases that are coming towards their expiry cease to be mortgageable. The security of a building society or of any other lender ultimately rests on its ability to sell the mortgaged property and to recoup the amount owing to it. Lenders rightly act with caution in advancing mortgage funds. Typically, a lease that has less than 40 to 45 years to run will frequently not be regarded as satisfactory security for a loan. It also follows that, where a lease is nearing expiry, the value of the interest that it confers will diminish. Those problems will not apply to the ownership of a unit that is a commonhold.
  A further advantage is that the commonhold system will automatically provide a statutory framework of rights and obligations which is directly enforceable by and

  619
  against each unit owner in the commonhold and which will be standard from one commonhold to the next. The unit owner's position will no longer depend on the vagaries of the terms of the lease under which the property is held or on the willingness of the landlord to co-operate in enforcing the unit owner's rights.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye has pointed out, one major problem with leases is that important decisions on repairs and on the provision of services are often left in the hands of landlords whose interests may be opposed to the interests of the tenants. That tension can be exacerbated, especially when the financial value of the landlord's interest in the building is negligible when compared with that of the tenants. As we have heard, there have been a number of well publicised cases. I will not go over them now, because they have been touched on by so many of my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Greenwich.
  The Government are acutely aware of the problems that can be caused by bad landlords. For the future, the problem would be addressed by a commonhold system which would put the management of property in the hands of a democratically run commonhold association. In those circumstances, the interests of the unit owners and the commonhold association would clearly be identical. In addition, the requirement for fundamental decisions affecting a commonhold to be made unanimously will protect the interests of minorities. That has, of course, to be subject to certain measured provisions to prevent the operation of the commonhold from being thwarted by a few recalcitrant unit owners.
  The Government also recognise that the problems caused by the abuse of the leasehold system by bad landlords have to be tackled immediately for the protection of existing tenants. It is not merely enough to rectify the problem for future generations by enacting legislation on commonhold. To that end, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has brought forward a package of additional rights for tenants in the Housing Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet asked when my right hon. Friend would be dealing with the detail of the five proposals that he intends to bring forward. It is my understanding that my right hon. Friend intends to table those amendments in Committee. We therefore do not have very much longer to wait.
  The genesis of commonhold can be traced back at least as far as 1965, when the Wilberforce committee on positive covenants affecting land recommended the introduction of an optional basis for new, large, multiple developments of a modified strata title system, similar to what had been introduced a few years earlier in New South Wales.
  Matters developed further in 1984, when the issue was referred to the Law Commission. In its report "The Law of Positive and Restrictive Covenants", it recognised that the law is defective in imposing mutually enforceable property rights and obligations. The law allows only restrictive covenants to be enforced between successors in title of the original landowners, and there is no direct way in which to enforce positive covenants, such as rights of support or an obligation to keep a fence or a wall in repair.
  Those problems are of course accentuated in blocks of flats, where each flat often depends on its neighbour for support and shelter. The very stability of the building depends on proper maintenance and repair of the individual flats and the common parts.
  620
  The commission recommended the creation of a new interest in land—the land obligation—that is capable of subsisting as a legal interest like an easement, and which would impose a burden on the owner of one piece of land, either for the benefit of the owner of another piece, or as part of a development scheme. Those recommendations were accepted by the Government, then superseded to an extent by the commonhold proposals that were put forward, and therefore required some substantial revision to take account of the fact.
  The commission recommended the adoption of some form of condominium legislation similar to that in America, Australia and various other jurisdictions. In response to the report, the Government established an interdepartmental working group, under the chairmanship of a law commissioner, to produce proposals for similar legislation in England and Wales. It reported in July 1987 and recommended commonhold as a new way in which to own property.
  In fact, the Lord Chancellor published for consultation a draft commonhold Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington said, which the Law Commission had prepared. Following the favourable responses that he received to the general principles, he announced the Government's intention to bring forward the necessary legislation.
  The original draft of the Bill was, however, incomplete in various respects, and that is no secret. It has become clear in this debate that specific problems need to be addressed in many areas. The implementation of commonhold will mark a major milestone in the development of property law. The Government are determined that their proposals are implemented on the basis of technically sound legislation that will provide a firm bedrock for the establishment of what will amount to an entirely new system of land tenure. For that reason, the Government have not seen fit to proceed with their proposals until the draft legislation has been fully thought through and reworked to make it as effective as possible.
  It is especially necessary in property law reform to ensure that the details of legislation are correct, since it may be very many years before land tenure problems become apparent. By the time that the need for reform manifests itself, the job of rectifying the problems without unravelling the complex arrangement of rights and obligations based on the original legislation will have become a major undertaking. That is even more important when the reforms concern people's ownership of their own homes.
  The great property law reforms of 1925 illustrate how long major pieces of property legislation may be expected to last. Indeed, it is a tribute to the thoroughness with which the 1925 legislation was prepared that so much of it is still in force today, although a Government Bill is going through the House at the moment to adjust arrangements for trusts for sales of land.
  Mr. Raynsford rose—
  Mr. Evans: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I know that my hon. Friend wants the Government's full response. In fairness, the hon. Gentleman cut into my time to some extent.
  The benefits of our approach can be seen in the steady and continuing progress on property law reform over past years. All measures have proceeded, or are proceeding,

  621
  with general support. That is in large part due to the lengthy consideration that they received before they were introduced into Parliament. Proposals that eventually found fruition in the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 were transformed through that process from matters of deep controversy to a measure supported by all political parties and a wide range of interests of all sizes and types in the property industry.
  I was hoping that during the debate we would see consensus across the Floor of the House on the need to proceed with commonhold. As anyone who has considered the original draft Bill will be aware, the aims and purposes of commonhold can be stated easily enough but the legislation required to implement the scheme will necessarily be complex.
  I shall explain the reasons for the necessary complexity. Before I move on from the original consultation on commonhold, however, I should say something about one of the issues at the forefront of the consultation exercise. I refer to the circumstances in which conversion to commonhold will be compulsory.
  The Government's consultation paper was issued prior to the enactment of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. That measure fully implemented the Government's proposals for a leasehold enfranchisement scheme. It enabled tenants to acquire collectively the freehold of the building in which their flats were situated. When the proposals for commonhold were first mooted, they were closely associated with leasehold enfranchisement. Indeed, I expect that, following the implementation of commonhold, the two schemes will be complementary. However, commonhold is to be a stand-alone scheme.
  In implementing commonhold, the Government have no plans to extend the right of tenants compulsorily to acquire the freehold of their buildings. To attempt to do that and to re-open the issue of leasehold enfranchisement in that way would, in our view, muddy the waters and introduce unnecessary controversy into the implementation of a reform that I believe is supported on both sides of the House. That point has been made with some force by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington. In that regard, he was absolutely right.
  The implementation of commonhold will necessarily involve the passing of detailed technical legislation.
  Mr. Raynsford: When?
  Mr. Evans: It is not that the basic principles of commonhold are particularly difficult to define. I have indeed endeavoured to touch upon most of them.
  The Bill makes a creditable attempt to cover the main planks of the scheme. The difficulty with legislation will be in ensuring that commonhold schemes—they will
  622
  represent one of the most fundamental changes in property law—will work efficiently and fairly, and without anomaly, in the context of the greater mass of the law generally, and of property and company law in particular.
  The newness of the concept of commonhold has great advantages but great care must be taken to ensure that it does not bring with it outweighing disadvantages. It is necessary to provide comprehensively for a system that is superior to leaseholds while things are going well and to ensure that the same system does not result in a worse situation if things go wrong.
  In my view, most landlords are decent, honest and competent. The problems lie with those who have not become such, so as to require legislative intervention. Great care must be taken, therefore, to ensure that the commonhold scheme is able effectively to deal with bad cases. Commonhold should not be capable of being used a vehicle for fraud. Nor should it be possible for continuing incompetent or dishonest operations to be hidden from view in a commonhold association.
  Propositions such as these are simple to state but great care will be necessary to put them into practice. We must ensure that legislation meshes with existing law, and that the necessary protections and safeguards are reproduced as required.
  I am pleased to report to the House that my officials, with the assistance of officials from other interested Departments, have been engaged in detailed work on these matters for some time and are in the course of preparing a commonhold Bill that will set out the complete regime for implementing commonhold. I hope that it will be possible for the Bill to be published for consultation during the summer so that hon. Members and others will have the maximum opportunity to consider the Government's proposals in detail.
  The Government are determined to proceed with their task of preparing commonhold for implementation and will introduce the new Bill as soon possible to ensure that this important reform reaches the statute book. The issues that are being addressed to prepare the new commonhold Bill include corporate status. One has only to consider the implications arising from the fact that commonhold associations will be corporate bodies with legal personalities quite distinct from that of their individual members. Commonhold associations will therefore be different from, for instance, residents associations in existing leasehold developments, while their corporate status would afford them significant advantages in managing—
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Friday 12 July.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

  REGISTRATION OF IMMIGRATION ADVICE PRACTITIONERS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 July.

  ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 22 March.

  INTEREST ON DEBTS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Second Reading what day? No day named.

  ENERGY CONSERVATION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  WATER (CONSERVATION AND CONSUMER CHOICE) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 22 March.

  BRITISH TIME (EXTRA DAYLIGHT) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [26 January].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Debate to be resumed what day? No day named.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That, at the sitting on Monday 11th March—

  (1) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to Welsh Business not later than Ten o'clock, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendments to the said Motion which she may have selected and which may then be moved; and

  (2) Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates) shall apply with the insertion in line 41, after the words 'At Ten o'clock', of the words 'or immediately after the previous business has been disposed of, whichever is the later'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

  Hon Members: Object.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Thursday 14th March, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14B (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community Documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Howard relating to Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion; and the said Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

  Local Government Spending (Lancashire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
  2.32 pm
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am glad to have the opportunity to debate local government spending in Lancashire, and especially the lack of Government support. I am grateful for this chance to discuss the matter, especially after the Minister's answer to me on 27 February when, at the end, he said:
  "If Labour councillors cannot manage, perhaps they should resign."—[Official Report, 27 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 707.]
  It is not the Labour councillors in Lancashire who should resign, but him and the Government. They should give the people the opportunity to elect a new Government—and the quicker the better.
  When the Tory party was elected to office in 1979, it had said during the election campaign that it wanted to free town halls. Ever since they took office in 1979, the Government have shackled local government by their legislation, and even more by the financial restraints that they have imposed. I refer particularly to Lancashire and its funding, but what I shall say applies to almost every council in the country.
  Before I came to the House, I was a member of Burnley borough council, first as chairman of finance and then as leader of the council. I used to think that the position could not get worse, yet, year after year, it gets worse. The best example of saying one thing when not in office and doing another when in office is what the Tory party has done to local government.
  Although today I shall concentrate on revenue spending, similar arguments apply to capital spending. The local education authority has no capital available to build or repair schools. Councils do not have the money to build urgently needed housing to rent or to improve housing stock. We are seeing housing standards decline. What a dismal, appalling record of 17 years in office.
  According to the Association of County Councils, in Lancashire the band D council tax—I will use band D as an example—in 1996–97 will increase from £528.35 to £557.49, an increase of 5.5 per cent. Yet at the same time, the council has had to cut the services it provides because of the Government's appalling national underfunding of local government. I argue that, in total, they underfunded local government by about £3.66 billion in 1996–97. If we examine that figure, we see that it is even below the current spending level. That is appalling.
  For continuation of service at the present level, allowing for inflation and so on, Lancashire county council would have to spend £978.1 million. The standard spending assessment—the figure that the Government say the council should need to spend—is £889.5 million. The capping limit—the limit up to which it is allowed to spend—is £934.6 million. The difference between the continuation of service estimate and the capping limit imposed by the Government is £43.5 million.
  Lancashire county council has no intention of breaking the law, so it has been forced to reduce its expenditure budget by that figure. It has done so by several means. It has reduced the services committee estimates by about
  626
  £18.5 million. Library hours have been cut. It fought hard not to close any library, because it felt that that would be an appalling thing to do. Cuts have been made in museums and the arts, and some £6 million has been cut from social services, which are absolutely crucial. We have had to cut £9 million from our budget for repair and maintenance of roads and road building in the year ahead.
  In order not to have to impose further cuts, the council has used balances and reserves and sold some assets. That has brought in £16 million. That sort of thing can only be done once. The council cannot keep selling assets. Once it has sold them, it does not have them to sell. What will it do in future years? If it has no balances left, it cannot use them again.
  In the Budget this year, the Government announced that priority was to be given to schools. They said that it had been a tight expenditure round. I would have said that it was not just a tight, but an appalling, expenditure round.
  Lancashire has given the £26 million provided for its schools to the delegated schools budget, and the primary and secondary schools' budgets have been increased by 5.1 per cent. So Lancashire has again conformed with the Government's view, but if it gives that money in the way that the Government wish, it has to make bigger cuts in other areas. That means that, within education, leaving aside the schools budget, items such as discretionary grants, youth services and so on have had to bear an even greater burden of cuts than would otherwise have been the case.
  I have received today, purely by chance, a letter from Lancashire county council in response to a complaint from a Mrs. Gregory, who is one of my constituents. She is not the only person who has raised this issue. She is connected with the running of the girl guides and brownies in her part of Burnley. They now have to pay for the use of premises, because the county council can no longer provide funding. In this day and age, it is totally unacceptable if we have to make cuts that affect our young people in that way.
  The district auditor said:
  "the level of balances is as low as is prudently acceptable"
  in Lancashire. The estimated balance of the county fund at 1 April 1996 will be £14.2 million, falling to £8.5 million at the end of the current financial year on 31 March 1997, which is less than 1 per cent. of 1996–97 net expenditure. The district auditor believes that that is the prudent minimum that the county needs to keep in its reserves and balances.
  In a report to Parliament on 30 November 1995, Lancashire education authority was shown to spend 1.5 per cent. on administration, which is well above the average in efficiency and, again, shows how well the county council is run. Lancashire continues to have the support of the district auditor. In his latest management letter, published recently, he said:
  "Prudence and accountability have been features of the financial arrangements in the County Council for many years. This tradition of excellence continues despite the challenges of the present financial constraints."
  He also said:
  "We remain content that the overall management arrangements of the Lancashire County Council are sound and that a healthy culture exists within the County Council for the achievement of economy, efficiency and effectiveness in service delivery."

  627
  We also note that, in 1995–96, central administration in Lancashire is 1.87 per cent. of the potential schools budget, against an average for county councils as a whole of 2.09 per cent. and an average of 2.22 per cent. in all local education authorities. Again, that shows that Lancashire county council is not top heavy in administration, but keen to provide the services to the people of the county that are so essential—services that it was elected to provide.
  With spending at 5.1 per cent. above standard spending assessment, Lancashire has one of the highest spends above SSA of all the shire counties. That largely results from the inadequacies of the SSA system, and the Government need to deal with it. It also results from the high needs of the county. I stress to the Minister that he must consider county councils that have particular needs. In Lancashire, our needs are due to deprivation, poverty, low wages. unemployment, and, in many parts of the county, the industrial heritage that has left us with dereliction that must be cleared as we go forward to the 21st century.
  The area cost adjustment overstates the cost differential between the south-east and the rest of the country. By rectifying that discrepancy, the county council would, in our view, gain about £9 million in standard spending assessment. I am sure that the Minister will say that the Government are reviewing that. I know that it is being reviewed, but we had the problem in 1995, and we will have it in 1996–97. He knows that, whatever the review yields—he does not know what the outcome will be, any more than I do—and even if it is favourable in the way that I would wish, it will not solve this year's problems, nor those of the new financial year. which starts in a few weeks.
  I shall give one example of what the area cost adjustments will mean for education. Schools in Essex have been provided with an SSA of £2,055 per primary school pupil and £2,791 per secondary school pupil. The comparative figures for Lancashire are £1.964 and £2,615 respectively. If one multiplies the number of children involved, one can see the vast difference in millions of pounds that it makes for Lancashire county council. We accept that some adjustment may need to be made for the London area, but we believe that the present adjustment is too high and needs to be reviewed—Lancashire should get more money as a result.
  The Government's assumption that authorities generate interest payment receipts in relation to their size is flawed. Consequently, the Government over-estimate Lancashire's ability to generate revenue receipts by approximately £4 million, resulting in a reduction in the standard spending assessment.
  Lancashire has an acute need for more money. It believes in the provision of services. I am sure that the Minister will recognise that, for county councils, the most expensive services to provide are education and social services. That would be so whichever party was in office. I know that, before he was elected to the House, the Minister—like me—had experience in local government, which is extremely useful for any politician.
  Education and social services are expensive because they are both labour-intensive and crucial. Social services deal with people in need, whether they be elderly or disabled, and education services cater for young children whose start in life is the biggest investment we can make in the nation's most important asset for the future.
  628
  Lancashire needs more money from the Government, and we need it now. We need a fairer settlement, and a Government who believe in local government. There needs to be an end to capping. I have always accepted, and have said many times, that the Government, of whichever party, have the right to determine in Parliament what resources they will make available to local government. People may argue that the funds made available are insufficient, but I accept that, at the end of the day, the Government have the final say.
  In my view, the Tories have failed local government and Lancashire. More than anything, we need a Labour Government as soon as possible, because the Tories cannot respond positively and make more funds available.
  2.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) for giving me the opportunity to discuss Lancashire's needs as he sees them. It is interesting that his attitude represents the cobwebs of old Labour being drawn back over the new Labour breath of fresh air. His is the classic old labour approach—judging quality by the amount of other people's money being spent.
  In a way, I am sorry for the hon. Gentleman's constituency. As I said in answer to his parliamentary question of about 10 days ago, to which he referred, the difficulty is that his constituents have a Labour county council; the hon. Gentleman's other difficulty is that the district county council—Burnley—is also run by Labour. The only thing that is saving many of the people in the area, perhaps through capping alone, is that they have a Conservative Government.
  The Government have pushed councils such as Lancashire into recognising value for money, although the councils have been pulled down this road kicking and screaming. Compulsory competitive tendering was anathema to them, but it ensures better services and better value for money. The Audit Commission was introduced by the Government to improve value for money and standards. Those concepts were resisted, but are now slowly being taken on board, by so-called new Labour.
  In terms of our general funding for 1996–97, Lancashire compares favourably with the other shire counties. On a comparative basis, Lancashire's standard spending assessment has increased by 3.1 per cent.
  Many local authorities draw up a wish list, and we heard a bit of that today. Authorities add new demands, but someone ends up having to pay, be it the general taxpayer or the local council tax payer. Someone has to put up the money to fund the demands if they are accepted. The Government have sought to put an end to that approach once and for all.
  We must recognise the importance to the economy of the way in which local authorities spend their finances. Approximately 25 per cent. of Government expenditure is local government expenditure. It is just as important for local government to squeeze effectiveness out of every drop of other people's money spent as it is for central Government. Local authorities must consider that point and take account of it.
  They must realise that they can squeeze full value out of every pound they spend; they must be more effective, and they must provide better services. It is an old, but

  629
  true, local government motto that the authorities exist to provide more and better services for less cost. That can be done—I know that it can be done, and so does the hon. Gentleman: it is a case of "More, better, for less". But that attitude is not being shown by the hon. Gentleman's local council of Burnley.
  I understand that Burnley borough council is getting a reputation for being top heavy. I was given the example of an anti-poverty officer who earns £30,000 a year, which is a burden on the poorer people of the area. An equal opportunities officer was appointed; the post turned into a department with its own sub-committee. As a result, the band D tax level has risen from £87.13 three years ago to £143.99 now—an increase of 65 per cent. in three years. That is inefficient.
  Other forms of inefficiency have been shown to me. I understand that Lancashire county council is on course to underspend by £3 million on home helps and related services. It has been calculated that the county's residential and non-residential care service—because it is in-house—costs £15 million a year more than if it was in the private sector.
  Every district auditor's management letter is a curate's egg. We have heard about the good parts from the hon. Gentleman, but the district auditor has also reported that sickness among employees is costing the council £12 million a year. That matter should be looked into and sorted out.
  The county council has formed an anti-poverty unit as part of its welfare rights committee. It has a starting budget of £100,000 a year, which would pay for 16,000 more home help hours. But the unit is nothing more than a talking shop.
  Mr. Pike: Does not the Minister understand that Lancashire county council pays so much attention to poverty because such a high percentage of our people work in Burnley and Lancashire for less than £80 a week? That is a poverty wage; it is appallingly low pay; it is scandalous slave labour.
  Sir Paul Beresford: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is right with his figures, but it ill behoves local authorities to load people with extra taxes when they could do more, better, for less. It would be better to look into ways of providing better services for less cost.
  The hon. Gentleman highlighted particular issues; each local authority has its own problems. He and I know that, because we have both been keen members of local authorities. It is possible to do something about providing individual services in a better way, but it is not right for the hon. Gentleman or me to participate in individual discussions about them.
  Burnley ranks 33rd out of 274 shires in terms of SSA distribution. Lancashire is right at the top: it ranks fifth out of 35. Its SSA went up by 3.1 per cent. this year, and its SSA per head went up by 2.8 per cent. this year.
  630
  Its education SSA went up by 5.1 per cent. this year. If other local authorities can manage, Lancashire can and should. If the controlling Labour party in Lancashire cannot deal with the issues, it should resign and let someone else take over.
  Every year, we have to set the demands of local authorities in the context of what the country can afford. Local government spending accounts for a quarter of all public spending, and no Government, of whatever political complexion, can afford to ignore it. Public spending decisions are made in the context of the financial strategy to promote sustained economic development and to ensure higher living standards overall. The best way to protect local government services is to ensure that the national economy is strong, and inflation is under control.
  To this end, we must continue to seek better use of existing public spending and keep control of public wage bills, and both local government and central Government have an essential role to play in that. There is no doubt that there is still scope for increased efficiency in Lancashire. It can be done by efficiency, yet the hon. Gentleman referred to cuts. If a successful private business—the people who pay the council tax—can do it, it behoves the public authorities to do it as well.
  We have ensured that local authorities have an opportunity to move within their budgets—they have been given the greatest of opportunity to move, except for one or two ring-fenced areas. The SSA is only a sign of what the Government feel is a means of breaking up the total expenditure available for local government as a whole. Within that, every local authority has the opportunity to move, to flex, to use different ways of approaching problems and to use private sector methods—including the private finance initiative, compulsory competitive tendering and other methods—to produce more and better services for less. Local authorities must be answerable to their electorates in the way in which they exercise their responsibilities.

  It seems to me that Lancashire county council needs an education. Its budget for 1996–97 has been set at £935 million, an increase of 3.2 per cent. above the level of inflation. It is one of the highest spenders in the country, with a budget that is more than 5 per cent. above its SSA. Its council tax is £557 for a band D property, the second highest figure for a county council. Last year, the council reported that it would have to draw heavily on reserves to maintain services, and now it expects to add £7 million to its reserves during 1995–96. Despite that, the authority plans to increase its spending in 1996–97 by 4.2 per cent.
  There is no doubt that this county could do better with its money. It is loading costs on its local community, and it is crying out for more central Government funding. To repeat what I said in answer to questions last week, the Labour councillors who are in control of the county are obviously not in control; they should stand down and let the Conservative councillors take over.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to three o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Correspondence
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will reply to the letter sent to him by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire on 19 January, reference GK/AB/190196. [19210]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 7 March 1996.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions in each of the past five years Ministers in his Department have passed(a) hon. Members' letters and (b) hon. Members' questions to agencies for response; and what this figure is as a percentage of the total number of letters and questions received. [19426]

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested on correspondence could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The number of parliamentary questions answered by the Department's agencies in each of the past five years and the percentage of questions that it represents is as follows:

  year

  Number of questions answered by Agencies

  Total number of questions answered

  Percentage answered by Agencies

  1992

  20

  5,899

  0.3

  1993

  3

  3,750

  0.08

  1994

  5

  3,970

  0.1

  1995

  9

  3,614

  0.2

  1996

  11

  21,031

  0.09

  1This question required a written reply from all four agencies

  2As at 1 March 1995.

  Guidance Notes
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many pages of guidance notes have been issued by(a) his Department, (b) regulatory authorities and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last three years. [18645]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is not held centrally, and cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Health and Safety Inspections Leaflet
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what consultation was undertaken before the recent publication by the Health and Safety 364
  Commission of the leaflet entitled "Your rights when health and safety inspectors take enforcement action", and (a) which organisations were invited to respond, (b) how many responses were received and (c) what proportion favoured the need for the advice leaflet; [19518]

  (2) what cost effective activity by business is promoted by the publication by the Health and Safety Commission of the advice leaflet "Your rights when health and safety inspectors take enforcement action"; and if he will make a statement. [19522]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Health and Safety Commission's leaflet "Your rights when health and safety inspectors take enforcement action" publicises enforcement procedures drawn up by the commission to ensure the health and safety enforcement lines up with the principles in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. The Government accepted the recommendation of the deregulation task force in its first annual report for the widespread adoption of these principles, which were introduced to give business rights of representation before formal enforcement action is taken.

  In drawing up the procedures and the leaflet, the commission sought the views of local authorities, through the health and safety liaison committee, and of the deregulation task force. Heads of all Health and Safety Executive inspectorates were also consulted. All provided helpful comments.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recommendations from the deregulation unit were included in the recent publication by the Health and Safety Commission leaflet entitled "Your rights when health and safety inspectors take enforcement action". [19519]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Officials from the Cabinet Office deregulation unit and the Health and Safety Executive worked closely in drawing up this leaflet to ensure it followed the enforcement principles in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the use of the publication "Your rights when health and safety inspectors take enforcement action" in maintaining and improving standards of health, safety and welfare of workers; and if he will make a statement. [19520]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The procedures set out in the leaflet follow the principles in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 which were designed to improve the fairness, transparency and consistency of enforcement action without jeopardising any necessary protection. The procedures do not weaken the protection afforded by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. They do not affect inspectors' powers to take immediate enforcement action against business, or to require business to take immediate remedial action, in any case where it appears to inspectors to be necessary to take such action or impose such a requirement. The commission is monitoring how the procedures are working in practice and will report to me.
  365
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the impact of the procedures set down in Health and Safety Commission leaflet "Your rights when health and safety inspectors take enforcement action" will be on the role of the workplace safety representative; and if he will make a statement. [19521]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The role of the workplace safety representative remains unchanged. Inspectors will continue to seek views from employees or their safety representatives and make suitable arrangements to provide them with information on the action required of business. Inspectors also now provide a copy of the commission's leaflet.

  Capita Managed Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the(a) facilities management consortia, (b)private finance initiative bids, (c) management buy-out consortia, (d) contractorisation schemes and (e) market-testing schemes in his Department in respect of which (i) Capita Managed Services and (ii) Lusis Business Solutions are currently involved in bidding. [19912]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Neither of these companies are currently bidding for these contracts in the Department of the Environment.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Capita Managed Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the(a) facilities management consortia, (b) private finance initiative bids, (c) management buy-out consortia, (d) contractorisation schemes and (e) market-testing schemes in his Department in respect of which (i) Capita Managed Services and (ii) Lusis Business Solutions are currently involved in bidding. [19908]

  Sir John Wheeler
  There are currently no examples of the companies named being involved in bidding for work in the Departments in Northern Ireland.

  EU Peace and Reconciliation Programme
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what mechanisms are being used by his Department to make payments under the EU special support programme for peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. [20495]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Parliamentary approval for the making of payments under the EU special support programme for peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland has been sought in the spring supplementary estimates. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure for new services will be met by repayable advances from the civil Contingencies Fund.

TREASURY

  Scottish Grand Committee
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what officials from the Treasury attended the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Aberdeen on Monday 19 February; how many of these were press officers; and what was the total cost involved. [18570]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I attended the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Aberdeen accompanied by a private secretary and a press officer.

  The total cost for their attendance was £555.

  Computers
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all cases since 1987 where his Department has bought computer capacity from(a) other Departments and (b) the private sector, giving the value of each contract and the name of the private sector contractors. [19456]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Treasury has not purchased any computer capacity from any Government Department or private sector company since 1987.

  Earnings
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the average hourly earnings of(a) full-time and (b) part-time employees in each of the standard regions (i) including and (ii) excluding employees covered by national agreements. [19576]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Information available from the new earnings survey is provided in the following table.

  New Earnings Survey 1995 (GB) Hourly earnings (excluding overtime) of employees on adult rates, whose pay for the survey period was not affected by absence

  Full-time Employees covered by national agreements:

  Part-time Employees covered by national agreements:

  Included

  Excluded

  Included

  Excluded

  Standard Region

  £

  £

  £

  £

  South East

  9.77

  9.84

  6.32

  5.80

  East Anglia

  7.49

  7.26

  5.10

  4.75

  South West

  7.77

  7.55

  5.22

  4.86

  West Midlands

  7.58

  7.34

  5.25

  4.82

  East Midlands

  7.42

  7.14

  5.17

  4.78

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  7.43

  7.14

  5.24

  4.86

  North West

  7.81

  7.59

  5.47

  4.95

  North

  7.35

  7.08

  5.08

  4.69

  Wales

  7.41

  7.06

  5.09

  4.61

  Scotland

  7.78

  7.52

  5.25

  4.79

  Capita Managed Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the(a) facilities management consortia, (b) private finance initiative bids, (c) management buy-out consortia, (d) contractorisation schemes and (e) market-testing schemes in his Department in respect of which (i) Capita Managed Services and (ii) Lusis Business Solutions are currently involved in bidding. [19899]
  367
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Treasury has no current dealings with Capita Management Services or Lusis Business Solutions.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  School Leavers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of school leavers have gone directly into higher education in each year since 1980. [19485]

  Mr. Forth
  Numbers of school leavers going directly into higher education are not collected centrally. However, the proportion of young people entering full-time higher education has more than doubled since 1980 as shown in the following list.

  Academic year beginning in:

  1980: 13

  1981: 13

  1982: 13

  1983: 13

  1984: 14

  1985: 14

  1986: 14

  1987: 15

  1988: 15

  1989: 17

  1990: 19

  1991: 23

  1992: 28

  1993: 30

  1994: 311

  1Provisional.

  Figures show the number of young—aged under 21 years—home domiciled initial entrants to higher education in Great Britain expressed as a percentage of the averaged 18 to 19-year-old population. Initial entrants are those entering a full-time course of higher education for the first time.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the budget for repairs and maintenance of school buildings in real terms in each year since 1979. [19448]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows in 1995 prices gross recurrent expenditure by local education authorities in England on repairs and maintenance from 1979–80 to 1994–95.

  Repairs and maintenance of buildings fixed plant and grounds

  1995 prices £000

  1979–80

  580,003

  1980–81

  599,060

  1981–82

  552,319

  1982–83

  581,652

  1983–84

  616,316

  1984–85

  598,008

  1985–86

  565,595

  1986–87

  616,805

  1987–88

  618,385

  368

  Repairs and maintenance of buildings fixed plant and grounds

  1995 prices £000

  1988–89

  579,596

  1989–90

  631,736

  1990–91

  618,283

  1991–92

  625,818

  1992–93

  583,974

  1993–94

  527,906

  1994–951

  534,295

  1 Provisional.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her Department's estimate for the total parental contribution to higher education student maintenance awards. [19360]

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 7 March 1996]: The total assessed parental contribution to mandatory awards made by local education authorities in England and Wales for the academic year 1993–94, the latest year for which data are available, was £621 million.

  School Inspections (Don Valley)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for(a) the schools which the Office of Standards in Education plan to inspect in the Don Valley constituency in the next 12 months, (b) the dates during which inspections are to be made, (c) the dates on which inspection contracts were approved and (d) the date by which Ofsted will report the outcome of the inspection. [19689]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, who heads the Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Mr. Chris Woodhead to write to the hon. Member.

  Capita Managed Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the(a) facilities management consortia, (b) private finance initiative bids, (c) management buy-out consortia, (d) contractorisation schemes and (e) market-testing schemes in her Department in respect of which (i) Capita Managed Services and (ii) Lusis Business Solutions are currently involved in bidding. [19913]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Capita Managed Services has recently submitted a tender to administer the teachers' superannuation scheme under the contractorisation process of the Teachers' Pensions Agency.

  Capita Managed Services and Lusis Business Solutions are not currently bidding for work in any of the other areas.

