Sitting of 14 March 1996

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

  CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Promoters of the City of Westminster Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
  That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as were made by him in the last Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during any previous Session.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered again upon Wednesday 20 March at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Magazines (Teenage Girls)
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what meetings he has held with the publishers of magazines for teenage girls to discuss a code of conduct for their publications; and if he will make a statement. [18982]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): I recently met representatives of magazine publishers and retailers to discuss the widely expressed concerns about the suitability for young people of the material contained in some magazines for teenage girls.
    1090
    The publishers and retailers agreed to set up a working party which would draw up guidelines to deal with this problem. I look forward to receiving its proposals.
    Mr. Luff: On a day when the innocence of childhood is inevitably at the forefront of all our minds, may I thank my hon. Friend sincerely for the robust and tough position that he has taken in discussions with the publishers? May I urge him to continue in that vein? Does he agree that their claims merely to be offering information to young teenage girls are, at best, disingenuous, and that in reality they are using sex to boost sales?
    Mr. Sackville: I thank my hon. Friend for what he said. The more that I have learnt about the subject since he introduced the Periodicals (Protection of Children) Bill, the more I have realised that, whatever agony aunts and others may say, the material in question is not merely a sex education service. Sex is being used to make money, unfortunately in this instance at the expense of the innocence of children and young people. I think that my hon. Friend did us all a service in introducing his Bill and highlighting another area in which standards of public decency and morality are falling.

    Fire Service
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he plans to take to ensure that the fire service is adequately resourced. [18983]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): The financial provision for fire brigades is decided by fire authorities. They are obliged to set budgets which will enable them to comply with their statutory duties under the Fire Services Act 1947. Total finance available to local authorities for 1996–97 will increase by 3.3 per cent. over 1995–96.
    Mr. Canavan: Is the Home Secretary aware that the Chief Fire Officers Association has taken the unprecedented step of writing to all Members complaining about a shortfall of over £80 million between the current expenditure of the fire service and the formal allocations as expressed in the revenue support grant? The Fire Brigades Union has consequently warned of a crisis whereby the fire brigades will be unable to meet their statutory minimum standards of firefighting, rescue and other emergency services. Will the Government intervene to ensure that the fire service is given adequate resources, bearing it in mind that Government negligence could be putting lives at risk?
    Mr. Howard: The 3.3 per cent. increase in finance that will be available to local authorities in the next financial year is clearly sufficient to enable proper provision to be made for fire authorities and for the fire service. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the Audit Commission, in its report on the fire service, found that savings of up to £67 million a year—that is 5 per cent. of total expenditure on the service—could be saved if efficiency improvements were made.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: I recognise the increased funding to the fire services and the fact that there could be increased efficiency, but will my right hon. and learned

    1091
    Friend accept that there is a resourcing problem, based on the cost of future pension provision? The structure needs to be examined to ensure that more and more finance will go directly to help fighting fires rather than to paying for pensions. Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider that and return to the House with his response?
    Mr. Howard: We have indeed considered that. It was as a consequence of the requirement to fund pensions that special extra provision was made for the financing of pensions in this year's settlement. Cheshire county council has a 3.1 per cent. increase in its overall budget in 1996–97 as compared to 1995–96, and I believe that that enables it to make provision for funding its fire service.

    Nationality Legislation
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend nationality legislation to allow the transmission of citizenship to the grandchildren of British citizens; and if he will make a statement. [18984]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): None. We remain of the view that, as a general rule, British citizenship should not be transmitted beyond the first generation born abroad.
    Mr. MacShane: I am disappointed by that response. I am raising this issue on behalf of the many hundreds of thousands, if not now millions, of British citizens who work and live overseas. If they have children, those children are British, but if they, in turn, live abroad and have children, nationality will not be transmitted to the grandchildren of the first generation, save by grace and favour on the part of the Home Secretary. That situation is causing real concern. We have asylum problems, and there does have to be a cut-off, but the grandchildren of British citizens should be allowed to remain British.
    Mr. Kirkhope: The position—as it was deemed right by the House in the 1970s, and supported by the Labour party in its Green Paper—is that citizenship should be a mixture of rights and duties, that there should be some commitment on the part of those who seek to acquire it and that there must be some concern and interest with the country of their choice. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I am not able to give him the assurances that he is seeking, but, as he knows, there are certain exceptions to the rule. If he has an individual case that he would like me to consider, I should be pleased to do so.
    Sir Donald Thompson: None the less, will my hon. Friend ensure that people who work abroad are made aware of the position? My first grandson was born this week. His mother went to considerable trouble to come home from Spain to ensure that he was born here so that a problem would not arise when his—Edward Thompson's—children come to be born, perhaps somewhere else in the world. It is incumbent on us to ensure that British people working abroad should go to as much trouble as necessary to come here to have their children.
    Mr. Kirkhope: I fully accept what my hon. Friend says. Certainly in his own family's case, the necessary actions were taken to ensure that citizenship would pass to the children. We look sympathetically at cases involving people who work—particularly in the interests of this country—abroad.

    Doncaster and Buckley Hall Prisons
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on LEK Partnership's conclusions in respect of HMP Doncaster and HMP Buckley Hall and their public comparator group. [18985]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): The study by LEK evaluated the costs of private sector prisons with the most nearly comparable public sector prisons on 1993–94 data. The results showed that the cost per place was 21 per cent. lower for Doncaster and 26 per cent. lower for Buckley Hall than for comparable public sector prisons. The Prison Service has commissioned Coopers and Lybrand to update the study using 1994–95 data. I expect to have the findings by the end of this month.
    Mr. Loyden: Does the Minister acknowledge, on the evidence that has been provided by her Department, that private prison costs—per year, per prisoner—are £200 more than costs for Prison Service accommodation? When will she realise that she should scrap the privatisation of prisons and return to the use of state prisons?
    Miss Widdecombe: Let me try to help the hon. Gentleman out of his confusion. He is quite wrong in the interpretation that he has given to the House. The costs that he quotes for public sector prisons do not take account of significant costs that the Prison Service meets centrally, such as clothing, equipment, materials, uniforms and training. Furthermore, those figures, which were based on 1994–95 data, do not take account of the high start-up costs in the private sector.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very strange that when private prisons, on a like-for-like basis, are cheaper and private escort agencies are very much cheaper than the service that is provided by the state, the Labour party still wants to have everything done by the state rather than by the private sector? May we have an assurance that the new prisons referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend a few weeks ago will be provided by the private sector and not by the state sector?
    Miss Widdecombe: I can indeed confirm that the prisons that my right hon. and learned Friend announced will be financed through the private finance initiative. My hon. Friend is right to say that it is extraordinary that, when all the advantages lie with the private sector, the Opposition still say on ideological grounds that privatisation is not working. Privatisation was found to work by many studies and was recommended by General Learmont when he conducted his studies. People who have been to Blakenhurst, including Lord Longford,

    1093
    have praised that prison. There is uniform recognition that such prisons have added to the richness of prison life and are doing a good job at a decent cost—
    Mr. Straw: Regimes.
    Miss Widdecombe: Yes, regimes are part of the richness of prison life. The shadow Home Secretary clearly thinks it is funny when we talk about constructive activity. He thinks that education and work for prisoners is funny. That shows how serious the Opposition are about anything at all.
    Ms Lynne: Is the Minister aware that there has been a catalogue of errors and blunders at Buckley Hall prison in Rochdale? It seems to have a far worse record than other category C prisons. For example, 10 prisoners have not returned from authorised leave, and one ex-inmate described it as a time-bomb ticking away. Will the Minister instigate a full inquiry into the running of Buckley Hall by Group 4?
    Miss Widdecombe: Buckley Hall performs well in a number of spheres and should be praised for that, but the hon. Lady is right to draw attention to particular concerns that have been expressed, and that the Prison Service is now investigating.
    Mr. George Howarth: I shall take this slowly, so that we all understand. Will the Minister confirm that she has argued, on previous occasions and again today, that the 13.3 per cent. cuts proposed in the Prison Service over the next three years can be made from savings resulting from privatisation? Indeed, the Home Secretary has argued the same case. Will the Minister now admit that the truth, which has been confirmed in parliamentary answers from her Department via the Prison Service, is that, when like is compared with like, it costs £200 a year more to keep a prisoner in a privatised prison? Will she admit that what she said previously and her earlier answer today are wrong, and will she now tell the House how she is going to make 13.3 per cent. cuts over the next three years when all the evidence is that privatised prisons are a dearer option?
    Miss Widdecombe: First, we have never said that all those savings will come from the private sector alone. We expect efficiency savings to be made across the Prison Service as a whole. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman spoke very slowly, but I think that he was waiting for his own understanding to catch up with him. I made it abundantly clear in my answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) that the particular figures that he quoted were not strictly comparable precisely because there are costs taken into account in one which are not taken into account in the other.

    Police (New Technology)
    Mr. Tipping: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to fund developments in new technology to free police officers from paperwork and administrative duties. [18987]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): The development of new technology for the police service is one of my highest priorities and resources are being provided accordingly. The private finance initiative has a major part to play in bringing forward new systems which will streamline the administrative burden on the police.
    Mr. Tipping: Is this not a Government who have piled one lot of paperwork on top of another through successive Criminal Justice Acts? Is this not a Government who have cut the number of police officers by 186 between September 1992 and March 1995? Is this not a Government who plan to cut capital expenditure next year by £23 million? Are those not prime examples of the Government saying one thing but doing another?
    Mr. Maclean: That was a prime example of an hon. Member being handed a question which he did not understand and reading it out verbatim. If he bothers to look at the facts, he will find that we are revolutionising police work by new systems—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Reading."] If the hon. Gentleman bothers to look at the facts, he will see that we are revolutionising police work by the introduction of the new national automated fingerprint identification system, NAFIS, costing £100 million; of the Phoenix police national computer, also at enormous cost; and of the new digital radio systems for the police, on which development work is proceeding apace, which will cost about £500 million. All in all, we have spent £750 million on police technology during the past five years and we expect to spend the same during the next five years.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that detailed and helpful response to the original question. Does he accept that closed circuit television is also a new technology, the installation of which in town centres can be of immense benefit to the police in reducing and deterring crime? Will my right hon. Friend consider sympathetically an application that is shortly to be submitted to his Department by Macclesfield borough council and the Cheshire constabulary for the installation of closed circuit television in Macclesfield, a development that is widely supported by retailers, local people and their Member of Parliament?
    Mr. Maclean: The people of Macclesfield have no better advocate for their CCTV system than my hon. Friend. We are not just sympathetic to CCTV technology; we have positively encouraged it, with the £5 million of taxpayers' money that we put into the scheme last year and the £15 million that we are putting into it this year. With the future promises of expenditure on CCTV, we believe that we can have a further 10,000 CCTV cameras around Britain.
    Mr. Winterton: And in Macclesfield?
    Mr. Maclean: We shall consider carefully all applications, including that from Macclesfield, and the hundreds of others that I expect to receive.

    Immigration
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he received from the Foreign Secretary his decision supporting India as a candidate for designation as a country where there is in general no serious risk of persecution. [18988]
    Miss Widdecombe: It is not the practice to disclose ministerial correspondence between Departments, but I can confirm that the proposal to designate India and the other six countries, to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred on Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, represents the joint view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
    Mr. Madden: Is it not extraordinary that the Government are so reluctant to reveal when the Foreign Secretary confirmed that India was to be a candidate for designation and that the Home Office and the Foreign Office have still not published the information on which that decision has been taken? Bearing in mind the reports of Amnesty International and Asia Watch that systematic and serious human rights violations are taking place in virtually every state in the Indian union, a popular insurrection has been under way in Kashmir since 1990 and serious human rights violations take place on an almost daily basis in Punjab, is that not an extraordinary scenario, in which neither the Home Secretary nor the Foreign Secretary can say that this is a country where there is no general risk of persecution?
    Miss Widdecombe: It has never been the case that where a country is declared to be generally safe, we say that there is therefore no risk whatever to any individual within that country. We have made it clear, and I should like to make it clear again, that individual applications for asylum will be treated on their merits and that it will not be the case that, just because an applicant comes from a designated country, the application will therefore be refused in every circumstance. Even at the moment, from those countries from which we refuse a high percentage of applications—98 to 99 per cent.—a small number still get through. We would not expect that position to change.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, while those who have a good case for asylum—even though their country is on the designated list—will be received into Britain as, rightly, they always have been, many of my constituents with ties and family in India will greatly resent the inference of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) that India is not a friendly, democratic country and one with which we should have good relations?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I can only echo what he said. The designated list is designed to enable us to deal with countries that produce a large number of applications, of which a large percentage are found to be without foundation, and which are generally recognised as safe. That does not—I say this again because I do not want any misunderstanding on this point—negate the individual claimant's right to have his or her claim fully and properly considered.
    Mr. Khabra: I fully understand the concerns, rattlings and prejudice of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) about the Indian situation. Does the Minister agree that Pakistan's treatment of minorities is worse—the country that my hon. Friend blindly supports?
    Miss Widdecombe: I can only repeat that if individuals from Pakistan. India or any other country on the list can make a case that shows that they individually have a well-founded fear of persecution, they will be looked after according to our time-honoured tradition of being a haven.

    Crime Prevention Initiatives
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking to improve the co-ordination and promotion of crime prevention initiatives. [18989]
    Mr. Maclean: A new Crime Prevention Agency has been set up to promote the co-ordination of crime prevention strategy and the effective delivery of crime prevention initiatives on the ground where it really matters.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does the Minister agree that, although it is essential that no effort is spared in catching and bringing criminals to justice, crime prevention is still very important? Is he aware that in King's Lynn a comprehensive CCTV scheme is now in place and that it has already had a remarkable impact in reducing crime? Will he join me in paying tribute to the borough council, the police and local business men who got the scheme off the ground? Further to the characteristically robust question that was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), I suggest that he contacts the borough council in King's Lynn to find out how it is done.
    Mr. Maclean: The last suggestion of my hon. Friend might be rather dangerous. Our hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) does not need to do that; he can get the Home Office guide, which we have helpfully produced so that all who wish to install CCTV can see how it is done. I believe that it quotes the example of King's Lynn, which is famous for its success in CCTV. Of course, CCTV is not only in King's Lynn but in Fakenham, Norwich, Breckland and the Breckland five towns of Thetford, Dereham, Attleborough, Swaffham and Watton.
    We are not pushing ahead with just CCTV. Crime prevention is crucial. The Crime Prevention Agency is pushing ahead with initiatives on secured car parks and initiatives to reduce car crime, lorry theft and theft of heavy plant and equipment, and is looking at all aspects of technology in the fight against crime.
    Mr. Cohen: Is it not time to tighten up with stringent mental health and suitability checks before any application for a gun licence is approved?
    Mr. Maclean: We should first wait to find out the full facts before any hon. Member jumps to conclusions about what the solutions may be in future. All I can say, judging by the information that I have had so far—we should

    1097
    await the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland today—and having looked at the recommendations of the Firearms Consultative Committee, is that I have not seen anything that could have prevented yesterday's tragedy. All of us, as legislators and politicians, should be humble enough to accept that some things may be beyond our ability to solve or control.
    Dame Jill Knight: May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that on top of all the very important initiatives that have already been placed on record by the Home Secretary, it is also important to have one more try with the BBC, with those who produce films and videos and, in particular, those who license them, because there seems no doubt that they have a copy-cat effect in many cases? May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the film "Natural Born Killers" should not just be temporarily placed back but be put in the waste bin for ever?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend has made a characteristically correct point, which the House should consider carefully. Comment overnight has tended to focus on weapons and their availability and use, but perhaps we should also look at the beginning of the cycle, and ask what makes someone want to commit such an act in the first place. I have read in history books that many people returned from the first and second world wars with a lot of weapons, but only in the past 20 years, during which films and television have shown violence of this nature, have such incidents taken place.
    Again, however, it may be dangerous for us to speculate in that way until the facts have been fully established. For the moment, I prefer to console the bereaved, and to offer them our sincere condolences, and our prayer that they may one day discover peace.

    Causes of Crime (Research)
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent research his Department has evaluated on the correlation between social and economic conditions and crime. [18990]
    Mr. Howard: A wide range of Government and independent studies on that subject have been evaluated by my Department, including recently published Home Office research by Graham and Bowling into why some young people commit crime.
    Mr. Prentice: Is there not a close and direct correlation between unemployment, especially youth unemployment, and crime, notably violent crime—a correlation that Conservative Members have consistently denied? If I am wrong about that, will the Home Secretary tell me why this year, for the first time, the police grant includes an element that specifically addresses youth unemployment?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken: research has not uncovered any link between unemployment levels and crime. However, this is one of the most arid arguments that it is possible to have. We recognise that unemployment is a social evil, whether or not it causes crime, and we pursue policies that bring unemployment down. The Labour party pursues policies—such as the introduction of the social chapter
    1098
    and the minimum wage—that increase unemployment. That can be seen from the figure for youth unemployment in France, of 27.7 per cent., and that for Spain, of 38.2 per cent., which is double the figure in this country.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is it not outrageous that many people suggest that all those who are unemployed, and all those on low incomes, become criminals? That is an insult to the many law-abiding citizens who are unemployed, often through no fault of their own. Unemployed people should not all be put in the same category.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The vast majority of unemployed people are law-abiding citizens, and it casts a slur on them to suggest that unemployment is in any sense an excuse for crime.
    Mr. Straw: While nothing could or should excuse the commission of crime, does the Home Secretary agree that high unemployment levels, especially among young people, contribute considerably to increasing the number of people who are tempted into a criminal life? Was not Lord Whitelaw—another Conservative Home Secretary—entirely correct when he said exactly that?
    Mr. Howard: The question originally put by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) was about research. Research has not uncovered any link between unemployment and crime—particularly violent crime, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I repeat: if the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is so keen to reduce unemployment, why does he not persuade his party to abandon its policies on the social chapter and the minimum wage—and, indeed, the policies that would consign 16 to 18-year-olds straight from school to the dole queue? Unlike the Government, the hon. Gentleman's party would not make training compulsory for 16 to 18-year-olds, and would encourage them to become unemployed.
    Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, during the 1930s, when more than 20 per cent. of the work force was unemployed, crime was at almost its lowest ever point? In the context of his last answer, will he join me in congratulating Kent training and enterprise council on its current remarkable programme under which several hundred youngsters from the worst and most difficult conditions, many of them with criminal records, are given work experience courses to prepare them for training? It includes, where necessary, physically getting them out of bed in the morning.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the levels of unemployment and crime in the 1930s. I am happy to join him in endorsing the excellent work that is being carried out by Kent training and enterprise council.
    Mr. Alton: Where there are sink estates and deprived social conditions, does the Secretary of State agree—to return to the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight)—that the constant flow of violence via television and video contributes to the culture of violence?
    As the House is soon to consider a broadcasting Bill, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give parents the chance to have a V-chip inserted in their television sets

    1099
    so that they can sift out the violence that is being poured into their homes? What does he propose to do about James Ferman's decision—and that of the British Board of Film Classification—to license for home viewing, and therefore for access by children, a film as outrageous as the one to which the hon. Member for Edgbaston referred—"Natural Born Killers"—which glorifies violence, the killing, maiming or brutalising of 50 people and the amoral consequence of no one being held to account at the end of the film? People drive off into the sunset as if the matter were entirely neutral.
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have a great deal of sympathy for the general view with which he began his question. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is considering making the chip to which the hon. Gentleman referred available in this country. The hon. Gentleman asked about the British Board of Film Classification. He and I co-operated on strengthening the legislation that deals with such matters. It makes greater the ease and availability of judicial review for the board's decisions, and anyone who feels aggrieved by the decision to which the hon. Gentleman referred can take that avenue.

    Police Patrolling
    Sir Michael Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recommendations of the Audit Commission in relation to police patrolling. [18991]
    Mr. Maclean: I recognise the value to the public of effective patrols by the police. I therefore welcome the report and we and the police service will look carefully at its recommendations.
    Sir Michael Shersby: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Audit Commission's conclusion that traditional beat-style policing needs to be nurtured? Does he also agree that that type of policing is highly effective in dealing with street crime and vandalism, and that that view is widely shared by the public, not least my constituents in Uxbridge?
    Mr. Maclean: That view is shared by the constituents of every hon. Member. Not only do the Government agree that beat patrolling has a valid role to play and should be nurtured, but we have taken positive steps to enhance it further. It is not just the extra 15,000 officers whom we have recruited since 1979 that is proof of our nurturing of the police service, or the extra 17,000 civilians who have released more bobbies for the beat, but the commitment to 5,000 more officers specifically to enhance the visible presence on the streets which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has promised and for which we have started to give out funding.
    Mr. Michael: Does the Minister accept that the importance of patrolling is that it reinforces the traditional and mutual confidence between the police and the public? Does he accept that, to allow the police to concentrate on their job and to reassure the public, it is important to create a real partnership between the police, the local authority and the local community to fight crime, as advocated by the Labour party? Will he commend the
    1100
    local authorities that have joined local police to adopt such an approach and stop obstructing the legislative framework that they need and which was recommended by the Government's own Morgan report?
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman should get into the latter part of the 20th century. The Morgan report is so old hat these days that local authorities and police partnerships are being created all over Britain without compulsion or regulation. The hon. Gentleman must decide. He is inconsistent. He asks me to acknowledge the tremendous success of partnerships and goes on to say that we must have statutory regulation to create partnerships. It is illogical nonsense. We do not need legislation because, throughout the country, partnerships are being created by voluntary means. People come together to help the police. They know that that is in their best interests. That is our policy, and it is working.

    Burglars (Custodial Sentences)
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of burglars are given a custodial sentence; and what is the average length of time spent in prison by such offenders. [18992]
    Mr. Howard: On the basis of a recent sample, a custodial sentence is imposed on 67 per cent. of people convicted of domestic burglary in the Crown court and on 22 per cent. of people convicted in magistrates courts. Average sentence lengths were 16.8 months in the Crown court and 3.9 months in the magistrates courts. Roughly half the sentence passed is spent in prison.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those figures illustrate the need for courts not only to give longer sentences, but to give exceptionally long sentences to repeat offenders? May I urge him to press on with his proposals to introduce minimum sentences for repeat offenders and to reject the views of the judiciary?
    Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend that the public need greater protection from persistent burglars' activities. By and large, the sentences passed by the courts on persistent burglars are inadequate. That is why there is a strong case for the introduction of minimum mandatory sentences for such burglars.
    Mr. Simpson: What is the success rate of such sentences, compared with non-custodial sentences, in deterring future criminal behaviour? When does the Home Secretary plan to come before the House with a serious programme of commitments to reparation schemes in the community? Why does he insist on withdrawing funding from preventive schemes that have a record of working?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to hear that the recidivism rate for people leaving prison is lower than that for people who have community sentences passed on them or who have probation orders made in respect of them. When one takes into account the fact that people sentenced to prison tend to be the most serious

    1101
    offenders, sentenced for the most serious offences, that is a surprising fact and not, I suspect, the answer that he thought he would receive.
    Mr. Butterfill: Is not burglary a crime in respect of which there is a much higher repeat offending level? In those circumstances, is not it clear that the present sentencing level is an inadequate deterrent?
    Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend that the public are especially at risk from persistent, prolific burglars. It is in relation to those persistent offenders that the case for minimum mandatory sentences is strongest.

    Carl Bridgewater
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral answer of 15 February, Official Report, column 1126, when it was first disclosed that two unidentified fingerprints were found on the bicycle belonging to Carl Bridgewater; and if he will make a statement. [18993]
    Mr. Kirkhope: The solicitors knew in November 1988, if not before, that there were two unidentified fingerprints. Papers disclosed by the Crown Prosecution Service on 22 December 1994 included the information that those prints were on the bicycle.
    Mr. Mullin: I still do not think that the Minister is facing up to the facts. It was 16 years, not nine—although nine is long enough—before unidentified fingerprints were disclosed in the Carl Bridgewater case. Who knows? As the Minister is probably aware, today is the fifth anniversary of the release of the Birmingham Six. Many people regard the Carl Bridgewater case as a litmus test of whether we have learnt any lessons from the mistakes of the past. The progress so far has not been promising.
    Mr. Kirkhope: I am sorry, but I dispute that. The hon. Gentleman must know that, following the provisional conclusions of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that this matter should not be referred back, the solicitors for the applicants were asked to make further representations. They have done so in part and we await hearing from them as to any other representations that they wish to make before a final decision is taken.

    Probation Service
    Mr. Berry: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of his removal of all training requirements on the provision of an effective probation service. [18994]
    Mr. Sackville: The opportunity has now been provided to establish, with the profession, a flexible training scheme designed to meet the needs of a modern probation service.
    Mr. Berry: Does the Minister recognise that the lack of appropriate training puts both probation officers and the public at risk? Which professional associations support his view on this matter?
    Mr. Sackville: I am very glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that my noble Friend Baroness Blatch has written to representatives of the management, of the profession and of higher education and expects to meet them shortly to establish exactly the sort of flexible training scheme that the probation service needs. The work of the probation service is much too important for these sort of party points.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my hon. Friend agree that the new arrangements will facilitate the right people coming into the probation service, such as those coming out of the armed forces or the police, who will do a far better job than people who are merely social workers?
    Mr. Sackville: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that the disciplines required are criminology, psychology and a whole host of others, including some training in sociology. To tell highly qualified people who apply to join the service, "You are fine, but now you have to go and do two years' social work training," is not the way to get the right people into the profession.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Booth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March. [19012]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Booth: Will my right hon. Friend join me and others in the House in expressing our outrage and horror at the appalling deaths and killings in Dunblane yesterday?
    The Prime Minister: Yesterday was an event of almost unimaginable horror. We can only begin to guess at the impact it will have upon the families and the whole community. I know that the whole House will wish to join me in extending our sympathy to the families of the children and their teacher who were killed and to the children and the other teachers who were injured in yesterday's attack. Many questions will have to be addressed and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will make a fuller statement at the end of Question Time.
    Mr. Blair: May I agree with what the Prime Minister has said and simply add this: Britain today is a nation in mourning. Our senses are in a state of shock, bewildered at the sheer horror of what happened. Not war, nor a catastrophe of nature, nor human error was this, but a massacre of innocents without cause and without reason. How many parents last night will have clutched their own children to them, looking at them differently and imagining the pain which, for others, is all too real?
    Politics is silent today. We grieve. We hope that this dark shadow can in time be lifted. We stand in solidarity with the community of Dunblane and we pay our respects.
    The Prime Minister: Sometimes, after a tragedy, there is little we can say that we feel will bring comfort to the people concerned. After yesterday's tragedy, I believe that that is a feeling that everyone in this House will understand. Words seem inadequate; I feel that today.
    The right hon. Gentleman's words will find a echo in the heart of every parent in the House and right across the country. What happened yesterday cannot be understood and must not be forgotten. It was an act of wickedness beyond imagination and I do not believe that anyone can be unmoved by that, either now or at any time in the future. What we must now do is look to the interests of the children, their families and the others who were injured and see what external help can be given—perhaps by this House, but by others as well—to try to play some part in putting that community together again.
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March. [19013]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evennett: In the wake of the appalling tragedy in Dunblane yesterday, will my right hon. Friend urge the media to exercise the maximum possible restraint to allow that community to grieve in private?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly join my hon. Friend in that request. There is a code of practice on privacy for such occasions. I hope very much that that code of practice will be rigorously observed on this occasion.
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March. [19014]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wigley: As someone who, before entering the House, lived in the borough of Merthyr Tydfil not far from Aberfan, may I convey the sympathy of Wales to the people of Dunblane and to all the families who have suffered loss? Does the Prime Minister accept that playing with guns can at times mean playing with lives? It should always be a certainty that neither personal indulgences nor vested interests come before assuring the safety of communities and the avoiding of tragedies such as the tragedy that happened yesterday.
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's early words will be well received everywhere. On the subject of gun control, clearly my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will wish to consider the implications of the incident for any future changes in firearms control. There is of course a Firearms Consultative Committee that, as a statutory body, constantly keeps legislation under review. Its purpose is to review the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. I know that it issued a statement this morning saying that it does not propose to express a view on the matter in
    1104
    advance of the conclusions of the fatal accident inquiry, but that it will want to consider the implications for future firearms legislation or practice.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March. [19015]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thompson: Speaking as a former teacher and in the aftermath of the awful tragedy yesterday, may I ask my right hon. Friend to reinforce the tributes that are rightly paid to head teachers and teachers who put the welfare and safety of their children above all else?
    The Prime Minister: It is not very many weeks ago that the House and the country were mourning the death of another teacher, Mr. Lawrence, who was murdered outside his school by being stabbed to death. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has told me, both last night and this morning, of the courage of teachers at the school. I particularly single out the courage and performance of the headmaster, Mr. Taylor, who had appalling circumstances to deal with yesterday, but, I am informed, dealt with them with the greatest possible courage in every respect. I am happy to join my hon. Friend, himself a former head teacher, in that tribute.
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: Dunblane is a small, close-knit community and no doubt that closeness will stand it in good stead as it grieves over the appalling slaughter of innocent children and their dedicated teacher. Will the Prime Minister convey to the people of Dunblane that their grieving is shared by the whole country; every parent in the land is grieving with them? In particular, will he convey to the people of Dunblane the horror and sadness of my constituents and Londoners across our capital city who feel today that they are part of that small, close-knit community?
    The Prime Minister: I shall happily convey the hon. Lady's thoughts when I have the opportunity of visiting Dunblane tomorrow. She speaks for the attitude of every parent in the country. For a small number of parents, yesterday was a day of horror that they could never have imagined. The thought has flitted across the minds of every other parent in the country that it might have been their son or their daughter on that occasion.
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March. [19016]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Butler: In common with many colleagues in the House, I went home last night to see my own children for exactly the reasons given by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). I associate myself with everything that has been said. May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his sense of priorities, which led him to take a day out this week to attend the conference against terrorism in Egypt? Terrorism so often—and deliberately—causes the sort of grief,

    1105
    slaughter and horror that was caused by one evil mad man yesterday. May I urge my right hon. Friend to do all that he can to play a full part in the international war against that most evil of activities?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that the summit in Sharm el-Sheikh was a very useful and worthwhile occasion. It was the first time that I can recall when so many Heads of Government from different parts of the world met specifically to deal with the problems of terrorism and how to curtail and defeat it. The summit not only condemned terrorism in very strong temis but, more practically, laid the foundations for a programme of international co-operation in anti-terrorist activities. I think that everyone will welcome that.
    The first meeting to follow yesterday's summit will take place within the next fortnight, and I hope that we shall see practical and worthwhile co-operation that will make the terrorist's life much more difficult than it has been hitherto. That is the determination of the Governments who met yesterday, and I look forward to seeing it carried into practice.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March. [19017]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Further to the Prime Minister's answer to a previous question, I too share the grief of the mourning families in Dunblane. Does he share my concern that journalists and other pundits have spent much time, recently, blaming Israel for its attitude to the Hamas terrorists, just as they blamed the Prime Minister for holding back the peace in Northern Ireland, when they should put responsibility on the terrorists who continue the terror?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I agree, without qualification, with everything that he has said.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rule of law should always prevail in a democracy? On this day, above all others, as we discuss the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, does he agree that the House should agree unanimously to the measures? Does he agree also that terrorism and violence by the gun or by the bomb should be rooted out wherever they occur?
    The Prime Minister: I think that that would be the unanimous view in dealing very severely with terrorists. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 has proved indispensable as part of our armoury against terrorism. It is vital that its powers are continued by the House.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: The Prime Minister's decision to visit Dunblane will be deeply appreciated by everyone in
    1106
    Scotland. Does he accept my assurance that we shall all co-operate to give the fullest support to that community in whatever action is necessary in view of this tragic and terrible event?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. I hope that everyone will understand that I visit Dunblane as a representative of the House: it is in that spirit that I conduct my visit.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the terrible tragedy will focus the prayers of the nation on mothering Sunday this weekend? Does he agree that it would be a proper mark of respect if people observed a period of silence on Sunday to remember the children and their teacher and to pray together as a nation?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that, now and up to and beyond Sunday, many people will remember the events at Dunblane. Perhaps it would be particularly appropriate if the churches were just a little more crowded on Sunday.
    Sir David Steel: As one who was married in Dunblane cathedral and who therefore regards it as a place of particular happiness and serenity cruelly shattered, I support the Prime Minister's decision to visit Dunblane tomorrow on behalf of the House. I add the thanks of the House to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), for the way in which they represented the interests of the House yesterday to that grieving community.
    Although I do not suggest that anything could have prevented the madness of yesterday, will the Prime Minister ask his relevant ministerial colleagues to look again at the report of the Firearms Consultative Committee and see whether further steps can be taken in response to its recommendations without relating it to yesterday's episode?
    The Prime Minister: As to the right hon. Gentleman's second point, those matters will need to be examined, and I assure him that we shall do so with an open mind. On his first point, I echo the tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) who, together, visited Dunblane yesterday. That was appropriate, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he did on that occasion.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While we contemplate this horror, is it not wonderful that the love of children has brought the House together? I pray that it will do so more often.
    The Prime Minister: Sometimes our political disputes, whether they involve great or small matters, seem very petty beside human matters. I think that this is one such occasion.
    Madam Speaker: I think that we will take the statement now.

Dunblane Primary School (Shooting)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): It is with profound sadness that I have to report on the tragic event that took place at Dunblane, which is in my constituency, yesterday. Hon. Members will understand the deep shock and distress afflicting the people of Dunblane, and our first thoughts must be with the families of those who were killed and injured. Our deepest sympathies go out to them at this terrible time.
The House will appreciate that police inquiries into the matter are continuing; therefore, I shall confine my remarks to the facts surrounding the incident, so far as they have been established.
At approximately 9.15 am yesterday, an armed man, identified by the police as Thomas Hamilton, entered Dunblane primary school and opened fire on children and staff who were in the school gymnasium. Fifteen of the children who were shot and their teacher died within the school. One child died later in hospital. Three adults and 12 other children were wounded. The gunman shot himself and died within the school.
As soon as I was informed of this dreadful event, accompanied by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), I went to Dunblane, where we were joined by my hon. Friend the Scottish Education Minister, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson). What we witnessed there encompassed both the worst and the best of which humanity is capable. In contrast to the stark evil of the crime, doctors, teachers, police, ambulance personnel and other caring professions, Church leaders and volunteers worked unsparingly to save life and console the bereaved.
In particular, I want to pay the highest possible tribute to Mr. Ron Taylor, headmaster of Dunblane primary school, for his heroic efforts to save the lives of his dying pupils in circumstances too harrowing to be recounted in detail. Hon. Members will wish to join me also in a tribute to Mrs. Gwen Mayor, the dedicated teacher who was gunned down in the midst of her charges. Mrs. Mayor was an exceptionally gifted teacher, who had given 10 years' service to the school, and our heartfelt sympathy goes out to her husband Rodney and their two daughters.
I would also like to extend the sympathy of the House to Aileen Harild, the PE teacher, and to the teaching assistants, Mary Blake and Gwen Tweddle, who were all injured. Our teachers carry the immeasurable responsibility of moulding the character of the next generation. In this tragic case, a teacher lost her life in the course of fulfilling that responsibility.
I would also like to pay tribute to the chief constable of central Scotland, William Wilson, and his officers, to the procurator fiscal at Stirling, and to the medical teams supervised by Dr. Jack Beattie, as well as the staff in the hospitals at Stirling, Falkirk and Yorkhill, who carried out their duties superbly in the most distressing circumstances. All the public services involved deserve the praise of the House, and our recognition of the trauma that will continue to live with them.
The Lord Advocate and I believe that this terrible tragedy should be thoroughly and fully investigated. We believe that it is desirable and necessary that an inquiry should be undertaken by a Senator of the College of
1108
Justice—a senior Scottish judge. Lord Cullen, who conducted the public inquiry into the Piper Alpha disaster, has agreed to undertake that responsibility. The Lord Advocate plans to meet him and the Lord President of the Court of Session tomorrow to discuss the procedures that the inquiry should follow.
Her Majesty the Queen yesterday sent her condolences to all those affected by this unspeakable deed. The Queen and the Princess Royal have both expressed a wish to visit Dunblane as soon as circumstances make that appropriate, and I can tell the House that they will be going there on Monday.
Hon. Members will share my sense of the inadequacy of any attempt we make in this House to offer consolation to the families devastated by this vile crime. The cold-blooded slaughter of tiny children is beyond atrocity. I know that I speak for the whole House when I say to the stricken families of Dunblane: "Our deepest sympathy and our prayers are with you and for you. You have the support of countless people around the world in your grief."
Tomorrow night, the people of Dunblane will be holding a vigil for their dead, their injured and their bereaved. I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that the prayers and thoughts of all hon. Members will be with them. The whole nation mourns.
Mr. George Robertson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement, and for his consideration and kindness in inviting me to join him in Dunblane yesterday. I agree with every word that the right hon. Gentleman said. I warmly welcome the fact that Her Majesty the Queen will visit the town next Monday.
There will not be a single person in this country who would not have wakened this morning hoping beyond hope that yesterday was just a bad dream; so there will be nobody today who will not experience huge sadness and dismay on realising that it did all happen.
One does not need to have lived in the town of Dunblane or to have seen three children go through Dunblane primary school to share the grief, horror and sheer desolation that our town feels today—one just has to be a fellow human being. It was that worst of all possible nightmares that any parent can think of—and for it to happen to so many of the littlest and most innocent makes the tragedy one of unspeakable misery.
I have to say that Dunblane today is worse than yesterday in its mourning, and tomorrow will probably be worse still, as the enormity of the massacre comes home in the shape of real children gone, real families afflicted, and a whole community scarred and tortured.
I join the Secretary of State's tributes to headmaster Ron Taylor, whose composure and self-control—which we witnessed yesterday—in the face of the most traumatic events was an inspiration. To act with speed and calmness as tiny pupils die in one's arms cannot be described as ordinary professionalism—it was heroism. The staff of the school also deserve great praise and thanks. We deeply mourn Gwen Mayor, the truly dedicated teacher who died with her charges in the gymnasium.
The Secretary and I met, spoke to and thanked—and I do so again—members of the emergency services, police, ambulance staff and medical teams from a supremely dedicated health service, who acted with superlative dedication and skill, even when their own emotions were

1109
tested to the limit. We must be so grateful for the caring services of the local councils, Church leaders and members of the whole community, who poured in to help.
Naturally, there are questions to be asked—with the nation, let alone the local community, needing answers. The worst service that we can do to the infant victims is to rush to instant judgment. Therefore, I strongly welcome the decision to appoint a High Court judge of the calibre of Lord Cullen to investigate all the circumstances of yesterday.
Those of us who met and distrusted Thomas Hamilton—I argued with him in my own home—in truth could have had no inkling to guide us to his final act of wantonness. Of course, we expect a thorough examination of and any necessary action on the present gun laws, which enabled such a man to own such a lethal armoury. School security, too, will need looking at, but we should not pretend to ourselves that even a fortress would have kept an armed, crazed, suicidal killer at bay. That is not for today.
Today, the nation stands beside and with a community devastated by a unique and terrible act of evil. We here, and all of us who would root out the sickness that spawns such an awful act, stand together in mourning and sympathy with those whose loss today is beyond repair.
Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the inquiry to be headed by Lord Cullen. I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's comments about Thomas Hamilton. I, too, had some contact with him, as his constituency Member of Parliament, and I agree that there could have been no inkling that he would be capable of such a terrible act.
I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's point about not rushing to judgment, and of course he is right to highlight questions such as gun law and the security of schools, which will need to be considered in the context of the findings of the inquiry. I will ensure that the Lord Advocate does everything possible to ensure that the inquiry is conducted speedily, so that those matters can be quickly laid to rest.
Sir Hector Monro: The whole House shares the grief of the people of Dunblane at this horrible massacre. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Dumfries and Galloway regional council has considerable expertise in counselling and support, following the Lockerbie air disaster, and is very anxious to help in any way if it can?
Will my right hon. Friend accept that I am glad that he has set up an inquiry by Lord Cullen? I hope that it reports as soon as possible, so that action can be taken subsequently.
Mr. Forsyth: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for the offer of assistance, May I use this opportunity to thank all the local authorities which offered help and support, including Strathclyde, which provided tremendous support through the police, and the many authorities which have offered expert support with counselling, which has been taken up by the community? I will certainly try to ensure that my right hon. Friend's request is met.
Mr. Michael Connarty: The Secretary of State will be aware of my long association with the
1110
district in which the community of Dunblane lies. When I spoke to my friends in Dunblane about attempting to make a statement here, they said, "How can one put into words the silent scream that went through the community of Dunblane yesterday?" Like the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), I have often shared in the joys of that dynamic community in the past. I am certain that I speak for everyone in the House when I say that we attempt to reach out to the people of Dunblane to offer to share some of the burden that has now been laid upon them.
In particular, I ask the House to send our condolences to families who have lost children and grandchildren, to the family and colleagues of the teacher who was murdered yesterday, and to the community which, as one of my friends from Dunblane said, has had the heart and soul torn from it in this terrible and violent tragedy.
I have been in constant contact with my friends and former colleagues in Dunblane yesterday and today, and they are already deeply touched by the messages sent by many people from all round the country, including those in Aberfan who have faxed messages to them.
Will the Secretary of State pass on to the Prime Minister the community's thanks that he will visit the town tomorrow, in a non-political, all-party manner, to carry the wishes of the House to them for a speedy recovery from this terrible tragedy?
Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman and I are sparring partners of old, but today we are united in our grief. I am sure that the people of Dunblane will appreciate his words today. In the Scottish Office, we have received telegrams and messages from all over the world. This is a tragedy that has struck a chord with parents everywhere, and the hon. Gentleman's remarks will be much appreciated by the people of Dunblane.
Mr. Phil Gallie: Will my right hon. Friend accept the great concern and good wishes of my constituents, from whom, over the past 24 hours, I have taken a number of calls? One of them, Mrs. Ray of Ayr, has asked me to suggest to the House that we stand for one minute's silence. Whether that is possible under the rules of the House, I am not sure; if not, perhaps what the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) suggested might be considered at a later date.
Mr. Forsyth: I am sure that all of us will find our own ways of recognising this tragedy—some in prayer, some by keeping silences, some by contemplating what has happened. I believe that the message from this House could not be clearer to the people of this country: we all share the grief that the parents who have lost children in Dunblane feel, and in their grieving we stand as one with them.
Mr. James Wallace: The moving expressions of tribute by the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) could not be bettered. They have spoken for the whole House, and I will not elaborate on them. I merely hope that what cannot be said will itself speak volumes. Many of us cannot put into words what we actually feel.
I welcome the appointment of such a distinguished judge as Lord Cullen. Can the Secretary of State confirm that his inquiry will have a wider remit than a fatal accident inquiry

1111
would? Obviously, we want the investigation to be as thorough as possible. Will it be possible to commence the inquiry in the not too distant future?
The Secretary of State has said that anything we say will be inadequate, but will he relay to his constituents on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends and of the people of the United Kingdom the thought that, although our words may be inadequate, we shall give the people of Dunblane what we can in terms of our love, support and prayers?
Mr. Forsyth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last sentiment. The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, and as such he has the advantage of me, but he will know that, under Scots law, there has to be a fatal accident inquiry, usually led by the sheriff in the area concerned. The Lord Advocate and I felt that the circumstances surrounding this tragedy were so serious that it was right to have a senior and distinguished judge of Lord Cullen's rank to carry out the inquiry. We were extremely grateful to him for agreeing to do it so promptly.
If the House will permit me to, I should like to make a further statement on how the inquiry will be carried out once the Lord Advocate has had an opportunity to discuss with Lord Cullen his views on the matter, which are an important aspect of any consideration.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Great grief is never great at talking; it is not words, but tears and a sob and a heartbreak. This House has today reflected that more than I have ever seen in the many years I have sat in it. When I heard about the tragedy, I thought of the text of scripture that says:
"Rachel weeping for her children refused to be comforted … because they were not."
Today I think of those who weep for their children and cannot be comforted because they are not. That text comes from Old Testament prophecy and it holds out a great hope.
Over against the wickedness of this crime I hear the words of the Saviour, who said:
"Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the Kingdom of God."
I trust that that faith and that hope will cast a beautiful rainbow over this terrible valley of tears.
I would associate the people of Northern Ireland in sympathy with the people of Dunblane. We have walked our valleys; we too have known the anguish; we too have felt the pain. Deep today calls unto deep from Northern Ireland to those who sorrow in Scotland.
Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. If there is one hope for the future, it lies in the nature of the community of Dunblane. It is a strong, God-fearing community, well served by voluntary organisations. I am sure that they will rally round to meet this tragedy; but nothing we can say or do, or they can do in Dunblane, can remove what was done yesterday. I hope that there will never be another day when this House has to contemplate such an act.
Sir James Molyneaux: As one who had the privilege of visiting Dunblane only a few months ago, may I associate my hon. Friends with what has been said already? As the Prime Minister rightly said, at such
1112
a time words can be extremely inadequate. But we would all want the grieving families and all who have suffered to know that they will be very much in our thoughts and prayers in the coming days and weeks.
Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Hamilton and I found that we could not find adequate words. We could only show solidarity with the community by being there and showing the people that we felt for them, as the hon. Gentleman and the House have done this afternoon.
Mr. Allan Stewart: My right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) have told the House that it and the country have united in horror and grief at what happened. On a practical point, is my right hon. Friend able to assure the House that he will tell us as soon as possible what the approximate timetable will be for the welcome inquiry by Lord Cullen?
Mr. Forsyth: Yes, I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. I am sure that he will understand that it is necessary for us to consult Lord Cullen before being in a position to do what my hon. Friend asks.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: May I convey the deep sorrow of the Scottish all-party children's group for the families and people of Dunblane? It is not that long since all the parties in this place co-operated in legislating for children in Scotland. The group very much welcomes the Secretary of State's promptness in instigating an inquiry, and Lord Cullen's acceptance of the task. I can only say now that I am sure that we shall all co-operate in any necessary future legislation or action that seems to be helpful following any of Lord Cullen's recommendations.
Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I am aware of the interest that she takes in matters involving children's policy. I must say that it is hard to think of legislation that we could pass that would in its implementation act against the sort of irrational act of madness which we saw carried out yesterday.
Mr. Sam Galbraith: I have three young daughters of primary school age, and my heart goes out to those who have been devastated by what happened yesterday. The Secretary of State will probably not be aware that that man Thomas Hamilton was running a youth club for primary children in Bishopbriggs in my constituency. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State were to ensure that Lord Cullen's inquiry will examine Hamilton's activities in my constituency.
Mr. Forsyth: I am sure that all Members, including me, will want to make available to the inquiry any information they have. I am sure that the proper place or stage at which these matters should he examined is during Lord Cullen's inquiry. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the matter to my attention.
Mr. David Wilshire: Although my constituency is a long way away from Dunblane, the loss of my 12-year-old daughter 15 years ago makes me feel extremely close. May I ask my right hon. Friend to convey yet another message to his bereaved constituents? It is simply this: "Although you will feel utterly alone, you are

1113
not. All of us who have been through a similar hell are willing you on and praying for you. There is hope—really, there is. Although, as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said, it will go on getting worse every day and you, the people of Dunblane, will never get over it, please believe me that it really is just possible to rebuild a life of some sort."
Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those words of comfort, which are based on his own tragic experience. The Leader of the Opposition said that every family with children must have had such thoughts last night; such thoughts went through my mind. I am sure that my hon. Friend's experience will provide some comfort. It is difficult for people with children to imagine what it must be like to have to cope with the loss of a child.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: May I ask the Secretary of State to convey our heartfelt condolences to the people of Dunblane; their sorrow is shared by all of us. Will he, please, thank the emergency services, teachers, police and the health and other organisations for the outstanding work they have done? I welcome the inquiry, and I ask that it also examines the general issues of gun legislation and school security. I hope that the inquiry will be able to get to the truth of the matter. I thank the Secretary of State personally for the way in which he has conveyed the feelings of the House to the people in his constituency.
Mr. Forsyth: Clearly, it will be a matter for Lord Cullen to decide which issues he will want to examine in the context of this incident, but I am sure that the points made by the hon. Gentleman about the rules governing gun control and the issue of school security will feature among them. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has pointed out, those matters are kept under constant review, and the Firearms Consultative Committee, which has been established for that purpose, has said today that it will want to take full account of any issues arising from the inquiry, and any recommendations following from it.
I do not wish in any way to pre-empt any of the inquiry's conclusions, but, having been to the school yesterday, I think that it is very hard to see how it would have been possible to have security around the school that would have prevented a man armed with four guns from being able to carry out that terrible deed, which we now know he did.
Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the Secretary of State convey to the people of Dunblane the sincere condolences of the people in Dundee? Some years ago, an armed gunman broke into St. John's high school in my constituency, and Mrs. Nanette Hanson, a teacher there, lost her life protecting her pupils. So—in a small way compared with the horrifying scale of what happened yesterday in Dunblane—the people of Dundee have experienced the actions of a deranged gunman. In that experience, we are with the people of Dunblane in their hour of sorrow.
Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The loss of a teacher's life yesterday in protecting the children in her charge, as in the case of the hon. Gentleman's
1114
constituent, perhaps underlines very graphically the debt we owe to the teaching profession, which serves us so well throughout the United Kingdom.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I tell the Secretary of State that some of my constituents have told me that this is a moment for commiseration and deep condolences for the families in Dunblane; hence, my constituents appreciate the decision to postpone tomorrow's meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee. May I tell him how much I welcome his promise of a statement to the House on the terms of reference of Lord Cullen's inquiry? Will he give serious thought to the idea of giving a statement to the next meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee on the licensing of firearms, and the criteria by which they are issued?
Mr. Forsyth: I said that I would inform the House. I am not sure whether it is necessary to make a statement to the House about the terms, but I shall certainly be happy to discuss that matter with the hon. Gentleman.
As for making a statement to the next Scottish Grand Committee on the issue of firearms, it might be more appropriate to allow the inquiry to get under way—I hope that it will be conducted speedily. Once we have the inquiry's conclusions, we will be in a position to decide what, if any, action should be taken. I think that the hon. Member for Hamilton's words—that we should not rush too quickly to judgment at this time, of all times—are very wise, and I am sure that all hon. Members will think them worthy of being heeded.
Mr. George Foulkes: May I thank the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) for speaking so sympathetically and eloquently for all of us in the House and in Scotland? I add my voice to those of my colleagues and others who would welcome Lord Cullen examining the question of firearms and their use. If he is not to do so, we would welcome some other examination of the issue.
There have been a number of other incidents and, although they were not as serious and tragic as this one, firearms are a cause for concern. I hope that the Secretary of State will include their use in the terms of reference of Lord Cullen's inquiry, or give rapid further consideration to how the law can be changed. I know that this incident might not have been prevented, but it might make similar situations less likely in future.
Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The Firearms Consultative Committee keeps the legislation under review. I shall certainly ensure that the hon. Gentleman's comments are drawn to its attention. As I said, it has said that it will wish to examine such matters in the light of the inquiry's findings, but I shall certainly make sure that the committee is aware of what the hon. Gentleman has just said.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: As the Member of Parliament representing a neighbouring constituency, may I join in the expression of sympathy for the parents, relatives and friends of the victims of this horrific massacre? As a former teacher in Central region, may I also pay tribute to the heroism of the class teacher, Mrs. Gwen Mayor, and the head teacher, Mr. Ron Taylor?

1115
Without prejudging the findings of Lord Cullen's inquiry, could the Secretary of State please tell the House at this stage whether the perpetrator of this evil crime did in fact have a firearms certificate? If so, will he ensure that Lord Cullen's inquiry will be a full investigation of how on earth an infamous character such as Thomas Hamilton could apparently obtain a firearms certificate that apparently enabled him to carry four lethal handguns and how, according to some reports, he was apparently running a gun club at some stage?
Mr. Forsyth: I confirm that it is my understanding that Mr. Hamilton had a firearms licence for the weapons concerned. It is also my understanding that he had no criminal convictions, and that he had had licences for many years. The hon. Gentleman began his question by asking me not to prejudge the findings of Lord Cullen's inquiry; he will therefore forgive me if I do not draw conclusions, which I felt that he was beginning to do.
Lord Cullen was responsible for the inquiry following the Piper Alpha disaster, and I think it is common ground that he did a thorough and excellent job in inquiring into the circumstances of that disaster and making recommendations. I am sure that the same skills and abilities will be deployed in considering all the issues that concern the hon. Gentleman. I think that we would do well to wait until he has produced his findings before reaching any conclusions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: I think that we should come to a close. But I believe that we have not heard from anyone representing Wales.
Mr. Ray Powell: The reason I waited until the end was that I thought Scottish Members and others should have preference. Some of the constituencies of Wales were directly involved with the disaster at Aberfan, so perhaps we can share even more closely the feelings that have been expressed this afternoon.
Given our experience with parents who suffered the loss of their children, and in view of the remarks expressed this afternoon about the reaction of parents, might I ask the Government to ensure that there is adequate finance for counselling, because many people in the area will need a great deal? I plead with the Government to ensure that ready money is available immediately, so that counselling can start straight away.
1116
The experience that the Government could gain from people who were or who still are involved in counselling in Aberfan could give the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State a great deal of assistance in helping the grieving parents.
Mr. Forsyth: Not just the parents, but the children in the school as well, who will have been traumatised by this experience.
Of course resources will be made available. Yesterday, when the hon. Member for Hamilton and I were in Dunblane, we had an opportunity to discuss these matters with the local authorities and others. They have been overwhelmed by offers of support and help, and of course we shall ensure that the resources are available for that.
All the evidence is that the counselling has already begun, and people are doing everything they can to lend help and support. But, if I may say so, I think that it is a mistake to believe that counselling can wipe things away or undo the harm that has been done. It is an important prop. It is an aid. When we visited the school yesterday, people were already very much involved in that.
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his offer of Celtic support from Wales. We Scots and the Welsh have much in common and the hon. Gentleman's words will be very much appreciated in Scotland.
Madam Speaker: I wish to call one more hon. Member. Mr. Martyn Jones.
Mr. Martyn Jones: As a lay member of the Firearms Consultative Committee, which by pure chance met this morning, I wish to convey its great concern over this incredibly evil act. We have heard so many hon. Members in the Chamber expressing views that, in truth, are inexpressible.
I am pleased, as I know is the Firearms Consultative Committee, that a full inquiry is being instituted. If there is any chance that something has gone wrong in administration, or if the committee could suggest further legislation, will Government time be given for that at the earliest opportunity?
Mr. Forsyth: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot commit legislation without having a specific proposal, and without the support and agreement of my right hon. Friends. But what I can say is that the committee is there in order to keep the firearms legislation under review, and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I would consider carefully any proposals that are put forward in the light of consideration of the circumstances and any recommendations which might come from the inquiry.

Business of the House
4.8 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I would like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 18 MARCH—Opposition Day (7th allotted day). Until 7 o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "The Government's Threatened Withdrawal of Employment Rights", followed by a debate on the proposed privatisation of HMSO. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Motion relating to the Education (School Premises) Regulations.
TUESDAY 19 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill.
WEDNESDAY 20 MARCH—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Second Reading of the Reserve Forces Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Oil and Chemical Pollution of Fish and Plants) Order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
THURSDAY 21 MARCH—Debate on the forthcoming intergovernmental conference on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 22 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 20 March to consider European Community document No. COM(95)541 relating to co-operation with Gulf states.
The House might also find it helpful to know that, on a provisional basis, I anticipate that the business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 25 MARCH—Second Reading of the Family Law Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 26 MARCH—Opposition Day (8th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
WEDNESDAY 27 MARCH—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY 28 MARCH—Until about 7 o'clock, conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
FRIDAY 29 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
[Wednesday 20 March:
European Standing Committee B—European Community document: COM(95)541, Co-operation with Gulf States. Relevant European Legislation Report: HC 51-vi (1995–96).]
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information and for arranging yesterday's brief statement. I also thank him for today's statement on the Dunblane incident. I am sure that he will ensure that the House is kept informed of any developments following the inquiry into that incident. I assure him that if the inquiry concludes that changes in
1118
legislation are required, Opposition Members will do all that we can to facilitate the passage of any legislation that is judged necessary.
I come now to next week's business. Is the Leader of the House willing to reconsider, even at this late stage, the decision for next Thursday's debate to take place on a motion for the Adjournment? It appears that the Government persist in hiding behind a procedural device rather than presenting the House with a substantive motion, which could be amended and which could ensure that the Government were left in no doubt whatever about the feelings of the House on the vital issues that surround discussions on the intergovernmental conference.
On a different issue, will the Leader of the House find Government time for a debate on cold weather payments, and in particular the refusal of the Department of Social Security to provide basic information about the number of claimants who have received one, two, three or four payments this winter? If such simple information cannot be provided, how can our constituents have any confidence whatever in the system? If that confidence is not there, surely the House should debate the matter.
Will the Leader of the House find time to debate today's report of the parliamentary ombudsman on the efficiency—or lack of it—of the Child Support Agency, and specifically his proposal for an independent complaints adjudicator; a proposal which was first made in May this year and which he repeated today? He has made it clear that the CSA's performance is still far from adequate, and many hon. Members must have had the same experience as me, of not being able to obtain proper replies from the CSA unless parliamentary questions are tabled. As the ombudsman has stated that the CSA accounts for one third of all the complaints that he receives about all Government Departments, surely the Leader of the House must acknowledge that the time is drawing near when another debate would be appropriate.
Finally, I remind the Leader of the House of our request for a statement when the Dearing report on the education of 16 to 19-year-olds is published. It would be appropriate to have a statement in the House as well as outside.
Mr. Newton: I thank the hon. Lady for what she said about Dunblane, and any action that might be required in the light of the inquiry announced just now by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I was grateful to her, and others, for the co-operation between the usual channels that enabled us to make our own short statements yesterday, and to agree on an appropriate way of handling this awful matter.
I note the hon. Lady's request in regard to the debate on the intergovernmental conference, but precedents have been set for some little time. Wide-ranging debates in advance of European Council meetings have taken place on motions for the Adjournment, and I consider that course appropriate in relation to Turin—particularly as the debate is intended to deal with the IGC as a whole, to which the White Paper is relevant, rather than being limited to the subject of the White Paper as such
I cannot promise a debate on cold weather payments, but I shall certainly bring the hon. Lady's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.
The parliamentary ombudsman's report on the Child Support Agency deals with 195 cases; the agency is currently dealing with over 1 million. That is not to

1119
minimise the problems that arise when any individual case goes wrong, but merely to put the position into perspective. As the hon. Lady knows, the difficulties in the workings of the CSA have frequently been acknowledged, and a good deal of action has been taken—with considerable success—to improve the situation. As for the hon. Lady's specific question, the CSA is examining the practicalities of introducing an independent complaints examiner, and Ministers are considering a number of options.
I think that I can safely tell the hon. Lady that I, too, think that a statement to the House about the Dearing report would be appropriate. I hope that it will be possible for such a statement to be made before the end of the month.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members believe that his decision to hold Thursday's debate on Europe on a motion for the Adjournment was right? Is it not sensible to have a debate of that kind at this stage, while keeping open the possibility of a longer and more substantial debate, perhaps on a substantive motion, at a later stage, when the House is aware of the outcome—if any—of the intergovernmental conference?
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his supportive remarks.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I welcome the fact that the Leader of the House was able to tell us, on a provisional basis, the business for the second week. That is convenient for all hon. Members.
May I express a degree of disappointment that the Government's statement about small businesses was not made in the House? Will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices and encourage his colleagues, when they make important statements, to make them in the House?
I do not think that it was appropriate for the right hon. Gentleman, in his response to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), to compare the IGC with Council meetings. This is an intergovernmental conference, not a Council meeting. Precedents that have applied to Adjournment debates in the past do not apply in this instance.
Mr. Newton: It certainly is a Council meeting, albeit a meeting of a special European Council. The hon. Gentleman will find that over a long period there have been various precedents, but I do not want to haggle with him, especially this afternoon. The bottom line is that I consider an Adjournment debate appropriate at this juncture, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) for agreeing with that view.

I always try to take account of the sensitivities of the House in relation to statements on policy, and I note what the hon. Gentleman said about that. As for his opening remarks, let me simply say that I am grateful for them.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: I agree with what has been said in favour of holding the debate on the IGC White Paper on the Adjournment. It is clear that all parties in the House are divided on the issue. Is it not better for us
1120
to hear all the disparate views on this important subject than to debate it on a party political basis, playing arithmetic to find ways of embarrassing the Prime Minister?
Mr. Newton: I am not sure that I want, on this particular afternoon, to engage in arguments about the reason for holding the debate in this way. I believe, however, that the issue is wide ranging, and that it is appropriate for the House to debate it on an Adjournment motion—which can easily be arranged—rather than trying to tie it down in a restrictive way.
Ms Ann Coffey: Does the Leader of the House share my dismay at learning that the Stockport scanner appeal continued to raise money long after it had reached its target, and in so doing, I think misled the people of Stockport, who continued to give generously? That raises some important issues about how charities raising money for national health service equipment operate. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the matter?
Mr. Newton: I am not sure that I could undertake to find time for such a debate. The hon. Lady might care to think of it as an appropriate subject for a Wednesday morning. I know that she will understand when I say that I am not able to comment on the circumstances. I think I am right in saying that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is responsible for the charity commissioners, and he is on the Bench with me.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members who have had a long-standing interest in European matters, sometimes controversially, are delighted by the form of the motion that he and the Government have tabled, on the intergovernmental conference? The matters are so complex and wide that it is right for them to be presented in a way that allows wide debate.
Mr. Newton: I am beginning to find positively heart-warming the amount of support from behind me, and I grateful for that.
Mr. Tony Banks: May we have a debate on the national lottery? I am getting many letters at the moment, and a great deal of concern is being expressed in the newspapers about the possibility of a second draw each week. I notice that no fewer than seven scratchcards are now available. Some serious matters are being raised and I do not recall us being made aware in any way of Camelot's great possibilities to continue to make its own money. It seems that Peter Davis, the Director General of Oflot, is prepared to let Camelot print its own money. Indeed, at the moment he seems to be providing the printing presses. The House ought to have another look. Can the Leader of the House offer the possibility of an early debate?
Mr. Newton: All that I can do is note the hon. Gentleman's request and say that, as I understand it, Camelot has not submitted an application for a mid-week draw to the regulator. If it does, the Director General of Oflot will carefully consider its merits.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Can my right hon. Friend find time as soon as possible for a full-day debate

1121
on energy policy, so that we are able to look not only at the benefits of the privatisation of gas and electricity, but at alternative sources of energy? I have two issues in mind, the first of which is the siting of windmills. They are unbelievably ugly and we must be extremely careful about where they are sited. The second issue is the burning of secondary fuels. Castle Cement in my constituency is currently burning a fuel called Cemfuel and there is great cause for concern in my constituency about that. I have told Ministers that I intend to seek a meeting with them. It would be useful for the House to debate the whole question of energy policy, and I know that hon. Members in all parts of the House are interested in many issues relating to it.
Mr. Newton: That is another request which I shall most certainly note, although I cannot make a promise this afternoon.
Ms Janet Anderson: There was a question on the Order Paper today for Home Office questions about the possibility of the Government introducing identity cards. Unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) did not appear to ask his question. I remind the Leader of the House of a report a year ago in The Observer under the heading, "Major plays ID card to trump Blair". The report said:
"John Major … promised the introduction of compulsory identity cards to help 'deter crime and make it more likely that we will catch criminals'."
The article continued:
"A Number 10 source said it was a question of how they were to be introduced—not whether."
Will the Leader of the House make a statement about that?
Mr. Newton: As that is a frustrated question from Home Office Question Time and as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is on the Front Bench beside me, I shall leave him to respond in due course, in whatever way he feels is appropriate.
Mr. Robert Key: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 611, which was tabled by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pi ckthall) and which I have also signed. It states:
[That this House, while recognising the value of wind turbines in producing renewable energy, is alarmed at the spread of these structures in areas of attractive landscape, particularly the up-lands of Cumbria and Lancashire; and urges the Secretary of State for the Environment to respond to the Countryside Commission's suggestion that PPG 22 be revised and strengthened to prevent the permanent defacing of many of this country's most attractive areas.]
The hon. Gentleman draws particular attention to Cumbria and Lancashire, but I assure my right hon. Friend that the impact of those infernal machines is felt increasingly throughout the United Kingdom's beautiful countryside, and that often those machines are energy sinks. They rarely provide net energy and are much more expensive. Every electricity consumer is paying a levy, which subsidises inefficient energy generation that helps to desecrate our remaining beautiful countryside.
Mr. Newton: I shall bring my hon. Friend's remarks, along with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mrs. Bridget Prentice: I was shocked at the complacency of the Leader of the House in his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) about the Child Support Agency and a possible debate on the ombudsman's report. It was rather like the complacency this morning of Miss Chant on the "Today" programme. I do not, however, believe the Leader of the House to be a complacent person. I remind him that that is not the ombudsman's first report about the CSA. As a member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, I urge the Leader of the House to think again about the possibility of a debate. The fact that only 195 cases were mentioned in the report does not mean that nothing else was wrong with the CSA, but means that those were the worst examples that the ombudsman wished to bring to our attention.
Mr. Newton: I should greatly regret it if my remarks sounded complacent, which they were not intended to be, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for acknowledging that she does not regard me as complacent on those matters. I should like to make two other points. First, I understand that, of 20 cases in the report chosen as examples, 14 began in 1993, so they go back to a significantly earlier stage. Secondly, a recent report by the Social Security Select Committee said:
"The agency is now on a surer footing and a whole range of indicators suggest that improvements are being made."
I am not in any way complacent, but it is reasonable to expect some acknowledgement of the efforts to bring about improvements.
Ms Margaret Hodge: The Leader of the House said that the Family Law Bill would have its Second Reading in this Chamber on Monday week. What attitude do the Government intend to take to the decision in the other place to support pension splitting? Does he not agree that that is an important move in the right direction, to ensure that women's rights are protected and promoted?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady will know that the Government always carefully consider comments and changes made in another place. That consideration is continuing and I am not in a position to reveal its outcome this afternoon.
Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
Mr. James Hill rose—
Madam Speaker: It is my practice to call only Members who have heard the statement. I do not know whether the two hon. Gentlemen who want to be called did so. Were they in the Chamber when the Leader of the House made his statement? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In that case, obviously, I cannot ask Members to question a statement that they have not heard.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94H(1) (Scottish Grand Committee (Sittings)),
That the Order of the House [11th December] be further amended by leaving out paragraph 6, and the sitting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Glasgow City Chambers to-morrow be thereby discharged.—[Mr. Bates.]
Question agreed to.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
[Relevant document: the memorandum relating to this instrument contained in the Eleventh Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (House of Commons Paper No. 34-xi of Session 1995–96).]
4.28 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.
Madam Speaker: I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Exclusion Orders) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.
I have put a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
Mr. Howard: The first item—the order—renews the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 for a further 12 months. The second—the regulations—makes some minor amendments to schedule 2 to the Act which will bring the procedures under which exclusion orders are made into line with European Community law following the judgment given in the Gallagher case.
On the renewal of the PTA, I should like to begin by thanking Mr. John Rowe QC, who has once again conducted the annual review of the legislation and whose report informs our discussions today. His clear conclusion, following wide consultation and an entirely independent scrutiny of the operation of the Act in 1995, is that it should be renewed—and in its entirety—for a further 12 months. Before explaining why the Government have decided to accept his recommendation, I should like to say something about the background to this debate.
Since the first Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act in 1974, successive Home Secretaries have come before the House to argue the case for renewal. Not one has undertaken that task without feeling both sorrow and anger that such measures are, and continue to be, necessary to protect and defend the citizens of this country from those who are prepared to engage in acts of terror—to kill and to maim by bomb and by bullet. The sadness I feel today must be at least the equal of that felt on any such occasion over the past 20 years.

This is the third year in which I have asked the House to renew the Act. On each occasion, the backdrop to the debate has been different. On the first occasion, in 1994, the IRA's campaign was in full flood. Indeed, as the House may recall, I was just winding up the debate when news reached me of the mortars that had fallen on Heathrow airport less than an hour before. I appealed then to the whole House to unite with the Government so as to send a signal to those responsible for that campaign that the House was united, that it was
"determined to face them down and to make available to the police the powers that they need to fight terrorism."—[Official Report, 9 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 335.]
To my regret, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who now leads the Opposition and was then his party's spokesman on home affairs, rejected that call. The Labour party voted against the Government and against the continuation of the powers in the Act.

1125
Last year, I brought a renewal order to the House against the backdrop of a cessation of violence by the IRA and a subsequent ceasefire by loyalist paramilitaries. I was able to point to the hope felt by many in Great Britain and Northern Ireland that the threat from terrorism would recede. At that time, for the first time for many years, the people of Northern Ireland were able to go about their daily business without fear of violence from republican or loyalist paramilitaries. For the first time for many years, there was no imminent threat of IRA violence in the towns and cities of Great Britain.
I argued, nevertheless, for the renewal of the Act because the terrorists had retained their structure, their organisation and their arsenals intact. They had retained the capacity to strike whenever they chose. It would have been irresponsible for any Government, in such circumstances, to have dismantled their defences and allowed the powers in the Act to lapse. Again I invited the Labour party to support the Government, but Labour Members again voted against the Act's renewal. They opposed the renewal because, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) told the House, they considered the power to make exclusion orders a form of internal exile; because the Act provides for the deciding voice in any decision to extend detention under the PTA to be that of the Secretary of State, not a judge; and because there was, in their view, a need for a general and comprehensive review of anti-terrorist legislation then in force.
The Labour party has now, I understand, decided to change its position to abstention because one of those points has fallen to the ground with the Government's announcement of the inquiry by Lord Lloyd of Berwick. The other points that were raised last year are apparently less crucial than they were. I am pleased to see some change in the position of the Labour party even if, as I shall explain later, I do not believe that it goes anything like far enough.
Mr. Clive Soley: It would have helped if the Home Secretary had started with a different tone and recognised the total condemnation of terrorism by both sides of the House. He did not do that in his opening remarks.
The Government's position has changed, too, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows it. The number of exclusion orders and of people detained have been dropping consistently for some years. That does not mean that the principle of exclusion is all right, but it does mean that the Government are at last recognising what Lord Colville and many in the House have argued—that the use of the powers needed to be phased out. The Government have cut their use and, for that, I am grateful.
Mr. Howard: I am coming very precisely to the use of the powers and the fact that it has indeed been possible to use them on fewer occasions than in the past. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said.
Since the ceasefire, the Government have, as the House knows, spared no effort to consolidate the 1994 cessation of violence into a lasting peace.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Home Secretary acknowledge that political prisoners played a very considerable role in persuading paramilitaries in both communities to bring about the cessation of violence?
1126
How does he explain the total absence of generosity and imagination, which the Government promised if a cessation of violence came about? Why has Patrick Kelly still not been repatriated to the Republic of Ireland? Why are four life sentence prisoners serving parole in the United Kingdom rather than being returned to the Republic of Ireland? Why are republican prisoners in Belmarsh prison treated so differently from others in the Prison Service? Why has he not shown the generosity and imagination that the Government said would be shown to political prisoners who played such a tremendous part in bringing about the cessation of violence?
Mr. Howard: There are no political prisoners in this country. The prisoners to whom I believe the hon. Gentleman has referred have been convicted of crimes against the ordinary law of this country, such as murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to murder and other very serious violent crimes. They are treated in exactly the same way as others who have been convicted of similar crimes and who pose similar risks of escape.
Mr. Madden indicated dissent.
Mr. Howard: Since the hon. Gentleman shakes his head, it may be appropriate to remind the House that, after the ceasefire was announced, IRA prisoners who had been convicted of most serious offences attempted to escape from Whitemoor prison. One shot at and wounded a prison officer during the escape attempt. That is the reality behind the hon. Gentleman's question. He does not serve any purpose by trying to mislead the House or the country with the kind of language that he used.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: I note that the Home Secretary says that all convicted prisoners are treated in the same way. Does that apply to someone who is convicted of murder? I speak of Private Lee Clegg. Will the Home Secretary give his opinion on whether Private Clegg was a political prisoner or got political parole in circumstances when others did not?
Mr. Howard: No, the procedures that were applied in that case were identical to those that are applied in every other case. The ordinary law of the land was followed. The country will take note of Opposition Members' reactions to the unchallengeable observations that I have made.
I was dealing with the question of the ceasefire and the actions that the Government have taken since then to attempt to consolidate the cessation of violence into a lasting peace.
Mr. Tony Benn: Speaking as a member of the Cabinet that sent in the troops in 1969 and as a member of the Cabinet following the Birmingham bombing when the Act was introduced, may I ask whether the Home Secretary has reflected on the fact that, over the whole of that period, a ceasefire was never achieved by the PTA? The work of Albert Reynolds, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and Mr. Adams secured the ceasefire. The Act, with all its risks to civil liberty, has played no part whatever in dealing with the problem of violence in Northern Ireland. All-party talks are the only way in which to deal with the situation.
Mr. Howard: I attempt to be accurate in my claims. I have never claimed that the prevention of terrorism Act

1127
was responsible for the ceasefire. It is not the purpose of the prevention of terrorism Act to achieve a ceasefire: its purpose is to protect the lives of innocent people in this country, to protect those who have been the victims of the bomb and the bullet for many years and to try to ensure that others do not find themselves in a similar plight.
In the months that followed the declaration of the ceasefires, we were able to scale down the more visible and inconvenient aspects of security. In Northern Ireland, soldiers were taken off the streets and all border crossing points were reopened. The number of house searches carried out under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 was reduced by 75 per cent., and the number of those arrested under section 14 of the prevention of terrorism Act also fell markedly. New investment and new jobs poured into Northern Ireland. Tourism was on the increase.
The number of detentions under the PTA in the United Kingdom for 1995 was 70 per cent. down on the figure for 1994. We constantly sought to move the peace process forward. We talked to all the parties, including Sinn Fein, at ministerial and official level, but the response to our continued requests for some gesture from the terrorists of their peaceful intent went unanswered until the evening of 9 February.
The answer was the devastating explosion at South Quay. As ever, the IRA's intent appears to have been to kill or to maim as many people as possible. The IRA's warning was imprecise and its transmission was bungled. It is with profound regret that I remind the House that two people were killed in that blast and many others were injured, some very seriously. My sympathies are very much with them and with their families. Since then, there have been further incidents, further injuries and another death.
My deepest thanks go to the emergency services whose courageous response has done much to limit the carnage planned by the IRA. No new ceasefire has been declared. I remind the House that the most recent bomb exploded without warning—despite the fact that a firm date had been set for the all-party talks, which is what the terrorists profess that they want. Instead, we are told that the IRA is offering another 25 years of bloodshed. The loyalist paramilitaries have indicated that, if there are further IRA outrages, they will match them blow for blow. That is the bleak backdrop to our debate today.
Mr. David Wilshire: Although my right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to stress that the Canary wharf incident, and events since then, reinforce the need to renew the Act, did not Mr. Rowe recommend its renewal even while the ceasefire continued? Events at Canary wharf have merely reinforced the need for the measure.
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. He expresses Mr. Rowe's recommendation and the Government's position with absolute accuracy.
The powers in the PTA are a necessary part of our armoury in the fight against terrorism. That is why we continue to argue for their renewal, and it is why I do so again today.
As Mr. Rowe's report makes clear, the powers to make exclusion orders deter people from carrying out terrorist acts and deprive the groups to which they belong of some
1128
of their experienced operators. The powers to detain, to extend detention under the Act, and to stop, examine and search those coming into or leaving Great Britain or Northern Ireland are equally vital weapons in our armoury. Of the 477 detained under the Act in 1995, 19 were held in connection with international terrorism and the remainder were held in relation to Northern Irish terrorism. Some 121 of those—about 25 per cent.—were subsequently charged with an offence. Of great importance, too, are the powers of the police to investigate terrorist finances and to obtain explanation orders in relation to funds and other information found.
I am aware that the exclusion order provisions are regarded as one of the most contentious parts of the legislation. There are some who, while wholly convinced of the need for other parts of the legislation, are concerned about denying British citizens access to part of their own country. As one who remains proud to call himself a Unionist, I appreciate their misgivings and I have some sympathy with them, but when faced with terrorists who will stop at nothing to achieve their ends—who strike at our most fundamental human rights—we have to accept some measures which, in normal circumstances, we would not countenance.
Miss Kate Hoey: I support much of what the Home Secretary has said. However, can he explain why the citizens of one part of the United Kingdom must put up with someone walking their streets who is not fit to walk the streets of London because he is assumed to be a bomber or a terrorist? Why should the citizens of Northern Ireland tolerate that?
Mr. Howard: I know that the hon. Lady's view of such matters is different from that of some Labour Members who have intervened in the debate so far. She will know that there are many reasons for that power, one of which—I shall confine myself to only one reason in answering her question—is that, in many circumstances, it can be significantly easier to keep such people under surveillance in one part of the United Kingdom as opposed to another. That is an important way in which terrorism can be fought and combated.

Mr. Rowe's report on the operation of the Act in 1995 points out the need for the exceptional powers. He confirms that the paramilitaries have maintained their command structure and organisation throughout the past 18 months, and that murder, assault, intimidation and coercion have been planned, and carried out, in their name and under their direction. That is why he has concluded that the provisions are still needed and that the Act should therefore be renewed. His report was submitted to me before the IRA's ceasefire came to an end—as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said. Mr. Rowe's views must carry even greater force in the changed circumstances in which we now find ourselves.
As hon. Members know, the Government agree with Mr. Rowe's conclusion: it would be sheer folly to allow any of the provisions in the Act to lapse now. If any confirmation were needed, the events of the past few weeks surely put the continuing need for the Act beyond doubt.
Of course, the provisions are not used solely to counter Northern Irish terrorism. Some of the powers can be, and are, used to counter the threat of international terrorism.

1129
Mr. Rowe's report comments on that. The most recent examples are the charges on explosive offences, after detention and extension of detention under the PTA, of those held in connection with the car bombs outside the Israeli embassy and Balfour house in July 1994. In 1995, several Algerians suspected of involvement in terrorist acts were detained under the PTA. One of those detained is currently being held following an extradition request from France. I decided to deport one of the others on national security grounds—in the event, he decided to make a voluntary departure from the United Kingdom and I understand that he was subsequently arrested in France.
Only last week, after I had met the French Interior Minister, he told the press that France owed the successful halt to the Algerian Armed Islamic Group—the GIA—terrorist campaign, in part, to France's co-operation with the United Kingdom. Co-operation between democratic countries is essential if we are to fight terrorism effectively. Last night, a further suspect was arrested in London under an international arrest warrant produced by the French authorities.
Mr. Rowe concludes that, whatever happens in Northern Ireland, there is always likely to be terrorism of an international kind; that the manifestations of it are increasing; and that the need for the Act in order to counter them therefore remains.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Does that mean that the prevention of terrorism Act, or its basic principles, will remain in place even if a permanent peace is established in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Howard: That is precisely why the Government set up the inquiry that is being undertaken by Lord Lloyd of Berwick, which I should like now to consider.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced to the House on 9 January, Lord Lloyd agreed to lead an inquiry to consider whether—and, if so, what—specific counter-terrorist legislation would be required if and when a lasting peace is established in Northern Ireland. His review is under way. Both the PTA and the emergency provisions Act will be examined in the consideration of what may or may not be needed in future. We shall consider his conclusions when his inquiry has been completed. I understand that he hopes to report before the autumn.
The Government's first priority must be to protect the public. To do that, we have to give the police the powers that they need to combat terrorism effectively. The PTA is needed to help prevent the terrorist from taking action and restocking his armoury and to deprive him of funds and a place to hide. I believe that the Act must be renewed for the full period of 12 months that is allowed. I therefore commend the first order to the House.
Mr. A. J. Beith: The Home Secretary mentioned the work of the police. Will he enlarge on how, in future, national elements to which he has referred elsewhere, such as a national crime squad and a national criminal intelligence service, will be related to the existing mechanism by which police forces co-operate to fight terrorism through national joint units? A reply from the Minister of State suggests to me that the national joint units will still be in limbo, so it would be helpful to know how the police will be given the structure for the necessary national co-operation.
Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman is anticipating the debate that we shall no doubt have when we produce detailed proposals for the national crime squad. The point to which he has referred is clearly relevant to the establishment of that squad, but we shall deal with it at the time. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that I prefer not to anticipate that debate.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Did the Home Secretary see the "Dispatches" programme on Channel 4 last night, in which it was proved that British companies have been involved in the sale of weapons of terror to despotic regimes abroad and that those weapons are used to torture political prisoners? Will the Home Secretary join me in calling for a full investigation to make sure that that does not happen?
Mr. Howard: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Lady, but I did not watch Channel 4 "Dispatches" last night, so I cannot comment on the allegations that were made in it. I am sure, however, that the hon. Lady will take the matter up with whichever of my right hon. Friends is appropriate.
The second item before the House amends the procedures in the PTA that govern the making of exclusion orders. When the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment in the Gallagher case on 30 November, I made it clear in an oral answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that the judgment did not affect our powers to exclude, but made a limited criticism of the procedures. I said then that we could adapt our procedures without difficulty, and the order does no more than make the necessary changes in the way in which the procedures are carried out.
The power to make exclusion orders may be used only to counter the threat from Northern Irish terrorism and, as Mr. Rowe points out in his report, it has proved a valuable tool over the years in disrupting terrorist plans. Particular individuals can be barred from entering Northern Ireland, Great Britain or the United Kingdom where the Secretary of State is satisfied that they would take advantage of their presence there to commission, prepare or instigate acts of terrorism in connection with the affairs of Northern Ireland. The use of that power not only hampers terrorists' ability to travel but, because their identity and activities are known to the security forces, it limits their overall usefulness to the terrorist organisation to which they belong. Once an organisation becomes aware that the activities of an individual have become known in that way, his usefulness necessarily diminishes.
It has been argued that keeping people under observation would be more effective than exclusion and less of an infringement of their liberties, but the resource implications of mounting a surveillance operation in every case would be enormous and in most cases it is not a realistic proposition.
Others suggest that the process of exclusion is arbitrary and unfair, but Mr. Rowe's report makes it quite clear that it is not. Before any order is made, a considered report is sent to the relevant Department. Mr. Rowe refers to the further scrutiny of the case for exclusion by officials and by the Secretary of State. That scrutiny is robust. Mr. Rowe found that each participant in the process
"approached the task with fairness"
during the year under review.

1131
There are currently 33 orders in force. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) pointed out, that is the lowest number since the power was introduced in 1974. I cannot rule out the possibility that further orders will be made. As now, each case will be considered carefully on its merits.
The need for the exclusion power is proven. It is effective. It is an essential weapon in the counter-terrorist armoury and it would be irresponsible to relinquish it.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Am I right in my interpretation of new regulation 5A(1) of the regulations—that a person may be detained without charge and without suspicion of committing an offence for an indefinite period and, in any event, for more than seven days without any charge being brought against him?
Mr. Howard: I am coming to the detailed provisions of the second order, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the detention powers in it are no greater than the present ones, although the timing is different.
As the House will know, we have already made it clear that certain changes will be made to the procedures governing the making of exclusion orders to bring them into line with European Community law following the ruling of the European Court of Justice last November in the Gallagher case. Those changes are set out in the second order. The regulations are to be made under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, which makes special provision to facilitate the amending of legislation to bring United Kingdom law into line with European Community law.
Under the present arrangements, the law requires that where an exclusion order is made, the person affected must be notified of that fact if he is in any part of the United Kingdom. If he wishes to make representations against the order, he has seven days from the date of notification in which to do so, or 14 days if he is outside the jurisdiction from which the order excludes him. Independent advice must be sought once representations are made. An independent adviser is nominated to consider the representations made and the case for exclusion, and to advise the Secretary of State accordingly. His report is taken into account in any decision to confirm or revoke the order.
The House will recall that the European Court found no fault with the substance of the power to exclude when it ruled on the Gallagher case. Its judgment simply requires the Secretary of State to obtain independent advice in every case where he is considering whether to make an exclusion order before the decision is made, rather than shortly after, as he is required to do now if representations are made.
The procedures set out in the regulations, therefore, require the Secretary of State to serve written notice on any person in the United Kingdom against whom he is considering making an exclusion order, to refer the matter for advice to one or more independent persons nominated by him to give advice on such matters and to take into account the advice that he subsequently receives when making his decision. A person who is being served with such a notice may make written representations setting out
1132
his objections and can ask to be interviewed by the independent adviser before the latter reports to the Secretary of State.
Historically, persons detained under the Act have often been at an advanced stage of planning a terrorist operation. The decision to arrest them will have been taken either because surveillance has been compromised or because there is uncertainty as to the exact timing of a terrorist attack. That can sometimes mean that the individual is detained before sufficient evidence is available to secure a criminal conviction. In such cases, it is often the case that the police apply for an exclusion order.
Those people can be dangerous, committed terrorists involved in an operation at an advanced stage of planning. It would not be right to release them back into the community pending the procurement and consideration of independent advice.
Mr. Mallon: Will the Home Secretary explain who will appoint the independent advisers?
Mr. Howard: The Secretary of State will appoint them. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman gestures, and the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) laughs. If the exclusion order is to be maintained, what other procedures would they like to see in place? Are they prepared to accept that persons whom I have just described as dangerous, committed terrorists are to be allowed to continue to travel free to commit their acts of terrorism at the expense of innocent people in this United Kingdom of ours? That is the alternative.
Mr. McNamara: My understanding is that, when the Home Secretary informs an individual that he is considering making an order, that person may then be detained with no charge made against him and with no recourse to the court. The individual may make representations within seven days. According to the order, there follows an indefinite period during which an adviser appointed by the Secretary of State will examine the evidence—which the detainee will never be able to see, know the substance of or argue against, and neither will he have the benefit of any legal help. Subsequently, a report will go to the Secretary of State who, without any time limit being imposed, can choose how long it will be before he decides whether to confirm or revoke his proposal. Under that procedure, an individual may be held almost indefinitely—there is no time limit and he or she does not have the normal protection of the law. Secondly
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman has already taken a minute. One question of that length is sufficient at this stage.
Mr. Howard: Detention in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman described will be an option entirely for the detainee. There is a simple way in which that person can avoid detention.
Mr. McNamara indicated dissent.
Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman will restrain himself for just a moment, I may explain that the prospective detainee can escape detention by complying with the terms of the exclusion order. If the individual is

1133
prepared to return to Northern Ireland or Great Britain, as the case may be, he will not be detained. If the individual is not prepared to comply and is in the advanced stages of planning or committing a terrorist operation, it is clearly essential that detention powers are available. The hon. Gentleman's summary omitted that regulation 5(2) requires the decision on exclusion to be made as soon as reasonably practicable.
Mr. McNamara: We have seen examples of that before from the Home Secretary.
Mr. Howard: I have not given way again to the hon. Gentleman. If he is fortunate to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, no doubt he will make his further points at that time.
I have explained why there is currently a power to detain individuals during the time that an exclusion order is being considered—which is why the new regulations contain a similar power of detention. Under the new procedures it will be possible, if the individual concerned is within the part of the United Kingdom from which consideration is being given to excluding him, to detain him for the period between the serving of the notice and the final decision being taken.
The power to detain is not always used now. It may not always be used in future. Sometimes, the individual is permitted to leave the jurisdiction pending consideration of the case against him. That will be possible in future, but no sensible Government would deny themselves the power to detain murderous criminals while exclusion is under consideration. We will certainly not do so.
All the necessary procedures will be carried out as swiftly as possible but, as will be seen from the regulations, the time it takes for any individual to be interviewed is partly dictated by that person. Individuals will have seven days from the date of the notice, if they are inside the jurisdiction from which consideration is being given to excluding them, in which to make their representations and request an interview.
I began by emphasising our abhorrence at the resumption of the IRA campaign. For 18 months, peace seemed as close as it has ever been in the last 25 years, but the terrorists have returned to the path of murder. The bombs in London serve no purpose. The overwhelming majority of people on both sides of the Irish sea want peace. The IRA has shattered those hopes but the door to peace remains open, and both this Government and the Irish Government continue to explore ways of making progress towards the goal of a comprehensive political settlement in Northern Ireland.
The events of last month have shown yet again that we cannot afford to drop our guard. I do not propose to do so. For the past 12 years, the Labour party has voted against renewal of the PTA. For the two years before that, Labour Members abstained. Before that, they voted for the Act. Now they are doing no more than proposing to return to the position that they adopted when Michael Foot was their leader.
I hope that, even at this late stage, the hon. Member for Blackburn and his hon. Friends will reflect on the matter and support the legislation. Abstention is not enough. Indecision will not do. Governments cannot shrink from deciding whether to take the measures necessary to protect the public from terrorism. We continue to need
1134
the emergency powers in the 1989 Act and the order and regulations before the House will give those powers. Once again, I ask the whole House to support them.
5.5 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: Terrorism is a modern plague. It randomly destroys the lives of innocent people, and it wrecks families and communities—but terrorism is rarely used randomly. Its aim, almost always, is to disrupt the political process. Some acts of terrorism take place in authoritarian regimes, but they are used as often to undermine democratic countries and the processes by which they seek through peaceful means to resolve conflicts that arise between different peoples or interest groups. The threat to the international community from terrorism is so great that yesterday a summit on that subject alone was held in Egypt.
There is no more appalling example of the immediate and wider consequences that terrorism can bring than the recent bombings of innocent bus passengers in Israel. Although that country is 3,000 miles away, we are all affected by such terrorism. We are directly affected if terrorist organisations also intend to base some of their operations in the United Kingdom or seek support here.
The middle east peace process has been rendered fragile by the resumption of extreme terrorism by Hamas. In the UK, the process to achieve peace in Ireland has been placed under enormous strain by the Provisional IRA's unilateral decision to end its ceasefire and begin a bombing campaign on the mainland. Innocent lives have been lost. Many more people have been physically injured or have suffered great psychological damage. Employment has been disrupted, and millions of pounds' worth of damage has been done to homes, offices and businesses. I join the Home Secretary in condemning those atrocities today, as we did when they occurred.
The police and security forces have again found themselves in the dangerous front line of the fight against terrorism. I place on record our gratitude for their work and the debt that we owe for their bravery and dedication. Fortunately, the disruption caused by the ending of the ceasefire has not aborted the peace process but has strengthened the resolve of all political parties represented in the House and of the Irish Government to work even harder to achieve lasting peace, and the huge benefits that it would bring.
The reality of terrorism, whether international or emanating from within the British Isles, means that special measures must be in place the better to combat terrorism. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made his views clear when he spoke in the renewal order debate two years ago:
"It is not in dispute, and never has been, that we need anti-terrorist legislation … We in the House share a total and complete abhorrence of terrorism and a desire to defeat it."—[Official Report, 9 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 300.]
That sentiment has been repeated by me and by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who also said in the emergency provisions Bill debate two months ago that
"there must be effective counter-terrorist legislation."—[Official Report, 9 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 42]
We have also striven hard to ensure that, in order to deal effectively with terrorism—by the security measures needed to fight it and the political processes required to

1135
undermine support for it—there is bipartisan agreement across the House. We have achieved such a position on the peace process. Both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have readily acknowledged that the peace process has been immeasurably strengthened by our support for it. I pay tribute to the indefatigable work of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar and her team in that regard. I wish to put it on record that my hon. Friends the Members for Redcar and for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) would have been here, but for the fact that they are in the United States following their duties in the Northern Ireland team.
For at least five years we have also sought means by which there could be all-party agreement on the measures necessary to combat terrorism. In practice, there has been little argument between the parties about four of the six operational parts of what is now the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989—those relating to proscribed organisations, to financial assistance for terrorism and to powers relating to the investigation of terrorist activities, searches for munitions and the control of explosives factories, magazines and stores. There has, however, been argument about the use of certain of the powers relating to arrests, detentions and port controls, and overwhelming objections to the principle of exclusion orders.
Five years ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), then shadow Home Secretary, made proposals for what he described as a "fundamental re-examination" of the prevention of terrorism Acts to achieve
"a demonstration of common purpose".—[Official Report, 4 March 1991; Vol. 187, c. 39.]
on anti-terrorist legislation. Those were turned down.
Two years ago, the late John Smith, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), made a further sustained effort to achieve that demonstration of common purpose. Private discussions to achieve that common purpose were held with Ministers, but those private discussions were aborted when their details were leaked. That leak did not come from the Opposition.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the original exclusion order was brought in by a Labour Government and was supported by the Labour party until 1983? The hon. Gentleman is using weasel words to cover up the differences in his party. Does he agree with comments in The Guardian that his argument is entirely inconsistent? By abstaining on the order, he reveals himself as still soft on terrorism.
Mr. Straw: I confirm the first part of what the hon. Gentleman said, which is a matter of fact. I advise him never to take too much notice of what The Guardian says, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—had he remained in his place—would also advise him. As I will explain, there are good reasons for the position that the Labour party took earlier in this decade and in the 1980s.
Despite the way in which discussions into which we had entered in good faith were aborted as a result of the leaking of details about them—not by the Opposition, as I have said—my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield, in the debate two years ago, repeated the offer
1136
"that has been made to the Government … to try to reach a consensus on the issue, take it out of the political divide and resolve it properly."
He continued:
"One way to achieve that would be to undertake a full and independent review of the judicial process"—
of the PTA
"under a senior respected figure".—[Official Report, 9 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 300–309.]
Last year, in the more encouraging climate of the ceasefire, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar and I renewed those efforts to secure the establishment of such a review. Again, the approaches were not reciprocated by the Government by the time of the debate, which took place almost exactly a year ago. This time last year, I said:
"Three things … are in dispute: the power to make exclusion orders, which are a form of internal exile; the absence of a judicial element in decisions to extend detention; and, above all … the need for a general and comprehensive review of anti-terrorist legislation."
I continued:
"Had such a review been announced, and had it been able to take into account our concerns in relation to the first two matters that I raised, we should not have voted against the order tonight".
I repeated that point, so that there was no doubt about it, on two other occasions in my speech.
I regret that it has taken so long for the review we sought to be announced and for the foundations to be laid—as the review will achieve—for bipartisan agreement. The review we sought has now been announced and it follows directly from what I said last year that we should not vote against the measures tonight. Indeed, that was the reason why we did not vote against the Third Reading of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill on 19 February 1996, despite the fact that it contained measures to reintroduce internment in principle.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: But did not the hon. Gentleman and his party vote against the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill on the very day the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced a review? Is he not therefore talking absolute nonsense when he says that the reason for the change in his position today, for an all-party approach, is that we have announced a review?
Mr. Straw: No is the answer to that question. What I have said is entirely consistent with what I said last year:
"Had such a review been announced, and had it been able to take into account our concerns in relation to the first two matters that I raised, we should not have voted against the order tonight".—[Official Report, 8 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 357.]
Sir Ivan Lawrence: You voted against the emergency provisions Bill.
Mr. Straw: We did not vote against the emergency provisions Bill. We voted for a reasoned amendment which we had tabled and we did not vote against the Third Reading. The hon. and learned Gentleman needs to get his facts right before he asks further questions.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has accused my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) of not getting his facts right, so let us make it clear what the record shows. Will the

1137
hon. Gentleman confirm that, on the day my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced the general review and after that review had been announced, the Opposition voted against the Second Reading of the Bill? The hon. Gentleman does not seem to know what his party did on that occasion, but I can tell him that it voted against the Second Reading of that Bill.
Mr. Straw: We voted for a reasoned amendment, as I understand it. I was not actually present and I did not vote either way on that occasion. I know that, on 19 February on the Third Reading of the Bill, there was no vote at all in the House.
Mr. Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman may have been gratified to hear the BBC glorifying his party's apparent change of heart, after 13 years, about voting against the order tonight. The story that the BBC should have reported is that, in spite of the recent bombing and the breakdown of the ceasefire, the Opposition are still not prepared to support these measures. Where is the consistency in anything that the hon. Gentleman has said so far?
Mr. Straw: I have explained, on more than one occasion, that we have sought a bipartisan agreement on measures for the prevention of terrorism, as we have given bipartisan support for the peace process. But there is a difference. We have been able to achieve bipartisan support for the peace process because we have been able to have effective, constructive discussions with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about that process. No such discussions have been remotely possible with the Home Secretary, who appears to believe that bipartisan agreement can arise only when a proposition is laid on the table and we have to take it or leave it.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has made some allegations about me, so perhaps I may put another question to him. He attaches enormous importance to the review, which he says is the reason why his party has changed its position, and he is relying on it in his increasingly desperate attempt to preserve some semblance of unity in his party's position. Is the hon. Gentleman aware—I made it perfectly clear in my earlier remarks—that the review that we have asked Lord Lloyd to undertake is a review of the powers that will be needed if and when there is a permanent peace in Northern Ireland? It is a review of the powers that we will need against international terrorism or any other domestic terrorism, but specifically not Irish terrorism because it is predicated on the basis that there will be peace in Northern Ireland. The review has, therefore, precious little to do with the subject matter of today's debate.
Mr. Straw: That is entirely wrong. The terms of reference of the Lloyd review refer to the future need for specific counter-terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom if the cessation of violence leads to a lasting peace. I made exactly that point this time last year when I called for a review. I said that the review should be established on the Government's working assumption that the cessation of violence led to a lasting peace. So the review that has been established is the review that we sought—whether my hon. Friends like it or not.
Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend has agreed with the Secretary of State that the review is predicated on a
1138
cessation of violence in Northern Ireland, and upon its continuation. Lord Lloyd is not looking at the situation since the breakdown of the ceasefire. The whole premise of the review has in one sense been knocked away by the IRA restarting its activities. So what Lord Lloyd is doing is of no relevance to the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act—a point that I have made in the past to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Straw: When we called for a review last year we said that it should be established by a High Court judge or someone of similar standing, and that it should be carried out on the Government's working assumption that the ceasefire had led to a permanent cessation of violence. It is our judgment that the terms of reference of the Lloyd review meet the conditions that I specified last year. What I said then is clear for anyone to see. Despite the fact that the PIRA has abandoned the cessation of violence, the Lloyd review continues and he has invited my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar and me, among many others, to give evidence.
Mr. Mallon: Just to help us make up our minds, may I point out that there have been numerous reviews down the years? Lord Jellicoe, Lord Shackleton, Sir Cyril Phillips, Lord Gardiner, Lord Colville, Sir George Baker and John Rowe have all carried out reviews, but none of them dealt with the central points that the hon. Gentleman has identified and their recommendations were not adopted by Government. How can anyone therefore place any faith in the Lloyd review or believe that it will come up with the type of conclusions that I would like to see?
Mr. Straw: I can only repeat what I have already said. We proposed last year that the review be established on the basis of the Government's working assumption that the cessation of violence was permanent. My statement was made in good faith when the ceasefire was holding. Despite the fact that it has broken down—we hope only temporarily—the review is still going forward and we intend to give evidence to it. It remains the firm hope of every Member of the House that the ceasefire will return, that the PIRA will end its bombing campaign and that the reviews can then take place in the circumstances that we and the Government expected when they were first announced.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House. Now that his hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) has been able to refresh his memory from the Hansard report of the debate on the Northern Ireland Bill, held on 9 January 1996—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is for hon. Members themselves to decide whether they have misled the House, not for other Members to pontificate at length before even reaching what may or may not have been a point of order.
Sir Ivan Lawrence rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have made that quite clear. Mr. Straw.
Mr. Straw: I think I can help the hon. and learned Gentleman. I was misinformed about our position on

1139
Second Reading. We did vote against Second Reading, and I apologise to the House for that error. In the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar made it clear that we welcomed the establishment of the Lloyd review and that we would seek further changes to the EPA in Committee. She also said that we would not vote against Third Reading, and that we did not do.
Although the Act which the House is invited tonight to review dates from 1989, the original Act dates from autumn 1974. It passed through all its stages in this House and the other place in the near record time of 48 hours, following the carnage of the Birmingham pub bombings. The then Home Secretary justified the need for the legislation on the ground that the country faced a highly exceptional situation and a clear and present danger. The powers, Roy Jenkins told the House, were draconian and unprecedented in peacetime. In consequence, Parliament required what have amounted to annual audits of the use of the Act's powers, and that it be subject to annual renewal.
It was also to the great credit of the Labour Government that two more fundamental reviews of the provisions of the Act were conducted by the distinguished figures of Lord Gardiner and then Lord Shackleton. By contrast, until the Lloyd review was announced only one other fundamental review of the Act's provisions has been held under this Administration—the one by Viscount Colville in 1987. That review had been preceded by mounting disquiet, dating back many years in this House and outside it, at the way in which some of the PTA powers were being used, especially those relating to examinations at ports, detentions and their extension, and exclusions from the mainland or from Northern Ireland.
Many complaints were made by my right hon. and hon. Friends on behalf of constituents with family connections in Ireland whose travel to and from different parts of the same kingdom were subject to the hazards and humiliations of unjustified stops and detentions. It was also said that the other powers in the Act were used unjustifiably.
Mr. Howard: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman a little more with the events of 9 January this year. The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) said:
"We will vote twice against the legislation today, as we did in 1991. It is important to be consistent."—[Official Report, 9 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 47.]
Did she consult him before using those words?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend referred to the position that we took in 1991. She also made it clear that we welcomed the establishment of the Lloyd review and would not vote against Third Reading.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and many others used to make the point that this sort of experience of the use of the powers, and the sense of injustice that it engendered, perversely assisted recruitment to terrorist organisations and helped to feed the lie peddled so assiduously in the United States that British justice was no justice when it came to the treatment of Irish people. The results of those concerns and of the Colville review have been that the powers in the Act have been more sparingly and judiciously used in
1140
recent years, as we heard from the Secretary of State. The number of detentions fell from 857 in 1979 to one sixth of that number, 145, in 1993, the last full year before the ceasefire came into effect.
Just 8 per cent. of those detained in 1980 were charged with any offence. By 1993 the proportion had risen to 20 per cent. If I heard the Secretary of State aright, I believe that it is now up to 25 per cent. Those figures are salutary. Far from the much more limited use of the Act's powers undermining the fight against terrorism, they have strengthened that fight with a much higher arrest rate and with the removal of some of the grounds for complaint about the injustice of the Act.
As I spelt out last year, however, there are still concerns about the absence of a judicial element in decisions to extend detention and about the very principle of exclusion orders. Under the normal criminal law in England and Wales, a suspect may be arrested and detained by police for up to 36 hours, and that detention may then be extended by a further two and a half days, making four days in all. In contrast, under the PTA, the initial detention period is 48 hours. That detention may be extended for a further five days by the Secretary of State, and not by any judicial figure. It is in the nature of powers needed to deal with terrorism that swift decisions may have to be made, and that the basis of such decisions may be intelligence or other evidence that would be inadmissible in a court of law. These considerations strengthen rather than weaken the case for decisions to extend detention to be made with the utmost fairness and to be seen to be fair. In our view, that must require a judicial element.
The current situation is unsatisfactory. That was recognised seven years ago by the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), the then Home Secretary. He said that the Government continued to look "for a judicial mechanism." Perhaps I have missed something in the argument, but I do not begin to understand why that search has produced a blank.
The argument advanced in this year's audit by Mr. John Rowe is unconvincing. He has recited the circumstances in which a judge would work. He tells us that the suspect could not be given all the detail of the evidence against him, that the judge could not give reasons for his judgment and that there would be no right of appeal. Mr. Rowe then claimed that the judge, in such circumstances, would be acting
"in name only. He would be exercising a function which could be called judicial only because he happened to be a judge by his profession and occupation. And the judge would in this situation would have every appearance of being an arm of the Executive."
In other words, Mr. Rowe was asserting that a judge could bring nothing to the process, and that the only consequence of his role would be to compromise his judicial integrity. If that were so, we would never ask judges to make decisions except in open court. Yet Mr. Rowe admits that there are plenty of examples where judges do not have to make decisions in open court, where they make them in secret on evidence that cannot be disclosed to the defendant.
As the House discussed two weeks ago on Second Reading of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill, that is exactly the position when it comes to dealing with sensitive evidence—for example, the identity of an informant covered by a public interest immunity

1141
certificate, where the defendant may not even know that an application to the judge has been made, still less what it contains.
Increasingly over the years, to provide greater public confidence in the fairness of procedures that necessarily have to operate in secrecy, the House has asked senior members of the judiciary to supervise parts of the work of the intelligence and security agencies. No one doubts the independence of mind and spirit of Lord Nolan, yet one of his tasks is to act as interception commissioner in the operation of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 to check whether telephone taps and other intercepts have been properly authorised. In those circumstances, Lord Nolan has not acted as a judge in name only; nor have his integrity and public reputation been compromised in any way as he has undertaken that task.
There is the example of Mr. Rowe, who is brought in to act, in a judicial capacity, to check retrospectively the use of the Act's powers. Moreover, Ministers have voluntarily assented to treaties and conventions which require that there should be an independent element in decisions, as the decision of the European Court of Justice in the Gallagher case demonstrated.
The state has no greater coercive power than the deprivation of liberty. Even in the grave circumstances of the fight against terrorism—indeed, especially in those circumstances—it is wrong that decisions should be made by Ministers alone.
Exclusion orders apply only to Irish terrorism. They have been justified on the ground that they are a necessary part of measures that are needed to fight terrorism by denying certain individuals entry to one or other parts of the United Kingdom, so disrupting terrorists' organisational and supply lines. That was the case advanced by the Home Secretary. The orders, however, are a form of internal exile, last practised, I understand, in this country in the time of Henry VIII. When such exile was practised in the former Soviet Union, it was subject to round condemnation by the international community.
The effects of exclusion orders are bizarre. After all, we are one kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Yet the orders mean that a suspected terrorist who is regarded as so dangerous that he is not allowed anywhere in England, Scotland and Wales is allowed freely to walk the streets of Northern Ireland. In reverse, a suspect can be banned from Belfast but still be free in Birmingham.
For all that the Home Secretary said in support of exclusion orders, he omitted to mention that when there was last a fundamental review of the PTA, conducted by Lord Colville, the outcome was a settled conclusion on exclusion orders. Lord Colville described the orders as
"the most draconian in the present Act".
Having considered the security arguments in favour of exclusion orders, he said:
"However, I am not convinced that the ends justify these means … exclusion orders should not be renewed or replaced."
That would be the correct decision, he continued,
"both in terms of civil rights in the United Kingdom, and this country's reputation in that respect among the international community".
1142
Those were prescient words. The continued use of exclusion orders has harmed our reputation abroad and written endless speeches for the apologists for terrorism. It has led also to Britain ending up on the wrong side of international laws to which we have assented.
Mr. Barnes: Is it not also unacceptable that the IRA operates a form of external exclusion order, the exercise of which means that many citizens of Northern Ireland are kept out of Northern Ireland?
Mr. Straw: I accept entirely what my hon. Friend has said.
We remain implacably opposed to exclusion orders, and shall be saying so in our evidence to the Lloyd review. I hope that the Government will reconsider their support for the orders. They have, by their actions, recognised the force of the arguments against the orders. The number in force, as we heard from the Home Secretary, is the lowest ever. Only four were made in 1993, the last full year before the ceasefire, compared with nearly four times that number in 1987.
Moreover, it now appears that some of those who are involved in the making of exclusion orders now have serious misgivings about them. In his 1994 audit, Mr. Rowe stated simply that police officers had told him that the orders "have a real value". There is, however, a more quantified story in Mr. Rowe's latest audit. He states that the
"overwhelming majority of port officers … gave me the answer that these orders are useful and should be retained."
But he continued by stating that
"there was a fair number of officers, of all ranks, who held the opposite view".
He explained that the opposite view was that
"a known and experienced member of … terrorist organisations can be noticed at port and followed thereafter, and kept under surveillance."
We now know from Mr. Rowe's report that a number of people in the security services are questioning the value of exclusion orders. The only argument in favour of the orders was their utility. If even that is now being questioned, it is surely time for us to agree to abandon their use altogether.
Whatever sincere but differing views Members may take about the merits of the renewal order, the House is united in its determination to fight terrorism with every means that is consistent with a democratic nation whose constitution is based on the rule of law. It is the Opposition's fervent hope that the Lloyd review will be the means by which we can at last achieve bipartisan agreement on the measures necessary to fight the scourge of terrorism.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that Back Benchers' speeches are restricted to 10 minutes.
5.39 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) should understand that he fails to convince on two important points. First, he fails to demonstrate any error in our

1143
assumption that the greatest threat to civil liberties lies with terrorist activity rather than anti-terrorist legislation. The second flaw in his argument is that he gives insufficient attention to the fact that exclusion orders have a vital operational value in that they can interrupt the command and communications structure of terrorists and thus save life. For that reason, reluctantly, we accept the infringement of civil liberties that exclusion orders represent.
On the wider issues, I have three observations to make. The first relates to the Rowe report as a whole. The essential point to note is that it is entirely unequivocal: it is precise, and there are no ifs and buts. It states that the prevention of terrorism Act was operated effectively and properly in 1995 and that there is a continuing need for its existence in the next 12 months. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) pointed out in an intervention that Mr. Rowe came to his conclusions at a time when the IRA was still operating its ceasefire, so they are that much more valid now that we have moved out of that era. By any criteria, the House would be entirely wrong and would be acting indefensibly and irresponsibly if it did anything other than support the measure as amended with regard to exclusion orders.
Secondly, perhaps the most significant aspect of Mr. Rowe's report this year is the emphasis that he gives to the dimension of international terrorism. There has too often been a tendency on the part of politicians and commentators to regard the PTA exclusively in the context of Northern Ireland. That was always mistaken. The statistics speak for themselves: more than 21 per cent. of the people who were detained under either the 1984 or 1989 Act and who were subsequently charged were involved in international terrorism. In some years, the figure was much higher, and in one year—1987—the totals of those involved in international and Northern Ireland terrorism were virtually identical.
Mr. Rowe provides a useful potted history of the various PTAs and shows that from 1974—when the first of these Acts was introduced—through to 1976 and then to 1984, they always contained the provision to counter international terrorism. The provision was not specifically identified until the later two Acts, but those Acts were consistent with that intention from the very start.
Mr. Rowe reminds us that the Lockerbie incident occurred only just over seven years ago, that it is not yet two years since the attack on the Israeli embassy and Balfour house, and that last year 50 per cent. of the extensions of detention related to international terrorism. It is vital that we do not lose sight of that essential fact and that we continue to have on the statute book legislation which will enable a democratic society to respond to the ever-present threat of international terrorism, regardless of the situation in Northern Ireland.
Thirdly, I must express a slight concern. I noted Mr. Rowe's favourable and reassuring comments about the funding of terrorism and the investigation of it. He pointed out in paragraphs 39 to 42 that there have been convictions under sections 9 and 10, and that greater use was made in 1995 of schedule 7 with regard to the making of search warrants and so on, but my concern is that perhaps the powers that we have on the statute book do not go far enough and cannot deal with one particular issue—that of fund-raising on the part of the non-proscribed political wings of proscribed organisations.
1144
The arguments are long and detailed so I shall say only that non-proscribed organisations can legally raise money which is channelled not necessarily into acts of terrorism—which would be contrary to the PTA—but into promoting the ideology and stance of terrorist or proscribed organisations. I hope that the Lloyd inquiry will deal with terrorist financing or promote the opportunity for wider debate because I do not believe that we have yet got to grips with it.
As I said, I believe that the House would be entirely mistaken if it did anything other than support the measure.
5.44 pm
Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith): I am sorry that the Home Secretary chose to begin the debate in the way that he did because he is playing politics, which is rather sad and not something that the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would so easily have done.
The Home Secretary spoke about the vote last year and said that it took place at the time of the Heathrow bombs. He said that we should face down the terrorists. If, after 25 years of violence, I believed that we could face them down simply by voting, I would vote with him every time. The problem is that we need to do something more sophisticated than facing down the terrorists.
The Home Secretary and one or two other hon. Members accused my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) of inconsistency. They should watch what they say. They have been asking for cross-party support on Northern Ireland, and they will get it because we believe in the peace, but there is nothing more inconsistent than the Government condemning IRA terrorism year after year while at the same time talking to it without the House's knowledge—and I do not mean Sinn Fein: I mean the IRA. A party that talks to the IRA but then lectures us on being inconsistent has a substantial lesson to learn. The Unionists and the SDLP know that, and most of us know it, too. It is time that the Home Secretary talked to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister, who are handling the situation with a great deal more sophistication than he is.
In response to an intervention, the Home Secretary said that there were no political prisoners. I agree. A long time ago, during the hunger strike, I argued—when it was not popular to do so—that there were no political prisoners. Why? Because in this country, laws are made democratically and there is an independent judiciary to put them into effect. There can be political prisoners only when that is not the case. As an ex-probation officer, I knew that people from varying backgrounds would claim political status when they were not entitled to it and when it had nothing whatever to do with Ireland.
The Home Secretary does devastating damage to his case by justifying under the prevention of terrorism Act the power of a politician to impose internal exile and, at times, to detain. That is why there is so much concern among some hon. Members about the nature of the PTA. I am in favour of civil liberties, but the argument is not only about such liberties—it is about two fundamental concepts. The first is the rule of law and the second is how most effectively we can fight terrorism.
I shall explain why I am prepared to abstain this evening, having voted against the measure on previous occasions, and I urge my hon. Friends to do the same. The situation is changing. If the Government had the wit,

1145
they would have told the House that they accept what Lord Colville said in 1987, that there is internal exile, that we know that we have to get rid of it and that is why the numbers in internal exile have dropped and are so low. That is why the Home Secretary should get rid of the exclusion orders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said, senior police officers know that, in view of the small numbers involved, it would be more effective to use the security services, MI5 and MI6.
The worst argument that the Home Secretary could have used was that of resource implications. For heaven's sake—we have been spending billions of pounds in Northern Ireland to deal with terrorism, and the Irish Government have been doing the same. Are we seriously saying for the sake of four exclusion orders that we would not use a method which does not so much override the rule of law? If MI5 and MI6 can do the job, as I believe that they can, we should let them do it.
Let us not be dragged before international courts that we helped to establish. British lawyers wrote the laws for the European Court of Justice. We set it up, but then we allow ourselves to be dragged before it because the Home Secretary cannot move on one key issue and say that exclusion orders must go.
Mr. Howard rose—
Mr. Soley: I will give way briefly as I am under pressure of time.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman referred to the European Court of Justice without mentioning that it upheld the substance of exclusion orders and found that they are entirely in accordance with our obligations under the European convention on human rights. The change that it asked us to make, and which we have made, relates simply to the adaptation of the procedures. On the substance of exclusion orders, the European Court of Justice found in the Government's favour. The fact that there are now so few exclusion orders shows that we use them only when we need to do so.
Mr. Soley: I think that I should claim injury time for that intervention.
The derogation that Britain seeks is intensely damaging and the Government know it. They know that we get more convictions before the European Court of Justice than almost any other European country and we cannot claim otherwise, as we used to be able to do. As one who was brought up to be proud of our parliamentary democracy and the rule of law in Britain, I do not like to see us in that position. It is legislation such as this that does that damage.
The Home Secretary is moving and he should admit it. The figures are coming down dramatically, although that is nothing to do with the ceasefire; it was happening before that. The figures are also coming down dramatically, as the Home Secretary could have said, in another area that is so damaging in the fight against terrorism—the number of people detained but not charged. At one time, as many as 95 per cent. of people detained under the Act were not charged. Can anyone think of any other Act of Parliament under which that would be acceptable? Of course not. Yet that is what we are doing under this legislation.
1146

The figures have dropped dramatically, but the percentages are still worrying. The one area where they have not dropped is also an area where there has not been a move to the benefit of the fight against terrorism and I would ask the Home Secretary to consider it. A growing number of people are not held under a detention order, but simply questioned for fewer than four hours and then released. I am not convinced that the Home Secretary wants to help, but if he does, he should ensure that those figures are also reduced, just as the number of detentions and exclusion orders have been reduced.
This is a fight for hearts and minds. To those Conservative Members who doubt that, I simply say that some years ago I was held for several hours and cross-examined by the East German police when East Germany was still a communist state. I did not know it at the time, but they were worried because I had in my possession an unsigned cheque belonging to a German who was in fact a distant relative and who had given it to me as a present. One can dine out on a story like that for years.
One of the tragedies is that it is not only people who are held under these Acts and then released without charge who become alienated, but their families and friends. That is why I welcome the drop in numbers. In other words, the prevention of terrorism Act—a deeply undesirable Act, as even the Home Secretary seemed to admit in one of his more radical moments—is being used far less often and, in a way, rather more specifically than it was before.
If the Home Secretary had done what many of his predecessors had done and come to the House and said, "Fortunately, I have been able dramatically to cut the use of the Act and I will review it as well," many people would have said, "Hear, hear—well done, Home Secretary, keep on doing that." But he did not. He came with the intention of scoring a few cheap political points and then told everyone that he was proud of being a Conservative and Unionist. Some people would dearly love to recreate the old Conservative and Unionist party, and I know why. But I tell the Home Secretary this: he can never be a Unionist when he says that Northern Ireland is to be treated so totally and utterly differently from the rest of the United Kingdom, that people can be excluded there in the form of internal exile that the Government support. The SDLP and the Official Unionist and Democratic Unionist parties will tell the Home Secretary that that is to treat Northern Ireland as a second-class citizen and not as a proper part of the United Kingdom, so the Home Secretary should not come to the House claiming to be a Unionist and expecting to have Unionist support, because he will not even get it there, where he seeks it most.
I have been opposed to this legislation for many years. The legislation cannot be temporary when it has run for more than 20 years, and we know it. It is deeply offensive to the rule of law and to Britain's tradition of democracy. The numbers being scooped up in its net have changed dramatically over the years and we need to recognise that. It should have been a collection of information Act, because that is what it does and that is the way in which it works. It has not necessarily prevented much terrorism. It has at times, I accept, but it has also acted as one of the best recruiting serjeant majors the IRA could have wished for, enabling the IRA to claim—wrongly, in my judgment—that it could not get justice in British courts.

1147
We are moving in the right direction, slowly. I hope that Lord Lloyd produces a more fundamental and better analysis than Mr. Rowe. I am not happy with the Rowe report. Its presentation of facts and figures is not good and some other things are missing. But I hope that my hon. Friends will abstain tonight and I hope that the Home Secretary listened to my remarks with care.
5.54 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: Throughout last year, I spent a lot of time trying to convince myself that we were moving to a situation where these powers were no longer necessary. If I understand Mr. Rowe correctly, however, he tells me in paragraphs 13 and 14 why I was completely wrong to take that view. It bears thinking carefully about. He says:
"The proscribed organisations still maintain their structure and organisation, and murders and assaults are carried out in their name."
He continues:
"Explosive devices have been found: a new mortar device has been developed … there is movement of arms about the country … Considerable amounts of firearms and explosives are still in the hands of the proscribed organisations and ready for use. Training goes on, and there is still some recruiting".
It is important to note that that was written at a time when there was a ceasefire, not the time after Canary wharf. It is therefore not Canary wharf and what has happened since that makes the renewal necessary. The PTA will remain necessary even if the temporary ceasefire is reinstated.
I want to take a moment or so to explain why I believe that to be the case. I have never had any real doubt that the ceasefire was a temporary truce and a sham. At the very moment when Gerry Adams was shaking Clinton's hand, his friends were building the Canary wharf bomb. The purpose of the Sinn Fein-IRA temporary truce, therefore, was not to help phase out terrorism but to exploit our weakness and to buy time to reorganise and re-equip.
Sinn Fein-IRA has always been and remains, despite its words, a Marxist terrorist group, committed to obtaining by any means at its disposal—including violence—that which it believes in. I still see no sign of willingness on its part to compromise in any way. We therefore have no alternative but to renew the prevention of terrorism Act. Making one-sided compromise after one-sided compromise is no alternative to the PTA. Not only is treating bombers and assassins as though they were democrats not an alternative to the PTA—it is a despicable affront to the people of Northern Ireland.
Even when one accepts the need to renew the PTA, there is a temptation in a debate such as this to focus on whether we need to retain all the powers or whether, as we have just heard, some powers could be phased out. That is not what we should be considering. We should be asking ourselves what more we can do, not what less we can do, to root out terrorism. Mr. Rowe makes it crystal clear that we need each and every one of the powers that we currently have.
One can go through the entire list—proscribing organisations, exclusion orders, investigating funding, section 14 arrests, extension of detention, the port powers and the new powers that were given last year. Mr. Rowe
1148
makes it crystal clear that the PTA is needed and that every power in it has his backing. He recommends that we renew them all.
Canary wharf and everything that has happened since therefore confirms not just the need for the Act, but the need to do more. In starting that debate on how to do more, how to extend the PTA and even the emergency powers legislation, we must begin by saying an emphatic simple no to the men of violence. There can be no compromise with evil. That is what the PTA is all about. All terrorists and their apologists must be totally excluded from the entire democratic process unless and until they renounce their terrorism and unless and until they hand over their arms and explosives. Having said that firm no, then—and only then—can we turn to the detailed debate about doing more. That is why I welcome Lord Lloyd's review, and I very much hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, when he winds up the debate, will assure me that Lord Lloyd will not only consider retaining existing powers but will be encouraged to consider additional steps to stamp out terrorism and to bear down on it rather than compromise with it.
Mr. David Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wilshire: No. I am very sorry, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to disagree with me when he makes his speech.
I end by saying a few words about the Labour party and its decision to abstain, which it wants us to believe is proof that it is tough on terrorism. What signal does the Labour party believe that that sends? What signal does it send when it does not have the guts to have an opinion? I gather that what I see as a spineless gesture of abstention is intended to avoid giving Sinn Fein-IRA an excuse to bomb. Have the Opposition not noticed that Sinn Fein-IRA does not need an excuse to bomb? It has been bombing for the past 25 years, and it promises us another 25 years whether or not the Opposition vote today: it does not need an excuse.
Mr. Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wilshire: No, I shall not. I am very sorry.
Mr. Soley rose
Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman has had his 10 minutes. I now hope that he will let me have mine.
I believe that there is only one honourable course at the end of the debate: to vote one way or the other. I believe passionately that voting in favour of renewal of the pRevention of terrorism Act is the right thing to do. That said, I am willing to admit that I respect the integrity of those who have the guts to vote against it.
6.1 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: The Liberal Democrats will vote in favour of the renewal of the legislation tonight, as we have in previous years. We shall not abstain.
Since voting similarly last year, there has, of course, been a resumption of the IRA's bombing campaign, with all the terrible results that flow from that. Any ceasefire,

1149
even if it were still in operation, would have some uncertainty about it. An industry of violence has developed in Northern Ireland around the paramilitary organisations. There are, indeed, people who have a habit of violence, which the organisations seem to be having some difficulty in controlling. I have my suspicions that at least some of the assaults and attacks that took place during the ceasefire were carried out by members of the IRA who had nothing better to do and whose determination to continue using violence was channelled into those supposedly disciplinary activities, which, of course, had no shred of justice or legality associated with them. They were a form of intimidation.
Even if the ceasefire were continuing, we would have to keep in place some emergency measures for quite some time. As the Lloyd inquiry assumes, we would need, for the foreseeable future, some anti-terrorist provisions of wider application, which are relevant to other forms of terrorism that are happening around the world and that have some effect in this country.
Mr. Barnes: The IRA has suggested that it may engage in another 25 years of terrorism. Does that mean that the principles that are currently contained in the prevention of terrorism Act and to which the Opposition object so strongly should be in place for another 25 years? Would that help the process?
Mr. Beith: It means that the character of the legislation that we would have for the next 25 years would be influenced by the background of security that it was intended to deal with. It is difficult to speculate about whether the precise powers in the order would continue to prove useful or whether we would need others, which might involve other incursions into civil liberty. Civil liberties in this country will be damaged for as long as a terrorist organisation targets citizens as a means to exert political power. That is utterly deplorable, but it is a harsh reality.
We do not like this legislation, as it involves a curtailment of civil liberties, but bombs in cities curtail civil liberties absolutely and utterly. Therefore, we have to find ways in which to combat those who bring bombs, while minimising the risk to the civil liberties of others, recognising, however, that the threat to most of our citizens is profound. How far can we contest and combat terrorism and maintain our civil liberties? To a large extent, I hope.
What must be clear, of course, is that the legislation and what we keep on the statute book to deal with terrorism is not a part of the negotiating process. It is not part of attempting to secure a renewed ceasefire. It is the subject neither of threats nor of concessions. It is simply what we feel we have to do to protect our citizens. We should neither ease it to obtain concessions from the other side, nor, indeed, attempt to portray it more harshly in the belief that that will somehow frighten or intimidate. We judge it against the clear security background of what is necessary to protect our citizens.
We very much welcome the fact that the Lloyd review is taking place. It is what we asked for. It is a wide-ranging review. The Home Secretary, in his anxiety to make a different point, may have appeared to restrict the significance of Northern Ireland in the Lloyd review. I think that he was trying to make the point that much in
1150
the present situation cannot be resolved by the Lloyd review, because he is looking to a period in which we can assume that a long-term peace has been secured. That seemed to imply that Lord Lloyd is not concerned about Northern Ireland; he is, of course.
Any long-term view must take into account the fact that the possibility of any ceasefire will produce dissident elements who may be willing to resume acts of terrorism. We may need legislation on the statute book to cope with that. Lord Lloyd will have to consider what elements of the legislation will need to be in place in the longer term. We have talked to him about that already and expect to do so further. As was implicit in my reply to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), there will be problems even if we secure what we hope is a long-term peace, because there will always be those with the possibility of disrupting that peace.
We particularly dislike exclusion orders, to which much reference has been made tonight, and increasingly they are seen to have limited value. The resumption of hostilities on the mainland is, perhaps, the least propitious moment to bring about the final removal of exclusion orders from the mechanisms of counter-terrorism, but it is something that we should consider as soon as possible.
I regard the new procedure, following the Gallagher case, as an improvement. There is an argument to be made about whether it is a good idea to have a judge. It is important that we have someone who is seen to be independent. Judges carry out such work in relation to interception of communications, and their standing gives greater authority to what they do. I do not believe that it has to be a judge. Much hearsay evidence has to be considered in those matters, so we should not pretend that it is a judicial process. It is an independent review of the Executive, and it must be seen to be so. The detention element arises in part from the existence of an appeal procedure. The possibility of people being detained, when it remains possible that they will be allowed to go wherever they want, exists because they are able to challenge what the Home Secretary might otherwise do, which was not previously possible.
It is not a happy state of affairs, and it is not something that I want to keep on the statute book, but as long as it is there, I would like greater safeguards than there have been hitherto, so I support the second order, which provides that.
Detention for up to seven days is an unwelcome feature of this legislation. It is sometimes adversely compared with countries that allow longer detention without charge than is normal under our system. Nevertheless, I would not want to see it as a long-term part of our counter-terrorism legislation, because it has damaging effects, which the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) described, when it impinges on people who have no involvement in violence or terrorism.
The legislation contains uncontroversial provisions with which we do not wish to dispense—for instance, the provisions relating to the control of explosives, fund-raising and the confiscation of funds. There has been a good deal of public discussion about whether funds are being raised for terrorism in the middle east, and whether Hamas has channels for funds in this country. I hope that, if appropriate, the powers in the Act will be used to deal with any such developments.

1151
The Home Secretary spoke of the work of the police and the Security Service, which have a key role in the fight against terrorism. As I said when we discussed the Security Services Bill, there must be no let-up in the counter-terrorism work of the Security Service for as long as the current bombing campaign continues. I would be worried by any significant transfer of personnel from such work to dealing with organised crime: in the present circumstances, the counter-terrorism campaign should be an absolute priority for the Security Service.
In a similar debate last year, I said that it would be irresponsible to scrap the anti-terrorism legislation entirely, with immediate effect. That is what would have happened if a vote against the Government had been carried that night. I said then that we would vote to renew the Act, although we would continue to demand a general review of its working. Now that there is to be a general review, I feel even more determined that we should ensure that the legislation remains on the statute book, while working for a peace that will mean that at some point in the future our counter-terrorism legislation can make fewer incursions on civil liberties, and can be more directed towards some of the longer-term terrorist threats that will probably always exist.
We must constantly strive to achieve a balance between protecting our citizens from the total destruction of their civil liberties that being bombed, shot or maimed involves, and ensuring that, in providing such protection, we do not create some aspects of the society that the terrorists are wishing on us. We must ensure that we do not further their interests by reducing our civil liberties. Some terrorists, indeed, use the exploitation of the loss of civil liberties as one of their political tools. The more they think that they can make a country ungovernable, the more they think that they can exercise political power from the barrel of a gun or from their bomb-making activities.
That is a difficult balance for any Government to strike, and we shall continue to criticise when we feel that it could have been struck differently. Nevertheless, we do not consider it responsible at this stage to remove the powers that we are using against terrorism from the statute book.
6.12 pm
Sir Ivan Lawrence: I listened with some surprise to the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). I have listened to debates such as this for many years, but I have never heard the hon. Gentleman or anyone else suggest that, if the number of people excluded ever fell to 35, they would change their mind about whether to oppose the legislation.
I listened with complete amazement to the speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I am sorry that the House is not full, because we have witnessed yet another instance of the undermining of the Labour's party's bid to be credible on law and order. It is almost mind-blowing that a spokesman for that party should argue at the Dispatch Box that it has changed its posture because the Government are setting up a review which is, in fact, irrelevant to Irish terrorism; that he should use as an excuse for the change of heart the fact that a review has been announced, when it was announced on 9 January, before a debate on emergency
1152
powers legislation whose Second Reading Labour opposed; and that he should be blissfully unaware that his party voted against Second Reading, insisting when I challenged that that was not so.
Miss Hoey: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Sir Ivan Lawrence: I hope that the hon. Lady will not mind if I do not. I have only 10 minutes in which to speak.
Mr. Straw: If the review has nothing to do with the situation in Ireland, why was it announced on Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?
Sir Ivan Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman has referred to Mr. Rowe's report on the operation of the Act, in which it was made absolutely clear that Lord Lloyd's brief was
"To consider the future need for specific counter-terrorism legislation … if the cessation of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland leads to a lasting peace".
If the hon. Gentleman has not read that, however, I am not surprised, because he had not even read the report of the debate on the emergency powers legislation, and insisted that his party had not voted against it. That shows that the Labour party has no grip on the subject, that its members do not know what they are doing or saying and that, if there is a party fit to lead the country in the attack on terrorism, Labour is definitely not that party.
This is a fitting day on which to debate an Act that is intended to prevent the large-scale slaughter of innocent people. Most law-and-order legislation is directed at catching, convicting and sentencing the perpetrators of violent crime after their deeds have been done; if there is any element of prevention, it lies in establishing so fearsome a law that, if it is enforced efficiently, it may deter some would-be offenders. One of the strengths of this legislation is the fact that it meets the prevention of crime head on by proscribing terrorist organisations, and by excluding people suspected of involvement in terrorism from Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a whole.
Of course that is a form of rough justice, and it may be a denial of civil liberties; but there is ample justification for such action, and if the exclusion is directed in error in any particular case, no great harm is done.
Exclusion should not be seen as a punishment. It is a preventive measure, pure and simple. Moreover, exclusion orders can be reviewed by the Secretary of State if the independent adviser suggests it, or if fresh evidence appears that makes such a review necessary. They do not affect too many people, even if they affect them unjustly: the number of those excluded fell from 68 in 1994 to 35 in 1995—the lowest figure for 20 years. In fact, very few mistakes will have been made over those 35, because we have an exceptionally efficient Secret Intelligence Service.
This part of the legislation is not contrary even to the European convention on human rights. In the Gallagher case, it was made clear that the United Kingdom could derogate from article 5(3) in matters of exclusion and detention. John Rowe QC reviewed the operation of the Act even before the docklands bomb, and decided that it remained necessary to counter the threat of terrorism.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Sir Ivan Lawrence: No.