DEFENCE

  Air Accidents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when(a) the Royal Air Force Harrier GR 7 which crashed on 20 February at Southorpe, near Peterborough, Lincolnshire, (b) the two RAF Tornados which collided on

  369
  10 January above the base at Coningsby, (c) the RAF Tornado which crashed on 11 January at RAF Bruggen, Germany and (d) the RAF Hawk trainer which crashed on take-off in February at RAF Valley, Anglesey last had a major service; by whom each was carried out; and if he will make a statement. [17914]

  Mr. Soames
  All RAF aircraft are maintained in accordance with the appropriate authorised servicing cycle and approved maintenance procedures.

  In addition to first and second line maintenance carried out at operating units by RAF tradesmen at 125, 250, 500 and 1,000 flying hours, RAF Tornado aircraft undergo a major service every 2,000 flying hours. This is carried out by the Maintenance Group Defence Agency at RAF St. Athan. Neither Tornado F3 ZE862 nor ZE166 had received their first major service, which would have become due at 2,000 flying hours. They had, however, been subject to appropriate levels of servicing in November 1995 and August 1995 respectively. Tornado GR1 ZD846's last major service was carried out in 1991, but it had been appropriately serviced in December 1995.

  RAF Hawk aircraft undergo a major service every 2,000 flying hours. Hawk XX164's last major service was performed in 1991 at RAF Abingdon. The aircraft has since then received regular servicing, most recently in January 1996 when minor maintenance was carried out by RAF tradesmen at RAF Valley.

  The design philosophy of the Harrier does not require it to undergo major servicing in the same way as the Tornado and Hawk. Harrier GR7 ZG476 completed a period of minor scheduled maintenance, the deepest servicing applicable to the Harrier GR7, at RAF Wittering in December 1995. This work was carried out by RAF tradesmen.

  The separate boards of inquiry into these aircraft losses are ongoing. A summary of the board's findings will be placed in the Library of the House in due course.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the circumstances of the accident and involving a Royal Navy Harrier T 4N at RNAS Yeovilton on 27 June 1994; and if this accident is included in the accident rate figure for Royal Navy fixed-wing aircraft published in the 1995 edition of "UK Defence Statistics". [19759]

  Mr. Soames
  The circumstances of the accident are as follows. During the final stages of approach for landing, following a general flying practice sortie, the aircraft's rate of descent increased, causing it to land heavily. Subsequent investigation revealed that the aircraft had struck the leading edge of the runway with sufficient force to remove the main undercarriage. Fuller details are given in the "Military Aircraft Accident Summary", copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  I can confirm that this accident was included in the accident rate figures for Royal Navy fixed-wing aircraft published in the 1995 edition of "UK Defence Statistics".

  Dismissals (Sexuality)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed forces personnel have been dismissed over the last five years for reasons regarding their sexuality. [19449]

  Mr. Soames
  During the period 1990–94, 309 service personnel left the armed forces for reasons of their sexual orientation.

  Capita Managed Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) facilities management consortia, (b) private finance initiative bids, (c) management buy-out consortia, (d) contractorisation schemes and (e) market-testing schemes in his Department in respect of which (i) Capita Managed Services and (ii) Lusis Business Solutions are currently involved in bidding. [19914]

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

  Railhead Transfer Equipment
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions the Arbau-Klaus railhead transfer equipment has been deployed outside the United Kingdom in conjunction with other equipment in the demountable rack offloading and pick-up system logistic supply chain. [19968]

  Mr. Soames
  The Arbau-Klaus railhead transfer equipment has been deployed in Germany since 1989. It carries out a range of mechanical handling functions and is regularly deployed with a variety of other systems within the demountable rack offloading and pick-up system—DROPS—logistic supply chain.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Arbau-Klaus railhead transfer equipment has required modification for use as part of the demountable rack offloading and pick-up system logistic supply chain since purchased by his Department. [19969]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Arbau-Klaus equipment has not required modification to meet the operational requirement. However, in the current financial year the Ministry of Defence has purchased a further complement of spreader frames to reflect the changed pattern of operational use. This option was provided for in the original contract.

  Construction Contract
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the construction contract at Coulport and the role of Tarmac in respect of that contract. [19790]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  A number of major construction contracts were placed in the 1980s to prepare the Royal Naval armament depot, Coulport, Scotland for the introduction into service of the Trident strategic weapon system. Two large contracts were awarded to Tarmac Construction Limited as main contractor. One was for the provision of access roads and dockside weapon handling
  371
  facilities. The other, for which a final price remains to be agreed, was for warhead and missile storage facilities and warhead processing arrangements.

  Military Equipment Sales (Argentina)
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if military equipment made in the United Kingdom was sold to Argentina between May 1979 and May 1982. [18581]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Details of arms sales to Argentina since 1976 were given to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee in November 1982. A copy of this—HC31-i—is available in the Library of the House. These figures indicate that, in fulfilment of contracts signed before 1979, two Lynx anti-submarine helicopters were delivered to Argentina in 1979, one type 42 destroyer was commissioned in November 1980 and some Sea Dart missiles were delivered up to 1981.

  Nuclear-powered Vessels
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the decommissioned nuclear-powered vessels in the ownership of his Department, giving the location of each and the cost of any work undertaken on each vessel since decommissioning; and what are his plans for the disposal of these vessels. [19510]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The location of each nuclear-powered submarine that has left service is as follows, with the approximate costs, where available, of undertaking the defuelling, de-equipping and lay-up preparation—DDLP. In addition to DDLP costs, the average annual maintenance cost of storing a decommissioned nuclear-powered submarine afloat is some £50,000. A docking of each submarine is also carried out every 10 years at an approximate cost of £3 million per submarine. So far, only Dreadnought has undergone a 10-yearly docking. The policy for final disposal is still under consideration.

  Submarine

  Location

  DDLP cost £ million

  HMS Dreadnought

  Rosyth

  1—

  HMS Warspite

  Devonport

  11.3

  HMS Churchill

  Rosyth

  11.2

  HMS Conqueror

  Devonport

  10.6

  HMS Swiftsure

  Rosyth

  11.5

  HMS Courageous

  Devonport

  10.8

  HMS Revenge

  Rosyth

  18.7

  HMS Valiant

  Devonport

  2—

  HMS Resolution

  Rosyth

  2—

  HMS Renown

  Rosyth

  2—

  1 It is not possible to provide costs of the decommissioning of HMS Dreadnought, which was the first nuclear submarine to be withdrawn from service in 1982; the information, insofar as it may be available, could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  2 HMS Valiant, HMS Resolution and HMS Renown have not yet completed their DDLP.

  Atomic Weapons Test Programme (Australasia)
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much compensation has been paid since 1966 to the Australian Government or nationals by Her Majesty's Government in respect of claims by or on 372
  behalf of persons who suffered death or injury as a consequence of the United Kingdom's atomic weapons test programme in Australasia in the 1950s. [18880]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 4 March 1996]: As announced to the House on 10 December 1993, Official Report, column 421, the Government agreed to make an ex gratia payment of £20 million to the Federal Government of Australia as a contribution to the cost of the further clean-up of the Maralinga site. A copy of the note giving effect to this agreement was placed in the Library of the House. The note also records that the Government of Australia indemnified the Government of the UK against claims from Australian nationals or residents. We understand, however, that since then the Australian Government have paid no compensation to anyone claiming to have been injured by radiation from the British nuclear test programme.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Welsh Grand Committee
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission what estimate he has made of the annual cost of the proposed reforms of the Welsh Grand Committee. [18467]

  Mr. Beith
  [holding answer 4 March 1996]: On the assumption that the Welsh Grand Committee meets four times in Wales during the financial year 1996–97, an estimate of £36,000 is forecast. This estimate includes travel, accommodation, communications, security and additional staff costs; but excludes any additional costs incurred by Government Departments. Full details will be given, in due course, in the next sessional return.

  Deregulation Committee
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission what is the total estimated cost of maintaining the Deregulation Committee, broken down by office costs, staffing costs and printing costs. [18639]

  Mr. Beith
  [holding answer 7 March 1996]: It is not possible to give a total estimated cost of maintaining the Deregulation Committee.

  Currently the Committee has three full-time staff and three staff who also serve the European Legislation Committee. The Committee also receives assistance from the staff in the Committee Office providing general support for the work of Select Committees. Details of the staffing of the Committees are given in the sessional return. It is not possible to calculate office costs for individual Select Committees. The return for Session 1994–95 was published on 28 February as House of Commons Paper 132 of the current Session.

  The cost of printing the reports of the Committee was £2,070 in financial year 1994–95; and in the current year, to the end of December 1995, has been £29,337. The costs relate to publication of nine reports.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Computers
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all cases since 1987 where his Department has bought computer capacity from(a) other Departments and (b) the private sector, giving the value of each contract and the name of the private sector contactors. [19461]

  Mr. Willetts
  My Department has not purchased any computer capacity, in the sense of buying time on someone else's computer, from other Government Departments or the private sector since 1987.

  Health and Safety Inspections Leaflet
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what role the deregulation unit had in the preparation of the recently published Health and Safety Commission leaflet entitled "Your rights when health and safety inspectors take enforcement action". [19575]

  Mr. Freeman
  Officials from the Cabinet Office deregulation unit and the Health and Safety Executive worked together closely in drawing up this leaflet to ensure it followed the enforcement principles in the Deregulation and Contracting out Act 1994.

  Deregulation Unit
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many staff are employed by the deregulation unit; what indicators are used to measure its performance; and what are its total annual manning costs. [19572]

  Mr. Freeman
  Staffing numbers, staffing costs and performance measures were set out in the annual MINIS 95 return for the Department of Trade and Industry, as the unit was at that stage part of that Department. The return was published on 12 June 1995 and a copy placed in the Library of the House.

  The staff complement of the deregulation unit at January 1996 was 43.5.

  HMSO
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) how many jobs have been lost in Her Majesty's Stationery Office in each year since 1990; [19776]

  (2) what is the projected cost of redundancy payments for HMSO in 1996; [19777]

  (3) what is the cost of redundancy payments within HMSO for each year since 1990; [19778]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the change in the number of jobs in HMSO in 1996. [19791]

  Mr. Freeman
  As these questions relate purely to operational matters, I have asked the chief executive of HMSO to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mike Lynn to Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe, dated 7 March 1996:

  I have been asked by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to reply to your four Parliamentary Questions (Nos 41–44) about job losses and redundancy payments.
  374
  I am afraid it is not possible to identify precisely how many jobs have been lost in quite the way you are seeking. HMSO operates in a dynamic environment and has to react to changing market conditions. Accordingly, whilst changes in technology or customer requirements have meant that many operational jobs have been surrendered, we have at the same time needed to recruit sales and marketing staff to ensure that we can compete effectively, and we have moved some staff from support roles into the front line.

  Similarly, some jobs have been lost as a result of market tests, but market testing by other Departments has enabled us to capture additional work on a Facilities Management basis, involving the transfer into HMSO of some 230 staff. The net result is that total permanent staffing has fallen from 3,220 at 1.1.90 to 2,696 at 1.3.96, and we expect a further significant decrease by the end of the year.

  The total cost of redundancy payments (excluding any pay in lieu of notice, and provision for future annual compensation payments) for each year since 1990 is given below. These figures are recorded against the year in which provision was made in our Annual Accounts and in some cases the actual departures occurred in the following year. In particular, the 1995 figure includes some £8,450,000 in respect of the 1996 programme.

  1990: £477,000

  1991: £163,000

  1992: £1,245,000

  1993: £4,789,000

  1994: £3,843,000

  1995: £15,040,00

  1996: —.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Contributions and Benefits Agencies, Scotland
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the number of(a) contributions agencies and (b) benefits agencies in Scotland. [17106]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Contributions Agency undertook an extensive analysis of its field operations business in 1993 and a review of the management structure in 1994, to increase efficiency and reduce costs, in line with the Government White Paper, "Continuity and change in the Civil Service".

  The recommendations of the reviews were subject to a feasibility study and then an extensive trial period in rural and urban areas during 1995.

  The proposed changes to the field operations structure will be implemented over a two to three-year period.

  Although the efficiency and running costs of the Contributions Agency are constantly under review, there are no proposals to undertake a further reorganisation.

  The Benefits Agency regularly reviews its estate.

  Mrs. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding the number of and access to contributions and benefits agencies. [17107]

  Mr. Heald
  The Contributions Agency has been in existence since 2 April 1991, details of inquiries made to the Secretary of State about access to, and the number of Contributions Agency offices are not available prior to 1 January 1995. Since 1 January 1995 the Secretary of
  375
  State has received 17 direct inquiries on this subject; 16 written inquiries from hon. Members and one independent inquiry.

  The Benefits Agency could obtain this information only at disproportionate cost.

  Company Pension Schemes
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what incentives he plans to introduce to encourage individuals to contribute to company pension schemes. [18850]

  Mr. Heald
  Measures to be introduced under the Pensions Act 1995 will enhance the security of occupational pension schemes, increasing pubic confidence in them. Members of occupational schemes contracted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme pay lower rates of national insurance contributions. Tax relief is given on individual contributions to occupational schemes, including additional voluntary contributions. Similarly, national insurance rebates and tax relief are available to employees in individually-arranged and group personal pension schemes. The Department of Social Security is developing a range of material explaining the benefits of planning early for retirement and providing pensions information in plain English for employers, the public and the pensions world.

  Capita Managed Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the(a) facilities management consortia, (b) private finance initiative bids, (c) management buy-out consortia, (d) contractorisation schemes and (e) market-testing schemes in his Department in respect of which (i) Capita Managed Services and (ii) Lusis Business Solutions are currently involved in bidding. [19909]

  Mr. Burt
  Neither Capita Managed Services nor Lusis Business Solutions are part of any of the consortia bidding for any of this Department's facilities management, private finance initiative projects, management buy-outs, contractorisation schemes or market-testing schemes. It is possible that these companies may be employed by bidding consortia, but that is a matter for the consortia concerned.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for those areas of(a) Greenock and (b) Port Glasgow within the parliamentary constituency of Greenock and Port Glasgow entitled to receive cold weather payments, the weather station used as the basis for calculations; in respect of how many days each area has received cold weather payments in winter 1995–96; what has been the total amount paid to date; and if he will make a statement. [18055]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  376
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 7 November 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will list for those areas of (a) Greenock and (b) Port Glasgow within the Parliamentary Constituency of Greenock and Port Glasgow entitled to receive Cold Weather Payments (CWPs), the weather station used as the basis for calculations; in respect of how many days each area has received CWPs in winter 1995–96; what has been the total amount paid to date; and if he will make a statement.

  The information is not available in the format requested. CWP statistics are not kept which are specific to Parliamentary Constituencies or for individual Benefit Offices, but are kept for Benefit Agency (BA) Districts. The BA District Clyde Coast and Cowal comprises of the BA Offices of Greenock and Port Glasgow and covers the postal codes: KA25, KA28 to KA30 inclusive, PA 11 and PA13 to PA27 inclusive. This District is linked to the weather station at Glasgow Airport.

  The weather station at Glasgow Airport has had 21 days of identified cold weather. The total amount of CWPs paid from December 1995 to date is £231,854.50. Statistics are not yet available for any clerical payments which may have been made in February by the District.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which weather stations are used as the basis of calculations for cold weather payments in the constituency of Perth and Kinross; for how many days each eligible area has received cold weather payments in winter 1995–96; and what has been the total amount paid. [19168]

  Mr. Evans
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Roseanna Cunningham, dated 7 March 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about which weather stations in the Parliamentary constituency of Perth and Kinross were used to calculate Cold Weather Payments (CWPs), how many days each eligible area received CWPs in winter 1995–96, and the total amount paid.

  The information is not available in the format requested. This is because statistics are not kept which are specific to Parliamentary constituencies but are kept by Benefit Agency Districts. The constituency of Perth and Kinross is dealt with by the Agency's Tayside District. Postal codes within the District are linked to weather stations at Aberdeen Airport, Aviemore, Edinburgh Airport and Leuchars. Details of the postal codes which are linked to each weather station are available in the Library.

  The weater station at Aberdeen Airport has had 21 days of identified Cold Weather, Aviemore has had 42 days, Edinburgh Airport has had 14 days and Leuchars has had 21 days.

  This winter, to date, Tayside District has made CWPs amounting to £535,568. This does not include any clerical payments which may have been made by the District in February as these details are not yet available.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Income Support
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action is being taken by his Department to minimise the variations in monetary errors made in the award of income support by differing Benefits Agency offices. [18041]
  377
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of income support is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter form Peter Mathison to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 8 March 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what action is being taken by his Department to minimise the variations in monetary errors made in the award of Income Support (IS) by differing Benefits Agency offices.

  The BA has a continuing programme of action to improve IS accuracy and minimise monetary errors. These include increasing the level of mandatory checks in local offices, redesigning training material and introducing refresher training workshops. The BA has also set up a team to carry out a fundamental review of IS processes.

  To help individual offices identify error trends and training needs we have set up Quality Support Teams who visit every District at least once a year to give advice and support and spread good practices. Additionally, Territorial Teams have carried out Management Reviews in offices where performance is not reaching the standards set.

  One of the main reasons for variation in office performance is the number of mortgage cases dealt with by each office. Mortgage cases are by far the most complex because of the many differing types of loans, the complexity of the regulations and the frequency of interest changes. The BA scrutinised all mortgage cases in 1994 and has recently implemented a change in legislation, from October 1995, to standardise the treatment of eligible interest costs. As a result of the change less clerical input is required and therefore the opportunity for error is reduced.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Capita Managed Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the(a) facilities management consortia, (b) private finance initiative bids, (c) management buy-out consortia, (d) contractorisation schemes and (e) market-testing schemes in his Department in respect of which (i) Capita Managed Services and (ii) Lusis Business Solutions are currently involved in bidding. [19906]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Neither company is currently bidding under any of(a) to (e).

  Magistrates, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will take steps to eliminate age discrimination in respect of those aged over 50 in advertisements to recruit magistrates in Doncaster. [18823]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The intention of the advertisement is not to be discriminatory but the Lord Chancellor's advisory committees seek to maintain a balance on benches in terms of age. Of the 185 magistrates currently on the Doncaster bench, 73 per cent. are aged 50 and above.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the number of justices of the peace aged(a) under 30, (b) 30 to 40, (c) 40 to 50, (d) 50 to 60, (e) 60 to 65 and (f) over 65 years of age for Doncaster magistrates court. [18822]
  378
  Mr. Evans
  The figures are as follows:

  Number

  (a) under 30

  0

  (b) 30 to 40

  6

  (c) 40 to 50

  43

  (d) 50 to 60

  86

  (e) 60 to 65

  27

  (f) over 65

  23

  Juries
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will amend section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to allow research to be undertaken into the functioning of juries. [18777]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The royal commission on criminal justice recommended the amendment of section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to enable research to be conducted into jurors' reasons for their verdicts. The Government are sympathetic to this recommendation and recognise the significant potential value of some forms of jury research. Consultation is currently taking place and the senior judiciary have been asked for their views.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the statistical probability of an eligible individual being called for jury service. [18773]

  Mr. Evans
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 8 March 1996:

  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your question about jury service.

  I regret that the information is not held centrally and could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.

SCOTLAND

  Arts Councils
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the level of co-operation between the Scottish arts council and the Northern Ireland arts council; what projects have been jointly funded in the last year; and what future joint projects are planned. [17109]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Regular meetings and discussions are held between the chairmen, chief executive and other senior staff, as appropriate, to discuss matters of common interest. In the last year the four UK Arts Councils and the Arts Council in the Republic of Ireland funded a five cities tour of poetry readings in December 1995, and the Scottish arts council and the arts council of Northern Ireland jointly commissioned from Piers Hellawell a musical composition for the Highland festival in June 1996.

  Live Births
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many live births were registered in Scotland during 1995. [18861]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The provisional total of live births registered in Scotland in 1995 is £60,053.

  Scottish Grand Committee
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what civil servants attended each meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in the current parliamentary Session; what have been the total costs associated with their attendance on each occasion; and how many of them were from the Scottish information office; [18568]

  (2) what civil servants he proposes should attend future meetings of the Scottish Grant Committee; what estimate he has made of the total cost involved; and how many of the officials and what amount of the costs relate to staff of the Scottish information office. [18569]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of officials attending meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee depends on the subjects for debate. In the current parliamentary Session an average of 15 departmental officials have attended each meeting. That number includes three officials from the Scottish Office information directorate and four ministerial private secretaries. As officials attending meetings do so as part of their normal duties no additional staff costs are incurred. There are of course travelling costs associated with each meetings.

  Attendance at future meetings will depend on the business to be handled and travelling costs on the venue but I expect the same pattern will continue.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many school children were excluded(a) permanently and (b) temporarily from schools in (i) Perth and Kinross district council area and (ii) Tayside regional council area in 1995. [19169]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Information on the number of school children excluded temporarily from schools is not available. The available information, consistent with that set out in the report on attendance and absence in Scottish schools, 1994–95, published by the adult unit of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools, is as follows.

  Number of pupils permanently excluded from schools in 1994–95

  Number of half days of temporary exclusions from schools in 1994–95

  Perth and Kinross

  0

  3,956

  Tayside

  0

  20,702

  380

  Racism in Schools
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many racial incidents were reported in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in each educational authority in Scotland in 1995. [19170]

  Mr. Robertson
  This information is not held centrally by the Scottish Office.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which education authorities in Scotland have specific programmes to deal directly with the incidence of racism in schools. [19171]

  Mr. Robertson
  The management of schools is the responsibility of education authorities and head teachers. Information on which education authorities in Scotland have specific programmes to deal directly with the incidence of racism in schools is not held by the Scottish Office.

  Capita Managed Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the(a) facilities management consortia, (b) private finance initiative bids, (c) management buy-out consortia, (d) contractorisation schemes and (e) market-testing schemes in his Department in respect of which (i) Capita Managed Services and (ii) Lusis Business Solutions are currently involved in bidding. [19900]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Neither of these companies is currently involved in biding for any of these schemes or initiatives within the Scottish Office.

  Education Directorates
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are(a) the numbers employed in the education directorate of each of the new councils, (b) the numbers of schools for which each is responsible and (c) the ratio for each council of the numbers so employed to the number of schools for which it is responsible. [20383]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information at present available is shown in the table. I am asking my officials to update these figures as soon as councils have finalised their staffing structures.

  New Scottish Councils: numbers employed in educational directorates and numbers of schools

  Officers1

  Schools2

  Ratio

  Aberdeen

  16

  95

  1:6

  Aberdeenshire

  31

  196

  1:6

  Angus

  11

  65

  1:6

  Borders

  32

  82

  1:2.5

  Clackmannan

  8

  29

  1:3.5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  19

  134

  1:7

  Dundee

  14

  65

  1:4.5

  East Lothian

  21

  48

  1:2.2

  East Renfrewshire

  11

  36

  1:3

  Edinburgh

  63

  158

  1:2.5

  Falkirk

  17

  67

  1:4

  Fife

  45

  192

  1:4.2

  Midlothian

  10

  51

  1:5

  Moray

  16

  64

  1:4

  Perth and Kinross

  14

  92

  1:6.5

  Renfrewshire

  14

  88

  1:6

  381

  New Scottish Councils: numbers employed in educational directorates and numbers of schools

  Officers1

  Schools2

  Ratio

  South Ayrshire

  17

  65

  1:4

  West Lothian

  41

  92

  1:2.2

  1 Officers comprise Director (Tier 1), Deputy/Assisted Director (Tier 2), Education Officer/Operations Manager (Tier 3) and Adviser/Quality Assessor/Development Officer (Tier 4).

  2 Schools comprise secondary schools, primary schools special schools nursery schools.

  1. Information from the following eleven councils is awaited: Argyll and Bute, East Ayrshire, East Dunbartonshire, Glasgow, Highlands, Inverclyde, North Ayrshire, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire, Stirling and West Dunbartonshire.

  New councils—special responsibility allowances (SRAs) and numbers of administrative staff earning in excess of £42,000

  Council

  Number of councillors

  Number of SRAs

  Cost

  Cost per councillor

  Number of staff earning in excess of £42,000

  Aberdeen

  50

  28

  251,095

  5,022

  17

  Aberdeenshire1

  47

  9

  84,565

  1,799

  19

  Angus

  26

  25

  184,800

  7,108

  28

  Argyll and Bute

  33

  15

  125,450

  3,802

  13

  Scottish Borders

  58

  19

  118,700

  2,047

  13

  Clackmannan

  12

  10

  75,660

  6,305

  14

  Dumfries and Galloway

  70

  36

  244,837

  3,497

  39

  Dundee

  36

  24

  200,000

  5,556

  32

  East Ayrshire

  30

  17

  143,500

  4,783

  27

  East Dunbartonshire

  26

  16

  161,000

  6,192

  24

  East Lothian

  18

  16

  138,500

  7,694

  11

  East Renfrewshire

  20

  14

  113,125

  5,656

  23

  Edinburgh

  58

  55

  405,450

  6,991

  54

  Falkirk

  36

  25

  231,275

  6,424

  35

  Fife

  92

  50

  395,200

  4,296

  74

  Glasgow

  83

  58

  396,500

  4,777

  65

  Highlands

  72

  54

  253,794

  3,525

  24

  Inverclyde

  20

  15

  196,950

  9,847

  18

  Midlothian

  15

  14

  125,625

  8,375

  11

  Moray

  18

  15

  159,375

  8,854

  8

  North Ayrshire

  29

  27

  242,874

  8,096

  21

  North Lanarkshire

  69

  30

  264,800

  3,838

  38

  Perth and Kinross

  32

  22

  201,000

  6,300

  16

  Renfrewshire

  40

  17

  126,209

  3,155

  29

  South Ayrshire

  25

  18

  161,700

  6,468

  24

  South Lanarkshire

  73

  49

  419,760

  5,672

  43

  Stirling

  22

  22

  135,625

  6,165

  12

  West Dunbartonshire

  22

  12

  120,250

  5,466

  13

  West Lothian

  27

  22

  250,125

  9,264

  19

  1 Subject to further revision to reflect proposed area structures.

WALES

  Welsh Economic Council
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 February,Official Report, column 59, on what date he sought the view of local authorities on the future of the Welsh Economic Council; what other bodies he has consulted on the WEC's future; if he will give details; and if he will make a statement. [17349]

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 27 February 1996]: I consulted the local authorities on 20 November on their views on the future of the Welsh Economic Council. I also refer the hon. Member to my announcement in the House on 29 February, Official Report, columns 1024–98.
  382

  Local Authority Expenses
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are(a) the number of councillors, (b) the number of special responsibility allowances being paid, (c) the total cost of these allowances, (d) the cost per councillor and (e) the number of administrative staff earning in excess of £42,000 in respect of each of the new local authorities. [20384]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information, as supplied by the councils and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, is shown in the table:

  Buildings (Flintshire)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to meet the new Flintshire county council to discuss repairs and improvements to new buildings. [18920]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  North Wales Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to meet the North Wales TEC to discuss the consequences of job losses at(a) Raytheon jets and (b) British Aerospace at Broughton, Clwyd. [18925]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department is keeping in close touch with the employment position in the aerospace industry in north-east Wales. I have no current plans to meet the local training and enterprise council.

  Development Area Status
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of the loss of development area status on those constituencies which have lost such status; and if he will make a statement. [18927]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Regional selective assistance is evaluated regularly. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy told the Trade and Industry Committee on 18 October 1995, another evaluation is to start this year.

  In the meantime, the Welsh Office has been monitoring the volume of RSA applications. The introduction of the new map in August 1993 caused a rush of applications immediately prior to the expiry of the old map. This makes it difficult to identify trends at present. The Welsh Office will continue to monitor applications as this distortion becomes less important.

  In the travel-to-work areas all or part of which lost development area status in 1993, average unemployment in the 12 months to January 1996 was 20.4 per cent. below that in the 12 months to July 1993 compared with a fall of 18.3 per cent. in Wales as a whole.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the reductions in expenditure that will be made in each of the next 10 years as a result of the reorganisation of local government in Wales, on the basis of extrapolated past costs. [19284]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is for councils to decide how much they spend. The level of savings from the reorganisation will depend on their decisions. My right hon. Friend will take this decision on the level of total standard spending for 1997–98 as part of the forthcoming public expenditure round.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 9 February,Official Report, column 395, if he will place a copy of his letter to the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation in the Library. [19917]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This is a confidential communication with the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation. It would not be appropriate for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the foreign currency borrowings by NHS trusts in Wales; and if he will list the dates on which his approval was(a) sought and (b) given for such borrowings. [19915]

  Mr. Hague
  My approval has not been sought by any NHS trust in Wales to engage in foreign currency borrowing.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the borrowings by NHS trusts in Wales from persons other than the Secretary of State; and what amounts are outstanding. [19837]
  384
  Mr. Hague
  All loans taken out by NHS trusts in Wales have been obtained from the Exchequer. To facilitate short-term cash management, I have approved bank overdraft guarantees to enable the following trusts to borrow up to the amounts shown.

  NHS Trust

  Amount £

  Llandough Hospital and Community

  100,000

  Bridgend and District

  250,000

  Gwynedd Community

  100,000

  Llanelli/Dinefwr

  250,000

  Glan Clwyd District General Hospital

  100,000

  Capita Managed Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all(a) facilities management consortia, (b) private finance initiative bids, (c) management buy-out consortia, (d) contractorisation schemes and (e) market-testing schemes in his Department in respect of which (i) Capita Managed Services and (ii) Lusis Business Solutions are currently involved in bidding. [19901]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information about bidders for Welsh Office contracts is commercially confidential.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications he has received for total fundholding; in which health authority they are located; how many he has approved; what is the total annual fund budget in each case; and how many patients are on the lists of the practices concerned. [19916]

  Mr. Hague
  Eight proposals were received for projects to test the development of total purchasing by GP fundholders, of which four have been approved.

  Two projects, involving approximately 50,000 patients each, are in Gwent. Both the new Morgannwg and Dyfed health authority areas will include one project covering about 20,000 patients in each case.

  The purchasing budgets for these projects have not yet been set. These will be agreed between the health authorities and the fundholding practices involved.

  Sea Empress Incident
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to assist local authorities who have expended resources on the Sea Empress disaster clean-up and will not qualify for compensation from the existing industry compensation funds. [19786]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  All local authorities involved in the clean-up operation are qualified to claim reimbursement of costs incurred form the ship's insurers and the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Attorney-General how many public interest immunity certificates are current in(a) civil cases and (b) criminal cases. [18810]
  385
  The Attorney-General
  On the basis of the information available, which relates only to cases involving Government Departments, there are known to be(a) two civil cases1 and (b) seven criminal cases currently before the courts in which public interest immunity certificates have been signed.

  1Includes one PII claim made by affidavit.

  Capita Managed Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the(a) facilities management consortia, (b) private finance initiative bids, (c) management buy-out consortia, (d) contractorisation schemes and (e) market-testing schemes in his Department in respect of which (i) Capita Managed Services and (ii) Lusis Business Solutions are currently involved in bidding. [19902]

  The Attorney-General
  None.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Study
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many times and upon what subjects he has asked KPMG to undertake a study for his Department since 1 January 1995. [18816]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department has let four contracts centrally with KPMG for external consultancy since 1 January 1995. The subjects of these studies were:

  Study into the North American service sector;

  Study of outward investment;

  Post Office performance review—operational efficiency;

  National Grid Flotation—Share option and dividend issues.

  In addition, one contract, for a job evaluation exercise, was let by the former executive agency, the National Engineering Laboratory.

  I have asked the chief executives of the existing agencies to reply separately.

  Letter from Adrian Wilson to Mr. John Battle, dated 8 March 1996:

  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question: 95/1413 with regard to how many times and upon what subjects KPMG have been asked to undertake a study for the Department of Trade and Industry since 1 January 1995.

  We have one such contract with KPMG, in respect of Human Resources Computer System.

  Letter from David Durham to Mr. John Battle, dated 6 March 1996:

  You recently asked the President of the Board of Trade about the frequency and subjects of study undertaken by KPMG for his Department. I have been asked to reply in respect of Companies House Executive Agency.

  KPMG have not undertaken any studies for this Agency since 1 January 1995.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. John Battle, dated 8 March 1996:

  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about the use of KPMG to undertake studies for The Insolvency Service since 1 January 1995.
  386
  I confirm that KPMG have not been asked to undertake any study for The Service since that date.

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. John Battle, dated 8 March 1996:

  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply for the Patent Office to your question about how many times, and upon what subjects KPMG has been asked to undertake a study since January 1 1995. The Patent Office had no such dealings with KPMG in that period.

  Letter from Seton Bennett to Mr. John Battle, dated 8 March 1996:

  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about studies undertaken by KPMG.

  KPMG have undertaken no study for this Agency in the period since 1 January 1995.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. John Battle, dated 8 March 1996:

  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about KPMG. I can confirm that the Radiocommunications Agency have not asked KPMG to undertake any studies since 1 January 1995.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in what circumstances employers are required to notify his Department of proposed redundancies. [19970]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  An employer proposing to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees at one establishment within a period of 90 days or less is required, under section 193 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 as amended by the Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 1995, to notify the Secretary of State of that proposal in writing.

  Iraq (Military Equipment)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he possesses on the role of(a) Apremont S.A. Company of Panama, (b) Muiden Chemie Company of the Netherlands, (c) GEA Company, Remie Ltd. and Erber Ltd. of Italy, (d) SPEL Company of Portugal and (e) Banco Nazionale del Lavoro in facilitating the export of United Kingdom-origin military equipment to Iraq since 1985. [18535]

  Mr. Lang
  Muiden Chemie Company of the Netherlands and SPEL company of Portugal feature in chapter E7 of Sir Richard Scott's report. There is also a reference to the Atlanta, Georgia branch of the Banco Nazionale del Lavoro in paragraph A1.3 of the report. I understand that Sir Richard Scott intends to publish shortly on CD-ROM as many of the source documents for report as he considers necessary.

  So far as can be ascertained my Department has no further information concerning the role of the companies mentioned in the hon. Gentleman's question in facilitating the export of United Kingdom origin military equipment to Iraq.

  If the hon. Gentleman has any additional information suggesting that a breach of UK export controls has been committed, he should inform HM Customs.

  Domestic Gas (Standing Charges)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what restrictions are placed on the levying of standing charges by companies supplying gas to domestic consumers. [19818]

  Mr. Eggar
  In general, it will be for gas suppliers competing in the domestic market to make their own judgments as to standing charges and for customers to take them into account in their choice of supplier. Prospective suppliers operating in the south-west are generally offering standing charges lower than those of British Gas and two are offering a standing charge of zero.

  British Gas remains subject to a standing charge cap, equal in real terms to the level at privatisation.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Sport
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress has been made on implementing the initiatives set out in the policy statement "Sport: Raising the Game". [20382]

  Mr. Sproat
  Since the publication of the statement last July, the Department of National Heritage, the Department for Education and Employment, the Sports Council and other organisations have been working on the implementation of its initiatives. Already, significant progress has been made in a number of areas.

  In schools, a revised physical education curriculum with greater emphasis on team games was introduced in August 1995.

  The Department of Education and Employment is consulting on the inclusion of information on sporting aims, provision and achievements in annual reports and prospectuses, with a view to implementation from the 1996–97 academic year.

  The new Office for Standards in Education framework for inspection will ensure that inspectors will look at team games and sport as well as PE in the national curriculum as part of all school inspections.

  The Ofsted survey of good practice in school PE and sport was published in December, and a summary was sent to all schools in January 1996.

  Ofsted is also carrying out an audit of initial teacher training for PE. Its report is due in the summer, and will assist with the development of performance indicators.

  The Department for Education and Employment has also carried out a survey of sporting provision in schools, the results of which are expected in April. In addition, the Sports Council has distributed 35,000 copies of its "Why PE" leaflet to support the PE profession.

  The responses to the consultation paper published in July on the sportsmark and gold star award schemes, which was sent to all secondary schools, have been analysed. The Sports Council is now preparing detailed guidance on the implementation and assessment of both schemes. The aim is to have the schemes up and running
  388
  in secondary schools in the 1996–97 academic year and in primary schools, following a further consultation exercise, in the 1997–98 academic year.

  The Sports Council's working group on coaching schemes has been set up and will report in April.

  The Sports Council is also carrying out audits of available governing body courses and on the number of teachers working on primary and secondary education.

  The Department for Education and Employment has consulted on the playing fields elements of the Education (School Premises) Regulations being retained and the regulations were laid in February.

  In addition, the Department of the Environment issued a consultation paper on 15 January on the Sports Council becoming a statutory consultee on all planning applications affecting playing fields. Comments were invited by 15 March.

  In order to stimulate more good quality lottery applications from schools, the Sports Council provided additional information and advice via publications and roadshows in November.

  The council will identify gaps in provision through a facilities planning model, and has produced new guidelines for deprived areas. Funding levels have also been raised to 90 per cent. for these areas. A progress report will be produced shortly and action begun in April 1996. The Department of National Heritage has also sent leaflets to all schools in the UK providing information on how they can benefit from lottery funds. The Institute of Sports Sponsorship is consulting the Department for Education and Employment on ways of promoting greater business sponsorship of school sport.

  The working group on university sports scholarships, which is being chaired by Sir Roger Bannister, commenced work in October, has been meeting regularly, and will report in April.

  The Sports Council's consultation paper, setting out what the structure and content of the British Academy of Sport might be, was published on 5 December. The closing date for responses was 31 January and an analysis of these is currently being carried out by independent consultants on behalf of the council. Once the structure and content of the academy have been agreed, bids will be invited to establish the academy. The aim is to invite bids in the spring.

  The Sports Council has also met the Sports Aid Foundation, British Olympic Association and British Paralympic Association to discuss the co-ordination of support for elite athletes. In addition, the Secretary of State has written to the Sports Council proposing changes to the way in which sports lottery money is distributed. The proposals include helping talented young people, including elite sports people, to develop their skills.

  Between now and July, progress will be made on several other action points, including: from April, the Sports Council will be allocating an additional £1 million to provide opportunities for teachers to gain coaching qualifications. Priorities will be decided by the council's coaching working group. The council is also considering

  389
  the details of the £2 million fund for promoting links between schools and clubs. Sportsmatch will also be earmarking £1 million for schools projects from April.

  In April, the Sports Council's national junior sports programme which is being run in conjunction with the Youth Sport Trust will commence. The programme is designed to provide around 4 million children with sports equipment, qualified coaches and places to play. The scheme will cost around £12 million over three years with £7.7 million of lottery money being made available, £2 million to £3 million of grant-in-aid from the Sports Council and some private sector funding. British Telecom has already announced that it will be sponsoring the programme with a total of £750,000 over three years.

  The regional offices of the new Sports Council for England will be introducing programmes to improve school-club links in April. Also in April the Sports Council will be publishing revised planning guidelines for governing bodies with a strengthened section on youth sport, which will further encourage the promotion of school-club links.

  The Further Education Funding Council is currently drafting a report on sporting provision in the FE sector, which will be published in the next few months. Further education institutions will also publish details of their sporting facilities and the sporting opportunities available to their students from the 1996–97 academic year. The Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals and the Standing Conference of Principals are recommending to their members that higher education institutions should publish details of the sporting facilities and the sporting opportunities available to their students from the 1996–97 academic year.

  The Sports Council is giving advice to governing bodies on planning, including planning for youth sport, and its grant assessment panel is assessing these plans with particular attention to governing bodies having targets for athlete support. An improved monitoring system will be in place by April 1996 which will give more detailed information on governing body performance. The council is also drawing up new governing body planning guidelines with special reference to provision for youth sport.

  I am pleased that various governing bodies have recently produced programmes for the improvement of their sport and to increase sporting opportunities:

  (i) the Football League has designated this season as "School Year" and aims to strengthen links between member clubs and their local schools through, for example, a competition for secondary schools organised by local league clubs, sponsored by Auto Windscreens with matching funding from the £1 million Sportsmatch has set aside for schools projects;

  (ii) the Lawn Tennis Association's plan for the development of tennis in Great Britain 1996 to 2001 which looks at the part which the LTA, its county associations, clubs, schools, further and higher education institutions and local authorities can play in expanding participation in tennis, encouraging regular competition in the game and, ultimately, producing world-class tennis players;

  (iii) the Rugby Football Union's review of student rugby which aims to encourage maximum participation by students in rugby union;

  390

  (iv) the Football Associations of England, Wales and Scotland have also combined on the Coca-Cola Football Crazy initiative which is making available professional coaching and skills training to around 300,000 children and is free to all.

  A follow-up policy statement, to be published in July, will report progress on all action points from "Sport: Raising the Game" and on new initiatives following on from them, as well as other relevant new initiatives.

  Computers
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list all cases since 1987 in which his Department has bought computer capacity from(a) other Departments and (b) the private sector, giving the value of each contract and the name of the private sector contractors. [19462]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage has never bought computer capacity, either from other Departments or from the private sector.

  Sport (Drugs)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much money the Government have spent in conducting drug tests on sportsmen and women in each year since 1979. [19316]

  Mr. Sproat
  From April 1988, when the Sports Council's doping control unit was established, until March 1995 a total of £5,261,778 has been spent on anti-doping activities, including £4,951,828 on testing. The sports councils in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland contributed a total of £667,773.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she expects to receive from the Sports Council statistics as to the number of sportsmen and women who failed drug tests in 1995. [19318]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Sports Council will be publishing a report on doping control activities from 1995–96 by early June.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list(a) the number of drug tests carried out on sportsmen and women, (b) the number of sportsmen and women who failed drug tests and (c) the drugs that those who failed the tests were found to be abusing in each year since 1979. [19313]

  Mr. Sproat
  Between 1988, when the Sports Council's doping control unit was set up, and April 1995, 26,869 tests have been carried out on sportsmen and women of many nationalities participating in sport in the United Kingdom or UK sportsmen and women training abroad. There have been 357 substances found, and 58 refusals to be tested. The number of reports to the governing bodies of sport for consideration as doping offences would be lower, as in some cases more than one substance has been detected in a sample. Action taken by various governing bodies is monitored by the Sports Council.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much extra money the Government have made available to the Sports Council to fulfil the pledges in "Sport: Raising the Game" to provide additional emphasis on educating young sportsmen and women about the dangers of drug abuse. [19315]
  391
  Mr. Sproat
  Government grant-in-aid to the Sports Council is not earmarked for specific purposes. However in 1996–97, £80,000 will be made available for education and information programmes by the Sports Council under the doping control programme.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much money the Government have spent on educating sportsmen and women on the dangers of drug abuse in each year since 1979. [19317]

  Mr. Sproat
  Between 1988, when the independent testing programme was established, and March 1995, £309,950 has been spent on education and information programmes.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he will take as a result of the finding of the Scott inquiry that the letter written to the hon. Member referred to in paragraph D4.26 concerning changes in the Government's policy on the supply of arms to Iraq was misleading. [16951]

  Mrs. Clywd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he will take as a result of the finding of the Scott inquiry that the letter written to the hon. Member referred to in paragraph D4.27 concerning changes in the Government's policy on the supply of arms to Iraq was misleading. [16952]

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 22 February,Official Report, column 256, to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and pursuant to paragraph D4.62 of the Scott report, what steps he has taken to contact the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Members for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) and for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in respect of the findings of Sir Richard Scott that the answers given to those hon. Members were inadequate and misleading. [17871]

  Mr. Hanley
  We continue to take the view that the Howe guidelines were not changed. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary does not consider that further action is necessary.

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has anything to add to the answer given to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), on 9 December 1992,Official Report, column 663, on changes made in guidelines covering defence-related exports to Iraq since 1979. [18537]

  Mr. Hanley
  No.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the Security Council resolutions which preclude the release of interest from frozen Iraqi assets in the United Kingdom to produce money to compensate claimants. [18512]
  392
  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 4 March 1996]None of the United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning Iraq provide for the interest on funds in frozen Iraqi accounts in the United Kingdom to be made available by the Government to meet the claims of UK nationals against Iraq.

  As required by the provisions of UNSCR 778, all funds in the UK representing the proceeds of the sale of Iraqi petroleum or petroleum products, paid for on or after 6 August 1990, have been transferred to the United Nations' escrow account provided for in UNSCRs 706 and 712. Under SCR 778, sequestrated funds are net of any amounts needed to meet third party rights over such funds existing at the time of its adoption. Funds in the UN escrow account are available to the UN Compensation Commission—UNCC—for meeting the costs of compensation arising out of the Gulf war. They are also available for meeting the costs of UN activities and humanitarian relief. The relevant UNSCRs do not make provision for the Government to have access to these funds or interest on them for the purpose of meeting claims by UK nationals against Iraq other than through the mechanism of the UNCC.

  British Council
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assessment he has made of the impact on British economic and trade interests resulting from the closure of operations by the British Council in some countries following the reductions in its budget; [19604]

  (2) if he discussed with the British Council the effects of the total closure of activities in some countries, and the closure of branch offices and libraries elsewhere following the reductions in its grant funding over the next three years; and if he will make a statement; [19605]

  (3) what progress is being made to alleviate the impact of the reduction in the FCO grants in aid to the British Council. [19615]

  Mr. Hanley
  The council and its board, of which the hon. Lady is a member, are considering how best to adjust their programme and activities to the financial allocations announced in the 1995 budget. The council intends to alleviate the impact of reductions in grant in aid in various ways including through efficiency savings. We will carefully assess proposals made by the council with a view to ensuring that these have the least possible impact on overall British interests.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what work his Department will carry out on deregulation issues in the run-up to the intergovernmental conference. [18643]

  Mr. David Davis
  [holding answer 7 March 1996]: The deregulation unit of the Cabinet Office is the lead Government Department on deregulation issues. Its work is fully supported by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Government are committed to improving European regulatory systems and reducing the regulatory burden of European law. Not all this work requires treaty change, and most of it will continue outside the IGC.

  Vegetables (Nitrate)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current status of negotiations on the European Commission proposals on nitrate in vegetables. [20381]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The draft Commission regulation on nitrate in lettuce and spinach was discussed at the European Commission's Standing Committee for Foodstuffs on 20 February. During those discussions the United Kingdom indicated that it would, reluctantly, support the Commission's latest proposal—Doc VI/3080/93 Rev 7.

  The UK objects to the principle of this legislation, deeming it unnecessary and lacking in scientific justification. However, there is considerable weight of opinion across the EU for various reasons in favour of legislation in this area. For this reason we have been negotiating with the Commission for a number of years to secure an arrangement that is satisfactory for UK interests and that will allow our growers to harvest and market their excellent and healthy produce. As a result of our pressure, allied to considerable assistance from the NFU and growers, we have secured significant concessions from the Commission which will enable British growers to continue production.

  I have taken the view that these hard fought gains should not be put at risk by continuing to oppose the Commission, particularly given the uncertainty over the voting intentions of other member states. I believe that the current proposal represents the best possible outcome for the UK given the determination of the Commission and other member states to introduce legislation in this area. However, we made it clear that we would not countenance any diminution of the considerable concessions that we have secured to date. We will maintain this negotiating position until the regulation is formally adopted.

HEALTH

  Mr. Robert Cooper
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the circumstances of the resignation of Mr. Robert Cooper, former head of the financial development unit at the NHS executive. [17951]

  Mr. Malone
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what audit controls are in place to check public moneys allocated to general practitioners involved in total fundholding; [18046]

  (2) what controls are in place to ensure that money allocated to general practitioners involved in total fundholding is not used to improve the property value of medical premises form which doctors may obtain personal financial benefits; [18040]

  (3) what is the amount so far allocated to general practitioners involved int total fundholding. [18058]
  394
  Mr. Malone
  Total purchasing pilots operate under devolved purchasing arrangements from health authorities and are subject to the same rules and audit controls as health authorities. Resource allocation is an important element in the three-year evaluation of the pilots. Resources are allocated according to locally-agreed methodologies governed by criteria such as historical activity, demography, epidemiology and other local factors. Detailed information about allocations is not therefore collected centrally.

  Pharmacists' Pay
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will publish the correspondence between the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee and his Department, concerning the time scale for 100 per cent. payment for prescriptions; [18458]

  (2) if he plans to implement the recommendation in the Pharmacists Review Panel 1994 report, that pharmacists should be paid by the NHS at the time at which they have to pay their suppliers; and if he will make a statement. [18429]

  Mr. Malone
  Letters, or the relevant extracts therefrom, between the Department and the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee relating to the timetable for pharmacists' pay since December 1994 have been placed in the Library. We continue to explore the pharmacists' concerns about the present payment arrangements.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for the more efficient use of information technology within the NHS. [18794]

  Mr. Horam
  A national information management and technology strategy for the national health service is being implemented. A major component of the strategy is achieving a common information management and technology infrastructure, which will enable more efficient communication and processing of information within and between NHS organisations, in a secure and controlled environment.

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what qualifications to the NHS accounts for 1993–94 were due to alleged or actual irregular payments by Yorkshire regional health authority; [19026]

  (2) how many alleged irregular payments from the Yorkshire regional health authority, to whom, and for what amounts, have been investigated in the last five years; and what has been the result of these investigations; [19024]

  (3) what conclusions he has reached on the NHS executive report into alleged irregular payments by the Yorkshire regional health authority; [19028]

  (4) if he will publish the NHS executive report into the alleged irregular payments received by Mr. Keith McLean and Mr. David Martin of the Yorkshire regional health authority; [19023]
  395
  (5) how many people, and of what grade, were investigated by the NHS executive over alleged irregular payments by the Yorkshire regional health authority; which of these people are still employed by the NHS; and in what capacity; [19027]

  (6) what action has been taken within the last three years by (a) the Yorkshire regional health authority, (b) the NHS executive and (c) his Department to recover irregular payments made by the Yorkshire regional health authority; and what disciplinary action has been taken, or is proposed against (i) the recipients and (ii) the authorisers of such payments; [19025]

  (7) what is the total amount of money paid out under the irregular payment scheme operated by the Yorkshire regional health authority; how much of this has so far been recovered; and what action is being taken to recover the remainder. [19029]

  Mr. Horam
  The report of the inquiry into matters raised by the district auditor on the former Yorkshire regional health authority has been provided to the National Audit Office. I understand that it will be published shortly.

  Gender Identity Disorder
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many United Kingdom citizens have been treated surgically for gender identity disorder in each of the last five years(a) on the NHS and (b) privately. [19271]

  Mr. Horam
  The number of combined operations for sexual transformation as reported in finished consultant episodes in national health service hospitals for the last five years are shown in the table. Information on operations carried out in the private sector is not available centrally. Responsibility for the NHS in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are matters for by right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Year

  Combined operations for sexual transformation

  1990–91

  38

  1991–92

  27

  1992–93

  43

  1993–94

  20

  1994–951

  13

  Note:

  11994–95 figures are provisional.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics.

  Factor 8
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received, and from whom, concerning the VAT status of recombinant factor 8 and plasma-derived factor 8. [19566]

  Mr. Horam
  My Department has received six representations—principally—about the value added tax status of factor 8 since September 1995. Three were from hon. Members writing on behalf of constituents, one from the Haemophilia Society, one from a clinician and one from a member of the public. In addition, three 396
  parliamentary questions have been asked on the subject. VAT is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards "The Health of the Nation" targets on coronary heart disease and strokes in people(a) under 65 years and (b) aged 65 to 74 years. [19561]

  Mr. Horam
  Coronary heart disease mortality fell by 10.7 per cent. in the under 65-year-olds and by 7.7 per cent. in those aged 65 to 74 years between 1993 and 1994. During the same time period stroke mortality fell by 5.6 per cent. for those under 65 and by 3.8 per cent. for those aged 65 to 74.

  Cancer
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of the recommendations of the "Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services" report have been accepted by his Department; which have been implemented; which have been rejected; and what action he proposes to take on the remaining recommendations. [19513]

  Mr. Horam
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has accepted the recommendations in "Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services". Further guidance is being issued on the developing process of implementation and substantive changes to the delivery of cancer services are expected in 1997–98. Health authorities and trusts are already working together to develop local strategies and making preliminary steps in designating cancer units and cancer centres to provide specialised services for cancer care.

  Free Prescriptions
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the additional revenue from limiting free prescriptions to those on income support. [19322]

  Mr. Malone
  No such estimates have been made.

  Guidance Notes
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pages of guidance notes have been issued by(a) his Department, (b) regulatory authorities and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last three years. [18644]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  General Medical Services Council
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letters sent by the General Medical Services Committee, details of which have been sent to him. [18977]

  Mr. Malone
  I reply promptly to letters I receive from the General Medical Services Committee. I know, however, that there is ongoing correspondence which is yet to be concluded.

  Human Embryos
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many human embryos were used in treatment cycles from 1991 to 1994. [19787]

  Mr. Horam
  As recorded in the records of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the number of embryos used in treatment cycles between 1991 and 1994 was 140,410. This includes fresh and frozen embryos.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many human embryos were destroyed between 1991 and 1994 at the request of their parents. [19788]

  Mr. Horam
  The number of embryos that were not frozen or used for treatment or for other purposes during the period in question was 90,756. As required by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 decisions about these embryos would have been taken only with the consent of the couple involved.

  Capital Managed Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) facilities management consortia, (b) private finance initiative bids, (c) management buy-out consortia, (d) contractorisation schemes and (e) market testing schemes in his Department in respect of which (i) Capita Managed Services and (ii) Lusis Business Solutions are currently involved in bidding. [19904]

  Mr. Horam
  There are none.

TRANSPORT

  Road Maintenance (Funding)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what sum of money was transferred from revenue to capital in 1992–93 for structural maintenance on local authority roads in 1996–97; and for what reason the money was transferred. [19771]

  Mr. Norris
  A total of £100 million. The transfer reflected the importance the Government attached to the condition of local authority principal roads.

  Foreign Aircraft
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the countries for which permission has been granted for aircraft to operate by his Department. [19082]

  Mr. Norris
  The United Kingdom has agreements with the following countries, in addition to those of the European Economic Area, for the operation of air services:

  Afghanistan

  Albania

  Algeria

  Antigua and Barbuda

  Argentina

  Armenia

  Australia

  Azerbaijan

  Bahamas

  398

  Bahrain

  Bangaladesh

  Barbados

  Bahrain

  Belarus

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Brunei

  Bulgaria

  Cameroon

  Canada

  Chile

  China

  Colombia

  Croatia

  Cuba

  Cyprus

  Czech Republic

  Dominican Republic

  Ecuador

  Egypt

  Estonia

  Ethiopia

  Fiji

  Gabon

  Gambia

  Georgia

  Ghana

  Hong Kong

  India

  Indonesia

  Ivory Coast

  Iran

  Israel

  Jamaica

  Japan

  Jordan

  Kazakhstan

  Kenya

  Korea (South)

  Kuwait

  Kyrgyzstan

  Latvia

  Lebanon

  Liberia

  Lithuania

  Macedonia

  Malawi

  Malaysia

  Maldives

  Malta

  Mauritius

  Myanmar (Burma)

  Mexico

  Moldova

  Morocco

  Namibia

  Nepal

  New Zealand

  399

  Nigeria

  Oman

  Pakistan

  Panama

  Peru

  Philippines

  Poland

  Qatar

  Romania

  Russia

  Saudi Arabia

  Senegal

  Seychelles

  Sierra Leone

  Singapore

  Slovak Republic

  Slovenia

  South Africa

  Sri Lanka

  St. Lucia

  Sudan

  Switzerland

  Syria

  Tajikistan

  Tanzania

  Thailand

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Tunisia

  Turkey

  Turkmenistan

  Uganda

  Ukraine

  United Arab Emirates

  United States of America

  Uruguay

  Uzbekistan

  Venezuela

  Vietnam

  Yemen

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

  Zaire

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe.

  In addition to these, the Department of Transport has issued permits to the airlines of Rwanda, Swaziland and Taiwan for the operation of air services to the United Kingdom.

  Late Trains>
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate how much money Railtrack has saved by cancelling timetabled services to avoid compensation payments for a delayed service. [19244]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack has agreed contracts with train operating companies to pay compensation for any cancellations of timetabled services. I understand from Railtrack that penalties have been set with the intention of ensuring that it does not gain financially by cancelling services to avoid paying compensation for delayed services.

  Mercy Crossing
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will commission a further evaluation of the proposed route for the new Mersey crossing having regard to strategic communications from Wales, Cheshire, the Liverpool airport and the Wirral area as a whole. [19324]

  Mr. Watts
  A study into such a crossing was completed in 1994 and copies of the study report were sent to MPs, MEPs and local authorities in the vicinity of the suggested crossing routes. It is not available generally. It was supplied to MPs and local authorities confidentially. The situation has not changed significantly since that time, when my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said that a publicly-funded crossing could not be justified either on environmental or economic grounds. There is no justification for a further study by the Government.

  Airports
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the current runway capacity of each of the UK's major airports and in each case the projected date that this capacity will be reached; [18440]

  (2) what is the current terminal capacity of each of the United Kingdom's major airports and in each case the projected date that this capacity will be reached. [18428]

  Mr. Norris
  This is a matter for individual airport Trinidad and operators.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road accidents involving heavy goods vehicles have resulted in (i) personal injury and (ii) fatalities; and how many people were(a) injured or (b) killed in these accidents, (1) nationally and (2) in Berkshire in each of the past five years. [19666]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Road accidents involving HGVs, and resulting casualties: Great Britain and Berkshire: 1990–94

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  ACCIDENTS INVOLVING HGVs

  Great Britain

  Fatal accidents

  791

  683

  650

  608

  540

  Other injury accidents

  14,272

  12,933

  12,366

  12,565

  12,638

  Total

  15,063

  13,616

  13,016

  13,173

  13,178

  Berkshire

  Fatal accidents

  8

  10

  5

  3

  7

  Other injury accidents

  125

  132

  146

  157

  165

  Total

  133

  142

  151

  160

  172

  CASUALTIES IN ACCIDENTS INVOLVING HGVs

  Great Britain

  Killed

  885

  782

  742

  699

  620

  Injured

  20,044

  18,610

  17,732

  17,956

  18,528

  Total

  20,929

  19,392

  18,474

  18,655

  19,148

  Berkshire

  Killed

  10

  20

  5

  4

  7

  Injured

  163

  208

  213

  220

  223

  401

  Road accidents involving HGVs, and resulting casualties: Great Britain and Berkshire: 1990–94

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Total

  173

  228

  218

  224

  230

  Figures for 1991 include 10 killed and 8 injured in a multiple vehicle accident on the M4 in Berkshire.

  Road Maintenance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what capital provision was made available for the structural maintenance of local authority roads in 1996–97; and for what reasons structural maintenance provision has been reduced. [19772]

  Mr. Norris
  A total of £86.7 million has been allocated to English local authorities in 1996–97, for the structural maintenance of their principal roads. Transport has had to make its contribution to the overriding need for strict control of public expenditure. There are joint arrangements with local authorities to monitor the condition of local authority roads. There is no evidence at present of any significant deterioration in the condition of local authority principal roads.

  Oil Pollution (Sea Empress Incident)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport Norway what plans he has to address any shortfall in the compensation funds available to those who have suffered from the Sea Empress disaster. [19785]

  Mr. Norris
  Assessments undertaken to date indicate that it is unlikely that there will be any shortfall in compensation funds from the ship's insurer or the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 1 March,Official Report, column 755, if he will list the 67 member states involved in the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund. [19480]

  Mr. Norris
  The 67 member states are:

  Albania

  Algeria

  Australia

  Bahamas

  Barbados

  Belgium

  Benin

  Brunei Darussalam

  Cameroon

  Canada

  Cote d'Ivoire

  Croatia

  Cyprus

  Denmark

  Djibouti

  Fiji

  Finland

  France

  Gabon

  402

  Gambia

  Germany

  Ghana

  Greece

  Iceland

  India

  Indonesia

  Ireland

  Italy

  Japan

  Kenya

  Kuwait

  Liberia

  Malaysia

  Maldives

  Malta

  Marshall Island

  Mauritania

  Mauritius

  Mexico

  Monoco

  Morocco

  Netherland

  Nigeria

  Norway

  Oman

  Papua New Guinea

  Poland

  Portugal

  Qatar

  Republic of Korea

  Russian Federation

  Saint Kitts and Nevis

  Seychelles

  Sierra Leone

  Slovenia

  Spain

  Sri Lanka

  Sweden

  Syrian Arab Republic

  Tunisia

  Tuvalu

  United Arab Emirates

  United Kingdom

  Vanuatu

  Venezuela

  Yugoslavia

  In addition, Tonga is expected to become a member of the fund from 1 May 1996.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what co-ordination arrangements he has established for claims for compensation arising from the Sea Empress disaster. [19438]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government have brokered an arrangement with the vessel's insurers and the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund to enable
  403
  them to establish a joint claims handling office in Milford Haven. Interim payments will be made to individuals and small businesses suffering financial hardship.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what amount will be available from the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund for claims arising from the Sea Empress disaster. [19437]

  Mr. Norris
  Under the 1969 international convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage and the 1971 international convention on the establishment of an international fund for compensation for oil pollution damage, implemented in the United Kingdom by the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, of the total of approximately £57 million available for claims for the Sea Empress, about £49 million will be available from the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund and about £8 million from the Sea Empress insurers.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 1 March 1996,Official Report, column 755, who will meet costs associated with the Sea Empress disaster in the event that the special drawing rights are exhausted. [19481]

  Mr. Norris
  Assessments undertaken to date indicate that it is unlikely that there will be any shortfall in compensation funds from the ship's insurer or the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund. Under the international convention on the establishment of an international fund for compensation from oil pollution damage of 1971, should the amount of established claims exceed the amount available, the compensation shall be distributed in such a manner that the proportion between any established claim and the amount of compensation actually offered shall be the same for all claimants. There are also voluntary industry schemes, which may provide further compensation for the damage. The Government have agreed not to press their claim until other compensation is agreed.

  Bus Companies (Privatisation)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage the privatisation of local authority-owned bus companies. [20449]

  Mr. Norris
  The great majority of bus services in the United Kingdom are now provided by private sector bus companies. Since 1988, 28 local authority-owned bus companies, including the eight largest, have moved 404
  successfully into the private sector. We welcome this, and are continuing to encourage the other bus company owners to consider seriously the options for privatisation.

  At present there is a targeted relaxation in the set-aside rate for receipts by local authorities from sale of shares in their bus companies of 25 per cent.—and it had been intended that this would revert to the normal 50 per cent. rate with effect from 1 April. In order to assist local authorities planning to sell their bus companies in the next financial year, we have decided to extend the present set-aside rate of 25 per cent. for these sales to 31 March 1997.

  Capita Managed Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the(a) facilities management consortia, (b) private finance initiative bids, (c) management buy-out consortia, (d) contractorisation schemes and (e) market-testing schemes in his Department in respect of which (i) Capita Managed Services and (ii) Lusis Business Solutions are currently involved in bidding. [19898]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested about current competitions cannot be disclosed on the ground of commercial confidentiality.

  Rail Freight (London)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many freight trains run along the Catford loop line towards London on Sundays between the hours of 11 pm and 9 am; and how many freight trains run along the Catford loop lines away from London on Sundays between the hours of 11 pm and 9 am; [19973]

  (2) how many freight trains run along the Catford loop line towards London from Monday to Friday between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am; and how many freight trains run along the Catford loop line away from London from Monday to Friday between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am; [19971]

  (3) how many freight trains run along the Catford loop line towards London on Saturdays between the hours of 11 pm and 8 am; and how many freight trains run along the Catford loop line away from London on Saturdays between the hours of 11 pm and 8 am. [19972]

  Mr. Norris
  The number of freight trains that are normally expected to run on the Catford loop line, in the direction and between the hours shown, are as follows:

  Direction and time

  Number of trains

  Toward London between the hours of 11 pm (Sundays to Thursdays) and 7 am (Mondays to Fridays)

  Up to 20

  Away from London between the hours of 11 pm (Sundays to Thursdays) and 7 am (Mondays to Fridays)

  Up to 21

  Toward London between the hours of 11 pm Friday and 8 am Saturday

  Up to 5

  405

  Direction and time

  Number of trains

  Away from London between the hours of 11 pm Friday and 8 am Saturday

  Up to 15

  Toward London between the hours of 11 pm Saturday and 9 am Sunday

  Up to 4

  Away from London between the hours of 11 pm Saturday and 9 am Sunday

  Nil

  There may be a need to run additional or replacement freight services due to diversions from other routes owing to night track maintenance or disruptions elsewhere. Similarly, fewer trains would run on the Catford loop line while track maintenance is carried out on that line.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make public the terms of the contracts he has signed with London and Continental Railways Ltd., the private sector promoter of the channel tunnel rail link; and if he will list the benefits of the channel tunnel rail link project to the nation. [20456]

  Mr. Watts
  Further to the undertaking given to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 29 February 1996,Official Report, column 1008, I have today placed in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office copies of a memorandum which summarises the most significant obligations of both London and Continental Railways and the Government under the terms of the contracts which were signed last week. Some of the aspects of the contracts are, and will remain, commercially confidential and have therefore been excluded. The memorandum provides further details of the benefits of the Channel tunnel rail link project to the nation.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Mr. Abdul Quaayum Raja
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names of those convicted of similar offences to Mr. Abdul Quaayum Raja (c48348) who have(a) received reductions in their security categories, (b) been guaranteed home leave and (c) granted parole; and if he will make a statement. [19775]

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

  Letter front Richard Tilt to Mr. Max Madden, dated 8 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking for a list of names of those convicted of similar
  406
  offences to Mr. Abdul Quaayum Raja who have (a) received reductions in their security categories, (b) been guaranteed home leave and (c) granted parole.