1153
Above all, if justice must be rough and the strict obligation to be sure beyond all doubt must be waived, it is because the IRA makes it impossible to obtain evidence for a court by terrifying witnesses. The IRA makes it impossible to secure convictions by terrifying people who, but for the Diplock courts, would serve on a jury. Civil liberties must also be considered from the victim's point of view: the victim of a terrorist attack is entitled to his or her civil liberties, too. So if rough justice is being done, the IRA has no one to blame but itself. And if errors are made, surely it is better to err in an effort to save innocent lives than to err in order to guarantee civil liberties.
It is no surprise that the police support exclusion orders, because their effect is to disrupt terrorist activity. There is no more vital and effective way of preventing terrorism than removing suspected terrorists from areas where they may well be plotting to slaughter innocent people. It would, of course, surprise anyone who did not know the Labour party that the party bidding to form the next Government opposed this order, on civil liberties grounds, for 13 years, and that even today some of its members propose not to go along with the leadership. That shows just how split the Labour party is. By doing that, it was saying, was it not, that it was justified in putting first the civil liberties of persons against whom there was evidence, even if it could not be adduced in a court, showing that they were parties to terrorism.
When the hon. Member for Blackburn says that Labour's change of heart is to stop the wrong message being given to the IRA, he is making it clear that for years the party was giving the wrong message to the IRA and to the nation. In an article in Tribune on 8 March, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said:
"When Straw announced on television that Labour was no longer going to oppose the continuation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, he argued that, following the ending of the IRA ceasefire, it would send the wrong message to the IRA that somehow Labour was being soft on terrorism … It suggests that Roy Hattersley, Gerald Kaufman and the entire Labour leadership were, at the height of the IRA campaigns and atrocities, by opposing the PTA, sending out signals to the IRA that they were soft on terrorism."
How on earth can anyone call a decision to abstain, which I understand Labour intends to take, a clear message to the IRA?
It is obvious that Labour has woken up to the fact that it is suffering in the public eye by being soft on crime and its causes. It has decided to give a clear signal to the British people that it is "tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime"—by abstaining.
Part of the legislation helps to protect innocent people from international terrorism—one of the blots from which the world is at present suffering. As new nation states emerge and states become unstable, international terrorism may grow. Terrorism is being used at the moment to undermine the peace in the middle east, with the most horrific acts of violence in Jerusalem and in Tel Aviv and other parts of Israel. We have to play our part in helping to defeat international terrorism. We have pledged ourselves to do that by international treaties and agreements, and we are doing it by this legislation. We do it by helping to plug the hole in current legislation—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I call Sir James Molyneaux.
Mr. Mullin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have been debating the Act for almost two hours. Forty minutes from now, the Front-Bench spokesmen will begin to sum up. The House has not yet heard anyone who is opposed to the Act. I hope that in the next 40 minutes someone will be permitted to put the opposition case.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Sir James Molyneaux.
6.22 pm
Sir James Molyneaux: I shall not seek to follow that point of order, but it seems to me that a great many groans, moans and supplementaries showed a fair measure of dissent from the side of the House on which I sit.
In last year's debate on this legislation, my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) expressed the hope, which was shared by many of us—perhaps all of us—that there might be no need for the renewal that we are debating. He said:
"it is important that we do not lose the protection that the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act provide with regard to terrorist acts. It is not wise to leave the United Kingdom without some pennanent protection."—[Official Report, 8 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 379–80.]
That has been the consistent view of my party for well over 20 years. It was because of our concern for the protection of the United Kingdom that the right hon. Enoch Powell persuaded a Committee examining the Act to extend its scope to deal with international terrorism. Not for the first time was he criticised, and not for the first or last time was Enoch Powell proved correct in his prediction. For what other reasons would the leaders of the world's nations gather in Egypt this very week? I imagine that the British delegation will have been surprised by the resolute approach of some other participating nations, most of which regard Britain as a soft touch for evil-doers. They may have derived that impression from making the mistake of reading Hansard in their native tongue.
In the House, there has been a marked reluctance to recognise the enormity of the challenge of international terrorism to democracy and civilisation. Wishful thinking clouds judgment to an extent that confounds many of our friends elsewhere. For example, several months ago at an Australian international airport, I complimented the security chief on the rigorous checking system employed at the airport. Innocently, I asked him whether it was intended to relax the measures in view of the IRA ceasefire. His reply was significant. He said, "No. The IRA ceasefire is only a small blip. We have to develop even more effective measures, mindful of the known fact that international terrorism will be a permanent affliction." Glancing at my boarding pass, he said, "Well, have a good trip, but remember that the jumbo jet is the most vulnerable element in modern society." That was a chilling thought to take home with me.
There are those who are ever-vigilant in their concern for the protection of human rights. They have been consistent, and one must admire their stand. They highlight, for example, exclusion orders, seven-day detentions and powers of arrest and search. But those are

1155
mere infringements that are reversible and have proved to be reversible—all of them. However, the obliteration of the human right to life is totally irreversible. What right of appeal was open to the Lockerbie victim, and what redress is available to an Israeli child who has been blown to bits? What can compensate the murdered newsagents at Canary wharf? It is of no avail to say that two wrongs do not make one right, but that is not the equation. The seven-day prisoner will be released, but the murdered citizen cannot have his life restored. The longer Governments dither over mere inconveniences, the more murders and mass murders there will be. That is the real, true moral challenge to all of us.
For the second half of this century, the NATO shield protected the free world from the horrors of both conventional and nuclear wars. We now have to ensure that this week's summit in Egypt leads to the establishment of a mechanism that is just as effective in its own way, as was NATO, in protecting democracy and civilisation from terrorist machines every bit as deadly as old-style warfare.
In my maiden speech in 1971. I explained that in Northern Ireland we were seeing for the first time in Europe a demonstration of urban guerilla warfare. The pattern evolving at that time and the product have been successfully exported to many parts of the world. It follows that the civilised world must construct a counter-terrorist organisation on the lines that were mentioned today by the Prime Minister during questions. We were all greatly encouraged to hear him say that the first step towards that goal would take place within a fortnight.
6.28 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: We have heard a reasoned and sensible speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) on the broad issues of terrorism. I should like to develop that theme a bit. This afternoon, we have discussed the terror inflicted on innocent children in a ghastly slaughter in Dunblane. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has returned from talks in Sharm el-Sheikh, where he has been discussing international terrorism, so it is especially apt that we should be discussing the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.
As has rightly been pointed out, we live in an increasingly dangerous world where buses blow up in Tel Aviv and in the Aldwych. We see much violence on our screens, be it fictional or showing real incidents. That violence may have influenced Mr. Hamilton, the maniac in Dunblane. Other influences, voices and propaganda encourage people such as Edward O'Brien, who was blown up in the Aldwych. We should ask whether society should have the powers to defend itself against organised terrorism.
That is why I welcome the review under Lord Lloyd. It is right and important to review counter-terrorist measures. Legislation should cover the whole of the United Kingdom, not just part of it. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act covers Northern Ireland. This part of the UK is covered by the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. Legislation covering the whole country would be more logical.
1156
As the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley said, international terrorism is a threat in the United Kingdom. There have been recent attacks against Israeli targets. There is a fatwa against Salman Rushdie. Organisations here have links with Hamas. Further back, Georgi Markhov was murdered on Hungerford bridge by the Bulgarian secret service. International terrorism poses real threats to life and limb in this country. We should have the means to defend ourselves and the necessary tools in the locker to protect society.
I differ from the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), who said:
"I do not believe … that we need to keep emergency powers on the statute book when we do not have an emergency all the time."— [Official Report, 9 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 42.]
Internationally, the development of emergencies is growing. We should be able to keep some of those powers in abeyance, but the world is not becoming safer, so at the moment we need them.
Some of reasons why we must have the emergency provisions Act have been mentioned. The reasons include the fact that terrorists are not reasonable people. Sinn Fein spokesmen deny the truth when they speak on television. Last month, I heard Martin McGuinness interviewed on the BBC. For more than a minute, he was not interrupted by the interviewer. When does a Cabinet Minister escape being interrupted for more than a minute?
Sinn Fein spokesmen will twist the truth and brazenly say that black is white, and that the Government are to blame for the end of the ceasefire. That is patently untrue. As has been mentioned, Sinn Fein-IRA rely on crime for a large part of their income, as well as on gullible United States citizens. They rely on racketeering and on corruption.
I welcome last December's Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, but Sinn Fein-IRA remain inextricably linked to crime, as do some Protestant paramilitaries. I was always opposed to the broadcasting ban on Sinn Fein and on the other paramilitaries. I should welcome some tough questioning. I wonder whether interviewers are intimidated by stony-faced terrorist sympathisers. some of whom are convicted terrorists with blood on their hands. I wonder whether Sinn Fein spokesmen have been schooled in resisting interrogation and being interviewed, because they stand there saying that black is white.
I make a plea to broadcasters, if any are listening. They should remember whom they are questioning, and be a little more forthright.
Intimidation is a real factor, which is why we need these provisions. There is intimidation against populations, voters, witnesses to crime on the mainland and witnesses in Northern Ireland, which Northern Ireland Members will know much more about than me. I remember bus drivers being held up with weapons and refusing to testify because they feared for their lives. There is intimidation here in relation to terrorism.
I should like to mention, in a slight digression perhaps, that there is intimidation against politicians in the House. Journalists have told me that some hon. Members are unwilling to speak openly on Northern Ireland. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, remembering the deaths of Airey Neave and of Ian Gow, to revisit the question of—
Mr. McNamara: What about Robert Bradford?
Mr. Robathan: I have yet to finish.
I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to revisit the question of candidates' addresses on nomination and ballot papers. That was considered in early 1992. I understand that that was backed by the Labour party. We give a gift to terrorists.
Northern Irish politicians live with that nightmare the whole time. Mr. Bradford has just been mentioned. Several hon. Members have been attacked. Lord Fitt from the other place was attacked in Andersonstown. More recently, the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and others were attacked.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The family of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea).
Mr. Robathan: I hear a sedentary intervention. Many hon. Members have been attacked and intimidated. I pay tribute to the bravery of hon. Members who still return here despite those attacks, but we should not assist terrorists, be they republican or loyalist, by giving them the gift of the home addresses of people who wish to speak out.
Here and in Northern Ireland, we need the extended powers that the EPA gives us. We are not dealing with cosy criminals from a "Dixon of Dock Green" wonderland. There is no honour among these thieves. The atrocities in Northern Ireland are too many to mention, but I recall the children murdered in Warrington. What brave boyos those murderers were. What courage they showed for the cause—another stain on the history of Ireland. A united Ireland is a respectable political aspiration, but those murders differed from those in Dunblane only in the number killed.
In August 1919, Siegfried Sassoon wrote a poem entitled "Aftermath". It stated:
"Have you forgotten yet?"
I say to Opposition Members who are considering voting against these measures—have they forgotten the Baltic exchange, Canary wharf, the mortars at Heathrow and other outrages? Has anyone been caught? I fear not, but at least we give the security forces all possible assistance.
The rule of law has been mentioned. The Government must act within the rule of law. Where they do not do so, or where their agents do not so, the judiciary should and does act. Generally the police have acted reasonably with the powers that have been given. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) may disagree, but the police are well motivated and reasonable, in marked contrast with the opponents they face.
Was Edward O'Brien 21? I think so. He was recruited by the lies and deceits of the IRA, destined to blow himself to bits and injure others, including a poor unfortunate fellow Irishman. Some hon. Members would say that that is no justification for giving the police the powers to stop and search someone whom they suspect, yet there are other sleepers and other IRA cells in this country. We must have the power to stop, search and detain if necessary. The Bill allows the exclusion of suspects. This country's population want the police to defend them and have the other powers that are given.
1158
This is not a totalitarian measure. It is to protect the citizens of the United Kingdom. Hon. Members who oppose it show how gullible they are. I would accuse most of the Members who will do so this evening not of having sympathy for the IRA, but of extreme foolish and misguided ideology. The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) talked of political prisoners. That says more about his gullibility, blinkered views and instincts than anything else. I hope that his comment is duly published in the newspapers.
The Labour party, I regret, is not backing this measure. I hope that it will convert at the last moment, support the Government, and show that it is not soft on terrorism.
6.38 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Today, we celebrate the release of the Birmingham Six. That terrible explosion was the cause of this legislation. Many of us were panicked into voting for it because we saw it as a means of protecting the Irish population in this country against what was happening to them as a result of that terrible episode. This is the fifth anniversary of release of the Birmingham Six, and the people who perpetrated that foul bombing are still at large. They have not been captured, for all the years that we have had the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.
The last time we debated the Act, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) moved an amendment. It said:
"this House, reasserting its determination to defeat terrorism and believing that the defeat of terrorism in Northern Ireland can only be achieved with the wholehearted support of law-abiding citizens, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill that undermines the rule of law on which the fight against terrorism must be based; and refuses to provide permanent powers either for a suspect to be detained for seven days without charge or for exclusion orders that effectively impose internal exile on British citizens, since such powers are wrong in principle and, by the offence they cause, aid rather than combat terrorists and terrorism".—[Official Report, 6 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 215.]
The question we have to ask today is whether that position has altered in respect of the reasons why the Opposition voted for that reasoned amendment and against the Bill. My hon. Friends the Members for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) would argue that it has, and that the change has been the result of the Government's decision to appoint a commission, presided over by Lord Justice Lloyd and assisted by Mr. Justice Kerr, to determine what anti-terrorist legislation we might need in the event of a cessation of hostilities in Northern Ireland.
There is no cessation of hostilities in Northern Ireland. I regret that very much; I wish there were. I wish that the terms and conditions under which Lord Justice Lloyd is looking at these matters really existed, that the premise was there—but that is not the case. It is standing logic on its head to say that the Labour party reverses its position because of a Government decision based on a proposition which, sadly, has not become reality. Like everyone else, I hope that there will be an unconditional ceasefire today, but that has not yet happened. Therefore, the premise on which the Labour party has decided to abstain tonight does not exist.
Let us take the matter one stage further, and suppose that Lord Justice Lloyd produces his report in a vacuum and recommends that we should retain detention for seven days

1159
and exclusion orders. Do we then suddenly change our position and say, "Well, the referee, that impartial judge who has been appointed, does not accept our principles, so we must either accept what he says or reject what he says and vote accordingly"? Where is the consistency in that? There is none, so it is wrong of us to think or act in those terms.
During my happy days on the Front Bench, I spent some time looking at the question of a judicial commission. We did so in an attitude of trying to help a Government who seemed to be impaled upon the horns of seven-day detention and exclusion orders. We wanted to get away from those. However, the principles behind our suggestions were never accepted by the Government.
There was never any inter-party agreement to sit down and talk through the issues, which was our first proposition. Our second, for an independent commission, was never accepted while the fighting was continuing and the terror still existed. During that time, there was an elision of the principle of being against seven-day detention and internal exile, and a sudden belief in the "principle" of a judicial inquiry. Surely that is not in any way a principle.
If we get a decision we like, is there any guarantee that the Government will come through with it? From what we have heard from the Home Secretary today, it seems that the Government are implacably of the belief that they must retain exclusion orders and seven-day detention, without a judicial element. Did the Home Secretary say today that, if Lord Justice Lloyd came out with such and such a proposition, the Government would immediately embrace it? Has he given an undertaking that, when we get the result of the inquiry in the autumn, if it embraces certain suggestions we will have immediate legislation to put them into effect? Far from it. Considering the proposition for an independent judge is just putting off the problem until after the next general election. It is an easy way out.
We supported the proposition for a commission, but we never said that the exclusion orders and seven-day detention were anything other than wrong in principle, wrong in their effect. As a recruiting agent for the IRA. they have been without parallel.
Mr. Roger Stott: In about an hour, barring an unforeseen accident, the House will renew the Act. It will still contain the power for the Home Secretary to sign exclusion orders. My hon. Friend is aware of the case of John Matthews, to which I referred from the Front Bench when I was my hon. Friend's deputy. The Home Secretary can still sign an exclusion order for a young man who was set free from a magistrates court without a stain on his character. That power will be retained this evening, no matter what we do.
Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a point that I had intended to make. The Home Secretary, in his speech, condemned left, right and centre people suspected of planting bombs, evil crimes, murder and so on. He put labels on people, yet not one of them is able to defend himself, to see the evidence or to go before a jury in this country or a Diplock court to defend himself. The Home Secretary engaged in some of the most terrible
1160
smearing imaginable. It puts those people in ghettos where they become walking targets, find it difficult to get jobs, and are unable to go out of their areas without being attacked.
I want to return to the Opposition's attitude. We are renewing these provisions in March. What happens if there is not a general election—the Government do not want one—until next spring, with Lord Justice Lloyd coming along with his report but the Government doing nothing? Why do we have to go through all this again, especially if Lord Justice Lloyd does not come down on our side? If he does come down on our side and we have the order, there will be the nonsense of voting on that occasion, but not on this one. It does not make sense.
I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that they cannot run before this particular Home Secretary, because he will get them every time. The logic is that, by abstaining, we are in effect voting for these provisions. There is no choice; there is no question of abstention—we are either for the provisions or we are against them. We welcome a judicial inquiry, but we should still stand firm against renewing the provisions.
6.48 pm
Mr. Seamus Mallon: There have been some remarks about being soft on terrorism. I have always regarded this debate as a litmus test on being soft on terrorism. Anyone who believes that any of us who come here as representatives of the north of Ireland are soft on terrorism should come and stay where we live, and he will find out about that.
I speak against, and will vote against, the motion for two reasons. My position is based on two basic principles of justice which do not, cannot and should not change with the political climate; which do not, cannot and should not change with the mood; and which do not, cannot and should not change with the feeling that is prevalent at any given time. It is not easy to speak against this Act today, after what happened in Scotland yesterday, but those principles must remain, and they are tied by two elements of the Act.
The first is the power of detention for seven days without any judicial assessment—contrary to the European convention on human rights—which is wrong, irrespective of the year or the circumstances. The second element is the power to exclude people in this jurisdiction, which is not only outside the norm of national and international law, but antipathetic to it.
The principles cannot be bartered away or be conditional on any prevalent mood. Nor can the debate be dispensed with by sleight of hand, on the fragile and probably fallacious argument that, as Micawber said, something might turn up. For Micawber insert Lloyd. Something will not turn up, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) correctly predicted.
When I heard the Labour party's decision to abstain, I felt obliged to look through copies of Hansard for the past 10 years that I have been a Member to find out what new elements I had not identified and what had changed since we last voted on the subject. I did not find any new element, except the proposed Lloyd review. Indeed, the principles that I hold were expressed by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) when he said:

1161
"the only safeguard … against arbitrary arrest is a review by some authority outside the Government who arrested him or her."
That remains a principle to which I adhere, as I hope all hon. Members do.

The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook also expressed his opinion on the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights when he said:
"The fact that the Government have chosen to ignore or defy that judgment … is in itself cause for us to vote against the order."
That remains a cause for me to vote against the Act. He expanded on the point when he said:
"A second cause is a renewal of the powers that, in the words of a previous Attorney-General, amount to 'internal exile'—the exclusion orders."—[Official Report, 6 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 822.]
I will not just cite the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook as an authority on the subject. I refer the House to what the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said in a similar debate:
"Exclusion orders represent an Executive power of such force that it belongs to an authoritarian regime and is unlike anything in the British tradition of parliamentary democracy …They are unacceptable to all true democrats".—[Official Report, 30 January 1989; Vol. 146, c. 31.]
They are unacceptable to me, and I hope that they are unacceptable to other hon. Members too.
The power of seven-day detention has been abused. The former Home Secretary, Sir Leon Brittan, allowed it to be abused when he defined two reasons why it could be used. He said that it could be used
"first, as a deterrent to persons other than the people who have been detained and, secondly",
because it has
"enabled information to be obtained that was of direct value in the battle against terrorism, even though it did not lead to action against the people concerned."—[Official Report, 24 October 1983; Vol. 47, c. 55–6.]
There is a dilution of the principles of law in a statement by a former Home Secretary.
Such dilution has affected many people—mostly Irish people in Britain. We are all appalled by the bomb attack in which a young man was killed. Does anybody know the name of the young man who was injured in that incident? His name was Paul Woodhead, who ended up in hospital under armed guard and was detained under the PTA. He was the only person of all those who were injured to be put in that position—why? Because he is Irish. Although I understand the position in which people find themselves after an explosion, that is too much of a coincidence. I simply use that one example, but I could use many more.
The proposed review—regardless of whether Lord Lloyd turns out to be Micawber—is not the first that has been carried out by eminent jurists. Reviews have been carried out by Lord Jellicoe, Lord Shackleton, Lord Gardiner, Sir Cyril Phillips, Lord Colville, Sir George Baker and John Rowe. They all conducted either detailed or broad reviews of the operation of the Acts, and they all have one thing in common: when they recommended changes to the fundamental principles, the Government ignored them. The Government ignored their suggestions about exclusion orders and a judicial element in the seven-day detention power.
What should we expect from the latest review? Where is the confidence that, somehow or other, the Government will be convinced that the situation has changed so much
1162
that they should accept the review? I cannot make that act of faith in Lord Lloyd, any more than I could in John Rowe or any of the noble Lords who reviewed the legislation.
When the Home Secretary referred to the input of a judicial element in the seven-day detention power in last year's debate, he said that the Government had carried out a review, and informed us:
"We have considered whether there might be a different way to achieve that objective, and we have come to the conclusion that there is not."—[Official Report, 9 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 305.]
Lord Lloyd is going to review a proposed judicial element, yet the Government's view is that things will not change, irrespective of what he presents to the House.
I leave the last word on the subject to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), whose speech I listened to with great interest, and some alarm. I wrote down at the time the words that he used in a television interview he gave on "Newsnight", so I know that I am not misquoting him. He said of the PTA:
"it is a bad Act, and it needs to go."
I believe that it is a bad Act. I believe that it needs to go. But the only way in which I can try to ensure that is by voting against it tonight, as I hope every hon. Member who feels that way will do, given that it abuses the principles of law.
6.57 pm
Mr. Dennis Canavan: I consider the term prevention of terrorism Act a misnomer; it has not prevented terrorism. Twenty-two years ago, it was rushed through both Houses of Parliament in the aftermath of the Birmingham bombings. It has certainly not helped to catch the real culprits and, since then, many innocent people have been arrested and detained under it. We should be very wary about simple knee-jerk reactions to acts of terrorism.
We all condemn the atrocities, including the recent London bombings, and want to bring the perpetrators to justice. Lord Colville, who conducted a review of the PTA, said:
"if we stoop to the level of the terrorists and abandon altogether our fundamental liberties, we have lost the battle against terrorism."
I was a Member of Parliament when the original legislation was enacted. Even Lord Jenkins, the Home Secretary at the time, admitted that it was a draconian measure. Exclusion orders are a form of internal exile by ministerial decree. Ministers can order detention for up to seven days with no judicial hearing. It is no wonder that such extreme powers were found to be in breach of the European convention on human rights and that the British Government had to seek a derogation from the convention.
Since the introduction of the prevention of terrorism Act, 448 people have been served with exclusion orders—33 of which are still in force. Since 1974, more than 27,000 people have been detained under the PTA and about 85 per cent. of them were not charged with any offence. It is a very blunt instrument and it could prove counter-productive in the campaign against terrorism. Good police-community relations are absolutely essential in that campaign, and the prevention of terrorism Act has succeeded in alienating many innocent people, their families and their communities. It has caused hostility between communities and the police, particularly among

1163
young people, who are often arrested and detained—their only crime being their Irish accent, Irish name or Irish family connections.
Since last year's debate, the Government have established another review, to be undertaken by Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I have no great confidence that he will tackle the basic problem. His terms of reference are as follows:
"To consider the future need for specific counter-terrorism legislation in the United Kingdom, if the cessation of violence connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland leads to a lasting peace".
As we all now know, that is a big "if'. It could be argued that those terms of reference have been tragically overtaken by events in view of the IRA's deplorable decision to end the ceasefire. I think that the Home Secretary said in his opening remarks that the Lloyd review has precious little to do with terrorism related to the Irish situation. Given that fact, I do not expect Lloyd to recommend scrapping the exclusion orders and introducing a judicial element into detention orders. At best, we simply do not know what Lloyd will recommend. It would be naive to buy a pig in a poke by voting for continuing the Act or abstaining in the hope that Lloyd will address the legitimate criticisms that have been made.
I have voted against this draconian legislation for many years and nothing that I have heard tonight has persuaded me to do otherwise. If the Government are serious about eliminating terrorism, they should repeal all such oppressive legislation, establish better police-community relations, and accelerate the peace process so that the terrorists and potential terrorists can see clearly that democratic and exclusively peaceful means are the only way to make progress and to build a better society based on peace, justice and equality.
7.2 pm
Mr. Chris Mullin: I am grateful to be called to speak in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker—particularly in light of my recent point of order. It is a pleasure to be associated with the principled stand taken by the hon. Members for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) and for South Down (Mr. McGrady). No one could accuse them of being soft on terrorism: they must live with the realities of it every day.
Although I am well aware of his general view of the world, I was a little disappointed by the contribution of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who is a distinguished lawyer and a part-time judge. I was disappointed to hear him talk quite enthusiastically about the need for rough justice. That gives us a glimpse of the judicial thinking that perhaps got us into the difficulties that we were in a few years ago.
I am as much in favour of catching terrorists as anyone—indeed, I have had rather better luck than the British authorities in tracking down the odd terrorist, without having the prevention of terrorism Act or any other such powers at my disposal. I should state at the outset that my interest is in justice—particularly British justice. I do not believe that the Act has led to the arrest and conviction of terrorists who would not otherwise have been arrested and convicted. However, I believe that it has led to the harassment of many decent people who are not terrorists.
1164
I accept, as some have argued, that the Act is no longer used—or misused—as much as it was in the past and I welcome that fact. I think that that is probably because of the pressure that the Opposition have maintained for the past 13 or 14 years in voting against the measure.
I accept that there might be a case for some of the provisions in the Act, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) mentioned. Like most hon. Members who have spoken, I find exclusion orders distasteful, but they are not as effective as Ministers seem to think. One of the first people to be excluded under an exclusion order was one of the organisers of the Birmingham pub bombings. He should not have been excluded, but arrested and put on trial. On another occasion, I met someone who had been excluded who returned to the country during his period of exclusion and even visited friends in prison.
For all the talk, exclusion orders are not as effective as the Home Secretary appears to think. However, that is not the fundamental reason why I shall vote against the measure this evening. My principal objection arises from section 14(5) of the Act, which gives the Secretary of State power to extend, to up to seven days, the holding of prisoners incommunicado and without the safeguards of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That is the bottom line as far as I am concerned: I shall not vote for any measure that allows prisoners to be held incommunicado for up to seven days. I know from experience—as we all should by now—that it is possible to get anyone to confess to anything if he or she is at one's disposal for seven days and nights. Perhaps the Home Secretary or Lord Lloyd of Berwick might consider extending the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to cover those who are arrested in connection with terrorism.
My attitude will be changed not by a review, but by a change in the Act. Until the Act, or section 14(5), is changed, I propose to continue to vote against it.
7.7 pm
Mr. Jim Dowd: I begin by offering the apologies—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—of my hon. Friends the Members for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) and for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) who, with many hon. Members from Northern Ireland and others, are in the United States at this particularly significant time.
As the House knows, the measures that we are considering today have their origins in the response to the slaughter that resulted from the Birmingham pub bombings in 1974. I have a very clear recollection of those outrages, as I am sure do all hon. Members. I remember them particularly for the reaction of one Irish person who had been resident in London for more than 40 years, 15 of which were spent serving in the Royal Air Force, including the whole of the second world war. He was working for the Post Office, as he had done for 20 years. He felt unable to go to work, or even to leave the house, on the day after the bombings, not because he feared abuse or worse, but because he felt deeply ashamed at being Irish and at what had been done allegedly in his name. He was a mature, well-established British citizen who had his home and his family in London. Tragically, his experience was not unique. It has been shared by far too many other members of the Irish community both then and since. I know that that is true because that man was my father.

1165
In the past 25 years or so, the gunmen and the bombers of the IRA, in their culpable distortion of the tradition of Irish republicanism, far from advancing peace and freedom in Ireland, have brought untold suffering, misery, distress and disgrace upon Irish people wherever they might be. It would be hard to find a better exposition of that than the extraordinary and resonant speech of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on the Third Reading of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill a few weeks ago. I recommend study of it to every hon. Member.
The return of the so-called bombing campaign by the IRA has had a particular significance in Lewisham, part of which I represent. The Aldwych bus bomber was staying in a flat in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice). The 171 bus left Catford bus garage on that fateful Sunday evening and the driver who, thankfully, is making a good recovery, lives in Brockley in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock). One of the tragic victims of the South Quay atrocity lived in Downham, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East. Lewisham has a large and well-established Irish community and those events have done nothing to its benefit—as is true of the rest of the country.
I was particularly struck by what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said about the experience of Mr. Paul Woodhead, who happened to be an innocent Irishman in the wrong place. Although it should be placed on record that his family in Dublin quite understood why security forces here and in the Republic had to take certain precautions, one can imagine their horror when the Gardai turned up on their doorstep to tell them that he had been seriously injured—I am pleased to hear that he is recovering—and that he was suspected of having been deeply involved in an IRA atrocity in London.
As has been said, tonight's debate is about means and not ends. There can be no dispute that all hon. Members are resolutely determined to stop the inhuman brutality of terrorism wherever it may occur and whoever perpetrates it. The discussion centres on the effectiveness of the proposed measures and the circumstances to which they apply.
The Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, among others, have made it plain that the circumstances are different now from what they were a year ago. The Home Secretary said that the circumstances had not been the same in any of the years in which he has dealt with the matter. The Government's agreement to establish a review, under Lord Lloyd of Berwick, of temporary and emergency powers to counter the terrorist threat—for which we have been pressing for a number of years—is most positive. Some hon. Members may feel that it is not change enough, but without doubt the most negative change since last year has been the ending of the IRA ceasefire and the assertion by Sinn Fein that the peace process is finished.
Our forthright response is twofold. First, we should state categorically that the search for a lasting peace with security in Britain and Ireland will never be over—under any Government, here or in Dublin—until it has achieved its end. The only choice is about whether any party or group wishes to take the necessary steps to join in that endeavour. It will never be easy, but that is inevitable.
1166
Secondly, no democratic Government or society can allow those who use violence, subversion and intimidation to have a veto over progress towards the just settlement that is craved by the overwhelming majority of decent people throughout these islands.
One of the most insidious threats to democracy from those who sponsor and practise terror is that they provoke a disproportionate response from those they attack, which they can then use as a spurious retrospective justification for their actions. There can never be any doubt that terrorism will be resisted by all necessary means, but we must always ensure that we do not fall into that devious trap.
In a recent written answer, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), who is not in his place, stated:
"Whatever the law … should be, it is clearly essential that it should allow for the efficient use of public resources; pay due regard to public safety yet be no more restrictive than absolutely necessary, and be capable of being effectively applied and not open to abuse."—[Official Report, 26 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 402.]
I am certain that all hon. Members will agree. Certainly Opposition Members do—it is a model of its kind. The only argument that arose when I quoted that sentence to the Minister when the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill was discussed in Committee, concerned how the current proposals compared with that standard.
We are dealing with an entirely reasonable and legitimate subject on which hon. Members have strong views. The measures have far-reaching consequences. There should be no doubt that we are prepared to take whatever action is appropriate to defend democracy, its citizens and its freedoms against any group that threatens it, but in our unflinching determination to do so, we must be certain that we do not make an already difficult task harder by neglecting or overlooking the very values for which our society stands.
Some hon. Members have asked what store we set by Lord Lloyd. Others, most notably the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), clearly do not understand the purpose of the Lloyd review. It is plainly absurd for him to assert that it has nothing to do with Northern Ireland. Not only was it announced in the House on 9 January by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but Lord Lloyd will be assisted in his deliberations by Mr. Justice Kerr, who has been appointed specifically because he is a judge in the High Court in Northern Ireland. It is absurd for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that there is no impact on Northern Ireland.
It is disingenuous in the extreme for the Home Secretary to minimise what he feels will emerge from the Lloyd review. I would say that it is unworthy of the Home Secretary to be so inflammatory, but it may be unworthy of the office of Home Secretary rather than the Home Secretary himself. We do not prejudge the outcome of the Lloyd review.
The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) said that he would prefer there to be a single, comprehensive package of anti-terrorist legislation. That is precisely what we have been pursuing and urging on the Government for many years. We hope that Lord Lloyd will be able to make such a recommendation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn explained that we have strong reservations about the current legislation but, as he also made plain, we have no

1167
objection to the bulk of its provisions and are in favour of their continuing. Indeed, there might be a case for strengthening some of them. It seems odd that the Home Secretary should diminish what is likely to emerge from the Lloyd review—
Sir Ivan Lawrence: He does not.
Mr. Dowd: The hon. and learned Member for Burton says that he does not, but I am sure that the Home Secretary is perfectly capable of making his own defence. I understand that the hon. and learned Member for Burton has represented various dubious clients in the past, including the Kray brothers, but he should not let his enthusiasm run away with him when defending the Home Secretary.
The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill was brought in for a two-year period—the preceding measure ran for five years—precisely so that it could be open to the amendment and revision that we hope the review will recommend. We believe that the review is long overdue, and we hope that Lord Lloyd will reach the same conclusion as Lord Colville and that the legislation can be improved so that it stops being in part—and only in part—counter-productive and measures up to the standard of security that the British people have every right to expect.
7.18 pm
Mr. Howard: With the leave of the House, I should like to pick up the main themes that have emerged from the debate and respond to some of the points that have been raised.
As in previous years, much has been made of the exclusion power. We have heard objections to it on grounds of civil liberties or its being an unacceptable form of internal exile. As I have already made clear, it is a power that has been used sparingly and carefully over the past year and there are only 33 exclusion orders currently in force—less than half the number at the beginning of 1995.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Home Secretary agree that it is dangerous for any Minister to have the use of exclusion powers, and that it is doubly dangerous to have exclusion powers that cannot be contested in a court of law and, therefore, are not open to public examination? That is condemned around the world and it should be condemned here as well.
Mr. Howard: It has not been condemned by people who have examined the issue, including Mr. Rowe, because they know that it would be naive and irresponsible for a Government to abandon the power of exclusion while the IRA maintains its weapons, explosives and the will to use them.
I will put it plainly to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and others who think like him. If we had obtained intelligence of who was planning to carry out the South Quay bombing, or of Edward O'Brien's purpose in coming to London to lie low with a stock of Semtex, I would have had no qualms in excluding them and using the powers that the prevention of terrorism Act provides. I do not believe that anyone has the "civil
1168
liberty" to travel around the United Kingdom to commit whatever acts of terrorism he pleases. I am far more concerned with the civil liberty to run a newsagents in docklands without the roof being blown in on top of one, or to catch a No. 171 bus without it blowing up in the Strand. Those are the civil liberties about which I care passionately.
Mr. Corbyn rose—
Mr. McNamara rose—
Mr. Howard: I shall not give way again. I was generous in giving way during my opening remarks, and now I want to finish in the time allotted to me.
As for extensions of detention under section 14 of the Act, to which the hon. Member for Sunderland, South referred, I give my personal authority for any detention beyond 48 hours. In doing so, I look at the case put by the police—including, for example, the need not simply for questioning, but for further inquiries or searches to be made or, with foreign suspects, for suspicious material to be translated. I take into account any intelligence that might justify the inquiries. Where an extension of detention is necessary for investigative purposes, I authorise it, for the period necessary.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South was wrong when he suggested that it is possible under section 14 for a person to be detained for seven days, incommunicado and without seeing a solicitor. The maximum time that the right to consult a solicitor can be delayed, and then only for the specific purposes set out in section 14, is 48 hours. The maximum time for which contact with a solicitor can be delayed in non-PTA cases is 36 hours. The hon. Gentleman attached great significance to those powers this evening and on the "Today" programme this morning, but he is mistaken in his interpretation of section 14. The difference between that section and the ordinary application of the law outwith the prevention of terrorism Act is limited.
Mr. Mullin: Is the Home Secretary saying that no one has ever been held, without access to a solicitor, for more than 48 hours under the Act?
Mr. Howard: I have no knowledge of anybody being held for more than 48 hours, for which section 14 provides—the power that we are debating this evening, and which the hon. Gentleman misinterpreted or misunderstood.
It was suggested that the power of detention should include a judicial element, but the decision to detain cannot sensibly be taken by anyone who does not have access to the full intelligence picture that enables an informed judgment to be made. The introduction of a judicial element has been rejected in a series of reviews of the Act—by Lord Shackleton in 1978, by Lord Jellicoe in 1983 and by Viscount Colville in 1987. Mr. Rowe deals with the matter in chapters 6 and 8 of his report, in which he succinctly, but clearly, sets out the arguments against judicial intervention. I shall not repeat the arguments because they are set out for all to see in the report.
Perhaps the most difficult issue to address is the funding of terrorist operations in other countries. Whatever legislation is in place, it is extremely difficult to get the

1169
evidence necessary to secure a conviction. Money can be laundered through various routes, and some may be used for humanitarian purposes as a cover. As soon as one, supposedly innocent, fund-raising activity is exposed, the collecting tins come out under another guise. To tackle that, we need close and careful international co-operation. In many cases, it may be best to tackle the fund raiser rather than the fund that he establishes—excluding or deporting where there is information that justifies the use of those powers on the basis that the person's activities are effectively funding terrorism elsewhere. I shall continue to give close attention to that. If there are ways of tightening up our practices that will make a real difference, I shall be delighted to put them into effect.
Much has been made of Lord Lloyd's review. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) asked whether the review could consider introducing new powers. I unhesitatingly give my hon. Friend my assurance that it will. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) suggested that I was seeking to minimise the significance of the Lloyd review, but nothing could be further from the truth. I said that the Lloyd report is predicated on the ending of Northern Irish terrorism. It is intended to examine the permanent powers that we shall need to combat terrorism if and when there is a ceasefire in Northern Ireland—so it is not relevant to the heart of the issues we have debated today. I see many nodding heads among the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen seated behind the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who wholly failed to grasp the central aspect of the report's significance in relation to this debate.
I walked through South Quay with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. I saw the devastation caused in London just a few weeks ago. Ask people in South Quay if they support the prevention of terrorism Act. Ask the families of people who were murdered there. Ask the people who were injured. Ask those whose homes were shattered or whose businesses were devastated. We all know the answer that they would give. They would queue up to vote with the Government in the Lobby tonight—and that is where all right hon. and hon. Members should be if they want effective action to combat terrorism—not just to talk about it.
If we are to fight terrorism effectively, and to give our people the protection that they need, we need the powers in the prevention of terrorism Act. That is why I invite the House to approve the order and the regulations.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 26.

division No. 77]

[7.27 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Bates, Michael

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Batiste, Spencer

Alexander, Richard

Beggs, Roy

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Bellingham, Henry

Amess, David

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Arbuthnot, James

Boswell, Tim

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Bowis, John

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Brandreth, Gyles

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Brazier, Julian

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Bright, Sir Graham

1170

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Jenkin, Bernard

Browning, Mrs Angela

Jessel, Toby

Butcher, John

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Butler, Peter

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Key, Robert

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Carrington, Matthew

Kirkhope, Timothy

Carttiss, Michael

Kirkwood, Archy

Cash, William

Knapman, Roger

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Clappison, James

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

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Coe, Sebastian

Legg, Barry

Congdon, David

Leigh, Edward

Conway, Derek

Lidington, David

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Luff, Peter

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

MacKay, Andrew

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Cormack, Sir Patrick

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Couchman, James

Maitland, Lady Olga

Cran, James

Malone, Gerald

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

Mans, Keith

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Day, Stephen

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Mates, Michael

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Dover, Den

Mills, Iain

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Dunn, Bob

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Elletson, Harold

Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Evennett, David

Newton, Fit Hon Tony

Faber, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Fishbum, Dudley

Norris, Steve

Forman, Nigel

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Forth, Eric

Oppenheim, Phillip

Foster, Don (Bath)

Ottaway, Richard

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Page, Richard

Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Paice, James

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Paisley, The Reverend Ian

French, Douglas

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Fry, Sir Peter

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Gale, Roger

Pawsey, James

Gardiner, Sir George

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Garnier, Edward

Pickles, Eric

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Gorst, Sir John

Powell, William (Corby)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Richards, Rod

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Riddick, Graham

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Robathan, Andrew

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Hannam, Sir John

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Hargreaves, Andrew

Sackville, Tom

Harris, David

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Hawkins, Nick

Shaw, David (Dover)

Hawksley, Warren

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Shersby, Sir Michael

Hendry, Charles

Sims, Roger

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Horam, John

Soames, Nicholas

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Spencer, Sir Derek

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Spink, Dr Robert

Hunter, Andrew

Spring, Richard

Jack, Michael

Sproat, Iain

1171

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Viggers, Peter

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Walden, George

Steen, Anthony

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Stephen, Michael

Wallace, James

Stern, Michael

Waller, Gary

Stewart, Allan

Ward, John

Streeter, Gary

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Sweeney, Walter

Waterson, Nigel

Sykes, John

Watts, John

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Wells, Bowen

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Whitney, Ray

Temple-Morris, Peter

Whittingdale, John

Widdecombe, Ann

Thomason, Roy

Wilshire, David

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Thurnham, Peter

Wolfson, Mark

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Wood, Timothy

Tracey, Richard

Trend, Michael

Tellers for the Ayes:

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mr. Simon Burns and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Loyden, Eddie

Austin-Walker, John

McGrady, Eddie

Barnes, Harry

McNamara, Kevin

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Mallon, Seamus

Bennett, Andrew F

Marek, DrJohn

Canavan, Dennis

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Cohen, Harry

Mullin, Chris

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

Sedgemore, Brian

Etherington, Bill

Simpson, Alan

Fyfe, Maria

Skinner, Dennis

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Stott, Roger

Hendron, Dr Joe

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Tellers for the Noes:

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Mr. Max Madden and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

Livingstone, Ken

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.
Resolved,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Exclusion Orders) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Theatr Clwyd
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
7.40 pm
Mr. David Hanson: I welcome the opportunity to raise the important issue of Theatr Clwyd. This debate relates to the closure of an important social and cultural asset of north Wales and north-west England. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales will respond positively to my points, as the Welsh Office has a central and crucial role to play in the future of the theatre—just as it has had a central part to play in the problems associated with the possible closure of the theatre.
In 1994, the Welsh Office was instrumental in passing the Local Government (Wales) Bill, which has had a bearing on the possible closure of the theatre because of the abolition of Clwyd county council. I hope that this debate will present the Welsh Office with a good opportunity to respond positively to the points that I have been putting to Ministers.
I should like to record my thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) for their staunch support for Theatr Clwyd over the past few months. I am also pleased to see the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) in his place; he too has taken an interest in the theatre's future.
Theatr Clwyd is based in Mold in my constituency. It is owned by Clwyd county council and operated as a directly provided service through a board of governors comprising 16 elected councillors and 11 co-operative non-voting members. Its staff are all local government employees. Theatr Clwyd comprises two excellent theatres: a main theatre, seating between 530 and 590, and a large flexible studio, seating between 180 and 300. It also contains a cinema with 129 seats, a television facility including a dual-use television and drama studio, many galleries, a multi-function performance and function room with up to 250 seats, and facilities to support a producing theatre company and educational services for the community.
The theatre also houses the leading drama company in Wales, which currently presents a minimum of six and a maximum of 12 productions a year at home, giving about 200 to 320 performances a year. The company spends up to 15 weeks a year on tour throughout the rest of the United Kingdom, and often gives performances in London's west end.
The theatre plays host to a range of quality visiting drama, dance and music, and presents a large programme of film and exhibitions. All this is available to the people in Flintshire, the rest of Clwyd and north-west England. The wide-ranging educational provision includes a professional theatre-in-education company, a youth theatre, courses, classes, a professional dance service, and training and work experience opportunities for young people.
There are currently about 1,300 performances a year in the theatre and more than 150 performances on tour in Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. Nearly 200 performances are sponsored by the theatre in schools in the county of Clwyd, and there are nearly 1,000 workshops and courses a year throughout the county. The facilities, the staff, the location and the financial resources have attracted artists of the finest calibre from all over the United

1173
Kingdom to Mold, sure in the knowledge that standards achievable at the theatre are among the highest in the UK. I could name many actors and actresses who have performed there: Vanessa Redgrave, Joan Plowright, Philip Madoc, Timothy West, Julie Christie and Sir Anthony Hopkins have all performed there recently—a formidable list.
This theatre in my constituency is unique. There is no other arts complex of its kind in Wales or north-west England; there is no other theatre company in Wales that can produce work of such quality and with such a high profile.
About 400,000 people a year see the work of the theatre or visit its facilities. There are well over 160,000 paid attendances at the theatre, and well over 120,000 other users come to it. Well over 60,000 people take part in workshops, courses and classes in Clwyd, and well over 10,000 people participate in the theatre-in-education in Clwyd's schools. Well over 20,000 people, excluding London west end audiences, see the theatre on tour each year.
These figures are much higher than those of other theatres in major conurbations, such as the West Yorkshire playhouse, the Nottingham playhouse, or even the Birmingham repertory theatre and the Leicester Haymarket theatre. Theatr Clwyd has consistently attracted large audiences and now has a well-established profile, offering a dependable base from which to attract further audiences and bring the community in to see the work of the theatre. It is a thriving business, with an annual turnover of more than £4 million.
Until the advent of local government reorganisation—my reason for calling this debate—Clwyd county has provided the theatre with financial support for its core operation amounting to about £1.5 million a year. The Arts Council of Wales has given about £500,000 towards the production costs of the theatre company. Income earned from people who come to the theatre currently totals more than £1.5 million a year. The theatre has developed tight financial controls to ensure that there is no budget deficit. A considerable amount of money is spent by local people at the theatre, and a considerable amount of local ratepayers' money contributes to the running costs, besides the grant that the Arts Council of Wales pays.
In my constituency, the theatre employs 65 permanent staff and more than 600 other people on a temporary basis, many of them from north-west England and north-east Wales. Contracts from the theatre for catering and cleaning services create at least another 39 jobs locally, and the theatre draws significantly on supplies of many local products from north Wales and north-west England. Payments to businesses in north Wales alone amounted to almost £500,000 in 1994–95, and payments to businesses in England were well over £1.3 million.
As is recognised in many of the letters that I have received from constituents, Theatr Clwyd helps to draw in people to north-east Wales. They then spend their money at local restaurants and in hotels and other holiday accommodation. They also support coach operators throughout the north-west and north Wales, and they spend their money in Mold. I am sure that the hon. Member for City of Chester finds that the Gateway theatre in Chester has the same beneficial effect. Certainly, Theatr Clwyd is a major attraction to inward investment and tourism.
1174
The theatre is also recognised by many businesses in north Wales as one of the reasons why they established themselves there in the first place. It constitutes an added attraction to the area, along with many other of our facilities in north Wales.
All that has been achieved by the local authority over the 20 years of the theatre's existence. I pay tribute to the people who founded the theatre, to Clwyd county council and to the board of governors who have sustained the theatre for all these years. I also pay tribute to Patrick Gilcrest and his staff, who have worked hard to develop the theatre and to ensure that it attracts audiences.
We are left with a problem which I hope this evening we can, by agreement, resolve. The problem relates to the abolition, under local government reorganisation, of Clwyd county council, which has sustained the theatre to the tune of £1.5 million over these years. With effect from 1 April this year, Clwyd county council will no longer exist. Over the past few months, that fact has cast grave doubts on the future viability of the theatre. The money that the council has been paying will have to be found from elsewhere. I hope that that problem can finally be resolved by means of this debate and by discussion with local authorities over the next few weeks.
Local government reorganisation was the creation of the Welsh Office. That, in part, is why I asked for an Adjournment debate. I voted against Second Reading of the Bill that introduced reorganisation, but that is by the bye. Reorganisation has taken place. The Welsh Office has created unitary authorities, and I wish those authorities well. Elections took place last year and the electors in the authority that covers my constituency elected a Labour council. I wish that council well for the future.
The Welsh Office, because of the focus of local government reorganisation, has moral and political responsibilities to help the new authorities through the difficult times that face Theatr Clwyd. Clwyd county council has split into the four new authorities of Flintshire, Denbighshire, Wrexham, and Aberconwy and Colwyn. The theatre is in Mold, in Flintshire, in my constituency.
The Minister is aware of the background to these matters but it is important to place it on record. The fact that Theatr Clwyd was in some difficulty was raised during consideration of the reorganisation Bill about two years ago. At that time, the previous Secretaries of State for Wales, the right hon. Members for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) and for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), gave assurances that local government reorganisation would not damage the theatre's prospects and that the theatre would not be adversely affected. Commitments were given to ensure the continuation of the theatre. They were given verbally to the leader of the council. Commitments were also given in Committee to the effect that the issue would be considered.
It became clear late last year that it was necessary to clarify matters. It had always seemed that 1 April 1996 was a long way off, but at the end of 1995 it became apparent that that date was not so far away and that matters should be resolved. In October 1995, the Arts Council of Wales recommitted its £500,000, as it had done for several years. In January, the new Flintshire authority committed £600,000 of ratepayers' money to establish dialogue to try to secure the £1.5 million deficit that Clwyd county council had previously undertaken.

1175
I am grateful to the Minister with responsibilities for local government in Wales for meeting a delegation of Flintshire councillors and my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside and me late last year. During the meeting, we raised the issue of Theatr Clwyd and put on record the need for the Welsh Office to come forward with some proposals to secure future viability and to support the local authority.
I must praise Flintshire for taking the initiative. The authority requested the meeting and took responsibility for trying to find a funding solution. It has committed £600,000 of ratepayers' money, which is 40 per cent. of Clwyd county council's former grant. Flintshire has only 35 per cent. of the former Clwyd county council's population. The Labour leader, Councillor Tom Middlehurst, has shown commitment, with the chief executive, Philip McCreavy, but has needed the support of the Welsh Office and other authorities to help keep the theatre viable.
On the announcements of £600,000 from Flintshire and £500,000 from the Arts Council of Wales being made available, considerable community interest was shown. The local communities rallied around, and they have shown their support for the theatre. I have had numerous letters from constituents who have requested support to maintain it. Many people from England, as well as from my constituency and throughout Wales, have written to me. An early-day motion was tabled and signed by many hon. Members from England and Wales.
Local newspapers—the Chester Chronicle and the Daily Post—ran strong campaigns to save the theatre and to put pressure on those who had influence. Many engaged in the theatre and in the theatrical profession generally have professed their support. I understand that the Welsh Office has received more than 1,000 letters from individuals expressing support for the retention of the theatre and for the Welsh Office to take positive action.
On 8 February, during the debate on local government finance, the Secretary of State responded to the meetings that have taken place and to the pressure that has been exerted by many people by announcing a £1.3 million one-off grant, subject to a long-term future for the theatre, to write off outstanding capital debts. He said:
"I share its"—
the Flintshire authority's—
"opinion that Theatr Clwyd should continue to provide the high-quality productions for which it is famous."—[Official Report, 8 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 489.]
The one-off grant is welcome. It will pay for the capital cost of the project.
Shortly after that, the Arts Council of Wales announced a further £200,000 direct funding grant to support the £500,000 that it had given already. It became clear, however, that there was still a significant financial shortfall, taking into account what the theatre had enjoyed previously while under the ownership and control of Clwyd county council. The £1.3 million grant from the Welsh Office and the £200,000 additional funding from the Arts Council of Wales were consistent with and subject to local authorities in former Clwyd contributing significant sources of resource.
1176
There were expectations of Denbighshire, Wrexham, and Aberconwy and Colwyn councils to provide significant sources of funding to help the theatre to continue at the current level of funding. The Minister will be aware that £50,000 has been promised by Denbighshire, £56,000 by Wrexham and £23,000 by Aberconwy and Colwyn. These moneys, while genuinely welcome, were not necessarily what was expected, and not what was formerly paid by the ratepayers of former Clwyd. The reasons that lie behind that are varied and complicated and I do not wish to rehearse them tonight. Until this week, however, there was a projected deficit of about £319,000, when set against the undertaking of former Clwyd, in maintaining the theatre for the forthcoming financial year.
The Minister will be aware that the theatre had projected savings of about £100,000 and increases in income. I am sure that those savings and increases in income would have been helpful. When I requested this debate this week, there was still a shortfall of £319,000 and grave concern that the theatre would close from 30 June unless funding was made available from another source. The funding package that the Secretary of State brought forward had an initial deadline of 8 March for acceptance. I welcome the extension of that deadline to enable further consideration to be given by local authorities to tackling a major deficit.
Events move with speed, however, and only yesterday a meeting was convened by Clwyd county council of the four unitary authorities, at which representatives of the Arts Council of Wales were present. It was decided at that meeting to produce a package for the theatre, which I hope will get it through the next financial year.
The funding package may still mean job losses, significant cuts and grave difficulties. I hope that the Minister will take up those issues when he replies. The county council had drawn on resources from its dying days. In effect, a deathbed grant has been made to the new authorities to try to get the theatre through the next financial year, with a substantial package of cuts. There is still no long-term future, however, for the theatre complex and for the good services that the theatre provides.
I am pleased that the county council has been able to assist. I am pleased also, of course, that it has been able to carry some finance through to next year. However, the package is still subject to the agreement of the Secretary of State's office. I look for some positive news on that front from the Minister.
As I have said, events have moved on since I applied for this debate, but there are still matters that need to be tackled. There are a number of key points with which I hope the Minister will deal positively this evening. There is still the need to take matters forward for the future. We have an excellent theatre that provides extremely good services to 400,000 people. It is popular and well known, and has a value in the community. I believe that the Welsh Office has certain moral and political responsibilities and that there are things that only the Welsh Office can do to help secure the long-term funding of the theatre.
First, I ask the Minister to ensure that the £1.3 million grant that was placed on record by the Secretary of State on 8 February will remain on the table during current discussions, subject to the package that local authorities are trying to agree for the next financial year. That

1177
package should be available for the short-term future of the theatre as well as for the long term. I hope that the Minister will be able to ensure that the arts council's additional £200,000 is available for use next year to see the theatre through the next 12 months. That would be a key statement this evening that would give the local authorities confidence to commit the package and so to get the theatre through the next 12 months.
Secondly, I hope that the Welsh Office will adopt a positive role during the next 12 months to try to secure the theatre's long-term future. I hope also that the Minister, through his officials, will be able to convene a meeting in the next few months with all interested parties who have a stake in the theatre to discuss its future and that of the complex after 31 March 1997. The situation should be all right next year, but we need to discuss and consult on what will happen in future years. I hope that the Minister will use his good offices to facilitate that meeting, because the Welsh Office has a responsibility and a key role in the matter which it should take on.
Thirdly, I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will generally examine the issue of local government funding of the theatre. I have certainly had representations from Flintshire—I am sure that Wrexham, Denbighshire, and Aberconwy and Colwyn councils would support those representations—to examine the capping levels for local authorities this year and in the future so that the facility's regional potential can be taken into account. In the review of the standard spending assessment and the formulae, I hope that the Minister will take the regional nature of Theatr Clwyd into account. I do not expect an answer from him this evening, but I hope that he will consider the matter so that future SSAs and capping levels reflect local authorities' responsibilities in committing themselves to the theatre.
Fourthly, I should like to impress on the Minister the strong feeling in my community and in the local authorities that, although Theatr Clwyd is in Wales and receives substantial support from Welsh ratepayers, the Welsh Office and the Arts Council of Wales, some 50 per cent. of its audience comes from England. My constituency is not 20 minutes from that of the hon. Member for City of Chester. Many people travel; I have had letters from constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) and from Bolton, Liverpool, Shropshire and Cheshire about individuals who go to Theatr Clwyd to see a performance. It is a regional theatre in Wales provided by local ratepayers, but I hope that it will receive support from the Welsh Office in the future and continue to receive support from the Arts Council of Wales.
Flintshire has asked—I ask the Minister to consider this request—whether there is scope for the Welsh Office and for Flintshire to support contact and discussion with the Department of National Heritage and the Arts Council of England to secure at least discussion on the possibility of some funding from England, which would follow individuals from England who attend the theatre.
Flintshire has written to the chief executives of Cheshire county council, Chester city council, Shropshire county council, Wirral metropolitan borough council, and Ellesmere Port and Neston borough council, among others, seeking financial contributions from the rates of those authorities to help Theatr Clwyd's revenue support. To date, all replies have been negative. Flintshire simply
1178
feels, as I am sure the other authorities do, that the facility is welcome in Wales and is a boon to Wales, but that it also has an impact on England.
I should welcome the Minister's comments on whether he feels able to support Flintshire making representations to English authorities, to the Department of National Heritage and to the Arts Council of England to facilitate discussion on whether there is scope to maintain the theatre. I do not know whether that support is possible, but my local authorities certainly desire it, and I am sure that people in my area would welcome it.
This has been an important opportunity to debate the future of Theatr Clwyd. It has local support and it is valued, and I hope that the Minister can offer some positive news on the points that I have made. If he provides such news, the theatre will go from strength to strength. The theatre is used by 400,000 people a year and is a valuable source of support; the Minister should support it in his reply.
I pay tribute to all those who have pressed for the retention of Theatr Clwyd. There are some solutions for the £1.5 million deficit from Clwyd county council. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response because he and the Welsh Office have a responsibility for the theatre. Without local government reorganisation, the theatre would not be experiencing this crisis. I know that the Minister has been helpful to date; I look forward to his help today.
8.4 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have taken a close interest in the future of Theatr Clwyd in recent weeks. When I visited it two weeks ago, I took the opportunity to speak to Mr. Patrick Gilcrest, the manager, and members of the staff. It is the people who work in and for Theatr Clywd who have brought about the qualities that are admired and valued in it, and they certainly deserve the greatest consideration when we think about its future.
I know that the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) has also been much concerned about the theatre, and I pay tribute to him for his constructive contributions to securing the theatre's future. It was in response to his question that my right hon. Friend and I decided to extend the deadline for our offer of help to Theatr Clywd, which would have expired on 8 March but is now open until 31 March. The offer is there on the table to enable the local authorities to respond as the hon. Gentleman wishes them to do.
As the hon. Gentleman said, there is a shared appreciation on both sides of the House for the artistic quality of Theatr Clwyd's work, particularly among my ministerial colleagues. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the presence in the Chamber of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth). The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) was also here for the start of the debate, and he is equally concerned about the theatre. Within the Welsh Office, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales—my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards)—has constantly pressed the theatre's interests.

1179
The future of Theatr Clwyd has recently seemed to be under threat as a result, it is claimed, of local government reorganisation in Wales. However, I believe that that is nought but a red herring and it is necessary to recap the history of the matter before looking to the future.
This year, Theatr Clwyd is receiving £2 million in subsidy from the taxpayer, £1.5 million of which came from Clwyd county council and £0.5 million from the Arts Council of Wales. Last year, the Welsh Office and Welsh local government undertook a joint exercise to disaggregate county and district council standard spending assessments and budgets on a unitary authority basis. The Welsh Office used the disaggregated budgets to calculate provisional notional amount figures, which were issued for consultation in December.
Final notional amount figures, which form the basis for provisional capping principles, were approved by the House on 8 February. With the exception of slight reservations on the part of Powys, all unitary authorities in the Clwyd county council area accepted that the notional amount calculations were fair and reasonable. At no time during consultation was any alternative basis put forward for disaggregation involving Theatr Clwyd expenditure.
The £1.5 million per year that Clwyd county council budgeted to spend on running Theatr Clwyd this financial year was allocated to Flintshire county council in the disaggregation exercise and is included in that authority's notional amount. Under our provisional capping proposals, Flintshire was able to set a budget requirement up to 3.5 per cent. above its notional amount. I understand that Flintshire has set its budget requirement for 1996–97 at the maximum level implied by the capping proposals, but including only £600,000 for Theatr Clwyd. Therefore, although Flintshire has inherited the spending power to fund Theatr Clwyd, the authority appears to be using its discretion to divert some of that spending power to support other services.
As the House knows, the Government have essentially no power to direct how local authorities spend their money: that is local democracy, and councils should be accountable to their local electors. I make no comment today on the merits of Flintshire's decision, but it is important to put it on the record that that authority had the spending power, within its capping limit, to support Theatr Clwyd to the same extent as Clwyd county council had this year. Local government reorganisation has therefore been no cause of the situation before us today: it is Flintshire's decision to contribute only £600,000 that places the theatre in immediate jeopardy.
In those circumstances, and given the importance that we attach to Theatr Clwyd, the Welsh Office and the Arts Council of Wales offered assistance. First, the Arts Council of Wales, with Welsh Office approval, agreed to pay Theatr Clwyd its annual grant of £500,000 in the first quarter of the new financial year rather than in instalments throughout the year, thereby easing the company's short-term financial position and allowing it to confirm its artistic programme for the first part of the year.
Secondly, on 8 February my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State offered £1,300,000 to pay off Theatr Clwyd's accumulated capital debt with, according to its business plan, a saving to the company of £200,000 every year. Thirdly, the Arts Council of Wales announced on
1180
9 February its intention to increase the annual grant to the theatre by £200,000, from £500,000 to £700,000. By any standards, that was a major package of additional support from central Government, but we made it clear that those additional resources were available only provided that local authorities demonstrated their own commitment to the future of Theatr Clwyd to enable it to continue to operate as now and for the foreseeable future.
My right hon. Friend invited Flintshire county council to undertake urgent discussions with neighbouring local authorities and other interested parties and to report back. It now has until the end of the month to do so.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about possible exemptions from capping. I have to tell him that the legal basis for the capping of local authority budgets requires that any decision to designate an authority must be in accordance with general principles which shall be the same for all authorities falling within the same class. That means that in the case of the new unitary authorities in Wales, the same general principles apply to all 22 authorities. It is not possible to determine additional non-general principles disregarding specific expenditure by certain authorities only. That is therefore not an option open to my right hon. Friend, in relation to either 1996–97 or, as the legislation stands, 1997–98 and beyond.
The present position is that we must await a response from Flintshire before we can decide whether to release the £1,300,000 conditionally offered to pay the theatre's debt. Press reports indicate that Wrexham borough council and Denbighshire county council have each agreed to contribute to the support of the theatre for 1996–97 but not necessarily for future years. I understand that Clwyd county council—before it goes out of existence, as the hon. Gentleman described it, on 31 March—will also make a contribution towards the theatre's 1996–97 costs. If the position is as described in the press reports, I am afraid that the future of Theatr Clwyd remains uncertain.
My right hon. Friend has made his offer, and the Under-Secretary of State for Wales—my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West—and I await local government's response. When that response is received we shall need to consider, with the Arts Council of Wales, whether for 1996–97 and future years the response meets the terms of our offer and justifies releasing the £1,300,000.
We shall need to be sure that there is a reasonable prospect of the company being able to continue to operate as a producing house with its high artistic levels for the foreseeable future without a plunge back into crisis or renewed appeals to the Welsh Office for further assistance. It is not sufficient just to keep the theatre open: my right hon. Friend and I look to local government to propose a sure foundation for the continuing operation of a centre of artistic excellence. Without that, paying off the capital debt would serve no useful purpose. I am glad to note from the statement issued yesterday by Councillor Walmsley on behalf of Clwyd county council that it is intended that proposals will be formulated to secure the long-term future. I look forward to those proposals.
Mr. Hanson: Will the Minister agree to officials from his office being party to any discussions?
Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman anticipates me. I was about to respond to his question about future Welsh Office involvement. It is not appropriate for officials from the Welsh Office to participate in planning the long-term artistic future of Theatr Clwyd. That is a matter for the Arts Council of Wales, and I am confident that it will wish to be closely involved. After all, on current plans the Arts Council of Wales will be the biggest single contributor to the finances of Theatr Clwyd. The hon. Gentleman can therefore be reassured it will continue to take a close interest in the future of Theatr Clwyd on my Department's behalf. I will certainly draw the chairman's attention to the hon. Gentleman's proposal for a meeting.
As for support from England, I understand that the Arts Council of England could not provide support for Theatr Clwyd's activities in Wales although it might be possible for that council, if it so wished, to support touring activities by Theatr Clwyd in England. That might be a matter for future consideration, but it is certainly the case that English local authorities across the border from Clwyd could provide support for the company's work. I hope that they may be persuaded to provide support if and when Theatr Clwyd's long-term future is secured.
1182
I confirm that the Welsh Office has received more than 1,000 letters on the subject, all but a handful urging the theatre's survival. A majority have come from England, from the north-west down to the midlands. Perhaps some of the letter writers will already have written to their local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Biffen) and my hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) have certainly already raised this matter.
I very much hope that local government's response will be sufficient. If so, the future governance of Theatr Clwyd will also require consideration. While this must be a matter for the interested parties, which will obviously include the Arts Council of Wales, I see some attraction in the option outlined in Theatr Clwyd's business plan, submitted by Flintshire county council, for the establishment of an independent limited company or trust with charitable status to run Theatr Clwyd. That seems the best way to assure its successful future—an aspiration which I believe that we all share and wish to see come about.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Eight o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid Board
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the members of the Legal Aid Board were last appointed or reappointed; and how many complaints he has had about the boards or their individual members since the start of 1995. [19645]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The current members of the Legal Aid Board, with their most recent dates of appointment or reappointment, are as follows:

  Sir Tim Chessels (Chairman): 4 May 1995

  Fred Collins: 1 April 1995

  John Crosby: 5 April 1994

  Jean Dunkley: 2 May 1994

  Colin George: 3 May 1994

  Kate Markus: 1 March 1993

  Steve Orchard: 1 January 1994

  Diana Payne: 2 May 1994

  Penelope Pearce: 1 July 1993

  George Pulman: 1 March 1993

  David Sinker: 2 May 1994

  Andrew Thomas 1 April 1993

  My predecessor and I have received numerous letters about the operations of the Legal Aid Board since January 1995. A number of these have been critical of aspects of the board's work.

  In addition, there are 1,183 lawyers serving on the 13 Legal Aid Board area committees, which hear appeals on various legal aid matters. The appointment or reappointment of their members is the responsibility of the Legal Aid Board.

  Court of Protection
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the practice rules relating to the Court of Protection were last revised; and if he will make a statement. [20073]

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

  Letter from Julia Lomas to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 14 March 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your Parliamentary Question, listed on 7 March 1996, asking when the practice rules relating to the Court of Protection were last revised.
  676
  The Court of Protection Rules and the Court of Protection [Enduring Powers of Attorney Rules] were last revised in 1994. They were made on 29 November 1994, laid before Parliament on 1 December 1994 and came into effect on 22 December 1994.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Commonwealth Scholarships
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Commonwealth scholarships were funded by the Government in(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and what is the planned number for 1996–97. [20045]

  Mr. Hanley
  A total of 7,144 Commonwealth students were given awards to study and train in the UK in 1994–95. Figures for 1995–96 are not yet available but are likely to be broadly similar.

  The number of scholarships is likely to fall in 1996–97 due to reductions in the various budgets from which awards are funded and policy changes to improve the effectiveness of training within the UK's bilateral country aid projects.

DEFENCE

  Works of Art
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made since the start of the National Audit Office inquiry into the management of works of art with the recovery of those works of art reported to be missing or stolen. [20566]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Since the start of the National Audit Office study in January 1995, one work of art has been recovered, in addition to the 15 that had been found before the study began. Two works of art listed as missing by the Government art collection were found to be duplicate records of works that were not missing. Four works recorded as missing by the Government art collection were found to have been returned to their lender.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the works of art belonging to the departmental art collection which are considered missing or stolen; [20561]

  (2) if he will list the works of art on loan from the Government art collection that are considered missing or stolen. [20565]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I am placing the information requested in the Library of the House.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what actions he has taken to safeguard works of art loaned to his Department. [20755]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Works of art are safeguarded by securing the rooms in which they hang, asking the staff who occupy those rooms to verify that the works are safe and by inspections by staff responsible for works of art.

  Royal Navy (Female Members)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many female members of the Royal Navy,
  677
  having served one tour on a ship at sea, have volunteered for a second tour. [20516]

  Mr. Soames
  Female members of the Royal Navy—in common with their male counterparts—do not volunteer for tours on a ship at sea; they are required to go to sea according to the exigencies of the service. To determine how many women have served at sea for two or more tours is not possible without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Army Medical Staff
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of medical staff required by the Army in conflict are reservists; and how many of these posts are manned. [20517]

  Mr. Soames
  The proportion of medical personnel required by the Army in conflict, who are ex-Regular reservists or members of the Territorial Army, and the number of posts to be filled by them, will depend on the nature of the operations at the time.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the number of medical staff required for each brigade in a conflict. [20518]

  Mr. Soames
  Depending on the size of a brigade, the number of medical personnel required varies between 199 and 206.

  Female Soldiers (Bosnia)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many female soldiers have returned early from service in Bosnia because of pregnancy; and what this figure is as a percentage of the female soldiers serving in Bosnia. [20519]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has no record of any female soldier returning early from service in Bosnia because of pregnancy.

  Air Training Corps
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the Air Training Corps concerning the availability of surplus uniforms for its use; and what is his policy on the provision of surplus uniforms for use by the Air Training Corps. [20749]

  Mr. Soames
  No representations on this matter have been made by the Air Training Corps. It is the policy of the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency that any part-worn or superseded items of uniform clothing are made available to cadet organisations before disposal. In addition, those Royal Air Force units which parent Air Training Corps squadrons are required to consider the needs of these squadrons before disposing of surplus uniform items.

  Armed Forces (Manpower)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the(a) trained and (b) untrained strength of (i) the Army, (ii) the RAF and (iii) the Royal Navy at (1) 1 April 1996 and (2) 1 April 1997 under his Department's current plans. [20751]
  678
  Mr. Soames
  The forecast trained and untrained strengths for the services at the specified dates are as follows:

  Army

  Trained

  Untrained

  1 April 1996

  104,000

  8,000

  1 April 1997

  101,000

  10,000

  These figures include forecast Gurkha strengths, but exclude the Royal Irish Regiment (Home Service Force).

  Royal Air Force

  Trained

  Untrained

  1 April 1996

  62,700

  2,250

  1 April 1997

  54,700

  2,700

  Royal Navy

  Trained

  Untrained

  1 April 1996

  45,000

  3,000

  1 April 1997

  42,000

  4,000

  These figures include the Royal Marines and Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current shortfall in manpower for the Army; what action he has taken to reduce this shortfall; and if he will make a statement. [20752]

  Mr. Soames
  The trained strength of the Army is expected to be below its establishment by around 3,000 personnel as at 1 April 1996. The shortfall is primarily due to poor recruitment and retention.

  A number of measures have been introduced to make good the shortfall. These include the payment of a retention bonus to soldiers in those arms with the greatest deficits who choose to serve beyond the minimum three-year commitment. A bounty has also been offered to suitable ex-Royal Artillery, Royal Armoured Corps and Infantry soldiers who left in the last three years and who are below the age of 30 who accepted an invitation to re-enlist. A further bounty has been offered to soldiers who persuade friends to enlist, and we have substantially increased the recruiting and advertising budget. A revised programme for the closure of Army careers offices has been agreed, coupled with an initiative, launched in January, to recruit through the Employment Service network. In addition, some 400 Gurkhas who would otherwise have been made redundant will be retained for three years from 1977.

  Next month we are holding a conference on "Armed Forces recruiting in the 21st Century", to which members of the careers service and the Employment Service throughout the UK have been invited, with the aim of developing ways of working together to attract the young people the armed forces need.

  Trident Programme
  Sir Jim Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the cost of the Trident programme; and if he will make a statement. [21359]
  679
  Mr. Portillo
  The current estimate of the total project cost of the Trident programme, with all expenditure, including payments already made, brought up to current prices and the exchange rate assumed in the long term costing of the defence programme is £12,153 million. If payments already made are expressed at the prices and exchange rates actually incurred, with future spend on constant bases, the equivalent estimate is now £9,926 million. Expenditure on the Trident programme to 31 October 1995 represented some 83 per cent. of the latter estimate.

  The revised estimate of £12,153 million represents an increase in cash terms of £471 million. After allowing for the effects of inflation and exchange rate variations there is a real cost increase of £112 million, or less than 1 per cent. Despite this variation since last year, the programme continues to show an overall reduction in real terms on its original 1982 estimate. This reduction, including the savings resulting from the decision to process missiles at the United States facility at King's Bay Georgia now stands at some £3.4 billion.

  The proportion of the estimate for work undertaken in the United Kingdom has increased from 71 per cent. to 72 per cent. reflecting the effects of the change in exchange rate, price base and volume changes in the year.

  I am pleased to confirm that HMS Victorious, the second of the four planned Vanguard class submarines, entered service on time at the end of last year and is now operational. The remainder of the Trident submarine programme is also still on schedule. I am, as in previous years, sending to the Chairmen of the Public Accounts Committee and of the Select Committee on Defence a more detailed report on the programme. I am also placing a copy of this report in the Library of the House.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what policies he has introduced to increase the number of ethnic minorities in the armed forces. [20753]

  Mr. Soames
  The services are committed to a range of measures to increase ethnic minority recruitment. These include increased use of recruiters from an ethnic minority background, better representation of ethnic minority service personnel in recruiting literature, special training for recruiters, production of brochures in ethnic minority languages to target parents, development of contacts with ethnic minority communities and advertising in the ethnic minority press and on local radio.

  Each of the services' recruiting organisations has an officer responsible for making contact with ethnic minority organisations to ascertain the best approach to take to aid the recruitment of ethnic minorities.

  In addition, we have appointed an independent consultant, the Office for Public Management, to undertake a review of existing service and civilian equal opportunities policies and employment initiatives for ethnic minority groups and recommend any improvements.

  Otterburn Training Range
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on recent 680
  developments in respect of his Department's plans to enlarge the Otterburn training range. [20805]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department's proposals are not to enlarge Otterburn training area, which lies largely within the Northumberland national park, but to provide additional infrastructure to accommodate essential AS90 and multiple-launch rocket system training. My officials have been in discussion with the Northumberland national park authority for over two years about these proposals, with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance between my Department's training requirements and environmental concerns. While much progress has been made in this direction, I was very disappointed to learn that, at its meeting on 11 March, the national park authority resolved to object to my Department's proposals unless further scheme changes and environmental balancing measures were forthcoming. This is the first occasion that the national park authority has made its position expressly clear about each individual element of the scheme and accompanying balancing package.

  It is difficult to see how these further measures could be accommodated, given that my Department's proposals represent the minimum infrastructure requirements for AS90-MLRS training.

  My officials are, nevertheless, now considering whether it will be possible to meet the further concerns which have now been expressed by the national park authority, and it is my intention that a statement of my Department's position should be prepared for submission to the policy and resources committee of Northumberland county council when it meets on 25 April, prior to final determination by the full county council on 15 May 1996.

  Service Boarding Scheme
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many children who received support through the service boarding scheme attend(a) Finsborough school, Suffolk, (b) Quantock school, Somerset, (c) Rodney school, Nottingham and (d) Lime House school, Cumbria; and how much each school received in each of years (i) 1992–93, (ii) 1993–94, (iii) 1994–95 and (iv) 1995–96. [20793]

  Mr. Soames
  In the case of Quantock school, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 11 December 1995,Official Report, column 478.

  As at June 1995 the number of children who received support through the service boarding school allowance scheme, attending the other three schools in question, were:

  Finsborough School: 123

  Rodney School: 26

  Lime House School: 90

  The information on how much each school has received during the last four academic years is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  681

  Racism
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many incidents of racism have been investigated by his Department in each of the last five years; [20754]

  (2) what measures his Department uses to monitor racism in the armed forces. [20804]

  Mr. Soames
  The armed forces are fully integrated, non-discriminatory organisations, subject to the Race Relations Act 1976. It has been made clear throughout the services that racial abuse or discrimination of any sort will not be tolerated.

  The three services monitor complaints involving a racial element; details of numbers of recorded cases are:

  Royal Navy

  No cases have been recorded in the Royal Navy since the central recording of these complaints began in February 1995.

  Number of cases

  Number of cases substantiated

  Army

  1990

  3

  Nil

  1991

  4

  1

  1992

  7

  3

  1993

  5

  3

  1994

  4

  Nil

  1995

  16

  —

  1996

  11

  —

  Royal Air Force

  1990

  0

  —

  1991

  2

  Nil

  1992

  3

  Nil

  1993

  2

  1

  1994

  1

  Nil

  1995

  3

  1

  1 Four under investigation in 1995 and 1 in 1996.

  As for civilian staff within the Department, the information requested is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Departmental Equipment and Furniture
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that have been stolen or are otherwise unaccounted for from the former Department for Education and its agencies in each of the past five years, listing by name any such items valued at £5,000 or more, and showing information technology material separately. [19413]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table details the cost and number of items of equipment which were recorded as stolen or unaccounted for during each financial year from 1991–92 to 1995–96. Of the items recorded during this period, only one falls into the valuation category of £5,000 or more. This is a dispatch van, stolen in January 1996 and not yet recovered.
  682

  Department for Education: Value and number of items lost

  Number of items

  Item(s) valued at £5,000 and over

  Total value (£)

  1991–92

  Furniture

  0

  IT equipment

  0

  Other equipment

  0

  Totals 1991–92

  n/k

  0.00

  1992–93

  Furniture

  0

  IT equipment

  0

  Other equipment

  0

  Total 1992–93

  n/k

  0.00

  1993–94

  Furniture

  0

  IT equipment

  6

  n/a

  8,000.00

  Other equipment

  0

  Total 1993–94

  6

  8,000.00

  1994–95

  Furniture

  0

  IT equipment

  21

  n/a

  20,700.00

  Other equipment

  0

  Total 1994–95

  21

  20,700.00

  1995–96 (to date):

  Furniture

  0

  IT equipment

  19

  23,400.00

  Other equipment

  1

  Despatch van

  8,000.00

  Total 1995–96

  20

  31,400.00

  Total for the period

  47

  60,100.00

  School Premises
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what representations she received from(a) local education authorities, (b) school governors and (c) organisations representing school governors regarding the removal of minimum space requirements for teaching accommodation and recreation space during the consultation on the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981; and if she will make a statement; [20569]

  (2) what plans she has to place the responses to (a) the five-year review of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981 and (b) the consultation on School Premises Regulations 1996 in the Library; [20568]

  (3) what representations she received on (a) class size and (b) the condition of school buildings by local education authorities or governors during the consultation on the Education (School Premises) Regulations in 1995. [20571]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The review of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981 was an internal one. Its conclusions were reported to Ministers by officials and were not intended for publication.

  A summary of the response to last year's consultation has been placed in the Library of the House.
  683
  The new regulations take account of many specific
  suggestions from consultees. Few, if any, responses specifically mention the condition of school buildings. A number of consultees made the incorrect assumptions that there is a link between the removal of minimum National Lottery awards in Nottinghamshire teaching and recreation areas and increased class sizes or overcrowding and that, once the new regulations come into force, there will be no yardsticks for assessing new and existing buildings.

  In fact, governors and local education authorities will continue to have exactly the same control over admissions as they do now, and new guidance documents to be published by the Department in the summer will be up to date and wide reaching in scope.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will place a copy of the Department's action plan responding to the recent efficiency scrutiny into the TEC contract and management fee in the Library; and if she will make a statement. [21189]

  Mr. Paice
  A copy of the action plan that the Department has produced in response to the findings of the scrutiny has been placed in the Library. A copy has also been sent to all TECs.

  The efficiency scrutiny was a thorough and timely piece of work which should help the Department to reduce the administrative burden on TECs. We accept the vast majority of its recommendations. A number have already been implemented.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage on how many occasions in each of the past five years Ministers in her 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. [19428]

  Mr. Sproat
  The information could be extracted in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list for each region and by distributing body(a) the number of projects that have received lottery funding and (b) the amount. [20380]

  Mr. Sproat
  A report on the distribution of national lottery proceeds is placed in the Library of the House each month which includes information in the format requested. The February edition will be placed in the Library of the House in the coming week.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which projects in Nottinghamshire have benefited from lottery funding; and what sums they have received. [20378]
  684
  Mr. Sproat
  To date, 60 awards totalling £8.9 million have been made to organisations in Nottinghamshire. They are:

  National Lottery awards in Nottinghamshire

  Body

  Announced

  Recipient

  Location

  Amount

  Arts

  6 February 1996

  Nottingham Castle Museum and Art Gallery

  Nottingham

  1,750,000.00

  Arts

  6 July 1995

  Nottingham Media Centre Ltd.

  Nottingham

  1,320,000.00

  Arts

  6 July 1995

  Nottingham Theatre Trust Ltd.

  Nottingham

  825,000.00

  Sports

  11 March 1996

  Nottingham Squash Rackets Club

  Nottingham

  772,000.00

  Sports

  4 May 1995

  Rushcliffe Leisure Centre

  Nottinghamshire

  540,000.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  The Zone Youth Project

  Nottingham

  250,000.00

  MC

  22 February 1996

  St. Martha's Community Project

  Nottingham

  243,600.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Nottingham Black Initiative

  Nottingham

  208,000.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Ashfield Women's Centre

  Kirby In Ashfield, Nottingham

  200,000.00

  Sports

  10 January 1996

  Broxtowe Borough Council

  Nottinghamshire

  177,943.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Anejo

  Nottingham

  150,000.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Play Centre for Children with Disabilities

  Nottingham

  148,430.00

  Arts

  6 February 1996

  Gujarat Samaj—Nottingham

  Nottingham

  139,865.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Hyson Green Youth Club

  Nottingham

  135,000.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  DIAL Mansfield & District

  Mansfield, Notts

  126,146.00

  NLCB

  20 November 1995

  Nottingham Counselling Centre

  Nottingham

  124,015.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Nottingham Council for Voluntary Service

  Nottingham

  104,640.00

  Arts

  21 September 1995

  Nottingham Community Arts

  Nottingham

  96,000.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Pakistan Centre, Nottingham

  Nottingham

  95,000.00

  Sports

  11 March 1996

  Nottinghamshire County Sailing Club

  Nottinghamshire

  89,800.00

  NLCB

  20 November 1995

  Build Nottingham Mentor Programme

  Nottingham

  83,204.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Age Concern Nottinghamshire

  Nottingham

  81,500.00

  Arts

  21 September 1995

  Bingham Infants Self Help Group

  Nottinghamshire

  80,000.00

  685

  National Lottery awards in Nottinghamshire

  Body

  Announced

  Recipient

  Location

  Amount

  Arts

  6 February 1996

  Hindu Temple Cultural and Community Centre

  Nottingham

  77,625.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  The Saturday Club

  Mansfield, Notts.

  76,440.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Broxtowe Womens Training Group

  Strelley, Notts.

  76,000.00

  NHMF

  23 November 1995

  Erewash Meadows and Flashes

  Notts. and Derby

  75,000.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Path East Midlands Ltd.

  Radford, Notts.

  70,000.00

  Sports

  10 January 1996

  Boughton Parish Council

  Nottinghamshire

  68,540.00

  Sports

  6 September 1995

  Arnold Boys' Football Club

  Nottinghamshire

  59,000.00

  Sports

  7 June 1995

  British Canoeing Union Sprint Racing Com

  Nottinghamshire

  57,515.00

  Sports

  4 May 95

  Gedling Borough Council

  Nottinghamshire

  57,000.00

  Sports

  4 May 1995

  Nottinghamshire County Rowing Association

  Nottinghamshire

  52,800.00

  NLCB

  20 November 1995

  Nottingham Mencap

  Nottingham

  51,180.00

  Sports

  9 August 1995

  Moderns Rugby Club

  Nottinghamshire

  47,973.00

  Arts

  16 October 1995

  Gedling Borough Council

  Nottinghamshire

  41,000.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  St. Philips Church Top Valley

  Top Valley, Notts.

  40,000.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Rutland CAB, Grantham

  Grantham, Notts

  37,527.00

  Sports

  11 March 1996

  Radcliffe on Trent Bowling Club

  Radcliffe on Trent, Notts.

  33,683.00

  Arts

  23 November 1995

  East Midlands Shape

  Nottingham

  31,500.00

  Sports

  6 December 1995

  Southwell Parish Council

  Nottinghamshire

  31,000.00

  Sports

  4 May 1995

  Newark and Sherwood District Council

  Nottinghamshire

  28,000.00

  Sports

  8 November 1995

  Lound Water Ski Club

  Nottinghamshire

  26,000.00

  Arts

  6 July 1995

  Harley Foundation

  Nottinghamshire

  20,000.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Bulwell Vision

  Bulwell, Notts.

  18,450.00

  Sports

  9 August 1995

  Whatton and Aslockton Parish Councils

  Nottinghamshire

  17,500.00

  Sports

  11 March 1996

  Stanton by Dale Cricket Club

  Ilkeston, Notts.

  17,000.00

  Arts

  24 May 1995

  CODA

  Nottingham City

  16,500.00

  Sports

  5 July 1995

  Fernie Fields Sports Club (Vanaid Fc)

  Nottinghamshire

  10,188.00

  686

  National Lottery awards in Nottinghamshire

  Body

  Announced

  Recipient

  Location

  Amount

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Bulwell Community Toy Library

  Nottingham, Nottingham

  9,887.00

  Sports

  9 August 1995

  Dukeries Gliding Club

  Nottinghamshire

  9,700.00

  Arts

  16 October 1995

  Nottingham Trent University

  Nottingham

  7,750.00

  Sports

  4 May 1995

  Worksop Cricket and Sports Club Bowls

  Nottinghamshire

  6,955.00

  Sports

  9 August 1995

  Burton Joyce Tennis Club

  Nottinghamshire

  6,000.00

  Sports

  8 November 1995

  Kimberley Miners Welfare Football Club

  Nottinghamshire

  3,700.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Ashfield Play Care Scheme

  Sutton in Ashfield, Nottinghamshire

  3,000.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Allsorts

  Edwalton, Nottingham

  2,800.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  S.P.A.C.E.

  Kirkby in Ashfield, Nottingham

  2,200.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  1st Blidworth (St. Mary's) Brownies

  Mansfield, Nottinghamshire

  1,100.00

  NLCB

  19 December 1995

  Playwell Parent and Toddler Group

  Long Eaton, Notts.

  600.00

  Total

  8,931,256.00

TREASURY

  Close Companies
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals declared themselves close company men for the purposes of tax relief in each of the last three years. [18172]

  Mr. Jack
  Corporation tax records held centrally do not enable us to identify close companies or those with only one individual associate.

  Former British Rail Employees (Travel Passes)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the Inland Revenue calculates the personal tax liability for railway status travel passes and staff travelcards issued to former British Rail employees who now work for private railway companies; what estimate he has made of the revenue which will be raised in a full tax year as a result of tax deductions for these travel passes and cards; and what tax deductions were made for these passes and cards when issued by British Rail to its
  own employees. [19608]

  Mr. Jack
  Employees are generally liable to tax on vouchers for free or cheap travel. The taxable benefit is the cost to the employer of providing the voucher. However, there is statutory exemption from the tax charge for British Rail employees earning less than £8,500 per year. This exemption continues for people who were
  687
  employed by British Rail on 11 January 1994, even if as a result of the Railways Act they are transferred to Railtrack, a train operating company, or certain other successor bodies which are engaged in the railway industry.

  No estimate exist of the amounts of revenue raised, now or in the past, in connection with the issue of travel passes and cards.

  Smuggling
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many smuggling operations have been broken up in each year since 1987; and what estimate he has made of the extent of smuggling. [19857]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No statistics are available for years prior to 1990. The number of smuggling organisations which have been broken up as a result of the work of the Customs and Excise investigation division in each year since then is as follows:

  1990–91: 180

  1991–92: 183

  1992–93: 178

  1993–94: 188

  1994–95: 172

  There are too many uncertainties to form any reliable estimate of the extent of smuggling of prohibited or restricted goods. Customs and Excise is at present working with the drinks and tobacco industries to improve estimates of the extent of smuggling of excise duty goods.

  EU Budget
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the net payments made to the European Union budget by the 12 member states in 1994, on a per capita basis. [20464]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The table sets out the figures. These are drawn from the European Court of Auditors' calculations of member states' total financial contributions to and receipts from the European budget published in the "Annual Report covering the financial year 1994". Net payments figures show the balance from the two sides of the budget, by deducting total receipts from the gross contribution for each member state. A minus sign therefore indicates that a member state receives more from the EU budget than it pays.

  The figures for net payments can only be indicative because the Court of Auditors does not allocate all Community spending by member states. In particular, administrative spending in Belgium is not fully attributed. In addition, net payments can vary significantly from year to year owing to adjustments in own resource payments and fluctuations in receipts.

  The Commission has committed itself to provide a detailed breakdown of member states' receipts from the Community budget on an annual basis once the new own resources decision comes into force. This, together with Commission figures on member states' gross contributions, should help provide us with more information about member states' net payments.
  688

  Net payments to the EU budget in 1994 (in ecu per head)

  Germany

  167.7

  Netherlands

  119.6

  France

  45.4

  Italy

  44.5

  Belgium

  30.6

  UK

  19.9

  Denmark

  -38.2

  Spain

  -79.7

  Portugal

  -184.5

  Greece

  -370.4

  Ireland

  -486.7

  Luxembourg

  -634.3

  These figures are net of the UK's abatement.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average rate of income tax in(a) 1979, (b) 1983, (c) 1987, (d) 1992 and (e) the latest year for which figures are available for those taxpayers on (a) half average personal income, (b) average personal income and (c) twice average personal income. [20345]

  Mr. Jack
  Standard comparisons are based on calculating income tax liabilities with incomes at multiples of full-time male average earnings—adult rates, all occupations. These are given in tables 13.6a to 13.6c of the 1995–96 tax benefit reference manual, a copy of which can be found in the Library.

  Estimates for 1996–97 are given in the table.

  Multiple of average earnings1

  0.5

  1

  2

  Single person

  13.7

  18.9

  26.1

  One earner married couple with no children

  11.1

  17.6

  25.5

  One earner married with two children under 112

  1.3

  12.6

  23.0

  1 Full time males, adult rates, all occupations.

  2 Net of child benefit.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect on employment of the measures necessary to meet the budget deficit criteria for membership of the European monetary union. [20336]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None. It is in any case the Government's objective to bring the public sector borrowing requirement back towards balance over the medium term. The achievement of sound public finances is a necessary condition for a sustained increase in employment.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the most recent recommendations made by the European monetary committee on the progress of the United Kingdom towards achieving the Maastricht convergence criteria for economic and monetary union. [20597]
  689
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Article 109c of the treaty on European Union explains the role of the monetary committee in preparing the work of the Council. The most recent Council recommendation on the progress of the UK towards achieving the Maastricht convergence criteria was the recommendation of 12 July 1995 with a view to bringing an end to the situation of an excessive deficit in the UK.

  Exports (Wales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total value of exports from Wales in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [20648]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The location of the business enterprise making an export is not held by HM Customs and Excise; only the address registered for VAT purposes is available which may be at a different location within the UK. Consequently regional analyses of the trade statistics are not produced, and information relating to the value of exports by business enterprises located in Wales is not available.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many persons and at what level in his Department were involved in considering the Government's response to the report of the Scott inquiry. [16560]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 22 February 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 22 February, Official Report, columns 239–40.

  Building Societies Review
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to publish his building societies review; and if he will make a statement. [18563]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 4 March 1996]: I hope to publish a draft Building Societies Bill on Monday 18 March, for three months' consultation.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory base, and which(a) publish their advice to Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [20089]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 12 March 1996]: The School Teachers Review Body has a statutory base. Its reports, containing its recommendations to the Government, are published under a statutory requirement and laid before Parliament. Similarly, the other pay review bodies'—covering the armed forces; doctors and dentists; nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine; and senior salaries—recommendations are published and laid before Parliament, but not under any specific statutory requirement.
  690
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) hold public meetings, (b) conduct public consultation exercises, (c) conduct consultation exercises with outside commercial interests, (d) publish a register of members' interests, (e) publish agendas for meeting and (f) publish the minutes of meetings (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [20106]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 12 March 1996]: The pay review bodies take evidence from the interested parties. The School Teachers Review Body does so under a statutory requirement. The other pay review bodies do so voluntarily.

  NHS Trusts
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the discrepancy between the originating capital debt allocated to the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals national health service trust in SI No. 350 and that set out in the Treasury minute on dissolution and reconfiguration of certain national health service trusts. [20329]

  Mr. Horam
  I have been asked to reply.

  The amount of originating capital debt allocated to the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals national health service trust represents the excess of the valuation of the assets over the liabilities which were transferred to it on, or in connection with, its establishment. The figure in SI No. 350—£135,395,656 split evenly between public dividend capital and interest-bearing initial loan—was arrived at by aggregating the values of land and buildings provided by the district valuer, the values of equipment taken from the asset registers and the values of debtors and creditors taken from the audited books of account of the two dissolved trusts. These values were certified by auditors appointed by the Audit Commission prior to the setting of the OCD of the new trust.

  The figures contained in the departmental minute on the dissolution and reconfiguration of certain NHS trusts which was presented by the Treasury on 20 February 1996 are the liabilities outstanding to the Consolidated Fund at 1 April 1995 in respect of the OCD and further long-term loans issued by the Secretary of State for Health to Royal Liverpool University Hospital NHS trust and Broadgreen Hospital NHS trust before their dissolution. These liabilities, which were transferred to Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals national health service trust, were left out of account in determining the latter's net assets for the purposes of SI No. 350.

  The total of £114,112,928 proposed to be remitted comprises:

  £

  Royal Liverpool Hospital Trust

  OCD—Initial loan

  34,112,288

  OCD—PDC

  39,665,451

  Further borrowing

  7,531,600

  Total

  81,309,339

  691

  £

  Broadgreen Hospital NHS Trust

  OCD—Initial loan

  15,042,059

  OCD—PDC

  17,491,230

  Further borrowing

  270,300

  Total

  32,803,589

  There need not be any direct relationship between the public debt of a dissolving trust or trusts and the OCD of any successor body. The former arises as a result of the OCD set at some point in the past, based on net asset values at that time, and subsequently changes as a result of principal repayments and new borrowing. The latter is based on the net asset values at current valuation on the date of a trust's establishment.

  Mrs. Kennedy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy not to implement the Treasury minute on the dissolution and reconfiguration of certain national health service trusts—remission of outstanding debt, until he has published an explanation of the calculations of the basis contained therein. [20355]

  Mr. Jack
  The explanation is as follows:

  The amounts totalling £448,876,543 which are proposed for remission are the outstanding liabilities to the Consolidated Fund as at 31 March 1995 of seven NHS trusts which were dissolved on 1 April 1995. These liabilities are in respect of their outstanding originating capital debt, which is deemed under section 9(3) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 to have been issued out of moneys provided by Parliament, and their further borrowings and any issues of public dividend capital from the Secretary of State for Health which have been paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.

  The figure of £494,027,365 is the total originating capital debt of the five new trusts, which were established on 1 April 1995 from mergers of the dissolved trusts with each other or with directly managed unit. The trusts concerned are listed in paragraph 7 of the minute, and their individual originating capital debt is specified in SI 350. In accordance with section 9(1) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, each new trust's originating capital debt represents the excess of the valuation of the assets over the valuation of the liabilities transferred to it on or in connection with its establishment.

  The difference between the newly created capital debt and the amounts being written off reflects differences in composition and valuation between the net assets of the new trusts and those of the dissolved trusts concerned.

PRIME MINISTER

  Exports (Iraq)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the minute circulated on 1 August 1990 of the meeting chaired by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 19 July 1990 in 692
  regard to the changing of the 1985 Howe guidelines concerning the sale of goods to Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [20331]

  The Prime Minister
  This document was submitted as evidence to Sir Richard Scott's inquiry. I understand that Sir Richard Scott proposes to publish as soon as possible any documents which he considers relevant to his report, consistent with his procedures.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March. [19239]

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

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  House of Commons Notepaper
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, (1) what representations he has had concerning the die-stamping of House of Commons notepaper with the official stamp and portcullis crest by Wilprint Ltd. since October 1995; [20852]

  (2) when Wilprint Ltd. won the contract for die-stamping the official stamp and portcullis crest on the notepaper of the House; and what is the duration of the contract. [20853]

  Mr. Beith
  I have received one representation from the hon. Member himself. Her Majesty's Stationery Office is, of course, responsible for contracts with individual firms, but I can tell the hon. Member that the contract for die-stamping House of Commons stationery was awarded by HMSO to Wilprint Ltd. in February 1995 after competitive tender. The contract will cease in October 1996.

ENVIRONMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he has computed the figure of 80 per cent. in determining what percentage of local authority costs in meeting the needs of asylum seekers should be met by Her Majesty's Government, following the withdrawal of social security benefits. [20275]

  Mr. Curry
  The Government consider that it is a reasonable basis for making additional resources available to local authorities in England for this purpose for 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  North Lincolnshire Authority
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to provide additional
  693
  financial assistance to North Lincolnshire authority similar to that which has been announced for Scottish unitary authorities; and if he will make a statement. [19985]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend has already provided that some £2.182 million is to be paid to North Lincolnshire under section 88A of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to recompense North Lincolnshire district council for the income forgone as a consequence of the transitional reduction of council taxes under the Local Government Changes for England (Council Tax) (Transitional Reduction) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No. 176 as amended by SI 1996 No. 333).

  We have no plans to make further assistance available.

  Energy Saving Trust
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what level of funding is projected for the current financial year and each financial year to the year 2000 for the Energy Saving Trust from(a) gas consumers, (b) electricity consumers and (c) other private sector sources. [20395]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 9 January 1996,Official Report, column 4, which outlined the Government's proposed funding of the Energy Saving Trust. The trust is an independent company and non-Government funding is a matter for the trust.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 5 March,Official Report, column 102, if he will list the steps taken to ensure full compliance with the Environmental Protection (Applications, Appeals and Registers) Regulations 1991 in respect of the recent variation of the authorisation to burn secondary liquid fuel granted to Castle Cement under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. [20348]

  Mr. Clappison
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution issued the variation to Castle Cement on 23 January 1996 under section 10 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and followed all the requirements set out in this and in part II of schedule 1 to the Act, which sets out how variations are to be treated. The inspectorate treated the variation as substantial for the purposes of section 10 and consulted all those prescribed in SI 507. The inspectorate put copies of all notices and other papers as required by the Act on the public registers and carefully considered all the comments it received both from statutory consultees and elsewhere before taking its decision.

  Local Authorities (Sale of Interests)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environmental if he will list the local authorities which have sold their interests in(a) a municipal bus company, (b) crematoria and (c) airports in the current year to date. [20454]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  To date, in the financial year 1995–96 no local authorities have sold their interests in municipal bus companies. Pendle borough council hopes to complete the sale of its share in the Burnley and Pendle Bus Company soon. Two airport sales have been 694
  completed in this period. Dorset county council and Bournemouth borough council sold their interests in Bournemouth International Airport plc to National Express. Mid, South and West Glamorgan councils sold their interests in Cardiff International Airport Ltd. to TBI, a local company. Information on the sale of crematoria has not been collected centrally. In September 1996–97 we propose to request information on the sale of assets which have been subject to targeted relaxations in the amount required to be set aside under the capital finance system. Bus companies, crematoria and airports are among these.

  Local Authority Debt
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by rank order the debt of each local authority expressed as a money sum per head of population. [20745]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have today placed the information requested in the Library of the House.

  CITES Regulations
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that annexe D of the draft Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species regulation contains a fully representative list of species. [20758]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department is playing full part in the negotiations with other member states in consultation with our scientific advisors at the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the royal botanic gardens, Kew.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many questions were tabled to his Department in each Session since 1987–88; how many were not answered on the grounds of disproportionate cost; what percentage of the total number of questions this represented; how many were not answered on the grounds that the information was not centrally available; and what percentage of the total number of questions this represented. [21149]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Special Areas of Conservation
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will be providing guidance on the establishment of management schemes for special areas of conservation under the EC habitats directive. [21192]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government are undertaking public consultation on a draft guide to implementing the EC habitats directive in the marine environment. Developed by a topic group of the Department of the Environment's coastal forum, the guide will be aimed at those authorities who would be responsible for setting up management schemes on sites covered by the EC habitats directive.
  695
  The draft document is also a guide to the regulations which implement the habitats directive in Great Britain—the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations 1994. The guide sets out the legal obligations and duties with regard to European marine sites.

  Like the habitats directive, the guide underlines the principle of sustainable development. The aim is to ensure that human activities are undertaken in ways that do not threaten the nature conservation interest and, wherever possible support it.

  The guidance gives advice on the ways in which organisations responsible for aspects of the marine environment can work together to achieve conservation through co-operation. The importance of widespread consultation is also a principal theme in the draft guide.

  Comments on the draft guidance are invited by 26 April 1996.

  Development Plans
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to amend the system of development plans prepared under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and if he will make a statement. [21193]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 13 March 1996,Official Report, column 620.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce his decisions on the recommendations made to him by the Local Government Commission on 19 December 1995, following its review of the structure of 21 districts in England. [21404]

  Mr. Gummer
  I can now announce my decisions on the recommendations made by the Local Government Commission following its review of the structure of 21 districts. In reaching these decisions I have considered the commission's report and the representations which I have received. I have also take account of the estimates of transitional and on-going costs, and the viability of the structures which will result—both the unitary authorities and the remaining two-tier arrangements. In each case, I am satisfied that on balance my decision will best reflect the identities and interests of local communities and will best secure effective and convenient local government.

  I am accepting the commission's recommendations that there should be no structural change in Basildon, Broxtowe, Dartford, Exeter, Gedling, Gloucester, Gravesham, Huntingdonshire, Northampton, Norwich, Rushcliffe and Spelthorne. I am satisfied that the case for a single tier of local government has been properly considered; I have no plans to direct the commission to carry out any further reviews of local government structure. Local authorities in all areas where there is no structural change now need to concentrate on developing and improving the delivery of services within the existing system. In most cases, local authorities have given
  696
  undertakings on this; however, I shall not hesitate to intervene if it appears that those undertakings to work together are not being fulfilled.

  The commission made recommendations for unitary authorities to be created in nine of the districts reviewed. I have decided to accept their recommendations for the reasons set out.

  Blackburn

  I have decided to accept the commission's recommendation that there should be a unitary authority for Blackburn.

  As a former county borough it has a history of unitary local government. There is good evidence that Blackburn would operate effectively as a unitary authority. There is strong local identification with the two towns of Blackburn and Darwen within the borough, and support for unitary status. With a population of 138,300 the borough would be able to provide the full range of services, and its economic future could, I believe, be more effectively addressed by a strong unitary authority.

  Blackpool

  I also accept that Blackpool should be a unitary authority. It too is a former county borough. Its separate identity from the rest of Lancashire is well defined and is both local and national. Blackpool has clear and distinctive socio-economic problems, and tourism brings additional service pressure not shared by adjacent districts. Local residents identify strongly with the town. With a population of 152,100 it would be able to provide the full range of services. I have therefore concluded that a unitary authority would be viable and better able to address the needs and aspirations of local residents.

  I am satisfied that, without Blackburn and Blackpool, Lancashire county council would be of sufficient size and strength to be viable, and to readjust its service provision to operate with no loss in cost-effectiveness.

  Gillingham and Rochester upon Medway

  In north-west Kent, I have concluded that the balance of evidence lies in favour of accepting the commission's recommendations; that there should be a joint unitary Gillingham and Rochester upon Medway but that Dartford and Gravesham should remain within the current structure of local government.

  The case for joining the Medway towns in one unitary authority is strong. It is a significant urban area, one of the largest in the south-east outside London, with a population in excess of 240,000. The two boroughs form a continuous conurbation with strong cross-community interests and common physical and economic interests. Uniting the two authorities would provide a clearer focus and impetus to the Medway area and its size would ensure that the new authority would be well able to deliver the full range of local services. Kent county council would still be one of the largest county councils in England.

  The commission, however, judged that on balance the case for Dartford and Gravesham was not so strong and had not been made out. It felt that the more diverse characters of the two districts along with the lack of wider support, particularly in Gravesham, would make a joint

  697
  unitary authority more difficult to establish. I strongly endorse the commission's conclusion that all the local authorities concerned should support and promote a development partnership for the area to manage change and growth. I shall not hesitate to intervene if it appears that those undertakings to work together are not being fulfilled.

  Halton

  I accept the commission's recommendation that Halton should become a unitary authority. It has an internal cohesion and a high level of self-sufficiency with most residents staying within the borough for shoping, work and leisure. It has a socio-economic profile more akin to that of neighbouring metropolitan areas and is quite distinct from the rest of the county. Both Runcorn as a new town and Widnes as a town expansion scheme have experienced substantial inward migration from Merseyside in the past 25 years, contributing to the relatively low level of community identity with Cheshire.

  The authority is well placed to forge alliances and co-operative arrangements with neighbouring unitary authorities. There would be major advantages for Halton in being able to adopt a more locally focused approach to the co-ordination of services within an area which has a high level of deprivation and requires substantial regeneration.

  Warrington

  Also in Cheshire, I accept that Warrington should also become a unitary authority. As a large maturing new town, it has the size, with a population of 187,000, and the experience—as a county borough prior to 1974—to suggest that it would be well placed to deliver the full range of local authority services. It has grown rapidly since its designation as a new town, emphasising its separateness from the rest of Cheshire. Warrington itself is the main focus for the majority of residents in the borough.

  I am satisfied that, without Halton and Warrington, Cheshire county council would remain of sufficient size, with a population of 665,300 to deliver county services. Without these two very urban and quite distinct areas, Cheshire county council would be able to focus more effectively on the remaining, more rural, county area.

  Peterborough

  I accept that Peterborough should become a unitary authority. The city area has a long history of being distinct from the rest of Cambridgeshire. It is also geographically marginal, situated on the edge of the county. It has a strategic importance with respect to communications, being situated on the main east coast railway link and on two major roads.

  It is at the heart of an area covered by the greater Peterborough partnership, and is a major employment and retailing centre serving areas beyond the city. Its sphere of influence extends beyond the boundaries of the county. Peterborough has experienced rapid growth as a new town, and its highly urban character make it distinct from the rest of the county. It has the size, with 158,300
  698
  population on present boundaries, to be capable of delivering a full range of services, and unitary status would enable it to focus on its specific urban needs.

  The remaining county would be more coherent without the highly urban Peterborough, and will be of sufficient size to be viable. It will, however, be important for the whole area that the county council and the unitary Peterborough address the issue of revised service arrangements, and that the existing economic development partnerships involving the various agencies, local authorities and the private sector are maintained, in order to maintain the quality of service delivery.

  Thurrock

  I have decided to accept the commission's recommendation that there should be a unitary authority for Thurrock. Thurrock has a community identity which is distinct from the rest of Essex. Its strategic importance extends beyond the county boundary, a result of its location on the periphery of London and the presence of the Lakeside complex. There is good support from residents and local organisations for change and, with a population of 131,000, I believe that Thurrock would be able to provide the full range of local government services.

  I am satisfied that Essex—without Thurrock and Southend, which is also to become a unitary authority—would still be large enough for the county council to be a viable and cost-effective provider of services for the rest of the county.

  The Wrekin

  In Shropshire, I have decided that The Wrekin should become a unitary authority. It has a good case for unitary status on the grounds of both community identity and convenient and effective local government within the district.

  The Wrekin has a character which is distinct from the rest of Shropshire, founded in its industrial history and the more recent development of Telford new town. The commission found that the district is largely self-contained for employment and leisure, that there are strong links between Telford and the rural part of the district, and that the population looks more towards the west midlands conurbation than to the rest of Shropshire.

  I believe that unitary local government would help The Wrekin to develop its full potential as a major growth point for the west midlands. The benefits would extend beyond the authority's boundaries to the rest of the area. With a growing population, currently some 143,000, and a good infrastructure, I consider that a unitary council would be capable of delivering the full range of local authority services.

  I am, however, mindful of the concerns which have been expressed about the impact of a unitary authority on the rest of Shropshire. I look to the new unitary authority to co-operate with Shropshire county council and the neighbouring districts to ensure that the economic and other benefits of unitary local government in The Wrekin are felt throughout the county.
  699
  Non-structural recommendations

  Where I have accepted the commission's recommendations for structural change, I also propose to accept its recommendations for associated changes.

  On strategic land use and planning, I accept the recommendations that the unitary authorities in Halton, Warrington and Thurrock should be enabled to prepare unitary development plans for their areas. I consider that unitary development plans offer the best way forward for the planning in these areas which are adjacent to metropolitan areas which already prepare unitary development plans.

  In the other areas which will gain unitary status, I accept the commission's recommendation that the new unitary authorities should work jointly with the county council to maintain a joint structure plan for the combined area.

  In these areas, the commission's recommendation provides for alternative approaches to minerals and waste local planning. It recommends that these planning responsibilities should be discharged through joint arrangements with the county council, but that the unitary authorities should be authorised to include such detailed policies in their local plans, if that would secure greater efficiency without prejudicing the county-wide strategic policy. Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 would enable joint arrangements to happen where they suit local circumstances. On the other hand, the joint structure plan wold include strategic policies for minerals and waste planning while the unitary authorities' local plans must be in general conformity with the structure plan; this would ensure that any detailed minerals and waste policies included in those local plans did not prejudice the jointly prepared strategic policies. I therefore accept both the alternative approaches. I agree that these recommendations offer the best way forward for planning in these areas.

  I accept the commission's recommendations on the police, fire, probation and magistrates courts services in the unitary authorities.

  The commission also made a number of recommendations for boundary and electoral changes. One, in the Basildon area, would have involved a particularly large transfer of population between Basildon, Brentwood and Rochford. This was first put forward in 1994 by the commission, following its review of Essex. Despite some local support, I consider that the proposals need further examination, especially with regard to the financial consequences. I am not satisfied that the commission was able to do this within the timing constraints on the district reviews. I therefore intend to direct the commission to look again at this matter, and at other boundaries in Essex, when it conducts its periodic electoral review of the county.
  700
  The commission also recommended a number of other smaller changes involving transfers of land between Huntingdonshire and Peterborough in the area of the southern township development. Given the southern township's strategic relationship with Peterborough, and the need to facilitate effective planning and service provision there, I am satisfied that this boundary change is desirable, and I accept the commission's recommended changes. I am also provisionally accepting the recommended changes to the warding in Peterborough, which reflect the proposed boundary change, although, as I mention below, I shall be directing the commission to carry out an electoral review of the city.

  The recommended warding change in Gloucester city will rectify the under-representation in a number of the existing wards, and even out councillor to elector ratios; I accept this recommendation. The recommended boundary change in Surrey between Spelthorne and Runnymede districts takes account of changes in the course of the River Thames; former islands would be part of the district whose area they now join, thereby easing service delivery. I accept this recommendation also.

  This concludes the commission's current review of the structure of local government in England, and I am grateful for its thorough and expeditious work. As I foreshadowed on 5 March, I shall be directing the commission to undertake immediate reviews of the electoral arrangements in the areas which will acquire unitary status as a result of my decisions today. Unlike the earlier county reviews, the commission did not have time in these district reviews to consider the electoral arrangements in detail. There remains considerable variation in the councillor to elector ratios in many of these areas, and I am concerned that suitable electoral arrangements are in place in time for all out elections to the unitary authorities.

  We shall be consulting very shortly on draft orders to give effect to the decisions I have announced today, with a view to making the orders before the summer recess.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a list of all overseas visits make by all Ministers of his Department since 1990, including(a) details of the places visited and brief reasons for the visits, (b) details of the size, composition and cost to public funds of the delegation and (c) the names of non-ministerial members of each delegation and the capacity in which each was present. [17485]

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 1 March 1996]: I have arranged for the available information about overseas visits to be placed in the Library. Providing the other information about other overseas visits that the hon. Member requests would involve disproportionate costs. I have assumed that the hon. Member does not include visits within the European Union in this category.
  701

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Telecommunications (Key Escrow)
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 229, in respect of key escrow services, who constitutes the network of trusted third parties. [20466]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  As stated in my previous answer, discussions are still taking place. Nevertheless, we would expect to see an international market demand for TTP services, and as such would envisage commercial organisations meeting them.

  Employment Rights Legislation
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those sections of the(a) Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, (b) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and (c) Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993, the implementation of which are the responsibility of (i) the Department of Trade and Industry, (ii) the Department for Education and Employment and (iii) other Government Departments, specifying which. [20339]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I shall write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Energy from Waste Plants
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost of the study commissioned by his Department from the Water Research Council into the characteristics of ash from energy from waste plants; what advice he has received on the nature of this ash, and its place in the national waste classification system; if it is his Department's policy to support energy from waste plants; and if he will make a statement. [20462]

  Mr. Page
  The Department of Trade and Industry commissioned the Water Research Council to report on the properties and utilisation of municipal solid waste incineration residues, at a cost of £103,000. The report recommended that greatest effort should be given to the utilisation of bottom ash as secondary aggregate; an approach successfully employed in Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands. Ashes from the combustion of wood, coal and wastes are expected to be included in a new category in the third stage consultation on the waste classification scheme which the Department of the Environment will publish in April. Revenue from the beneficial use of bottom ash will help to improve the competitiveness of energy from waste projects which are supported by the non-fossil fuel obligation. Energy from waste projects also have the prospect of being developed outside the NFFO arrangements.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many conversions of Crown to agency status post offices(a) have been completed and (b) are proposed
  702
  in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and each of the English regions; and if he will list the affected office in each case. [20394]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I understand from the Post Office that the numbers of Crown post offices converted to agency status from March 1989 to the end of February 1996 by Post office Counters Ltd. regions are as follows:

  Number

  Scotland

  137

  Northern Ireland

  11

  North East

  82

  North Wales and North West

  105

  Midlands

  79

  South Wales and South West

  114

  North Thames and East Anglia

  159

  South East

  135

  A list of these 822 offices could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  I understand from the Post Office that the conversion to agency status of the following Crown post offices is currently proposed:

  Scotland

  Cambuslang

  North Wales and North West

  New Ferry

  Farnworth

  Denton

  Glossop

  North Thames and East Anglia

  Southgate, London E14

  Wood Street, London E17

  Midlands

  Shirley, Solihull

  North East

  Castleford

  South Wales and South West

  Devizes

  Bodmin

  Tewkesbury

  South East

  Portslade

  Rochester

  Trade Missions (Burma)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much money has been allocated to funding trading missions to Burma; and if he will make a statement. [20393]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The DTI has allocated £23,000 in the form of £1,000 grants to eligible UK companies which participated in the Asia Pacific advisory group trade mission to Burma between 26 February and 1 March 1996.

  Exports (Burma)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his policy on the sale of goods to Burma. [20330]
  703
  Mr. Oppenheim
  Except for the European Union defence embargo, there are no restraints on the export of goods to Burma.

  Free Postage
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those persons and categories of persons who are entitled to free postage. [20522]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Royal Mail provides free postage to registered blind people, visually impaired people and individuals or organisations posting certain items to blind or visually impaired people. This service allows packets containing articles which have been specially produced or adapted for blind or visually impaired people to be sent by first class post, free of charge. Some members of the royal family receive free postage to assist them in carrying out their public duties. Petitions and addresses to Her Majesty's the Queen and either House of Parliament can also be forwarded free of postage.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of Thursday 25 January,Official Report, columns 317–18, what recent changes have been made to the list of members of the royal family and their households who receive free postage for their official mail. [20397]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 12 March 1996]: Since 1 March 1996 the Duchess of York and her staff have ceased to receive free postage.

  Barnsley and Doncaster Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what funds his Department has provided to the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC in(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and what amount is planned for 1996–97. [20723]

  Mr. Page
  Barnsley and Doncaster TEC has received funding for the support of small and medium-sized businesses from numerous Government and European sources. The main DTI support is the enterprise budget which was £362,500 in 1994–95 and £294,000 in 1995–96 and is forecast to be £368,000 in 1996–97.

  Company Sizes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many employees currently work in firms with(a) one to 10 employees, (b) 11 to 20 employees, (c) 21 to 50 employees, (d) 51 to 100 employees, (e) 101 to 200 employees, (f) 201 to 500 employees, (g) 501 to 1,000 employees, (h) 1,001 to 2,000 employees and (i) over 2,000 employees; how many firms fall into each of these categories; and what percentage of the total number of firms is covered by each of these categories. [20854]

  Mr. Page
  Figures are not available by these size classes. The most recent estimates of the number of firms by employee size class are shown in the table.
  704

  Table 1: Number of employees and businesses by size of business, end-1993

  Enterprises

  Size (Employees)

  Employees Number

  Number

  Per cent.

  0

  0

  2,589,416

  72.3

  1–9

  2,348,846

  790,509

  22.1

  10–19

  1,438,367

  107,012

  3.0

  20–49

  1,766,520

  58,817

  1.6

  50–99

  1,294,070

  18,882

  0.5

  100–199

  1,197,586

  8,726

  0.2

  200–499

  1,495,828

  4,902

  0.1

  500+

  7,530,115

  3,205

  0.1

  All

  17,071,332

  3,581,469

  100

  Source:

  DTI Small Firms Statistics Unit.

  Technology Foresight Programme
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library the progress report on the technology foresight programme. [20588]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Yes. Today I have placed copies of the report in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Petroleum Licensing
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will announce the licences for blocks under the seventh landward licensing round. [21190]

  Mr. Page
  Following my announcement to the House on 18 July 1995,Official Report, column 1210, inviting applications under the seventh round of landward petroleum licensing, I am pleased to announce that the applications have now been assessed and I have decided to award 22 new licences for landward oil and gas exploration covering 74 blocks.

  The majority of the awards are in the east midlands and Lincolnshire basin in which a number of oil and gas discoveries have been made over many years. Other awards have been made in less well-established areas including south Wales, Yorkshire and Humberside, Hampshire, Oxfordshire and Wiltshire.

  New exploration concepts offered by companies in their applications should result in a significant increase in the exploration activity on land in Great Britain. A quarter of the applications were based on gas from coal and involve the exploitation of conventional coal bed methane, gob gas—gas collecting in old mines from de-stressed coals—and the gas which is currently vented to the atmosphere from abandoned mines for safety purposes.

  I have tried to strike a balance in the wards across the round as a whole to ensure that both conventional and coal bed methane resources are thoroughly explored and that the optimum exploitation of hydrocarbon resources will result.

  Some of the licences awarded are for blocks that straddle land and sea boundaries. I have decided to apply strict conditions in these cases to exclude any oil and gas

  705
  activity below the low-water mark. Activities above the low-water mark require planning permission which will take account of any environmental impact.

  Although no near shore oil and gas activity has been licensed in this round, should interest be expressed in the watery areas in future licensing rounds, I will look again at the possibility of licensing them subject to satisfactory arrangements being put in place for protecting the interests of other users of the sea and the environment.

  I was very impressed with the quality of the applications as well as their innovative and considered approach to oil and gas exploration and development. This is an encouraging outcome in the first landward petroleum licensing round to be held for three years. It is also the first landward round to allow companies to apply for the new unified petroleum exploration and development licence that covers the full life cycle of any hydrocarbon discovery.

  Decisions about the awards were made on the basis of the technical work programmes offered by each applicant together with their evaluation of the exploration opportunities. I also took into account environmental and financial factors.

  The onshore oil and gas industry has intended to be overshadowed by the huge successes in the North sea and now west of Shetland. Nevertheless, the onshore industry has a continuing and important role to play in the UK's energy sector, particularly in the light of the opportunities from the increasingly deregulated markets for gas and electricity. We also need the flexibility and freshness of approach that small companies bring to enhance the UK's ability to meet its energy needs.

  These licence awards indicate the strong interest in petroleum exploration on land and underscore the broad range of licence opportunities available to the oil and gas industry across the whole of Great Britain and the United Kingdom continental shelf. I intend to build on this interest by holding landward rounds on a regular basis in future.

  I will place copies of this announcement in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Insolvency Service
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he met or spoke by telephone to the Deputy Prime Minister on 28 February to discuss whether the contracting out of Insolvency Service casework should proceed. [19580]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 March 1996]: Any discussions between Ministers are confidential.

  Companies House
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost of market-testing and benchmarking exercises within Companies House; and if he will estimate the efficiency savings arising from such exercises. [20559]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 13 March 1996]: It will not be possible to determine the costs and savings
  706
  of the Companies House contracting-out programme until the programme has been completed.

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will reconsider the approval of the importing and use of orimulsion for the purpose of electricity generation. [20370]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 13 March 1996]: No. The choice of fuel to be used in a power station is a commercial matter for the company concerned subject to the operation of the station being able to satisfy the requirements of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases have been referred by Doncaster police to the Crown Prosecution Service in each of the last four years; how many have been prosecuted; and how many have been successful. [19643]

  The Attorney-General
  Cases from the Doncaster police are dealt with by the South Yorkshire branch of the Crown Prosecution Service. That branch also deals with cases referred to it from other divisions of the South Yorkshire police force and, as statistics are kept on a branch basis only, it would not normally be possible to separate the figures for one police division from others serving the same branch. Exceptionally, I am able to provide figures for the last two calender years. Figures for the years 1992 and 1993 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The figures shown in the tables represent the number of cases received from the police and the number of defendants whose case proceeded to a hearing in magistrates courts and in the Crown court during the calendar years 1994 and 1995 and, of those, the proportion who were convicted. Convictions are inclusive of guilty pleas, as well as of contested hearings.

  In the magistrates court, table 1 shows:
  the number of defendants whose case was received by the CPS and the number whose case was finalised;
  of defendants finalised, the number whose case was referred to the CPS for pre-charge advice, and the number of other, non-criminal, proceedings—such as forfeiture proceedings under the Obscene Publications Acts;

  Table 2 shows:
  defendants whose case was not proceeded with, divided into cases where the prosecution was dropped and cases which could not proceed and were written off—for example, because the defendant had died, or could not be traced.

  Table 3 shows:
  of those cases proceeded with, the number of: defendants bound over to keep the peace; defendants cases dealt with summarily by hearings in the magistrates court; defendants committed for trial to the Crown court; and defendants whose case was discharged at committal.
  707
  Table 4 shows:
  of the cases heard in the magistrates court, the number of defendants convicted and the number acquitted. The sum of the two figures exceeds the number shown in table 3 for cases proceeding to a hearing because in cases where a defendant enters mixed pleas—guilty to some charges and not guilty to others—and is subsequently acquitted on those charges to which he pleaded not guilty, the Crown Prosecution Service counts the result as both a conviction and an acquittal or two convictions when the not guilty plea is proved. The same case may, therefore, count amongst the figures for convictions and those for acquittals.

  In the Crown court, table 5 shows:
  the number of defendants whose case was received and the number finalised. Of the number of defendants cases finalised, the number dealt with by way of appeal from the magistrates court or committed to the Crown court for sentence.

  Table 6 shows:
  of defendants' cases not proceeded with, divided into those in which no evidence was offered before the jury was sworn—prosecution dropped—and those which could not proceed and were written off—for example, because the defendant had died, could not be traced by the police or had been found unfit to plead.

  Table three: Proceeded with of which

  Bind over

  Per cent.

  Hearings in the Magistrates' Court

  Per cent.

  Committed to Crown Court

  Per cent.

  Committal discharged

  Per cent.

  1994

  166

  2.1

  5,595

  70.8

  726

  9.2

  17

  0.2

  1995

  187

  2.4

  5,557

  71.3

  633

  8.1

  7

  0.1

  Outcome of which…

  Convicted

  Per cent.

  Acquitted

  Per cent.

  1994

  5,519

  98.3

  94

  1.7

  1995

  5,462

  98.1

  104

  1.9

  Table five: Crown Court

  Receipts

  Finalised

  of which Appeals and committals for sentence

  Per cent.

  1994

  936

  869

  122

  14.0

  1995

  780

  878

  131

  14.9

  Table six: Not proceeded with of which…

  Prosecution dropped

  Per cent.

  Written off

  Per cent.

  1994

  46

  6.2

  0

  0.0

  1995

  78

  10.4

  0

  0.0

  Table seven: proceeded with of which…

  Bind over

  Per cent.

  Hearings

  Per cent.

  1994

  9

  1.2

  692

  92.6

  1995

  27

  3.6

  642

  85.9

  Table eight: outcome of which…

  Convicted

  Per cent.

  Acquitted

  Per cent.

  1994

  696

  96.0

  29

  4.0

  1995

  636

  95.6

  29

  4.4

  708
  Table 7 shows:
  the number of defendants' cases proceeded with divided into the number bound over to keep the peace and the number heard in the Crown court.

  Table 8 shows:
  of the defendants' cases heard in the Crown court, the number which resulted in convictions and the number of acquittals. The sum of these figures is greater than the figure shown in table 7 for cases proceeding to a hearing for the same reason as set out above for cases in the magistrates court.

  Table one: Magistrates Court

  Case numbers

  Received

  Finalised

  Of which Pre-charge advice

  Per cent.

  Other proceedings

  Per cent.

  1994

  9,368

  9,105

  1,182

  13

  26

  0.3

  1995

  8,360

  8,384

  523

  6.2

  63

  0.8

  Table two: Not proceeded with of which

  Prosecution dropped

  Per cent.

  Written off

  Per cent.

  1994

  1,003

  12.7

  390

  4.9

  1995

  1,130

  14.5

  284

  3.6

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Renton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in favour of the introduction of a compulsory British identity card. [18986]

  Mr. Howard
  Of over 3,000 responses we received to the Green Paper on identity cards, 1,700 were in favour of the introduction of an identity card and of these 800 favoured a compulsory card.

  Prison Service
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the study commissioned by his Department into relations between the Home Office and the Prison Service. [18995]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The hon. Member is referring to the in-depth study recommended by General Sir John Learmont. As my right hon and learned Friend told the House on 16 October,Official Report, columns 30–44, we have set work in hand in response to this recommendation. The work was assisted initially by Miss Kate Jenkins and then taken forward by discussions between Prison Service and Home Office officials—but no in-depth study as recommended by Sir John Learmont has been commissioned. We have had a number of general inquiries in connection with this but no representations as

  709
  such. My right hon. and learned Friend has undertaken to give a full response to the Learmont recommendations in due course and this remains the position.

  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes currently operate in Leicestershire; what was the figure five years ago; and if he will make a statement. [18996]

  Mr. Maclean
  There are currently 2,701 neighbourhood watch schemes in Leicestershire. At the end of December 1990 there were 1,245. This is an increase of 116 per cent. In Leicestershire, as in the rest of the country, more and more people are realising the benefits of neighbourhood and street watch.

  Trials
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to improve trials. [18997]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government have introduced a number of initiatives to improve the way in which the criminal justice system operates. The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill, currently before the House, contains measures which will further improve the preparation of cases and the conduct of criminal trials.

  New Technology Developments (Funding)
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to fund developments in new technology. [18998]

  Mr. Maclean
  New technology developments are funded directly by public capital provision, or indirectly through grant and credit approvals, or the private finance initiative and challenge funding, such as the closed circuit television initiative.

  Cautions
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy relating to cautions. [18999]

  Mr. Maclean
  Cautioning should continue to be used, but only where it is an adequate response to the particular circumstances of the offence and of the offender.

  Fire Service College
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the financial deficit shown in the annual report and accounts of the Fire Service College. [19002]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Fire Service College's accounts for 1994–95 show cumulative deficit of over £7 million. The intention is that the college should continue as a trading fund. A number of measures have already been taken or are under active consideration which are intended to strengthen the college's financial position and to secure its place as the central provider of both command and specialist training for the UK fire service.
  710

  Persistent Criminals
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what policies he has to deal with persistent burglars and drug pushers. [19003]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend announced last October proposals which would require courts to impose stiff minimum prison sentences on persistent burglars and drug dealers. I will be publishing a White Paper shortly setting out full details of these proposals.

  Policemen on the Beat
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of policemen on the beat. [19004]

  Mr. Maclean
  Police officers on the beat are crucial to the fight against crime which is why there is a national objective for high visibility policing. Patrol work, properly directed and targeted, is an effective tool in increasing community safety.

  Policing (East Sussex)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve policing in East Sussex. [19006]

  Mr. Maclean
  The chief constable of Sussex police is responsible for policing East Sussex. The Sussex police authority's budget this year increased by 16 per cent.—or £20.2 million—over 1994–95. The force have said that total police strength should increase by 130 in 1995–96. Spending will increase by a further £5.6 million or 3.9 per cent. in 1996–97.

  Knives and Imitation Guns
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to control the sale of offensive knives and imitation guns. [19007]

  Mr. Maclean
  An amendment dealing with the sale of knives and other items was accepted during Committee stage of the Offensive Weapons Bill on Wednesday 6 March. The effect of the amendment is to make it an offence to sell to someone under the age of 16 any knife, knife blade—or razor blade—any axe or any other article which has a blade or which is sharply pointed and which is made or adapted to cause injury to another person.

  Any imitation firearm which can be readily converted to fire live ammunition is subject to stringent licensing control. Licensing the sale of possession of other imitation firearms would be neither feasible nor effective in combating misuse.

  Fire Stations (Docklands)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his assessment of the increased risk to life and property in the docklands area of London consequent on the proposals to reduce the number of appliances in fire stations covering that area. [19008]
  711
  Mr. Sackville
  Responsibility for making any such assessment rests with the London fire and civil defence authority. If an application is received from the authority to remove appliances from the docklands area, my right hon. and learned Friend will take advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services on whether the nationally recommended standards of fire cover will be maintained.

  Social Security Officers (Police Co-operation)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many chief constables have reported the non-co-operation of local social security officers when asked by the police for addresses for serving warrants for arrest. [19009]

  Mr. Maclean
  I have received no reports of any difficulties.

  Crime Prevention (South-west)
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support he has given for crime prevention initiatives in the south-west. [19010]

  Mr. Maclean
  We support crime prevention initiatives nationally in several ways, for example by encouraging the formation of neighbourhood watch and other watch schemes, and by our support for crime concern.

  In the south-west in particular, a safer cities project was established in Bristol as part of phase 1 of the safer cities programme, while there is a project at Plymouth under phase 2. There is also a drugs prevention initiative team working in Avon and Somerset, delivering a programme of work which involves local people. There were 14 successful bids from the south-west in the first round of the closed circuit television challenge competition, worth over £450,000.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria he uses in deciding appointments to public bodies for which he has responsibility. [19011]

  Mr. Howard
  My appointments to public bodies are governed by the overriding principle of selection based on merit, taking account of the skills and experience needed by the bodies concerned.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory base, and which(a) publish their advice to Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [20097]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 12 March 1996]: The following advisory non-departmental bodies which are sponsored by my Department:

  (i) are on a statutory basis

  Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs

  Animals Procedures Committee

  Boards of Visitors, prison establishments

  Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council

  712

  Firearms Consultative Committee

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales

  Parole Board

  Poisons Board

  Police Negotiating Board

  (ii) publish their advice to Government

  Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs1

  Animals Procedures Committee

  Firearms Consultative Committee1

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England1

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales1

  Poisons Board1

  (iii) publish an annual report and lay it before Parliament

  Animals Procedures Committee1

  Firearms Consultative Committee1

  Metropolitan Police Committee

  Parole Board1

  In addition, boards of visitors may at the discretion of each board publish their annual reports.

  1 In these cases, the bodies concerned meet a statutory requirement. In other cases, the bodies act voluntarily.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) hold public meetings, (b) conduct public consultation exercises, (c) conduct consultation exercises with outside commercial interests, (d) publish a register of members' interests, (e) publish agendas for meetings and (f) publish the minutes of meetings (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [20114]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 12 March 1996]: The following advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department:

  (i) hold public meetings

  Metropolitan Police Committee

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales

  (ii) conduct public consultative exercises

  Animals Procedures Committee

  Firearms Consultative Committee

  Metropolitan Police Committee

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales

  (iii) conduct consultative exercises with outside commercial interests

  Animals Procedures Committee

  Crime Prevention Agency Board

  Firearms Consultative Committee

  Metropolitan Police Committee

  The activities listed are undertaken voluntarily by the bodies concerned except for the parliamentary Boundary Commissions which are statutorily required to hold local inquiries in public if certain conditions are met and also to conduct public consultation exercises.

  None of the advisory non-departmental public bodies which my Department sponsors publishes a register of members' interests, agendas for meetings or minutes of meetings.
  713

  Prisons (Government Policy)
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the 1991 White Paper on prisons represents Government policy on prisons. [19001]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Both the 1991 White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice" and the Woolf report which preceded it, identified the need for a proper balance between essential security measures and effective, constructive regime activities. This remains Prison Service policy today. We have already implemented most of the White Paper commitments.

  Public Interest Immunity
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his predecessor signed a public interest immunity certificate in the case of Rv. Roche, and others, at Plymouth Crown court in July and August 1991. [18812]

  Mr. Howard
  No public interest immunity certificate was issued by the then Home Secretary in this case.

  Prison Service (Director General)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people(a) applied for and (b) were approached to apply for the post of Director General of the Prison Service when it was vacated by Mr. Derek Lewis. [19835]

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 26 February,Official Report, column 417.

  Executive Action
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those areas of executive action other than citizenship where he has discretion to act in respect of an individual without giving reasons for this decision. [20074]

  Mr. Howard
  Comprehensive records are not kept in the form requested, but no provision comparable to that in section 44(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 has been identified from readily available sources.

  Fire Services (Wales)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each financial year from 1990–91 to 1996–97 the finances made available for each fire brigade in Wales in(a) cash and (b) real terms and the sources from which this funding came. [20273]

  Mr. Sackville
  My right 'hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for the revenue funding of Welsh local authorities. Welsh local government revenue settlement resources are not hypothecated to specific services such as fire. Funding for fire authorities' revenue services is an integral part of local authorities budget setting. Returns from local authorities showing expenditure on fire have been placed in the Library. No information is available yet for 1996–97.
  714

  Convictions
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of cases brought to court secured convictions(a) 20 years ago, (b) 10 years ago and (c) in each of the last five years. [20346]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is given in the table:

  Offenders convicted at all courts as a percentage of prosecutions at magistrates courts by type of offence 1974, 1984, 1990–94

  England and Wales

  Percentages

  Type of Offence

  Indictable

  Summary non motoring

  Summary motoring

  All offences

  1974

  92

  92

  96

  94

  1984

  86

  89

  92

  90

  1990

  73

  81

  83

  80

  1991

  69

  79

  80

  77

  1992

  66

  78

  77

  75

  1993

  64

  78

  74

  73

  1994

  63

  77

  74

  72

  Cyclists (Pedestrian Injuries)
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of serious incidents and injuries caused to pedestrians by people who ride their bicycles on the pavements; what plans he has to address this problem; and if he will make a statement. [20388]

  Mr. Maclean
  Personal injury road accident data are recorded by the Department of Transport. No estimates are available of the number of accidents between cyclists and pedestrians on pavements. The following table shows the total number of injury accidents on public roads reported to the police in 1994 which involved a pedal cyclist and one or more pedestrians. It is not possible to estimate the proportion of these accidents which occurred on the pavement.

  Injury accidents involving one pedal cyclist and one or more pedestrians

  Number of accidents 333

  Great Britain 1994

  Killed

  Seriously injured

  Slightly injured

  Total casualties

  Casualties resulting:

  Pedestrian casualties

  3

  95

  241

  339

  Pedal cyclists casualties

  0

  14

  68

  82

  The manner in which enforcement of the offence of cycling on the pavement is carried out, including the allocation of resources for the purpose, is a matter for individual chief officers of police. The Home Office intends soon to seek views on whether cycling on the pavement should be made a fixed penalty offence.

  By the use of publicity campaigns, such as "cycle safe", the Department of Transport will continue its efforts to remind cyclists that they should adopt a responsible attitude and comply with the law and with normal standards of common sense and courtesy to others.
  715

  Funerals
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which is the lead Department on the funeral industry; and what consideration is being given to amending relevant legislation, along lines suggested by the National Funerals College executive director, the Reverend Doctor Peter Jupp, for the re-use of graves after a period of years. [19172]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Trade and Industry are responsible for consumers' interests in goods and services provided by the funerals industry, while the Home Office is responsible for the law relating to burial and certain related matters. There are no present plans to amend legislation to provide for the proposed re-use of graves.

  Crime Statistics (Essex)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the level of recorded crime in Essex; and what was the level two years ago. [19199]

  Mr. Maclean
  The police in Essex recorded 101,687 offences in the 12 months to June 1995 and 115,895 offences in the 12 months to June 1993, a fall of 14,208 offences.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role of CCTV in tackling crime. [19240]

  Mr. Maclean
  Police operational experience and independent research show that closed circuit television can have a significant impact in reducing crime and the fear of crime. CCTV prevents crime happening in the first place; it aids the investigation and detection of crime; and it provides evidence to help convict the guilty.

  We are making £45 million available to promote the use of CCTV technology in the fight against crime with the aim of providing 10,000 new cameras over the next three years.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is currently the waiting time for those applying for an oral hearing by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; [20639]

  (2) how many cases are currently awaiting an oral hearing by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; and what was the number at 1 March 1995; [20638]

  (3) what steps he is taking to reduce the waiting time for those applying for an oral hearing by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. [20637]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board advises that the average waiting time for an oral hearing is currently 14 months, although almost 50 per cent. of applications for, or referrals to, a hearing are resolved within 12 months.

  The number of appeals cases awaiting resolution rose from some 18,000 on 1 March 1995 to 22,800 on 1 March 1996 by reason of the significant increase in the volume
  716
  of initial decisions issued—93,000—since the first tariff scheme was withdrawn on 5 April 1995, requiring all the previous year's applications to be reprocessed.

  The board has expanded its hearing programme to meet this demand and, at the request of its chairman, Lord Carlisle QC, my right hon. and learned Friend recently made additional appointments to the board for this purpose. From 1 April 1996, under the new tariff scheme approved by Parliament in December, there are procedures designed to help contain the number of cases where such hearings are necessary and to enable cases which do require a hearing to be resolved more quickly.

  PROMIS Project
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what are the costs to date to his Department for the tendering exercise for financial reporting software for the PROMIS project; [19674]

  (2) if the companies that withdrew from the tendering process for the PROMIS project will now be invited to resubmit their tenders; [19675]

  (3) at what stage in the tendering process his Department will ensure that all companies are able to meet the mandatory requirements for the PROMIS project. [19676]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 11 March 1996]:The recent PROMIS procurement exercise designed to obtain a comprehensive information technology solution to support the Home Office's purchasing and supply function was halted because no compliant solutions were put forward.

  The Home Office has no plans to invite further tenders to meet the full PROMIS requirement.

  The total cost of the procurement exercise to the Home Office is approximately £160,000.

  Outstanding Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what values of payments were outstanding within his Department on 5 March, which were beyond the date on the invoice and, where no date was specified, older than 28 days. [20481]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 12 March 1996]: Information about the values of payments outstanding is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Track (Speed Restrictions)
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of rail track are currently subject to speed restrictions on each major line throughout the rail network. [19859]

  Mr. Watts
  The current number of miles subject to speed restrictions on each of the major lines are:

  West coast main line: 11

  Midland main line: 2.5

  717

  East coast main line: 3

  Great western: 50.5

  Car Ferries
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those ferries currently operating to and from United Kingdom ports which(a) meet and (b) do not meet the requirements of the proposed regional agreement relating to car deck bulkheads, indicating in each case in (b) when he expects the standards to be reached. [19871]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government, in their response to the Transport Committee's report on cross-channel safety, had already undertaken to publish such a list, and subsequent updated lists, once agreement was reached on the implementation of a higher ferry survivability standard. Such an agreement has now been reached and a list indicating in each case when we expect the standard to be reached will be published after detailed calculations have been completed.

  Trunk Road Network
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department received the local authority associations' submission on the case for the transfer of responsibility for much of the trunk road network to local authorities; and when he intends to respond to it. [19770]

  Mr. Watts
  The local authority associations tabled a paper setting out their proposals for transferring a significant proportion of the all-purpose trunk road network to local authorities for discussion at the national annual consultative meeting on 18 July 1995, when we discussed a possible way forward based on a case study approach. The associations' proposals are currently being considered in the context of the national transport debate; they were discussed further with the associations at the local transport liaison group meeting on 30 January.

  Rail Privatisation
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what uniform business rate income the Exchequer will derive from Railtrack when the company has been privatised; how this income will be shared among local authorities; and if the payment of uniform business rate by Railtrack has been included in the calculation of track access charges. [19862]

  Mr. Watts
  Rateable values for Railtrack's operational property are prescribed by orders by the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Scotland and for Wales. The sum raised from this in 1994–95 was £91.7 million. Other properties are assessed in the normal way by the Valuation Office agency and the moneys collected by the relevant local authorities. The figure for this is not held centrally. These arrangements will be unaffected by privatisation. All non-domestic rates, whether collected by the Secretaries of State or by local authorities, are paid into the non-domestic rating pools for the respective countries and redistributed to local authorities on a per capita basis. The payment of rates is included in Railtrack's costs which were taken into account by the Rail Regulator in setting the level of access charges.
  718
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when each remaining part of the former British Rail is due to be privatised. [19863]

  Mr. Watts
  The timetable for franchising and future sales is set down in the following table. This gives indications only of when sales are expected to be completed or franchises awarded.

  (a) Franchises

  The Franchising Director is responsible for awarding franchising contracts.
  Bidders were shortlisted for InterCity East Coast, Midland Main Line, Network SouthCentral and Gatwick Express on 16 January. The Franchising Director received final bids on 1 March for InterCity East Coast, Midland Main Line and Gatwick Express. Final bids for Network SouthCentral were required by 11 March 1996.
  The Franchising Director is inviting the shortlisted bidders (with the exception of Enterprise Rail) to re-tender for LTS Rail.
  Invitations to tender for South Eastern were issued on 19 December 1995 and for Chiltern on 30 January. Indicative bids for both are required by 22 March.
  Invitations to pre-qualify for Cardiff and South Wales and West were issued on 23 January. 19 applications have been received for pre-qualification, the majority of companies being interested in pre-qualifying for both franchises.
  Invitations to pre-qualify for Anglia and Thames Trains were issued on 22 February. Applications must be received by 22 March.
  Invitations to tender for the remaining franchises will be issued in due course.

  (b) Freight Businesses
  Final bids for Freightliner were invited on 22 December 1995. BR aims to complete the sale in the coming months.
  The Government and British Rail are examining the options for privatisation of Railfreight Distribution.

  (c) Infrastructure companies

  Final bids for the following businesses were involved on 5 October 1995 and the sales are expected in the coming months:

  Western Track Renewals Co. Ltd.

  Northern Infrastructure Maintenance Co. Ltd.

  Northern Track Renewals Co. Ltd.

  Eastern Infrastructure Maintenance Co. Ltd.

  Eastern Track Renewals Co. Ltd.

  Southern Track Renewals Co. Ltd.

  South West Infrastructure Maintenance Co. Ltd.

  South East Infrastructure Maintenance Co. Ltd.

  (d) Other BR Businesses

  Final bids for the following units were invited:

  The engineering link: 15 December 1995

  Interfleet Technology: 15 December 1995

  Network Train Engineering Services: 15 December 1995

  College of Railway Technology: 26 January 1996.