  A prisoner's security category is reviewed on a strictly individual basis and decisions are taken in the light of all the particular circumstances of the individual case. Comparisons with the cases of other prisoners is not therefore appropriate or useful in determining the security category of an individual prisoner.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will disclose to solicitors representing Abdul Quaayum Raja (C 48348)(a) reports and documentation on which the Security Category Review Committee reached conclusions about Mr. Raja's dedication to a political cause, (b) the full summary of the committee's June 1995 decision concerning Mr. Raja and (c) any new documentation available for Mr. Raja's 1996 review; and if he will make a statement. [19477]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 7 March 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Max Madden, dated 8 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about disclosure to solicitors representing Abdul Quaayum Raja of (a) any reports or documentation on which the Security Category Review Committee reached conclusions about Mr. Raja's dedication to a political cause, (b) the full summary of the Committee's June 1995 decision concerning Mr. Raja and (c) any new documentation available for Mr. Raja's 1996 review.

  It is not the policy of the Prison Service to provide prisoners or their representatives with copies of reports prepared for the purposes of security category reviews. In accordance with the judgement, in December 1993, in the case of Regina v the Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Duggan, a prisoner is, subject to any necessary exceptions arising out of the public interest immunity, informed of the gist of any matter of fact and/or opinion relevant to the determination of his security category; and given reasons for any decision which results in him remaining as a category A prisoner.

  Mr. Raja's security category was last reviewed by the Category A Committee on 21 June 1995. The Committee's recommendation, which was subsequently approved by the Prison Service Director of Security, was that Mr. Raja should remain as a category A prisoner. The reasons for this decision were notified to Mr. Raja on 25 September 1995.

  Arrangements for the 1996 review of Mr. Raja's security category are underway and reports have recently been requested from Long Lartin prison. He will in due course be provided with a gist of all information relevant to the determination of his security category and given an opportunity to comment before any decision is taken.

  Thames Valley and Hampshire Police
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make additional resources available to Thames Valley and Hampshire police forces for the year 1996. [19780]

  Mr. Maclean
  Spending on the police in 1996–97 will increase in Thames Valley by 5 per cent. and in Hampshire by 3.9 per cent. over the previous year. This represents additional resources of £9.7 million and £6.6 million respectively.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost of policing the construction of the Newbury bypass to date. [19974]

  Mr. Maclean
  Policing of the bypass site is a joint operation between Thames Valley police and Hampshire constabulary.

  As at 8 March, additional policing costs have been estimated by Thames Valley police to be about £930,000 and by Hampshire constabulary at about £240,000.

  Immigration Detainees
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigration detainees there were in each establishment in which they were held in January 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996. [18895]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  [holding answer 5 March 1996]: The available information on persons detained solely under Immigration Act 1988 powers on 31 January 1996 is given in the table; the data exclude non-asylum port cases in detention for less than a month, as information on these cases is not available centrally. Corresponding information for 1993 to 1995 is not available.

  Persons1 recorded as detained on 31 January 1996 solely under Immigration Act powers

  Place of detention

  2Number detained

  Prison Service establishment

  HMP Rochester

  152

  HMP Haslar

  92

  HMP Winson Green

  49

  HMP Brixton

  19

  HMP Greenock

  12

  HMP Wandsworth

  12

  HMP Wormwood Scrubs

  12

  HMP Crumlin Road

  11

  HMP Holloway

  4

  HMP Armley

  3

  HMP Belmarsh

  3

  HMP Bristol

  3

  HMP Craiginchess

  3

  HMP Liverpool

  3

  HMP Doncaster

  2

  HMP Elmley

  2

  HMP Pentonville

  2

  HMP Preston

  2

  HMP The Mount

  2

  HMP Winchester

  2

  HMYOI Feltham

  3

  Other establishments

  23

  416

  Immigration Service detention centres3

  Campsfield House

  153

  Harmondsworth

  90

  Gatwick

  37

  Queen's Building

  19

  Newhaven

  16

  Stansted

  16

  Dover

  15

  Manchester

  9

  Birmingham

  4

  Other posts

  13

  372

  408

  Persons1 recorded as detained on 31 January 1996 solely under Immigration Act powers

  Place of detention

  2Number detained

  Other places of detention

  Police cells

  84

  Unknown4

  5

  89

  Total

  877

  1 Excluding non-asylum port cases in detention for less than a month.

  2 Data are subject to recording error (eg in respect of delayed notification of reception into, and release from, detention).

  3 Including detention accommodation at ports.

  4 Venue is not recorded in the statistics.

  Mohd Riaz
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange for Mohd Riaz, detained in Durham, to be transferred to a prison nearer his parents; and if he will make a statement. [19478]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 7 March 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Max Madden, dated 8 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about Mr. Riaz being transferred to a prison nearer his parents.

  Mr. Riaz will be considered for a transfer later this year, in the light of prison reports which are due in August.

  Prisons (Illegal Drugs)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which of Her Majesty's prisons is now free of illegal drugs use by inmates; and in which there is illegal drug use by 5 per cent. or more of their inmates. [18628]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 4 March 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Max Madden, dated 8 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about illegal drug use in prisons.

  Mandatory drug testing had been introduced in 120 prisons by the third week of February and will be introduced in remaining prisons by 31 March.

  It is too early to identify trends in drug misuse because many prisons have been testing for three months or less and others have yet to begin.

  Football
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the premier league and football league clubs giving the total cost of policing and the number of officers involved for each season since 1990–91. [19308]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not held centrally.

  Fire Service College
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations his Department has received from the Fire Service College concerning its future; and if he will make a statement. [19892]

  Mr. Sackville
  None. The Fire Service College is a part of the Home Office. It will continue to operate as a next steps agency.

  Prisons (Greater Manchester)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the annual cost per prisoner in each prison in the Greater Manchester area. [18256]

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

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Jim Callaghan, dated 8 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the annual cost per prisoner in each prison in the Greater Manchester area.

  In 1994–95 the annual net operating cost per prisoner for each of the prisons in Greater Manchester was:

  Buckley Hall: £108,333

  Hindley: £27,985

  Manchester: £22,894.

  Buckley Hall did not start to take prisoners until 14 December 1994. The figure above is not a true annual cost but reflects the start-up costs and low initial prisoner population figures.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of prison inmates in each of the prisons in the Greater Manchester area who have been put on report for being in possession of illegal drugs, in each of the last 12 months. [18258]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Jim Callaghan, dated 8 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question concerning the number of prison inmates in each of the prisons in the Greater Manchester area who have been put on report for being in possession of illegal drugs.

  Provisional figures for the period February 1995 to January 1996 for proved a djudications for possession of controlled drugs are given in the attached table.

  Offences1 for possession of a controlled drug in Prison Service establishments in the Greater Manchester area, February 1995-January 1996

  Establishments2

  Manchester

  Hindley

  1995

  February

  13

  3

  March

  15

  9

  April

  12

  6

  May

  13

  2

  410

  Offences1 for possession of a controlled drug in Prison Service establishments in the Greater Manchester area, February 1995–January 1996

  Establishments2

  Manchester

  Hindley

  June

  11

  3

  July

  28

  2

  August

  18

  10

  September

  10

  12

  October

  18

  8

  November

  15

  15

  December

  13

  13

  1996

  January

  15

  10

  1 Including incite or assist the possession of controlled drugs.

  2 Provisional information.

  Open Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanisms exist to inform the community in the vicinity of an open prison of the presence of an inmate serving a life sentence for rape; and if he will make a statement. [18089]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 8 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about informing the community in the vicinity of an open prison of the presence of an individual prisoner serving a life sentence for rape.

  There are no mechanisms in existence to inform the community in the vicinity of an open prison of the presence of an inmate serving a life sentence for rape.

  However the Board of Visitors, whose members are drawn from the local community, do have free access to the prisoners and their records.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of assaults on prison officers working in special hospital units of prisons in England and Wales during 1995. [18086]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 8 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of assaults in 1995 on prison officers working in special hospital units of prisons in England and Wales.

  Provisional figures show that in 1995 the number of proven adjudications for assaults on staff of prison officer grade or another member of staff in prisons was 2,774. This figure includes any proven charges of attempting, inciting or assisting in an assault. Information is not available on the location of the assault within the establishment.

  Hewell Grange, Worcestershire
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the handling by his Department of its earlier responsibility for Hewell Grange, Worcestershire and the present state of this matter. [17809]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the 412
  Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Andrew Faulds, dated 8 March 1996:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the handling of responsibility for Hewell Grange, Worcestershire and the present state of this matter.

  The future of Hewell Grange prison will be considered in the context of the recently completed review of open prisons.

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

Recruitment and Assessment Services
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) rose to move, That this House take note of Her Majesty's Government's plans for the future of Recruitment and Assessment Services.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this debate has arisen from questions raised in your Lordships' House about the Government's plans to privatise Recruitment and Assessment Services, an agency specialising in the recruitment of staff to the Civil Service. The Government's intention to do so has been the subject recently of two short debates in this House, on 25th January and 15th February. It was clear from our exchanges then, in what for an issue of this kind is the rather unsatisfactory medium of Starred Questions, that a number of your Lordships would welcome a wider discussion on these issues. The Motion standing in my name today is a response to that wish.
Recruitment and Assessment Services (which I shall refer to by the more commonly used acronym of RAS) is a next steps agency established nearly five years ago. As its name denotes, and in accordance with its agency status, it is a provider of recruitment, assessment and consultancy services to the public sector. It is perhaps best known for the recruitment of graduates to the fast stream of the Civil Service; but in fact that comprises only about a third of its turnover. Some two thirds of its business relates to appointments, at all grade levels, in other parts of the Civil Service and to wider public sector recruitment.
The role of RAS is essentially operational. Its staff are employed in a variety of roles: providing manpower-consulting services to customers; designing application forms; processing applications; devising tests; supervising the taking of tests; marking, assessing and interviewing. There are currently 140 employees, of whom over half are clerical.
RAS is a provider of those services, but it is not the only such provider. Departments and agencies have for some years been given discretion to meet their own recruitment needs direct or through private sector agencies. In fact, although RAS deals exclusively with the fast stream, the vast bulk of Civil Service recruitment—nearly 90 per cent.—is handled by others. This means that RAS has had to compete for business in a dynamic market place, and it has done so against a background of dramatically falling volumes of Civil Service recruitment. In the three years to 1994–95 new recruits fell from 42,000 to 21,000, a drop of 50 per cent.
RAS responded well to the challenge by reducing its cost base, notably its staffing levels. It also developed a range of new services for its customers. As a result, it has not only managed to hold its own; it now has a well established reputation as a centre of excellence and is trading successfully. By extending its activities into clerical recruitment, it has steadily increased its overall penetration of the Civil Service market from 7 per cent. in 1991 to 12 per cent. today. For the future, new opportunities are likely to arise as departments and agencies increasingly turn to outside agencies to source their staffing requirements.
The expertise of RAS in high calibre graduate recruitment is well known. Indeed, since April 1994 RAS has welcomed representatives from some 24 countries, seeking advice on techniques in this area of its work and in others. Each year for the fast stream RAS recruits between 100 and 150 generalists and over 100 specialists—economists, statisticians, scientists and engineers—from some 12,000 applicants.
The selection process for all the various fast streams is a rigorous and relatively lengthy one. There are three principal stages to the main fast stream scheme: shortlisting; an assessment centre; and the final interview. Shortlisting is based on the initial application form, a so-called biodata test and a cognitive test. The assessment centre stage—the Civil Service selection board—engages candidates in tests, exercises and interviews over two days, designed to give a feel for Civil Service work. Candidates who progress beyond that stage are invited to an interview: the final selection board.
I mention those details to illustrate what RAS is about and to show what it is not about. As I said, its role is essentially an operational one. It is also a commercial enterprise, a business. As a business in the public sector, it is subject to a number of constraints. There are constraints of public expenditure, denying RAS the flexibility that a private sector enterprise has to grow and adapt. It is prevented from raising investment capital or from borrowing; and, perhaps most importantly, it is constrained in selling its services outside the public sector. RAS's inability to capitalise on its professional expertise by servicing the needs of the private sector is not only a brake on its efficiency, but it also represents a lost opportunity to bring those skills into the wider arena at a time when, in the commercial world, the outsourcing of graduate recruitment—in other words, not recruiting in-house—is seen very much as an emerging trend.
Last year Ministers commissioned the consultants Coopers & Lybrand to prepare a feasibility study on the possible privatisation of RAS. Following that report, Ministers came to a twofold conclusion: first, that RAS's expertise, confined to the public sector, was an under-utilised asset; and, secondly, that a move of ownership to the private sector was not only feasible, but would serve to obviate the constraints that I have just described. Freed from those constraints, it was clear that RAS would be able to continue its efforts to widen its customer base in the public and private sectors and would be well placed to beat the competition in doing

541
so. The spin-off would be not only greater operating efficiencies, which would offer even better value for money to the Civil Service, but also a benefit, albeit an intangible one, to the community at large. In tandem with that, there might also be a further gain—one which we have seen arise from so many privatisations in the past—that private sector disciplines would make RAS an even more effective organisation than it is today.
I described RAS just now as a business, but of course it is not just any business. A large portion of its activity bears upon an area of our national life about which, rightly, there is great sensitivity: the ethos of the Civil Service. No privatisation of RAS could be contemplated if what we were doing put that ethos at risk. The integrity and impartiality of the British Civil Service are, I venture to say, bywords throughout the world. And therefore any change to the system of recruitment to public sector posts must give us the confidence—indeed, the absolute assurance—that those standards will not thereby be undermined.
The Government take those matters extremely seriously. That is why, in taking forward our ideas, we have been single-minded in insisting on appropriate safeguards. It may be of reassurance to your Lordships if I expatiate a little on what those safeguards consist of. First, there is currently a complete separation, and will continue to be, between RAS and the regulatory functions exercised by the Civil Service Commissioners. The most important features of that regulation are the rules of selection on merit by fair and open competition. Those rules are embodied in the Civil Service Order in Council and are set out in the recruitment code drawn up by the Civil Service Commissioners. The code is mandatory, and the rules of selection govern all recruitment to the Civil Service, regardless of who carries it out, whether it is RAS, departments or businesses in the private sector. And adherence to those requirements is subject to the commissioners' audit.
The second safeguard is that the actual selection decisions, as distinct from the processing and testing of candidates, will remain in the hands of civil servants. The Civil Service, through in-house nominations, will continue to provide assessors for the fast-stream selection boards, and panel members for final selection boards. The decisions on the success or failure of candidates at these stages will therefore remain a public sector responsibility.
Other assessors involved in the fast-stream selection process will also continue to have a key role. They come from a variety of backgrounds in the wider public and private sectors and include psychologists, former civil servants and academics with expertise in assessment procedures or in particular specialist disciplines. The assessor's job is to ensure that the highest standards are maintained in recruitment to public service posts. That task, and the range of people who perform it, will remain exactly the same. The assessors work on behalf of their customers, who are of course government departments, and the customer consortium of
542
departments who employ fast-stream entrants will itself approve the arrangements for selecting and training the assessors.
Thirdly, the tests and exercises developed by RAS for the fast-stream process will at all times remain the intellectual property of the Government. All future developments to the schemes by RAS and any changes to the tests will be protected by confidentiality obligations, preventing RAS from compromising the integrity and efficacy of the fast-stream competitions. There will also be continuing involvement of civil servants in the preparation of certain exercises to ensure that they are a true reflection of Civil Service work.
Underpinning all fast-stream work done by RAS will be a contract. We propose to offer the business for sale with exclusive contracts for the fast-stream services. The contract for the main administrative fast stream is being drawn up in close consultation with the customer consortium of departments. I can tell the House that those departments approved the contract's principal terms and conditions and declared themselves content with the safeguards. Similar arrangements apply to the specialist schemes. Not only will the contracts define carefully the selection process for each fast-stream intake, but departments will actively monitor the contracts as they go along. The Office of Public Service will have a strengthened role to carry out such monitoring. It will not therefore be possible for the new owner to seek to take short cuts in an effort to reduce costs.
What incentive will the owners of RAS have to adhere to the contract? I suggest that there will be several. The desire to win future contracts will be a powerful encouragement to perform well. RAS will also have every reason to maintain the standing of its flagship activity—the Civil Service fast stream—and the wider reputation that it has established for its leading edge recruitment work on behalf of the public sector. And in the background will be the thought that its performance will be subject to periodic audit. Should it fall down on the contract, it will lose it.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, if it does by chance lose it, what does the noble Earl then see would be the option open to the Civil Service?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall be delighted to answer that question. With the leave of the House, if we can go through the procedure that is customary and I can complete my speech, I shall be delighted to answer that question at the end.
The timetable for transferring RAS to the private sector has been set consistent with the need to ensure that the objectives of the sale are met, and to keep the period of uncertainty for RAS staff and customers to a minimum. There is a lot to achieve in this time but we are confident that the sale process can be carried out in this timescale. There is no question of putting speed before quality.
The Government will seek a buyer who will maintain RAS as a single viable business. Under no circumstances will we offer the graduate and wider

543
recruitment businesses separately. There are important synergies between these two sides of the business which would be lost if the agency were to be broken up.
RAS's range of highly regarded recruitment and assessment services and its unique position in the public sector market will, we believe, make it attractive to bidders. Indeed, a good number of first-class organisations have already expressed interest. The Government will select a purchaser with a clear commitment to and capacity for maintaining and enhancing the quality of service that customers now enjoy. That purchaser will also need to have demonstrated a full understanding of the rules governing Civil Service recruitment and the ability to run recruitment schemes for customer departments and agencies based on those requirements.
Your Lordships will note the amendment to the Government's Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft. As a former head of the Home Civil Service, it is perhaps natural for him to have concerns. Those concerns would indeed have force if the rules and responsibilities relating to Civil Service recruitment were to be changed by the Government's proposals for RAS. They will not.
I hope I have said enough today to convince the noble Lord and other noble Lords who may have been in doubt that not only is there nothing sinister or objectionable in what the Government are proposing, but there are benefits, both tangible and intangible, for the Civil Service, for the private sector, for the taxpayer and for the nation. I beg to move the Motion.
Moved, That this House take note of Her Majesty's Government's plans for the future of Recruitment and Assessment Services.—(Earl Howe.)
11.22 a.m.
Lord Bancroft Lord Bancroft rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out ("take note") and insert ("calls for the abandonment").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall be very brief, in accordance with our self-imposed time constraints. I start from the premise that three pillars have sustained Her Majesty's Permanent Civil Service of the state for more than 100 years.
One pillar is a career service whose members can persist in giving frank if unwelcome advice to Ministers without the prospect of their "contracts" being ended or not renewed. The second is a unified service, bound together by a common ethos, where the best talent can be promoted on merit, without regard to departmental boundaries. The third is recruitment through open competition by an independent body, protected against interference from any source whatever. The first two pillars have been chipped away in the past five years. The Government's decision to sell off the RAS will effectively demolish the third and last. We are therefore engaged in an historic debate.
I am grateful to the noble Earl for his speech but, alas, I am genuinely unconvinced. He has protested that the opponents of the sale have misunderstood, and that this last pillar will remain standing. All of us on my side of
544
the argument have had experience of government. My Lords, we understand all too well. Our criticisms are not, of course, of the noble Earl, but of those who took the decision. Having taken it, they have sought to evade parliamentary discussion and consultation. Cornered at last, they have imposed a rare Friday debate in the hope that it will attract little public attention and few Peers.
I may be reproached for prolonging uncertainty. I remain unmoved. It was the Government themselves who first pressed the button of uncertainty by their unilateral announcement in November. Thanks to the Government, we have only the sparsest documentation, as the noble Earl acknowledged: a handful of replies to Parliamentary Questions and one ministerial letter to a newspaper. I leave it to others to comment on this furtive arrogance and the reasons for it.
The rationale for the decision consists, I fear, of repetitive assertion alimented by self contradiction. The main arguments, as restated in the noble Earl's speech, are that, first, selling the RAS to a big private sector head-hunter will both improve its service to existing public sector customers and extend its operations to wider markets. How? Why? The noble Earl's arguments were unconvincing and thin. To the extent that it succeeds in the latter, it will be at the expense of the former.
Secondly, we are assured that recruitment will continue to be on merit by fair and open competition, and will be supervised by the Civil Service Commission. What expertise will be left to the commission to act as monitors of the tests? Further, what credible capability will remain to it for ensuring the integrity of the systems used by the mass of departmental recruiters—the vital executive and clerical officers?
For how long will the service be able to keep the big new owner-manager in leading-strings? Precisely what obligations will be laid on him in the contract? For how many years will it run? How will it be enforced? Will it be ended if the new owner falls down on the job? A profit-motivated owner-manager cannot fail to superimpose quantifiable and largely different private sector standards on an unquantifiable and quite distinctive public service ethos. I note with grim foreboding that a deal management unit has been set up.
Thirdly, we are assured that the Civil Service will continue to own the tests. That is risible. With one or two slight amendments they can and will slide across to the new owner-manager and his private sector clients. This leakage is bound to threaten the integrity of the whole public service assessment process.
What can be the real rationale for this misguided and uniquely destructive action? Clearly, it is none of the reasons so far advanced by the Government. Nor is it dissatisfaction with the performance of the existing RAS, which the noble Earl has kindly and gracefully acknowledged. Indeed, the Government single out the RAS for praise. Nor can a reason be benefit to the Exchequer. The noble Earl has told us himself that the sale will not significantly affect the PSBR. Precisely what assets will the purchasing head hunter he buying? Not the tests. This leaves only the staff, or what remains of them before the trap is sprung. I leave it to others to comment on their shabby treatment.
Perhaps, while they scraped the barrel of privatisation ideology, this splinter lodged under a ministerial fingernail. It may be a splinter to them, my Lords, but in the long perspective of Her Majesty's Civil Service it amounts to the flippant destruction of an essential pillar. Is it not ironic that this government of all governments are selling off their fast-stream recruitment agency when virtually every large PLC retains the process in-house?
Arguing about it with those who cannot or will not see its enormity is akin to seeking a rational discourse with flat-earthers or with sufferers from a collective lobotomy. Surely the least the Government can do in response to the weight of opposition is to allow more time for public and parliamentary consultation. There can be no justification for the raging appetite for a fait accompli which seems to have possessed them thus far. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the original Motion was, That this House takes note of Her Majesty's Government's plans for the future of Recruitment and Assessment Services, since when an amendment has been moved to leave out "take note" and insert "calls for the abandonment". The Question I now therefore have to put is that this amendment be agreed to.
11.29 a.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, for calling this matter to our attention and assure him of my full-hearted support. I want to go back to fundamentals. The method of recruitment to the Civil Service, as he reminded us, has been one of the major pillars that has sustained the British Civil Service during the past 150 years. The Northcote-Trevelyan reforms, as all noble Lords know, swept away bribery, favouritism and patronage as the favourite methods of securing a Civil Service post. Instead, the reforms led to the institution of the Civil Service Commission as an independent body, independent of Ministers—I shall come back to that point—of whatever party, or of any other influence. They substituted the fundamental principle that recruitment should be by way of competition, open to all, conducted by means which would give members of the public confidence that in their dealings with government they would be treated with equality, fairness and even-handedness. That has been so successful for a century and a half that the British Civil Service, in its present form, is admired throughout the world for its honesty, integrity and the general absence of corruption that can be too readily found in some other countries. Now, as the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, said, this pillar is being demolished by the Government's privatisation proposal. The noble Lord said that this may be an historic day, but it is also a sad day. The move owes nothing to necessity and everything to dogma.
My second objection to what is being done—and here I appeal to noble Lords on both sides of the House—is that it breaks the long-standing convention between
546
Parliament and Government that major changes in recruitment or structure, or other reforms, of the Civil Service should be made after consideration by Parliament as a whole or by an independent body.
The reason is simple and the precedents over-flowing in number. The reason is that the Civil Service is not the private property of temporary, fleeting Ministers to trifle with as they please. It is the property of us all, and Parliament has always accepted that. It is the property of us all to guarantee its neutrality, independence and integrity and to ensure that they are all maintained. So whenever major historic changes of this sort are thought necessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, said, there has always been agreement between Parliament and government to consider, by means of setting up a Select Committee in another place, a Royal Commission or some similar method, the arguments for change and to bring forward recommendations which have nearly always been acceptable to all sides of Parliament. This time there has been nothing of the sort.
I need only remind your Lordships how continuous this approach has been. Following the Northcote—Trevelyan reforms, there was the Playfair Commission, 1874, the Ridley Commission, 1886, the MacDonnell Royal Commission of 1912, the Tomlin Royal Commission of 1929, Priestley in 1955 and Fulton in the late 1960s. Incidentally, Priestley was specifically set up to deal with the problems of recruitment as well as pay. This time there is nothing but an edict from the Government smuggled through by means of a Written Answer to a planted Question. No one can argue that this is a small matter. The methods by which new recruits join the service are the first lesson they absorb of the ethos of the service, to which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred.
I wish to make clear what my fundamental objection is to the proposals. The initial method of recruitment by a body of the Crown is in itself a statement to successful candidates that they have become members of a service which expects absolute fairness, integrity and even-handedness in the handling of relations with the public on behalf of the Government. Now that is to be changed. Recruitment will become part of some money-making commercial undertaking whose concern, at the bottom line, will be how much money it can make. The Government hope to alter the whole situation by means of a Written Answer to a planted Question. But the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft has thwarted them.
I believe that Ministers do not understand these underlying issues. I do not know whether it is because they are saturated in the dogma of privatisation. They have been so long in power that they are insensitive to the limits of their responsibilities. Today we have the opportunity to remind them. They must withdraw these proposals and return to the longstanding method of conducting Civil Service reforms of this magnitude by asking a Select Committee of Parliament to consider them first before they are brought forward and, if possible, to see that the reforms are not those of Conservative Party Ministers but reforms which Parliament believes it is right to introduce or some other solution in place of what is now intended to be put into operation without a word from the Government.

547
I sometimes wonder what animates the Government in their insensitivity and apparent inability to understand what lies behind these matters. I can only conclude with the words of a former Secretary to the Treasury who, delivering his verdict on the proposal in a letter to the Independent, said how contemptibly we are governed nowadays.
11.36 a.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, in my view the proposal that we are considering today is foolish, damaging and of doubtful constitutional propriet. If that were not enough, even if my fears and those of other noble Lords, including almost unanimously those with a lifetime of experience in the public service, were to prove to be exaggerated, the exercise being put forward today would still be largely pointless. Any likely benefits from the commercialisation of this service are negligible compared with the potential for inflicting damage on a major national asset.
I certainly do not approach this matter from the point of view of a passionate or dogmatic nationaliser. The pursuit of public ownership for its own sake was one of the issues which gradually separated me from the Labour Party in the 1970s. I freely admit that British Telecom and British Airways, for instance, are functioning better in the private sector. But I see no room for dogmatism the other way, either. The performance of the water companies and the antics of British Gas give us pause in that respect. But these wider examples, the good and the bad, are all dealing with material services and quantifiable products. There is no difference of ethos between a comfortable and a less comfortable seat in an aircraft; between one unit of gas and another, in spite of the mysterious and fascinating Question about gas fitters which so absorbed us yesterday afternoon.
In recruiting to the public service we are not dealing with commodities which can be sliced up like grocer's packages. We are not dealing with meeting purely material needs, but with a long and proud tradition of public service and with the maintenance of standards which have long been the envy of many other countries.
The British Civil Service came into being as a result of a report of 1853 and its implementation between then and 1869. It has produced public servants—some at any rate—who are of the highest intelligence, with wide conceptual minds, which gives them the rare gift of being able to see problems in relation to each other and not just in isolation. They have also been not only the loyal servants of properly elected Ministers but also the guardians of a public probity which transcends the interests of one party or the lifetime, however extended, of any one government. The best of those public servants achieve that eminence partly because they set a higher store by public service than by the maximisation of their own rewards.
There has, I fear, already been some deterioration from the highest traditions of the Civil Service, the Civil Service which I was fortunate enough first seriously to encounter in 1964. The deterioration in morale stems partly from the view which some very senior Ministers
548
have tended to propagate—that those values of public service over the maximisation of rewards somehow makes civil servants wimpish compared with the standards of, shall we say, Mr. Cedric Brown. It is undoubtedly true, I fear, that the service is less attractive to the brightest of entrants today than it once was.
We have had 17 years of one-party government—I do not blame the Government for that; we should all like as much longevity as we can get—but that is not inherently a healthy environment for non-party servants of the state. However, much of the tradition persists and I believe that the rest of it could still be resuscitated. But we are certainly not fostering that if we turn recruitment into a by-product of a headhunting firm, primarily concerned with recruitment to bottom-line-dominated private business. That is why the proposal is foolish and damaging.
In my view, it is also constitutionally improper for a government clinging on by their eyebrows with, at the most optimistic assessment, only 15 months of the Parliament to go to force through a totally unnecessary change on a subject which goes to the heart of the delicate balance between party government and wider national interest, and which destroys 127 years of successful tradition without any attempt at all-party agreement. Sometimes issues thrust themselves forward for necessary decision which perhaps then has to be taken, if such is the balance, by only one vote or so. That is not remotely the case with the issue before us today. It is just wanton dogmatism which we are considering.
11.42 a.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, concluded his speech with the simple question: why now? I echo that.
I think that I can say without fear of contradiction that my noble friend Lord Howe enjoys the respect and regard of noble Lords on all sides of the House, but today I feel that he must also enjoy—I do not know whether he really wants this—the sympathy of many of your Lordships. It is an open question for me as to whether the speech that he made this morning would have had a better chance of carrying conviction had he been given the opportunity to make it three or four months ago when this idea was first mooted.
Perhaps I may risk boring your Lordships with two blindingly obvious assertions. The first is that understanding is the fruit of explanation. As a means of explanation, a Written Answer by a junior Minister published on a Friday morning is not thought to be ideal. Secondly, the absence of a sufficient explanation at the right time drives people, particularly in times of concern, to reach wrong conclusions. That is particularly so where staff and jobs are concerned. There have been suggestions about White Papers being in the offing and there has been talk of revolving doors, but revolving doors lead in different directions and, apart from leading anywhere else, they sometimes lead out into the street. That must cause concern.
At the beginning of this unhappy saga, two rather bland assertions were made. The first was that existing customers would be given better service. I wonder what