  Bids are currently being considered for the above units and for BR Projects Ltd.
  Indicative bids will be invited for about 10 other Central Services units. BR expects to dispose of all the above units over the coming months.

  (e) Railtrack
  The Government intend to sell Railtrack by stock market flotation in May 1996.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if
  719
  he will list each part of the former British Rail which has been privatised since the passage of the Railways Act 1993, indicating the income generated by each sale. [19864]

  Mr. Watts
  The tables list those parts of British Rail which have either been sold or franchised.

  The first two franchises were awarded as contracts to run services in return for the payment of grant and will not generate receipts for the Government.

  Gross proceeds from the sales to date of businesses sold by BR amount to some £571.5 million. As explained in the Government's response of 14 December 1995 to the Transport Select Committee Fourth Report, on railway finances, it would be contrary to the commercial interests of British Rail and the Government to publish details of individual sales at this stage, as that may prejudice sales still in progress. Details of individual sales completed will be made public in due course.

  In addition to that figure, the sale of the rolling stock leasing companies, which was handled by my Department, realised £1,822 million; that figure comprises £598 million for Eversholt Leasing Ltd., £528 million for Porterbrook Leasing Ltd. and £696 million for Angel Train Contracts Ltd.

  Franchises

  Awarded

  Great Western Holdings Ltd.

  20 December 1995

  Stagecoach Holdings plc Ltd.

  19 December 1995

  Both commenced operations on 4 February 1996.

  Companies sold

  As at 14 March 1996

  Freight and Parcels

  Red Star

  Sold 5 September 1995

  Rail express systems Ltd.

  Sold 9 December 1995

  Trainload Freight businesses

  Sold 4 February 1996

  Loadhaul Freight Ltd.

  Mainline Freight Ltd.

  Transrail Freight Ltd.

  Rolling stock leasing companies

  Porterbrook Leasing Ltd.

  Sale completed 8 January 1996

  Angel Train Contracts Ltd.

  Sale completed 17 January 1996

  Eversholt Leasing Ltd.

  Sale completed 2 February 1996

  Other Businesses

  Special Trains Unit

  Sale completed 31 March 1995

  BRIS Design Offices

  DCU Birmingham

  Sold 25 July 1995

  Mainline Swindon

  Sold 18 August 1995

  IDG Glasgow

  Sold 18 August 1995

  BPE Mechanical and Engineering Consultancy, Doncaster

  Sold 15 September 1995

  Civil Engineering Design Group, York

  Sold 15 September 1995

  Powertrack Engineering Company Limited CEDAC London Limited

  Sold 15 December

  720

  Companies sold

  As at 14 March 1996

  BR Maintenance Ltd.

  Swindon Electronic Service Centre

  Sold 11 April 1995

  Chart Leacon (Ashford)

  Sold 5 June 1995

  Illford and Doncaster Depots

  Wolverton, and Springburn(Glasgow)

  Depots

  Sold 6 June 1995

  Eastleigh Depot

  Sold 7 June 1995

  Sale completed 21

  BR Telecommunications Ltd.

  December 1995

  BR Central Services

  Meldon Quarry Ltd.

  Sold February 1994

  Baileyfield Switches and Crossings Works

  Sold 7 July 1995

  Ditton Timber Treatment Works

  Sold 1 September 1995

  Quality and Safety Services Ltd.

  Sold 10 November 1995

  Railways Occupational Health Ltd.

  Sold 30 November 1995

  Signalling Control (UK) Ltd.

  Sold 1 December 1995

  Interlogic Control Engineering Ltd.

  Sold 4 January 1996

  Castleton Long Welded Rail and Track Works

  Sold 14 March 1996

  OBS Services Ltd.

  Sold 3 October 1995

  BR Infrastructure Companies

  Scotland Track Renewals Co. Ltd.

  Sold 8 February 1996

  Scotland Infrastructure Maintenance Co. Ltd.

  Sold 14 February 1996

  Western Infrastructure Maintenance Co. Ltd.

  Contracts exchanged 7 March 1996

  Central Infrastructure Maintenance Co. Ltd.

  Contracts exchanged 7 March 1996

  Railway Lands (London)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the last valuation was made of the King's Cross railway lands; and what value was attached to the asset. [20305]

  Mr. Watts
  A valuation of the King's Cross railway lands was carried out for the British Rail Property Board in March 1995. Based on rental income derived from the lands, the existing use value was estimated to be £5.8 million. A valuation was carried out for my Department in November 1995 to assess the development value of those parts of the King's Cross railway lands not ultimately required for the channel tunnel rail link operational railway which indicated a development value of up to £10.6 million.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the last valuation was made of the railway land at Stratford now transferred to London and Continental Railways; and what value was attached to it. [20306]

  Mr. Watts
  A valuation of the Stratford railway lands, including the land required for the channel tunnel rail link and Stratford international station, was carried out for the British Rail Property Board in March 1995. Based on rental income derived from the lands, the existing use value was estimated to be £15.2 million. A valuation was carried out for my Department in May 1995 to assess the development value of the lands excluding those parts required for the CTRL operational railway, which indicated a development value of up to £12.5 million.
  721

  Railway Costs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the operating cost per mile including overheads, maintenance and security of(a) an InterCity train, (b) a Network SouthEast commuter train and (c) a North West Regional Railways train. [20308]

  Mr. Watts
  The 1994–95 operating expenses per train mile were:

  InterCity: £27.67

  Network SouthEast: £21.13

  Regional Railways: £14.37

  Figures are not directly comparable with previous years due to reorganisation of the industry under the Railways Act 1993. The operating expense per train mile specific to North West Regional Railways is not available.

  Royal Train
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 29 January 1996,Official Report, column 482, relating to the use of the royal train, what definition is used of a public duty. [20471]

  Mr. Watts
  The definition is a duty undertaken to mark a public event or occasion.

  Marine Accidents (Pilots)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vessels have run aground(a) with a pilot and (b) without a pilot on board in each year since 1987. [20521]

  Mr. Norris
  The statistics requested are not available.

  Highways Agency
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated cost of the review of the organisation and staffing of the Highways Agency announced to staff in November 1995. [20782]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Clare Short, dated 14 March 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the cost of the review of the organisation and staffing of the Highways Agency announced to staff in November 1995.
  The internal review team estimate their costs at about £110,000. No external consultancy costs have been incurred.

  "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas"
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those recommendations contained in Lord Donaldson's report, by reference to the particular chapter and paragraph, which(a) have been implemented in full, (b) are in the process of being implemented in full, (c) are planned to be only partially implemented and (d) will not be implemented. [20819]

  Mr. Norris
  Lord Donaldson's report "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas", Cm 2560, contains 103 recommendations, which are listed in chapter 23. The Government have 722
  accepted 91 of these, are considering a further eight, and have rejected four. The position on each recommendation is summarised in the table.

  Position

  Recommendations (as number in chapter 23 of Lord Donaldson's report)

  Accepted: Implemented in full

  2,3,6,8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 21, 22, 24, 26–29, 32, 37, 38, 41, 46–48, 78, 79, 81, 82, 84 88, 90, 91, 94, 99, 100

  Accepted: Implementation on-going1

  1, 4, 5, 7, 13, 16, 18–20, 23, 25, 30, 31, 33–35, 39, 44, 45, 49,

  50–58, 61–69, 70–77, 80, 83, 86, 87, 89, 93, 97, 98, 101–103

  Under consideration

  12, 40, 42, 59, 85, 92, 95, 96

  Rejected

  9, 36, 43, 60

  1 The final extent of implementation of some of these recommendations will depend on a number of factors.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to implement in full the recommendation contained paragraph 127 in chapter 20 of Lord Donaldson's report published in May 1994. [20817]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government have provided dedicated emergency tugs at Dover and Stornoway—two of the three key areas identified in paragraph 127—both last winter and this winter. In deciding future deployment, we will take into account experience of providing these tugs, of liaison arrangements with tug operators, and of any relevant findings of the investigations into the Sea Empress incident.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers exist to him to reject a scheme for the proposed Central Railway rail link from the channel tunnel to the midlands following a public inquiry; and if he will make a statement. [20598]

  Mr. Watts
  The relevant powers are contained in section 13 of the Transport and Works Act 1992. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can make the order, with or without modifications, or not make the order. Where an application has been referred to Parliament as a scheme of national significance, the power to make the order is exercisable only if both Houses of Parliament have passed resolutions approving the proposals, but such resolutions would not affect his power not to make the order. He would make a decision only after having taken into account the inspector's conclusions and recommendation following a subsequent public inquiry.

  Sea Empress
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the full terms of reference given to the marine accident investigation branch into the Sea Empress disaster. [20818]

  Mr. Norris
  Individual marine accident investigation branch investigations do not have distinct terms of reference. The purpose of such investigations, as set out in regulations, is to determine the circumstances and causes of
  723
  accidents with the aim of improving the safety of life at sea and the avoidance of accidents in future. The regulations also provide that an investigation may extend to cover all events and circumstances preceding the accident which in the opinion of the inspector may have been relevant to its cause or outcome, and also to cover the consequences of the accident. I understand that the chief inspector intends that the Sea Empress investigation will be comprehensive and will cover, among other matters, the initial grounding, the availability of salvage tugs, the question of double hulls, the safety of port operations and the effects, if any, current salvage law may have had on the conduct of the salvage operation. Indeed, the inspector will consider all evidence and arguments submitted to him which have a bearing on the cause of the original grounding of the Sea Empress and the conduct of the salvage operation.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which recommendations were included in the interim findings of the marine accident investigation branch Sea Empress investigation. [20763]

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the salvage tugs which were offered to those managing the Sea Empress salvage operation between Thursday 15 February and Wednesday 21 February and their individual maximum bollard pull; [20810]

  (2) if he will list each type of dispersant and the quantity used in aerial spraying to disperse oil from the Sea Empress; [20762]

  (3) if he will list the products and techniques for cleaning up oil spillages on the shore which his Department has evaluated and tested in the last five years; [20807]

  (4) if he will list the tugs used on the attempts to salvage the Sea Empress; and who owned them; [20816]

  (5) which specialised vessels suitable for collecting spilled oil from the surface of the sea were offered to the marine pollution control unit on or after 15 February to assist with the Sea Empress operation; and which vessels were chartered; [20812]

  (6) if he will list those products and techniques for cleaning oil from the shore, the development of which has been financially supported by his Department in the last five years. [20806]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 14 March 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about oil spill clean up and salvage tugs in the Sea Empress incident.

  PQ 1460/95/96
  The Coastguard Emergency Towing Vessel at Stornoway, SMIT LLOYD SAFE, 125 tonnes, was offered to the salvors. In addition the salvors considered a number of other tugs. Which tugs these were, and whether they were offered or sought, is now a matter for the Marine Accident Investigation Branch investigation to determine.

  PQ 1463/95/96
  The information is a s follows:
  724

  Tonnes

  Finasol OSR-51

  212

  Slickgone LTSW

  97

  Slickgone NS

  53

  Dispolene 34S

  31

  Corexit 9500

  8

  Enersperse 1583

  13.5

  Superdispersant 25

  31

  Demulsifier (Surdyne mixed with Shell LA)

  8

  PO's 1467 and 1474/95/96
  The MPCU has in recent years commissioned a number of research projects examining different techniques for dealing with oil pollution on different shoreline types. Initially sandy shorelines were examined (1986) and the methods used at Tenby and Saundersfoot during the recent Sea Empress incident were based on the findings of this project. Later MPCU projects examined and reviewed clean-up techniques for shingle (1989), rocky shorelines (1992) and mudflats and saltmarshes (1993). Within these projects, a number of clean-up tools and products were evaluated and tested, including vehicles, beach-cleaning machines, beach washing plant and cleaning agents. Beach load-bearing characteristics were also evaluated.
  The results of much of this research have been disseminated to local authorities by way of MPCU residential training courses, MPCU Scientific, Technical and Operational Advice Notes (Stop Notices), and a technical manual entitled 'Oil Spill Clean-Up of the Coastline'.
  MPCU has also funded an evaluation study (1993) into the use of sorbent products as a tool for clean-up (final polishing of shingle/pebble beaches) and it is intended to develop a protocol for testing sorbent use and effectiveness. Work has also been commissioned on bioremediation. A State of the Art Report (1994) has been produced and research is ongoing.

  PQ 1469/95/96

  Dalegarth

  Cory Towage Ltd. Milford Haven

  Thorngath

  Stackgarth

  Tito Neri

  Portgarth: Cory Towage Ltd., Avonmouth

  Yewgarth Cory Towage Ltd., Liverpool

  Eldergarth Cory Towage Ltd., Liverpool

  Eskgarth: Irish Tugs Ltd.

  Anglian Duke Klyne Tugs, Lowestoft

  Anglian Earl Klyne Tugs, Lowestoft

  Vanguard: Carmet Towing, Liverpool

  Alfred: Howard Smith, Swansea

  Arild Viking: Arild Viking AS; Viking Supply AS; Norway

  De Yue: Fairmount, Rotterdam

  Vikingbank Smit Tak, Rotterdam

  Smit Orca Smit Tak, Rotterdam

  PQ 1471/95/96
  Seven vessels suitable for recovering spilled oil from the surface of the sea were offered to the Marine Pollution Control Unit, of which six were accepted. The remaining offer was not needed. The details are as follows:

  Vessel

  Status

  Comment

  Rijn Delta

  Accepted

  Dutch

  Small AGT

  Accepted

  Dutch

  Ailette

  Accepted

  French

  Elan

  Accepted

  French

  NOFO1 oil recovery vessel

  Declined

  Not required

  Forth Explorer

  Accepted

  UK

  Sefton Supporter

  Accepted

  UK

  725
  1 Norwegian Clean Seas Association for Operating Companies. In addition to those vessels offered, the MPCU chartered the Gordon Thomas, and hired three small oil recovery craft. Two specialised oil recovery vessels belonging to Milford Haven Port Authority were also used.

  Marine Accidents (Reports)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many investigations carried out by the marine accident investigation branch have included publication of interim findings; and if he will list those investigations. [20795]

  Mr. Norris
  Interim findings have been published in connection with four investigations:

  Lunohods—1/Borodinskoe Pole

  Antares/HMS Trenchant

  Wilhelmina J/Zulfikar

  Sea Empress

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those investigations carried out by the marine accident investigation branch which have had their reports published; and which of those reports included criticisms of(a) Ministers of the Crown, (b) the Department of Transport and (c) agencies of his Department. [10820]

  Mr. Norris
  Marine accident investigation branch published reports are as follows:

  Bowsprite

  Grey Flamingo

  Marchioness/Bowbelle

  Earl Granville

  Mobil Petrel

  Majestic

  Premier

  RMS Titanic (reappraisal of evidence relating to SS Californian)

  Irving Forest

  MFV Margaret and William II

  Antares/HMS Trenchant

  Ocean Hound

  Wilhelmina J/Zulfikar

  Esso Mersey

  Queen Elizabeth 2

  MV Norsea

  Braer

  Representation

  County of residence

  Term ends

  Commodore R. C. Hastie CBE (Chairman)

  West Glamorgan

  31 January 1997

  Mr. T. H. Keen (Vice Chairman)

  South Glamorgan

  31 January 1997

  Capt. R. G. Brown DMS MBIM

  Surrey

  31 January 1997

  Mr. T. O. Lewis CBE

  Dyfed

  31 January 1999

  Sir W. A. Reardon-Smith Bt

  London

  31 January 1999

  Cllr. H. E. Davies

  Dyfed CC

  Dyfed

  31 January 1997

  Cllr. B. Thomas-Cleaver

  Preseli/Pembrokeshire DC

  Pembroke

  31 March 1996

  Mr. D. V. Driscoll BEM

  Wales TUC

  West Glamorgan

  31 January 1997

  Mr. W. N. Clarke

  Oil Industry

  Dyfed

  31 January 1997

  Mr. J. C. Morris

  Oil Industry

  Dyfed

  331 January 199799

  Mr. M. J. Hyslop MBE (General Manager)

  Milford Haven Port Authority

  Dyfed

  End of office

  726

  Havkong (jointly with Health and Safety Executive)

  MV Hoegh Duke

  British Trent/Western Winner

  Sally Star

  Heather Bloom

  (a) None.

  (b) The report of the collision between the Marchioness and the Bowbelle and the report of the lifeboat accident on the Norsea included criticisms of the Marine Directorate of the Department of Transport, now the Marine Safety Agency. The report of the Braer stranding including criticism of HM Coastguard, now the Coastguard agency.

  (c) None.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of(a) the marine accident investigation branch investigation into the Braer disaster and (b) Lord Donaldson's inquiry and report into matters relating to the Braer disaster. [20815]

  Mr. Norris
  Total costs of the MAIB investigation are not known, but the staff costs of the three inspectors involved amounted to £23,000.

  Lord Donaldson's inquiry did not specifically relate to the Braer. The inquiry was set up to consider the wider issue of the prevention of pollution from merchant shipping. The costs of Lord Donaldson's inquiry amounted to £390,000.

  Milford Haven Port Authority
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the present membership of the Milford Haven port authority and in each case by whom they were appointed; which companies or organisations they represent; in which county they live; when their office will terminate; and what is their remuneration. [20811]

  Mr. Norris
  The constitution of the Milford Haven port authority provides for the Secretary of State to appoint the chairman and eight or nine other members. One of these has to be appointed after consultation with representatives of organised labour in Wales—in practice the Wales Trade Union Congress—two after consultation with local authorities and two after consultation with the oil industry. The remainder must have wide experience of and have shown capacity in shipping, commercial and financial matters, and so on, as set out in the constitution. The general manager is appointed as an ex-officio member by the MHPA board.

  The detailed information requested is as follows:
  727
  The remuneration is £8,805 for the chairman, £4,400.80 for the vice-chairman and £1,409.71 for members.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many questions were tabled to his Department in each Session since 1987–88; how many were not answered on grounds of disproportionate cost; what percentage of the total number of questions this represented; how many were not answered on the grounds that the information was not centrally available; and what percentage of the total number of questions this represented. [21136]

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

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Quarantine
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many imported pets have developed rabies in quarantine in the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years. [20577]

  Mrs. Browning
  The only case of rabies in quarantine in the last 10 years was in a dog imported from Zambia in 1990. Taking into account the clinical picture and the laboratory results, a diagnosis of vaccine-induced rabies as made.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many imported pets have died in quarantine in the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years. [20578]

  Mrs. Browning
  The number of imported pets—dogs and cats—that have died in quarantine in the United Kingdom in the last 10 years is as follows:

  1986: 124

  1987: 107

  1988: 116

  1989: 132

  1990: 131

  1991: 83

  1992: 138

  1993: 140

  1994: 126

  1995: 117

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average cost of the period of quarantine required for a domestic pet imported into the United Kingdom. [20579]

  Mrs. Browning
  Quarantine premises are all privately owned commercial enterprises and therefore free to set their own charges. The charges within specific quarantine premises will also vary according to the size of the animal. We believe that average charges for the six months' quarantine period are around £800 for a cat and £1,200 to £1,500 for a dog.
  728

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many local veterinary inspectors and their assistants were involved on(a) 19 February, (b) 20 February, (c) 21 February, (d) 22 February and (e) 23 February in lairages near Dover in inspecting animals to ensure that they were fit to travel under the Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1994 and to deal with other related matters. [19431]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 7 March 1996]: No animals were inspected at lairages near Dover on 19 February.

  On 20 February, two local veterinary inspectors were involved with inspections of animals in lairages near Dover. On 21 February, there were four LVIs involved with inspections of animals, on 22 February, two LVIs and on 23 February, one LVI.

  The number of assistants used by the LVIs is not recorded by MAFF.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many consignments of farm animals were inspected by local veterinary inspectors and their assistants on each of 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 February in lairages near Dover; how many(a) sheep and (b) calves were inspected; how many hours were spent in carrying out the inspections; and if he will make a statement. [19432]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 7 March 1996]: No animals were inspected at lairages near Dover on 19 February.

  On 20 February four consignments of calves, totalling 680 animals were inspected. No sheep were inspected.

  On 21 February, two consignments for calves, totalling 270 animals, and six consignments of sheep, totalling 2,173 animals, were inspected.

  On 22 February, 15 consignments of calves, totalling 1,931 animals, and four consignments of sheep, totalling 664 animals, were inspected.

  On 23 February, three consignments of calves, totalling 368 animals, and three consignments of sheep, totalling 846 animals, were inspected.

  Local veterinary inspectors are not required under their conditions of appointment to record the times taken for these inspections and the Ministry does not record the times spent by each LVI in carrying out the inspections.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many animals were deemed unfit to travel in each month of 1995 and in January 1996 by local veterinary inspectors when undertaking certification procedures of live animals destined for export; and if he will make a statement. [19433]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 7 March 1996]: The number of animals deemed unfit to travel by local veterinary inspectors when undertaking certification procedures of live animals destined for export in each month of 1995 and January 1996 is as summarised in the table:
  729

  Number

  1995

  January

  1,259

  February

  698

  March

  604

  April

  553

  May

  455

  June

  361

  July

  508

  August

  961

  September

  900

  October

  1,116

  November

  751

  December

  821

  1996

  January

  702

  Capita Managed Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [19903]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 8 March 1996]: Neither of the named companies is currently involved in bidding in any of the stated categories.

SCOTLAND

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [19417]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested in respect of hon. Members' letters is set out in the table. The information requested on hon. Members' questions is a matter of public record.

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  (a) Number of letters passed to agencies for response

  8

  74

  154

  367

  317

  (b) Number of letters passed to agencies, (a), as a percentage of total letters sent to Ministers about agencies

  24

  45

  53

  62

  52

  Scottish Natural Heritage
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that the 730
  reduction in the Scottish Natural Heritage budget will not impair its performance of its statutory duties; and if he will make a statement. [19307]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend is satisfied that SNH will continue to be able satisfactorily to carry out its statutory duties. Following the report of the study group on SNH published last December, a new strategic framework for SNH is being prepared in the light of changes affecting the natural heritage since publication in 1990 of "Scotland's Natural Heritage: The Way Ahead". The new document will be published in the first half of this year.

  Cairngorm Funicular Railway
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Highlands and Islands Enterprise about the economic viability of the proposed Cairngorm funicular railway. [19987]

  Mr. Kynoch
  In accordance with the usual procedures for proposals involving financial assistance above certain limits, Highlands and Islands Enterprise has submitted to my right hon. Friend a request for approval to provide financial assistance to the Cairngorm Chairlift Co. in respect of the establishment of a new visitor uplift facility on Cairngorm. That request is supported by a detailed financial and economic assessment of the proposed investment.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what matters he will consider when determining whether to call in the planning application for the proposed railway on Cairngorm. [19988]

  Mr. Kynoch
  This matter has not formally been notified to my right hon. Friend. Should it be referred to him under the planning legislation he will take all relevant factors into account, including those relating to the UK Government's national and European obligations.

  Private Prison
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will announce the site for the new private prison; and if he will make a statement. [19995]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A number of options are still under consideration at this time. I expect an announcement to be made in the near future.

  Dounreay Nuclear Plant (Discharges)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received calling for a public inquiry on Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's discharge authorisations and reprocessing at Dounreay; and what plans he has to set up such an inquiry. [20210]

  Mr. Kynoch
  As of 1 March, the chief inspector of Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate had received 358 responses to his consultations on th United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's application for new discharge authorisations for its plant in Dounreay. Of these, 90 included representations that my right hon. Friend should
  731
  hold a public inquiry. My right hon. Friend had received one such representation himself as of the same date. He will carefully consider the points raised.

  Squirrels
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the existing instruction for the collection of dead squirrels; and if he will make a statement. [19984]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The wildlife incident investigation scheme, which is administered by the agriculture departments and which investigates reports of suspected wildlife poisoning, has found no evidence to suggest that the existing instruction for the collection of dead squirrels is inadequate.

  Skiing Sites
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much public money, in the form of grants, has been provided to assist the development and maintenance of Scotland's skiing industry by(a) Highlands and Islands Enterprise and (b) other agencies, in each financial year since 1979, for each skiing site. [20319]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The provision of grant assistance by Highlands and Islands Enterprise and its predecessor, the Highlands and Islands Development Board, for the development and maintenance of the skiing industry in Scotland is an operational matter for Highlands and Islands Enterprise and I have asked the chairman of that organisation to write to the hon. Member. Information on the amounts of grant assistance provided by other agencies for the same purposes for the years requested is not held centrally.

  Enterprise Agencies (Grants)
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines he has given to(a) Scottish Enterprise and (b) other enterprise agencies, on the cost per job created to be used when assessing grant applications. [20321]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The cost per job guidelines to be used in assessing grant applications vary, where applicable, according to the particular scheme of assistance under which grant has been applied for and according to the location of the project to be grant-aided. If the hon. Member has a particular case in mind, he may care to write to me.

  School Class Sizes
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the range of class sizes in which five, six and seven-year-olds are taught; and how many children are taught in classes of each size. [20297]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The available information, which is in respect of pupils in P1, P2 and P3 single stage classes and P1/P2 and P2/P3 composite stage classes, is given in the table.
  732

  Number of classes and pupils by class size band in education authority primary schools (P1, P2 and P3) at September 19931

  Class size

  Number of classes

  Number of pupils

  1–5

  20

  58

  6–10

  29

  253

  11–15

  158

  2,156

  16–20

  862

  16,042

  21–25

  2,608

  60,652

  26–30

  2,477

  69,132

  31 and over

  927

  29,646

  Total

  7,081

  177,939

  1 Excludes pupils in P3/P4 composite classes and multi-stage classes.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the occasions on which he and his predecessors have attended Council of Ministers meetings since 9 April 1992. [20813]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As the Secretary of State, I attended the Council of Fisheries Ministers meeting on 26 October 1995. My predecessor attended the following Councils after 9 April 1992.

  1993

  January 25: Environment/Transport Council

  September 20: Joint FAC/Agricultural Council

  September 20: Joint FAC/Agricultural Council

  September 21: Agricultural Council

  Both the previous Secretary of State and I have been represented at other such meetings by other Scottish Ministers on many occasions.

  Meetings of the Council of Ministers Scottish Office Ministerial Attendance

  Council

  Minister

  1992—Total 6 Councils

  June 9

  Fisheries Council

  Sir Hector Monro

  October 19

  Fisheries Council

  Sir Hector Monro

  October 26–27

  Agriculture Council

  Sir Hector Monro

  November 23

  Fisheries Council

  Sir Hector Monro

  November 27

  Education Council

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

  December 19

  Fisheries Council

  Sir Hector Monro

  1993—Total 8 councils

  January 25

  Environment/Transport Council

  Secretary of State

  March 18

  Fisheries Council

  Sir Hector Monro

  June 24

  Fisheries Council

  Sir Hector Monro

  September 20

  Joint FAC/Agricultural Council

  Secretary of State

  September 21

  Agriculture Council

  Secretary of State

  October 20

  Fisheries Council

  Sir Hector Monro

  November 29–30

  Justice/Interior Issues

  Lord Fraser

  December 20

  Fisheries Council

  Sir Hector Monro

  1994—Total 8 Councils

  April 12

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Fraser

  May 27–28

  Justice/Interior Issues (Informal)

  Lord Fraser

  June 3–4

  Regional Policy

  Mr. Stewart

  June 10

  Fisheries Council

  Sir Hector Monro

  September 28

  Fisheries Council

  Sir Hector Monro

  November 23

  Fisheries Council

  Sir Hector Monro

  December 19–20

  Fisheries Council

  Sir Hector Monro

  December 22

  Fisheries Council (continuation)

  Lord Fraser

  733

  Meetings of the Council of Ministers Scottish Office Ministerial Attendance

  Council

  Minister

  1995-Total 7 Councils

  April 6

  Fisheries Council

  Sir Hector Monro

  June 15

  Fisheries Council

  Sir Hector Monro

  June 20–21

  Justice/Home Affairs Council

  Minister of State

  October 26

  Fisheries Council

  Secretary of State

  December 18

  Environment Council

  Earl of Lindsay

  December 19

  Agriculture Council

  Earl of Lindsay

  December 21

  Fisheries Council

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson

  1996 to date

  Nil

  —

  —

  Shettleston Public Halls
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when Shettleston public halls were last renovated; and what was the total cost involved. [21097]

  Mr. Kynoch
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Glasgow district council.

  Deregulation (Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1968) Order 1995
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the annual saving to business from the Deregulation (Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868) Order 1995. [19501]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 11 March 1996]: The order will benefit business by permitting the sale of farmed salmon roe, estimated at about £12 million per annum, rather than giving rise to actual savings.

  Railway Investment
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent by the Scottish Office on grants under section 56 of the Transport Act 1968 or other legislation for(a) improvement of railway infrastructure and (b) new and reopened lines and stations, at outturn prices in Scotland in each year between 1975 and 1995. [19300]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [Holding answer 11 March 1996]: Under section 56 of the Transport Act 1968 grants totalling £82.3 million have been made by the Scottish Office, between 1974–75 and 1995, towards rail and rail-related projects. Some £58.9 million of the total was made for the replacement/acquisition of rolling stock rather than for railway infrastructure improvements or new or reopened lines or stations. Grants of £23.44 million were, however, made between 1974–75 and 1987–88 towards the Clyderail project which involved reopening, electrification and signalling works. The make-up of this project between reopening and other infrastructure work and by year is not available.

  Grants made under other legislation are set out in the table:
  734

  ANNEXE

  £000

  Freight facilities grants 1 Improvement of railway infrastructure

  Grants for repairs to listed buildings Improvement of railway infrastructure

  1974–75

  —

  —

  1975–76

  518.8

  —

  1976–77

  3.5

  —

  1977–78

  951.4

  —

  1978–79

  84.1

  —

  1979–80

  196.6

  —

  1980–81

  1,844.2

  —

  1981–82

  415.0

  —

  1982–83

  179.9

  —

  1983–84

  174.9

  —

  1984–85

  1,802.1

  —

  1985–86

  —

  —

  1986–87

  —

  —

  1987–88

  1,653.0

  —

  1988–89

  —

  —

  1989–90

  —

  —

  1990–91

  —

  —

  1991–92

  —

  —

  1992–93

  —

  —

  1993–94

  —

  200.0

  1994–95

  —

  —

  Total

  7,823.5

  200.0

  1 This represents the amount of grant awarded each year for specific projects.

  Historic Railway Structures
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list(a) the stations open to the public and (b) other structures and features in Scotland owned by Railtrack which are listed as historic buildings, in each case giving their grading; [19328]

  (2) what was the total grant paid by public bodies responsible for historic buildings in Scotland to British Rail and Railtrack towards repair or restoration of listed buildings and structures in Scotland in each year from 1975 to 1995 at outturn prices. [19329]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 March 1996]: Since these are matters for Historic Scotland, I have asked the agency chief executive, Mr. Graeme Munro, to write to the hon. Member as soon as possible. A copy of Mr. Munro's letter will be placed in the Library of the House as the information requested will be lengthy.

  Outstanding Payments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what values of payments were outstanding within his Department on 5 March, which were beyond the date on the invoice and, where no date was specified, older than 28 days. [20484]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 March 1996]: The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Housing Finance
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated outturn public expenditure
  735
  on housing for 1995–96 and what is the planned public expenditure on housing for each of the years 1996–97 to 1998–99 (a) inclusive of capital receipts, (b) net of capital receipts, (c) inclusive of gross capital investment only, defined as local authority non-housing revenue account, local authority housing revenue account, Scottish Homes approved development programme, Scottish Homes own stock and new towns and (d) gross capital investment but excluding non-HRA. [19285]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 13 March 1996]: The information requested is shown in the table. Further details will be published shortly in the Scottish Office departmental report. From 1996–97 expenditure on the non-HRA block will be included in a single capital allocation for all programmes excluding the HRA issued to local authorities. Information on non-HRA expenditure is therefore included only for 1995–96. In 1996–97, 25 per cent. of HRA receipts will be applied to reducing debt and 50 per cent. thereafter, and the figures for expenditure inclusive of capital receipts and for gross capital investment have been adjusted accordingly.

  Public expenditure on housing

  £ million

  1995–96 estimated outturn

  1996–97 plans

  1997–98 plans

  1998–99 plans

  (a) Gross including capital receipts (and NLF repayments)

  1,105.90

  730.7

  642.1

  629.2

  (b) Net of capital receipts (and NLF repayments)

  627.7

  440.6

  446.7

  453.3

  (c) Gross capital1 Investment

  1,021.20

  655.3

  561.2

  540.3

  1 Of the five new town development corporations, two were wound up on 31 December 1995 and the remaining three will wind up on 31 December 1996.

  Oil Seed Rape
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the findings of project FF382, carried out by the Scottish Crop Research Institute on the characterisation of oil seed rape; when it will be published; and what correlation the study found between oil seed rape and allergies. [20553]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 13 March 1996]: The objective of the study was to determine the existence, identification, nature and mobility of volatile chemicals and pollen emitted by oil seed rape, and fungal spores from the crop, which are possible causes of an allergic response in humans, and to purify and standardise them for use in any clinical tests carried out. The study concluded that evidence that the crop can cause such problems has been obtained although as yet the precise cause or causes have not been identified. The study reports that some people react to pollen and fungal spores, but not in the numbers indicated by the percentage of study populations expressing symptoms, most of which showed no correlation with pollen or fungal exposure. The results indicated that agrochemicals seem unlikely to be involved in producing the symptoms. The study concluded that the most likely causes of allergic response in man appear to be volatile organic compounds, although categorical proof of the involvement of one or
  736
  more is required. The study therefore recommends that further research in a number of areas is required.

  Results from the study have already been published. Refereed papers include:

  1. Robertson, G. W., Griffiths, D. W., Macfarlane Smith, W. H. and Butcher, R.D., 1993. The application of thermal desorption-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry to the analyses of flower volatiles from five varieties of oilseed rape (Brassica napus spp. oleifera). Phytochemical Analysis 4, 152–157.

  2. Butcher, R. D., Macfarlane Smith, W. H., Robertson, G. W. and Griffiths, D. W. (1994). The identification of potential aeroallergen/irritant(s) from oilseed rape (Brassica napus spp. oleifera): volatile organic compounds emitted during flowering progression. Clinical and Experimental Allergy 24, 1105–1114.

  3. Parrat, D., Macfarlane Smith, W. H., Thompson, G., Cameron, L. A. and Butcher, R. D. (1995). Evidence that oilseed rape (Brassica napus spp. oleifera) causes respiratory illness in rural dwellers, Scottish Medical Journal 40, 74–76.

  4. Butcher, R. D., Goodman, B. A. and Deighton, N. (1995). Evaluation of the allergic/irritant potential of air pollutants. Detection of proteins modified by volatile organic compounds from oilseed rape (Brassica napus spp. oleifera) using electrospray ionisation-mass spectrometry. Clinical and Experimental Allergy 25, 985–992.

  In addition, the results of the research have been presented at a number of scientific meetings and in technical notes; to relevant agricultural trade bodies; and other bodies. A number of other publications are in preparation.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken, and what sums the Government have spent to address the health risks of oil seed rape; and if he will make a statement. [20554]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 March 1996]: The Scottish Office has funded the three-year research study by the Scottish Crop Research Institute into the volatile chemicals etcetera emitted by oil seed rape, at a cost of some £235,000. In addition, a research grant of £63,000 was awarded to Professor Anthony Seaton and colleagues at Aberdeen university in support of a three-year study into the health effects of oil seed rape.

  The results of the latter study indicated that the health effects were slight. However, we are considering the implications of these studies with a view to determining what further research into the health effects might be useful and appropriate.

  NHS Trust Directors (Insurance)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the chairmen of NHS trusts concerning insuring trust directors against liabilities other than in cases of malfeasance. [20557]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 March 1996]: None. The issue of guidance to the NHS in Scotland on the personal liability of non-executive directors is currently being considered.
  737

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Foreign Companies
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are employed by companies from(a) the north American region, (b) the south-east Asia region and (c) Europe in (i) Northern Ireland and (ii) the Strangford constituency. [19489]

  Mr. Ancram
  The numbers of people employed by companies from(a) the north American region (b) the south-east Asia region and (c) Europe in (i) Northern Ireland and (ii) the Strangford constituencies are set out in the following table:

  Region

  Northern Ireland Employment in companies from the regions indicated

  Strangford Employment in companies from the regions indicated

  North American region

  16,693

  438

  South-east Asia region

  3,021

  —

  Europe

  6,964

  69

  Convictions
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those convictions in Northern Ireland which have come about as a direct result of information passed to the RUC from the Garda. [19624]

  Sir John Wheeler
  It is not possible to identify those cases which were successfully prosecuted as a direct result of information passed to the RUC from the Garda.

  Pupil-teacher Ratios
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the current pupil-teacher ratios in Northern Ireland for each of the different types of secondary school. [19832]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is as follows:

  School type

  Management type

  1994–95 pupil: teacher ratio

  Non-Grammar Secondary

  Controlled

  13.9:1

  Maintained

  14.2:1

  All non-Grammar

  14.1:1

  Grammar Secondary

  Controlled

  15.3:1

  Voluntary

  16.3:1

  All Grammar

  16.0:1

  All Secondary

  14.8:1

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the pupil-teacher ratio in the last year for which figures are available in schools in Northern Ireland at(a) primary and (b) secondary level, and what comparisons he has made with the ratio in (i) Scotland and (ii) England and Wales. [19831]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) NI Primary pupil-teacher ratio for 1994–95–20.8:1

  (b) NI Secondary pupil-teacher ratio for 1994–95–14.8:1

  The latest available pupil-teacher ratios for all regions are for 1993–94 and are as follows:
  738

  Sector

  Northern Ireland

  Scotland

  England

  Wales

  Primary

  21.6:1

  19.5:1

  22.7:1

  22.3:1

  Secondary

  15.1:1

  12.8:1

  16.4:1

  15.9:1

  Film Industry
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total financial subsidy given by the Arts Council of Northern Ireland to the film industry in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years; what subsidies and incentives are available to film producers to produce films in Northern Ireland; how many films have been produced(a) totally and (b) partially in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years; what proposals he has to introduce an all-Ireland film board; and if he will make a statement. [19873]

  Mr. Ancram
  The total financial support given from within its grant in aid by the Arts Council of Northern Ireland to the film industry in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years is as follows:

  1991–92: £10,538

  1992–93: £25,000

  1993–94: £80,000

  1984–95: £50,000

  1995–96 (estimate): £50,000

  Film production projects are eligible for funding from the national lottery and, in 1995, the Arts Council announced an award of £200,000 towards the production of a film in Northern Ireland.

  Information about the number of films produced totally or partially in Northern Ireland is not available.

  The Government have no proposals to introduce an all-Ireland film board, but are considering options for the development of film and television production in Northern Ireland.

  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the recommendations made by the Government of the Irish Republic under article 6 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement since it was signed; and if he will list the appointments made as a result of these recommendations indicating to which bodies they were made. [19828]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985, the Irish Government have suggested 153 people for public appointments in Northern Ireland. It is not possible to identify all those appointed since 1985, but 24 candidates proposed by the Irish Government currently hold 28 public appointments on the bodies to which they were nominated. All appointments are made on merit. It is not my practice to publish details of individuals so appointed.
  739

  Gaming Machines
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to extend the proposed deregulation on amusement with prizes gaming machines in Great Britain to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [19834]

  Mr. Moss
  These and other deregulation initiatives in the gambling field are being monitored to ascertain their local impact and the need for action to amend the law in Northern Ireland. Appropriate issues will be raised in the consultation paper to be published by the end of this year as part of a review of the local gambling law. Amending legislation will follow, as necessary, when decisions are taken.

  Sports Councils
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what projects were jointly funded between the Northern Ireland Sports Council and the Sports Councils in(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) the Irish Republic in 1995, and at what cost. [19866]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Sports Council for Northern Ireland is involved with the Scottish, Great Britain and Welsh Sports Councils in funding the following UK-wide initiatives, and contributes:

  £

  Drug testing

  15,000

  Coaching matters

  11,000

  Champion coaching

  20,000

  There are no projects funded with COSPOIR, the Republic of Ireland's Sports Council.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times the chairman of the Northern Ireland Sports Council met the chairmen of the Sports Councils in(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) the Irish Republic in 1995. [19865]

  Mr. Ancram
  Meetings took place as follows:

  Chairman of the Scottish Sports Council: 14 times

  Chairman of the GB Sports Council: 17 times

  Chairman of the Welsh Sports Council: 16 times

  Chairman of COSPOIR: 3 times

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of co-operation between the Northern Ireland Sports Council and the Sports Councils in(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) the Irish Republic; and what plans there are to enhance co-operation and promote more jointly funded projects. [19867]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Sports Council for Northern Ireland co-operates with the other home country Sports Councils in UK-wide initiatives. These are taken forward through committee representation, strategic planning and funding, for example:

  UK Facilities Design

  UK Management Award

  National Lottery

  Coaching Matters

  740

  Champion Coaching

  Major Events Support Group

  Drug Control Unit

  SC Advisory Group Marital Arts

  UK Research Consortium

  Valuing Volunteers

  Recognition Activities/Governing Bodies

  Sports Aid Foundation

  Mountain Leadership/Rescue

  Running Sport (Education/Training

  Youth Sport Trust

  UK Co-ordinating Committee for People with Disabilities

  The Northern Ireland Sports Council and the Sports Council in the Republic of Ireland, COSPOIR, have biannual information exchange meetings at members/officers level. These have resulted in formal and informal exchanges in areas such as:

  Strategy for Development of Sport

  Drug Testing

  Education/Training

  Research

  Sport for all Leader Award

  Mountain Leadership/Rescue

  European Funding

  Outdoor Centre Programmes

  Enhanced co-operation with COSPOIR is being explored in

  (a) development and implementation of strategies, particularly
  in relation to the 35 all-Ireland governing bodies of sport;

  (b) consideration of an all-Ireland sport for all leader award;
  and

  (c) development of education resource material.

  Jointly funded projects in 1995–96 are:

  Rationalisation of coach education schemes/awards: Cost £7,000

  Sport for all Leader Award: Cost £8,000

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what current agreements or restrictions apply in respect of class sizes in Northern Ireland. [19830]

  Mr. Ancram
  The maximum size of a class in a secondary school in Northern Ireland is restricted, by regulation 15 of the Secondary Schools (Grant Conditions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1973, to 20 pupils for a class in a practical subject and 35 in other subjects. There are no similar provisions in the primary sector.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the range of class sizes in which, five, six and seven-year-olds are taught; and how many children are taught in classes of each size. [20296]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is not collected in the form requested.

  Private Schools
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the areas in which he assists private schools with public money indicating the amounts of money spent in the past financial year. [19829]
  741
  Mr. Ancram
  No financial assistance was given to independent schools in Northern Ireland in the past financial year.

  Fishing Fleet
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the present size of the Northern Ireland fishing fleet; what was its size in each of the last five years; how many boat owners have sought the financial incentives available to decommission their boats in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [19872]

  Mr. Ancram
  The number of licensed vessels in the Northern Ireland fishing fleet at the end of February 1996 and at the end of December of each of the previous five years is shown in the table.

  Length

  Over 10 metres

  10 metres and under

  1996

  199

  163

  1995

  207

  161

  1994

  215

  154

  1993

  219

  139

  1992

  253

  n/a

  1991

  257

  n/a

  For 1991 to 1993 the information is shown by registered length and from 1994 by overall length. The licensing of 10 m and under vessels was introduced with effect from 1 May 1993.

  There were no UK fishing vessel decommissioning schemes in 1991 and 1992. Under the 1993, 1994 and 1995 UK schemes 68, 84 and 30 applications respectively were received from Northern Ireland vessel owners. Under the 1995 Northern Ireland decommissioning scheme for nephrops vessels, 23 applications were received

  Sentencing
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce new proposals on sentencing in the courts similar to those announced for England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [20271]

  Sir John Wheeler
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will shortly publish his proposals for England and Wales in a White Paper. I shall take a close interest in the public response and will be particularly keen to hear what people in Northern Ireland think about these important issues. It is, however, a well-established principle—at the heart of the new impetus we have sought to give in recent years to the development of criminal justice policy—that we have ultimately to develop our own solutions to crime problems in Northern Ireland, in the light of our own circumstances and pressures.

  Community Relations Council
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the current members of the Community Relations Council; and what remuneration they receive. [19990]
  742
  Mr. Ancram
  The members of the council are as follows:

  Dr. Arthur Aughey

  Jonathan Bardon (Chairman)

  Ms May Blood

  Ms Joan Broder

  Ms Mary Canavan

  Ms Tanya Gallagher

  Ms Avila Kilmurray

  Rev. Tim Kinahan

  Fr. Brian Lennon

  Aodan MacPoilin

  Ms Geraldine McAteer

  Eamonn McCartan

  Ms Ann McLaughlin

  Ms Monica McWilliams

  Dr. Duncan Morrow

  George Patterson

  Billy Robinson

  A number of further Government appointments are expected to be made in the near future. The chairman receives an honorarium of £8,587 per annum for his services. The other members of the council receive no remuneration, other than travelling expenses.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who are the current members of the cultural traditions group of the Community Relations Council; and how they are selected. [19991]

  Mr. Ancram
  The cultural traditions group is a sub-committee of the Community Relations Council and currently consists of the following members of the council:

  Dr. A. Aughey

  Mr. J. Bardon

  Mr. A. MacPoilin

  Mr. E. McCartan

  Dr. M. McWilliams

  and the following external members who are co-opted by the council to the group in line with agreed criteria:

  Ms K. Baird

  Dr. J. Bell

  Ms I. Foley

  Ms C. Gallagher

  Professor D. Harkness

  Dr. J. Hawthorne

  Dr. M. Hill

  Ms M. Jefferson

  Mr. G. Lucy

  Mr. B. McFerran

  Mr. V. McIver

  Mr. M. McLoone

  Mr. S. Nolan

  Mr. C. Ryder

  Mr. P. Sweeney

  The term of several members of the group will end in March 1996.
  743

  Exports
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total value of exports from Northern Ireland for each of the past five years. [20016]

  Mr. Ancram
  Statistics on Northern Ireland's exports are currently available only for the financial years 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 and are provided. These are taken from a survey undertaken on the Industrial Development Board's behalf by the Northern Ireland economic research centre and published in April 1995.

  Year

  Value of exports £ million

  1991–92

  4,124

  1992–93

  4,588

  1993–94

  4,764

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total value of exports from Northern Ireland to(a) the north American region, (b) Great Britain, (c) Europe, (d) south-east Asia and (e) the Republic of Ireland for each of the last five years. [20022]

  Mr. Ancram
  Statistics on Northern Ireland's exports are currently available only for the financial years 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 and are provided in the table. These are taken from a survey undertaken on the Industrial Development Board's behalf by the Northern Ireland Economic Research Centre and published in April 1995.

  £ million

  Destination of sales

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  North America

  173.9

  182.5

  242.6

  Great Britain

  2,312

  2,425

  2,516

  Europe1

  741.8

  1,057.40

  957.2

  South East Asia

  54.5

  104.3

  134.1

  Republic of Ireland

  424

  491

  557

  1> Excluding Great Britain and Republic of Ireland.

  Irish and Ulster Scots Languages
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of the current budget of the central community relations unit is being devoted to(a) Irish language groups and (b) Ulster Scots language groups. [19992]

  Mr. Ancram
  The budget of the central community relations unit for 1995–96 is £5,327,000. Of this, £219,790–4.13 per cent.—is being used to assist Irish language groups, either directly or through the grant to the cultural traditions group.

  Some £13,970–0.26 per cent. of the CCRU budget—comprises grants made by the cultural traditions group to the Ulster Scots Heritage Council and the Ulster Scots Academic Press.

  In addition, district councils may have made small payments to Irish language and Ulster Scots groups drawing on grants from CCRU under its district council community relations programme.
  744

  Miss Rita O'Hare
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 1 March 1996,Official Report, columns 749–50, what efforts were made to arrest Miss Rita O'Hare on her recent visit to Scotland. [20044]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  This is a matter for the police, but I understand that the RUC had no knowledge of any visit by Miss O'Hare to Scotland.

  Mobile Classrooms
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many children in Northern Ireland are taught in mobile classrooms; [20288]

  (2) at the rate of closure in 1994–95, when the last mobile classroom currently being used in Northern Ireland will be closed; [20289]

  (3) how many mobile classrooms were in use in Northern Ireland in each of the past 10 years. [20290]

  Mr. Ancram
  Information about the number of mobile classrooms in use in each of the past 10 years, and the number of children taught in such classrooms, is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The number of classrooms currently in use is estimated to be 4,000.

  There is no specific time scale for the closure of individual mobile classrooms. The replacement of mobile classrooms by permanent accommodation has a high priority in my Department's capital programme within the confines of available capital resources.

  School Computers
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many computers are currently in use in Northern Ireland Schools and; how many children there are for every computer in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools. [20291]

  Mr. Ancram
  Available data relate to 1993–94, when there were 25,500 computers and a pupil-computer ratio of 22:1 in primary schools and 8:1 in secondary schools.

  Teachers
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what training is provided to head teachers in Northern Ireland; and what proposals he has for additional provision. [20292]

  Mr. Ancram
  Training is provided by the education and library boards curriculum advisory and support services and the regional training unit, following annual consultation with schools about their training requirements. There are no immediate plans for additional provision.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what are the mechanisms for
  745
  (i) appraising and (ii) removing a head teacher who is underperforming; and what plans he has to change them; [20293]

  (2) if he will set out the procedures for ending the appointment of an inadequate teacher and the time scales involved; and what plans he has to alter the procedures. [20295]

  Mr. Ancram
  Teachers and head teachers are subject to the dismissal provisions contained in paragraph 5 of schedule 4 to the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, or, where relevant, to dismissal procedures drawn up by individual school boards of governors. Proposals detailing the steps to be followed in dealing with teachers, including principals, whose work is unsatisfactory have recently been put to the Northern Ireland Teachers Council by the employing authorities.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the present system of teacher appraisal; and what plans he has to review it. [20294]

  Mr. Ancram
  A staff development and performance review scheme is currently being introduced for all teachers, starting with the training of head teachers from the 1995–96 school year. It comprises preparation and job observation, followed by a discussion and a summary statement. Plans for its review have yet to be drawn up.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the occasions on which he and his predecessors have attended Council of Ministers meetings since April 1992. [20814]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Neither I nor my predecessor have attended any Council of Ministers meetings since April 1992.

WALES

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 4 March,Official Report, columns 93–94, how many inward investment company visits arranged by Invest in Britain have been made to Wales during the past 12 months; and in how many of these instances the companies concerned met officials from the Welsh Office. [20256]

  Mr. Hague
  There have been 13 inward investment visits introduced to Wales by the Invest in Britain Bureau over the past 12 months. The Welsh Office was involved in five of these visits and Welsh Office Ministers in two of those.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what plans he has to extend and improve the range of titles in the Welsh language on multimedia software; and what assessment he has made of the titles available; [20310]
  746
  (2) what assessment he has made of the range of software in the Welsh language currently available to run on (a) the Pentium multimedia personal computers of Research Machines and (b) Acorn personal computers. [20311]

  Mr. Richards
  The Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales has a specific remit to commission multimedia software in Welsh, and has already sought tenders for three titles. Four hundred and twenty-five titles were offered under the multimedia initiative for primary schools. Only two were in Welsh. Neither was considered suitable for purchase. Our assessment of other software is that more is desirable, but its range and type are a matter for users in the first instance.

  Ariane Programme
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the European Commission's Ariane programme as a means of promoting the Welsh language and Wales in the European Union. [20260]

  Mr. Richards
  Priority will be given to lesser-used languages under the Ariane programme; Welsh language organisations will be encouraged to apply when the programme is agreed.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the European Commission's Ariane programme; and if he will publish them. [20259]

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend and I have received representations from the Arts Council of Wales and Ms Eluned Morgan MEP; I have placed copies of the representations in the Library of the House, together with copies of my replies.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will undertake a study of the criteria for determining areas designated for regional assistance in Wales to identify discrepancies between those areas currently most in need of assistance, and the areas recognised as in need on this basis of the criteria used when the last regional assistance map was established. [20008]

  Mr. Hague
  No. The assisted areas map can be reviewed only on a Great Britain basis. It was introduced in 1993 and the Government have made it clear that it will not be reviewed within the lifetime of this Parliament.

  Multimedia Portables Initiative
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultations were undertaken with primary schools(a) in drawing up the specifications for the Welsh Office multimedia portables initiative and (b) once the bids were received, on supplying them with hardware and software under the Welsh Office multimedia portables initiative; [20003]

  (2) what consultations were undertaken with (a) the Welsh Joint Education Committee, (b) the Wales

  747
  Curriculum and Assessment Authority and (c) the Welsh Language Board, (i) in drawing up the specifications for the Welsh Office multimedia portables initiative and (ii) once the bids were received, on supplying schools with hardware and software under the Welsh Office multimedia portables initiative. [20005]

  Mr. Richards
  Schools were invited to choose between a multimedia suite and portable computers. Those who chose multimedia were invited to indicate a preference for one of three platforms; those who chose portables to indicate what type of portable. No guarantee was given that the Department would meet first preferences. Further consultation either on detailed technical specifications or post-bid would have been impracticable. The Department was assisted throughout by meetings with local education authority advisers.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration he gave for the availability of software that would be operable in the Welsh language when drawing up the specifications for the Welsh Office multimedia portables initiative; and if this was a consideration when the contract for(a) the hardware and (b) the software was offered to Research Machines. [20001]

  Mr. Richards
  Careful consideration was given to this both pre-tender and post-tender. Research Machines has no contract to supply software.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make additional finance available for primary schools to train teachers to use the Pentium 75 multimedia personal computers provided under the Welsh Office multimedia portables initiative; [20263]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the cost to schools using Acorn personal computers of making full use of Research Machines Pentium personal computers. [20002]

  Mr. Richards
  Funding will be made available under the grants for education support and training programme as planned. Primary schools can draw on the £3 million made available under GEST to promote the use of IT in 1996–97. The platform purchased represents the best buy in overall value-for-money terms.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he made of the capability of Research Machines, under the contract awarded through the Welsh Office multimedia portables initiative, to support the statutory study of the Welsh language in the national curriculum. [20000]

  Mr. Richards
  Support of this character is for the Department and the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales among others, not for Research Machines.

  Agriculture Department
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were employed by his Department's agriculture department in(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [20172]

  Mr. Hague
  The total numbers of full-time equivalent permanent staff employed within the Welsh Office agriculture department at 31 December in each year are as follows:

  1993: 416

  748

  1994: 443

  1995: 432

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people he estimates will be employed by the agriculture department at the end of the current year; and if he will make a statement. [20077]

  Mr. Hague
  Four hundred and fifty-four permanent full-time equivalent staff on 31 March 1996.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many claims for capital grants and environmentally sensitive area payments his Department's agriculture department's divisional offices has processed in(a) 1994 and (b) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [20171]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is shown in the following table:

  Number of claims processed in

  Scheme

  1994

  1995

  Capital grants

  3,119

  2,070

  Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESAs)

  1,454

  1,384

  GP Vacancies
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to monitor the number of vacancies for general medical practitioners in Wales. [20254]

  Mr. Hague
  It would serve no useful purpose to collect this information routinely at a national level. Family health services authorities hold information about the number of vacancies in their area and provide advice to my Department on general trends as and when necessary.

  FHSAs also provide more specific advice to the Medical Practices Committee. The MPC has responsibility for controlling the distribution of GPs in England and Wales with the aim of ensuring that there are adequate numbers of GPs throughout the country.

  Livestock Schemes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many claims for the four main livestock schemes his Department's agriculture department's divisional offices have dealt with in(a) 1994 and (b) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [20170]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The numbers of claims processed were as follows:

  1994

  1995

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances

  14,143

  13,444

  Sheep Annual Premium Scheme

  16,440

  15,441

  Suckler Cow Premium Scheme

  15,752

  14,777

  Beef Special Premium Scheme (Finals)

  22,420

  25,017

  749
  The number processed under each scheme each year varies according to the number of claims carried forward for payment from one year to the next.

  Manufacturing Projects
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 5 March,Official Report, column 207, on the number of new manufacturing projects given financial assistance by his Department, if he will review the industrial investment incentives of his Department to secure a higher number of offers in Gwynedd and Dyfed; and if he will make a statement. [20265]

  Mr. Hague
  There are no proposals for the operating departments to review the terms of the regional selective assistance scheme. The Welsh Development Agency and others are working very hard to achieve a wider spread of manufacturing projects throughout Wales.

  School Computers
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of primary schools use(a) Acorn personal computers and (b) Pentium personal computers supplied by Research Machines. [20004]

  Mr. Richards
  Precise percentages are not held by the Department.

  Sea Empress
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what funds will be available to recompense those engaged in tourism who have been financially affected by the oil spillage from the Sea Empress. [20010]

  Mr. Hague
  Compensation for economic loss caused by oil pollution from the Sea Empress will be available from the vessel's insurers and from the international oil pollution compensation fund, up to a limit of about £57 million.

  In addition, the Wales tourist board has launched a campaign to reassure visitors that the beaches of south-west Wales will be clean by the summer season.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the occasions on which he and his predecessors have attended Council of Ministers meetings since 9 April 1992. [20846]

  Mr. Hague
  I attended the meeting of the Environment Council on 4 March this year. My predecessor attended a Transport Council on 19 June 1995. The then Minister of State, Welsh Office—the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts)—attended the informal council on regional policy on 12 and 13 November 1993.

  Wilprint Ltd.
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date Wilprint Ltd. was removed from the approved contractors' list for departmental printing work. [20845]

  Mr. Hague
  27 April 1992.
  750

HEALTH

  Pensioners (Health Costs)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many pensioners received(a) free prescriptions, (b) courses of (i) free and (ii) reduced rate dental treatment and (c) free NHS sight tests, reduced private sight tests and spectacle vouchers for (1) 1989 and (2) the most recent year for which information is available under the NHS low income scheme; [19651]

  (2) how many pensioners received assistance with NHS health costs from (a) income support, (b) being in receipt of certificate AG2 and (c) being in receipt of certificate AG3; and what estimate he has made of the number who paid full charges but could have received reduced charges if they had applied for AG2 or AG3 in (i) 1989 and (ii) the most recent year for which information is available. [19650]

  Mr. Malone
  All pensioners are entitled to free national health service prescriptions. Pensioners as a group are not entitled to free NHS sight tests, spectacle vouchers or dental treatment but may be entitled to help through the NHS low income scheme. Pensioners are not identified in the information collected about the number of free or reduced cost courses of dental treatments, NHS sights tests and spectacle vouchers. No information is available about the number of pensioners who pay for sight tests, spectacles and dental treatment but would be entitled to help if they made a low income scheme claim.

  The available information is in the table:

  Thousands

  1989–90

  1994–95

  1. Pensioners claiming income support

  11,432

  11,584

  2. Partners of pensionable age

  179

  208

  3. Pensioners holding certificate AG22

  not available

  229

  4. Partners of pensionable age

  not available

  87

  5. Pensioners holding certificate AG32

  not available

  178

  6. Partners of pensionable age

  not available

  73

  7. Prescriptions dispensed to pensioners

  3147,300

  4184,200

  8. Courses of NHS dental treatment for patients aged 65 or over treated as exempt on grounds of low income5

  370

  6—

  Lines 1–6 are in respect of Great Britain. Lines 7–8 are in respect of England.

  1From a sample in May each year.

  2AG2/AG3 are issued for six months.

  3Based on fees for prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors only.

  4Based on items dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors only.

  5This includes holders of AG2s/AG3s and recipients of Income Support or Family Credit. Information is not available separately in respect of each group.

  6Figures are not now produced routinely and recent figures could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Pensioners are women aged 60 or more and men aged 65 or more.

  Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what budget the Licensing Authority made available to the Committee on Safety of Medicines for each year from 1971 to 1994 in respect of its statutory role to promote the collection of adverse drug reactions. [20060]
  751
  Mr. Malone
  The Medicines Control Agency undertakes the role of promoting the collection of adverse drug reactions on behalf of the committee and seeks its advice as appropriate. An overall budget of £821,986 was devoted to running and promoting the spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting scheme in the financial year 1994–95. Information since 1971 is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the occasions since the coming into effect of the Medicines Act 1968 on which(a) the Licensing Authority, (b) the medicines division of the Department of Health, (c) the Medicines Control Agency or its staff and (d) the Committee on Safety of Medicines or its chairman have (i) sought and (ii) obtained an injunction or interdict preventing publication of information relating to the safety of medicines licensed or formerly licensed under the provisions of the Act; and if he will list for each case the date on which an injunction or interdict was sought, the products concerned, the grounds on which the action was taken, if the action was contested, and the outcome. [20064]

  Mr. Malone
  We have no record of any such proceedings.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the procedures of the Medicines Control Agency. [20058]

  Mr. Malone
  The procedures of the Medicines Control Agency are a matter for the agency chief executive operating within relevant statutory provisions and the agency's framework document. The chief executive is accountable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health for the efficient management and overall performance of the agency. The agency is subject to regular review. The latest review was completed last year and a summary of its findings placed in the Library.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms are available to members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines who wish to raise matters of concern in relation to the workings of the committee. [20062]

  Mr. Malone
  Committee members have the power to regulate the committee's procedures under schedule 1, paragraph 4 of the Medicines Act 1968. In addition, individual committee members are free to raise any issues which they consider to be of relevance to the workings of the committee, either with the chairman, at committee meetings or by writing to the appointing authority, the United Kingdom Health Ministers.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training in the interpretation of epidemiological data is provided to new members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines on their appointment. [20061]

  Mr. Malone
  Members are appointed for their individual expertise in the fields of medicine, pharmacy or science. Their specialist knowledge and judgment contribute to the advice given by the Committee to the Licensing Authority. In addition, I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 11 December 1995,Official Report, columns 521–24.
  752
  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what dates(a) he and (b) his ministerial colleagues met the chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines since 1 January 1995. [20063]

  Mr. Malone
  The chairman of the committee met me on 3 October 1995.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role of his Department in the consideration of issues relating to third generation oral contraceptives prior to the decision taken on 16 October 1995. [20057]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made in the House on 23 October 1995 at columns 701–11.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes have been made in the(a) data sheets and (b) summary of product characteristics of third generation oral contraceptives on the advice of the Committee on Safety of Medicines. [20059]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  North Staffordshire Trauma Centre
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his oral statement of 6 March,Official Report, columns 356–68, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the North Staffordshire trauma centre; and if he will ensure continued funding for the centre. [20188]

  Mr. Horam
  We published on 6 March a report of a Sheffield university research study on the cost-effectiveness of the regional trauma centre in the north-west midlands.

  The continued funding of the North Staffordshire trauma centre is a matter for local health authorities.

  Hydrotherapy Pools
  Sir Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he is giving to health authorities and those involved with the design of acute hospitals in respect of the provision of hydrotherapy pools. [20323]

  Mr. Horam
  NHS Estates has issued, to NHS trusts and health authorities, health building note 8 "Rehabilitation—accommodation for physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech therapy" (1991) which includes details of the requirements for hydrotherapy suites. Technical advice is given in health technical memoranda 2027 (HTM)—"Operational management—Hot and cold water supply, storage and mains services" (1995); and HTM 2040 "Design considerations and operational management—the control of legionellae in healthcare premises—a code or practice" (1994).

  Copies of the documents will be placed in the Library.
  753

  Water Fluoridation
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the fluoridation of London's drinking water supply. [20390]

  Mr. Malone
  Fluoridation of water supplies is a matter for local decision.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the national health service executive is taking in respect of the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales paper on the community health council review process; when it was submitted to the NHS executive; and if he will make a statement. [20604]

  Mr. Malone
  The national health service executive received details of the Association of Community Health Councils views on how the CHC review process might work and the appropriate relationship with regional offices, under cover of a letter dated 11 January 1996. The NHS executive is considering the views expressed by the association.

  Medical Waste
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if there is a list of approved contractors dealing with medical waste from hospitals. [20768]

  Mr. Horam
  There is not a central list of approved contractors for disposal of clinical waste. It is for each national health service trust or contracting authority to satisfy itself, prior to any invitation to tender, that those invited to bid have the capability to meet the required technical, financial and quality performance standards.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on how many occasions in the past five years letters have been sent by the National Health Service Estates agency to NHS hospital trusts about medical waste management; [20789]

  (2) what reviews of waste management procedures the National Health Service Estates agency has asked each NHS hospital trust to undertake; [20790]

  (3) if he will publish the guidelines for the disposal of medical waste form (a) hospitals, (b) nursing homes, (c) mortuaries, (d) doctors' surgeries and (e) veterinary surgeries. [20759]

  Mr. Horam
  The National Health Service Estates agency has issued five guidance documents and two estates policy letters to the NHS in the past five years. They relate to NHS bodies obligations under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and their duty of care in relation to the disposal of clinical waste. These are specifically aimed at hospitals and primary care services. The NHS Estates agency is not responsible for issuing guidance to private nursing homes or veterinary surgeries.

  As waste producers, NHS bodies' are bound to ensure that waste is disposed of safely and properly. Enforcement of the Act is, however, the responsibility of the local environmental health department. The NHS Estates agency does not have responsibility for reviewing procedures.
  754
  The guidance documents are:

  Health Guidance Note—Clinical Waste Incineration Joint Venture Arrangements (March 1995);

  Health Guidance Note—Safe Disposal of Clinical Waste Whole Hospital Policy (April 1995);

  Strategic Guide for Waste Management (March 1991);

  Strategic Guide to Clinical Waste Management (January 1994);

  Health Service Guidelines HSG(94)50 Clinical Waste Management (December 1994).

  The estates policy letters, EPL(92)8 and EPL(95)33 reminded the NHS of the previous guidance.

  Copies of the guidance will be placed in the Library shortly.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the tendering procedures for the disposal of medical waste from hospitals. [20791]

  Mr. Horam
  Tendering procedures for the disposal of clinical waste from hospitals should be in accordance with the Public Services Contract Regulations 1993 (SI 1993/3228) and the Environmental Protection Act 1990. In addition, the National Health Service Estates agency has issued guidance on medical waste management.

  Derriford Hospital, Plymouth
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what communications he has received from Plymouth Hospitals NHS trust regarding the elderly patient who fell to his death at Derriford hospital, Plymouth, on 9 March; and if he will make a statement. [20599]

  Mr. Horam
  We have received no communication from Derriford hospital about this matter. I understand that the trust is holding a full inquiry. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Vernon Seccombe, JP, chairman of Plymouth Hospitals NHS trust, for further information.

  Aids for Elderly and Disabled People
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the local authority social services departments that make charges for aids for elderly and disabled people. [20757]

  Mr Bowis
  Information reported by authorities shows that some two thirds of social services departments in England gained no income from fees or charges in relation to adaptations to homes or the provision of disability equipment for elderly or physically or sensorily disabled people in the financial year 1993–94. Specific information about individual authorities' charges are not available centrally.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [16013]
  755
  Mr. Horam
  [pursuant to his reply, 22 February 1996, c. 289]: I regret that my previous answer contained incorrect information relating to the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting; the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work; the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority; and the Medical Practices Committee. The revised reply is as follows:

  Those NDPBs which are:

  Subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner:

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work;

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority;

  Medical Practices Committee.

  Subject to scrutiny by the Audit Commission:

  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office:

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work;

  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting;

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority;

  Medical Practices Committee;

  National Biological Standards Board;

  National Radiological Protection Board;

  Public Health Laboratory Services Board.

  Proportions of individuals in households with household income that is (i) wholly earned (ii) part earned, part unearned (iii) wholly unearned, for each quintile of the income distribution and overall, United Kingdom, 1992–93

  Percentage

  Quintiles of income distribution

  Percentage of individuals in households where the household income is:

  Bottom

  Second

  Third

  Fourth

  Top

  All individuals

  Before housing costs

  Wholly earned

  1

  2

  3

  5

  4

  3

  Part earned, part unearned

  32

  55

  79

  85

  88

  68

  Wholly unearned

  68

  44

  18

  11

  8

  29

  All income

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  After housing costs

  Wholly earned

  1

  2

  4

  5

  3

  3

  Part earned, part unearned

  31

  57

  79

  83

  87

  68

  Wholly unearned

  67

  41

  17

  12

  10

  29

  All income

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  1. Earned income includes income for employment and self-employment. Unearned income includes state pensions and any other income from benefits (including Child Benefit), occupational and personal pensions, investment income, and any other miscellaneous income.

  2. The information in the table is derived from the 1992–93 Households Below Average Income dataset. 1992–93 is the latest date for which results are available. Figures for 1992–93 are for two calender years data combined.