549
grounds there are for saying that. My noble friend referred to RAS this morning as a centre of excellence, but to suggest that there is a need for better service carries some indication of present inadequacy. A review is nearing completion. Might it not have been more sensible to await the result of that review?
There is then the question of wider markets. One wonders what prospects of useful success—success useful to the Government or the taxpayer—exist to be exploited by a privatised RAS. We have heard an extraordinary argument which always seems particularly odd coming from Ministers—it might be all right from someone such as myself—that this creature, RAS, will now have the great advantage of being freed from Treasury shackles. As one who has believed for a long time that Treasury shackles have left scars on the ankles of many, I wonder whether that argument comes well from Ministers who, nominally at any rate, have some control over the Treasury. If the Treasury imposes such fearful burdens and exacts such awful penalties from those it controls, surely it is looking for reform. Perhaps that is too difficult a task for Ministers at the present stage of this Government, but if they were to undertake it, I for one would wish them well.
The argument which my noble friend and others have used is that this is just a question of operational mechanics and that there is no need for such a matter to be controlled by the Government. My noble friend and the Government cannot have it both ways. If this is really so small a matter, why bother? If, on the other hand, it is something considerable, it really ought not to be pushed aside as just a matter of "operational mechanics". I fear such phrases because, far from enlightening one, they tend to impose an opaque screen between those who would wish to understand and what is being examined. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, who in moving his amendment said that recruitment and assessment are matters which should be kept in-house.
I end with this single question: given the choice between a dedicated organisation and a contractual relationship in a very vital matter, which would any wise man prefer?
11.50 a.m.
Lord Moore of Wolvercote: My Lords, I have to declare an interest: 95 years ago in 1901, my father sat the examination for the Home Civil Service and the Indian Civil Service—the ICS as it was called then, and still is. Already, following the Northcote-Trevelyan Report 30 years previously, the examination was highly respected as being genuinely competitive without any patronage involved.
In those days, the plum jobs were in the ICS. In my father's year, seven of the first 10 in the examination, including my father, opted for the ICS. Then, 45 years later, in 1946, I sat the examination for the administrative class of the Home Civil Service. The ICS was no longer an option with the independence of India being imminent. To my delight, and I suspect rather to the surprise of my tutor at Oxford, I was accepted.
550
I might add also that my grandfather and two uncles were also in the ICS. So your Lordships will see that a member of the Moore family is rather bound to think that there is nothing much wrong with the selection process.
In the half century since then, I have been able to get to know the Home Civil Service as well as most people: first, for 20 years as a member of the service, then for the next 20 years from the viewpoint of the Palace, and for the last 10 years as a Member of your Lordships' House. Since I left the service, I have made a point of asking Ministers of both parties, and senior civil servants, whether the high standards are being maintained. The answer on all sides has been most reassuring.
Even when Ministers have been critical of the excessive role of the bureaucracy in our life, they have been at pains to stress the high quality of the individuals in the Home Civil Service. I was glad to hear that three of the noble Lords who have spoken before me have confirmed that high opinion.
I have also questioned politicians and government servants in countries all over the world about their machinery of government and how it compares with ours in the UK. I found that universally our Civil Service is respected and, indeed, envied, for its integrity and its effectiveness.
The conclusion I have come to is that we probably have the best Civil Service in the world. So why change the whole system of selection? I listened carefully to what the Minister said, and I do not believe that the Government have given adequate reasons for privatising the recruitment organisation. Here we have a selection process which has produced this superb Civil Service, and the Government want to change it; to hand over to private enterprise the responsibility for recruiting the people who form the very fabric of our machinery of government in this country. It really does not make sense. I most earnestly ask the Government to think again.
11.54 a.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I am sure that the Government will reflect seriously on the last speech considering from where it came, if I may put it that way. The Minister's speech was mostly about how close will be the control of the Civil Service over the recruitment agency when sold. The more he said that, the more I thought, "Well, if that is so important", and it is, "why are they selling it in the first place when control is best maintained by keeping something you have?"
The Minister quoted the opinion of Coopers & Lybrand on the deal. It of course used the phrase, "under-used asset". All right, so it is an under-used asset, and there will be many who will say, "a good thing to". Because an accountant advises someone that he owns an under-used asset, he is not bound therefore to sell it.
The Minister said that if the service is privatised it will be well placed to beat the opposition. What do we care about that? What do the British people care about

551
that? Who is the opposition? Is it the duty of our government to ensure that one private head-hunting firm beats the opposition in the private sector market?
Further, what is the deal? That has not been explained. Is it a once-and-for-all sale, to be followed by annual payment adjustments, or will there be annual contracts? If there will not be some such follow-through structure, will the buyer be expected to guess the volume of work which will crop up each year for the Civil Service for ever more? Will it have to plan in advance to carry any shrinkages in volume on the back of private sector contracts? If it will, what effect do the Government think that that will have on its mode of operation?
We know that the project applies to "The Civil Service", but what is the frontier of the Civil Service? Does it apply to the secret services? Does it apply—I think we may ask this above all—to the Clerks of this House and the other place?
The purchaser will no doubt be taken over in due course. Virtually everything that the Government privatise is taken over as soon as their back is turned, probably by some foreign enterprise. It may possibly be taken over by a foreign enterprise for which the contract in question with our Civil Service will be a fairly small part of its business. Our Civil Service would then take its place in the queue along with the staff needs of who knows what corporations here and abroad, and who knows what other governments.
I ask myself—I believe that many other noble Lords have been doing the same—what has the Civil Service done to deserve the punishment of being deprived of the right to choose its own trainee members; that is, deprived of the right not just to exercise its own functions but to own its own substance, because that is what its staff is.
The Civil and Foreign Services are the state—our state, of which today's government are temporarily in charge. Recruitment to those services is the maintenance and continuity of the state. It is thus our continuity and maintenance, in a sense, which the Government are proposing to sell.
11.58 a.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister when he introduced the original Motion, not just because of the respect in which he is held, but because this was the first time that the House has ever been given any proper explanation of the Government's proposals. But, hard though I listened, I could not detect in what he said any criticism of the performance of RAS hitherto. As a former First Commissioner, I was naturally glad about that.
But this is not a case where the Government are saying, "Here is a body which is under-performing, needs shaking up, needs private sector expertise brought in to do it". No, it is an organisation of which we are all proud, which has performed very satisfactorily, and to which I believe the Minister paid tribute. The argument for change is not connected with performance, it is solely a financial one, and I believe a dubious one at that.
552
The Minister sought to distinguish between policy and process. That is a difficult distinction to make not only because I believe that the Civil Service Commission will inevitably become drawn into a monitoring process of what is going on in a privatised RAS, which would be expensive and confusing, but also because I do not believe that the work done by RAS is solely a process. It stands for the standards which it seeks to recruit.
I believe that the proposal will be questionable at the best of times and would need a great deal of consideration and discussion, which has not happened. But I wonder whether these are the best of times. It is proposed to make the change at a time when the whole question of public service ethos is under discussion in the light of the Scott Report and so forth, and is in some quarters under attack. No one suggests that if RAS is privatised it will go party political, but it seems to me to be crazy to abandon something which flows directly from the principles of the Northcote-Trevelyan Report in favour of something where the temptation and incentive to shave costs by lowering the objectivity and more particularly the rigour of the tests is likely to be irresistible.
Although we are having the debate today, there has been insufficient discussion about such a major departure which is of greater importance than the privatising of a process, as the Minister described it. I was going to say that he dismissed it as a process, but one had a feeling that it was something mechanical which a privatised RAS could undertake. I believe that it is much more important than that. I hope therefore that the Government will think again.
12.2 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain My Lords, I am in favour of the Government's plans; namely, the privatisation of the Recruitment and Assessment Services. As I am only too well aware, that is not the popular line today. However, I hope that my reasons for taking that line will be considered for what they are; namely, the conclusions I have reached weighing up the pros and cons from the perspective of experience in the recruitment and assessment sector both as a user and as a manager of such a function within the normal functions of a commercial business.
I believe that the prime reason for my stance relates directly to that experience and its contrast to the function of the Civil Service. Of course we have, as everyone knows, a marvellous Civil Service. As the daughter of a career senior civil servant, I have a very good idea of the calibre, commitment and integrity of civil servants. Indeed, I have often said that I enjoy very much the cut and thrust of the commercial world, but when it comes to intellectual robustness and utter honesty there is no band of people who can match the civil servants.
But that does not mean that we should expect, or indeed require, that the Civil Service staff should have the same skills as those in other occupations. In fact, there is a strong case for saying that the skills requirement for the policy formers, the servants of

553
government, the administrators of the country, are so special that they should not be diluted by attempting to be jacks of all trades. I believe that the basic skills involved in the running of RAS fall into the category of skills that are not necessarily required by the civil service staff.
The Civil Service has enough mind-stretching, time-consuming tasks to do within its own special competence. I suggest that the mechanics involved in the modern approach to recruitment and assessment should not be perceived to be an area of specific competence which falls into the "must have" category for the Civil Service.
I believe that the issue we are addressing today has been a victim of misunderstanding. There seems to be a misunderstanding as to what the functions of RAS really are. There is certainly misunderstanding about where RAS fits into the overall recruitment and assessment field within the task of employing the best possible people for the Civil Service.
RAS is just one of the three legs of the overall recruitment into our Civil Service. The individual departments make the final decision as to who should be employed. The Civil Service Commissioners set the standards and monitor them. RAS is the operational agency which currently effects about 12 per cent. of the recruitment—only 12 per cent.
What RAS does, and does most efficiently, is to provide the basic service of discussing job descriptions with departments, drafting advertisements, placing advertisements, acknowledging replies to advertisements, sifting through applications—"weeding", as we used to call it—drawing up short lists, processing first interviews, making assessments and psychological profiling and completing pre-employment enquiries.
That is specialised and valuable work. It is an area that is adopting new techniques and adapting to changes in the job market on a continuous basis. It is an area that requires special skills, but not necessarily the skills that one needs within the mainstream Civil Service.
I found that the latest annual report of RAS made fascinating reading. First, it was beautifully produced, clear, concise and utterly professional. And that was only the appearance! The content was most encouraging. Here is a business which has met its tough targets in a declining market; its "market share" of Civil Service recruitment increased from 7 per cent. in 1991 to a figure of 12 per cent. today. In 1994–95 it filled some 2,300 posts. New areas of business were explored and undertaken; for example, recruitment for health authorities and NHS trusts. All of that activity must have resulted in an increase in the skills base of RAS and those skills could well be utilised outside the public sector.
However, such natural extension is not possible while it is still under the control of government. It is not the function of government, I suggest, to thwart the natural development of any business—even one which they own. My noble friend the Minister detailed some of the constraints under which RAS currently operates. Those
554
constraints must have a detrimental effect on the natural commercial vigour of such an obviously successful business. Let us remind ourselves of the tough financial targets that were imposed on RAS. It was asked to plan for a surplus of £5,900 and in the past year it achieved a surplus of £415,000. Similarly, a planned productivity increase of 2 per cent. became an actual productivity increase of 15 per cent.
We should not stunt the development of such an achieving business. However, I do understand the concerns. Naturally people are worried that there could be a falling off in standards. But RAS has its standards imposed upon it by the Civil Service Commissioners. The newly-privatised business is unlikely to ignore those standards. There are plenty of other recruitment businesses which would be only too willing to take its place if it did. So we are still talking about only 12 per cent.
Another concern is that perhaps RAS could develop a monopoly position. I suggest that 12 per cent, is a long way from a monopoly position. A further concern, but not held by me, is the possible dilution of existing skills. Perhaps the specific skills developed for the specific job of recruitment solely for the public sector could become diluted by involvement in the private sector. I suggest that RAS could only benefit by exposure to the differing requirements of the private sector. Skills developed in recruitment and assessment for the private sector could well have an advantageous spin-off for the public-sector recruitment.
There is one area in which I have a minor concern and I would be happy if my noble friend the Minister could allay that anxiety when he winds up. It involves the fast-stream recruitment. RAS currently gets involved in what one calls the "milk round"—the scouring of universities for the cream of new graduates for fast-stream recruitment into the service. Could it be possible that there might be a conflict between looking for the brightest and best for the Civil Service while at the same time looking for the brightest and best for plum jobs in the private sector? Much has already been said, but what has not been said, or repeated, is the understanding given in this House by my noble friend Lord Howe. He stated:
"Recruitment to the fast stream of the Civil Service must be handled with the utmost propriety. I stress also that that principle is in no way affected by the Government's proposals for RAS".—[Official Report, 25/1/96; col. 1122.]
On the subject of the "milk round", I sincerely believe that this is an area in which techniques ranging from mounting exhibitions to attract potential employees to answering the somewhat demanding questions of gilded youth, who believe that they can change the world, are highly specialised. Those skills can be developed only by years of working hard at the task. The people who go on the "milk rounds" are not policy formers and they are not diplomats. In the main, they are young people—actually, they are market hustlers—who are attuned to the aspirations of the young. They are not necessarily what we are looking for as mainstream civil servants. The people who carry out the recruitment and assessment are not necessarily the people we need for the service as a whole. To get the best in this specialised

555
area we need to employ the best recruiters. The best recruiters are those who develop their techniques over many years in their own niche market of business. This really is not a business that the Civil Service ought to be in.
12.10 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, in listening to the speech which the noble Baroness has just made I could not help but think what a great comfort it must be to the Minister at last to hear a speech in support of the Government's proposals. Looking at the list of speakers to follow, I do not believe that there will be many more and I am afraid that my speech is not designed to be of comfort to the Minister.
Recently I read again the Northcote-Trevelyan Report to which so much reference has been made. I found it a rather depressing experience because it reminded me that much of what the report recommended as the foundation of the modern Civil Service has already gone; for example, the concept of a unified service. The Government have waited until they are almost in sight of a general election to launch this major change on the central issue of recruiting the future leaders of the service.
At no time have the Government suggested that RAS has failed to meet its objectives or that there has been any problem as a result of a shortfall in investment or that its sale would affect significantly the public sector borrowing requirement. I know that I am not alone in having found some difficulty in marshalling arguments against the Government's proposals when I simply could not make out the reasoning behind them.
We have had two exchanges at Question Time without achieving much by way of clarification. Although all might have been made clear had I been able to attend a briefing meeting laid on at short notice yesterday evening I rather doubt it, having listened carefully to what the Minister told the House today.
I shall not go over again the considerations which have already been put so clearly by my noble friend Lord Bancroft but I should like to say a few additional words about the way in which the proposal has been handled. As has been recalled, the Government's proposal was announced as a decision already taken in reply to an arranged Question in another place last November. The reply covered the Occupational Health and Safety Agency as well as RAS and gave the impression that here were a couple of minor activities which might just as well be added to the privatised list without any need for lengthy explanation or outside consultation, notwithstanding the traditions referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff and Lord Jenkins of Hillhead.
It was entirely in keeping that no similar Question was arranged here, although it would not have called for any great flight of the imagination to know that a number of Members of this House would be keenly interested in the fate of the RAS. If the Government failed to realise that at the time, to adapt a well-known phrase used by the late Ernie Bevin, "they now know different".
556
I am somewhat concerned about the staff. The November Answer said nothing about their fate and it took a Question for Written Answer here to ascertain that members of staff would be unlikely to be released for transfer to another post before the sale and probably unable to get back into the Civil Service after privatisation. Just to round it off, the Minister said in reply to a supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the staff had not been consulted before the decision to privatise had been taken. That is not a very comforting piece of history.
I suppose that a prime asset in the eyes of a purchaser must indeed be the skill and experience of the existing staff. But as time goes on, those people will gradually go and will be replaced by individuals who have no acquaintance with the ethos of the public service and who will be the employees of a company whose main aim is to make a profit. Like other speakers, I feel grave doubt as to whether the safeguards about which the Government talk—the ownership of the tests and so on—will prove effective, looking to the long term. This is essentially a long-term rather than a short-term matter.
Although we do not know the length of the original contract, nor do we know how the monitoring to which the Minister referred would be carried out, we know that it will take 20 years or more, as the careers of the new recruits mature, before there can be a really worthwhile assessment of the working of the new arrangements. By then, it may be too late.
I am sorry to say it but I, too, am not persuaded by the arguments put forward by the Government for this very important change and I add my voice to those who implore them to think again.
2.16 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I declare a total lack of interest in this issue! I have never been a civil servant and, as far as I know, none of my ancestors was ever a civil servant. I put my name down to speak in the debate because I was puzzled. I had seen the first edition of the fast-stream newsletter and I found its language odd, to say the least.
Having heard the Minister's speech, I am totally unpersuaded that there is a case for privatisation. I feel that the Minister found himself using the language of a management consultancy in a way which is extremely inappropriate for a Minister of the Crown. After all, we are talking about the Crown and the British state.
The Minister tells us that there will be benefits for the taxpayer from this privatisation. He gave no evidence of that. I assume—and I declare one small past interest in that I was an assessor, which I did as a matter of public service—that the new commercial market-tested operation assessors will be paid on a proper commercial basis. Therefore, the net outcome of that entire operation will be a net cost to the taxpayer. Indeed, the fast-stream newsletter tells me that KPMG has been appointed as the official financial adviser to the RAS privatisation process by the Cabinet Office, the vendor, and Berwin Leighton are the corporate lawyers. I assume that that is also part of the additional cost of privatisation.

557
I am extremely uneasy about the idea that one has a further spread of private monopoly countered by Civil Service regulation. I have been trying to think of a name for the new regulatory unit which will provide that audit. Will it be "Ofsiv" or "Ofgov" or, as it is to do with recruitment, will it be "Ofrec"?
However, I am concerned about the blurring of the division between private and public and between the state and civil society. At present I spend a lot of my time in central and eastern Europe helping to reconstruct the relationship between the state and civil society in what have previously been authoritarian societies. It is very important to establish a firm distinction between what is public and what is private; it is the basis of constitutional democracy. I have been trying to think which states in Europe most blur that distinction. Of course, in western Europe it is Italy. In eastern Europe it is Bulgaria and Russia.
In 18th century Britain there was a great blurring of that distinction. Indeed, the public service was, in the language which the Minister has just used, a marketplace in which commissions were bought and sold and in which taxes were farmed. It was the achievement of the 19th century British state to move us away from that towards a state in which the concept of public service was established. As I listened to the Minister's arguments for privatising the recruitment of members for our Civil Service, I wondered what arguments one would put forward against extending those principles to recruiting our military personnel by a similarly privatised commercial operation, whether or not owned by British companies.
I could make a very good case using the same language for privatising the process of tax collection in this country. It could be very much more efficiently done on a commercial basis by debt collecting organisations which would collect debts for banks, mortgage societies and our taxes at the same time. The question of where one stops at this point becomes very difficult to decide.
We have a government who have for the past 17 years talked about the importance of defending British sovereignty against the encroachment on the British state of the European Community. However, here we have a government who are destroying the concept of the British state and the British Crown by bringing closer and closer to the heart of British government commercial, privatising and marketplace principles.
To talk about the Civil Service as a dynamic marketplace or a public sector market is a contradiction in terms. It seems to me that we are talking about ideology taking the place of sensible, practical government. I would very much like the Minister to tell us which further aspects—perhaps, for example, of the service of this House or of the recruitment services for the Government, or whatever—they would wish to ring fence, which I believe is now the correct language, from further privatisation. If one accepts that one takes recruitment for the Civil Service as privatised, it seems to me that there is almost no function of government which is not open to privatisation in the long run.
558
It used to be a principle of Conservatism, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". If something is working quite well, it seems that the principle of our current Government in too many sections now is, "Let's see if we can break it". I add my voice strongly to those who support the amendment.
12.22 p.m.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, and other noble Lords who have expressed deep concern, if not outrage, at the Government's proposals. My experience throughout my diplomatic career, but particularly as Head of the Diplomatic Service, of the RAS, and of its predecessor, was one of admiration and total satisfaction with the service provided. It has consistently delivered high-calibre recruits who fully meet the needs of the Diplomatic Service for public servants with a high degree of loyalty, integrity, impartiality, stability of character, intelligence and linguistic aptitude and who, incidentally, place the ethos of public service above financial reward—a concept which a private headhunter might find rather strange and unfamiliar.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, because I share his concern and that of other noble Lords who have spoken that privatisation should not in any way dilute the quality of the service provided by the Recruitment and Assessment Services. It is some, but not much, consolation to learn that a number of safeguards are to be built into the contract for the purchaser including, first, the continued involvement of departmental representation on CSSB and final selection boards to ensure that the requirements of departments are met; secondly, a very welcome reversal of what I understand was the Government's previous decision to scrap the final selection board altogether but which, I gather, will now be retained for one more year as a quality control measure; and, thirdly, intellectual property provisions to ensure that details of successful applicants are not used elsewhere.
Nevertheless, I remain deeply concerned, despite the safeguards listed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that privatisation, apparently for the sake of ideology alone—I have not yet been convinced of any benefits—will over time erode the quality and calibre of our senior public servants both at home and abroad and the integrity, objectivity and high success rate of the selection and recruitment process. Like other noble Lords, I urge the Government to reconsider.
12.25 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I support the amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft. On examining the original Written Answer to a Parliamentary Question, which materialised suddenly and obscurely on a Friday afternoon, I find that there are two main reasons why the Government embarked upon such a course. The first reason appeared in the first paragraph and the second and subsidiary reason is to be found in the second paragraph of the Written Answer. The Government said:
"After further consideration in the light of advice from Coopers and Lybrand".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/11/95; col. 235.]

559
That is the first plank of their argument. But what is denied us is any sight of the kind of advice that was sought from Coopers & Lybrand. Very often management consultants, even illustrious ones, are asked what questions should be put in order to give the answer that is required. That is not entirely unknown in the field of management consultancy. Therefore, it would have been most helpful, as a minimum—and especially in the light of today's debate—if we had been provided with a copy of the letter to Coopers & Lybrand in which the Government requested the advice that they received. It would also have been helpful if Members of this House, among whom are some of the most illustrious figures in academic and business life, could have been advised of the precise nature of the reply from Coopers & Lybrand. We must always remember that, being human, Coopers & Lybrand can occasionally make mistakes; they are not God.
The second line of argument adduced by the Government and repeated today is that they are going to rescue the service from the constraints placed upon it by the Government. I have not been cast in the role of Sir Galahad like those on the Front Bench seeking to rescue the organisation from constraints. But, as a matter of common sense, I should have thought that if it is within their power to exercise the constraints under which the enterprise suffers, the easiest way of getting rid of such constraints is to stop exercising them. As I said, it seems a matter of common sense.
We all know that the notion that there is some kind of constraint which remains fixed and immutable is ridiculous nonsense. Indeed, the Government are busily writing off billions every day from privatised assets, forgiving debts, making advances and so on. They are quite capable of doing anything which is fundamentally required by the organisation.
Such arguments simply will not wash. The same applies to the queer notion that private enterprise management and the consultancy firms—or, indeed, headhunter firms—have a specialised intellect and grasp of the realities of life that is denied to civil servants. Again, that is complete nonsense. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, knows very well that the activities of headhunters have not always been very satisfactory when deployed in the private sector as well as in the public sector. There have occasionally been selections—and I shall not emphasise them unduly—that have landed up in the dock at the Old Bailey. There is no irrefutable line of wisdom in private enterprise.
The Government have to answer this question: if the service is functioning as well as it is, what demands will private enterprise be able to make upon it if it is to remain absolutely unchanged? What is in it for private enterprise? What will private enterprise get out of it? Those are the questions the Government have to answer. My guess is that in due course they will have to bow to the doctrine correctly and succinctly put forward by my noble friend Lord Callaghan. The Government should remember that this is not a government service; it is a service to the nation and a service to Parliament. The quicker the Government realise that the better.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, I shall base my views on my experience in the Diplomatic Service. I served from 1946 until 1973, and that included 10 consecutive years in Whitehall under different governments and contrasting Ministers. I believe we served the country reasonably well. We had respect for our own department and that respect was shared by our foreign friends, and indeed some of our enemies.
For the 20 years which followed I was involved with several well-known commercial companies. I did not come away from them with the impression that they recruited their staffs more successfully than we did, or inspired them with more loyalty to their employers. But all that is in the past. Times are fast changing in 1996. We are coming up to an election and whichever party wins will soon face a different country and a different world. Some of the changes cannot now be clearly foreseen. No doubt the Scott Report will—rightly or wrongly—suggest modifications on how departments should be managed. But much more important than the Scott Report is the matter of how our relations with the European Union may soon compel our Government to change. Parliament may become increasingly unrecognisable. Surely we should not in 1996 make the changes now being proposed by the Government. Would it not be more sensible to await the election result and the outcome of our relations and negotiations with Europe?
12.32 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, if the Recruitment and Assessment Services were already a small business, and not, as hitherto, part of an increasingly federal, fragmented public service, and I were a part-time director, I would no doubt be pleased by the business plan, the accounts, the statistics and graphs, and the claims of increased market penetration, higher turnover and competitiveness in a dynamic market place. But we are talking about what has hitherto been a vital part of the public service. Behind all the jargon it has been doing well by any standard. Why sell it, and—I should like to know—for how much?
A major section of the report is headed "Customer partnership in a changing market place". We are told that the emphasis—that is, on the nature of the skills being recruited—
"has moved from the traditional generalist policy maker towards more specialist technical and managerial competencies. Indeed, encouraging this trend was one of the factors behind the increased delegation of recruitment responsibility".
But, we are not talking about the business sector; we are talking about how the public service for the next generation will be chosen, and on what criteria. It seems abundantly clear that the move is being made solely to save—and no doubt to make, temporarily—money. The dogma that business methods are best and that management skills and value for money count for more than leadership, rigour, and experience of government, will in due course drive out all the best civil servants from the great departments of state. It will effectively discourage the best graduates from even applying for,

561
let alone entering, a career full of short termism, bereft of tradition and leadership, where the only inducement to join will be that it may be useful to have five years in Whitehall on one's CV. Constant mobility throughout the service will destroy experience.
Undergraduates used to say to me that if the public service no longer meant tradition and service but was just like joining Marks & Spencer, then they might as well join Marks & Spencer straight away and get higher pay for doing it. The fragmentation of a once coherent and admired public service into agencies, and now into fully privatised bodies, has already led to the entry at the level of heads of agencies of a sizeable number of no doubt otherwise efficient men and women straight from the world of business and the City with no training or experience in the difficult art of government, or knowledge of how Whitehall works.
The White Paper Taking Forward Continuity and Change forecast the loss to the public service of its most enterprising members—those who should be the permanent secretaries of the future. The Treasury and Civil Service Committee, when considering the paper feared that,
"the value of agency status as an instrument for improving efficiency and quality of service would be considerably reduced if agency status came to be seen principally as a staging post to the private sector".
The Government replied,
"Where there is an intention that an agency should in due course move out of the public sector, this is made clear at the outset".
That is news to me. The Government continued,
"Further, the key tests are whether the function or activity is appropriate to government and which approach is assessed to provide best value for money".
I submit that those two objectives are in any case contradictory. I know that some of the best members of some of these agencies are thinking in just that way at a personal level. They take the view that as they cannot be public servants in the old tradition, why should they not instead take lucrative consultancies? That is what they may well do. So who, then, will be left to do the vital work of recruitment in those splendid new privatised agencies?
No one doubts that there is room for reform and new thinking. There is room for that in even the best organisations. But the great casualties, which the Government seem unable to recognise, are quality, morale, commitment and the cohesion of the service. If we must talk about "customers", then the "customers", the public, will be the losers. Our Civil Service has been the envy of the world. It is career based and highly professional. Must it be turned into several corner grocery shops?
I end with a special plea to the Government who seem to have a natural talent for giving away the best clothes to the Oxfam shop and then being unable to get them back, as one cannot train a generation of experienced and devoted civil servants overnight. Once they are gone, they are gone. I ask my noble friend the Minister; please do not also decide—as I understand the Government may be thinking of doing—to abolish the Civil Service College. That, too, is one of the jewels in
562
the crown. Let no one suppose that this will be the end. The Bett Report, which is hovering in the wings, will probably have us selling service recruitment, on the basis of performance related pay, to a really efficient head hunting firm based in, say, Singapore, and recruiting through the Internet.
12.38 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I believe the best service I can render to the House at this moment is to be brief, and I shall be brief. I have one essential contribution to make. So far no one has mentioned the fact that the Clerks of both Houses are recruited through RAS. They are extremely grateful for the fact that the recruitment base on which to form the final judgment before they are admitted to the service of both Houses is believed to be roughly, but not entirely, the exact equivalent of service in the Civil Service.
I believe that we are a small recruitment. In the case of the House of Lords it is not more than an average of one a year and in the House of Commons perhaps two or three a year. But small though we are, we might have been expected to have been consulted. Of course, I may say that we were not and we much regret that. We have, indeed, some fears for the future because it has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for instance, that the new organisation might be taken over with inconceivable consequences to the public service. We do not like the thought of that either.
I have only two or three minor comments to make because most of what I would otherwise have said has already been mentioned in prior speeches. Speaking for the smaller departments—like the two Houses but there are other small departments—I wonder whether the service will suffer when there is no profit motive in those smaller departments, when the profit motive may become more dominant in the privatised RAS. In particular, I wonder what would happen, if as I suppose might happen, some large departments of state choose to opt out from the RAS fast-stream competition and run their own. Where will the smaller departments be left? Can it really be said that they can realistically run their own competitions? They are far too small for that; faced with paying higher charges from commercial organisations for a smaller competition with fewer candidates.
I am also worried about the process of placing candidates being subject to the privatised RAS. It is a potential problem. If the candidates have more than one option—it quite often happens that the candidates in RAS put, as one of their options, service to one or other of the two Houses and service in Civil Service departments—how will that be resolved? I feel it could not be less than deleterious to the process of recruitment which currently exists.
12.42 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, after Zimbabwean independence in 1980 I was for some years a civil servant in that country. Masses of Rhodesian civil servants had left. Thus I found myself part of a largely new and untested civil service. Because of that

563
experience I have a special admiration for the RAS. I particularly respect its work of selecting the fast-stream entry, thereby ensuring continuity and a future leadership of outstanding calibre.
In my enthusiasm for the RAS I am far from being a single, lonely former Commonwealth civil servant. All over the globe a great band of public servants regard the organisation as exemplary.
Since 1993 delegations of civil servants, and sometimes Ministers, from 24 countries have visited the RAS in Whitehall and Basingstoke. From Australia to Zimbabwe and from China to Chile they have come. Representatives from vast countries like India and the United States have come. Representatives from countries that have recently seen dramatic change like South Africa, Hungary and Poland have come. Delegations from all five continents have visited the RAS to look, to listen, and to learn. Truly the organisation is an international beacon of excellence. And now the Government seek to privatise it.
The directors of the RAS in their first annual report in 1992 defined its role:
"We offer a broad range of services in the following areas—recruitment, consultancy and advice, training. These services are provided primarily to government departments, executive agencies and the Civil Service Commissioners. We can also offer them to other statutory and public bodies, provided this does not detract from the needs of our primary customers".
Those last words,
"provided this does not detract from the needs of our primary customers",
are crucial. Privatisation of the RAS would kill that policy. The new RAS's new objective would be to maximise profits in any market it could. The needs of government departments would cease to be paramount and the Civil Service would suffer grievously.
I have studied the Answers to Parliamentary Questions about this matter, and I listened to the Minister today. I am driven to the conclusion that the Government, without thinking through the consequences, mean to privatise the RAS out of a blind faith in the doctrine of privatisation.
I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Bancroft because I consider that the plan to privatise the RAS is not the result of thought. Nor is the plan a substitute for thought. It is the negation of thought.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I intervene with diffidence very briefly in the gap. I am a fervent believer in privatisation for three reasons: first, to give access to capital markets; secondly, to stop governments interfering with the matter of the organisation being privatised; and thirdly, to attract better people. In my view, none of those reasons applies to this particular proposal. I am well aware that there is sometimes a feeling—we have all seen it in "Yes, Minister"—that Ministers cannot cope with the Civil Service. That itself does not seem to me a good reason. I am very aware that a significant proportion of Ministers in all governments are not up to dealing with the
564
Civil Service. That needs remedying, but the remedy is fairly obvious. I say that on the basis of some 33 years observing, and occasionally participating in, the process of government.
Finally, I just say that as a Tory I believe the onus is always for proof in favour of change. I have not heard that proof.
12.46 p.m.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, may I also speak briefly in the gap to say I entirely support everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, and others. As for relationships between Ministers and civil servants, I recall Harold Macmillan once saying to me, "The Civil Service is a magnificent machine provided you use it." Let us leave well alone.
12.47 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, if the opinion of this House means anything to the Government they must take due note of what has been a remarkable debate, a debate in which, with one exception, from all corners of the House, from Members of every party, and from people with a very wide range of experience of government, of academic life, of the Civil Service and of activities outside government, we have heard virtually a united condemnation of the proposal. I repeat that if the opinion of this House means anything, the Government must reconsider the proposal they are making for the privatisation of the RAS.
We have considered the arguments that might have been deployed. Does the RAS have poor standards? No. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and indeed the Minister himself, clearly indicated that its standards are very high. Is there a poor control of costs? No. The annual survey of the RAS, quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, indicates that costs have been reduced to the lowest level compatible with the service that is carried out. Is the organisation incapable of change? No. In April 1991 the organisation grew out of a decision to make it into a Next Steps agency. It embarked upon a major revolution in recruitment in the Civil Service which all concerned agree went extremely well.
Is it the view of the Select Committee on the Treasury and the Civil Service of another place that this change should be made? No. While that Select Committee accepted the idea of the Next Steps agency its chairman explicitly indicated that that should not be regarded as a threshold to privatisation and in doing so gave the views of an all-party committee. Is it that the staff are discontented? We do not know, because the staff have not been consulted, as an Answer a month ago to a Written Question from my noble friend Lord Bancroft indicated.
I want to discuss the issue of the staff because the major asset of the RAS to be sold to a private bidder is its expertise. I refer to men and women who generally entered the public service because that is what they wanted to do. They found themselves in the OPS—the Office of Public Service—and were informed that they would be forced to join the private purchaser of RAS whether or not they wanted to do so.