  3. Each quintile represents 20 per cent. of the income distribution.

  4. All estimates are subject to sampling error. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated increased administrative cost for his Department resulting from the introduction of the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance) Amendment Regulations 1996. [16624]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Operational procedures have not yet been finalised, but the administrative costs are not expected to be significant.
  756

  Subject to statutory provisions for open government:

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work;

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

  Subject to performance indicators:

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work;

  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting;

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority;

  National Biological Standards Board;

  National Radiological Protection Board;

  Public Health Laboratory Services Board.

  Subject to provisions under the Citizen's Charter:

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incomes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of(a) households and (b) individuals have (i) wholly earned, (ii) wholly unearned and (iii) part-earned and part-unearned incomes; and if he will break down the figures by income level. [13483]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Such information as is available is in the tables.

  Pensions
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals currently have their earnings-related pension reduced as a result of payments from a company pension scheme. [18854]

  Mr. Heald
  As at 31 March 1995, there were 2,305,840 individuals whose additional pension was reduced, or extinguished, as a result of contracted-out deductions in respect of payments from a company or personal pension scheme.
  757
  The contracted-out deduction is the term used to describe the reduction in the additional pension of someone who has been a member of a contracted-out pension scheme or a personal pension scheme used in place of the additional pension.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 19 February,Official Report, column 40, (a) what the breakdown in public spending per capita and per recipient is estimated by the Government Actuary to be on (i) retirement pensions, (ii) the state earnings-related pension scheme, (iii) other public pensions and (iv) all publicly provided pensions, (b) what is the corresponding estimate of contributions required per capita and per contributor from national insurance and (c) what is the corresponding estimate of the percentage of gross domestic product of total public spending on pensions, on the basis of the Government's assumption of 1.5 per cent. per annum growth in (1) 1994–95, (2) 2000–01, (3) 2010–11, (4) 2020–21 and (5) 2030–31, at 1994 prices. [19031]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Public spending on all publicly provided pensions is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Government Actuary's Department does not forecast the number of SERPS recipients.

  Such information as is available is shown in the tables:

  Breakdown of public spending

  £

  1994–95

  2000–01

  2010–11

  2020–21

  2030–31

  Retirement pensions

  Per capita

  474

  514

  566

  584

  693

  Per recipient

  2,663

  2,709

  2,710

  2,838

  2,850

  SERPS

  Per capita

  32

  72

  141

  181

  198

  Per recipient

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Other public pensions

  Per capita

  18

  13

  11

  20

  19

  Per recipient

  2,485

  2,462

  2,340

  2,600

  2,600

  Contributions required

  £

  1994–95

  2000–01

  2010–11

  2020–21

  2030–31

  Retirement pensions

  Per capita

  474

  514

  566

  584

  693

  Per contributor

  1,300

  1,313

  1,400

  1,419

  1,753

  SERPS

  Per capita

  32

  72

  141

  181

  198

  Per contributor

  87

  185

  350

  440

  502

  Other public pensions

  Per capita

  18

  13

  11

  20

  19

  Per contributor

  50

  32

  27

  49

  47

  758

  Percentage of GDP

  Total spending on pensions (i), (ii) and (iii)

  Percentage

  1994–95

  4.4 per cent.

  2000–01

  4.7 per cent.

  2010–11

  5.0 per cent.

  20020–21

  4.7 per cent.

  2030–31

  4.8 per cent.

  1. All figures are based on 1994–95 prices. Spending is rounded to the nearest £1, and percentages are rounded to the nearest 0.1 per cent.

  2. Retirement pensions are comprised of basic retirement pension and graduated retirement benefit.

  3. Other public pensions are comprised of widows' pension (basic) and widows' pension (additional pension).

  4. Expenditure on benefits and population figures are taken from the report by the Government Actuary on the third quinquennial review under section 137 of the Social Security Act 1975.

  5. Numbers of recipients and contributors are taken from, or under the Pensions Bill 1994 report by the Government Actuary on the financial provisions of the Bill on the national insurance fund, except for 1994–95 which are based on actual numbers.

  6. The number of contributors each year excludes approximately 200,000 people paying class 3 contributions.

  7. The underlying GDP figures assume 1.5 per cent. per annum growth from the 1994–95 GDP figure given in table 6A.1 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of(a) public spending on SERPS and (b) the corresponding contribution rate in respect of SERPS only (i) before the Pensions Act 1995 and (ii) in (1) 1994–95, (2) 2000–01, (3) 2010–11, (4) 2020–21 and (5) 2030–31, at 1994 prices. [19211]

  Mr. Heald
  There is no corresponding contribution rate in respect of SERPS only. The contribution rate is a global figure calculated so that it is sufficient to pay all national insurance fund benefits on a pay-as-you-go basis. However, some indication of a contribution rate equivalent to net SERPS expenditure is given in the table.

  Percentage

  1994–95

  2000–01

  2010–11

  2020–21

  2030–31

  Pre Pensions Act 1995

  Net SERPS expenditure £ billion

  1.8

  4.2

  9.2

  14.5

  18.7

  Equivalent contribution rate

  0.8

  1.5

  2.6

  3.7

  4.5

  Post Pensions Act 1995

  Net SERPS expenditure £ billion

  1.8

  4.2

  8.4

  10.9

  12.0

  Equivalent

  0.8

  1.5

  2.4

  2.8

  2.8

  contribution rate

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Notes:

  1. The principle underlying the table is that if, say, estimated net SERPS expenditure equals one-quarter of total expenditure on national insurance fund benefits then one-quarter of the contribution rate necessary to balance the Fund pays for the net SERPS. Hence, the lower is net SERPS expenditure the lower the equivalent contribution rate will be.

  2. The contribution rate in the above table is that part of the gross class 1 contribution rate required to meet the estimated cost of net SERPS. However, it is assumed that a similar proportion of class 2, 3 and 4 contributions is also used to meet the cost of net SERPS.

  3. The expenditure on net SERPS is in respect of retirement pensions only and is in 1994–95 prices.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.
  759

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of home owners whose attendance allowance was withdrawn because they were in residential care temporarily paid for by the local authority pending the sale of their homes, in each year of the allowance's operation. [19325]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is not available.

  Computers
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he 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. [19453]

  Mr. Burt
  There are no such cases.

  From March 1994 the Department had a contingency arrangement with the private sector to protect some of its mainframe computers. The contract was never enacted. From June 1995, after outsourcing of the Department's data centre services, EDS became responsible for the mainframe computers. The Department requires EDS to guarantee a specific level of service but the specifics of contingency arrangements are a matter for EDS.

  Compensation Recovery Scheme
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on the compensation recovery scheme. [19767]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 17 October 1995,Official Report, column 223.

  Pensioners (Benefits)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimates he has made of the number and percentage of(a) single pensioners and (b) pensioner couples (1) under and (2) over 75 years of age entitled to, but not in receipt of, (i) council tax benefit, income support and housing benefit, (ii) income support and housing benefit, (iii) income support and council tax benefit, (iv) housing benefit and council tax benefit, (v) council tax benefit alone, (f) income support alone and (g) housing benefit alone. [19652]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not readily available. Where obtainable, it could be provided only at disproportionate cost and would not produce reliable results.

  Lowered Standard of Occupation Allowance
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discretion Ministers have on the payment of allowance for lowered standard of occupation in individual cases. [20037]

  Mr. Heald
  Article 21 of the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983 provides that the allowance for lowered 760
  standard of occupation may be awarded to ex-service men and women who, because of the effects of their war pensioned disablement, are incapable, and likely to remain permanently incapable, of following their regular occupation and any other occupation which is of an equivalent standard and suitable for them. The Secretary of State will pay the allowance where he is satisfied that those conditions are met.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many additional claimants would qualify for the disability working allowance if the functional test were applied for initial claims for those not receiving a qualifying benefit; and what estimate he has made of the net cost. [20166]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of disability working allowance have earnings below the lower earnings limit. [20168]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The lower earnings limit for 1995–96 is £58. On the 31 October 1995 there were 7,644 claimants in receipt of disability working allowance, of whom 2,620 were earning less than £58 per week.

  Source:

  Disability working allowance computer system 100 per cent. scan of all awards.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the current level of unemployment benefit for an adult aged over 25 years in each EU state; and what percentage this figure represents as a proportion of the current national average wage in each country. [20317]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information on the level of unemployment benefits in each European Union country is contained in MISSOC "Social Protection in the Member States of the European Union", published by the European Commission. Information on unemployment benefits as a percentage of average earnings in member states is available in "Social Protection in Europe 1995", also published by the European Commission. Copies of both publications are in the Library.

  Severe Weather Conditions
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what additional funding will be made available to help people in receipt of income support who have suffered loss and damage as a result of the recent severe weather. [21290]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I recently announced additional funding for four districts in the Glasgow area amounting to £268,308 for 967 applications. At the same time I also made available a further £80,000 from the contingency reserve for any future emergencies.

  Since then, two further districts—Sefton and Highlands and Islands—have been awarded additional allocations from this sum of £80,000 due to their increased expenditure during the severe weather.
  761
  On 29 February Sefton district reported a total of 76 awards at a cost of £25,315 and Highlands and Islands 396 awards at a cost of £42,000 a total expenditure of £67,315. The majority of awards were for budgeting loans.

  I have therefore agreed that a further social fund in-year allocation of £67,315 should be made to the district offices affected.

  The latest information we have suggests that there is unlikely to be any further requirement for additional allocations in the current financial year.

  Benefit Statistics
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total amount paid in each of the last five years to workers in(a) full and (b) part-time employment in the form of housing benefit, family income support and other benefits paid by his Department. [20121]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information in respect of the in-work benefits is set out in the table. It has been provided in respect of all workers, including those who are self-employed, irrespective of the number of hours they work. In addition to the benefits shown, workers may benefit from a range of categorical benefits, such as child benefit.

  £million

  Benefit cost

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Family credit1

  494

  626

  929

  1,208

  1,480

  Disability working allowance1

  3—

  3—

  3—

  7

  13

  Housing benefit2

  340

  395

  525

  600

  700

  Community charge benefit2

  170

  80

  95

  3—

  3—

  Council tax benefit2

  3—

  3—

  3—

  130

  140

  Total

  1,004

  1,101

  1,549

  1,945

  2,333

  Sources:

  1 1995 departmental report.

  2 Estimates derived from the 1 per cent. Housing Benefit Management System sample annual enquiry.

  3Represents periods before benefits were introduced/after they were replaced.

  Earnings Disregard
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effect on public revenues in 1996–97 and 1997–98 of increasing the earnings disregard under income support for all claimants to at least(a) £10, (b) £15, (c) £25 and (d) £50 based on the assumption that (1) the disregard applies equally to individuals and the joint earnings of couples and (2) each partner in a couple is allowed the full disregard. [18104]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [holding answer 29 February 1996]: The information is set out in the tables.
  762

  Table 1:1996–97

  £ million

  Change in disregards

  Assumption 1

  Assumption 2

  At least £10

  20

  20

  At least £15

  40

  40

  At least £25

  110

  110

  At least £50

  240

  240

  Table 2:1997–98

  £ million

  Change in disregards

  Assumption 1

  Assumption 2

  At least 10

  10

  10

  At least 15

  30

  30

  At least 25

  100

  100

  At least 50

  230

  230

  1. Estimates are modelled on the 1991–92–93 Family Expenditure Surveys and the 1994 Annual Statistical Enquiry, uprated to 1996–97 and 1997–98 levels of prices, earnings and benefit rates. Costs are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  2. Estimates are lower in 1997–98 than in 1996–97, as they take into account the change to the couples disregard for income support and jobseeker's allowance that is to be introduced in October 1996.

  3. Costs include the increased cost of housing benefit and council tax benefit due to increased entitlement to these benefits.

  4. The costs are shown as the same under both assumptions because of the small number of claims where both the claimant and partner work part time.

  5. Behavioural changes, which would be considerable with the higher disregards have been ignored.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Executive Agencies (Contracts)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what guidelines he has issued on the vetting of private companies tendering for contracts with a next steps agency. [20190]

  Mr. Willets
  The principles to be followed are laid out clearly in "The Government's Guide to market Testing", paragraphs 6.14 and 6.27, and guidance note No. 40, paragraphs 10.2 and 15.2, issued by Her Majesty's Treasury's central unit on procurement. The guidelines for next steps agencies are the same as those for the rest of central Government. "The Government's Guide to Market Testing" is available in the Library of the House. I am arranging for copies of the CUP guidance note No. 40 to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what vetting procedures are employed to verify the credentials of private companies tendering for contracts with next steps agencies. [20193]

  Mr. Willetts
  Departments and agencies act in accordance with the guidelines laid out in "The Government's Guide to Market Testing", paragraphs 6.14 and 6.27 and the central unit on procurement's guidance note No. 40, paragraphs 10.2 and 15.2.

  In compiling a shortlist, Departments and agencies check companies' capacity and competence for performing the work, their experience in similar work and their financial status. Further checks are made when

  763
  evaluating bids on companies' organisation and personnel policies, their technical status, their existing commitments and their financial status, including, creditworthiness, and details of any holding/guarantor companies providing financial backing.

  "The Government's Guide to Market Testing" is available in the Library of the House. I am arranging for copies of the CUP guidance note No. 40 to be placed in the Library of the House.

  "Competing for Quality" Review
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the "Competing for Quality" review will be published. [20450]

  Mr. Willetts
  It is anticipated that the review will be finished shortly and the results will be published as soon as possible thereafter.

  Civil Servants (Stress-related Illness)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the number of civil servants who have left the service(a) by age, (b) by gender and (c) by Department on grounds of stress-related illness in the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [20333]

  Mr. Willetts
  Stress is rarely cited as a specific cause of ill health retirement, but conditions which may be precipitated or exacerbated by stress fall into the International Classification of Diseases categories for neurotic disorders. The data available relate to civil servants who have retired on grounds of ill health because of neurotic disorders in the calendar years 1993 and 1994, the data for 1995 are currently being analysed.

  There were 3,731 ill health retirements from the civil service in 1993, 2,208 male and 1,523 female. There were 4,169 ill health retirements in 1994, 2,346 male and 1,823 female.

  Table 1 shows the total number of ill health retirements classified as being due to neurotic disorders, broken down by age at retirement and gender. It further shows these ill health retirements as a percentage of the total number of ill health retirement certificates issued in the year.
  764

  Table 1

  1993

  1994

  Age

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  <40

  34

  54

  58

  71

  40–49

  85

  55

  105

  68

  50–59

  98

  93

  123

  94

  60+

  15

  7

  12

  2

  Total

  232

  209

  298

  235

  As percentage of all IHR's

  10.5

  13.7

  12.7

  12.9

  Tables 2a and 2b, respectively, show for 1993 and 1994 the retirement rate from neurotic disorders in the larger Departments and in the civil service as a whole, as a percentage of staff in post.

  Table 2a: 1993

  Department

  Staff in post

  Neurotic disorder IHR's

  Percentage IHR rate

  Ministry of Defence

  129,225

  56

  0.04

  DSS Group

  84,824

  71

  0.08

  Inland Revenue

  66,521

  55

  0.08

  Employment Group

  52,408

  50

  0.1

  Home Office Prison Service

  38,527

  48

  0.12

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise

  25,137

  34

  0.14

  Others

  157,570

  127

  0.09

  All civil service

  554,212

  441

  0.08

  Table 2b:1994

  Department

  Staff in post

  Neurotic disorder IHR's

  Percentage IHR rate

  Ministry of Defence

  121,552

  91

  0.07

  DSS Group

  87,122

  83

  0.1

  Inland Revenue

  62,374

  63

  0.1

  Employment Group

  49,289

  27

  0.06

  Home Office Prison Service

  38,003

  61

  0.16

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise

  25,115

  50

  0.2

  Others

  149,895

  158

  0.11

  All civil service

  533,350

  533

  0.1

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery The Earl of Cork and Orrery—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

Lone Parents: Benefit Costs
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish's Written Answer (9th January, WA14), what were the cost implications for the Department of Health identified in considering the proposals for lone parents announced in the social security uprating Statement and why they have assessed these costs as negligible.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the most likely cost implication for the Department of Health could be on the NHS low income scheme covering free prescriptions, optical and dental charges. However, as the benefit changes announced would have virtually no effect on the numbers eligible for the low income scheme, we have assessed those costs as negligible.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how great are the costs he regards as negligible?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that is a good question. I suppose that the answer is that negligible costs are regarded as negligible. When it is difficult to see what numbers could be affected, as in this case, the costs must be considered negligible.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, given that the Rowntree study indicates that the level of nutrition of families in poverty—specifically, one-fifth of all single-parent families—is so low that they incur a much higher incidence of illness, especially cancer and ailments associated with the bone and with the bodily development of children, can the Minister say whether that factor has been taken into account?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we do not believe that there is any reason why people on income support should not be able to follow a normal, healthy diet.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that lone parents and their children are the poorest group in our society but that the Government's latest social security uprating froze the lone-parent benefit and premium to align it with the two-parent benefit? Given that lone parents are much worse off, do the Government really believe that to make marriage stronger they have to make the children of those parents poorer?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Baroness in her broad-brush assessment that all lone parents are somehow the poorest in society. We are trying to ensure that the benefit system does not work in the perverse way that it can work, which is to make a married couple with a child worse off than a lone parent with a child. We believe that that is wrong and that they should be placed on an all-square basis. We also believe that the way to help lone parents is to encourage them into work and to improve the position so that the father—there always is a father—pays his due maintenance. As I said, we want to treat lone parents equally with married couples.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, on the Government's definition of what they consider to be negligible expenditure, and in an endeavour to assist the Minister when replying to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that from time to time, when the circumstances suit them, the Government regard the expenditure of £2.5 billion in Europe as negligible?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I would never regard expenditure of £2.5 billion—or even of £2.5 million—in Europe or anywhere else as negligible.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the all-party Health Committee's recommendations in 1992 that what was then the Department of Health and Social Security should undertake research into the food-buying patterns of pregnant women—a matter which is important not only for the mother, but for the beginning of life—have been implemented because, as far as I am aware, they have not?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, talking about particular research projects is a little wide of the Question, but people tend to eat different diets whatever their income. Some quite well-off people eat inadequate diets. Plenty of food is available at reasonable cost and people can thus maintain a reasonable and sensible diet. Although we believe that that is the case, I shall certainly look into the research project which the noble Baroness suggests.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, it was suggested by the all-party Health Committee in 1992.
Earl Russell: My Lords, when the Department of Social Security assessed the costs of cuttling lone-parent benefit, did it take into account the survey by the National Children's Home and the Maternity Alliance which showed that 66 per cent. of babies born to parents on income support had a low birth weight? Did it take into account the research carried out by the Medical Research Council on the ongoing costs of low birth weight in the next generation?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we attempt, with other departments, to take all factors into account. I suggest that the noble Earl looks at the

945
research which shows clearly that one of the main reasons for low birth weight is the mother smoking during pregnancy.
Earl Russell: But my Lords, did the department take that research into account?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I said, we take all matters into account in our discussions with the Department of Health. I am afraid that I cannot answer a specific question about whether that particular research project was taken into account by the Department of Health. There are many research projects. The point I made remains important. Other than in very premature births, the principal cause of low birth weight is smoking in pregnancy.

War Widows' Pensions
3.8 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley Lord Craig of Radley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What percentage of claims received for the War Widows' Pensions reinstated last July by the Pensions Act 1995 have now been approved and paid, and whether interest is added to the initial payment of claims which were delayed due to a shortage of staff in the War Pensions Agency.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, decisions have been made in almost 90 per cent. of the completed claims received and in almost 50 per cent. of these cases war widows' pensions have been put into payment together with appropriate arrears. It is anticipated that the large majority of pensions will be in payment by the end of March. At its peak we employed 58 staff on this additional work. There is no justification for the adding of interest to the initial payment.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer although it is disappointing on the subject of interest. Did not the War Pensions Agency estimate over a year ago that there would be about 16,500 reinstated awards? Indeed, your Lordships agreed the appropriate amendment during the Report stage of that legislation exactly a year ago today. Is it not the case that fewer than 12,000 claims have been received, which is less than 70 per cent. of the workload estimated by the War Pensions Agency? With all that warning time and less work than expected, has there not been some maladministration leading to prolonged delay in processing and paying the claims? The Inland Revenue is now quick to charge interest on tax which is paid late. Will the Government reconsider the position on interest on those payments?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, no, we will not reconsider paying interest on those payments. The position for the department in total is that discretionary special payments are allowed in payment of compensation for loss of money where the benefit has been delayed by official error or misdirection for
946
a period of at least 12 months. In this case, the Act did not come into force until July, which was rather earlier than we thought. We have put a considerable number of staff on to the work. We have done the job quickly, and many of the widows concerned are receiving £148 a week tax-free more than they were receiving before. Rather than be criticised I should have thought we should be congratulated on the way we have proceeded on this matter.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, while the Royal British Legion acknowledges the Minister's endeavours and appreciates his efforts, will he please write to me with the detail of what he said in his reply? I wish to reiterate once again that we appreciate the endeavours he has made on our behalf.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. He will be able to read what I said in Hansard tomorrow. As I said, the position is that as at 5.30 p.m. last night about 12,148 decisions have been made; 12,046 have been notified; 6,617 are already in payment; and we expect the bulk of the remainder to be in payment by the end of the month.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has given some interesting figures. Will he assure the House as to their accuracy?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, absolutely. I can indeed assure my noble friend that as at 5.30 p.m. last night those were the figures supplied to me by the division in the War Pensions Agency which is dealing with this issue.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the Minister explain why in some cases pension books were withdrawn before the new pension books were issued? In some cases there was a gap of several weeks. Does the Minister understand that some of these ladies are among the most vulnerable of our society, and that even a gap of one week made difficulties for them? Can he explain how it happened?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, of course I cannot explain a particular case, but in general terms, because of the book system that we operate in the DSS, if there is a change in the payment the book has to be withdrawn and a new or amended book issued. That causes a problem over the whole of the department. It is one of the issues which will be finally resolved when we move over to a plastic payment card, because then there will be no need to make that return and there will be no interruption in the payment.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, there have been reports in the media and elsewhere of war widows in receipt of reinstated pensions having their benefit payments reduced by local authorities. Have the Government received any evidence of that? Does the Minister agree that there could be cases of giving with one hand and taking away with another?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have discussed this issue on a number of occasions. I believe that the noble Viscount is referring to housing benefit

947
and council tax benefit. Out of their £148 a week tax-free, war widows are allowed to retain £60, all but a few pence, without it being taken into account. That is disregarded when it comes to the calculation. However, local authorities have the ability and discretion to make a bigger disregard, and indeed a total disregard. Many do and some do not.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House why there has been a gap between the clearing for payment of pensions at Norcross, where there may have been problems finding the original records, and actual payment from Newcastle where those problems did not exist?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the situation with this benefit, as with all other benefits, is that when a decision is taken that the person is eligible for a benefit—the war widow in this case—that then has to be sent to Newcastle to check against the other benefits which she may be receiving. Both benefits have to be matched together, because in some cases—for example, if she receives £148 free of tax—if the person is also on income support, the new benefit (the war widows pension) will mean a reduction in her income support. We have to ensure that people are being paid the proper amounts from all the directions from which they come before we put the pension into payment.

Newbury Bypass Works: Protesters
3.15 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Prime Minister will visit the bypass works at Newbury.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Prime Minister has no plans to do so.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Minister convey the suggestion to him? Should he not, as Prime Minister, witness the death throes of an impossible transport policy—hundreds of policemen, private security men and bailiffs, trying by force to evict the people who have chosen to camp in the friendly trees to protect them, and the gigantic machines waiting to uproot the trees, all in favour of juggernauts carrying nothing more important than frozen food from another country?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, many people think that frozen food and other economic products are of extreme benefit to this country. The ability to move freight and people around in the best and quickest manner possible is of extreme importance to our economy. The statutory processes have been gone through. We have the legal right to build the road. The vast majority of local people want the road built. The protesters are interfering with our legal right to do so.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, are the effluents from the protesters' squalid camps and treehouses polluting the nearby river—fortuitously the
948
River Kennet, as it happens? And has Greenpeace, or any similar group, volunteered to do a clean-up of the mess being made by those camps?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, all sorts of answers spring to mind on the question of the protesters' effluent; but I shall resist all temptation and merely say that my noble friend is right—in so many cases these protesters cause a great deal of damage by their very presence at the site.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many of us, while defending the right of people to protest peacefully, are appalled by some of the activities of the demonstrators at Newbury? Is he aware that there have been public inquiries over a period of time, and that the democratically-elected representatives of the people of Newbury are firmly in favour of the bypass? That being so, it is unacceptable to allow a gross waste of public money on police expenditure in circumstances of this kind.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, of course there are so many better uses that this considerable sum of money could be put to rather than to stop people interfering with the due processes of the law. I believe that the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord reflect the sentiments of this House and another place.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, will my noble friend ask his colleagues to consider whether a claim could he made against Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and other wealthy organisations which have stimulated this kind of protest?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that is an interesting idea, and one which requires reflection, if my noble friend will allow me. Legal action has been taken. We believe that the best method of clearing these protesters is through civil action in the courts and by using the offices of the sheriff. That is how we have taken the process forward. As a result of the protests, some 500 arrests have been made.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, irrespective of the supplementary questions which have flowed from this Question, I should like to ask my noble friend the Leader of the House to consider whether it is a proper one for your Lordships' Order Paper.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Question has been accepted, and it is for the appropriate Minister to answer as best he can.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the Newbury bypass is being built at a time when there is great disillusionment with huge road building programmes. There is evidence to show that unless the entrances and exits to and from the bypass are carefully planned it merely provides a quicker route into the already congested city. Many bypasses merely bring people into the cities more quickly. Will the

949
Minister assure the House that the Newbury bypass will be one of the last of the massive road schemes that we have seen during the past few years?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, road infrastructure is of considerable importance and can bring real environmental benefits. The town of Newbury is chronically congested because the main road goes through it. Real and demonstrable traffic and environmental benefits are to be gained from the construction of this much needed bypass.

Clinical Waste Disposal 3.20 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will tighten the law on the disposal of clinical waste, following the allegations in the Sunday Times of 10th March about the dumping of medical waste in lay-bys, car parks and warehouses across the country.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, Part II of the Environmental Protection Act provides stringent controls on the management and disposal of all controlled waste, including clinical waste. It is illegal to dispose of waste without a waste management licence or in a way which causes pollution or harm to human health.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Would it not be a good idea to strengthen the duty of care so that waste producers, such as hospitals, have a duty to inform themselves of the ultimate legal destination of waste, not merely the proximate destination? When will the Government issue the final text of the waste management paper, which I understand to have been in preparation for several years?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is not necessary to strengthen the duty of care. That was done in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which lays a responsibility for waste material to be taken, and to be known to where it is being taken, from the cradle to the grave, as it is said. That is done in a way which does not pollute or cause harm. Under the duty of care, waste should be transferred to someone who is legally authorised to accept it with a transfer note. There is no question that when the waste is removed its passage is known from collection to the location of the incinerator.
With regard to the second part of the noble Lord's question, I shall ascertain the precise date of publication and shall write to him.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether the story in the Sunday Times was true or false? If it were true, is there a way in which the authorities could check the rubbish to discover who perpetrated the offence?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is always dangerous to say that something which appears in the press is true, but it is based on fact. The facts have been known since last November and are under investigation by the Hertfordshire waste regulation authority. The authority has three people investigating the matter full time with a view to prosecution.
Lord Monson: My Lords, do the Government believe that the existing maximum penalties for those convicted of such a deplorable crime are adequate? Indeed, what are the existing maximum penalties?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that the existing maximum penalties are adequate. If one disposes of waste without a waste management licence, one is subject to an unlimited fine, which could have a deterring effect, or to imprisonment, which could have an even more deterring effect. For breach of the duty of care there is an unlimited fine. The transport of waste by someone who is not registered as a carrier is subject to a fine of £5,000.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that hospitals are well aware of the proper ways of disposing of clinical waste? If not, can that be remedied?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, hospitals are well aware of the correct method of disposal. They dispose of the waste to a carrier who is registered by a local authority. In this case, the hospitals concerned correctly handed over the waste to the carrier. I understand that waste was taken from about 20 hospitals on behalf of Green Environmental, which is alleged to have contracted with the carriers to incinerate waste in a new incinerator in Cambridge. However, the incinerator was not then complete and the company was alleged to have satisfied the waste carriers, under the duty of care, about its intention to deal with the waste properly by suggesting that it went on to Cannon Hygiene at Enfield. False documents showing that the waste had been properly dealt with were produced. The regulations are adequate. One cannot prevent people breaking the law, but one can discover when they do so and punish them appropriately.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Minister said that the facts in the Sunday Times' article were correct. Is it the case that investigators now believe that up to 400 tonnes of clinical waste may still be missing? Is it also the case that clinical waste is defined by the British Medical Association as human or animal tissue, blood or any other body fluids, excretions, swabs, dressings and needles and other sharp instruments, and that the British Medical Association warns that such waste may cause infection to any person coming into contact with it? If those are the facts, this is a very serious matter which goes way beyond Hertfordshire. What action are the Government taking to ensure that the law, which as the Minister said is perfectly clear, is being enforced?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, inadvertently misconstrued what I said. I did not say that the facts were correct; I said that it was based on facts. The noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip laughs—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I did not Laugh.
Earl Ferrers: Well, that is a change!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister misread my expression.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is even worse. It must have been one of disbelief, which I regard as very offensive! There are facts which newspapers can embellish as they wish. The article was based on facts. I understand that a number of tonnes of waste have been missing but I cannot tell the noble Lord how many because the matter is under investigation and is being dealt with correctly. Three bodies can prosecute: the police, the waste regulation authorities and the Health and Safety Executive. Until matters have been investigated properly it is impossible to say who or how many people will be prosecuted.
The noble Lord referred to the BMA's description of clinical waste, which is similar to a description that I have seen. The materials are very toxic, and in this case random samples of the waste were tested at the public health laboratories and were found to be an extreme risk to any person coming into contact with them. I can only assure the House that the greatest effort is being made to discover why things went wrong and who were the wrongdoers.
Lord Rea: My Lords, did the private contractor which received the contract for disposing of the waste obtain the contract through compulsory competitive tendering, or competitive tendering, compulsory or otherwise?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is up to the hospitals to make arrangements as regards the removal of their infected and highly dangerous material. I understand that in this case it was given to a perfectly legitimate carrier who had a perfectly legitimate carrier's licence. He took the waste to where he believed was a perfectly legitimate incineration station. The incineration station had not by then been built and at that stage the incinerator operators were responsible for what happened thereafter.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Earl confirm one of the facts on which this article is based: that up to 400 tonnes of waste is still believed by investigators to be missing? Is another of the facts correct on which the article is based; namely, that the investigation has since spread to Manchester and Wales, where more waste is believed to be hidden? Are inquiries also being made in London, Essex, Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, and the West Country?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot confirm the facts contained in the article until a thorough investigation has been carried out. Whether or not it is 400 tonnes, I am not in a position to say. Certainly other investigations have been taking place in, for example, Wales and Manchester as a result of what has been said.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, if the incinerators have not yet been built, how can the site have been a legitimate site to which to take the waste?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the firm to which the carriers were undertaking their responsibilities for carrying waste was called Green Environmental which had built or was building an incinerator. It was not ready at the time that the waste was delivered. The noble Lord looks querulous and I do not blame him. But the carriers of the waste were then told to take it to Enfield in Middlesex, which is a site operated by Cannon Hygiene. They were told that that was where the waste would be incinerated properly. There were false documents to show that the waste had been incinerated when it had not been.

Business
3.31 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Lindsay will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Dunblane incident. I should add that if the Statement is not received from another place before my noble friend Lady Blatch rises to move the Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, then we shall break into that debate after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
I understand that the Statement has already begun in another place. Therefore, I am rather hoping that my noble friend Lord Lindsay will arrive in your Lordships' House so that we may take the Statement before the start of the Second Reading on the Asylum and Immigration Bill.
Since standing at this Dispatch Box, I have looked to see whether my noble friend is in the process of arriving before your Lordships. He may well have come to the conclusion that we are not to have the Statement until after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and he may be working on his notes.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I saw the noble Earl only a few moments ago and I cannot believe that he would be working on notes which were prepared for him some time ago. I imagine that he would prefer to take the Statement now. On the other hand, we are ready to observe the wishes of the Government Chief Whip. I see that the noble Earl is now just about to take his place. After he has got his breath back, I am absolutely certain that this is the right lime at which to take the Statement.

Dunblane School Tragedy
3.34 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the Dunblane incident which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Statement is as follows:

953
"It is with profound sadness that I have to report on the tragic event that took place at Dunblane, which is within my constituency, yesterday. Honourable Members will understand the deep shock and distress afflicting the people of Dunblane. Our first thoughts must be with the families of those who have been killed and injured. Our deepest sympathies go out to them at this terrible time.
"The House will appreciate that police inquiries into the matter are continuing and therefore I shall confine my remarks to the facts surrounding the incident so far as they have been established. At approximately 9.15 a.m. on Wednesday, 13th March, an armed man, identified by police as Thomas Hamilton, entered Dunblane Primary School and opened fire on children and staff who were in the school gymnasium. Fifteen of the children who were shot and their teacher died within the school. One child died later in hospital. Three adults and 12 other children were wounded. The gunman shot himself and died within the school.
"As soon as I was informed of this dreadful event, accompanied by the honourable Member for Hamilton I went to Dunblane where we were joined by my honourable friend the Member for Aberdeen South. What we witnessed there encompassed both the worst and the best of which humanity is capable. In contrast to the stark evil of the crime, doctors, teachers, police, ambulance personnel and other caring professionals, Church leaders and volunteers worked unsparingly to save life and console the bereaved.
"In particular, I want to pay the highest possible tribute to Mr. Ron Taylor, headmaster of Dunblane Primary, for his heroic efforts to save the lives of his dying pupils in circumstances too harrowing to be recounted in detail. Honourable Members will wish to join me also in a tribute to Mrs. Gwen Mayor, the dedicated teacher who was gunned down in the midst of her charges. Mrs. Mayor was an exceptionally gifted teacher who had given 10 years' service to the school. Our heartfelt sympathy goes out to her husband Rodney and their two daughters. I would also like to extend the sympathy of the House to Aileen Harrild, the PE teacher, and to the teaching assistants, Mary Blake and Gwen Tweddle, who were all injured. Our teachers carry the immeasurable responsibility of moulding the character of the next generation. In this tragic case a teacher lost her life in the course of fulfilling that responsibility.
"I would also pay tribute to the Chief Constable of Central Scotland Police, William Wilson, and his officers, to the procurator fiscal at Stirling and to the medical teams supervised by Dr. Jack Beattie, as well as the staff in the hospitals at Stirling, Falkirk and Yorkhill who carried out their duties superbly in the most distressing circumstances. All the public services involved deserve the praise of the House and our recognition of the trauma that will continue to live with them.
954
"The Lord Advocate and I believe that this terrible tragedy should be fully investigated. We believe that it is desirable and necessary that an inquiry should be undertaken by a senator of the College of Justice, a senior Scottish judge. Lord Cullen, who conducted the public inquiry into the "Piper Alpha" disaster, has agreed to undertake this responsibility. The Lord Advocate plans to meet him and the Lord President of the Court of Session tomorrow to discuss the procedures the inquiry should follow.
"Her Majesty the Queen yesterday sent her condolences to all those affected by this unspeakable deed. The Queen and the Princess Royal have both expressed a wish to visit Dunblane as soon as circumstances make this appropriate and I can tell the House that they will be going there on Monday.
"Honourable Members will share my sense of the inadequacy of any attempt we in this House might make to offer consolation to the families devastated by this vile crime. The cold-blooded slaughter of tiny children is beyond atrocity. I know that I speak for the whole House when I say to the stricken families of Dunblane: our deepest sympathy and our prayers are with you and for you. You have the support of countless people around the world in your grief.
"Tomorrow night, the people of Dunblane will be holding a vigil for their dead, their injured, and their bereaved. I know I speak for the whole House when I say that the prayers and thoughts of all honourable Members will be with them. The whole nation mourns".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the House will be aware that this is one of the saddest moments we have had in this House. I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement that was made in another place. We on these Benches and, I am sure, noble Lords on all sides of the House wish to endorse all that the Minister said in his words of sympathy to the people of Dunblane and in particular to the families bereaved by this appalling and evil event.
All of us who watched the coverage on television and who have read the reports in the newspapers would also wish to pay very special tribute to the emergency services—that is, the police, the ambulance service, the doctors and nurses—from all over central Scotland and beyond, and, indeed, to the people of Dunblane themselves and the staff at the school. It is appropriate that the Secretary of State should mention in particular the work of the headmaster of the school, Mr. Ron Taylor, in directing the efforts of the teachers.
All Scotland will await the outcome of the inquiry announced in the Statement. There will be general approval of the choice of Lord Cullen who has a very good reputation in such matters. We shall await the result with the devout hope that something can be

955
learned from the horror of yesterday morning which will make it less likely that such a senseless and wickedly irrational massacre will ever he repeated.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. We share all the deeply sincere feelings expressed in it. It is always a sad matter when people are killed in such a manner; indeed, it is a sad moment when any child dies. The horror felt throughout the United Kingdom is very clear.
The facts of this terrible event are not yet fully known. It would therefore be inappropriate to speculate before a full inquiry has taken place. However, we do know that Dunblane is an area in which people seek to live. It is not generally a dangerous or inner city area with noted problems, so even greater is the shock of such a terrible event.
We know that those who are mourning today will find it even more difficult to carry through the normal processes of grief because, as has happened on other occasions where someone has killed a number of people, the person concerned turned the gun upon himself. Therefore the normal grieving process is made more difficult. I say that because when, for example, a child is knocked over by a lorry or a truck it is natural for people to feel resentment against the person responsible. In this case, the parents are deprived of that, and that further complicates the mourning process.
We know so little about crime, especially about this kind of awful event and what triggers people who are fragile in their personalities and who are driven to commit such awful crimes. All I can do is say again that we share in the terrible sorrow that follows the crime. When we know more about the event, we hope that we shall he able to concentrate on some of the things which become clear—for example, where guns are widely held in our society and where security is often lacking in places, not only where children gather but also in hospitals and so on. However, it would be inappropriate for me to follow that path now. It is a sorry day. Not only the people of Dunblane but also the people of the United Kingdom will be sad and grieving for many weeks to come.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I thank both speakers for the thoughts they have expressed. I should like especially to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for the attention that he drew, like myself, to the many different emergency and caring services involved. I reiterate the point that I made in the Statement. When events such as this bring out the worst in humanity, we also see, at the other end of the scale, some of the most superb acts of consideration and humanity.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, also for his welcome of the appointment of Lord Cullen, the High Court judge who will lead the inquiry. He is of undoubted calibre and has a proven track record in delivering decisions and conclusions on awkward issues; so we have faith in him.
Both the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, suggested that lessons could well be learned. We agree. It would be fatal
956
for those of us in this House or those beyond to jump to conclusions based on speculation and on unconfirmed evidence. But, through the good and skilled hands of Lord Cullen, we hope that what lessons there are to be taken on board will be identified as quickly as is sensible and that we will thus gain from them in that sense.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, described some of the complicated human emotions which are left behind by such an event. Indeed, even in the 24 hours since the event there has been ample evidence of the emotional carnage which can follow. The devastation to that community, and to all those who are left behind and who have either been helping or who have felt helpless, is really quite considerable.
It may be of some comfort to noble Lords if I stress that the social work department and the police have set up teams to support and counsel each family individually and that a crisis centre has been established for the community as a whole. Moreover, social work and psychology staff will be available for anyone in the town, or connected with the event. I should also point out that the Churches in Dunblane enjoy a healthy and energetic following. There is an overt faith which runs through the Dunblane community which is not seen in all communities. We hope that that will also provide the people of Dunblane with some of the strength that they will need.
3.47 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords. I should, first, declare an interest as I am chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee. With the leave of the House, it may be of further assistance to your Lordships if I repeat a statement which my committee released at lunch time today. The statement reads:
"Our first thoughts today are for the bereaved parents and families in Dunblane and for all those who have been injured in this awful incident. We offer them our profound sympathy and support. We understand that the Crown Office in Scotland has instructed that a fatal accident inquiry should take place into the whole circumstances surrounding this incident. It would be inappropriate for the Firearms Consultative Committee (FCC) to express any views on these events in advance of the determination of that inquiry.
"Once the whole facts have been established they will be scrutinised by the FCC to determine if and where there is a need for amendment to firearms legislation or practice. The FCC was established by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 and its statutory function is to review the provisions of the Firearms Act and to make recommendations for improving their working. Some of the committee's recommendations have been enacted as legislation and other recommendations have been able to be put into effect without legislation".
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury for repeating that statement. Indeed, I believe that we are all grateful for the work that the Firearms Consultative Committee carries out in advising the Government on the progress of firearms legislation and any proposals for change that might be relevant.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, we have all been profoundly affected by the horrifying and tragic event at Dunblane. Our first thoughts of deep compassion must be for the families who have been bereaved; for the children who have been wounded and their families; for the school and its staff who have suffered in this grievous way; and, indeed, for the whole community of Dunblane. The whole nation shares in a sense of profound shock. Throughout the Churches we will be praying for the families and the community of Dunblane.
Many vivid images stay in our minds from this event. I try to imagine what it must have been like for the headmaster to come into a gymnasium and to find his primary class scattered, dead or dying. What an incredibly horrifying moment that must have been for him. Or, again, I think of the young mother outside the gate of the school crying out her daughter's name, not knowing at that time that her daughter was to be among those who had died. Those are searing and terrible images that will remain with us. We are left with a sense of young lives suddenly cut short, of the unexpectedness of death for those children and for their community, and a sense of waste. We are left struggling with questions of why, and the mystery of evil at the heart of our lives and our society. In the end all we can do is to pray that the God of infinite compassion and mercy will be with, and among, the people of Dunblane in their tragedy and grief. Will the Minister be willing to convey the profound sympathy of all Members of this House to the community of Dunblane and to the families who have suffered so grievously?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, indeed I shall convey that message, as expressed by the right reverend Prelate. I thank him for the way he articulated the emotions of all of us. He mentioned the profound shock that we all feel. I can only reiterate that the slaughter of innocent children, as in Dunblane yesterday, is a brutal tragedy.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, we on the Cross Benches ally ourselves with the sentiments expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the right reverend Prelate. We, too, wish to convey our unbounded sympathy to the families of the children and the teachers who lost their lives or were wounded in this terrible incident. Particularly those of us who have children and grandchildren identify ourselves very much with them in their distress. We also convey our deep appreciation to all the public services whose members have risen so gallantly to the occasion at this sad time.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful for the sympathy and appreciation expressed by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. I agree that for those with children and grandchildren there is an especial pain in such an event, but I suggest that there are few, either within or beyond this House, who, if not parents or grandparents, are not uncles or aunts, or are not in some way connected with children.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that all of us welcome the fact that there is to be a judicial inquiry into the circumstances of this incident? Is he also aware that none of us would take the view that it is sensible to reach any quick decisions on what changes of policy there should be consequent upon this tragic situation? Following what the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, said, is the Minister aware that there have been discussions between the Home Office—I am glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, here—and the Association of Chief Police Officers on the question of psychologically damaged people who possess firearms? Is the Minister aware that all of us hope that the discussions which have been taking place will proceed with the utmost speed?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for underlining the most important message of all, namely, that we do not rush into instant judgments until all the details and facts are known. As regards the second point, the Government are well aware of the discussions regarding the holding of firearms by those who may have a record of either psychological weakness or some criminal event in their lives which is not unconnected with that. This is a difficult and complicated area but the Home Office and other departments, and those with whom they are consulting, are seeking a solution to it.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether or not the firearms used by Hamilton were legally registered on a firearms certificate? On the assumption that they were, given that Hamilton had been refused membership of a gun club, why, then, was he issued with a firearms certificate?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the best course for all such detailed questions is to forward them to Lord Cullen who will consider them with the patience and the time that is required.

Asylum and Immigration Bill
3.55 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the Asylum and Immigration Bill be read a second time.
The Government attach the highest priority to maintaining good race relations. As my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and Home Secretary have emphasised on many occasions, we believe in a tolerant society; in equal rights for all those who are lawfully present; and in respect for their diverse cultures and backgrounds.

959
It has consistently been our view that effective immigration control is a necessary condition for achieving that aim, and that this entails a readiness to deal with abuses and to operate a fair and objective system. We are determined to honour our obligations under the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees and the 1981 Convention on Torture and Cruel or Inhuman Treatment. We do not, and will not, remove people to countries where they have a well-founded fear of persecution or where there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be tortured. Those are the principles underlying this Bill. I must also stress that nothing in the Bill will change the immigration status of anyone who currently has the right to come to this country to live.
The Bill has three objectives: first, to strengthen our asylum procedures so that abusive claims and appeals can be dealt with more quickly; secondly, to combat immigration racketeering through stronger powers, new offences and higher penalties; and, thirdly, to reduce economic incentives which attract people to come to this country in breach of our immigration laws. The Bill would erect a stronger defence against unauthorised employment and provide powers to restrict entitlement to housing and child benefit.
Britain has a long and honourable tradition of giving refuge to those genuinely fleeing persecution. But our asylum procedures are becoming increasingly clogged up with abusive claims. Last year only 5 per cent. of applicants were granted asylum. Even allowing for those not qualifying for asylum but granted exceptional leave to remain on compassionate grounds, 79 per cent. were refused. Only 3 per cent. of appeals to adjudicators against refusal of asylum were allowed. In 1994, it was 4 per cent.
Claims have been rising sharply for two years. Last year we received nearly double the number of asylum claims that were made in 1993, when the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act was passed. As a result, the number of applicants awaiting a decision or appeal has now reached 84,000. On average, a new applicant can expect to wait 18 months for the completion of his case. Delays and backlogs of this magnitude undermine immigration control. Merely by uttering the word "asylum", an applicant who does not meet our immigration rules can fend off removal and secure a sometimes prolonged stay in this country. The longer the delays, the more attractive it is to make an abusive asylum claim. But the greater the number of claims received, the greater the delays incurred.
We would have been in an even more difficult position without the 1993 Act. The Act permitted significant improvements and streamlining. Average decision times for new claims are still only half what they were before the Act. But the scale of abuse and the near doubling of claims since 1993 make further legislation unavoidable, and urgent.
Critics of the Bill have suggested that the Government should increase resources and efficiency rather than introducing stricter procedures. The truth is that we need to do both, and that we are doing both. There has been a massive increase in resources. The number of asylum
960
caseworkers has been increased eightfold, from 100 in 1988 to nearly 800. We are now investing an additional £37 million over three years in even more caseworkers and adjudicators. We have also improved efficiency.
As a result, the number of decisions taken has been increased from 21,000 in 1994 to 27,000 last year. In the coming financial year we expect to take over 37,000 decisions. The output of the appeal system has more than doubled in the last year.
These are dramatic improvements. However, they have still been outstripped by applications. Last year the number of new claims reached 44,000. The problem cannot be solved by resources and efficiency alone. Further strengthening of the legislation is needed. We must send a clear message that abusive claims will be dealt with robustly.
The recent experience of our European neighbours supports that view. Most of them have already introduced measures similar to the ones we are proposing. Germany and the Netherlands are examples of countries where stricter procedures since 1993 have been followed by substantial reductions. Over the past two years, the number of claims has more than halved in the main western European countries, but in this country it has nearly doubled. The Government are not prepared to allow this country to become a soft target for those intent on abusing asylum procedures.
The House will wish to know how we shall achieve that. First, we need to extend the mechanism for sifting out manifestly unfounded claims. Parliament has already endorsed that principle. The 1993 Act enables certain claims to be certified as "without foundation". That triggers an accelerated appeal. If the adjudicator upholds the certificate there is no secondary appeal to the Immigration Tribunal. However, case law has largely limited the use of the special appeal procedure to cases where we intend to remove a person to a safe third country. The Bill therefore introduces wider criteria for its use.
Clause 1 will allow the Secretary of State to certify a claim when refusing it if the grounds cited do not fall within the terms of the 1951 convention; where the claim is manifestly untrue or the evidence fraudulent; where the grounds cited no longer apply; and where asylum is only claimed after refusal of leave to enter or commencement of removal action. The existing "frivolous or vexatious" category would be retained.
There is no question of the Bill's enabling us to certify every claim we refuse. Examples of cases which would fall within the criteria are claims openly based on poverty or unemployment at home rather than fear of persecution; claims based on events or facts which are shown to be untrue; the large group of Pakistanis who claimed asylum because of membership of the Pakistan People's Party and who appealed against refusal even though that party had since become the Government of Pakistan; or immigration offenders who make no claim for asylum until action is taken to remove them.
Growing numbers of asylum applicants arrive undocumented, having destroyed or disposed of the passports on which they travelled. That makes it more difficult to assess their claims, to identify those who

961
have travelled via a safe third country and to effect removal if asylum is refused. The immigration rules already make clear that destruction of documents damages credibility. Clause I will enable such claims to he certified unless a reasonable explanation has been offered. Those who travel on fake papers will not be adversely affected provided they declare them on arrival, but failure to do so would attract a certificate.
Clause I will also enable the Secretary of State to designate countries of origin in which it appears to him that there is in general no serious risk of persecution. Some countries generate large numbers of asylum claims but few, if any, genuine refugees. We see no reason why refugees from say Iran or Iraq should have to wait longer for a decision because we have to give equal time and weight to the thousands of unfounded claims from countries such as India and Poland.
Caseworkers and adjudicators would be able to take account of the fact that the applicant was a national of a designated country. Claims by such nationals would attract the accelerated appeal procedure and, if the adjudicator upholds the Secretary of State's decision, the appellant would not have an avenue to the immigration tribunal. Designation would not however amount to a blanket ban on asylum claims. Each case would still be considered, and those refused would still have an appeal.
We would designate countries which generate significant numbers of claims and from which a very high proportion of claims prove to be unfounded. Designation would not amount to a declaration that we necessarily regard countries to be universally safe or to have political and judicial institutions that function to western standards. That would be unnecessary and unrealistic. We could not possibly accept an obligation to apply such standards, and no such obligation exists in international law. We propose to make a judgment as to whether the general level of risk to people living in a country is sufficiently low to warrant designation. The words
"in general no serious risk of persecution"
convey that policy objective.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary would of course liaise closely with my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The countries they currently regard as suitable for designation are Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ghana, India, Pakistan, Poland and Romania. Last year the refusal rate for those nationalities was 97 per cent. or more.
Designation orders would be laid before Parliament. I am grateful to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee for its report of today, recommending the affirmative rather than negative procedure for designation orders. Discussions in another place did not convince us that that was appropriate. Nevertheless, I shall reflect on the report. We shall provide Parliament with our assessment of conditions in each candidate country. The Bill will enable us to cancel designation if conditions in a country deteriorate, or add a new country to the list if conditions improve.
962
The Government have consistently taken the view that asylum seekers should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. It is our policy to return asylum seekers to safe third countries if they have travelled here through such countries, or if there is evidence that the third country will admit them. Parliament has endorsed that policy, because it is written into the immigration rules.
However, the right to appeal before removal often makes it impossible to apply the safe third country principle effectively. By the time the appeal has been completed the third country is often no longer prepared to re-admit the appellant.
Clauses 2 and 3 would therefore make appeals against removal to certain third countries exercisable only after removal. Under a government amendment adopted in another place that will now only apply to third countries within the European Union. Cases involving European Union member states account for 95 per cent. of third country refusals. Over 80 per cent. relate to France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. It is unacceptable that removal should be delayed while applicants seek to dispute the safety of such countries.
There is nothing unusual in requiring immigration appeals to be exercised from abroad. It has long been the case, for example, that a person refused leave to enter because he does not have the necessary entry clearance can appeal only after departure or removal.
We propose an order-making power to enable other safe third countries to be added to the list in due course. Such an order would be laid before Parliament. Countries such as Canada, the USA and Switzerland, which have proven safe asylum procedures, would be candidates for designation as safe third countries.
Where removal is to a third country not in the European Union or not designated in an order, the applicant would, as now, have a suspensive in-country appeal before removal could take place. Other obstacles to the effective operation of our asylum procedures would be removed by Schedule 2.
Clauses 4 to 7 are designed to help the general enforcement of the immigration control, and in particular to tackle the growing problem posed by immigration facilitators and racketeers. It is encouraging to note that this part of the Bill attracted almost universal support when it was considered in another place. Differences were concerned with detail rather than with the principle of the proposals.
By facilitators or racketeers I mean those who assist others to evade the immigration control. They are motivated solely by personal gain, for which they target groups of people who, as a consequence of limited education, poverty and social circumstances, are little equipped to resist their promises or to afford their expensive services. But once caught these people and their families are liable to exploitation for fear of being exposed to the authorities; so the evil can be a continuing one.
The sole weapon currently available is the offence of facilitating the entry of an illegal entrant. The limits of that offence were exposed by two judgments in this House in 1993 which held that action could be taken

963
against the racketeer only where the people whose passage and entry he had facilitated were treated as illegal entrants. If they are not treated as illegal entrants there is no case to answer under the existing legislation. The situation after entry is even worse, as there is no existing offence which deals with facilitating the acquisition of leave to remain.
Clause 4 creates a new offence of obtaining leave to remain by deception. Clause 5 provides two new offences. The first is an offence of facilitating the entry of an asylum claimant. Seeking asylum is not now, and will not become, a criminal act. But we believe that steps must be taken to deter those who exploit asylum seekers. To protect those who genuinely assist refugees, specific defences have been included in Clause 5(2) to target it firmly at profit-seeking racketeers. The new offence will not arise where there is no personal gain or where the assistance has been provided as a consequence of employment by a bona fide organisation whose purpose is to assist refugees.
Secondly, Clause 5 creates an after entry facilitation offence. It will allow for speedier and more successful prosecution of racketeers such as proprietors of bogus educational establishments and organisers of marriage rackets. It will also enable us to combat those who deal in the provision of falsified asylum applications and with forged documentation.
The Bill has been amended in another place to exclude from the offences in Clause 5 anyone advising an immigration applicant who is not a party to any deception of our immigration control which may be being practised. Thus bona fide legal advisers or others will be specifically exempted. But anyone who is party to a deception will be caught by the new offence, and I think rightly so.
The Bill makes other provisions to strengthen immigration enforcement powers. It also extends bail rights so that all detained illegal entrants would be able to apply for bail.
Clause 8 addresses the problem of illegal working. We take the view which was shared by many respondents to our consultation document that illegal working cannot be condoned or ignored. It takes away jobs which would otherwise be available to people with a right to work here, from whatever ethnic background. The ethnic minority communities have nothing to fear from Clause 8. On the contrary, they stand to gain—as does everyone legally living and working in Britain.
The Government do not accept that the scale of illegal working is insignificant. In 1994 the Immigration Service detected more than 10,000 people working here illegally. This is obviously not the full picture. We cannot, because of its very nature, determine the full size of the problem. But we do not believe that it can be viewed with complacency.
Concern about illegal working is shared by most of our European partners. They already have measures in place which aim to address it. We are undoubtedly vulnerable if we do not attempt to control illegal working when other countries do.
964
Our proposals focus on the role of employers—because employers control access to the labour market. But we want to keep the burden on employers to a minimum. This has generally been acknowledged and welcomed by employers and by employers' organisations.
Our proposal is to create a new summary offence. An employer will be guilty of an offence if he employs an immigrant aged 16 or over if that immigrant does not have valid and subsisting leave to remain in the United Kingdom—or if his leave prohibits him from taking the employment in question.
If that were all we were proposing then employers would have real cause for concern. However, we are proposing that employers should be safe from conviction—and in practice from prosecution—if they have taken one of a number of steps before taking on a new employee.
In many cases the defence would be made out without an employer having to do anything which is not already done as a matter of routine. In other cases employers might need to see and copy evidence of a national insurance number; and in a proportion of cases employers might need to see and copy passports or other documents.
A number of people have expressed some concern about the possibility that our proposals would or could lead to some employers deciding to "play safe.' when recruiting new staff. We take those concerns seriously. But we believe that the fears are without foundation.
The proposals are straightforward. Employers will be able, very easily in most cases, to satisfy themselves that they will not be liable to conviction. Nor is there any incentive for employers to discriminate on racial grounds. We expect all employees to be treated equally. Members of ethnic minorities will continue to be able to compete for jobs on merit alone.
It will be important for employers to have appropriate guidance and advice about what they will need to do under these arrangements. This is a point which was reinforced by many of those who responded to the consultation document. A crucial part of that advice will clearly concern the avoidance of recruitment practices which are discriminatory, or which might appear to be so. The Commission for Racial Equality has agreed to provide its assistance with the drawing up of such guidance. We are very grateful to the commission for that. We will be starting to discuss what will be required very shortly. However, I can say now that ensuring that checks are made on all new employees will represent an important safeguard in this respect.
Clause 9 enables us to restrict entitlement to accommodation under the homelessness legislation and the allocation of a council tenancy.
Following restrictions in benefit entitlement of persons from abroad, which were introduced by the Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996 last month, and earlier benefit changes in April 1994, there is now an imbalance between entitlement to benefits and entitlement to housing assistance. This places an unacceptable burden on local housing authorities. Clause 9 addresses that imbalance. Our broad purpose is to ensure that any person who

965
requires leave to enter or remain, under the 1971 Immigration Act and who does not have entitlement to housing benefit, should also be denied access to housing assistance.
We have tabled information about the groups of immigrants who will be affected. The main ones are those who are present without leave, or who have limited leave granted on the understanding that they will not have recourse to public funds. Asylum seekers who claim after entry or whose applications have been refused by the Home Office will no longer have entitlement to housing assistance. Asylum seekers will be ineligible for council housing.
Clause 10 restricts entitlement to child benefit. The same reasoning applies. We need to bring child benefit into line with the other non-contributory benefits such as family credit, access to which by people from abroad was restricted last month under the Social Security Amendment Regulations. Those benefits are now limited to people who are resident or settled in this country. They are no longer available to those who have been given limited leave on the understanding that they will not claim public funds, to those who are present without valid leave, or to asylum seekers.
There is no justification for treating child benefit any differently. In order to align it we need primary powers, which Clause 10 provides. The Delegated Powers Committee has asked how those powers will be used. I have just given an outline of this but we will table a draft statutory instrument to assist the House.
There has, outside Parliament and in another place, been some very unbalanced criticism of this Bill. There is absolutely nothing improper in strengthening our asylum procedures against the current very high level of abuse; in declaring the evident fact that some of the main countries of origin do not give rise to a serious risk of persecution; in expecting asylum seekers to pursue their claims elsewhere if there is a safe third country for them to go to; in protecting employment opportunities for people entitled to live and work here: in taking tougher action against immigration racketeers.
This country has a good record on race relations, and a tradition of harbouring people who have fled here from real persecution abroad. This Bill is not only consistent with those principles. It is essential if we are to continue to implement them effectively. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Blatch.)
4.19 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thank the Minister, as is proper, for her detailed exposition of the contents of the Bill.
It is a small Bill, and your Lordships will be grateful for that, but it is in its structure and content a complex Bill. It is complex in structure because it largely consists of amendments to the Immigration Act 1971 and to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. Many noble Lords will remember the detailed debates on that Bill. They are engraved on my heart.
966
Although the Bill is short, I warn your Lordships that we shall criticise virtually every clause, either because we disagree with the purpose or because we believe that it is badly drafted—in many cases both. It is a small Bill but one that is full of poison. It is full of unjustified and ill-conceived prejudice against many people who come to the country and enrich our life. They have done so for 1,000, 2,000 and probably more years. Our life blood in this country has been immigration. Of course, it has to be controlled. There must be rules about asylum and immigration. But I suggest that in many respects the legislation goes too far.
The origins of the Bill are not auspicious. Only three years ago we debated a Bill put forward not by this Minister but by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, as being a final tidying up of immigration and asylum procedures. He assured the House that when that was done the difficulties which had been identified in the preceding years would be overcome and we could look forward to the calm uplands of immigration and asylum policy. It is clear now not only that that was false but that the Government did not believe it at the time. Almost immediately after the Act was passed, KPMG was invited to undertake a thorough review of immigration procedures and in 1994 it made recommendations. Many of them are part of the legislation before us today.
Although Ministers in this House and in the other place have not referred to the fact, it is interesting that a great deal has been going on within the European Union about immigration and asylum policy. I was interested that in referring to the specific phrases, "manifestly unfounded" and "in general no serious risk of persecution", the Minister did not say that those phrases are not found for the first time in the Bill. They are found in resolutions of the European Union which were signed by the present and previous Home Secretaries as members of the Justice and Home Affairs Councils in recent years. The whole concept of a white list does not come from the British Government but from Steering Group 1 (Asylum and Immigration) which reports to the K4 Committee which is responsible for co-ordination of policy within the Third Pillar on Justice and Home Affairs. That resulted in the European Union resolution on "Manifestly Unfounded Applications for Asylum", and another European Union conclusion on "Countries in which there is generally no serious risk of persecution". The resolution and conclusion were signed by Mr. Kenneth Clarke as Home Secretary at the Justice and Home Affairs Council in London in December 1992.
Clause 3 concerns the concept of a safe country. We find that there is a European resolution on "Minimum Guarantees for Asylum Procedures". That was signed by the present Home Secretary at the Justice and Home Affairs Council in Luxembourg in June 1995. The Home Secretary said to the Conservative Party conference last year that immigration policy would be made in Britain not in Brussels. That is only half true because one of the European meetings took place in London. The truth is that despite their protestations to the contrary the Government have ceded their control of asylum policy to the European Union Council of Ministers. They have done so without any reference to

967
Parliament, any debate in Parliament, or any approval by Parliament. The first time that it comes before your Lordships is in the Bill and it comes without any recognition of the European origin of Clauses 1 to 3.
The second general point that I wish to make before I deal with individual clauses concerns what is now called by the Minister "abusive claims". I do not know whether that phrase is any better than the suggestion which the Home Secretary made when he called them all "bogus claims". I suppose that to a tiny extent it is less abusive than using the word "bogus", but it is still not true. The basic reason our asylum procedures do not work and why so many people apply for asylum is net that the claims are abusive or bogus but because of the delays that still exist. That is fundamentally the reason for the large numbers. The Minister gave figures, carefully selecting the years she chose to quote, for the rise in applications and in the number of determinations. When she mentioned determinations in the past two years she did not record the fact that the number had decreased from the two previous years.
The primary reason within our control for the large number of asylum applications is that anyone who applies for asylum knows that on average there will be a nine-month delay in determining the application. Then, if an appeal is made, there will be a further four-month delay in determining the appeal. It means that during that period the applicant has the right to remain in the country. Instead of tackling the real cause—the delay—the Bill seeks to penalise those who take advantage of it. That is what is happening with the Bill. The claims are called abusive and it is made more difficult for them to succeed but the real cause of delay in dealing with applications is not tackled at all in the Bill. The Minister gave figures for the rise in the number of staff since 1988. It is clear that the increase is not enough.
A third and final general point before I turn to the detail of the Bill concerns the use of the word "immigrant". I remind your Lordships that the word "immigrant" is defined in Clause 12 as,
"a person who under the 1971 Act requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (whether or not such leave has been given)".
That means that we have a new classification of resident in the country: someone who is a perfectly legal resident who has been given the right to remain, who is able to work, who pays taxes, who may—if he comes from a Commonwealth country—also be allowed to vote. He is now described for the purpose of legislation as an "immigrant".
When we consider Clauses 8, 9 and 10 in detail we see that they have serious effects on the civil rights and the right to social security benefits to which a person, if he is an illegal immigrant, will have contributed. So far as I can see, a new category of second-class citizen is created in this country. I believe that that is neither necessary nor in any way acceptable.
The Commission for Racial Equality says that 25 per cent. of people from ethnic minorities resident in Britain will fall within the category of "immigrant" under Clause 12. We cannot allow that to happen. We cannot have second-class citizens in our country.
968
I turn to the individual clauses. I shall have to refer to almost all of them in turn, for which I apologise. Clause 1 is the worst drafted and worst presented clause I have ever seen in legislation. It rewrites paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the 1993 Act. It does so, not by saying, "Paragraph 5 shall not have effect, but in its place there shall be a new paragraph which gives effect to the intentions of Clause 1". No. It takes each little bit and changes wording here and there. Of the six sub-paragraphs, it takes out two, seriously amends three and leaves only one unimportant one. As a result, it is virtually impossible to comprehend. Why cannot the Government just take out the paragraph and replace it by what they mean to say. This invites more work from the Law Commission when it comes to consolidate immigration legislation.
I have referred to the phrase,
"in general no serious risk of persecution",
and I have talked about its origin. But let us think about the meaning of those words. The phrase defines persecution by a country as a whole rather than an individual case. That is not in conformity with the 1951 convention. The convention states specifically that it is the individual who has to be taken into account. The phrase used is,
"a well founded fear of persecution".
Indeed, Section 2 of the 1993 Act states that nothing in the immigration rules—that includes the rules that will no doubt be changed as a result of this Bill—shall have precedence over the 1951 convention. That is a very valuable precaution. I seriously wonder whether this Bill does not break the provisions of Section 2 of the 1993 Act.
So we are moving from a judgment about an individual case of persecution to one about what happens in a country in general. In Nazi Germany it could not be said that there was in general no well founded fear of persecution. There was a well founded fear of persecution for Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and so on, but not for other people. Would Nazi Germany have achieved the white list on the definition we have been given? If there had been a high number of applications, it would have.
Let us look at the list of seven countries that the Minister named, although I notice she did not name the other three—Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania, given in a leaked memorandum in the Guardian last month. It will be interesting if the Minister chooses to deny it, because it will make life difficult for her when they have to be added. There were 115 successful applications from India, Pakistan, Romania and Ghana. Those applications, which have been found successful even under our tough rules on asylum, would no longer have the same consideration or right of appeal as would have been provided before this Bill.
The whole business of "fast track" appeals in which five days are allowed for a case to be presented, regardless of difficulties in finding interpreters or getting documentation, is an open invitation to something that has already started; namely, the tendency for there to be a greater requirement for judicial review. I suggest that that will be a greater expense rather than

969
a lesser expense. It will cost more in legal aid and it will extend judicial review, which ought not to be extended if Parliament can possibly avoid it.
The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee said that there should be affirmative resolution on the original list. We agree, and I have no doubt that the Government, as usual, will conform to it. But surely there should be affirmative resolution also on additions to the list. There does not need to be any parliamentary procedure for removals from the list, but additions to the list ought to be subject to the same affirmative resolution. We shall be tabling amendments to secure that. Clause 1 has so many defects, not just in drafting, but in purpose, that it will need the most serious attention.
Clauses 2 and 3, the "safe country" clauses, go very much wider than the white list. In 1994, Amnesty International carried out a survey of 60 fast track cases, of which 25 per cent. went to judicial review and 75 per cent. were referred back to the Secretary of State. The Minister said, and repeated today, that this applies to countries in the European Union, to member states. It does. But it also applies to those designated in an order. And there is no suggestion of parliamentary approval for the order. The provision that it should be member states has no security whatever. It could be changed by the Secretary of State of his own volition.
In the nine months between November 1994 and August 1995, the special adjudicators declared EU countries unsafe in 199 cases, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Under these clauses, in-country appeals, of which, in the past, 40 per cent. were successful when they were appeals against a designation certificate by the Secretary of State as to a safe third country, will be replaced by appeals from abroad. The question that has to be asked is whether that is in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights. Is it in conformity with Article 13? Is a right of appeal that can be exercised only from outside the country what the European convention calls "an effective remedy"? Here again, the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee called for affirmative resolution procedures, and we shall support that. But the whole principle of in-country appeals needs to be protected.
We certainly agree with the objectives of Clause 4 on deception. Also, it is better since the words "by him" were added. I make only a minor comment. Deception could lead to criminal prosecution. We should consider whether or not the PACE rules, which would involve the taping of interviews by immigration officers, ought not to be applied in those circumstances.
Again, the objectives of Clause 5 are sound. If they are to deal with racketeering, we support them. However, the clause seems to he very seriously flawed. It seems still to include those who are paid to give entirely honourable advice to immigrants, such as lawyers, paid airline staff and so on. I seriously wonder why the Government rejected amendments, including that from one of their own Back-Benchers, Mr. Niranjan Deva, seeking the regulation of immigration advisers. Perhaps some such regulation
970
should be under the control of the Lord Chancellor, but it is needed and this clause will not be effective until it is achieved.
Clause 7 refers to the arrest and search powers in immigration cases. It makes them comparable to the powers under "a serious arrestable offence". A serious arrestable offence is treason, murder, manslaughter, rape or kidnapping, an offence that attracts a life sentence or 15 years. Is the power provided in the clause really the appropriate level of investigative power of forcible entry? It is not even "reasonable" force. Would it not allow forcible entry into the homes of friends, family, employers, schools or places of worship? I ask those questions with the intention of tabling at least probing amendments.
The Minister gave some detail of Clause 8, the employment clause. This is the first clause where the word "immigrant" appears. Apart from very bad drafting, including a sort of Richard Scott type double negative in subsections (1) and (2), it is true that an immigrant for the purposes of this clause excludes one who,
"has been granted leave to enter or remain"
under Clause 8(2)(a).
If that can be done in Clause 8, why is it not done in Clauses 9 and 10, which simply state that an immigrant who loses housing benefit or child benefit is, within the meaning of Clause 12, either as in Clause 9,
"of a class specified in an order by the Secretary of State",
or in Clause 10,
"unless he satisfies prescribed conditions".
I am not very happy about the wording of Clause 8. I feel that employers will find it very difficult to understand. Surely, the provisions in Clauses 9 and 10, which the Minister of State in another place said did not mean what they appeared to say on the face of the Bill, are entirely unsatisfactory. I do not have time to go into the objections in detail. The Federation of Small Businesses has said it all about whether it is the job of an employer to check immigration status. In practice, apart from the effect on race relations, I do not think the measure will work. It does not cover the self-employed, freelance workers or home workers. It will lead to an increase in the black economy. Those marginal employers who are most likely to employ illegal immigrants and who already break the law on tax and insurance will break this law too.
Because of the shortness of time, we can skip over Clause 9. It will be repealed in the 1996 Housing Bill which is before another place. It does not deserve our serious attention. The Government are wrapped in contradiction. They keep saying that this is done to save money but they have now had to admit that they will pay 80 per cent. of the additional costs incurred by local authorities. The benefit bill, which is claimed as £200 million, would only have been £30 million if the 1993 deadlines had been met. Again, child benefit is the reverse of common sense and economy. Benefits cost £100 a week at most. The cost of a child in care resulting from this measure would be £870 a week.