565
In answer to questions prompted by the Cabinet Office's news release of 23rd November 1995, in particular, the question of whether civil servants would be able to seek jobs elsewhere in the Civil Service prior to privatisation, the answer was that,
"management will be under an obligation to maintain the viability of RAS in the period before sale, and staff may, in practice, find it difficult to secure this agreement".
Asked whether staff would have any right of return to central government—and I repeat that these are people who believed that they had joined the public service—the Government's answer was no. All staff covered by TUPE should transfer with the business. That is an extraordinary form of coercion, addressed to men and women who have genuinely sought to serve the Government and the country.
Was the view of the assessors, notified at their request to the head of the Civil Service, to the effect that they believed very strongly that there were great dangers in the path being undertaken made widely known to this House? The answer to that question is also no.
So let me ask the noble Earl—I share the respect of this House for him—a question on the issue of staff. If a member of staff genuinely wishes to stay within the Civil Service and not move into a privatised agency, will the conscience and wishes of that member of staff be respected? The second question I want to ask is whether the wall between the recruitment of civil servants and the recruitment of people into the private sector, to which the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, referred so interestingly, will be maintained. Recently I was told that at the University of Cambridge, outside the halls where Ph.D students learn whether they have passed their examination, there is a line-up of private sector employers from the United States offering them jobs on the spot. Is that what we want to see as a result of privatising the RAS?
This is a bridge too far for privatisation. It intrudes into the whole sense of what the public sector is all about. I quote a troubling leader in the Financial Times of only a month ago:
"The case for a permanent Civil Service in place of a Whitehall pact with party nominees is to ensure that Ministers receive sound advice and that the administration is conducted on an ethical basis. There are dangers that senior officials appear to see themselves as proselytisers and not as dispassionate advisers. They are doing Whitehall a grave disservice".
If the Government proceed with this proposal they will be doing not only Whitehall but the whole of this nation a grave disservice.
12.54 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are confronted today with two issues. One is the issue of propriety and the second is the issue of practicality.
On the issue of propriety a number of noble Lords have already made the point that it was improper for such an important announcement as this to be made as an Answer to a Written Question in another place on a Friday rather than with an opportunity for a formal debate.
566
However, it is much more improper than that. We have had the benefit of the wisdom and experience of many noble Lords who know about the Civil Service at the highest level and, indeed, about government at its highest level. They have all reiterated that the Civil Service Commissioners are not responsible to individual Ministers, as my noble friend Lord Callaghan said. They are responsible to Parliament and to the Queen. To take away from their responsibilities and their ability to carry out their responsibilities under an Order in Council is utterly improper. So the answer to whether this is a proper procedure must be emphatically no.
Then we turn to the issue of practicality. We have been told by Ministers that there is likely to be no significant benefit to the Treasury. So those who accuse the Government of doing this for money are probably mistaken. We have also been told on numerous occasions, not least by the Minister today, that there is no dissatisfaction with the work of the Recruitment and Assessment Service or its ability to change or to operate effectively under financial constraint.
We have been told at some length that safeguards will be introduced which will distinguish between what the Minister called the operational role of the RAS and the regulatory role, which is the role of the commissioners. That makes clear that this is neither the beginning nor the end of a process. It is not the beginning of a process because the ability of the commissioners to fulfil their obligations under the Order in Council which set them up has already been diminished by the spread of trading agencies, Next Step agencies and quangos. It is fairly clear to those of us who observe these matters that the quality of recruitment and assessment in the agencies, or certainly in the quangos, is well below that which is required of the central Civil Service. It is already happening. It is not something new. The Civil Service Commissioners are being deprived of their ability to do their job. This is a step in the process.
Nor is it the end of the process. If we listen to the arguments of the Minister, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, every one of the arguments about the distinction between operational and regulatory forces will apply also to the next tier of privatisations which the Government, if they survive, will wish to introduce. The noble Lord referred to the tax service and to the military. The arguments used, which rely on regulation rather than operation, will lead inevitably, if carried to their logical conclusion, to further privatisations at the core of our governmental process.
This proposal is neither proper nor practical.
12.58 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, this has been an interesting and memorable debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. In particular, I should like to thank my noble friend Lady O'Cathain for her supportive speech. That she and I have been lone voices in your Lordships' House is, of course, a disappointment. I confess that it is also not the most

567
comfortable of experiences. As I indicated earlier, I believe that it is entirely natural that noble Lords, and in particular those like the noble Lords, Lord Bancroft, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord Henderson, and many others who have a deep understanding of the Civil Service, should have anxieties when proposals such as these are promulgated in their bald form. I had hoped that in my opening speech I would have persuaded those noble Lords to soft-pedal a little. Despite the suspicion and criticism they have thought fit to articulate, I continue firmly to believe that the Government are deserving of neither, and indeed that the basis of a good part of the criticism rests on fundamental misconceptions. In responding briefly to your Lordships' concerns, I shall endeavour to dispel such confusion.
Perhaps I may first cover one particular point. A few days ago I wrote to a number of noble Lords who I felt might be interested in these issues, inviting them to a meeting attended by senior civil servants as well as Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, was one of the Peers I invited. I did not, for whatever reason, receive a reply from him. But in the event the planned briefing with officials present did not take place. The invitations to noble Lords from all sides of the House were issued in a constructive spirit.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, at 50 minutes' notice.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am aware that the invitation to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was very much at the last minute; and I apologise to him for that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Then do not say "all sides of the House".
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, should have been invited a few days earlier along with other noble Lords and I must express my regrets that he was not.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for giving way. I shall be brief. I, too, was invited at 50 minutes' notice. Can the Government give us an assurance that in future briefing of this kind will be available to people from all parties in the House and not on a very different timescale one side from another?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the invitations that I issued a few days ago were to Peers from all sides of the House. I now acknowledge that that should have been a longer list. I am sorry that the noble Baroness was also one of those affected.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I have to add that I was not invited at all.
Earl Howe: My Lords, again I express my regrets to the noble Lord.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry to pursue this, but the noble Earl says that invitations were sent out to Peers on all sides of the House. So far as I and my
568
Chief Whip know, no one from the Labour Party received any information other than at 50 minutes' notice to my noble friend.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I think lessons have been learnt from this. My intention was that noble Lords, even those as experienced as the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, might have learnt (as they say in the legal profession) something to their advantage from such a meeting. I regret that we could not have discussed the issues across the table simply in order to allay unnecessary concerns.
There has been a running theme through many of today's contributions. A number of noble Lords voiced concerns, I believe, based on a misunderstanding of the relationship between RAS and the Civil Service Commissioners. RAS was one of the two organisations created in 1991 to replace the Civil Service Commission. The second organisation was the Office of the Civil Service Commissioners, which was established at this time to support the work of the independent commissioners. Here, as many noble Lords have adverted, the history is perhaps worth noting briefly. The origins of the Civil Service Commission will, I am sure, be well known to those noble Lords with an interest in the history. It was in 1854 that the Northcote-Trevelyan Report identified patronage as one of the main causes of the service's then endemic inefficiency and public disrepute. The report recommended the use of open competitive examination to test the merit of those seeking appointment to the Civil Service.
The Civil Service Commission came into being to assist the first Civil Service Commissioners to run examinations and to give approval to the appointment of those duly qualified. The years up to 1920 saw the commissioners' powers extended gradually to cover nearly all appointments. Specially prepared written examinations were at the time supplemented by methods such as interview and assessment centres.
The Civil Service Commission retained its independent existence as a government department for many years. In 1968, on the recommendation of the Fulton Committee Report on the Civil Service, the commission was merged with the personnel management divisions of the Treasury to form the Civil Service Department. The Minister for the Civil Service became responsible for the rules on recruitment to the service. The commissioners were responsible for advising the Minister on those rules.
By 1982, the commissioners had delegated to departments responsibility for recruitment to most junior Civil Service posts. However, the commissioners retained responsibility for the selection of middle and senior level staff representing about 15 per cent. of the Civil Service.
In 1991, new Orders in Council extended departments' and agencies' responsibilities to over 95 per cent. of recruitment. However, all recruitment to the Civil Service, whoever carried it out, still remained subject to the Minister for the Civil Service's rules on selection. As I mentioned in my opening speech, those rules require selection on merit through fair and open

569
competition. I stress that RAS and the Office of the Civil Service Commissioners were established as two discrete, separate organisations to replace the Civil Service Commission.
Further changes to the Orders in Council last year returned to the commissioners the responsibility for interpreting the key principles of selection based on merit through fair and open competition and completed the process of devolving responsibility to departments. The commissioners now oversee only the most senior appointments.
The criticisms levelled by some noble Lords appear to conflate RAS's role as a recruitment agency performing an operational role acting for departments with the regulatory role of the Civil Service Commissioners. Those roles were once combined in the Civil Service Commission. As I said, they are now quite separate.
The noble Lords, Lord Callaghan and Lord Hunt of Tanworth, complained that there had been insufficient discussion of this proposal, which I believe they described as historic. This is, I acknowledge, an important change. But I think that it is stretching the language a little far to describe it as historic. The rules and responsibilities for Civil Service selection will not be changed. The Government's commitment to preserving Civil Service integrity is absolute, and I have explained how we expect to achieve this. Customers and the Office of the Civil Service Commissioners have been closely consulted on their requirements in the work leading to the contracts. They will also be closely involved in the selection of the new owner.
However, let me say this in response to your Lordships' concerns about the way in which the proposal was announced. Noble Lords asked me in Oral Questions on 15th February why the announcement had not also been made in your Lordships' House at the same time as in another place. As the House will know, many announcements are made only in another place. But in view of your Lordships' particular interest in the Civil Service, the Government accept that the announcement should also have been made in your Lordships' House. That it was not is something I regret.
There was another theme in many speeches. Some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, saw fit to accuse the Government of arrogance and an unreasoning adherence to dogma. I find that line of argument disappointing. In fact, I find it difficult to take seriously. In my opening speech I endeavoured to show not only that there is a compelling rationale for privatising RAS but that now is the right time to act on it.
However, I will say this. At the heart of this debate is a philosophical divide—a divide between those who believe that when we look at the boundaries and the spread of the state owned sector there should be a strong, indeed a natural, presumption, in favour of the
570
status quo. There are those of us on this side of the House who believe that state ownership is a dead hand; that the size of the public sector is too large; that if there is no need for a business enterprise to be in the public sector then, allowing for proper safeguards, it should not be there; and that the success of past privatisation speaks for itself. To that extent, this is an issue of principle.
But each case for privatisation has to be examined on its merits. In RAS we have an enterprise with a front rank expertise in graduate recruitment. It is operational and administrative in nature. The standards to which it is required to operate are not self generated; they are imposed from outside by the Civil Service Commissioners and by customers. RAS cannot spread its cost base as a normal business might do because it is constrained from selling into wider markets. It cannot raise capital, it cannot spend or invest without close Treasury scrutiny and approval.
I say to my noble friend Lord Peyton that that is not a criticism of the Treasury. As he knows well, if you believe, as the Government do, that public spending and inflation need to be controlled, it is necessary to have rules in place which ensure that the disciplines are respected. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that it is not fair to allow a state-owned business to compete with the private sector while enjoying the guarantee of the taxpayer. The choice with a state-owned business is to live with the constraints—and sometimes that is the right course—or to look at other ways of delivering the same service. That is the answer to noble Lords who ask "Why are the Government doing this?" The prospect before us with RAS is to remove the constraints, to allow RAS to seek better economies of scale by broadening its customer base, to allow it to hone its skills in the private sector and thereby to offer better service and better value for money to the customers it serves. That is not a criticism of its performance now, it simply underscores the constraints with which it now has to live.
A number of noble Lords appear to accuse the Government of a concerted attack on the Civil Service. Nothing could be further from reality. I do not believe that there is a Minister or former Minister who has not had cause to appreciate the integrity, impartiality and professionalism of our Civil Service and to understand the pivotal role that the Civil Service plays in our national life. However, governments have a duty to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to ensure that public services are delivered effectively. To fulfil that policy involves a process which inevitably leads to anxieties among the civil servants most closely affected. The Government take those anxieties seriously. But to argue that government policy is in some way anti-Civil Service is nonsense. Still less is it credible to argue that the privatisation of a self-contained business like RAS can be prayed in aid of that view.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, expressed the opinion that the Government have reduced the attractiveness of the Civil Service as a career. That is an odd observation because applications to join the Civil Service have generally increased significantly in

571
recent years. The noble Lords, Lord Bancroft and Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred to the treatment of the RAS staff. The staff of RAS are being kept informed of progress through regular staff meetings, information bulletins and such communications. The acting chief executive and senior managers will work closely with the Cabinet Office's financial and legal advisers to ensure that the business is presented for sale in the most favourable light. The Government fully recognise that this is an unsettling time for the staff of RAS. We attach great importance to ensuring that staff are treated fairly and that their rights are fully respected in the process.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred to the House of Lords and House of Commons Clerks. As a matter of fact, I understand that the views of those responsible for the Clerks in both Houses have been sought and that arrangements that take into account their requirements are being drawn up.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked whether staff would be able to move ahead of the sale. Staff will be able to apply for other jobs within the Civil Service, subject, as now, to the agreement of the management that they can be released. RAS managers will consider each case sympathetically on its merits, but they will need to maintain the viability of RAS ahead of the sale. To date, no application has been refused.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked what advice was sought from Messrs. Coopers & Lybrand. Coopers & Lybrand were asked to advise on the feasibility of privatising RAS. In particular, they were asked to advise on the likely extent of interest from purchasers, who those purchasers might be and a possible timetable for privatisation. It is a private document because much of the report covers commercially confidential information.
The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, indicated that all large PLCs retain graduate recruitment in-house. That is less and less the case. The point is significant. There is an emerging trend in the market for placing high calibre graduate recruitment in the hands of quality recruitment firms. A number of top companies have begun to do that and we are confident that it can be done with the Civil Service in a way which preserves and enhances the quality of selection procedures and does not erode them.
The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, said that he felt that the timetable was too fast. I believe that it is important not to extend for too long the period of uncertainty for staff and customers. However, I have already assured your Lordships that speed will not be at the expense of quality. Customer departments have agreed that a five-year contract is likely at best to provide the services required for most fast-stream recruitment. Bids will be invited to purchase RAS and to price a contract to cover fast-stream recruitment. That contract is expected to cover a five-year period, although that is for negotiation.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked what protection there might be against takeovers of the new RAS. The fast-stream contract will entitle the Government
572
to withdraw the contract in such an event; hence, only a subsequent new owner acceptable to the Government would wish to proceed with such a takeover. It is obvious that any new owner would wish to ensure that the main customers were fully satisfied.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, expressed his opinion that the prime aim of the new company would be to make a profit. He thought that that was inappropriate. That is an extraordinary statement. The new company will need to ensure that it satisfies its customers through providing good services. Without such satisfied customers, the company will not have a secure basis for making a profit. The two are opposite sides of the same coin.
The noble Lord, Lord Moore, said that he thought that privatisation would damage the quality of the Civil Service. Let me simply underline to him that RAS's customers, the departments, are keen to ensure that the quality of Civil Service intake is maintained. It has to be. They will be closely involved throughout the privatisation.
A key criterion on selection of the new owner will be its understanding of the requirements of the Civil Service. All recruitment carried out on behalf of the Civil Service customers will need to meet the requirements of the Commissioners' Recruitment Code. The new owner will have every interest in maintaining its capability in the area.
In a similar vein, the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, voiced the fear that freedom to sell in wider markets would mean poorer service to existing customers. The contractual terms will carefully define the levels of service to be provided for existing customers. Developing new services for customers and so on will inevitably bring benefits to Civil Service customers. We are confident that the new owner will build on, and not diminish, the reputation of RAS for excellence.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, asked me what would happen if RAS were to lose the contract. I hope he did not think me discourteous for not answering him earlier, but I felt it was perhaps more appropriate to do so at this point. If customer departments had concerns about the performance of the new RAS, the first move would be to ensure that new RAS took steps to solve any problems. However, in the unlikely event that significant problems persisted, then a new competition for the contract would need to be held. Experience of contracting out government services in this and other countries shows that careful initial selection of private sector contractors ensures that continued good service is provided. Private sector providers are keenly interested in continuity, to provide the quality of service sought by customers.
Why is it necessary and important, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked, for RAS to compete in the private sector? RAS will benefit from the freedom to use its expertise in new markets, subject to the important controls that I have described. It has already demonstrated its ability to win new customers within the wider public sector. Full freedom to compete in

573
the private sector will allow it to build on its success as a centre of excellence and further develop its services to the benefit of all its customers. We are confident too that with this freedom we shall be able to secure best value for money for Civil Service customers and for the taxpayer. That is the duty of government. The Government are committed to ensuring that the sale is conducted on a basis that not only maintains the standing of RAS as a high quality recruitment agency, but also guarantees that the quality and integrity of the recruitment that it carries out is maintained.
I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, will not press his amendment. I believe that, contrary to what he said, I have done justice to his position. I have to say that I do not believe that he has done justice to mine. I very much hope that he will reflect.
1.20 p.m.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, in concluding the debate, I once again promise to be brief. I am immensely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on an historic occasion, particularly those who have done so at considerable personal inconvenience. There were a number of other Peers, and a bead-roll of extremely well known Peers in public affairs, who would otherwise have spoken. I could read out their names, but I shall not do so.
The noble Earl sought to sum up the debate and I congratulate him on his temerity. Were I to emulate him, it would be with a markedly different perspective. But time does not permit. We are here discussing a matter of high policy and, with deep respect to the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, not a mechanical weeding business.
Perhaps I may say a few very brief words about the business of the briefing meeting. The Government seem to have panicked (if I may use that verb) at the last moment when they saw the weight of the list of speakers. I was kindly invited to a briefing meeting which was also to be attended by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and three Conservatives. I replied to the letter on Wednesday—though it did not reach me until Thursday—because I had been told of its contents. I am very sorry that the noble Earl did not receive my reply. It seemed to me inappropriate that I should go to a briefing meeting that evening only hours before the debate, as the matter had been in the public domain and the parliamentary domain since November last year.
I noted very carefully the noble Earl's extremely gallant remarks. I had hoped that he would offer to have the matter reconsidered by Ministers and that the results of that reconsideration would be brought back to Parliament for debate. However, he has not done so.
Let me be frank with the House. At this point in my life there are very few matters, apart from my family, about which I can feel passionately. One of them is the future integrity of the public service and
574
in particular the Civil Service. Many of us devoted our lives to it. In the absence of any assurances of reconsideration or of parliamentary debate, I have no alternative but to divide the House.
1.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 124; Not-Contents, 64.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Acton, L.

Judd, L.

Addington, L.

Kennet, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L. [Teller.]

Kilbracken, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lauderdale, E

Attlee, E

Lawrence, L.

Avebury, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Bancroft, L. [Teller.]

Listowel, E

Bath, M.

Longford, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L

Berkeley, L.

McNair, L.

Blackstone, B.

McNally, L.

Borrie, L.

Marlesford, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marsh, L.

Bridges, L.

Mayhew, L.

Brightman, L.

Meston, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mishcon, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Molloy, L.

Carew, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Chalfont, L.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Chorley, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ogmore, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Craigavon, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Croham, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Pike, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Desai, L.

Redesdale, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Richard, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rochester, L.

Dubs, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Ezra, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Falkender, B.

Russell, E

Falkland, V.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Freyberg, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Geraint, L

Shannon, E

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Simon, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Stedman, B.

Halsbury, E

Strabolgi, L.

Hamwee, B.

Strange, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tenby, V.

Harrowby, E.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Haskel, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hayman, B.

Thurlow, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Tope, L.

Holderness, L.

Tordoff, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Hooson, L.

Walpole, L.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Weatherill, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

White, B.

575

Wigoder, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Winston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Wright of Richmond, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Leigh, L.

Ailsa, M.

Liverpool, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Lucas, L.

Annaly, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bethell, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Cadman, L.

Mancroft, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mersey, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Coleraine, L.

Milverton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Courtown, E.

Munster, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Noel-Buxton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Northesk, E.

De Freyne, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Elles, B.

Pender, L.

Elton, L.

Piatt of Writtle, B.

Ferrers, E.

Rawlings, B.

Finsberg, L.

Rennell, L

Geddes, L.

Renwick, L

Goschen, V.

Seccombe, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Selborne, E.

Hemphill, L.

Sterling of Plaistow, L.

Hogg, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

HolmPatrick, L.

Swansea, L.

Howe, E.

Swinfen, L.

Inglewood, L.

Teviot, L.

Ironside, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kenilworth, L.

Vivian, L

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question is that the original Motion, as amended, be agreed to.
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before we proceed to the next business, in view of the vote that has just taken place and the firm expression of the view of this House, will the Government now consider whether this matter should be referred to a Select Committee of either this House or of Parliament? As I understand it, that has happened in the case of changes to the Civil Service constitution and working powers on every other single occasion that this issue has been before Parliament. Will the Leader of the House consider that view?
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I can assure the House that the Government will take very seriously the expression of opinion that the House gave this morning. We will look at the implications of the vote. We will undertake to read with care the criticisms voiced as well as the matters raised on the other side. We undertake also to come back to the House when we have considered the matter and advise your Lordships of the conclusions that the Government have reached.

Defamation Bill [H.L.]
1.32 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is the third of four Bills I have introduced this Session to give effect to recommendations for law reform. Unlike the other three Bills, however, this is not one which has been put forward as a result of the Law Commission's work. It is the result of three separate consultation exercises by my department and additional consultations in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In the most recent consultation, I published a draft Bill inviting views on the detailed drafting, structure and presentation of legislation to implement important reforms to defamation law and procedure, which the Government had already announced. The many constructive responses helped us to produce the present Defamation Bill for introduction in a greatly improved form. I would like to express my gratitude to those who have contributed to this useful process, and I am sure that noble Lords would wish to join me in doing so.
Full Notes on Clauses are available for any Members of the House who may wish to examine the provisions in greater detail. Fuller explanations of the current law and the difficulties which gave rise to the proposed changes may be found in the published consultation documents. I should mention at the outset that the reforms in this Bill derive from three distinct although connected initiatives. A very substantial part of the Bill owes its origins to recommendations made by the working group set up under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Neill, in response to my invitation to the Supreme Court Procedure Committee to examine the rules and practice for pleadings in defamation cases, and to propose reforms. The working group's report on practice and procedure in defamation was published for consultation in July 1991. I would like to record my gratitude to Lord Justice Neill and all the members of the group for all their hard work, both in producing their report in the first place and then in assisting us to produce a Bill to implement the reforms. Their work continued long after the original production of the report.
I should also like to record my thanks to my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann who made to me the important suggestion that a special regime should he set up for the summary hearing of defamation claims. That is now embodied in Clauses 8 to 11 of the Bill, and I am indebted to him both for the suggestion and his help in perfecting those clauses. Again, I am sure that noble Lords would wish to endorse those sentiments. It is particularly fitting that my noble and learned friend is to make his maiden speech in this debate. To that and the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Grantley, we look forward with great expectation.
The other reform proposal, now in Clause 1 of the Bill, is the result of my consultation paper on The Defence of Innocent Dissemination which was published in July 1990. Although all the reforms arose

577
originally out of my review of defamation law in England and Wales, much of the substantive law is broadly similar in both Scotland and Northern Ireland, and there are some similarities in the procedures. As a result of those consultations last year, the changes (or corresponding changes) will apply in Northern Ireland, and many of the changes will also apply in Scotland.
That is the background to the Bill, and with your Lordships' leave, I propose to explain its provisions in fairly broad terms.
Clause 1 is a new statutory defence which will supersede the common law defence of innocent dissemination, which has always been subject to some uncertainty, particularly as to who could rely on the defence. It concentrates on the concept of responsibility for publication. The new defence will not be available to authors, editors or publishers (in the commercial sense) of defamatory material. But it will be available to others whose work may in some way have contributed to the publication of defamatory material which someone else has chosen to publish unless they knowingly took part in producing a defamatory publication, or had reason to believe that they were doing so.
Clauses 2 to 4 also provide a new defence to replace an existing defence which does not now fulfil the purpose for which it was created. The present statutory defence of unintentional defamation is cumbersome, and very little used. The Neill Committee recommended that it should be replaced by a new defence which would be more streamlined but which would only be available to a defendant who was willing to pay compensation assessed by a judge, as well as publishing an appropriate correction and apology. That is the foundation of Clauses 2 to 4.
Clauses 5 and 6 reduce the limitation period, both in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland, in actions for libel or slander and in actions for malicious falsehood. One year is the time within which most actions are begun, and need to be, if the proceedings are to minimise damage to the plaintiff's reputation. But the court will have a discretion to disapply the strict limitation period, in favour of a plaintiff who had a good reason not to proceed within it, balancing the prejudice which the defendant will suffer if it does proceed against the prejudice which the plaintiff will suffer if it does not.
Clause 7 is part of a lesser reform, designed to eradicate delaying tactics by parties going through the unnecessary stage of applying for rulings as to meanings which statements are "arguably" capable of bearing.
Clauses 8 to 11 bring defamation proceedings into line with most other civil proceedings in providing powers of summary disposal. These clauses introduce a new fast-track procedure which will provide a prompt and inexpensive remedy in less serious defamation cases.
Clauses 8 to 11 give judges new powers enabling them to consider the strength of the claim and the defences raised, and to dispose of the claim summarily in favour of either party. The summary relief which the judge will have power to grant includes damages up to
578
£10,000, a declaration that the statement was false and defamatory, and an order requiring the defendant to publish a correction and apology, which may take the form of an approved summary of the judgment. They also provide a substructure for the special rules which will be needed in the context of summary disposal, so that every defamation claim will come before the judge at an early stage, in order that he should consider whether it is suitable for summary disposal.
Clause 12 changes the rule that in an action for libel or slander in which the question whether a person did or did not commit a criminal offence is relevant to an issue arising in the action, proof of his conviction is conclusive evidence that he committed the offence. Plaintiffs in defamation proceedings will no longer enjoy the artificial advantage of the rightness of someone else's conviction being unchallengeable.
Clause 13 prevents the plaintiff from recovering damages for injury to his reputation beyond what he would be entitled to if everything likely to affect his reputation were public knowledge. The defendant will now be allowed to lead and rely on evidence of conduct which, if known, would affect the plaintiff's reputation.
Clauses 14 and 15, with Schedule 1, bring up to date existing statutory privileges. The new privilege under Clause 15—for certain reports of legislative, judicial and other public proceedings—will apply to publications in general, not only newspapers and periodicals, and will extend to a wider category of reports, in particular recognising the need to give reports of proceedings of European institutions protection equivalent to that already given to those in this country. Clauses 16 to 20 contain general supplementary provisions.
The Bill represents a useful measure of law reform. It will, I believe, simplify this complex area of law and procedure and fit well with current developments in the conduct of civil litigation generally. I have the greatest pleasure in commending the Bill to the House.
Before I sit down, I should say that long ago I undertook a commitment to address the magistrates in the Isle of Man this evening. Because of the rearrangement of this business today, it has started rather later than I had expected. Therefore I may be denied the pleasure of hearing the whole of the debate. I shall stay for as long as I can consistent with the necessary travel arrangements, but I hope your Lordships will excuse me if I go. It is not for any want of interest in the proceedings but a desire not to break an engagement which I have undertaken to the magistrates who give so much of their time so willingly to serve the cause of justice.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
1.42 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his exposition of the principles which underlie the Bill. Perhaps I may on a personal

579
basis echo his praise for Lord Justice Neill, who is held in such affection and high regard by everyone who practises in the field of defamation.
I have two interests to declare. The first is professional. Almost all the work I do at the Bar is libel, slander and media-related, for plaintiffs and defendants. Perhaps that declaration can subsist throughout the remaining stages of the Bill. I have a personal interest to declare; namely, my interest in hearing the maiden speeches of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantley. It is not often—this may be a unique occasion—that an advocate can somewhat presumptuously look forward to the maiden speech of a noble and learned Lord, that Lord, in my case, having been on the tribunal as Mr. Justice Hoffmann when I appeared before him, and Lord Justice Hoffmann as he later became. I look forward to his speech with particular interest.
A number of diverse interests are involved here and there cannot be a perfect reconciliation of them. The first is the right to privacy in personal and family life. That is insufficiently regarded, if at all, in our law. Its protection under the European Convention on Human Rights finds no adequate reflection in domestic law. The second is the right to freedom of speech and expression. The third is the English vice—not the usual one but the more important one—of obsessive secrecy for no useful purpose. One recalls the recent debate in your Lordships' House on Lord Justice Scott's Report and reflects how much a freedom of information Act is needed in this country.
The fourth is the public's right to know. We are lamentably lacking in any details of information, except on the occasion of the report to which I referred a moment ago, of what those do who are set in authority above us. The fifth is the inequality of arms in this area of law. There is no legal aid for libel or slander though, curiously, by an anomaly, there is for malicious falsehood. Private people who are wounded and defamed act, by and large, at their own expense except for those who have a union or professional association to support them. It is worth bearing in mind that defendants in this field are normally financially powerful corporations.
Overarching all of this is something which I suggest is too easily forgotten and overlooked, namely, the sense of the very bitter and continuing wound that is caused to a man or woman who is wrongly defamed. Often that wound is much grosser and graver to the plaintiff in question than a physical injury.
The three themes that should have underpinned any review of legislation are privacy, defamation and freedom of information. The last Defamation Act was as long ago as 1952 and it is a matter of regret, though not a partisan point, that an opportunity has been lost on this occasion not to look at the whole spectrum which I have endeavoured to describe. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is to reply for the Government. It might be helpful if he were able to indicate whether the Government have a concluded view about the public figure defence, usually known as the Sullivan defence, which is current in the United States
580
and in other jurisdictions, such as the Indian jurisdiction. If a person is in public life and is properly described as a public figure, he or she cannot succeed in defamation unless malice can be proved and demonstrated against the defendant. I have personal reservations about that defence. It might be interesting to know what thinking, if any, the Government have on that.
One or two specific questions trouble me. The first is the reduction of the limitation period from three years to one. Some plaintiffs suffer particular constraints in this regard. I take the example of a doctor who is defamed. Very often if a complaint is made there will be an internal national health or national health trust inquiry. Notoriously, those inquiries very often last longer than a year. I take the example of a prison officer or a police officer. It has become the vogue almost automatically to make complaints against them. Those internal disciplinary proceedings often take more than a year. I cite the position of a police officer who may have been defamed but still has to give evidence in a criminal case. He will be subject to the collateral attack that he has a financial interest in the outcome of the criminal proceedings if he sues within one year.
There will be no incentive to defendants, who, I repeat, are very often large powerful organisations, to retain documents. That will fall into account when the judge decides whether the leave can be extended. I take the point made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that there is a discretion to extend the one-year period. But I would suggest that that discretion is a poor alternative for a plaintiff or a potential plaintiff who is left in limbo. He or she simply does not know what his or her legal position may be in terms of effective remedy when the 12 months has expired. After all, if I leave your Lordships' House quite soon and I am run over on the pavement by a newspaper delivery van and my leg is broken, I shall have three years in which to take action. If my reputation is ruined by the same newspaper this evening, I shall have only the one year. I do not myself understand the rational underpinning for the difference.
The summary disposal procedure, of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, is the effective progenitor, has value. On subsequent stages of this Bill I shall wish to examine how exactly it is to work. For instance, is the judge to come to his conclusion only after all the witness statements are in? They are required to be exchanged now in defamation as in other civil proceedings. Will affidavits be necessary? Will the process of discovery have taken place? These are questions of detail and not principle. In principle, anything that makes the law of defamation simpler, by and large, is to be approved.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor mentioned evidence of previous convictions in Clause 12. Evidence of previous criminal convictions, if this Bill goes through in its present form, is not to be conclusive of the commission of crime, except in the plaintiff's case. Why should it be limited to the plaintiff? A doctor sues about a defamatory allegation; the defendant or a witness has substantial previous criminal convictions. Why should they not be conclusive of the guilt of the party or the witness? One will have the

581
co-lateral re-litigation of the criminal matters very often with the plaintiff hobbled because he or she will not have access to the material which demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt to a jury that the person in question had committed a criminal offence. I find the reasoning somewhat shadowy and difficult to follow.
How is Clause 13 to work in practice? I suggest that plainly this evidence of other conduct should be admissible only after the question of liability has been decided, otherwise one will have an elision between the question of liability and that of bad reputation in collateral areas. I am troubled by that. A Bill which is intended, so it is said, to make defamation proceedings simpler, easier and less expensive, is liable to degenerate into very lengthy, complicated hearings about other matters which do not go to the question in issue. For instance, if a professional or lay person, or any individual, has an allegation of financial dishonesty made against him or her, why should it be relevant that sexual impropriety in his or her life should be put before the jury to mitigate the damages? I do not believe that the answer is necessarily plain on the face of the Bill and it is something to which we need to refer in due course.
I appreciate that it is Friday and therefore brevity, as well as abstinence, is appropriate and therefore I shall finish. Clause 20(2) states,
"Nothing in this Act affects the law relating to criminal libel".
The only question that I ask is this: in 1996, is criminal libel appropriate to be kept as part of our law in any circumstance? Most commentators would think that it had long outlived its usefulness.
I welcome the principle that defamation should be made simpler in its trial, easier in its outcome and less expensive in its conduct, but there are quite detailed questions to which one shall need to return in due course.
1.54 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, this is a welcome and much needed Bill to reform some aspects of the law of defamation. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, deserves public gratitude for having grasped the prickly nettle of seeking to improve the content of defamation law and its arcane and highly technical procedures. So has Sir Brian Neill and his working group and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, whose innovative work bears fruit in the Bill. It is very pleasing, as has been said already, that the noble and learned Lord will be making his maiden speech in this debate and we eagerly await his contribution.
I too must declare my professional interest as an advocate who appears sometimes in libel cases and sometimes against the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn—he more usually for plaintiffs and I more usually for defendants, but each of us must try to rise above the perspective that we obtain from our own practices.
582
It is worth saying, especially for non-lawyer noble Lords, that the law of defamation is peculiar and unique like no other tort or civil wrong. Its peculiarities derive from its historical origin in the Star Chamber's seditious and criminal libel later developed by the common law into a separate tort or civil wrong.
Defamation law necessarily restricts free speech by protecting the public interest in personal reputation. It is based on the civil right of everyone to the unimpaired possession of his or her reputation and good name. The general rule is that no one should speak falsely of his neighbour, and that it is in the public interest that the law should provide an effective means whereby the individual can vindicate his or her reputation against calumny.
Existing English law is notorious for giving excessive protection is some respects to the civil right to reputation for those who can afford to take up the plaintiff's sword. In the first place, a strict liability rule applies to the tort of libel. The state of mind of someone who publishes a libel is immaterial in determining liability, because malice is implied from the mere publication of defamatory matter. An individual may publish a libel in good faith, believing it to be true, and yet he has no defence to the action, however excellent his intentions may be.
Secondly, the law presumes in the plaintiff's favour that the defamatory words are false unless and until the plaintiff proves to the contrary—a reverse burden of truth. Thirdly, if the defendant attempts unsuccessfully to prove that the words are true, that is likely to increase the damages. Fourthly, juries award huge sums in damages without any proof of actual or probable financial loss and with inadequate judicial guidance to ensure that the award of damages is proportionate to the wrong suffered by the plaintiff. The process often seems closer to an expensive casino than to a court of law. This unacceptable aspect of English libel law has to some extent, but not completely, been reformed by the Court of Appeal in the recent Esther Rantzen and Elton John cases so that juries are better guided. But the position still remains unpredictable and somewhat arbitrary, with remaining risks of grossly arbitrary rewards.
It was those unique features of defamation law—and I make no apology for recalling them—and their chilling effect on free speech, that led the law Lords to reject an attempt by Derbyshire County Council to develop what was in effect a tort of government libel, a more draconian civil version of the crime of seditious libel, which would have chilled the freedom of the press as well as the freedom of speech of the individual citizen critic of government. I again declare an interest specifically as counsel for the newspaper in that case.
Although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that would-be plaintiffs can suffer serious injustice in some cases because of the absence of legal aid, it is also important to recognise that the individual citizen critic is especially vulnerable when faced with a libel action by a well-heeled plaintiff, because legal aid is not available even for a defendant with reasonable prospects of proving that the words are true or are covered by

583
qualified privilege. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, gave the example of the police officer plaintiff. It is a good example. But a police officer plaintiff is assisted by the Police Federation under regulations approved by Parliament. The defendant of such a claim may be a citizen critic or a small local newspaper and not a national newspaper. In cases of that kind real injustice can occur.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Kinkel, in the Derbyshire case, recognised that the chilling effect of libel law,
"is very important. Quite often the facts which would justify a defamatory publication are known to be true, but admissible evidence capable of proving those facts is not available. This may prevent the publication of matters which it is very desirable to make public".
That observation by the noble and learned Lord brings to mind the notorious use of gagging writs by the late Robert Maxwell and others like him.
Turning to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, the Derbyshire case did not decide whether the common law of qualified privilege should be extended to cover the position where the plaintiff is not a government body, but a Minister, an elected politician or a public officer discharging public functions who is defamed about the manner in which he or she discharged those functions.
I had the privilege, on behalf of Justice—I am delighted to see its distinguished chairman the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, in his place—of chairing a steering committee, for which the noble Lord is not responsible, which made submissions on the subject as part of the Lord Chancellor's consultation process. We welcomed the proposals to streamline and simplify procedure and to bring defamation law up to date. We drew attention to the way in which in various Commonwealth courts the law on qualified privilege is developing. In the case of Australia, the law is less favourable to the press than in the United States. While relaxing strict liability where politicians and public officers sue to vindicate their governing or political reputations, it requires the publisher to show that publication was reasonable in all the circumstances. That seems a sensible compromise between the conflicting rights and freedoms, less generous to the media than the position obtaining in the United States, as a result of the New York Times v. Sullivan case and its progeny.
The submissions on behalf of Justice expressed the belief that the importance of freedom of public information and the public's right to be informed about public affairs and political discussion require the development of qualified privilege in this way. It was suggested that that could be done either in this Bill or by leaving it to the courts to develop the common law on a case-by-case basis.
Upon more mature reflection, I have come to the conclusion that it would be unwise to seek to amend the Bill to deal with that important matter. For one thing, the policy implications are difficult to evaluate except in the context of a particular case. For another, we, whether as ordinary parliamentarians like myself or as Ministers, are self-interested. Many people in public life
584
would he delighted to be able to use the law vigorously to suppress what we regard as media libels about official conduct.
I suggest that it is better to leave the matter to the independent judiciary to decide upon what public policy requires in weighing free speech against other public interests, honour, reputation and personal privacy, having regard, as they increasingly do, to the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. Again, I should declare my professional interest. I am engaged in pending proceedings on behalf of newspaper defendants in a case with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, as my formidable opponent. The central issue will have to be decided by the courts. It is a question which the noble Lord has raised with the Minister and which will have to be decided by the courts. It would be helpful if it could be made clear for the avoidance of doubt that this Bill is not intended to limit the role of the courts in developing that area of the law by closing the categories of qualified privilege. I do not think that it is meant to do that, but I should be most grateful if the Minister could give the House an assurance on that matter in his reply.
I turn briefly to another matter which is not dealt with in the Bill—I refer to damages awards—and with which I can deal shortly. The matter was dealt with in the submissions made on behalf of Justice. The problem is that of excessive damages. Speaking for myself, I strongly support the recommendation that was made 20 or more years ago by Sir Neville Faulks' Committee that the best solution to the problem is for the jury to say whether the damages should be
"substantial, moderate, nominal or contemptuous",
leaving the judge to decide the actual amount. That would provide an effective way of retaining trial by jury while avoiding excessive damages awards. It would have the benefit that the Court of Appeal would be less troubled in damages cases.
Perhaps I may now make a small but important point about the Internet. I welcome the fact that the Bill applies to defamatory publications via the Internet. I hope that it will be amended in Committee to require those providing Internet facilities to remove information once it has been proved that that information is defamatory.
I turn now in a little detail to some of the other topics dealt with in the Bill. I refer first to responsibility for publication. It is certainly desirable for the defence of innocent dissemination to be statutorily defined and extended to cover a wider class of secondary publishers—distributors, printers and others. The trouble with Clause 1 as it stands is that it does not adequately protect them, and is likely to encourage increased and unnecessarily complicated litigation. To establish that "reasonable care" has been taken in relation to the publication of the statement complained of, as Clause 1(1)(b) requires, would be a difficult and expensive task, requiring detailed evidence of the operations of the particular defendant and evidence, including expert evidence, of usual practice.

585
Clause 1 as it stands also fails to protect the secondary publisher who, on discovering that a statement is defamatory, takes reasonable steps to assure himself that it is justified, or that it is fair comment, or is protected by qualified privilege.
I turn now to the offer of amends. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicated, the present procedure for making an offer for amends is cumbersome, unworkable and needs to be replaced. The new procedure is a welcome way of reducing unnecessary litigation while providing a sensible way of vindicating the plaintiff's good name.
I hesitate to say anything about summary procedure because it was, in effect, invented by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, against whose judgment I would not dare to appeal, but I am troubled. The new summary procedure has the admirable aim, which everyone shares, of weeding out hopeless cases at an early stage where it is clear to the judge that the plaintiff's case has no realistic prospect of success. It should offer the plaintiff with a sound case a quick route to a remedy, where there is no realistic defence for the claim and where the court is satisfied that summary relief would adequately compensate the plaintiff. It is highly desirable that the procedure should be accelerated and more user-friendly, but there is a risk that the summary procedure as it stands might perversely result in increased costs and complicate, rather than simplify, libel actions. It is a matter to be looked at carefully in Committee to ensure that "fast-track" does not become "gridlock".
I turn now to the meaning of a statement under Clause 7. Clause 7 sensibly alters the English procedure, as the noble and learned Lord, explained. Since my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie is unable to be with us today, he has asked me to raise a point about Scots law on his behalf. I am singularly unsuited to do so. Apparently, the procedural test laid down by the House of Lords in the case of Morgan v. Odhams Press, which is abolished by Clause 7, has never been applied in Scotland. It is unclear why there is therefore any need to apply Clause 7 to Scotland. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify the position, no doubt with advice from north of the Border.
Statutory privilege: I welcome the extension of the categories of reports which will enjoy statutory privilege to reports of legislative, judicial, and other public proceedings and official publications on a world-wide basis, but I can see no reason for the omission of the European Court of Human Rights from Clause 14. Reports of its proceedings are covered by qualified privilege under Part I of Schedule 1, but surely they, too, should be absolutely privileged, as will be the position for the European Court of Justice.
The definition of "court" in Clause 14 is also excessively restricted, excluding from statutory privilege reports of the proceedings of a whole range of domestic tribunals, like the GMC. I should prefer to see It apply to any tribunal of inquiry recognised by law exercising judicial functions as the Faulks Committee recommended 21 years ago.
586
I note that some items which were privileged, subject to explanation or contradiction, under the Lord Chancellor's draft Bill, are not so privileged in the final draft. They include fair and accurate copies of, or extracts from, notices issued by a local authority, a chief officer of police, or a serving officer of Her Majesty's Armed Forces. I should again be grateful if the Minister could clarify the reasons for not extending statutory privilege, as originally proposed in the consultation document.
I do not understand, unless I have misread it, which is possible, why the amended schedule reduces the scope of the 1952 Act schedule by apparently excluding a copy of a fair and accurate report, or summary of any notice or other matter, issued for the information of the public by or on behalf of a chief officer of police. It may be that that will be included under Paragraph 15 of Part II of the schedule. Again, I should be most grateful for clarification.
Those are matters of detail, and I apologise for raising so many points of detail. The general principles upon which the Bill is based are sound. They will strike and maintain a better balance between the three relevant civil rights: the right to freedom of expression; the right to a good reputation; and the right of effective access to the courts.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, I agree that privacy interests are also important and need to be better protected, but I believe that those interests are best protected by the courts developing the common law on a case-by-case basis, not on the basis of detailed legislation. I therefore support the stand taken by the Government in not seeking to legislate in the Bill on the vexed question of media intrusion on privacy, however disgraceful and unjustified that may be. The courts are capable of evolving the law to deal with real social mischief.
With those qualifications, which are not meant in any way to undermine my strong support for the Bill, I support its Second Reading.
2.11 p.m.
Lord Hoffmann: My Lords, I shall speak to one aspect of the Bill only; that is, the summary procedure which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was kind enough to say originated in a suggestion from me. The introduction of that procedure will be a modest improvement in the law, but your Lordships will better appreciate its usefulness and its modesty if I explain what it is intended to do. The easiest way to do that is to tell your Lordships how the proposal originated.
It began with a dinner which I had, I think in 1989, with the late Lord Rothschild. He had been the chairman of a Royal Commission upon which I had the honour to serve in the 1970s. Afterwards, we saw each other fairly regularly. On that occasion he was expressing his irritation, as he frequently did, over articles in newspapers which insinuated that he might have been a Russian spy. He wanted to know why he could not sue them for libel. I knew hardly anything about libel. I had never taken part in a libel action, either as counsel or as judge, but I thought that I knew enough to urge him

587
strongly not to go to law. I said that no one in his right mind would believe that he was a Russian spy and that a libel action would only give currency to tittle tattle which most people had never heard of anyway. It would be long and expensive. It would take over his life when he had better things to do.
I think that someone who knew more about the subject must have given the same advice because Lord Rothschild never did bring a libel action. But his restless intelligence never accepted that there was any problem to which there was not an answer. He said that the law should be able to accommodate people like him who did not want to pursue newspapers for large sums of money. They wanted two things only. First, they wanted a public statement which cleared their reputations; and, secondly, they wanted it quickly. There should be some procedure whereby such people can obtain a remedy.
I discussed the matter with a solicitor who was the in-house lawyer of a national newspaper. She had a different problem with libel law. She found that her paper often received threats of actions from people complaining that they had been libelled in a newspaper article which was ambiguous or accidentally inaccurate but in which the defamatory content, if any, was entirely trivial. Those people were not satisfied with an immediate correction and a small amount of compensation; they wanted to get as much money as they could. They were encouraged by lawyers who knew that, because a libel action is very expensive in legal fees and in the management time of newspapers, the newspapers would eventually settle rather than fight. They would settle by paying a substantial sum to the plaintiff and, perhaps even more important, a large sum in costs to the lawyer. So she wanted some procedure whereby such gold-digging claims could be summarily brought to court.
I sat down and drafted a Bill to create a procedure which could be used both by plaintiffs and defendants. In full pride of authorship I sent it to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. He was then heavily engaged in other matters concerning the legal profession, which my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner may remember. I received a visit from a civil servant who told me in the traditional phrase that the time was not ripe. Now it seems that the time is ripe and the proposal is in a Bill before your Lordships' House
It is important to emphasise that the procedure is intended to be for the benefit both of plaintiffs and defendants. It enables a plaintiff who does not want more than a relatively small sum of money by libel standards—the Bill provides for £10,000 but that can be varied by statutory instrument—to go quickly before a judge at a hearing with evidence on affidavit and to obtain an order for the publication of an agreed statement or, if there is no agreement, a publication of the judge's decision.
It also enables a newspaper, as a defendant which considers that after taking into account the publication of the correction the plaintiff cannot reasonably be
588
entitled to more than £10,000 in damages, to go before a judge on the same procedure and ask that he make a summary award and stop the case going any further.
Those are the cases to which the procedure is intended to apply. The reason why it is a modest improvement is that there are many cases—I should think most of the cases that have attracted great publicity over the years—in which it cannot apply. In a plaintiffs application the procedure depends upon the judge being able to say, on the basis of affidavits alone—without any discovery, cross-examination or oral evidence—that there clearly is no defence to the plaintiffs claim. If the newspaper wants to justify the allegation as true and can show that it has a reasonably arguable case, the judge cannot give judgment under the summary procedure. Even if the plaintiff is content to take a small sum of damages, the newspaper, or other defendant, is entitled to put its case before a jury. It is important for the freedom of the press that it should have the right to do so.
Therefore, the procedure will have no effect upon the great theatrical libel cases which have entertained the British public over the years. However, there are a few cases in which there is no serious defence and in which an attempt to defend is only in the hope that the plaintiff's money and patience will eventually become exhausted. It is that kind of case which the procedure is intended to help.
Likewise, the procedure has no effect on an action for libel where a serious charge has been made against the person's character. There again he is entitled to take the matter before a jury and to ask the jury to show its disapproval of what the newspaper has done. The judge can deal with the case himself only if he is satisfied that the libel, if any, is not sufficiently serious to be capable of meriting an award of damages higher than the statutory limit.
Despite those limitations, I believe that the procedure will be a useful one. I commend it to your Lordships.
2.18 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House, it is my privilege and personal pleasure as a former colleague and a friend warmly to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, on his maiden speech. He is one of the select group of South African lawyers who emigrated to this country at the outset of their careers out of distaste for the political regime then current in the country of their birth. In the case of the noble and learned Lord, he has reached the highest ranks of three branches of the law; academic at Oxford, the Bar and the Bench. All who know him know of the qualities which have led him to that position with a dazzling speed of achievement. We know him for his intellect, incisiveness, common sense, imagination and also for his entertaining approachability. I can confidently regard his speech as wholly non-controversial because I happen to agree with it myself. But in the circumstances, because the Bill is in part a progeny of his efforts, I know that the House will feel that it is right that he should have expressed such a clear view.

589
At the Bar I often acted for plaintiffs and defendants. Over the years, I felt a real frustration at the anxiety, delay and expense caused by the complex procedures leading to a full-blown trial. I felt also that those procedures were particularly difficult for the plaintiff and I remember the advice that one had to give to a plaintiff who came for advice a few days after he felt that he had been gravely libelled. You had to say to him, "The case, if fought, will be very expensive. There will be a long delay before you can achieve any redress to your reputation. When the action comes to trial in two or three years' time, it will revive public memories of the libel and the reporting will often be painful, selective and sometimes salacious." One would tell the client, "You must appreciate that you have to feel as strongly about the case in several years' time as you do when it is published, and you will have to appreciate that in the meantime, you will have considerable underlying anxiety and a cloud over your reputation."
Not surprisingly, plaintiffs in libel actions needed, and need still, a good deal of sheer dogged courage and the ability and willingness to take a large financial risk. Sometimes when confronted with that advice, a client would remark that all he wanted was the opportunity to correct the libel swiftly. Sometimes that could be achieved by settlement. It always seemed to me vital in that area of the law to leave no stone unturned; to urge a compromise which was fair to the reputation of the complainant but did not inflict undue humiliation or expense on the defendant.
But such redress by sensible compromise needs the co-operation of both parties. In my experience, defendants were often all too ready to use the interlocutory procedures to test the determination of the complainant and the depth of his cheque book. Powerful media groups could afford to play the interlocutory procedural game—which has rightly been described in this debate as arcane—to the full. Many of them did so.
I can think of several plaintiffs over the years who would have welcomed the availability of a summary procedure. But I can equally think of times when newspapers, sensing that a complainant was over-sensitive or possibly even on a gold-digging mission, would have liked to be able to seek a prompt resolution of the action. It is most welcome that this Bill grants defendants the right to seek summary disposal of proceedings.
In some ways, I should have liked to see the Bill achieve a slightly less modest result than that so clearly described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann. I remember the end of one hot July at the conclusion of a libel case which I had found exacting and which, I think, even my normally ebullient client found exhausting, I wrote an article for the Independent expressing my view that there should be an opportunity for a plaintiff to go before a judge at an early stage and ask that an apology be ordered by the court. The judge could then call for immediate material from the newspaper and form an impression of whether a correction was required and, if so, in what terms. While the plaintiff would be entitled to ask for costs, the price for that fast-track procedure should be that he could be
590
required to forgo his claim for damages as a term of obtaining an apology. I believe that I then envisaged that a judge would be able to form not only a view of whether a claim was unarguable or certain to succeed, but also a robust prima facie view on a case and seek a commonsense solution. But, nonetheless, I agree that the proposal put forward for a fast-track procedure is modest progress.
Some might say that that would whittle away at the right to a jury trial, but I have not heard that view expressed in today's debate. I would not find that in any way objectionable. Almost all civil rights are now tried by judges sitting alone. The reason why defamation has been an increasingly isolated exception is, as I understand it, because it was said that the importance of the issue of reputation meant that the parties had the right to a jury.
The right to reputation, and defamation actions, has always fascinated the public gaze. Anyone who was led by the late Mr. Colin Duncan and heard him declaim to juries in Shakespeare's words that:
"The purest treasure mortal times afford Is spotless reputation",
would be swept along by the indignation. But, to my mind, there are many courses of action at least as important—and, possibly a good deal more important—than actions for defamation. I have in mind actions for severe personal injury, or breach of contract, or negligence which might bring a business to its knees, or a serious administrative complaint. I do not believe that trial by jury is sacrosanct or that its modest erosion by the Bill would do any injustice.
We are all increasingly conscious of the need to have flexibility in the way that we resolve disputes. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has rightly highlighted that delay, cost and the imbalance of resources referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, which are available, or unavailable, to the parties, may all contribute to injustice. They can do so powerfully under the existing defamation procedures. I should have liked to see a fast-track procedure which went even further; but I warmly congratulate the Neill Committee and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on introducing the Bill which contains the current proposal.
There is one other significant reason why the change must he fair. Legal aid has never been available for libel actions. The Royal Commission on Legal Services said that that was anomalous and recommended a change. That has not come, and, in the present climate of concern about the expense of public funds, it would be tilting at windmills to argue for that extension of legal aid. But the absence of help to people of small or moderate means to pursue defamation litigation is yet another reason why they should have, wherever possible, an alternative, effective and low-cost procedure which they can use.
I should like briefly to draw your Lordships' attention to one further change that I should like to have seen in the Bill. When an action comes to trial, I believe that the level of libel damages is a lottery. Some 20 years ago the Faulks Committee commented on the,
"extravagant amounts resulting from the jury's inexperience of the general scale of damages of the whole field of tort".

591
I suppose that that was another way of expressing the well known comment that juries have a disposition to be generous with other people's money. The Justice report in 1990 made a powerful comment to the same effect.
I know that the Court of Appeal has recently given greater scope for judicial guidance to juries. But, to my mind, there is a need for still more to secure fairness. In my experience, what juries tend to remember is—vaguely and in general terms—the last high award that they read about in newspaper reports. They base their own comparison at the same level, slightly lower or somewhat higher than that award. In fairness to defendants, I believe that those risks should be sharply diminished. The Faulks Committee recommended that the jury should simply state whether the damages should be,
"substantial, moderate, nominal or contemptuous".
The actual amount within the chosen category would then fall to be assessed by the judge. Until now this recommendation has gathered dust. I believe it would he timely to attach it to a Bill which is making such other conspicuous improvements in the laws of defamation.
In summary, what I feel about this branch of the law is that until a case comes to trial, the scales are firmly tilted against a plaintiff in terms of anxiety, uncertainty, delay, the blight upon a career, and expense, plus the ability of the defendants to use the interlocutory procedures. But when the case comes to trial, the position changes. Juries then look critically at the conduct of the defendant newspapers, and there can be a real risk that an award is out of proportion to the nature of the libel. I believe that this Bill goes some way to improving the position of plaintiffs before trial. I should also like to see it go some way to securing greater justice for the defendants at trial.
I was not going to comment on the so-called "public figure" defence—the right to publish information responsibly about public figures, even if one cannot prove it to be true. I have grave doubts whether the balance should be moved in that direction. I have felt in recent years that the press have ample ability to draw to the public's attention facts which they consider affect the conduct of a person in public office, and that some of the facts they draw to the public's attention are only doubtfully in the public interest. When they do so, a person's reputation, career, legitimate ambition and aspirations may be blighted. I believe that the substantive law is broadly fair. What I believe need improving are the procedures. I greatly welcome the Bill and thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for introducing it.
2.32 p.m.
Lord Grantley: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships' House for the first time I wish to begin by making two comments of a purely personal nature. The first is that I spent a happy year working in this House in 1977–78 on secondment from the Conservative Research Department to the then Opposition Front Bench. I occupied a disused broom cupboard which I am
592
pleased to say has since been refurbished and is now occupied by the noble Baroness, Lady White. During the time that I worked here I was most impressed with the tone and quality of your Lordships' proceedings and the excellent work performed so unobtrusively and for so little reward. I appreciate that many things have changed over the past 18 years, but despite the advent of television into this House these characteristics seem to have endured.
My second comment is that I am particularly pleased to be able to make this speech in the presence of my noble kinsman Lord Listowel, for he is no ordinary kinsman; he is my grandfather. Our political views are by no means similar. In particular he favours the replacement of this House by a purely nominated Chamber. I, to the contrary, am a great fan of your Lordships' House and believe that the contribution of the hereditary element is a strength rather than a weakness. Indeed, I regard the career of my noble kinsman, which has been dedicated to work in this House almost continuously since 1931, as evidence of itself in support of my view.
The particular aspect of defamation proceedings on which I wish to focus is the role of the jury in libel cases, which has been commented upon by several previous speakers. The working group chaired by Sir Brian Neill agreed that this is an extremely important issue but considered, apparently, that it did not fall fully within its terms of reference. It was, however, considered at length by the Faulks Committee whose report on defamation (Cmnd 5909) appeared in 1975, although its recommendations on this subject have not yet been implemented.
There is widespread public concern—which I share—that the awards of damages made by juries in libel cases are excessive and out of all proportion to the actual damage suffered by the victims of libel, and way out of proportion to the awards of compensation made to victims of personal injury or crime. I do not intend to mention any individual cases as this would be invidious, but it is fair to say that concern on this subject has been prevalent for many years.
It is interesting to note that the highest award of damages for libel in the period 1967–69 was £7,000. In 1970, in the famous case of Broome and Cassell the plaintiff was awarded £40,000, of which £25,000 were exemplary, for a very serious libel. This was considered at the time to be a very high award. The compensatory element of the damages in that case are worth about £126,000 in today's terms, yet in recent years we have seen a persistent stream of awards much higher than this for libels far less serious than that committed against Captain Broome.
These days, if you are injured by libel and have a modicum of luck, you can get several hundreds of thousands of pounds and get your reputation back. By contrast, if you are unlucky enough to lose a leg in a personal injury case or as a result of a crime, then under the guidelines of either the Judicial Studies Board relating to personal injuries or the Government's guidelines relating to the criminal injuries compensation scheme—I am not quite clear on the subject—you will get about £40,000, but you will not get your leg back.

593
The majority of speakers in this debate are distinguished lawyers and judges. I am not even an undistinguished lawyer but a mere merchant banker. My main reason for wishing to contribute to the debate is that I have the experience, which is not important in itself, but may be of some interest, of having served on a libel jury in 1979. I wish to describe some aspects of this experience in order to draw some conclusions and to make, with all due diffidence, some recommendations. I am, of course, conscious of the need not to make any improper disclosure. I shall certainly not identify either the case or any of the participants involved except to say that the plaintiff was described as a showbusiness personality and the defendant was a newspaper.
The conduct of the case was most impressive to the layman, particularly the quality of the advocacy and the clarity of the judge's summing-up. Until the end of the judge's summing-up the impartial observer would have regarded the case as a tribute to the workings of the system of justice. However, on entry into the jury room, things deteriorated fast. The judge had, in effect, instructed the jury to find that a libel had been committed, and this was not controversial. The question for the jury then was to decide on the amount of damages. No figures for damages had been mentioned in court as this would not have been allowed. The plaintiff had requested, as is usual, substantial damages and the defendant argued that damages, if any, should merely be modest. The judge had done his best in his summing-up to explain the purposes of damages in libel cases and the principles on which they should be determined.
In the jury room, however, the judge's summing-up was immediately forgotten. The first eleven jurors, when we went round the table, all suggested amounts which were, if I remember rightly—and my memory may be hazy on this point as it was 17 years ago—in a range of £50,000 to £150,000. I suggested that an appropriate figure would be £5,000. We then spent about four hours arguing this point and eventually compromised on £15,000.
The interesting features of the argument in the jury room were not a difference of view on the severity of the libel. On the contrary, it was generally agreed that the libel was fairly trivial as these things go. Nor was there any particular sympathy for the plaintiff. It was clear that there were two reasons why such excessive amounts were being proposed. One was simply that the defendant was a newspaper: "Well, it's a newspaper isn't it? Newspapers have money, they can pay." Bear in mind this was in 1979 when newspapers were less unpopular and commanded more respect than they do today. The other reason was that the jurors had no figures to go on in deciding what would be substantial or modest, or whatever, and were clearly influenced by the amounts of damages awarded in other libel cases of which they were aware. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, was exactly right when he spoke on this matter. Needless to say, those other cases were those which had attracted great publicity in the
594
media and, almost by definition, involved very large sums of money. It was inevitable, rightly or wrongly, that those cases effectively constituted the precedents for the jurors in their own minds in proposing the huge figures that they did. That illustrates that the practice of juries in making excessive awards of damages is self-perpetuating. It is inherent in the system. It is slightly alarming to think that but for the presence of one member of the jury, fortuitously myself, the damages awarded in our case could have been up to ten times higher than the amount actually awarded.
I mentioned that the relevant principles so carefully explained by the judge in his summing up were completely ignored. I did my best to try to remind the other jurors, but without success. Therefore, at one stage I asked the usher if the text of the summing up could be produced and, ideally, photocopied and circulated among the jury, but I was told that that would not be possible whatever the length of the deliberations.
I suggest, therefore, as one modest administrative reform which could usefully be implemented, that the judge's summing up in libel cases should be typed up as soon as possible after delivery and given immediately to the jury. If it cannot be typed up before the jury has concluded its deliberations, so be it. That would indicate a simple case. But in most cases I suspect that the jury would still be deliberating and would find it very useful to be reminded of the specific details of the direction which the judge had given.
Lest it be thought that I am placing too much reliance on the experience of having served on one jury, I should add that in 1983 I was summoned again for jury service and served on two criminal juries. I do not know why my name should have been drawn from the hat twice in the space of five years. I only wish that the authorities would pass on the details of their technique to their counterparts at the premium bond office. I turned up wearing a pin-striped suit, brandishing a copy of the Daily Telegraph and trying to look as reactionary as I could, or indeed as I am. Despite that I was not objected to. Be that as it may, that additional experience merely served to confirm my view that the only proper task which should be entrusted to a jury is to determine the guilt or innocence of someone charged with a criminal offence.
In 1986 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who was a great fan of juries, recommended the reintroduction of special juries for libel cases, which had been abolished in 1949. I agree that this would he an improvement, but I would much prefer the recommendations of the Faulks Committee in paragraphs 455 to 457. It recommended that libel should be put on the same footing as other actions for tort, in that trial by judge alone would be the norm and by judge and jury would be exceptional, and that in all libel cases with juries the role of the jury should be restricted to determining liability and not the quantum of damages, on which point the jury should simply recommend that damages be substantial, modest, nominal or contemptuous.