971
The Bill is defective. It does not address the real issues of asylum. We wish to see asylum claims properly dealt with in accordance with international law. We wish to see them justly dealt with and genuinely abusive claims dismissed. We wish to see asylum restricted to those with well-founded fears of persecution. This Government attack the applicants rather than their own procedures. We do not accept the withdrawal of benefit from those who live in this country. We believe that that is profoundly uncivilised. Do we want to be like Italy, which has withdrawn benefits and as a result has squatter camps, which are centres of crime, around some of its major cities? Is that the kind of result we want?
We must look again at whether our immigration laws are effective. We have one of the highest levels in Europe for detention of applicants. Why is that so? Is there not some way to reduce that expensive and cruel form of punishment? It is indeed punishment. As I said, we need to look again at the whole of the provisions for trafficking. We need to concentrate on those traffickers who encourage illegal immigration. We must also make sure that the legislation does not affect genuine advisers.
I do not have time to deal with the problem of unaccompanied children. That was supposed to have been dealt with by the 1993 Act. Since that Act, 50 children have been held in detention in contravention of international conventions to which we subscribe. We need to provide specifically for the victims of torture, as did Mr. David Alton in a well argued amendment in another place. Finally, we need to take off the face of the Bill the word "immigrant" as defined in Clause 12.
I said at the beginning that the Bill was full of poison. That implies intent and I do not wish so to imply. For the purposes of our consideration of the Bill at Committee and Report stages, I prefer to think of the Government as stumbling rather than poisonous. That is the spirit in which we will seek to make major changes to the Bill.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, your Lordships have listened with great attention to two very full and detailed speeches and the House will be grateful for both of them. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I speak rather more briefly and focus on principles. Also, I shall try to speak, so far as I can, not as a lawyer. I may fail, but I shall do my best.
The Bill is the latest in the long line of legislative measures on immigration and asylum. Some of those measures, which were strongly contested at the time, are now accepted as necessary. Some are unsightly measures which are or should be unacceptable in a democratic society concerned with promoting what my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead memorably defined 30 years ago as a national goal:
"equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity, in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance".
In that same defining speech, the noble Lord, then Home Secretary, recognised, as we all do, the duty
"to control the flow of immigrants within the economic and social capacity of the country to absorb them".
972
As he recalled, for centuries past this and every other country which has played a part in the mainstream of world events has benefited immensely from its immigrants. Those who came were always made unwelcome by some people, whether out of political opportunism or personal inadequacy. But Britain's newcomers rarely failed to make a positive contribution out of proportion to their numbers in founding and rejuvenating firms, in contributing to our national welfare and prosperity and in enriching our universities and cultural centres.
The Government apparently share those enlightened ideals, as the noble Baroness the Minister indicated at the outset of her speech. The Government recently informed the rather obscure body, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, that they aim:
"to enable members of ethnic minorities to participate freely and fully in the economic, social and public life of the nation … whilst still being able to maintain their own culture, traditions, language and values. Government action is directed towards addressing problems of [racial] discrimination and disadvantage".
That statement is most welcome. I only wish that it could have been made by the Home Secretary, not only in a little read report to a specialised UN human rights body, or for that matter in a welcome passage of a speech in this Chamber, but also in a major speech in the glare of mass publicity to the annual conference of his party.
The Government see no contradiction between their vision of a multi-ethnic plural society and the present Bill. I accept that, as a matter of pure logic, there is no inherent contradiction. It is entirely possible to pursue the twin goals of racial equality and of firm but fair control over immigration and asylum. But that is only possible if there is an equal commitment to both goals and a willingness to resist the political temptation to exploit racial anxiety and prejudice in the pursuit of the popular vote, especially at election time. No political party has a monopoly of virtue or vice. The temptation is always there in the pursuit of political power, whether by those who already have power or those who seek it.
Perhaps my noble friends on the other Benches will forgive me for saying that it was a Labour Government which introduced the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968, which took away from British Asian passport-holders from East Africa their right of entry to and residence in this country, which was their only country of citizenship. Their numbers were relatively small but public hostility was whipped up against them and Parliament was persuaded to pass what amounted to emergency legislation to take away what had been promised to them by a Conservative Government; namely, a right of refuge in this country. The European Commission on Human Rights, in a test case in which I was advocate, found that the racial discrimination to which those British Asians had been publicly subjected constituted an interference with their human dignity, amounting to degrading treatment in breach of the convention. That was an example of an unsightly measure for which a Labour Government was responsible. By contrast, in 1972, when the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, was Home Secretary, Sir Edward Heath's Administration swiftly and honourably accepted 25,000 Ugandan Asian refugees expelled by Idi Amin.

973
As for my own party, although it has an honourable tradition of promoting racial justice and equality, there have been some—happily a small minority—who have not resisted the temptation to play the race card, in thinly coded language. Two years ago, together with my noble friend Lord Tope and other colleagues, I had the unhappy task of inquiring into allegations of racism made against local Liberal Democrats in Tower Hamlets in the wake of a by-election victory by the BNP. Sadly, we found some of those allegations to be well-founded.
I say that because it shows that immigration, race relations and politics do not mix well. I therefore approach the present Bill with a degree of scepticism about the political imperative for its introduction; I approach it with anxiety about the way in which the Bill and its passage will increase insecurity and alienation, whatever the noble Baroness the Minister may say, in minority communities; and I approach it with concern about the way in which the Bill's critics, including myself—though that does not matter—will be falsely and outrageously portrayed at the hustings as supporting an open-door policy on asylum and immigration which is wholly untrue.
I accept that the Government's stated aims in introducing the Bill are entirely legitimate; namely, strengthening our asylum procedures to deal more quickly with bogus claims and appeals, combating immigration racketeering and reducing the economic incentives which attract people to come to this country in breach of our immigration laws. But the means chosen to achieve those aims are manifestly unfair and excessive, lacking, in my view, any proper sense of proportion or fair play. The Bill is a tightly-meshed net designed to filter out illegal immigrants, but its cumulative measures will also catch genuine refugees.
It is less than three years since the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act became law. Why, I ask myself, do we need these further measures so soon? Why do we need them without any further evidence of any sufficient mischief to justify such harsh measures? The Government claim that we are overwhelmed by bogus applications. But, according to a Home Office memorandum placed in the Library as a result of a Question I asked, applications by asylum seekers peaked in 1991. The Home Office claims that because only 4 per cent. of applicants are deemed to be genuine refugees and only 4 per cent. of appeals to special adjudicators are upheld, the majority of applicants must be fraudulent and so the law should be further tightened. That takes no account whatever of the obvious difficulties which genuine asylum seekers face in proving their claims. It also takes no account of the fact that an additional 19 per cent. of applicants are, as the Minister indicated, given exceptional leave to remain on humanitarian grounds.
Last year the Government announced that £37 million would be spent on extra asylum case-workers and adjudicators over the next three years. Devoting increasing resources to processing claims expeditiously is most welcome. But I wonder why, then, the Government are introducing legislation before the results of that very welcome initiative in clearing the
974
vast backlog have become clear. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the real problem, the real mischief, is the enormous mountain of applications and the massive delay in dealing with appeals, and that the victims of this Bill are not responsible for the administrative errors which led to the creation of that enormous delay.
The Bill extends the fast-track appeals procedure for what are called claims "without foundation", so as to include claims by applicants from a so-called "safe" country of origin and by those who arrive in the UK without a valid passport. That, I suggest, is unfair and unjust. Claims by applicants from so-called "safe" countries are not necessarily unfounded. The last thing on a refugee's mind as he flees from a country in fear of his life may be whether his papers are in order.
The Bill requires a higher standard of proof of asylum seekers escaping from so-called white list countries when seeking to prove the merits of their claims. Because of the pressures of time and resources upon hard-pressed immigration officers, it will be a short step, in my judgment, from presumption to prejudgment on the basis of a general designation of the country of origin. That will certainly breach Article 3 of the Refugee Convention which forbids discrimination based on country of origin. The Government argue that there will be no blanket prejudgment. I am bound to say that I doubt whether it will be avoided in practice.
In view of the effect of listing a country as "safe" on the rights and freedoms of the individual, I, like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, applaud the advice given to the House by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee that affirmative procedure should be required for the initial designation of countries on the list. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also that, when other countries are added in future, the same procedure should surely apply. I hope that the Minister will, in due course, introduce an appropriate amendment on that basis.
Inevitably the extension of the fast-track procedure will lead to more appeals to adjudicators in cases where the merits have not been properly examined. That will increase the heavy burdens already placed on the shoulders of our hard-pressed adjudicators. Most unfortunately, applicants in those cases will have no right of appeal to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal. One of the most unfortunate aspects of that is that it will undoubtedly increase the number of applications for judicial review when a sensible policy would be to diminish the use of judicial review by expanding the role of the specialist appeal tribunal. Without taking time on this matter, in Australia they have realised the wisdom of a specialist administrative appeals system as a way of diminishing the much more costly and inefficient processes of judicial review.
The Government seek to remove the suspensive effect of appeals against removal where asylum seekers are removed to a member state of the European Union or to other countries deemed to be "safe". The right of appeal will continue to be available in theory, but Clause 3 is likely to render it inaccessible and ineffective in practice, even elsewhere in the European Union, because of the formidable difficulties in preparing

975
appeals from abroad or, for that matter, seeking to apply for judicial review from overseas. In my judgment that again is manifestly not fair.
An applicant in the process of trying to bring an appeal in the UK may end up being shuttlecocked from country to country, possibly even ending up in the country of the regime from which he originally fled, in violation of the internationally guaranteed obligation of "non refoulement". The fact that, in some cases, his ultimate destination will be a country on the Home Secretary's white list is unlikely to be of much comfort to him.
Those applicants who do not find themselves sent to a third country may well come to wish that they had been, as a result of Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill and the withdrawal of social security benefits from many asylum seekers and their families. Instead of taking effective administrative measures to clear the enormous backlog of applications by asylum seekers, the Government have introduced legislative measures which are likely to force refugees and illegal immigrants alike into conditions of poverty.
The restrictions on employment imposed by Clause 8 are as unwelcome to employers as they are to immigrant employees. Employers are not trained to act as immigration or police officers. It would be understandable, if unlawful, if many employers chose to exclude non-white staff or those with foreign-sounding names to minimise the risk of committing a criminal offence. I know that the noble Baroness the Minister thinks that unlikely, but the Government speak quite often and rightly of the burdens on small firms. Frankly, looking at the risks to which this Bill gives rise and the obligations imposed on employers, it is not fanciful to think that at any rate bad employers may decide to take the easy way out and to discriminate on the basis of race, colour or origin.
The proposal will have only a small compliance cost for the Government, but the burdens on employers, especially small businesses, will be great. It may or may not be effective in reducing the number of illegal immigrants in employment in the United Kingdom, yet for this uncertain outcome, the Bill risks disproportionately damaging race relations in this country and creating a culture of suspicion between employer and employed, including those who are black British-born, British citizens, and those who are lawfully settled in this country—the inadvertent innocent victims of such an outcome.
A system of control over asylum seekers and immigrants should be firm and effective, but it should also be fair and humane. It should ensure that those in genuine need of protection receive it, and that those who, after a full and fair hearing and appeal, have had their claims refused are swiftly removed from the United Kingdom. The Bill approaches the problem of economic migration in a piecemeal way which may make it at least as difficult for genuine refugees to enter the process as illegal immigrants. It will encourage refugees to work illegally if they are to survive. It will jeopardise good race relations. It will flout traditional principles of fair
976
play and tolerance in which we as a nation have traditionally taken pride. I wish that it had not been introduced.
5.2 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the clear and able way in which she introduced the Bill and I thank her also for the announcement of further resources that are to be put into the asylum determination process. I recently heard a briefing from the chief adjudicator of the immigration appellate authority in which he spoke of the way in which these resources were in part to be used. I wish also to congratulate the noble Baroness on avoiding the use of the word "bogus" in relation to refugees, although she used it in other references. Perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out, the word "abusive" is not much better.
I should like to take as my starting point the whole perspective that we may have on the Bill because I believe that that determines the way in which we think about it. Broadly, there are two views about those who seek asylum in this country. One group of people, among whom I number myself, believes that large numbers of people seek asylum in this country because in their own countries there is violence, oppression and torture and they are fleeing for reasons of genuine fear. There is another view that many people from overseas want to share the good life of our country and they are driven by greed to come and use the asylum procedures in order to attain that aim.
The use of the word "bogus" in reference to refugees is one we need to examine very carefully. Although the noble Baroness avoided the use of the word, her department continues to use it. I have a news release dated 7th March 1996 which refers to the requirement to impose visa regulations on Kenyan nationals. The press release says:
"The action has been taken to stem the increasing number of bogus asylum claims from Kenyan nationals".
When one reads further down the press release it becomes quite clear that the increasing number is in fact very recent. In the first 10 months of 1995, 400 Kenyans claimed asylum at ports. Since November a further 833 people have done so. None of those 833 people will have yet had their cases determined. So how is it possible to say that they are bogus claims? The claims have not been heard and probably will not be heard for some months.
When I read the news release it occurred to me that there were perhaps other reasons for an increasing number of Kenyans to be coming to this country, so I went to find out something about the situation in Kenya. I discovered a document from Human Rights Watch which referred to the way in which in the early part of 1995 the human rights situation notably deteriorated in Kenya as the government launched a crackdown against human rights activists, opposition politicians and internally displaced persons. I then went to a document from the United States Department of State where I found a sentence saying:

977
"The government's human rights record in Kenya worsened in 1995. The police committed several extra judicial killings and tortured and beat detainees".
It seems much more probable that the reason for the increase in the number of applications from Kenya is the situation in that country. That is an obvious prima facie understanding of the case. But that is not my chief point. My chief point is: how can it he known at this stage, when the determinations have not been made, what is the motive and reason for the increase in applications? I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she would be prepared to reconsider the use of the word "bogus", particularly in the case to which I have just referred.
This is obviously part of a much larger argument about the reasons for people applying for asylum in this country. It would seem to me that probably we need some research on what motivates people to come to this country. An initial look at the evidence once again makes it seem probable that they come because they are driven by fear. Of the UK applications in 1995, more than half came from countries with the most serious human rights records, such as Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Algeria and Nigeria. A further 20 per cent. came from countries that have high scores in the index of rights' abuse. That does not mean that all these applicants are necessarily genuine but it suggests that many of them have experienced persecution or harassment, and it is out of a fear of that that they have fled from their own countries.
Furthermore, the evidence from the presentation of asylum cases indicates that economic motives do not necessarily stand high for a majority of asylum seekers. Home Office presenting officers, when they submit cases, frequently submit that an appellant had an economic motive, but it is very rare for a special adjudicator to make a finding that a failed asylum seeker had economic motives. If special adjudicators saw clear evidence of an economic motive, it is likely that they would record that. In fact, on rare occasions they do so. But on the majority of occasions they do not.
Moreover, Home Office research shows that a large proportion of refugees were highly qualified and from professional occupations in their home countries. That makes sense because those are the people most likely to be protesting against regimes in their own countries. They are the ones most likely to be articulate and to be involved in the political process. So it seems that the initial evidence indicates that people flee and then seek asylum not from greed but from fear.
I do not want to go through the Bill in detail. I believe that it will make accurate, clear, fair and just determination of asylum seekers' cases more problematic. I wish also to make the point that the Government's claim that so many asylum seekers are bogus overlooks the fact that many of those whose claims are not recognised in this country may well have good reasons for wanting to flee their own country.
I was recently in Colombo at the time when the bombs were going off. I was sitting in the study of a young Tamil priest. He was telling me about having to go to the local police station as all young Tamil men in
978
Colombo at that time were being rounded up and interrogated. He was able to release some of them, those whom he knew, but others had to remain for further interrogation. I said to him, "Do you feel secure in this country?" and he said "Well, I cannot travel to visit my parents, but at the moment I feel secure. However, if it reached the stage when my children were under threat, I should have to leave". As I understand it, there is no way in which that man would be treated as an asylum refugee in this country, but that is not to say that if he applied for asylum, he could be regarded as bogus. It is simply that the determinations are successful for only a fairly small, tight group of people.
I do not want to make detailed comments on the clauses, but I should like to refer particularly to Clause 1. My right reverend friend the Bishop of Bristol will be referring to Clause 8. I should like to make two points on Clause 1. The first relates to the list of white countries. I notice that the Minister included Pakistan. What matters to those who seek asylum in this country is not what other people think about their country; it is how secure they feel there. It is perfectly possible for somebody to come here from, say, Pakistan, and find that people say, "Isn't Pakistan a perfectly safe and reasonable country?" The reply may be, "Yes, of course it is—for most of the people who live there, but it is not safe for me". The asylum seeker will then say why that is the case. It may be that he is an Ahmadi, a group who are under particular threat. That person has the right to have his case determined.
The task of the asylum procedure is to determine the degree of risk for an individual in relation to his or her circumstances and in relation to the country from which he or she comes. An asylum seeker has the right to have that determination made in respect of his or her own circumstances. To put people into a group and to say that those from a particular country are unlikely to have a genuine case is to ignore their right to individual determination.
I should like to make one other point in relation to Clause 1. I should be grateful for some help from the Minister on this. I understand that one of the effects of Clause 1 is to remove the right of special adjudicators to refer a case back to the Secretary of State. It was under that power that the chief adjudicator, Judge David Pearl, referred the case of Dr. Mohammed Al-Mass' ari back to the Home Secretary. I do not hold any brief for the politics or movement represented by Dr. Al-Mass'ari, but I do believe that he has the right to have his case determined. I was interviewed on the nine o'clock News on the matter and made precisely that point. I was therefore glad to read the determination of the chief adjudicator, who stated:
"It is my view that the only way I can ensure 'the highest standards of fairness'…is to 'refer the case to the Secretary of State for reconsideration—.
The important sentence is this:
"Simply allowing the appeal would leave both the appellant and the respondent in a 'limbo' situation which I do not consider to be in the interests of the appellant or indeed in the public interest".
Can the Minister confirm that under Clause 1 that right would be removed and that in that particular case the adjudicator would either have had to make a determination that that person could not be removed to

979
the Dominican Republic or would presumably have been allowed to consider his substantive case? We have already seen the difficulty of the "limbo" situation which arises if we simply accept the general appeal, but if the substantive case is considered, surely it will lay further responsibilities on the adjudicators who, in any case, would not have sufficient access to the information to allow them to make an entirely fair adjudication? Surely that would slow down a process which we all think needs to be speeded up.
I have detailed criticisms of other aspects of the Bill, but I finish by making a general point which has already been made by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Lester of Herne Hill. What is needed is a speeding up of the determination process. A long period of determination is not helpful to asylum seekers. They want a quick determination of their case. It is helpful to those—and there may be some—who are abusing the system and who want to be allowed to remain in this country. It is in everybody's interest that the determination procedure should be as short as possible. I believe that that is the way forward, not this Bill.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am always glad to find the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon among us because he was once a much loved and highly respected vicar in my former constituency and I have always admired his sincerity. However, if I may say so, his arguments today seem somewhat unrealistic.
The right reverend Prelate congratulated my noble friend Lady Blatch on not using the word "bogus". was surprised that she did not use it. Perhaps I may explain to the right reverend Prelate that in 1995 nearly 44,000 people applied to remain in this country as seekers of asylum, as refugees. That figure compares with nearly 33,000 in 1994 and with about 22,000 in 1993. The significant point is this: in 1995 and 1994 only one-third of the applicants applied on arrival at the port, the rest did it as an afterthought. When their cases were heard, a very high proportion of those who did it as an afterthought were not granted leave to remain and only 3 per cent. of their appeals were allowed. I am sorry to have to say to the right reverend Prelate and your Lordships that a very high proportion of those cases were bogus cases.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord is aware that more of those who applied in-country rather than at a port were granted asylum.
Lord Renton: My Lords, their numbers were very much greater. That is partly the answer. If there is a further answer, I have no doubt that my noble friend Lady Blatch will be happy to give it either now or in Committee.
I am strongly in favour of the Bill. Perhaps I should confess that it brings back memories to me because as long ago as 1962 I had the responsibility of helping my kite noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, when he was Home Secretary and in another place, with the
980
piloting through another place of the first of the Commonwealth Immigrants Acts. Indeed, the 1971 Act is mainly a consolidation measure.
It is interesting to look back at the performance of the Labour Party in these matters because Labour Members voted 42 times against the 1962 Act and we all thought that they would either repeal it or considerably soften it, but they did not. Eventually, in the: 1968 Act, they strengthened it and allowed the provisions to remain. We hear the party opposite, as it always does in opposition, complaining about any kind of immigration control.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will Ihe noble Lord withdraw the words "the party opposite"? They are not merely inaccurate, they are unfair to the Cross-Benches and to the spirit of the House.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for that correction. He was fully justified in making the point. I started by saying "the Labour Party" then I carelessly referred to it as "the party opposite". There is a party opposite with which I have rather more sympathy. Indeed I have to say that I was born a Liberal, but, like the great Sir Winston Churchill, I eventually became a Conservative.
After listening to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Lester of Herne Hill, one realises that they will nearly always oppose this type of legislation, however much we may think it is in the public interest, and it is.
The Bill is necessary. I am glad to say that in this country we have, since earlier times, had a magnanimous policy, which has been referred to, of giving hospitality to people persecuted elsewhere, even though it may not always have been in the interests of our own people to admit them. We should bear in mind that it often costs money to have them here; it adds to unemployment, the housing problem and education problems. We cannot get away from that.
However, as I see it, the trouble now is twofold. First, there is so much persecution in so much of the world that the number of people trying to settle here has increased greatly. Hence the applications that 1 mentioned—nearly 44,000 last year.
The second reason is that some people come either from those countries where there is oppression or from harmless countries, who, for personal or economic reasons, want to get away from them. It is well known that immigrants sometimes come here to escape domestic or criminal liability in their own countries. They are refugees in that sense. That is well known.
Another factor is that, if people want to get away from their own countries for a genuine reason or another reason, they know that our country is the easiest country in the world in which to obtain asylum. Hence the numbers! Other Western European countries have, in recent years, tightened their asylum controls. Germany, Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Spain have all done so. As my noble friend the Minister demonstrated in her speech, the Government have a duty towards the people

981
of our country to ensure that our immigration control is not abused. We also have to face the problem of public expenditure, and the Bill attempts to deal with that.
To my mind, the Bill's provisions are inevitable and workable. I do not want to go into a great deal of detail. We will have to do that in Committee. But I must confess to some agreement with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, about the drafting of Clause 1. In my 50 years in Parliament I do not believe that I have seen a major Bill start in quite the way this Bill does in Clause 1. It will be so easy for my noble friend the Minister to ask the draftsman to have paragraph (5) of Schedule 2 of the 1993 Act rewritten so that we can all read it; so that the people who have to obey it can read it; and the people who have to administer it can read it. I hope that we shall have that matter put right in Committee.
The increased penalties in Clause 6 are done, admittedly by reference, in a way which is now conventional and acceptable. I do not believe that there is anything wrong with the drafting of Clause 6. Nor do I believe that there is anything wrong with its substance, because as time goes on, despite the Government's splendid efforts to control inflation, we have to adjust the penalties to the change in the value of money.
In my opinion the new criminal offences created by Clauses 4, 5, 7 and 8 are inevitable if the control of illegal immigrants who wish to seek asylum is to become effective. In the past 50 years, our country has generously admitted large numbers of immigrants—at least 3 million of them—and they and their descendants now form about 5 per cent. to 6 per cent. of our total population. At the same time, we are told that there must be 27 new towns of 40,000 people each, taking up more of our lovely countryside, making England even more urbanised than it is already. That is not so true of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
One could go on, and in Committee we shall have to go into these matters in detail. In my opinion the Bill is necessary. I hope that the Government succeed in getting it through your Lordships' House in a form in which it will be effective.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in a previous incarnation I was a great admirer of brevity. I do not intend to be inconsistent today. I must, first, declare an interest as the chairman of—I hastily add—a small international airline. That may be a tangential interest, but it is one that I think I should declare to your Lordships' House. Of course, as your Lordships will be aware, all carriers, by land, sea and air, are subject to the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 which introduced a fine of £1,000 per passenger, raised in 1991 by order to £2,000 per passenger.
I have no argument with the Act, apart from the odd small anomaly. What is more important is that the legislation was supposed to help reduce the numbers. The numbers mentioned today indicate that they have inexorably risen. Whether they would have risen even more had there not been the legislation is, I suspect, a
982
moot point. Having declared that interest and having tried merely to add some of the background, I should like to make it absolutely clear that I believe that in this House today, or any other day, we would never find a proponent for opposing political asylum.
The large increase in the number of applications is driven, I suspect, by three or four different events, one of which I believe has been referred to. The introduction of legislation in other countries which would have been an attractive alternative to the United Kingdom merely forced people towards the UK. It was not due to any event which occurred within the UK itself.
I fear that from the evidence I have seen that that it is a growing industry operating on an international basis. I know also from what I have seen that although there has been an increase in vigilance, there has also been an increase in criminality. That probably indicates that there is an increased economic attraction in encouraging people. There has also been an increase in the quality of forged documents. All those events make for a depressing tale.
The Government have introduced this Bill in order to keep under control a problem that might otherwise get out of control. I have only two questions to ask my noble friend. I propose to use as few facts as possible. I am sure that the debate will suffer from the surfeit of facts common to most good arguments.
Perhaps I may take a simple round figure rather than saying 3,292 as against 7,500. During the past six years the annual average number of applications, which I have downsized, has been 30,000. There have been up to 2,000 grants of application, leaving a differential of some 28,000. Taking those rough figures, my first question to the Minister is: are those applications representative of individuals or do they include the dependants? What proportion do they represent? In other words, does the annual figure represent the total number of individuals or the total number of applications?
My second question relates to the relationship between applications and what is the story at the end of the application process. In other words, how many people go home or return to the location from which they travelled to this country? I have seen no figures but I am informed that last year the figure was about 4,000. Obviously, there are many different cases, the facets of which change, that one would have to examine over a longer period of time. That is why I have taken the annual average figure of 30,000 over the past six years. An anomaly appears to exist which must be answered. That could perhaps remove some of the arguments made against the Government.
As regards the generality of the Bill, I have seen some figures that worry me. I believe that if we do not achieve a balance with other civilised countries and deal on an equal basis we will be in a position that is intolerable not only to the people of this country but to those who have come here. Furthermore, there will be intolerable conditions for people who try to come to this country. I say that because my experience is that each time an airline has to increase vigilance as regards inspecting tickets, travel documents, passports and visas, on many

983
occasions great unhappiness and inequality are imposed on customers who arc trying to travel. Those people have not been mentioned in the debate. I support the Bill.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I have a long-standing speaking engagement tonight which I have postponed until as late as possible. However, it may well be that I must leave before the end of the debate and I apologise to the House and to the Minister. I shall read carefully the report of the debate in Hansard tomorrow. When we debated three Motions regarding asylum seekers on 30th January I spoke of my personal experience as an immigrant. I do not wish to cover that ground again. I mention it only because it explains my concern about the matter. It has become obvious from that debate, and today's, that concern and compassion for asylum seekers is not limited to any one side of the House. Neither is the wish to save taxpayers' money the prerogative of any one side of the House, nor the wish to exclude economic migrants. What divides us is the way in which we distinguish between genuine asylum seekers and others.
It is not an easy matter. Apart from the problems of language and culture, immigration officers have to deal with devious people who are really economic migrants. They may be glib and articulate and have learnt how to operate the system. They may be of an industry about which the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, spoke. On the other hand, there are deeply traumatised people who have suffered terribly. They are inarticulate, terrified of officialdom and desperate. Not surprisingly, their education and background has not prepared them nor given them the resources needed to cope with this situation. Added to that are the distressing cases of unaccompanied children seeking asylum—incidentally, they are detained with adults, contrary to the Children Act—and they demand our special concern.
Dealing with people is very imperfect and therefore my hope was that the new regulation and the Bill would enable the authorities to find out the truth with the least possible chance of error in refusing entry to genuine asylum seekers. However, the main purpose of the Bill is to deal with abusive claims quickly but not necessarily to differentiate between genuine and abusive claims. My concern, therefore, is with the first part of the Bill regarding entry, specifically Clauses 1, 2 and 3 which deal with the fast track mechanism and the rights of appeal.
I shall not deal with the other matters concerning refugees once they are here; for instance, the difficulties which people have in supporting themselves, the risk of criminalising those who give legitimate advice, or the members of the family community or Churches who give support. Neither shall I deal with those who employ immigrants but are unable to verify whether or not they are illegal. All that would undoubtedly damage race relations, in spite of the proposed procedure mentioned by the Minister.
I welcome the Government's intention to reduce the time taken to resolve appeals because those applying for asylum, in order to circumvent immigration controls, are
984
far less likely to do so if an appeal can be resolved in one or two months instead of up to 19 or 20 months, which has been the case in the past. As the Minister said, of course it is much more difficult to expel people after all that time.
However, I too have a number of concerns about the speeded-up appeals procedure. First, will the asylum seeker have the facilities to organise an appeal? I understand that there are large numbers of bogus advisers but I do not understand why the Minister will not introduce a registration scheme. Sadly, it is impossible for us to judge the procedure because no draft of the actual rules has been published. I wonder why the Government will not publish those rules. None of us wishes to be in the position where we have approved tighter regulations yet removed the safeguards which result in genuine refugees being refused admission; and this reduction in numbers is, in turn, taken by the Government as proof of the success of the new system.
Yet, under the existing rules, a fast track appeal has to be lodged within 10 working days and the hearing must be within seven working days. That is fine. If those limits are in the new rules, will the facilities announced by the Minister be of a sufficiently high standard for both the asylum seeker and the Government to resolve appeals in that short time? It may be necessary to spend even more money on the fast track system in order to reduce the time that people spend here. Are the Government willing to do that? I hole that they are. Eliminating the safeguards by speeding up the system but denying the asylum seeker the means of using it would be a gross denial of natural justice.
My next concern is the white list. The Minister will have seen the briefing from Conservative Central Office dated 21st February. It suggests that there should be three criteria for a country being on the list: first, that it generates a significant number of asylum applications; secondly, that a very high proportion of applications from that country proved to be unfounded; and thirdly, in general there is no serious risk of persecution.
First, the order is wrong. The number of cases generated by a country is irrelevant. What is relevant is the human rights situation in that country. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh implied, one does not have to be a professor of history like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to know that persecution or denial of human rights is never general; it is usually particular. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon told us that persecution is directed at specific minority groups—ethnic, social or political enemies. All that may be going on in the absence of general persecution. Those criteria seem to be most inappropriate. Will the Minister tell us what the criteria will be?
Then there are the safeguards concerning an applicant who arrives via a transit country. Asylum seekers do not travel like businessmen. They are not in a position to take a convenient, direct flight. Indeed, I should be suspicious of an asylum seeker who had done so. However, Clause 3 allows an immigration officer to return an asylum seeker to a third country provided that it is deemed safe and any appeal is then made from that country.

985
If an out-of-country appeal is successful, does that give an automatic right to enter the United Kingdom? That is unclear. If it does not, that is all rather meaningless. We can all imagine the practical problems of appealing from a third country, even if it is a European Union country. I should like the Minister to tell the House what safeguards exist to ensure that that third country rule will not be used as an easy option just to keep down the numbers.
It is obvious that a large part of the Bill is designed to keep down the numbers. Certainly, some of the asylum applications are designed to circumvent immigration controls or, indeed, avoid deportation. But the Government must acknowledge that much of that results from the delays in processing. I welcome the speeding up of the process to improve the efficiency but not by removing safeguards. As the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees noted, regarding the new measures in Europe:
"these new measures make it as difficult for genuine refugees to enter the process as those who are not".
It is our duty to see that every safeguard possible is in place because refusing entry to a genuine asylum seeker is rather like capital punishment: there may be no opportunity to rectify the mistake.
5.43 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I believe that it is agreed on all sides of the House that our country has a long-standing reputation for harbouring those who have been or are in danger of being persecuted in their countries of origin. We all agree with that. That is not in doubt. I believe that that reputation cannot be tainted by the provisions of the Bill before your Lordships.
Our race relations, both in policy and in practice, are held in very high regard by our fellow Europeans and I should like to mention that in debates and reports which come before the European Parliament, the United Kingdom has always been singled out as one of those countries with the highest reputation for the best treatment of all those who are legally within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.
The provisions of the Bill in no way undermine that view. The Government have produced legislation which must be seen to be fair—and it is—and to improve and ensure effective immigration control and to speed up the procedures. I have no doubt that during the later stages of the Bill, there will be discussion on the detailed provisions of the Bill which my noble friend Lady Blatch explained so ably to the House this afternoon.
But governments have duties and obligations to their citizens, whatever their colour or race, to control public expenditure and to cut it where it is excessive or inappropriate. That is a duty on any government, whichever party is in power. Of course, we must also observe our international legal obligations. Again, that applies to any party in government. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has already outlined some of
986
the earlier provisions in regard to, in particular, human rights aspects of immigration control during the past 30 or 40 years. I am grateful to him for that.
One of the problems to be faced is the excessive number of asylum seekers of whom a good many applications are apparently manifestly unfounded and are doing harm and impeding fair treatment for those who are genuine asylum seekers. That is one reason why I support the Bill and for that reason alone, the Bill is justified. I understand that there are still more than 80,000 asylum seekers who have not yet had their cases decided. Probably at least one half of those will not be genuine. I know that sometimes the Government's figures are questioned but I should like to quote some figures that I have dated 3rd February from Agence Europ with which, I am sure your Lordships will agree, the Government have no close interconnection. Page 9 of that edition states:
"The number of asylum seekers registered in the European Union in the first nine months of 1995 continued to decline after the 1994 drop in all member states except in the United Kingdom".
Those figures are from the EC Statistics Office, from EUROSTAT, and are in a document entitled Population and Social Conditions No. 1 1996. Therefore, those figures do not come from a government department.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Does she agree that it is a rather unusual argument to say that the fact that there are so many applications or appeals pending is an argument for taking away rights? After all, there are many other areas of life, including applications for judicial review, where there is an absolute mountain of cases which is increasing all the time, but no one suggests that it would be fair to limit the rights of those who then become eligible.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention because I do not agree with him that human rights are being removed from asylum seekers. The point of the Bill is to enable the cases of genuine asylum seekers to be dealt with more quickly.
I have given notice to my noble friend that I should be raising this matter. If it is practical or possible, we should increase the figure of £37 million for extra staff to enable the backlog of cases to be dealt with even more speedily. I believe that the provisions of the Bill are absolutely necessary but I believe that we need more financing and a more speedy settlement of the procedures which we shall be debating in the next few weeks.
If the Government could find that money to pay more staff—and if they can find adequately trained people to do that specialist work—there would be an advantage in financial terms, although that is not the only criterion to be considered. It would lead to greater economies in relation to expenditure on benefits, use of public services including health, education and other services.
I know that the Government have a duty to cut public expenditure. But in this particular regard, I believe that it is a case of being penny wise and pound foolish. If more money could be found now, future expenditure would be considerably less.

987
Secondly, it is also the task of the Government to ensure that justice is done to whoever is within the United Kingdom jurisdiction, even in the case of approving a white list of countries in the procedures set out in the Bill. There cannot be collective expulsions or deportations but each case must be considered on its merits in accordance with the provisions of the UN convention on the status of refugees. Will my noble friend confirm that each case is dealt with individually? Some noble Lords have sought to criticise the Bill but I believe that they may misread Clause 1. I believe that my noble friend should explain that when she winds up the debate.
In view of the criticisms of the policy in relation to asylum seekers who are not genuine asylum seekers and who delay their appeal for asylum several months after being in the United Kingdom, it is worth recalling that Article 31 of the UN convention on the status of refugees states quite clearly:
"The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorisation provided"—
and I emphasise the word "provided"—
"they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence".
That is one of the problems that has been faced by the Government. So many of the so-called manifestly unfounded asylum seekers are claiming to have been, say, students for six months or have come in through racketeer procedures to do all sorts of things. Then, after a considerable time, they make an appeal for asylum. Of course, I quite understand the situation in certain countries where there has been a change as regards the government's dealing with certain individuals or groups of people. I believe that that is provided for in the Bill. Where someone has come from a safe country where the change has taken place with the behaviour of the government or, as I say, the authorities, then that case will be considered in a different light.
Thirdly, legitimate concern has been expressed about the provisions of Clause 8 which lays a responsibility on employers to identify illegal immigrants. In a letter received today from the CBI it is understood that it would not be opposed to the measures proposed if,
"no more than an initial check is required on documents containing national insurance numbers, and that appropriate guidance is given to employers".
In any case, is that not the procedure required for any new employee? It is also hoped that those inspectors called upon to check the role of employers will take an understanding and helpful attitude and not act in a way which could impose such strictures on employers which could imperil good race relations in their firms. The way that enforcement procedures are handled is most important. Indeed, sometimes the attitudes are more important than the actual legislation.
I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister could confirm the truth or otherwise—and I have given my noble friend notice of this question; and it was raised in another place—of the claim that there are 20 million excessive insurance numbers available which could lead
988
people to believe that they are forgeries or false documents. Can my noble friend give some indication as to the truth of that and, indeed, say how such a problem would be dealt with?
Fourthly, there is a need for close co-operation with other European Union member states to deal with a problem which has been overwhelming most states. Many have already adopted stricter provisions and procedures to deal with increasing numbers of asylum seekers. Measures have been aimed to reduce the number of asylum applications to be considered by the introduction of new procedures for the receivability of new applications. Measures have also aimed at reducing the time needed for the examination of asylum applications, including rapid procedure for manifestly unfounded applications and the implementation of the third country principle. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, knows better than anyone else, all those countries are in fact high contracting parties of the European Convention on Human Rights. I believe that all the rapid procedures that have been introduced are in accordance with the human rights provisions both in the convention and in the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees. It may be of interest to your Lordships to know that even citizens from other European Union member states do not have an unqualified right to reside in another member state as and when they wish to do so. That was apparent from a recent case reported in The Times.
I should also like to comment briefly on the Dublin Convention. The United Kingdom was one of the first signatories to that convention which determines the state responsible for examining appeals. Most states have already introduced the necessary legislation even before the entry into force of the convention. The convention asserts the general principle which I know the Government support—indeed, as one of the signatories, they were bound to do so—that the first country of asylum should normally be responsible for considering an asylum seeker's claim. There is nothing in that particular provision which constitutes a violation of human rights of any individual. The convention was drawn up for the benefit of all the member states of the Community. As I said, they are all high contracting parties to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The examination of applications for asylum is the exclusive responsibility of the authorities of the member states, as well as the determination of "safe third countries". That was a reply from the Commission to a recent question posed by a member of the European Parliament which is worth remembering.
I was rather surprised by the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I was going to say somewhat "acid" remarks, but that is not a very polite word. I should perhaps use a more triumphant word as used by the noble Lord when he said that many of the provisions come from the European Union. Of course they do. Under Title VI covering Justice and Home Affairs of the Maastricht Treaty, asylum and immigration is one of the subjects on which member states should co-operate. I welcome the fact that the Government have seen fit to work with other member states of the European Union when dealing precisely

989
with the problem, which is a European problem and one which cannot be confined only to our country. I see that the noble Lord wishes to respond. I give way.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am much obliged. I was not objecting to any of that. I was objecting to the secrecy with which it was done; the fact that it is not acknowledged in the way in which the Bill has been introduced; and the fact that the Home Secretary claims to his party that those policies are being made in Britain and not in Brussels.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I should be delighted if they are made in this country and not in Brussels. Surely that co-operation is one to which the United Kingdom has contributed. Further, as the noble Lord mentioned, all the provisions that he chose to single out are contained in resolutions and recommendations and are not legally binding. It is the Government who have decided to put in this Bill, in this House and in this Parliament provisions which they have agreed to but which are not legally binding on any of the other member states. However, in their common interest and their common purpose, they have also seen fit to ensure that they are useful and helpful provisions which do not violate the human rights of people who are seeking asylum in the countries within the European Union. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend and to the Government for the fact that they have adopted those provisions and put them in the Bill.
Another point which has been extremely helpful is the recommendation by European Union member states for having a proper definition of a refugee. That has been agreed as being,
"a person with a well-founded fear of persecution".
I believe that we all agree to that definition. Indeed, we should be grateful for the fact that it will be adopted in United Kingdom law as it will also be adopted in the law of other member states.
Those are the people whose rights and interests this Bill is determined to protect. The Bill will also identify those who benefit from protection and benefits when they are not entitled to do so. So far as concerns legal immigrants, the protection of their human rights is guaranteed. In fact, the UN Declaration on the rights of non-citizens adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1985 was largely based on a draft proposal prepared by a Conservative Government in 1973. Perhaps I may say that I was proud enough to be the special rapporteur on that subject and introduced that declaration to the UN General Assembly in December 1985.
The Labour Party considers that the Bill will, or could, harm race relations. I believe that that is totally unjustified. Those in the Labour Party know that they have no valid argument against the proposed provisions. They could possibly as regards the detail; but the principle must be accepted. They know that, if they were ever to be in government, they would be faced with the same problem and that they would either have to introduce similar if not identical provisions, especially as some of them are shared with our European Union member state neighbours, or else allow a massive influx
990
of illegal immigrants. That would do infinite harm to those who, over the years, we have welcomed to this country and who have made their own valuable contribution to our general well-being and prosperity.
5.59 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I am afraid that I, too, must begin with an apology. There is much talking going on in London tonight. I have a speaking engagement that I made long before I expected to be a Member of this House and, therefore, I shall not be able to present at the conclusion of the debate. I am glad that I am able to speak in this debate because I spent three of the most formative years of my life teaching in Africa. There I saw at first hand the problems that lie at the root of this Bill; namely, political persecution and economic deprivation. Those problems are easy to analyse but solutions to them are hard to find. Listening to the debate this afternoon, I feel that there are issues on which we might have different interpretations, but we accept that they are the issues with which we have to deal. It is unanimously agreed in this House that we all want to provide refuge to genuine asylum seekers; that is, individuals who are suffering political persecution.
We all realise—although we might phrase it in different ways—that there are many economic migrants fleeing poverty and deprivation who pose as political asylum seekers. I think the right reverend Prelate was a little unfair to say it is greed that drives them. If one is not a right reverend Prelate, or a noble Lord, but a small farmer in East Africa, or on the sub-continent, or in Poland, Romania or Bulgaria, surprisingly western Europe seems a more attractive proposition. It is not a matter of greed but a genuine desire to find what they perceive to be a better life.
I agree with what some noble Lords said earlier; namely, that great benefit has come to this country from many who sought to flee economic deprivation. As a former high master of St. Paul's School in London, I can speak of the contribution of Jewish pupils from that school. I refer to uranium and the reactor. However, in spite of all that, we know that from the turn of this century every government in the developed world have put restrictions on the entry of economic migrants. The aliens Act of 1905 was the first such measure in England, but there were quotas in the United States and a whole series of legislative measures which followed the need to maintain social harmony by not allowing the free movement into a country of economic migrants.
We all realise that if we ignore what is happening in western Europe, more economic migrants will come to this country. I need not dwell on the many regulations that have been introduced in France, Germany, the Netherlands and so on. All of those are more restrictive than those that we have at present. There can be no doubt that if we ignore those rules, many more migrants will come to this country. We must in some sense hear in mind these rules. We cannot ignore them. Let me put it more crudely. I suggest that this House has had two solutions put before it this afternoon. One of those is the solution suggested in the Bill which was introduced by my noble friend the Minister. The other is the one that

991
has been suggested by many noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate, which is to put more resources into the processing of immigration applications so that they can be processed more quickly.
Neither solution denies the facts that we shall have to reduce the number of immigrants and that many of them are here without cause. I suggest to the House that neither solution constitutes a perfect moral solution. Only the right reverend Prelate proposed something that approaches near moral perfection. His interpretation of political persecution would cover almost any discontent that human beings feel. If we followed his suggestion, the discontented carpenter in Nairobi would have as much validity as a political refugee amid Saddam Hussein's Iraq. But for the rest we have to face the fact that we are dealing with shades of grey, and neither of the options suggested will provide the perfect solution.
I need not add to the criticisms which many noble Lords have levelled at the Bill from a moral position. I refer to the right reverend Prelate and to many others. However, I suggest there is a moral dilemma as regards the solution which proposes an immense increase in the economic resources devoted to processing immigrants' asylum applications. We are in a society which is thin on resources. Such a policy would produce jealousy in our society. Human beings are like that. They would be jealous and, in a crude way, they would declare that resources are being given to people who only want to escape poverty in their own country, but that we have poverty in this country which should he tackled. I suggest that that jealousy would work against the interests of the people we are trying to help; namely, those seeking political asylum. In the popular mind the asylum seekers would be grouped with those whom the public regard—possibly wrongly—as scroungers on the state. Therefore the perfect moral state of admitting everyone and processing their applications more quickly might produce disadvantages for others. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, shakes his head. Perhaps he has a better knowledge of morals than the rest of us.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly would not claim a better knowledge of morals than the noble Lord. However, the alternative to his proposition is not admitting everyone and processing their applications better; it is an alternative whereby one still keeps strict and firm controls, but reduces the incentive to apply for asylum in that an application for asylum automatically brings the right to stay during the period of the application and the appeal. That time is too long.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I can only say to that what I have said before. The noble Lord is ignoring what is happening in our neighbouring countries. Part of the problem is that we live in a world of imperfection. In a world of imperfection we face the impossibility of doing the ideal thing. What is right from one point of view is wrong from another. Pay Peter and you deprive Paul. In the end we seem to be left with only common sense with which to decide these complicated moral issues. Whatever we decide, it seems wrong in some way. Our decision may be good for someone but it may injure someone else. All we can try to do is to find the least hurtful solution. I suggest that
992
this Bill offers the least hurtful solution. I cannot agree that to adopt processes which are less strict than those of our Continental neighbours will not produce jealousy among the people in England. The Bill attempts to help asylum seekers by reducing the flow of economic migrants into this country. If we try to process their applications more quickly and spend more money in doing so, that will result in jealousy among our own people.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Will he indicate which clause of the Bill distinguishes between genuine refugees and economic migrants, and how it does so?
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, there is not a clause in the Bill which makes that distinction, because, as has emerged in this debate, it is difficult to make that distinction. However, history shows us that a person suffering genuine political persecution will be accepted. I believe that genuine persecution will be revealed under the appeals procedure proposed in the Bill. Noble Lords will have noted the large numbers of asylum seekers who are arriving from the countries of eastern Europe in which there is little, if any, political persecution. I cite Poland as one example. I realise there is a problem in this area which this Bill is designed to try to tackle.
In 1905 Winston Churchill revised the aliens Act which had first been proposed in 1904. He was worried about this as he was a Member of a Liberal Administration, and Home Secretary in it. As noble Lords know, the aliens Act restricted the entry of immigrants from eastern Europe and demanded that they had economic resources to sustain them when they arrived in England. Winston Churchill addressed a Jewish delegation that arrived—I am sure my noble friend the Minister would do the same—and said,
"As regards the present Act, its success depends on administration, whether it is an odious Act or one tempered with leniency".
I think that this Bill, administered with leniency, would solve many of the problems which trouble us at the moment.
6.9 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, had to say. I began by agreeing very much with what he presented to the House. In particular, I thought that he deserved a great deal of attention from us in outlining the way in which many people have reasonable motives for being economic refugees, although I accept that this country, being densely crowded, cannot accept all those who are economic refugees.
However, I believe it is important to mention, in order to remedy a kind of demonisation of economic refugees, that the United States was built up almost entirely by economic refugees. The same is true of the new Australia. Therefore, we need to make a distinction when we talk about refugees and asylum seekers.

993
Economic refugees are often the most enterprising members of their societies. Therefore, it is with some sorrow that I recognise that we cannot accept them.
There is a second group of refugees, to whom a number of noble Lords have referred. All of us know them, especially those of us who, like the Minister, have served at the Home Office. Those are the disreputable people who try to exploit the misery of others, who run rackets in order to try to bring in illegal immigrants, and who are in every possible sense those whom we should eschew from our company. We should certainly seek, in the Bill and its predecessors, to stop them from exploiting the good will and humanity of other people.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. As I understand it, the Bill deals only with those seeking asylum on political grounds. It does not prohibit the entry of economic refugees. I agree entirely that our country has benefited enormously from refugees who have come here for economic reasons. Perhaps my noble friend will confirm the point when she winds up, but I can find nothing in the Bill which prohibits economic refugees from coming to this country.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I respond to the noble Baroness by saying that in my earlier remarks I did not refer only to the Bill but to the whole corpus of immigration legislation. That clearly indicates that there is a limit on the number of vouchers which are made available for those seeking work in this country and whom I broadly define as economic refugees. I accept the distinction, but I did not make that remark in relation to this Bill.
I turn now to the third group of refugees, for whom I believe this House has the gravest responsibility. I refer to those who are surely among the people we should most honour, respect and attempt to protect. Those are the people who seek asylum because, in their own countries, they have attempted to uphold democratic institutions, opposed the exploitation of minorities and attempted to live by those very ideals and principles that we in this House hold dear and which this country has traditionally always attempted to uphold. It is precisely because many of us on these Benches fear a confusion between those refugees and those who should rightly be barred that we are looking at this Bill with such care. I fear that the Bill runs together those two sets of asylum seekers and refugees in ways which are, to me at least, very disturbing.
I say that, again, in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, said about the considerable debt that this country owes to its refugees. All of us who were brought up in my generation or the generation of my parents have to live with a sense of guilt about the Jewish refugees whom we did not accept. I have to live with a sense of guilt about the decision of a Government of which I was a Member not to accept the East African refugees who were threatened with the loss of their property and possible death by someone we now know to have been a paranoic dictator, Idi Amin. My noble friend Lord Lester referred to that. It is precisely such
994
cases to which we must be sensitive, or all of us will live with the shame of having failed to take the steps which are necessary to protect such people.
It is people such as those who are currently refugees from Nigeria, many of whom are suffering because of their insistence on worshipping in the Christian religion, or because they insist that democracy should come to Nigeria, whom we have to consider as genuine, not bogus, refugees. This morning I was at a meeting chaired by Senator Mitchell, the former Speaker of the US Senate. One of the issues that we considered at that meeting was the growing number of out-of-hand executions now taking place in Nigeria without any previous trial, and the growing evidence of torture in that country.
Therefore, when considering the Bill in Committee, I hope that we shall make that distinction, in order to protect those who are genuine refugees and asylum seekers and who try very hard to uphold the ideals which we claim are closest to our heart.
I should like to say a few words about one or two of the clauses and say why I share the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Lester and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about some of the issues. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will help us by responding to those questions and others raised by many other noble Lords.
My first point concerns the white list. I have worked in both Romania and Bulgaria as recently as last year, attempting to help to build democratic institutions on behalf of an institution based at Harvard University called Project Liberty, of which I am director. Incidentally, from time to time it has the support, among others, of our own Overseas Development Administration.
It would be difficult to say that Romania is a safe country. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, said, it is a safe country for those who belong to the majority community. It is a profoundly unsafe country for those who belong to the Roma minority, many of whom have been detained and even tortured in modern Romania. The same could be said, with perhaps a little less force, about Bulgaria.
The right reverend Prelate referred to Pakistan, where as well as the Ahmadi people, many Christian worshippers suffer considerable persecution. Regrettably, the same could be said about the treatment of some Kashmiris by the Government of India, a government which in many respects I hold in high esteem for maintaining democracy against such odds. As many noble Lords will concede, in Kashmir the treatment of some activists who are not involved in any violent or illegal activities, which in my book puts them in a different category, has been very hard to regard as compatible with what we consider to be basic human rights. I say that with regret, because I have the greatest respect for the Republic of India in many ways.
I believe that the white list should be subject to the affirmative procedure. Speaking for myself, I should feel much happier if that affirmative procedure were extended to any substantial additions to that white list, not merely once but on subsequent occasions, for I fear what could happen.

995
Secondly, I am extremely worried about the special fast-track procedure applied to those who arrive without passports. Indeed, as one or two noble Lords have already pointed out, in the worst countries of all in terms of outrages against human rights one simply cannot hope to get legal papers in order to escape from them. I am sorry to return to Nigeria, but trying to get legal papers to leave Nigeria, if one happens to be one of those who have raised their voices against the excesses of the present government, is absolutely hopeless. It would be putting one's head straight into a noose to try to do so. We must be realistic. I am sure that noble Lords will agree with me about these matters. Not travelling with a passport is often a sign, not of dishonesty, but of being in the most extreme conditions of all.
Thirdly, I share the concern of noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, about the criminalisation of three new areas. We are all concerned about the level of crime but one of the most dangerous ways to increase it is to criminalise activities by decent citizens. Three such activities concern me. The first is employers who fail to make apparently adequate checks of their employees. That might often include employers who, with the greatest good will, are willing to give a chance to those who are down on their luck. I hope that the Government will be much more explicit than the Bill about exactly what employers are required to do. Incidentally, it would be strongly in line with their own views and policies to do so.
The second activity I am troubled about is the criminalisation, under Clause 5, of those who give advice to people seeking asylum. Again, in the world of reality we know that if you are a confused and tortured human being who does not speak English well your only hope of understanding how Home Office procedures work is by turning to someone who can, in good faith, give advice. I have already said that I have no time for crooked advisers who exploit immigrants, but those from genuine legal firms, from the Churches and other organisations, must be permitted to do their job legally. At present, the Bill's language is fuzzy. For example, would a partner in a legal firm be covered because he or she is not strictly an employee? May we have a list of bona fide organisations so that men and women working for the Churches or bodies like the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants know that they are accepted as behaving legally by the government of the day? That is the minimum requirement for decent people who try to help others who desperately need that help.
The third point of deep concern is the substantial additional extension of the Home Secretary's powers to act by order. As I have come to appreciate, it is particularly true of this House that we all hold as profoundly precious the basic concept of the accountability of the Executive to Parliament and, through Parliament, to the people. Yet in the Bill there is the power by order to extend the group of so-called immigrants, or others, who will not be affected by the employment provisions. That is to be done by order. I believe subject only to negative resolution. In the Bill there is the power by order of the Home Secretary to
996
decide what are the prescribed conditions for child benefit and what are not. That is an issue of extreme importance and accountability to the Houses of Parliament. There is the power by order on the part of the Home Secretary to decide what assistance, if any, shall be given to the homeless.
It is no reflection on either this Home Secretary or his predecessors that the steadily extending powers of the Executive to act by prerogative and without full discussion and consultation with Parliament are a disturbing feature of our unwritten constitution and the way in which it is being eroded at present.
I conclude by asking the Minister a series of questions. I do not expect her to respond tonight because I fully understand that it would be too much to ask. Like other noble Lords, I shall have to be away from the House for an hour or two. I have already told those at my unbreakable engagement, "You've got to get the fastest car possible to get me back in time to hear the wind-up speeches". I cannot promise to make it but I intend to try.
I believe that this is one of the most significant and important Bills we are likely to discuss in this Session of Parliament. It is the most significant and important, not because it will affect more citizens than any other Bill but because, as Winston Churchill once said about the test of a society: society is tested by how it treats those who are the most deprived and disadvantaged within it. By that test, we shall be judged.
6.24 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of the Bill. Britain has for centuries been a safe haven for those genuinely fleeing persecution, torture or worse in their own countries. In the 16th century we gave refuge to the Huguenots fleeing persecution in France. In the 19th century and in the earlier part of this century Jews from eastern Europe came to Britain to escape first the pogroms and then the Nazis. More recently, Britain was the first European Union country to respond to the UN's latest call to take in more Bosnian refugees fleeing murder, rape and torture in the former Yugoslavia.
Members of this House are well aware of our nation's proud tradition of providing a haven for those fleeing persecution. Indeed, we glean much satisfaction from it. Genuine refugees come to Britain because it is a beacon of liberty and because our democratic institutions respect human life and dignity. I am sure that the Government will do nothing to jeopardise that proud tradition. The question, however, is how we go about it and how we ensure that our asylum procedures are fair and not hindered by widespread abuse. The number of asylum claims in this country is fast rising and there is a great deal of evidence that the system is being abused by undeserving claimants. Perhaps I may refer to the figures again. Last year, 43,965 applications were made for asylum in this country compared with 32,830 in 1994. That is an increase of 34 pent.
Even if all the applications were genuine—which is certainly not the case—it would be a considerable problem. But the fact is that the vast majority of asylum

997
seekers are bogus. They have not come to Britain in search of sanctuary from persecution, but in pursuit of a materially better life. That is by nobody's definition suitable grounds for granting asylum. Last year the Home Office found only 5 per cent. of claimants to he genuine refugees. It deemed 79 per cent. of cases bogus.
Abuse of the system not only harms the efficiency of the immigration department to process claims quickly; it is flagrantly unfair to genuine refugees who have to wait in line with the undeserving because their claims are clogged up in the system. Genuine refugees often arrive in a traumatised state. They have undergone a great deal of anguish and suffering. The last thing they need when they arrive here is to have to wait for months on end in a bureaucratic log jam as claims are dealt with by overworked officials.
Our present asylum system is wide open to abuse. Many asylum seekers enter Britain as students, tourists and businessmen on the understanding that they can support themselves while they are here. They claim asylum often just before their visas expire or before they are about to be deported. One example I wish to bring to your Lordships' attention is the case of a Ghanaian who arrived in the UK as a visitor in 1988. He stayed on long after his initial visitor's visa had expired and was served with a deportation order in August 1994 from which he absconded. The day before he was due to be removed, in June 1995, he claimed asylum.
In 1994, 3,800 asylum seekers arrived in Britain without documents. I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said. However, some applicants destroyed their documents and then claimed that they were from more dangerous countries than was actually the case in order to increase their chances of success. I welcome the Bill's proposal to fast-track the appeals of asylum applicants who, without a reasonable explanation, come here lacking a genuine passport.
Last year, 1,800 Ghanaians applied for asylum here, 99 per cent. of whom were rejected outright. In 1994 the immigration department rejected 99 per cent. of cases from Poland and Romania. It is clear therefore that some countries where there is no serious risk of persecution produce vast numbers of bogus asylum claims.
I welcome the fact that Clause I will allow the Home Secretary to do as Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland have done and designate certain countries where no serious risk of persecution arises. It is only right that claimants from countries on the designated list should face a rebuttable presumption that they are undeserving cases.
The Opposition parties have refused to look objectively at the issue of rising asylum claims. They find it difficult even to accept that there is a problem of abuse in our asylum system. By refusing to support the Bill, they signal that they are unwilling to take firm action to deal with the difficulties in our asylum system.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the noble Baroness allow me to intervene? I hope she will forgive me but her last remarks seem a little unfair.
998
On this side we have repeated that we recognise that there are problems and that some people try to come in improperly and illegally. We simply plead that there are also very genuine cases which need to be taken into account in the Bill.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I accept what the noble Baroness says. But the message that comes over both in this House and in the other place is that the Opposition parties do not face up to the facts. I am delighted to hear what the noble Baroness says.
Critics of the Bill accuse the Government of playing the policies of race for electoral purposes. That is not only wrong; it is offensive. The Government are tackling a legitimate problem. If we were to leave the abuses of our immigration and asylum system unchecked, the numbers of asylum seekers would continue to grow at an unmanageable rate. That would be both extremely costly to the British taxpayer and detrimental to harmonious race relations.
Throughout western Europe, asylum procedures have been tightened. As a result asylum applications have fallen. Last year, as we heard from my noble friend Lady Elles, asylum claims fell by 10 per cent. in western Europe but rose in Britain by 33 per cent. I do not hear allegations against formerly socialist Spain, social democrat Denmark and Finland or Christian Democrat Germany or Holland that by tightening their immigration rules they are practising the politics of race. The German Government, to take one example, have not introduced a designated list in order to win votes. They introduced the list so that German immigration officials could sift out asylum seekers abusing the system more effectively and tackle what has been an immense problem for Germany.
Britain has good race relations. We on this side of the House will do nothing to jeopardise those good relations. However, when there are high levels of immigration and increasing numbers of bogus asylum seekers or indeed illegal immigrants are working without a permit, all that is fostered is resentment and prejudice. If you have been on a waiting list for a council house for months, and sometimes years, and a bogus asylum seeker gets a council property before you do, you naturally feel unfairly treated.
The lesson from Europe is clear. Soft immigration policies and consequent rising immigration have led to the growth of nasty, far Right parties, such as Le Pen's National Front in France, Hitler's Freedom Party in Austria or—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness's remark about nasty, far Right parties. But does she agree that nasty, far Right parties are not dealt with by appeasement?
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I agree completely. That is why the Government want to do something about the illegal abuse of our asylum laws.
Over the past 17 years we in Britain have consistently had a firm but fair immigration policy. That has served to keep immigration within manageable limits and has preserved good social relations within ethnic groups.

999
I commend the Bill to the House. I believe it will give immigration officials the powers they need to tackle the abuse in the system. It will benefit genuine refugees and serve to keep our race relations harmonious. For those reasons, I support the Bill.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, it seems to me to be a disproportionate outlay of bureaucratic effort and public money for 800 officials to be at work processing the applications of asylum seekers for what has been estimated as up to £500 million a year to be spent in benefits on those waiting for their cases to be heard when only 1 per cent. will be accepted, as in the case of Poland and Romania, 2 per cent., as in the case of Ghana, and well under 10 per cent. overall, including successful appeals.
It is not as if a wave of persecution had swept across the world. On the contrary, one of history's greatest persecutors, the Communist Party, has only recently been swept from power in dozens of countries, including many from whom today's asylum seekers are now for the first time free to come to Britain and make implicit accusations against the governments of their home countries which are probably for the first time in decades unjustified.
I have no doubt at all that something needs to be done. Indeed, Mr. Jack Straw, the Shadow Home Secretary, stated at Third Reading in another place that no one doubted the need to tackle the problem of bogus asylum seekers and what was at issue was how it should be done.
Despite the 1993 Act, the problem, as my noble friend the Minister explained to the House, gets worse. There is a rising backlog of cases awaiting determination, now standing at 84,000. At the rate decisions were taken in the last year for which we have figures-25,000 in a year—they would take over three years to process. With benefits available, the longer the queue the greater the attraction for many applicants. The fact that other countries in the same position as ourselves—France, Germany and the Netherlands—have taken corrective action, intensifies the attractions of the country that has not.
And those attractions may be added to by the substantial, though falling, number of those seeking asylum who are granted exceptional leave to remain. For that, in some eyes, will add to the success rate of asylum seekers. It may be the case that, if the Government succeed in bringing down the number in the queue, there will be less need in many cases to grant exceptional leave to remain. I shall be grateful if my noble friend the Minister, in winding up, finds herself able to comment on that speculation.
The measures the Government are taking are very selective and discriminating. The Government have tried with great care to deal with the identified problem without offending the principles and our traditions of hospitality and humanity. But the judgment is very difficult to make, as the fact that we have to have this Act so soon after the 1993 Act proves. Time will show whether these measures are adequate.
1000
From some quarters the Government have been accused of being too eager to legislate. If anything, they have been too reluctant. This country has acted late, after other countries; and our first efforts have not been strong enough.
Of course we should play our part, as so many noble Lords said, when there is persecution abroad, as we did when persecution took place in the France of Catharine de Medici and Louis XIV, in late 19th century Czarist Russia and in Hitler's Germany.
I have heard it asserted that the Government have been mean-spirited in their immigration policy, for example in the numbers that we have taken from the former Yugoslavia compared to those taken by other countries.
We all have our special ties and responsibilities. For example, we never closed our open frontier with the Republic of Ireland when that country became independent, even after we had introduced the first controls on Commonwealth immigration in 1962. It was a remarkable phenomenon reflecting our unique relationship with that country. In 1966, not long before both our countries joined the European Community, there were three-quarters of a million people resident in this country who had been born in Ireland.
Our special ties with the Commonwealth are also strongly reflected in our immigration record. By the time restrictions came to be imposed under the 1962 Commonwealth Immigration Act, around three-quarters of a million new Commonwealth immigrants had arrived in this country. Still today some 50 per cent. of acceptances for settlement come from Commonwealth—predominantly new Commonwealth—countries. Also of course, there is the shadow of Hong Kong for whose population or elements of it we may find ourselves at any time having to make some form of special arrangement.
We are not free to take in everyone or anyone, even those who we think would be the greatest asset to our country. We are bound by obligations which derive from our past.
I do not expect that any possible future Labour Government would repeal this legislation, despite what the Labour Party says today. Like my noble friend Lord Renton, I look back for evidence on the way in which the Labour Government accepted and then extended the 1962 Commonwealth Immigration Act. In a similar way, the Liberal Government which came to power in 1906 (one has to go further back to find an example of similar behaviour by a Liberal Government), having violently objected to the Balfour Government's aliens Act of the previous year, referred to by my noble friend Lord Pilkington of Oxenford—an Act which for the first time brought to an end the open door liberal policies on immigration which had persisted for most of the 19th century—once in power, not simply kept the legislation but extended it, eventually, when the 1914 war came, introducing in a draconian manner controls on alien immigration which have largely survived to this day. So I do not believe that any party behaves much worse than any other or even very differently from another, once it finds itself in power and having to deal with the kind of problems which the Government face today.