595
I am convinced that the presence of the jury in libel cases is resulting in serious and consistent injustice, and I believe that this should be brought to an end. If there is any chance of using this Bill as a means of doing so I would warmly support it.
2.43 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, it falls to me to congratulate the noble Lord on his maiden speech. In 22 years in the other place I never had such good fortune. Indeed, I did not hear many maiden speeches as good as the one we have just heard.
It is always an ordeal to make a maiden speech. Like some of your Lordships, I have made two—one in the other place and one in this House. It is no easier even the second time round, but many of us would be envious of the speech we have just heard. I hope that the noble Lord enjoyed it as much as he would enjoy making a grand slam double vulnerable, as I see that bridge is one of his hobbies. We look forward to many more speeches from him. I know that that speech must have gladdened the heart of his noble kinsman, his grandfather, who is sitting in the Chamber today.
As another non-lawyer, and as someone who has never been lucky enough to be drawn for jury service, I want to confine myself to two points in the Bill. I told my noble and learned friend of the points that I would raise in the hope that there might be some answers in the response that will be given by the Minister.
The first is as regards the rights of citizens who are unfairly attacked in the press. We all know the sort of thing. There is a comment in the press, "Mr. Bumble of Much Binding in the Marsh is the leader of a group which believes in satanisation". It goes on to give details about satanisation without necessarily linking those directly to Mr. Bumble. However, the average reader would do the linkage. Mr. Bumble, who is neither a satanist nor a supporter of any cult, wants the record put straight. If he is lucky, there will be a letter printed somewhere on the inside of the newspaper, or there might even be a two-line apology somewhere at the bottom of page 38, but well away from the page upon which the statement was made. I wonder why we cannot extend the Bill to cover that point so that a correction has to be made in as prominent a position as was the false statement which the paper printed.
The second point relates to parliamentary privilege. I have to declare a personal interest in raising an issue which concerns two friends of mine, Mr. Neil Hamilton, Member of Parliament, and Mr. Ian Greer, the lobbyist—from whom I had better say straightaway I have never received or sought any financial reward. Both have a case against the Guardian newspaper for defamation. I have known them as friends for well over 20 years. I shall not go into the merits or demerits of the case except to say that the case is on ice with the clock stopped because of the existence of privilege under the Bill of Rights and other legislation.
It is necessary to give some quotations so that your Lordships will get the feel of this issue. I apologise that the first one at least will be very lengthy, hut it gives the
596
proper flavour of the case. It is from Mr. Justice May's judgment in the case. The date was 21st July 1995. He said:
"I am constrained by authority to stay the proceedings. The Prebble case is so closely in point that I see no scope for bold innovation by a judge at first instance, even though I am acutely conscious that staying the actions may be perceived as a profound denial of justice to the plaintiffs, as a denial of a forum to the defendants to justify their publication and even as a licence to publish material about parliamentary proceedings which, if it is untrue, may go unremedied.
"The law undoubtedly being that it is for Parliament alone to regulate its proceedings without questioning from the courts, it is no part of the courts function to call in question the adequacy of parliamentary procedures to achieve such regulation. As Lord Browne-Wilkinson in substance said, to prevent a defendant newspaper from relying, in defence of libel proceedings which nevertheless continue, on matters which could, if they were permitted to rely on them, establish that the publication was true could produce chilling results. Equally, however, to deny plaintiffs a forum for establishing, if it be so, that a publication which has damaged them severely is untrue is to deny the opportunity of remedy which is afforded to every other person and which ought to be afforded without exception. I guess that the public perception would be that such remedies as might be available within parliament for Mr. Hamilton and Greer Associates, if the publication is untrue, would be an inadequate substitute for those available to their fellow citizens in court. It was accepted at the Bar that, whatever procedures might be available and whatever their effect, they would not include the power to compensate the plaintiffs, if that were appropriate, in damages. Reputations might be salvaged, but money losses would remain without compensation. I guess that the public perception would also be that these actions ought to be capable of being tried in court, that the plaintiffs ought to be enabled to make their full cases and that the defendants ought to be enabled to make their full defences, so that the truth may be established in an unimpeded trial by judge and jury.
"Every Judge is acutely aware that the ability of all persons to come to the courts to have their disputes tried and determined fairly, openly and according to law is a cardinal right upon which freedom under the constitution depends. The courts exist to try cases, not to decline to do so. In this instance, statute and authority require the court to do just that".
That is pretty clear on the state of affairs that exists. This Bill gives an opportunity to make some remedy in that kind of case.
Perhaps I may give one other brief quotation from someone who is well known in this country, Sir Bernard Ingham. In relation to that judgment, he said:
"The essential point is that Mr. Justice May … in the face of legal precedents, halted the libel trial last week because, under the 1689 Bill of Rights, courts are banned from looking into Parliamentary proceedings. This, the Guardian opportunistically argued, would prevent it from mounting a proper defence. So, Mr. Greer, an ordinary individual who claims his company lost £2m worth of business because of the allegations, has no right to establish his innocence or to recover the alleged damage to his company. That is injustice enough. But what this ruling really means is that any irresponsible newspaper—and let us not readily accuse newspapers of responsibility—can allege, with impunity, what they like about an MP's activities, within, as distinct from outside, the Commons"—
and I might add the Lords. He continues:
"This is a ludicrous interpretation of Parliamentary privilege. It was intended to enable MPs [or Peers] to make serious allegations in the House without fear of proceedings. It was never meant to deny them the right to defend themselves in courts".
After that, we had the Nolan Report. The Government made a response, after the Nolan Report was in being, to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The committee's Recommendation 10 was:

597
"The Government should now take steps to clarify the law relating to the bribery of or the receipt of a bribe by a Member of Parliament".
The response was this:
"The Government reaffirms its commitment to consolidate the laws on corruption, and welcomes the opportunity to clarify the law relating to the bribery of, or receipt of a bribe by, a Member of Parliament alongside that consolidation".
There was an undertaking that the Government would consider the matter.
I now wish to read a letter received after I sent a letter to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on the subject. His response is dated 4th September 1995:
"The Lord Chancellor has asked me to thank you for your helpful comments on the draft Defamation Bill. He is sure that you will be glad to know that the Government is indeed considering whether it would be possible to provide a solution to the difficulties highlighted by recent defamation proceedings involving Members of Parliament".
That is a second and, I should have thought, firmer undertaking that something would be done to remedy these injustices.
I sum up the problem simply. I can understand that a blanket waiver of privilege might not be a happy one. However, surely the Bill of Rights never intended that an individual MP or Peer could not waive his own privilege. That is the point at issue, not blanket waiving but his own privilege. That is all that is sought in this case. Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Greer wish to cite parliamentary proceedings in Hansard in their case for proceeding, but parliamentary privilege prevents them.
There is, I believe, a simple way of solving this; namely, for an amendment to come forward to the Bill which would entitle a Member of Parliament or Peer to waive his own privilege and allow Hansard references to him to be used in legal proceedings. This must also, in fairness, be allowed in suitable form to any other person so defamed. It would not be right that the existence of a potential defamation which could then be used by a Member of Parliament citing Hansard should not, in some form, be available to the ordinary citizen who is himself defamed inside one of the Houses of Parliament. I do not believe that it is a very complicated issue. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend that justice can, in fact, be done.
2.55 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, in a very short concurring judgment, Lord Justice Russell, later Lord Russell of Killowen, in a case in 1965, in which I was counsel for the plaintiff and once more bit the dust, said:
"To the comparative newcomer, the law of libel seems to have characteristics of such complication and subtlety that I wonder whether a jury on retiring can readily distinguish their heads from their heels".
He went on to say:
"Having made that comment (I hope without malice) I will content myself with saying that I agree with my brethren".
The Government are therefore to be congratulated on going some way towards dealing with the complications, some of which I am sure Lord Justice Russell had in mind. While on the subject of congratulations,
598
let me congratulate most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Grantley, on a stimulating speech in regard, in particular, to trial by jury in libel matters. He referred to the Faulks Committee's Report and to the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, at an earlier stage. One of the troubles was that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, changed his mind and withdrew his support for the abolition of jury in defamation cases, following another appeal which I lost in the Court of Appeal.
I would resist the abolition of trial by jury in libel cases until, if that event ever occurs, a government do something to protect the citizen from invasion of his privacy. I tried unsuccessfully in one of the criminal justice Bills to introduce very modest amendments, the modesty being attributable to Sir David Calcutt who produced one or two model criminal clauses dealing with the intrusion of long-range photograph instruments, bugging tapes and the like. But they were rejected by the Government, and the promises of White Papers that existed at that stage have never seen the light of day.
Basically, governments are so anxious about antagonising the media that they will take no effective action on this subject, overlooking the fact that they will substantially increase their popularity with the public at large if they show the guts (if I may use that rather vulgar expression) to do precisely that. Until that happens, I am in favour of large awards, not because they are intellectually satisfying but because it is the one way of saying to the press, "Very well, if you invent facts"—as they frequently do—"or if you distort the truth"—as the better quality papers usually do—"then it will be an extremely expensive experience."
If libel damages are brought down to personal injury damages, a high proportion of the press or media will say, "It is worth it. We shall be landed with £100,000 at the most and we shall recover that in our increased circulation." The intensity of the competition between various aspects of the media is such that the current situation is required to protect the public. But I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grantley, on the way he addressed your Lordships. I hope that we shall hear much from him in the future.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann was one of the outstanding advocates from the Chancery Bar. I had the experience of the benefit of his submissions. He was known to some of us as one of the "discount" barristers. That meant one of those banisters whose powers of persuasion were so developed that one had to impose a discount of at least 20 per cent. on his arguments to bring them back to reality.
When he was appointed to the Bench, I wrote to him a letter saying how sad I was that he had left the Bar. When he used to address me, at that stage sitting in the Court of Appeal, there were those rare occasions when I had the folly to interrupt him and a look of such deep sadness would come across his face, mingled with compassion, which said in the clearest possible way, "I thought you were doing so well managing to keep up with me and now I have to start all over again".
Having made those, I hope friendly, observations, perhaps I may say something about his suggestions. Your Lordships heard, quite rightly, from my noble and

599
learned friend the Lord Chancellor of the debt we owe to Lord Justice Neill's committee. Lord Justice Neill was one of the outstanding specialists at the Bar in the law of defamation. He was in one of the best known libel and slander chambers headed, when I joined the Bar, by G. O. Slade QC (Mr. Justice Slade) followed by Sir Neville Faulks and with other distinguished personalities such as Lord Justice Hirst and Lord Justice Neill—the latter two I had the privilege, on occasions, of leading.
The Lord Chancellor said that we owe a great debt to Lord Justice Neill and his committee. What your Lordships were not told—it is to this that I wish to devote most of my speech—was that the committee was asked to consider the proposal made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann. In paragraph 19 of its summary, at page 205 of the report, the committee made this rather blunt observation:
"The proposals contained in Mr. Justice Hoffmann's draft Defamation Bill should not be adopted".
It went on to give fairly extensive reasons, none of which were divulged to your Lordships. I believe that I should mention them because I should like to know what is the official answer.
Clearly, the criticisms, or some of them, have been carefully considered by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. One of the complaints made, in chapter 17 of an extensive report, was that it was proposed that an editor should be,
"forced to publish something which he may not believe or even which he knows to be false (without being able to prove it under the rules of evidence)".
That has been got round by the obligation to publish being limited to the judgment of the court or the substance of that judgment. That is clearly right.
In another part the report says,
"We can see considerable scope for disagreement too over the notion contained in [what was then] clause 2(1)(b) that the judge should form an opinion as to whether 'summary relief would compensate the plaintiff adequately for such damage as would be likely to be proved if the claim was to be tried and succeeded'".
It goes on:
"For one thing, libel actions are not generally about 'proving damage' at all. Damage is presumed".
The report then quotes from what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said in Cassell v. Broome. That has been dealt with by changing the word "damage" to "wrong" and it is clearly appropriate that that should be done. The general criticisms raised by the Neill Report are that,
"opinions notoriously differ as to what is a trivial libel and what is not. This judgment is so subjective that we think this provision would put judges in an embarrassing position. It is eminently a matter of impression for the 'man in the street' rather than for judicial determination … We also question, however, whether the Bill is actually targeted at any 'pressing social need' … We very much doubt that if any form of market research were carried out there would prove to be many cases which would fit the criteria contemplated by this Bill".
The report goes on:
"It is clear that [the Bill] is primarily directed towards trivial cases where there is no substantive defence".
600
It continues:
"The fallacious assumption here seems to us to be that there are `out there' a significant number of such trivial cases which the parties are incapable of settling for themselves. In our experience this is not so. Generally cases fail to settle either (i) because there is an arguable defence or (ii) because the defendants have information about the plaintiff's conduct which in their eyes makes his demand for damages appear to be disproportionate. If there is a substantive defence, then it should be tried anyway".
It goes on to say that the abolition of the rule in Scott v. Sampson, which is one of the recommendations made in the Bill, will go a long way to tackle the problem, as will the offer of an "amends" defence, again as provided in the Bill. It goes on to say—this is supported by a memorandum from the Bar Council—that a decision by the judge which is unfavourable to the defendant in these summary procedures will result inevitably in appeals which will throw further burdens upon the court.
I wish to deal with one other point. I shall deal with it shortly because it is answered adequately on page 164 of the report. I refer to the public figure defence, what is known as the Sullivan defence. This is what exists in the United States in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan. The process has lead to a fundamental distinction between the defamation law as applied within the United States jurisdiction and our jurisdiction. The report states:
"In relation to 'public figures', a concept which has been expanded with the passing years, it is necessary to show not only that the words published were defamatory but that they were actuated by malice. Standards of care and accuracy in the press are, in our view, not such as to give any confidence that a 'Sullivan' defence would be treated responsibly. It would mean, in effect, that newspapers could publish more or less what they liked, provided they were honest, if their subject happened to be within the definition of a 'public figure'. We think this would lead to great injustice. Furthermore, it would be quite contrary to the tradition of our common law that citizens are not divided into different classes. What matters is the subject-matter of the publication and how it is treated, rather than who happens to be the subject of the allegations".
The report continues:
"In our view the media are adequately protected by the defence of justification and fair comment at the moment, and it is salutary that these defences are available to them only if they have got their facts substantially correct".
It concludes with this paragraph:
"We understand that in recent years as a consequence of the Sullivan decision in the United States lawyers acting on behalf of complainants who are or may be classified as public figures have sought to expand the common law of privacy in order to provide a remedy now closed off in defamation".
The final matter to which I wish to draw attention—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I wonder whether he is aware that Sir Brian Neill seems to have changed his mind. In the second Goodman lecture, which he gave in 1995, as a result of the Derbyshire case, he said,
"Once it is accepted that 'it is of the highest public importance that a democratically elected governmental body or indeed any governmental body, should be open to uninhibited public criticism',

601
it is not altogether clear how one can distinguish satisfactorily between the elected body itself and those who compose it and govern its affairs".
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. I have not seen that lecture, but if Lord Justice Neill has changed his mind I certainly have not changed mine. I find the reasoning that he provided wholly persuasive and thoroughly sensible as it reflected my own view even before I came to read it.
The only other matter to which I need draw attention is one on which the Minister may wish to reply. It concerns the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. That restricts what may be made public about a person's spent conviction or convictions. Although such restrictions do not apply to prevent a defendant from relying on any defence of justification, fair comment or of absolute or qualified privilege, they do restrict the matters that he or she may be permitted to establish in support of the damage aspect. The Bill makes no reference to it, but it would seem that Section 8(3) of the 1974 Act will have to be amended to allow evidence to be called of misconduct or reputation which relates to a spent conviction or convictions. Accordingly, a provision disapplying Section 8 of the 1974 Act in places falling within Clause 11 of the Bill may be the appropriate solution. With those comments I merely add that otherwise I commend the. Bill.
3.13 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, it is very seldom that your Lordships' House fails to come up to expectations and this afternoon is no exception. We have listened to a number of extremely germane and interesting contributions to this Second Reading debate, the majority of them from advocates or judges, but also one from a member of a libel jury. I hope noble Lords may find it interesting if for a few moments I say something from the point of view of the litigant, having myself been involved in three libel actions, twice as the plaintiff and once as the defendant.
I should point out at the outset that all three experiences were extremely disagreeable. They were bad. I am not sure which is worse. Perhaps one should say, in the words of Joseph Stalin in another context, "Both are worse". It is a traumatic experience to be involved in a libel action unless, of course, one is a member of the legal profession acting in a professional capacity. That is why I welcome the Bill before your Lordships' House, because it does something to try to simplify the proceedings that make the life of the defendant and the plaintiff so very difficult for a number of months or even years that the case is in operation.
Under the present system, one is forced to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Much will be done to put that right under Clauses 2, 4 and 8. A plaintiff endeavouring to get to a certain destination—I mean, the clearing of his name—finds that the only vehicle that will take him there is the Rolls-Royce of the English law on defamation. I believe that he would usually prefer a humbler and less expensive vehicle to get him to the same destination, although I must point out to the noble
602
Lord, Lord Grantley, whose maiden speech I thought was quite outstanding, that even winning a case as a plaintiff does not necessarily mean that one gets back one's reputation, one's job or one's money. I speak with a certain amount of feeling on this point since in 1970—admittedly, a long time ago—I was required because of a defamatory allegation to leave the Front Bench of your Lordships' House. It was nearly two years—two very disagreeable years—before that matter was disposed of. I shall return to that in a moment.
I should like to mention first the case in which I was clearly at fault when unintentionally I libelled the trade union leader, Mr. Alan Sapper, on the radio. Having done that and having ascertained that I was mistaken, I was of the view to apologise immediately. Those were my instincts, but I was advised by legal advisers that it would be an unwise thing to do because to apologise immediately might give ammunition to an opponent who was already threatening legal proceedings and who might be angry. I am happy to say that in the end the matter was disposed of reasonably amicably by the paying of a small amount into court which the plaintiff accepted. There was no guarantee that he would accept and we could have found ourselves on a collision course of mutual assured destruction which is so often, sadly, the role of both plaintiff and defendant in libel actions.
Had Clauses 2 and 4 of this Bill been in effect when that occurrence took place, I would immediately have made amends and I believe that it would have been possible to settle the matter within a few days. In the event, it dragged on for many months and cost a large sum of money—not in the amount paid into court, but in legal expenses.
A number of comments have been made about the perils that lie before a plaintiff in a libel action, most notably by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, whose maiden speech I also found extremely interesting, and to whom I believe many people in public life and outside will be grateful in the future for his contribution and his suggestion for simplifying libel proceedings by the establishment of a "fast track", an idea which I support most warmly.
I return to the problem of someone who is seriously libelled, as I was in 1970. One is then between a rock and a hard place in that the world outside which only dimly understands such a problem will immediately say, "If there is no truth in this allegation against Mr. X, why is he not taking legal action?" The reason may well be that the funds are not there. As was pointed out to me at the time, the test of who has the more money in the bank is often more important than who has the stronger case. The defendants in that case made it quite clear that they would do everything possible to invoke the delays of the law and to up the costs as much as possible in the hope that the money, the time or the patience would run out. That is not a difficult thing to achieve when the plaintiff is under great pressure in the sort of circumstances that I have described.
Another point that has not been made this afternoon is that while a plaintiff is fighting his case, the defendant will see it as his right—indeed, his duty—to do everything he can to besmirch the plaintiff's reputation. If he can succeed in that, he may very well win his case. Under the

603
cloak of what I believe is called qualified privilege, the agents of the defendant are entitled to make exhaustive inquiries about the plaintiff in the hope of gathering what they would call "dirt" in conversation, which can be used in court in the hope of establishing the fact that the plaintiff has a murky reputation, thereby winning the case in a disagreeable and traumatic way.
I can think of many cases where that has happened. One, of course, was the famous case that dragged on for many years, if not decades, of the Czech pilot of the plane in which Prime Minister Sikorski of Poland was killed in 1943. The pilot was accused of crashing his own plane to kill a passenger on board, a manifestly absurd allegation, but it took very many years before anything was done to exonerate the pilot.
There is a case, the merits of which I shall not go into, which is being fought at the moment of an American journalist, originating in Yugoslavia, who is suing Time magazine over allegations made about him which resulted in the loss of his job as a journalist. Again, the rich corporation which is the defendant in the matter has made it clear that it will do everything it possibly can to take the matter to the highest court in the land, or indeed beyond, to ensure that the plaintiff runs out of money, and does not pursue it. That is Russian roulette or high-stakes poker, and the private citizen is in a weak position when he tries to protect his own reputation.
We must face the fact that only a few people at present have the chance to bring a case of libel, and to see it through to the bitter end. It usually is a bitter end. One does not have to go into the merits of the case of my noble friend Lord Aldington to see the grave effects that it had on him, even though he won hands down and his reputation was cleared. He did not, of course, get back his money. He won his reputation but not his money.
Many people never recover emotionally or professionally from having been libelled. I therefore welcome the fast-track approach put forward in the Bill. My only question which I hope my noble friend the Minister may be able to address is: what will be the cost? Will it be possible to estimate the cost that can be put at the door of a plaintiff who voluntarily goes to this fast-track solution? Since the costs of the fast track are expected to be reasonable, there might be a case for granting legal aid for a plaintiff in such a situation. One of the criteria for granting legal aid should he that the plaintiff has no alternative but to go to law. It is not so much the merits or the strength of the case but the fact that the plaintiff has to go to the courts if he is ever again to have a reputation, to find employment or to recover. Such a plaintiff may be in a position similar to a piano player who loses a finger or a footballer who breaks a leg. The effect of a serious libel can be devastating.
In conclusion, I agree with all those who have said that a public interest defence to a libel allegation would not be appropriate in this Bill. I hope that the Government will resist it. The American analogy has been put forward by lobbyists and by the newspaper industry. I would prefer to move in the Continental
604
direction towards a law of privacy and towards the kind of provisions contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. A libel can be a very great wrong. It should be avoided wherever possible. No one in their right mind would sue for libel unless they absolutely had to. If they have to, they will be greatly benefited by having access to the fast track proposed by the present Bill. I congratulate those who have promoted it.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps in the gap I may raise one point of which I hope the noble Lord has been given notice. It relates to gagging writs. They are generally felt, and especially recently, to shut out information which if it had been published would have precluded a great deal of loss and scandal. I suggest that we might learn something from the jurisprudence relating to patents.
Formerly, a powerful corporation owning valuable patents would readily issue a writ for infringement in the hope of frightening off a rival, newly-registered patent. That was felt to create such wrong that the law was changed and it is now actionable to issue such a writ without reasonable cause. Unless reasonable cause is shown, damages may accrue to the person against whom the patent infringement risk is issued. Might we not consider that in the context of gagging writs of defamation?
3.28 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, I am grateful to all those noble and often learned Lords who have spoken in support of the Bill. I must begin by reiterating the remarks made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Justice Neill and the other members of the working group for the immensely valuable work that they have done in enabling us to bring forward the Bill now to make substantial improvements to the law of defamation in the United Kingdom. We have had two maiden speeches today. In its own way, each has been an ornament to this debate.
The improvements to the law of defamation which we are bringing forward have been subject to full consultation at different stages in their development. I wish to mention in particular the most recent consultation; my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor invited views on the detail of the drafting and on the clarity of structure and presentation. As we had hoped, the response was both enthusiastic and constructive, enabling us to resolve some minor doubts and difficulties which might otherwise have arisen.
Like most law reform Bills, this Bill is not party-politically contentious. But as we have heard today, even law reform Bills may contain provisions which are contentious at a technical level. I should like to deal with some of the points which have been raised during the debate and I shall do that in the order in which they appear in the Bill as drafted. I shall then deal with other points that I have not covered specifically.

605
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, asked about the application of the provisions to Internet service providers. In the notes accompanying the draft Bill, published for consultation in July 1995, we invited views as to whether it would be helpful to introduce legislation clarifying any doubts as to when and where publication has taken place when computer networks are used. Those who responded were strongly in favour of legislation and several offered detailed models. However, it would not be right to attempt legislation without full consideration and consultation on all policy issues arising in the context both of defamation law and diverse other areas of law relevant to the use of those networks.
Service providers would fall within the example under Clause 1(3)(e) of those who will not be considered publishers; that is,
"the operator of a communications system by means of which a defamatory statement is transmitted, or made available, by a person over whom he has no effective control".
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, gave examples of plaintiffs who had good reason for deferring the commencement of an action. The court will have discretion in all the circumstances so that such plaintiffs may be better off than under the existing law.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, raised a point which had been drawn to his attention by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, about the scope of Clause 7. If the noble Lord refers to Clause 18, he will discover that it is specifically excluded from application in Scotland. I hope that that answers that question.
There was a considerable amount of debate about what I might describe as "the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann's baby"—the summary procedures. I should be interested to know what other useful ideas have been conceived at the dinner table of the late Lord Rothschild. It seems particularly apposite that it is at the birth of his own "baby" that the noble and learned Lord makes his maiden speech. Indeed, I am mightily impressed by the noble and learned Lord. It had never crossed my mind to turn from the Dispatch Box to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, when he interrupted me, and to look at him with a mien of pity and incredulity.
As regards the recommendations against summary procedures made by the Neill Committee, we believe that the provisions as revised in the Bill overcome the general criticisms of the summary procedures as originally drawn. We have consulted Lord Justice Neill and members of his working group. We believe that he is content that his concerns have been met.
As has been said, those provisions have been welcomed warmly by many people who have experience of libel litigation, including judges with very great experience of trying the claims, both with and without juries. We believe that they fulfil a very real need and will be exceptionally beneficial for those people whose reputations have come under attack and
606
who should be vindicated but who are daunted by the prospect of launching proceedings against those who would be in a position to drag out the litigation at great cost, even where it must be plain that there is no real defence. As my noble friend Lord Bethell said, a failure to act may raise questions.
Plaintiffs in defamation cases frequently say that all they really wanted was swift vindication and a prompt public recognition that they had been wronged. That will now be possible. When the court decides that the claim is suitable for such summary disposal, the whole procedure will be much quicker and cheaper than an ordinary trial. Where it is not appropriate, the parties will be made to define and clarify the issues between them much sooner than they do at present and that must all be for the good.
Reference was made by a number of speakers to damages and the Faulks Committee's recommendation that the role of the jury in assessment of damages should be reduced. The Law Commission is examining that matter and the remedy of damages and has recently issued a consultation paper on non-pecuniary loss. It has considered the Faulks recommendation but the commission's provisional view—and I emphasise the word "provisional"—was that it was not workable.
After dealing with the question of damages in general, we then moved into the jury room with the distinguished maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Grantley. As I listened to the noble Lord's speech, it occurred to me that he was managing to reach those parts of the judicial process that both lawyers and Members of your Lordships' House do not normally manage to reach. It was particularly interesting to have that insight from the other side of the veil.
I should like to turn now to some of the points raised which do not fall directly within the scope of the Bill—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the Minister does so, as my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie is not here, perhaps I may mention that I believe it is not correct to say that his point is dealt with in Clause 18(2). That provision applies Clause 7 to Scotland. My noble friend's point was that that is unnecessary because the problem that Clause 7 deals with does not arise north of the Border. Can that point be reconsidered?
Lord Inglewood: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester. In fact the noble Lord intervened just before my reinforcements arrived explaining that I had misled the House on the matter. I must crave your Lordships' forgiveness. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, is right and I was wrong.
I should like to turn away from the Bill as drafted and, as I was saying, deal with a number of other points that were raised in the debate. It was suggested that there should be a remedy for people who have problems with what has been published about them, although it falls short of being defamatory. That point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg. Although I can understand that people may sometimes be less than enthusiastic about receiving uninvited publicity, it is always necessary to remember the importance of our

607
right of freedom of expression. It is proper and necessary that the right to freedom of expression should be subject to the right of the individual not to be falsely defamed. But we would always need to exercise the utmost caution in imposing restrictions on that essential freedom.
The noble Lord also referred to parliamentary privilege and the case of defamation proceedings brought by Members of the other place. The purpose of introducing the Bill was to bring forward a number of law reform proposals on detailed drafting, structure and clarity of presentation, upon which the Government had already consulted widely before we published the Bill last July.
It was at almost exactly the same time that the two defamation actions involving the Members of the other place came before the High Court and drew attention to the problem mentioned by the noble Lord. The issues which it raises are indeed of great importance and, I would add, of great difficulty. I know that serious concern has been expressed about them and is shared by many people, especially in the other place. We acknowledge the gravity of the problem and desire to find a solution to it. But it must be said that finding the right solution cannot be the most straightforward of tasks.
However, while the Bill is in Parliament it may provide an opportunity to address the problem. Of course, we welcome that. Naturally, we would consider any amendments brought forward, and their implications, most carefully.
My penultimate remarks will be addressed to a subject mentioned by several speakers; namely, the so-called "Sullivan defence". Our view is that there is no place for such a defence in our defamation law. We endorse the reasoning and conclusion reached by the Neill Committee when it considered the suggestion. Media representatives proposed to the committee that there should be a defence similar to that applied in the United States which confers privilege in respect of statements defamatory of public figures unless the publication is activated by malice.
The committee took the view that standards of care and accuracy in the press were not such as to give confidence that a Sullivan defence would be treated responsibly. It would mean, in effect, that newspapers could publish more or less what they liked, provided that they were honest, if their subjects happened to fall within the definition of "public figure". We agree that the media are adequately protected by the defences of justification and fair comment at present. It is salutary that those defences are available only if the facts are substantially correct. What matters is the subject matter of the publication and how it is treated rather than who happens to be the subject of the allegations.
The committee also understood that a consequence of the Sullivan defence in America was that potentially
608
public figures were seeking to expand the common law of privacy to compensate for the remedy being closed off in defamation. In any event, as Sir Michael Davies pointed out recently while delivering a judgment on this point, the public figure defence has its origin in the United States, but the culture of that country is not the same as in other countries, including the United Kingdom, and what is appropriate in the United States is not always appropriate elsewhere.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, asked for clarification that the Bill is not intended in any way to restrict the traditional role of the judiciary in deciding upon the balance to be struck and maintained between the right to a good reputation and the right to free expression. I am happy to assure the noble Lord that there is no intention to restrict that traditional role. If the noble Lord apprehends that there is some provision in the Bill which could be taken to suggest otherwise, we should certainly wish to look again at that provision and do something about it.
Finally, before concluding, I wish to address the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The Government have taken note of the point raised by the noble and learned Lord and will be pleased to consider it further at Committee stage.
In conclusion, I am grateful for the warm support which the Bill has received and for the contributions made by your Lordships in this Second Reading debate. It is now with pleasure and confidence that I reiterate the Motion standing in the name of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I hope he can assist me on a number of specific questions that I raised.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my noble friend will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I was about to suggest that. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, said that her noble friend will write to me. I was about to say that so, as always, we agree. I ought to say that the Minister has done manfully well in winding up for the Government in this difficult area. The questions that I raised concerned criminal libel—Clause 20; previous convictions relating only to conclusive proof in so far as a plaintiff is concerned; and the question of allegations relating to an area distinct in the plaintiff's life from that which was sued upon. I was not going to suggest—I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, quite understood this, which is why she assisted me—that I should be given an immediate reply. However, I believe it would be helpful generally if we had the Government's considered view on that. I take it that the Government have a considered view on these matters.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, by the definition of things, the Government have a considered view on everything. I shall, of course, write with the replies to the noble Lord.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I should be most grateful if the same courtesy could be extended in respect of my questions about statutory privilege.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, of course that will be the case.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I hope my point on legal aid for the fast-track procedure will be answered.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I shall willingly write to almost everyone.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I hope there will be copies in the Library.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before four o'clock.

  Department of Agriculture: Watercourse Management Division
  Department of Agriculture: Watercourse Management Division
  Jubilee Line Extension: Private Sector Contributions
  Jubilee Line Extension: Private Sector Contributions
  HGV Drivers: Vision Tests
  HGV Drivers: Vision Tests
  Railfreight Distribution: Study
  Railfreight Distribution: Study
  Bus Companies: Local Authority Ownership
  Bus Companies: Local Authority Ownership
  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Malnutrition Screening
  Malnutrition Screening
  Antidepressant Drugs: NHS Costs
  Antidepressant Drugs: NHS Costs
  Electroconvulsive Therapy: Related Deaths
  Electroconvulsive Therapy: Related Deaths
  Electro-shock Treatment
  Electro-shock Treatment
  Nitrate in Vegetables: EC Legislation
  Nitrate in Vegetables: EC Legislation