1001
The Bill cannot hope to foresee every eventuality. We shall keep returning to the subject, I have no doubt. Certainly I do not believe that any final tidying up is possible. As I said, I hope that we shall always maintain our tradition of asylum. I certainly do not believe that either our tradition or our reputation has been put under any threat by this cautious, necessary and responsible Bill.
6.42 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, in a century which may well be characterised by the unprecedented migration of hundreds of millions of people and at a time when it is thought that there are around 20 million refugees in the world we are talking about only 1 million in terms of western Europe. I thank the Minister for guaranteeing the principles upon which the Bill is based for those who seek asylum with integrity allied with protection of race relations. Noble Lords have begun to articulate the principles upon which the legislation is brought before us; I believe there are three major ones.
First, there is the moral imperative—not only of the Judaeo-Christian tradition but of many other religious traditions—of generous hospitality offered and safe havens provided to refugees and those seeking asylum. The language is about the stranger within our gates and the significant word is "generous". All speakers have spoken positively about that principle.
Secondly, there is a special responsibility laid upon those in government—perhaps it is the role of the Churches to remind them now and again—to defend, and speak for, the weakest and the poorest in our society and those who are without voice. That applies also to those who are strangers within our gates. There are many within those categories.
A further and much more subtle principle is the responsibility laid upon government to ensure that the numbers of strangers—refugees and those seeking asylum—are not so great that the very structures of peace and order are threatened leading to resentment, of which we have heard not a little, the possibility of scapegoating, where people have skins of a particular colour and possess inadequate English, and, ultimately, racial intolerance and the indignity of violence within our country.
The primary question to be answered by your Lordships' House is whether the situation is so dire that legislation of this nature is required to protect public well-being and order. It is a question of balancing the principles and a matter of proportionality. Your Lordships' House may come to believe that the evidence is such that the present legislation, in all its clauses, is a disproportionate response.
Many noble Lords and my friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, have spoken about the three clauses at the beginning. I shall not repeat their arguments. I shall speak about one clause only and not particularly about the way in which it will affect those seeking asylum or immigration. Rather I shall speak about its effect upon those who belong to the ethnic
1002
minorities, who are part and parcel of our country and those born and bred here who are part of our community.
Clause 8 provides that employers will become guilty of a new crime of employing—well, whom? That is the rub. Subsection (2),
"applies to an immigrant if he satisfies such other conditions as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State".
Allowing for the lack of clarity about those whom employers may not employ and the documentation to support such decisions, the effects of the clause go far beyond refugees and asylum seekers. I hope that the Minister will tell us what will be required. There is great need for clarity; its absence breeds suspicion. I suspect that it will cause us great difficulties.
Racial discrimination in Bristol has led in the past 15 years to two very serious riots. It is not surprising that many local people look very carefully at what is proposed in the Bill. A petition containing the signatures of over 1,100 ordinary, regular Sunday worshippers has been deposited in another place. I assure noble Lords that Bristol is not a hotbed of Christian radicalism. Oh, that it were! The petition, initially sharing concern for refugees and asylum seekers, goes on to state that,
"the introduction of sanctions on employers will increase racial discrimination in employment and lead to a worsening of race relations in this country".
When ordinary decent non-political people are joined by the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the TUC, the British Chambers of Commerce and the Industrial Society, your Lordships' House may feel that we should pause and consider the effects of the legislation before us. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I welcome the Minister's claim that the intention is not to undermine race relations. I must ask whether that will in fact be achieved. I believe that the principle of proportion applies.
In seeking to stop people with no immigration entitlement to work, the creation of a just and multiracial society is placed in jeopardy. The creation of equal opportunities so that racial discrimination can be overcome is put in jeopardy by Clause 8 as at present drafted.
Various voices have been raised, of which one is the Churches Commission for Racial Justice. The commission suggests that at the very least the clause should be redrafted to exclude small businesses from the sanctions for which the legislation provides. If the clause is unworkable, out of proportion, encouraging discrimination, undermining people's trust in each other and the society in which they live, then it should go or, at best, be radically redrafted.
In a multicultural city such as Bristol, in a multi-racial nation, racial harmony is vital and highly prized. It is in no way to be undervalued. I understand the issues before us and the hard decisions that must be made; I understand the principles I enunciated at the beginning and how we carry the proportion. I believe that Clause 8 goes beyond that and affects many other people. It is a dangerous development which I hope your Lordships' House will look at extremely carefully.
6.50 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, we have heard some remarkable facts and figures from all sides of the House this afternoon. Perhaps I can concentrate, not on numbers, but on a few specific issues that concern me.
Over the years I have travelled in over 75 different countries. During that time I have got to know the staffs of our High Commissions, Embassies and posts who have the responsibility for issuing passports or visas to those who wish to come to this country. They should be congratulated on the excellent job that they do. I remember in Bombay, even at half-past five in the morning the queue outside the High Commission numbered well over 50 people and there was no problem in India at that time.
The real problem is faced not by our diplomats overseas, but by members of our immigration department here at home. They are increasingly confronted by a huge volume of administration caused by the number of applications for asylum or immigration into this country. Sadly, a high percentage of those applications are unwarranted. It is that issue, coupled with the overall cost that it creates for this country, which the Bill seeks to address.
This is certainly not a case of playing party politics with race. All that the Bill seeks to do is to bring the United Kingdom broadly into line with all our other European partners in the rules that are applied to asylum seekers from other countries. Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain have all been quoted; they have all strengthened their asylum measures since 1993 and, by doing so, experienced a substantial fall in applications. In fact, the key asylum measures proposed in the Bill are measures which most other western European countries have already adopted.
It is no coincidence that the United Kingdom is the only western European country to have experienced a significant increase in asylum applications during 1995. There is no question, and never has been, of denying asylum to those suffering real persecution because of their political views, their religious beliefs or the colour of their skins. Such genuine refugees will always find a safe haven here in Britain.
As a number of noble Lords have already highlighted, this country has given free asylum to Napoleon III and Empress Eugenie, Karl Marx, Haile Selassie, to numberless Jewish, Czech and Polish refugees during the Second World War, to the Ugandan Asian community and, most recently, to many Bosnian refugees and others from the former Yugoslavia. Nothing in this Bill will prevent similar acts of humanity in the future—indeed, by discouraging the bogus applications, the applications from genuine refugees will be far easier to process.
As we have heard, because our rules are presently far more liberal than the rest of Europe, we have seen a relentless upsurge in asylum applications over the past few years while those to other European Union countries have declined. That is a problem that cannot just be swept under the carpet. It will not go away. The applications for asylum are rising so fast that they are outstripping our ability to deal with them. This
1004
Government or, indeed, any other government, would be gravely neglecting their duty if they did not take firm action—and firm action now.
Two hundred years ago global travel was totally unrestricted; passports were unknown. Would that it could be so today. Unfortunately, that would he totally unrealistic. As our ability to move about the planet has increased, every country in the world has been forced to introduce some form of entry controls into its sovereign territory. This Bill is just a further refinement of that inevitable process here in the United Kingdom.
The Bill does have a moral dimension which is worth closer and more detailed examination. As I have indicated already, the Bill makes the immigration process for genuine asylum seekers much quicker and hence, by extension, more humane. Of itself that is surely a worthy aspiration, but it does beg the question: what about the 90 per cent. plus of claimants who are refused asylum?
It seems to me that responsible governance in this area should be about attempting to offer those economic migrants the opportunity to fulfil their potential by supporting the development of a viable infrastructure in their own country. In reality, perpetuating a flawed immigration system which seems increasingly to marginalise the economic migrant, is tantamount to tinkering with the symptoms of the problem rather than attacking the root cause. The real solution to the problem of the economic migrant lies in the work of the Overseas Development Agency. Only by helping to build the economies of the countries from which the economic migrants are coming—as the Overseas Development Agency does—can we aspire to achieve a real and lasting solution to the root cause of the problem.
I conclude with a special plea. Of course we must continue to offer sanctuary to those who genuinely need our help and protection, but we must face the fact that our ability to do so will be seriously impaired unless we take practical measures to turn away bogus asylum seekers. I urge your Lordships to support the Bill.
6.59 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, this Bill is to be welcomed, not only because it should eliminate much of the abuse—fraud, in effect—which causes much disenchantment throughout the country, but also because it aims to protect the rights of the innocent and underpin the long and worthy tradition of this country of generosity towards fellow human beings regardless of race, creed and colour.
It was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when he referred to previous legislation, that once legislation is in place, it does not really need to be examined every so often to see whether it needs to be revised, amended, or added to. This, I fear, is unrealistic. The world changes and the truth is that other countries have so tightened up their legislation that we are now in danger of being overwhelmed by those who cannot meet the conditions of other countries' immigration Acts. Hence it is most important that we look at our existing legislation to ensure that we are not being unfairly

1005
targeted by people who are not genuine asylum seekers but rather economic migrants. I am sure that economic migrants are the real reason for the backlog of dealing with the genuine asylum seekers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe said.
I applaud the motives of the Bill, and I support it. However, as occurs with so much proposed legislation, I find that costs could fall on innocent employers and others. During progress of the Bill we must ensure that those costs are kept to a minimum without losing sight of the admirable objectives.
Costs of proposed measures are not always immediately apparent. In the case of this Bill, I believe that that is so. For example, only this morning I received a six-monthly update from a charity for the homeless with which I am associated. Reading through the report of the director, I came across the words:
"Changes in legislation in regard to Benefits for Asylum Seekers are threatening to us. However it is too soon to say what the effects could be overall. Our principal concern is that our ethos is to offer help first, and ask questions later. We may now be forced into a position of asking questions first, and restricting help to those without means of support".
In other words, the work of the charity will be increased as the staff will be taking on the work of the law and order or immigration authorities. That will not only be a difficult task for them, but will also cost money in terms of time and effort. It is a small point but it illustrates the problems that we can build up by aiming for an honourable objective without due cognisance of the possible consequent burdens on people not necessarily in the "front line".
The Bill has very wide scope; and looking at it ! wonder whether it offers a chance to put right two particular pieces of legislation under which shipping companies and airlines currently incur huge costs—in my opinion, unjustifiably so.
At this point, I must declare an interest. Like my noble friend Lord Hesketh I am involved in the air transport industry, being a director of British Airways plc. The legislation to which I refer is the Immigration Act 1971 under which all transport carriers—on land, sea and air—are liable for the first 72 hours of detention costs for people detained by Immigration, even when they have a passport and visa.
The second piece of legislation is the Immigration (Carriers Liability) Act 1987 under which the carriers are "fined" for bringing in someone who does not have documents but whom Immigration decides to let in.
Perhaps I may crave the indulgence of the House to explain this a little more fully. Some months ago, under the Immigration (Carriers Liability) Act 1987, British Airways was fined £2,000 for flying an incorrectly documented passenger to Heathrow. The passenger was flying with her mother who had the correct documentation. But that did not matter. Nor did the fact that the passenger in question was a babe in arms.
If that sounds crazy, it is because the situation is crazy. While some noble Lords might find this argument somewhat marginal to the core concerns raised by the
1006
Bill, I would urge them to consider the very real cost to our transport carriers of the inflexibility of the immigration system in creating this sort of problem.
Quite properly, the current system protects bona fide immigrants and identifies some illegal travellers. But, quite understandably, carriers find it hard to swallow the small number of quite iniquities injustices and I believe that it is now time to ease them. This Bill, I suggest, gives us that opportunity.
All transport carriers have the responsibility to make sure that their passengers entering the UK carry a valid passport and visa. But they do not feel that their check-in agents around the world—they are often young and frequently not employed by them because local monopolies dictate that the monopolies employ their own staff at check-ins—should have to act as unpaid immigration officials with all the responsibility but no authority.
Forgeries, expired visas, and people arriving at Heathrow, or at ports, having destroyed their documents on board their aircraft or ship, cost the carriers many millions of pounds every year. For airlines alone it is reckoned to be just under £10 million. But the carriers acknowledge that when they get it wrong, they have to accept the costs.
However, the carriers are also charged when they do not get it wrong. Recently a passenger arrived at Gatwick from the Caribbean with correct documents and a valid and paid for return ticket. The return portion of the ticket was "open" allowing the passenger flexibility as regards the date he wished to fly home. When he was stopped at Immigration, it was discovered that he had very little money on him and he did not show any pressing hurry to decide there and then when he was likely to return home. For three days he was kept at the immigration centre, and then repatriated. The airline was obliged under the current provisions of the Immigration Act 1971 to pick up the Bill of £400 for detention costs and to provide a seat back to the Caribbean on a fully booked flight which resulted in further cost and embarrassment for the poor unfortunate other passenger who was "bumped" in order to make space for the deportee.
The airline industry in this country pays almost £1 million a year in detention costs and there is absolutely nothing the airlines can do to stop it. How can they second-guess whether an immigration officer will question the deeper motives of an apparently innocent traveller? Alternatively, should the airline always ask passengers to empty their pockets, wallets and purses before they are accepted for a flight to ensure that they are bona fide travellers?
In this Bill we have an opportunity to consider alleviating the burden of costs relating to the detention of passengers for reasons beyond the operators' control.
Perhaps I may refer again to the babe-in-arms story. The story had a happy ending for her. The babe was given leave to enter the UK with her mother. However, the airline did not share the happy ending. It had to pay a £2,000 fine under the Immigration (Carriers Liability) Act. I defy anyone to explain the logic of that.

1007
If the passenger is actually let in, why should the shippers and airlines have to pay a fine? The only party to benefit from the leniency of the immigration authorities in the case of the babe-in-arms was the passenger who got the airline into the situation in the first place.
I am not getting at the immigration authorities. I greatly admire and respect the work that they do. It is an unenviable job. I also admire and respect the work done by our airlines, who carry millions of people. But we must not impose too onerous a burden on carriers which are demonstrably careful; and through the Bill we have an opportunity to address some of those aspects.
I refer to the Bill in the terms of the costs that it creates. If we wish to be highly competitive not only as regards our charities, which do not need additional costs, but also in our transportation, we should address this issue. Other than that, I believe that it is a good Bill, and I commend it.
7.9 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the Bill before us is overdue and should stand the test of time. The message from the United Kingdom is clear. Genuine asylum seekers are welcome to seek refuge here, but if they are coming to abuse the system, and are unable to substantiate a claim, this country, with regret, is unable to facilitate.
The Bill is not racist, as some commentators would have us believe. I would be the first to say if it is. The need for employers to check credentials is appropriate personnel department housekeeping which also happens to be in the interests of this nation for a number of differing reasons. However, I look forward to hearing more on issues relating to the withdrawal of certain benefits and on how that would impact on current asylum seekers and their families.
Additionally, I believe it behoves the Government to eliminate any confusion surrounding the new regulations. Racketeering and bogus advisers are a menace and should be dealt with firmly. The problem is as much abroad as here. Lack of procedural understanding makes people vulnerable. So called experts who purport to offer "fix-it" strategies at normally great cost are a root problem. What could our posts do to help sort out this problem?
The Home Secretary's criteria for selecting those countries considered not giving rise to a serious risk of persecution are clear, and seem perfectly sensible. I accept the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee's findings that initial selection by affirmative resolution is preferable.
On a related matter, perhaps I may ask the Minister what has happened to the numbers of asylum applications from those countries since January this year, when the legislation received widespread publicity.
Before my concluding remarks, perhaps I may identify myself with much of what the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, had to say and take his vision one step
1008
further. If only a mechanism could be found to encourage asylum applicants to return home to help the development of their country when conditions permit.
Finally, the Prime Minister has just returned from an anti-terrorism conference in Cairo.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, it was in Sharm el-Sheikh.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for that correction. But it was certainly in Egypt. Were any points raised that Ministers feel appropriate to include in the legislation before us today? If not, can the Minister say any thing about the future introduction of a conspiracy law that will put a halt to the exploitation of the United Kingdom as a centre for organising terrorist activities abroad?
7.12 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, some years ago I became infuriated by a development that took place in a well known department store chain. It was the introduction of foods' retailing in an open plan sort of way—no supervised entry system and, once in, no supervised exit system. You could walk through the store, from clothing through food to exits, and vice versa. No doubt retail advisers to the chain would say that the system gives an inviting rather than threatening or suppressive feeling to the likely customer, an openness that induces them in. The customer is trusted to go to a check-out which is totally offset to the general flow of customers—no long corridors monitored by simple set cameras but shelving set in high squares making it more easy to conceal, to shoplift or even to pick up and eat a sandwich on the way through; and, my Lords, I have seen that done. I was not surprised in the least to gather that theft from the chain was on the increase. You see, my Lords, it was becoming a soft touch.
I asked myself why their policy was not changed. I believe it is because turnover has increased and the overwhelming reliance on trust is engraved in the fact that the vast majority of people from all walks of life in this country who use the store are honest; not the vast majority of so-called asylum seekers who are proven by the records taken to have dubious intentions and are therefore dubious, possibly abusive and possibly bogus. Make no mistake, I have nothing whatever against any bona fide refugee or asylum seeker. I am, however, dissatisfied with the way that, increasingly, this country, like my chain store example, has been and is being drained as a soft touch; and it is well time that changes were made.
I commend my noble friend the Minister on her efforts to amend and supplement the 1971 Act and the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 and to make further provisions. Noble Lords opposite—I say "opposite" happily—have spoken about idle backlog of applications. I should like to put them into perspective. While applications for asylum in 1995 were roughly 44,000—an increase of 34 per cent.—it should be borne in mind that, of the applications outstanding on 31st December, the increase was a more modest 6 per cent. higher than the previous year. The cost of

1009
processing the 79 per cent. of soft-touch applicants that were refused in 1995 was around £9 million. The number of bona fide refugees has remained remarkably constant compared with the huge increase in soft-touch applications.
In 1991, 505 applicants were granted asylum; in 1992, 1,115; in 1993, 1,590; in 1994, 825—that fall was due to a ministerial announcement in 1993 that exceptional leave would be granted only in cases where there were genuine humanitarian or compassionate grounds to allow a failed asylum seeker to remain in this country—and in 1995, the number of successful applicants was 1,295.
With regard to illegal working and race relations, it must be obvious that illegal working takes away jobs which would otherwise be available to people with a right to work here, from whatever community they come. It is a fact also that racketeers exploit illegal immigrants. They prey on them because they know that they can always threaten to expose them to the authorities. No longer should racketeers be entirely immune from action.
Having spent some years in Spain, and having gathered many of the problems regarding automatic rights of entry, I was interested to see what would happen after legislation was introduced in 1994-95 ending automatic right of entry. While applications rose from 4,000 in 1988 to 12,600 in 1993, applicant numbers have fallen significantly following the introduction of new legislation in 1994–95. There were under 2,500 during the first six months of 1995 compared with 10,200 in the whole of 1994.
One of the key features of the Spanish asylum system is the special procedure for sifting out and dealing quickly with the manifestly unfounded claims. Clause 1 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill will extend the categories of claims which may be certified by the Secretary of State as without foundation and therefore subject to the special accelerated appeals procedure. Late claims made purely to fend off removal and repeat applications fall into the Spanish accelerated procedure and are comparable with some of the new categories included in Clause 1 of the Bill. This similar system is working in Spain to the benefit of the true asylum seeker.
My noble friend Lady O'Cathain has touched on my last point. A growing problem is the undocumented asylum seeker. There were more than 4,000 such cases at Heathrow, Gatwick and Dover last year. By disposing of the passport before arrival the asylum seeker prevents the authorities from determining his true nationality. Some try to pass themselves off as nationals of countries with higher asylum success rates. Destroying the passport may conceal the fact that the applicant arrived via a safe third country such as France. An undocumented asylum seeker is also more difficult to remove after refusal because his country of origin may not take him back without evidence that he is one of its nationals. If we accept in principle that a refugee may need to use false papers to flee his country, so the Bill will not penalise asylum seekers who present a false passport on arrival provided they declare it as such. One cannot be fairer than that. However, if they try to gain
1010
entry under a false identity, the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to certify the claim when he refuses it. I support the Bill.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, by this stage of the debate most of the arguments have been well rehearsed and I shall not repeat that which has already been said. However, it is worth making one introductory point. Underlying the whole of our discussion on asylum seeking, but largely unremarked in the debate, is the fact that this country has a complex and elaborate system of immigration control, which has been built up over many years, which has been progressively tightened by parties of all political complexions, and which now offers the people here—both those who have been born here and those who have come here as immigrants and possibly as asylum seekers—the assurance that one of the most crowded countries of the world has effective immigration controls. I have always supported the argument that you cannot have harmonious race relations in a country like ours unless everybody can be reassured that we are not going to be subject to massive immigration which will lead to the stresses and problems that have been widely recognised.
I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol is not in his place, and I am sorry that he made a great deal of the petition that he has received from a number of sources in Bristol. Bristol is par excellence the kind of city likely to face serious problems if we had unlimited immigration. That is what is behind the Bill. Under our system, asylum has always been seen as a side gate. It is the final protection. Yes, we have a tight immigration system, but because of our deep, cherished humanitarian principles going back centuries, and because of our clear international obligations, our immigration legislation has always preserved the rights of asylum seekers. That is the background to the Bill, and it needs to be borne in mind.
I turn now to the asylum figures. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, gave a classic example of an extraordinary refusal to face the facts. I refer to the facts about the growing number of asylum seekers, facts which this country's Government and the governments of other countries have faced. I refer particularly to the growing number of asylum seekers who fail to prove any well-founded fear of persecution. It is worth repeating the figures: 95 per cent. of cases last year were rejected by the Home Office and 97 per cent. of appeals were dismissed.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the noble Lord take into account those who have been given exceptional leave to remain because it would be unsafe and positively dangerous for them to be returned home?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I take the point that there is, as it were, another escape hatch, and the noble Lord is perfectly entitled to mention it. However, those are the figures for asylum seekers.
As my noble friend Lady O'Cathain said forcefully, other countries have tightened their procedures with the result that in western Europe, where almost every other

1011
country has introduced legislation, the numbers of applicants are falling. There were 180,000 fewer in 1994 than in 1993—that is a 40 per cent. reduction in one year. In Britain over the two years 1993-95, the number of applicants doubled from about 22,000 to 44,000.
I come now to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who says that that is because of the long delays and that people come here because that delay will give them the opportunity to enjoy the standard of living in this country. The noble Lord seems to argue that if only the Government poured more resources and more money into this and had more civil servants applying the rules, the number of applicants would somehow be reduced because the procedure would be shortened. That defies belief. What happens when you reduce the numbers going through is that you reduce the number of applicants. One has to say that the argument which the noble Lord constructed at the beginning of his speech is a cop-out because it somehow excuses the Labour Party—to some extent, the Liberal Democrats are the same—of facing up to the question of whether they want to reduce the number of applicants. They seem to think that they can evade that question by using the argument about delay. That has been their principal argument against the Bill both here and in another place.
We shall discuss matters of detail in Committee, but it is simply not true to say that by increasing the resources, you will reduce the number of people going through the system. One can see that because Belgium, Finland and Germany introduced asylum legislation in 1993 and saw a reduction of between 45 per cent. and 60 per cent. in the number of applications in 1994. Apart from the United Kingdom, the only country where applications rose was the Netherlands. Its figures rose in 1994. However, in that year the Dutch tightened their asylum legislation and in 1995 the numbers fell by 40 per cent.
Frankly, the idea that you can somehow reduce the number of applications simply by reducing the time taken to process them, by pouring in more resources and without any tightening of the regulations is incredible. It is a cop-out—and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, because he is a decent man with a sense of shame, knows that it is a cop-out.
I support the Bill, but I have given my noble friend notice that I should like to draw one issue to her attention. My noble friend may prefer to deal with the matter briefly now or she may prefer to leave it to Committee when my noble friend Lord Mackay of ,Ardbrecknish may be at her side to help. I refer to the impact of this legislation and the regulations on local authorities. I declare an interest in that I am a joint president of the Association of London Government, representing the 32 London boroughs and the City of London. As many applicants come in through Heathrow and Gatwick, arriving at Victoria, London's authorities have to cope with a very high proportion of this country's asylum seekers.
As the Government have properly acknowledged, there is no doubt that the social security regulations will impose additional costs on local authorities, which will continue to be responsible for supporting vulnerable
1012
groups under the housing legislation, under the Children Act 1989 and under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. In terms of housing, the boroughs will still be under a duty to secure accommodation for asylum seekers who are homeless and in priority need although those affected by the regulation changes will no longer be entitled to housing benefit. That means that the boroughs will have to cover 100 per cent. of the housing costs of that group—at least until Clause 9 comes into effect. However, there is a problem in the meantime because it will be some time before the Bill becomes law.
Under the Children Act 1989, local authorities are responsible for providing support to the children of asylum seekers who may have had their entitlement to benefit removed. In many cases, local authorities may prefer to support and house a whole family rather than putting the child into special accommodation.
Under the 1990 National Health Service and Community Care Act, boroughs are also responsible for caring for vulnerable individuals who are affected by the changes to the benefit regulations. Such individuals will comprise the elderly and infirm, those who are mentally ill and those who have been the victims of torture. Those are the current responsibilities of the authorities—and the burden falls on relatively few of them. There has been a good deal of pressure, not least from the Association of London Government and refugee groups. The Government have recognised the extra costs that local authorities would face.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security made a Statement in the other place on 11th January. He said:
"The Government also propose to assist local authorities with any unavoidable additional costs arising under the homelessness legislation or the Children Act 1989. My right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for the Environment will discuss the details with local authority associations shortly".— [Official Report Commons, 11/1/95; co1.332.]
That Statement was greatly welcomed.
However, the promises so far fall somewhat short of what appeared to be offered there in general terms. For homelessness, expenditure based on 80 per cent. of the housing benefit subsidy forgone by local authorities in respect of asylum seekers and other persons from abroad housed under the homelessness legislation is all that is being offered. Again, with children, it is 80 per cent. of social services' unavoidable expenditure above a certain threshold.
So far there is no suggestion that there will be any special grant arising out of a local authority's responsibilities under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. There is one other point that I mention now. Much of the support for asylum seekers comes from the extremely worthy voluntary bodies which raise charitable funds and provide help to people in those circumstances. The loss of housing benefit means that those bodies will have to find extra money, and so far I do not believe that my noble friends have made any suggestion as to how they may he helped as a result of the withdrawal of benefit.

1013
I have some questions for my noble friend. When can we expect the full details of the grants and thresholds to be announced? Councils are already incurring expenditure. The benefits have already been withdrawn, under the regulations which we passed in this House with a substantial majority at the end of January. They need to know the full details of the level of support they can expect.
Secondly, why is it only 80 per cent. of their costs above the minimum threshold? They point out that the costs are incurred because of a saving being effected by the DSS. They cannot understand why it cannot be 100 per cent. The Government's answer is that that will encourage them to extravagance. But on housing benefit they are already subject to a 5 per cent. withholding to ensure efficiency. So it is difficult to see why there should be another 20 per cent. reduction. Why is there no recognition of the extra costs arising from the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990? They will have to provide support. It will have to be found entirely by council tax payers.
There is then a point which may sound technical but which is of some importance. The Government propose that there should be special grants made under Section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. That means that the grants will have to be approved by an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament every year if it is proposed to make the grants. That is fine if we have a one-off grant. I pay my council tax in the country to the district council of Uttlesford in whose territory is Stansted Airport.
There was a celebrated case about three years ago when a jumbo jet arrived at Stansted full, I think, of Rwandan refugees. The leader of the Stansted Council just said that without money there was no way he would be able to do anything for them and that they could stay at the airport without any support. That was right, because it is a small council with a tiny budget. Most of it seems to be mine, but that is by the way. I am in Band H, or whatever it is. The Government very properly came up with, I think, 100 per cent. grant paid under that Act, because that was appropriate for a one-off payment.
What the London boroughs feel about that is that it does not seem to be the appropriate way of dealing with what will be a continuing series of payments, year after year, which will become, as it were, an integral part of the support. It will be some special and specific grant. The system is full of special and specific grants. It was in my day, and I suspect that it still is. The problem of special grants for one year is that there could be immediate political difficulties. If we do not get it, then it is the poor council tax payers who will pay the whole thing. We have had no debate on that issue today. In a sense, I am giving my noble friend notice that this is a matter that we shall have to explore.
It may be that the Association of London Government is exaggerating the problem. I do not know, but it feels the point keenly. It affects particular authorities. I shall not talk about personal social services, but particular authorities face heavy expenditure. Hillingdon, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster seem to have
1014
a problem. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has a problem in Haringey. I know that there are some problems in the London Borough of Waltham Forest. My NHS trust has to provide Somali interpreters for Somali refugees. So it is a problem. The Government have shown a willingness to recognise it, but they have not yet met it. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us some comfort.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, on highlighting the social impact of current policies. They will bear with great harshness on a limited number of local authorities. He was right to point them out. They will bear also on particular neighbourhoods, for example, Bayswater.
I shall do my best to nail the hoary old legend that this country is being swamped by immigration. In the 11 years from 1984 to 1994 inclusive, just over 2.3 million people left—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I rise simply to take issue with the loaded and rather dramatic description of the country being swamped with immigrants. Nothing I have said, and nothing any noble Lord has said, during the debate justifies that kind of expression.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the Minister is blameless. I should be the last person to accuse her or to place any imputation upon her words. Nevertheless, some extreme language has been used throughout the country. I am entitled to respond to it as I see fit.
As I was saying, 2.3 million people have left the UK during the past 11 years. They have left permanently. During those same years, 570,000 people were accepted here for permanent settlement. There has therefore been a net outflow of 1.7 million people. That pattern can be traced back much further than the years I mentioned.
Since 1971, immigration control has been firmed. Here I concur wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. I draw from those facts the conclusion that now is the time to be generous. There should he an early amnesty for those whose immigration status is irregular if they have been here for five years or more, have no criminal record and no taxes outstanding and if they are considering British citizenship in due course—especially if they have children born in this country. They should be allowed to remain here. Such a proposal has, I understand, been made by the Council of Churches for Britain and Ireland. I am happy to support it.
The Bill also gives us an opportunity to help two distinct groups, both of which have suffered severely. I hope that it will be possible to draft an amendment protecting domestic workers who have come to England under the Home Office concession of 1981. All too often these people have been physically abused and financially exploited. Some have been starved and imprisoned on their employer's premises. Many have worked excessive hours in wretched conditions. Your Lordships have debated the scandal on several occasions.

1015
Despite some positive palliative measures by Her Majesty's Government, serious cases still occur. I trust that Clause 8 will provide scope for an amendment to help those who left their first employer, who have no money to return home, and who are often supporting families in their home countries. It is hard to imagine a more deserving category.
Secondly, the Bill should make it possible to improve arrangements for genuine victims of torture at the hands of many brutal and despotic governments overseas and the wars, civil wars and repression caused by them. Here I must pay tribute to the excellent work done by the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. I am sure that the foundation would wish to salute many serving and retired members of the National Health Service who have given generously of their time and skill to support and rehabilitate these most genuine of asylum seekers.
Since 1986 the Medical Foundation has seen more than 8,000 survivors of torture. In 1995 alone it provided services to 1,600 people from 65 different countries. That work is a shining beacon for Europe and its influence is already benefiting countries as varied as Uganda and Israel. Yet the foundation has not shrunk from expressing its concern at the possible consequences of this legislation.
I am therefore grateful to Home Office Ministers for receiving a large delegation from both Houses of Parliament, of several parties and none, on Tuesday this week. Further meetings will follow between experts from the foundation and from the department. I trust that it will be possible to devise arrangements which will avoid and prevent three things. Genuine victims of torture need to be identified so that they are not subject to the fast-track procedure, returned to a transit country which is presumed safe, or detained in a prison or detention centre. If there are doubts about their cases they should be afforded the maximum possible help to put forward a well-considered application.
I turn to the general run of asylum seekers. I seek to persuade Ministers that genuine asylum seekers are here to find acceptance. They may have arrived by irregular or illicit means but they have every reason to conform to our regulations. It is not in their interest to abscond, unlike those facing a deportation order. That is a quite different category of person. At this moment, several hundred asylum seekers are imprisoned or detained, often far from the specialised solicitors and advisers they need.
I call on Her Majesty's Government to substantiate their repeated claim that detention is used sparingly and as a last resort. Much greater use should be made of voluntary organisations, housing associations and conditions requiring reporting to the police. I mentioned those on 30th January (Official Report, col. 342) and I repeat what I then said about allowing asylum seekers to take up work in this country during their first six months here. I emphasise that asylum seekers, when entitled to social benefits, should receive the full rate and not the 90 per cent. rate which was imposed until recently.
1016
I have said that the Bill may contain some potential for good. I have tried to be as constructive as I can and to thank Ministers where thanks are due. However, in fairness I am obliged to say that much is lacking in the Government's approach to immigrants and to asylum seekers in particular. The Home Secretary and some of his colleagues, followed in your Lordships' House by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Reay, have mounted a bogus campaign which is not remotely justified by the available official statistics. They have instigated a culture of disbelief with harmful effects. It must be wrong to use far-fetched arguments to contest every sentence in an asylum application. What is the Government's reply to the charge that an arbitrary ceiling has been imposed on refugee status and exceptional leave to remain, the combination of which is about 20 per cent. of the total applications? What do they say to the claim that 5 per cent. or less is their administrative target for refugee status?
When the Bill was being drafted, were Her Majesty's Government even aware that it potentially contravenes some four international human rights conventions? Will they remedy that situation by accepting an amendment that the Act should be interpreted in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees? After all, the latter document was written into the 1993 Act, so the precedent clearly exists. Will Her Majesty's Government, even at this stage, heed the advice given to them by their own appointed bodies; for example, the Social Security Advisory Committee, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants? If they would do that and, above all, if they would allocate extra resources—as has been done for many years in the Netherlands and Germany—so as to cut the 84,000 backlog of asylum cases and the eight-month or more decision period, we can have some reasonable hope that an acceptable and humane Bill will emerge from this consideration.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, there is no doubt in my mind that there is an urgent need for this Asylum and Immigration Bill if the chronic abuse of claiming asylum under existing legislation is to cease. In my contribution I shall touch on some of the proposals which, if agreed, would overcome that abuse and the illegal employment of immigrants. I should also like to consider one or two anxieties that have already been expressed about some of the proposals in the Bill. I shall not speak about the benefits issues because that was addressed in your Lordships' House on 30th January in a debate in which I took part.
I apologise to your Lordships if I repeat some of the major issues that have been addressed today but they are important matters and I believe that they are sufficiently important to be emphasised again. I shall not labour the figures for asylum seekers, except to remind your Lordships that out of some 44,000 applications only 5 per cent. of those claiming asylum last year were genuine and just 3 per cent. of the appeals were upheld by independent adjudicators.

1017
However, despite all the improvements to the speed of the asylum system, some 80,000 cases are still outstanding. From what I have said it can be seen that even after the increase of staff, about which we have heard, amounting to about 800 and an injection of about £37 million to spend on extra asylum case workers and adjudicators during the next three years, the number of cases is increasing in an alarming way.
Asylum applications are rising in this country while falling in the rest of western Europe as a result of other European countries having taken action to strengthen their asylum and immigration laws. For instance, in western Europe the numbers claiming asylum fell from more than half a million in 1993 to 320,000 in 1994. As a result of recent legislation in the Netherlands, the number of people seeking asylum fell substantially in 1995.
There is an urgent need to process asylum claims more quickly and this Bill will tighten and strengthen existing legislation; otherwise, we shall risk being caught in a vicious circle of growing delays attracting more abusive claims. The increase in the number of asylum seekers contributes to the delay in dealing with asylum applications. That leads to a higher benefits bill and greater costs to the taxpayer.
I should now like to focus on some of the proposals which I believe will help to prevent bogus asylum claims and stop illegal employment of immigrants. I cannot comment on the drafting of Clause 1 which has already been mentioned this afternoon, but I am glad to see that Clause 1 will widen the definition of "without foundation" cases. What that will include has been stated already by the Minister and I shall not repeat it.
I am glad to see also that Clause 1 will extend the accelerated appeals procedure to all "without foundation" cases and no longer restrict them to those who claim asylum on arrival and those who are liable to be removed or deported.
Clause 1 will also enable my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to designate certain countries as not giving rise to a serious risk of persecution. Claimants from those countries would not be automatically refused but they would face a rebuttable presumption against their claims. Those people who are unable to rebut that presumption would still be able to appeal to an independent adjudicator but would have no secondary appeal to the immigration tribunal.
Any country on that list will need to meet three criteria which seem most reasonable: first, the country concerned generates significant numbers of asylum applications; secondly, a very high proportion of applications from that country have to be unfounded; and, thirdly, in general there is no serious risk of persecution.
Germany and the Netherlands have already taken similar steps along those lines. On Second Reading in another place, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Poland, Romania, Ghana, India and Pakistan were regarded as countries meeting those criteria. It may be that that may need further investigation in view of what has been said in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
1018
In view of the fact that 98 per cent. of claims from Poland, Romania and Ghana are rejected, that action should reduce the number of people claiming asylum, knowing that they do not qualify for it as they are not fleeing persecution but are simply coming here to seek a better standard of life. Some people have said that to have a designated list of countries is racist. I submit that there is nothing racist about designating countries where people are unlikely to be persecuted and which produce large numbers of unfounded asylum cases. The list is as likely to include countries from eastern Europe, which are producing increasing numbers of largely bogus claims, as it is countries from Africa. There is no question of a blanket ban on asylum applications from the countries on the list. Claims will continue to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
I welcome the fact it will become a criminal offence to help people gain further leave to stay in the United Kingdom by deception—for example, by arranging bogus marriages—and to employ someone who is not entitled to work in this country. Other European Union countries have recognised those problems and have responded. Britain and Ireland are the only two countries which do not have such controls in place. I do not regard checking that a prospective employee has a national insurance number as a burden in any way. By that action, an employer would safeguard himself from any prosecution.
Indeed, the CBI as well as the Government do not believe that proposals of that nature would impose significant burdens on employers. The Bill's provisions on illegal employment will not lead to racial discrimination, as the Government will consult the Commission for Racial Equality to make sure that the advice and guidance given to employers will not encourage racial discrimination in any way. The new measures in this Bill do not provide any excuse for racial discrimination. Any employers who discriminate on grounds of race will have to answer complaints of unlawful racial discrimination before industrial tribunals.
In conclusion, we need urgent action and, at the very least, our asylum and immigration laws should be no weaker than those of our European partners and I should prefer that they were stronger. The United Kingdom must not be seen to be a soft option. We must strengthen our legislation to streamline our decision-making and appeals processes and deter the horrific number of rising bogus asylum claims and prevent illegal employment.
This is not a racist Bill. It is a Bill which has been introduced to tackle those genuine problems. The Government have always believed that a firm but fair immigration policy is a prerequisite for harmonious race relations. The Asylum and Immigration Bill before us now is both firm and fair and its provisions should overcome the existing abuse of current legislation and illegal employment. I strongly support the Bill.
7.55 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we have had, as the other place has had, a debate in which a vast amount of evidence has been brought forward from both sides of

1019
the House. Very little movement of mind has taken place. That is the sort of situation in which we all need, on both sides of the House, to start thinking about our underlying assumptions because if debate is worth anything, it must, even if it does not make us agree, make us understand exactly what it is about which we disagree.
I shall begin by putting a few cards on the table and I hope that, before we are through the Bill, a few more people will do the same. About three weeks ago, I was walking round my local supermarket and I saw a couple. The man was in his seventies and the girl was about eight. Quite obviously, from the sort of double-vision effect of watching their faces, gestures and movements, they were blood relations. I took them to be grandfather and granddaughter. As I got closer to them and could hear them and see them better, I observed that one of them was German and the other was Indian. I stopped and thought that that is exactly what being British is all about. I agree with Lord Peter Wimsey that you must be British; there is no other nation that boasts of being mongrel.
Therefore, when I talk about the people of our country, I do it with that sort of assumption behind me. After all, in this House, we have the privilege of tracing our ancestry rather further back than many people are able to do. Therefore, we know that we are practically all descended from immigrants. In my case, that is from 1393; we were Bordeaux wine merchants. Even the most ancient of the aristocracy normally came over with the Conqueror, if not later.
There is one Hereditary Peer in this House who can trace his ancestry back on the continuous occupation of an estate to before the Norman Conquest; that is my noble kinsman Lord Stanley of Alderley. I hope that he is not about to dismiss the rest of us as immigrants because if he did, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, might do that to the whole lot of us.
Therefore, when we talk about tolerance for immigrants, we are asking only to give to others the benefit which our ancestors have enjoyed in the past. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said about the use of the word "immigrant". I wonder why, in the definition of the word "immigrant", especially in relation to Clause 10, those who have exceptional leave to remain, who have in fact cleared all the hurdles, are still saddled with that stigma of being immigrant. I do not see what useful purpose that provision serves in relation to the stated purposes of the Bill. I would be most interested to hear an explanation in that respect.
I also believe that our obligation to those with a well-founded fear of persecution is like the obligation to pick up survivors at sea: a very strong obligation indeed. I therefore feel as I do about the case of innocent or guilty; namely, that the burden of proof on anyone who alleges that an asylum-seeker is not genuine is a very heavy one. I really would rather take the risk—and that is as high as I put it—that a number of people who are
1020
not genuine are accepted rather than one who is genuine should get sent back. That is one of my priorities. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am much obliged. I wonder whether the noble Earl would draw a distinction between those who before they come here, and while in their own countries, somehow claim asylum and those who do so on arrival at port and who are therefore very genuine. Is the noble Earl putting those who make an application as an afterthought in the same category as the genuine ones?
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to cover a point that I thought I would not have time to mention. First, one cannot apply for asylum from one's own country because it is practically true that, by definition, if you can, you do not need it. Secondly, the phrase "afterthought" was one that I nearly rose to intervene about when the noble Lord used it in his speech. It is very often not an afterthought; indeed, it is very often a considered decision. If I were advising anyone coming into this country, I would not necessarily advise them to claim asylum at the port. That is partly because it can be extremely difficult to do so without the aid of professional advice. Further, it can be extremely difficult to tell one's story if one has, for example, been a victim of torture.
I once had the very dubious privilege of being in the position of trying to persuade a rape victim to go to the police. I was not successful. I soon came to the realisation that I would cause her considerable mental harm if I continued to press her, so I did not. I imagine that the position of victims of torture is very much like that; and, indeed, in some cases, identical to it. So, no, I do not accept the noble Lord's use of the word "afterthought". I would be prepared to consider a time limit after entry, but those who wish to obtain professional advice before making their claims should, I believe, have every right to do so. I would not distinguish in the way suggested by the noble Lord.
We have heard a great deal this evening about numbers. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, pointed out that the numbers of people leaving this country are greater than the numbers entering it. One might add that one-third of the people entering this country are British people returning from abroad. Therefore, in the light of the habitual residence test, one begins to wonder whether they, too, will soon be classified as foreigners.
Our country has benefited immensely from its immigrants. I have in mind the Ugandan Asians about whom we have heard a good deal tonight. I happen to live in the borough which has the largest concentration of Ugandan Asians in the British Isles. Therefore, I can abundantly confirm that the decision taken by a Conservative Government to let them in has been greatly to the benefit of this country. I am very glad that they took that decision.
On the evidence at present available, I honestly do not know the scale of the problem, but that is not for lack of trying. The word "bogus", as it has been used from the Government Benches in the debate, means

1021
"outside the scope" or "appearing to be outside the scope" of the present law. But anyone who is in this House when we debated the 1993 Bill will know that I am not happy with the present positioning of the goal posts. Therefore, a shot which is wide of the present goal posts does not necessarily appear to me to be a bad shot.
Similarly, I cannot automatically assume that everyone at present refused under the existing procedures deserves to be refused. Some of the refusal letters which have come from the Home Office give rise to a certain amount of surprise. There was one recent letter regarding a man from Zaire which said, "Since by your own testimony the soldiers who broke into your house were shooting wildly in all directions, I cannot accept that they had a deliberate intention of shooting your brother. Claim rejected". If someone was shooting wildly into my house, I would have a fear of persecution that was well founded.
The Minister may wish to intervene during the course of what I propose to say now. If she does, I hope that she will be kind enough to wait until I have finished. I refer to a case from Northern Cyprus where a man had a hundred severe scars across his back. A surgeon testified that, so far as he could see, those scars could have resulted from no other cause than torture. The Home Office letter of refusal said that it was believed that they had been inflicted deliberately at his request as part of a cynical conspiracy to gain entry into the country.
I said that the Minister might wish to intervene, but I should point out that I have heard her honourable friend Miss Widdecombe—and indeed, I am most grateful to her—making an apology for that particular letter of refusal. I do not hold Ministers responsible for the wording of the letter. However, it has been proved for centuries that whenever governments adopt a policy they have people under them who pursue that policy with a more injudicious enthusiasm than the government intend. That is a risk any restrictive policy runs. Indeed, it is a risk that this policy will also run. So long as that is there, I cannot identify the number of refusals with the number of bogus applicants.
Further, I cannot see any way in which the Bill will be more severe on applicants who are bogus than on those who are genuine. To my mind, that is the biggest condemnation of the Bill. Our legal obligation is to consider cases on an individual basis. But there is a potential divergence—and I shall put it no higher than that—between considering cases on an individual basis and developing a formula by which they should be considered.
That is true in relation to Clause 1. The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, described it as creating a rebuttable presumption. I believe that we can agree on that. But when one is facing obstacles which are already so heavy, the addition of a rebuttable presumption may be like facing an opponent who is playing with loaded dice. There is at least a divergence between that rebuttal presumption and the requirement of individual examination. Where there is a divergence at the head of the river, there may be a very wide divergence further
1022
down. Applying the same principle that policies are administered more injudiciously than they are conceived, I believe that the dangers here are very real.
The weasel words "in general" in Clause 1 are also words, no matter where they come from, which conflict with the requirement of individual examination. I say that because people are not persecuted in general; they are persecuted in person. My noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby referred to the case of the Roma from Eastern Europe, many of whom had been quite viciously persecuted.
I also wonder whether the Government's diplomatic and consular resources are great enough to pick up a change in any of those countries on the white list when, perhaps, things shift and people do come to be, in general, in fear of persecution. If my party should catch the noble Baroness's party out in that respect, it will not be the first time. When the Bulgarian atrocities began, Disraeli tried to find out why he had been caught short. He concluded that it was because they had happened in August when the ambassadors were not at their posts, and so they had not warned him. He said, "The ambassador returned to Vienna three days ago; the rest are at God knows what waters, probably Lethe". I believe that the Government need to be very sure that they will be alerted in time to changes.
As regards Clauses 2 and 3, I listened with care to what the noble Baroness said, but let me ask her to imagine the situation in reverse. Let us think the unthinkable and imagine that this country has become one from which the noble Baroness needs to escape because she has a well-founded fear of persecution. Let us suppose she has a son or daughter in Australia and wants to go there. It would, I think, be a quite unwarrantable interference to require her to stop for ever in Dubai because it was the first safe country in which her plane touched down. I think this measure will also have the effect of discouraging people from allowing planes to touch down if they come from countries where people have a well-founded fear of persecution. We shall have a real game of pass the parcel going on among the airlines. I also do not see how an appeal can well be pursued from another country.
In Clause 4, deception is of the very essence of claiming asylum. It is—if a claim is genuine—vitally necessary. In this context I simply cannot share the Government's condemnation of it. It is no more immoral than I and my contemporaries used to think it was to climb into college after midnight. Clause 7 revives the sus laws. I know that the Home Secretary was not yet involved in politics in 1981, but there are plenty who were who can tell him what the sus laws led to. He ought to listen.
I now turn to Clause 8. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, quoted part of the advice from the CBI which is not quite as favourable in whole as it is in part. The CBI would be,
"opposed to provisions which would require employers to verify the authenticity of documents. This would transfer the primary obligation for immigration control to employers and would place a wholly unreasonable burden on business".

1023
British Airways will understand those remarks. The CBI also warned that,
"delays may be encountered in waiting for documents showing a national insurance number to be obtained, thus stalling the recruitment process. It is therefore essential that, wherever this proves necessary, individuals can quickly obtain other documentation from the relevant Government agencies for transmission to the employer".
That is a warning that needs heeding. The CBI also refers to one point on which I hope the noble Baroness will be able to promise action before this Bill is completed. The Data Protection Registrar has taken the view that national insurance numbers should,
"not be used by employers for purposes other than tax and national insurance contributions. Since the proposals clearly envisage the use of this information for another purpose, the data protection implications should be clarified".
As regards the social security clauses of this Bill, in my view if the people are entitled to be here they are entitled to the same social protection as the rest of us. I really do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, that because of the fear of the actions of Right-wing parties we should therefore treat these people differently from others. I do not think the noble Baroness said we should treat them differently from our own people, but she used a phrase with a slightly similar implication.
I said that we have all been immigrants once. After the Conquest the Normans so much feared the disruption they had caused that they levied a collective fine on the hundred every time one of them was found dead in suspicious circumstances. We, as heirs of those people, really cannot countenance the idea that one gives in to intolerance like this. If we are to keep the peace—which I think we agree comes first—we must insist that all those who are entitled to live here are entitled to be treated equally. I do not see that that is compatible with these clauses.
I do not see, either, how we are to keep up the principle of universality of child benefit combined with Clause 10. If Clause 10 goes on to the statute book, I shall expect to see the abolition of universal child benefit in the next Conservative manifesto, and I shall say so at every convenient opportunity. There is a great deal more wrong with this Bill than I can say at this time of night. I hope to say some of it before the Bill is through.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I first declare an interest in that until last June I was director of the Refugee Council and therefore I had six or seven years' direct experience of working with and on behalf of asylum seekers and refugees. It is therefore hardly a surprise that I approach this Bill without enthusiasm, and in fact with a high degree of dismay.
I wish, first, to say a few words about some of the general issues that have emerged from this debate, before I discuss more specific aspects of the Bill. I believe that every European country—and many others beyond Europe—are wrestling with the issue of how to deal with asylum seekers and refugees. The way we deal with it will be an indication of our commitment to
1024
human rights, and it will test our commitment to human rights not only in the next two or three years but well into the next millennium.
I fully accept that the issue of asylum seekers and refugees is one with which it is difficult for a liberal democracy to deal because there will always be difficult and hard cases and there will always be pain and anguish in terms of how a particular asylum application is dealt with. My bottom line is that what we need above all is a fair system for determining individual claims which ensures natural justice for the claimant; which ensures that the claimant has reasonable help by way of professional legal advice and interpreters; and a system which allows appeals in-country, and which does not prejudge the result of an application until that application has been considered. It is on that test of natural justice that I find parts of this Bill wanting, and indeed parts of our existing approach to asylum seekers and refugees wanting.
We have talked about figures and I shall comment on statistics later. Few of the world's asylum seekers and refugees reach western Europe, and few of those reach this country. Therefore we are dealing with what, in global terms, is a large number—I believe 20 million was the figure that was given, but I believe that it is higher—but a relatively small number in terms of western Europe, and a smaller number still in terms of this country. We need openness and accountability. My noble friend Lord McIntosh referred to some of the decision-making in Brussels which is undertaken not through the machinery of the European Parliament and the European Commission, but through the more secret discussions which take place in the Council of Ministers. Although some of those discussions have resulted in provisions in this Bill and in other measures in recent years, other decisions of the Council of Ministers are, unfortunately, not revealed to us at all.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. As regards the provisions in the Bill, there is a list which is published periodically which contains every single resolution and recommendation emanating from those in the Council of Ministers when they meet with representatives of other governments. Under Title 6 of the Maastricht Treaty these are listed and the texts are available, if one wishes to obtain them.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I understand that quite a few of those texts are available. I do not wish to take up the time of the House this evening in arguing about the niceties of Brussels decision-making except to say I am satisfied that a number of decisions made by the Council of Ministers do not see the light of day. As I have said, I accept that some of the decisions are published in the way that the noble Baroness has just mentioned, but I do not believe that holds good for all the decisions.
I have often wondered about Conservative Central Office hand-outs. Just occasionally they are found on photocopiers. I have not seen any documents on a photocopier on this matter. I hope that I am not being unduly suspicious if I suspect that I have heard one or two Central Office handouts read this evening. I shall read Hansard tomorrow to confirm that.

1025
I should like to mention my experience in relation to in-country and port applications, which are a key feature of the Government's approach. I remember meeting Bosnians who had come to this country under the government scheme. They did not come as in-country or port applicants. However, the point at issue holds good for others. Some of them had been through the most appalling experiences, yet many were unable to say anything about it for days or weeks afterwards, and some never did. Others wanted to talk. We may ask ourselves why people do not say at the port of entry "I am an asylum seeker and these are my experiences". That is not a realistic way to consider the matter. If people have been through the most appalling and brutal experiences under some of the most oppressive regimes of the world it is not surprising, and it is a normal human reaction, that they do not wish to talk about those experiences. They may never want to explain what happened to them, or may not do so for years. That is one of the reasons I believe that in-country and port applications are in favour of people claiming after they have entered the country.
I have always believed that the concept of an asylum seeker and a refugee is different in a very principled way from that of a migrant who claims immigrant status. That is because the concept of a refugee stems directly from the 1951 United Nations Geneva Convention, an instrument that we have signed, along with all other west European countries and many other countries. It is that that should determine why we approach refugees and asylum seekers differently from people who seek to migrate for economic reasons. Economic reasons for migration are not unworthy, but usually they happen not to qualify one to enter this country or most other west European countries.
Because the definition of a refugee is linked to an instrument that we have signed under the auspices of the United Nations, it requires a particular and separate approach. For that reason I regret that we link asylum seekers and immigration in the Title of the Bill. That is why the debate today has ranged from one to the other in a way which does not pay full regard to the concept of human rights.
I should like to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, as well as praise him. I shall take issue with him first. He belittled the argument of my noble friend Lord McIntosh that the way to deal with the difficulty that we face is to have a quicker system for determining asylum claims. I should like to reject what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said.
If anybody can come to this country in the knowledge that it can take months, if not years, to reach a decision about an asylum claim, that itself is surely an incentive for some people to make such a claim. That can be done in the knowledge that it will take a very long time before anything is done about the claim and the person is refused entry. I do not say that that is the case in respect of all claims; far from it. However, it seems to be a serious weakness in our system that we have a large number of outstanding claims. I thought that the figure
1026
was 66,000, but I now understand that it is 84,000. The fact that there are so many outstanding claims provides some incentive to some asylum seekers.
In a more fundamental sense, that undermines the integrity of our asylum determination process. If people are in this country for a long time it is surely far more difficult for us to remove them if they fail the test of the Geneva Convention. That is bound to be the case, and it was one of the reasons given by the Government some years ago for trying to speed up the process.
I understand that in Germany some years ago they came to the conclusion that they had to tackle the backlog of asylum claims. They did so dramatically by appointing a large number of individuals. Some noble Lords said that that would be a costly enterprise. I think that it probably would not. If the majority of asylum claimants receive income support and other help, it does not take very much arithmetic to see that a quicker, but fair, determination of asylum claims would, in anything other than the very short term, save substantial sums of money. It would also provide a better basis for our approach to dealing with asylum seekers and be consistent with human rights. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for giving way. His argument falls. Throughout the debate we have referred, and he did so himself, to the growing number of economic migrants all over the world. I do not believe that people come here because they can live on benefits for nine months or a year. They come here because they think that they will eventually be able to stay.
The more you have a process for people to go through, the more people will come, if you do not at the same time limit the numbers who come in the way that is suggested in the Bill. The figures I quoted from other European countries which have done that prove that it works.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I have to reject the noble Lord's argument. If he examines the records of other European countries he will see that those which have speeded up the process of asylum determination have managed things better than those which have long periods of delay.
I should have thought that it was incontrovertible that a period of perhaps two years' delay before a decision is made, allowing time for an appeal, is bound to undermine a proper system of asylum determination.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. It seems a pertinent moment to intervene on that particular point.
What do the noble Lords opposite intend to do about the delays that are not due to administrative processes? A great deal is being done both to improve efficiency and to deal with more applications. What will they do about the delays which are caused by applicants? Applicants often contrive delays, for example, where they are being advised, their papers are not ready, they ask for more time, the solicitors and others advising them plead for more time. If the noble Lords will take

1027
no measures at all and do not support the Bill, what will they do about those delays? Much of the delay in the system is due to that kind of problem.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am not sure that my noble friend Lord McIntosh is yet in a position to determine our policy. However, I understand that the Minister concedes that that will soon be the case.
It seems to me that if there are such long delays on the Home Office side in determining asylum claims, then it is not surprising that on the other side people also seek to delay the process, for the very reason that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, rejects; namely, that people want more time. If there are delays caused by the Government, it is not surprising that there are delays on the other side. However, it is not appropriate for me to take up more of the time of the House in trying to determine how one deals with all of those delays.
I accept as a principle that asylum claims should be determined quickly. I do not believe that it is just or fair that they are protracted, whether the delay is caused by Home Office officials or by applicants. I accept that all sides of the process should be speeded up.
I turn now to the question of safe third countries and limitations on in-country appeals. If it were the case that anyone removed to a safe third country—for example, one of the European Union countries—were removed on the assurance that that country would allow the individual to enter into the asylum procedures there, I would not mind so much. The difficulty is that there is no such safeguard and the Government can remove somebody to another country without considering the individual's claim here and without having any assurance that that person's claim will, in turn, be considered in the country to which he is removed. That country may in turn apply the same principles and remove the individual further down the line, until in the end the individual ends up in a country where he may be in danger. That is my concern about these removals. People are being removed to third countries not because they have spent several months in France, Belgium, the Netherlands or Germany, but because they may have been in transit at Charles de Gaulle Airport. They may have spent two or three hours driving across northern France to Calais and on to Dover. Such brief periods of time are not the basis on which we should say, "You cannot have your claim considered here. Go and find another country which will consider your claim".
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred very properly to the difficulties of detention; and the use of detention for asylum seekers. Perhaps I may say this about the policy. It seems to me wrong in principle that we should detain people, deny them their liberty, without any judicial process, but simply on the decision of an official.
I said that I would praise something that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said. I have much sympathy with the point he made about the burden that would be placed on local authorities as a consequence of the social security and other provisions passed a few weeks ago in both Houses. They are also contained under the heading of child benefit and housing in the Bill. It is a sorry situation that we as a country use the threat of poverty,
1028
homelessness and sleeping in the streets, with children subjected to those conditions, to deter people from coming to this country. That is not a policy of which we can be proud. If voluntary organisations cannot make provision, the only alternative is for local authorities to find the resources to make emergency arrangements. That is surely an undesirable situation.
I do not like the idea that people arrive without documentation because they have destroyed it. That is undesirable. I regret that in all too many instances, racketeers who have, as it were, tried to facilitate the arrival of people here have encouraged people to destroy their documents so that the racketeers cannot be identified. I understand that that is one of the explanations. However, it does not mean that people do not have a proper basis for a claim even if they were helped to escape from their country by a person trying to raise money.
I consider Clause 4—it refers to gaining entry by deception—with a great deal of concern. Although we have had some verbal assurances, as the Bill stands someone using a forged passport as the only way of escaping from an oppressive regime could well he accused of having gained entry by deception. The Government state that that is not the intention, but my fear is that it sounds as though it is.
I should like to see a registration scheme for people who give immigration and asylum advice. That provision is not in the Bill; I believe that it should be. I hope that some amendments will achieve that aim.
Perhaps I may quote some statistics, and compare the figures for 1990—it is well before the 1993 Act—with the most recent figures for 1995. In 1990 the number of people given refugee status was 22.8 per cent. In 1995 it was 4.7 per cent. plus some who gained such status on appeal. But the dramatic difference was the fall in the number who gained exceptional leave to remain. In 1990 the figure was nearly 60 per cent. By 1995 the figure had fallen to 16 per cent. ELR is not a status covered by statute; it is a grace and favour status given by the Government—and a necessary one. But part of the large increase in the number of refusals stems from the Government's deliberate decision to reduce the number of people being given exceptional leave to remain. Nevertheless, we are still talking about some 20 per cent. in all who are allowed to stay either under ELR or refugee status.
There is no time to deal with European Union comparisons, some of which were cited. Perhaps I may say this. If this country makes one mistake in determining an asylum claim, we are liable to send back to danger an individual who may face a future too horrible to contemplate. People have been returned to countries when it had been argued that they should be allowed to stay. People have been returned to countries—Zaire is an obvious example, but there are others—where they have disappeared as soon as they were a mile or two from the airport. It is because of the awful consequences for someone who has a well-founded fear of persecution under the 1951 convention that we have to be so careful about all the details whereby an asylum claim is determined.
8.35 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. It is fair to say that there has been a healthy and useful exploration of the different aspects of the Bill. There have been times also when I wondered not only whether people understood the Bill but whether they had listened to my speech at the outset such has been the misunderstanding not only before I came to the Chamber but in the course of many speeches.
The answer of noble Lords opposite, in particular of the party represented by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is simply to employ more staff and to provide a great deal more money. Numbers of applicants would indeed rise inexorably because we would have the most relaxed procedures in Europe. The delays, which the noble Lord claims would be dealt with by even more adjudicators and assessors, are frequently caused, as I said a moment ago, by applicants who can resort to many ways of delaying the appeal process. While those cases were being delayed, all benefits would be paid and many would be treated more favourably than citizens of this country and legal settlers here.
It will be difficult to respond to all the points made in the debate. I shall do what I can. If I do not reply tonight, I shall do so fully in writing and I shall place all copies of my letters in the Library for the availability of all Members of the House.
The first point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was about detention of asylum seekers. Only 1 per cent. of asylum seekers are currently detained. Detention is used only when there are real concerns that an applicant would abscond. Most detained asylum applicants have had their claims refused. Children are detained only rarely. It is only in exceptional circumstances and for only very short periods, usually just before deportation. Unlike many of our European neighbours, we do not require asylum seekers to live in application or reception centres.
Children are detained under Immigration Act powers only in the most exceptional circumstances. Authority at a minimum of inspector level is required for the detention of children under 18 and is reviewed by an assistant director within 24 hours. Unaccompanied young persons may be detained at around the age of 16 or 17 years. But in a large number of cases the true age may he the subject of dispute. Children younger than that will normally be held in detention centres only as part of a family unit. In those circumstances, the children may not be detained but accommodated with the detained parent or parents with their agreement. In those circumstances, the detention would be for a very short period only prior to removal of the family unit. We do not believe that our arrangements represent any breach of the United Kingdom's international obligations.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to some statistics. He mentioned 115 successful applicants from India, Pakistan, Bulgaria, Poland, Ghana and Cyprus. Only 17 applicants from the seven countries currently considered suitable for designation were granted asylum
1030
in 1995. Over 6,500 decisions were made in cases from the nationals of the seven candidate countries. Refusal rates for Bulgaria were 99 per cent., Cyprus 100 per cent., Poland 100 per cent., Romania 98 per cent., Ghana 99 per cent., India 98 per cent. and Pakistan 98 per cent. All claims will still be considered. This has to be said again and again because it is clearly not accepted by many noble Lords. Everyone will still have an appeal to an independent adjudicator.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also referred to European Union resolutions. The United Kingdom's asylum policy is decided in Westminster, not in Brussels. That is the whole purpose of our considering the Bill before the House. In developing the asylum package, we have drawn extensively on the experience of other European countries and on work in international fora. But our proposals are our own. It is ludicrous to talk of toeing the Brussels line. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has a smile on his face at the moment but I must say to him that under the United Kingdom's successful presidency in 1992—he referred to it but he did not say that it was the UK presidency—a resolution was adopted on,
"Countries in which there is generally no serious risk of persecution".
Again, a resolution was adopted on,
"Manifestly unfounded applications for asylum".
Under the United Kingdom's presidency, the sensible, non-binding resolutions, as my noble friend Lady Elles, said, are public documents. Asylum policy is a matter for intergovernmental co-operation under the Maastricht Treaty. It is subject to unanimity. We should not hesitate to veto any EU asylum measures which do not conform to the United Kingdom's interests.
Of course I will take away the report of the scrutiny committee which was published today and give serious consideration to its recommendations. It is worth noting that with the order-making powers following the powers under the relevant benefit legislation, the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee approved the negative procedure. However, that does not prejudice consideration between now and Committee stage.
As regards employers, the Home Secretary's power is to exempt employers from the requirement to check in certain cases. So it will remove a burden rather than add one. The negative procedure is appropriate here, as the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee found.
My noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the drafting of Clause 1. I noted what they said and I am conscious that Clause 1 and some other clauses operate by amending previous statutes. It is not practicable always to proceed by re-enacting the old provisions in a revised form, although I recognise that it can make a Bill easier and more straightforward. I shall consider the points made about drafting between now and Committee stage.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, will my noble friend give way? There is a halfway house. She could

1031
add to the Bill a Keeling schedule which repeats in a schedule what the Bill would he after the amendments had been carried. It is a useful device.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is very rarely used.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall take all helpful suggestions and reflect upon them between now and the Committee stage. Reference was made to third country appeals; 40 per cent. of appeals succeed in those cases. Ninety-six per cent. of third country refusals concern people who have entered the United Kingdom from a member state of the European Union. It is absurd that applicants should be able to delay removal by arguing at appeal about the inherent safety of another European Union country as a safe haven for asylum seekers. The great majority of findings by adjudicators support the Home Office view that countries like France and Germany are safe. The evidence does not support the claim that 40 per cent. of asylum appeals are successful. That was suggested by the Refuge Legal Centre. On the contrary, 61 per cent. of third country appeals arc dismissed and 22 per cent. are referred back, for reasons other than doubts about the inherent safety of the third country. The evidence also supports our assessment that doubts about admissibility owing to the passage of time are a major factor in referrals. Our assessment is that that has now become the most common reason for referral. Such delays are seldom attributable to the Home Office which decides safe third country cases within one-and-a-half days on average. The cases are not successful appeals; they are part of the problem which the legislation is intended to remedy.
It is a growing problem. For example, France, the safe third country to which we most commonly seek to return applicants, has recently stopped allowing extensions to the time limit for returning applicants specified in our agreement with that country. We believe that it is unacceptable that return to a safe third country such as France should be prevented in a significant number of cases simply because of the time taken on the appeal procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that the 1993 Act was supposed to be the last Act. During the passage of what became the 1993 Act, the then Home Secretary was clear that there would continue to be pressures in the future and that there was no room for complacency. Since then, we have seen the sharp rise in applications which occurred in 1994 and 1995—a near doubling since the 1993 Act. The level of asylum applications is inevitably volatile and difficult to predict. It is unrealistic to imagine that legislation in that area can be set in stone, particularly when other European countries have tightened their legislation. Any responsible government would adjust the system further in the light of the sustained sharp rise in applications we have experienced.
Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to the Home Office intending to designate Kenya, Ethiopia and Tanzania. My right honourable friend made clear the list of countries that we currently regard as meeting criteria for designation. Kenya, Ethiopia and Tanzania are not on the list.
1032
However, as the noble Lord knows, the Bill will allow countries to he added to the designation list if circumstances in the countries improve. Equally, we will not hesitate to remove a country from the list if conditions in it deteriorate.
Much was made of the benefit system. The previous benefit regulations were an open invitation to people from abroad to gain access to benefit by making bogus asylum claims. Asylum seekers will still be eligible for benefit provided they declare themselves on arrival. People who gain admission on the basis that they can support themselves should be held to that requirement, whether or not they claim asylum. That point was made by my noble friend Lord Renton. He referred to those people as "after in-country seekers". They will, after all, have had to obtain leave to enter from an immigration officer and in most cases also obtain a visa from an entry clearance officer before travelling here. They will have had to satisfy the officer about their ability to support themselves without recourse to public funds. Nevertheless, there is provision in the benefit regulations so that those who claim asylum after entry can receive benefit if they are genuinely trapped here by an upheaval which took place in their country of origin after their arrival.
Under the new regulations, benefit entitlement ends when asylum is refused by the Home Office. People do not retain entitlement while appealing against a benefit decision and the same principle will now apply to asylum appeals. We do not believe that it is reasonable to expect the taxpayers to go on supporting an asylum seeker after his claim has been duly considered and rejected, especially bearing in mind the very low success rate at appeal.
I was asked why the numbers of Home Office decisions fell dramatically from 34,900 in 1992 to 23,000 in 1993. Comparisons with output figures for 1992 are misleading. Thirty-eight per cent. of refusals were on non-compliance grounds, mainly refusals related to fraudulent multiple applications. Fifty-one per cent. of all decisions were grants of exceptional leave, mostly taken on pragmatic grounds. Productivity levels in the asylum division have increased by 160 per cent. since the 1993 Act was implemented and the policy of granting exceptional leave on pragmatic grounds was ended. The number of outright refusals—the most difficult and time-consuming decisions—is higher than it has ever been and over twice the number for 1993. The 27,000 decisions taken in 1995 exceed the annual intake that was anticipated when the 1993 Act came into force.
In January, the Home Office, for the first time, took over 3,000 decisions in a month. We arc well on course to meet our target of at least 37,000 decisions. At the moment, that will still not keep up with the number of applications. Productivity improvements and the additional resources already ploughed into the system are essential, but they are not enough. Controlling the intake of new applications is crucial to reducing the backlog of undecided applications and keeping pace with current applications.

1033
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon referred to Home Office research. That research was a survey of people who had been granted asylum. That tells us nothing about asylum seekers. Only a small proportion of asylum seekers are granted asylum. Since the vast majority of claims are not valid, applicants must have other motives. Given the vast differences in average incomes, it is a logical conclusion that economic motives are indeed a major factor.
The right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that it was necessary to have a quick determination process, to which I referred. In May last year we introduced a new short procedure for considering straightforward asylum applications. It is an accelerated determination process that allows us to reach decisions within four or five weeks, compared with nine months for other cases. All cases are considered fully and appeal rights are not affected. Even within that fast-track procedure, if in the course of examining an individual application it is thought inappropriate for the fast-track procedure, it is taken out and considered in the normal way.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and my noble friend Lord Renton referred to after-entry applicants. More applications made after entry are refused outright than port cases, which is contrary to what was said. In 1994, 70 per cent. of port applicants were refused outright, compared with 82 per cent. of after-entry applicants. In 1995, 75 per cent. of port applicants were refused, compared with 79 per cent. of after-entry applicants.
In relation to benefits, the important point is that people who claim after entry have been admitted on the basis that they will support and accommodate themselves in this country without recourse to public funds. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon referred to the Al-Mass'ari case. If he will forgive me, it is not appropriate for me to refer to that case in particular. On the general point, however, Clause 1 removes the adjudicator's power to refer cases back to the Secretary of State and is concerned only with cases that are unfounded other than on safe third country grounds. Clauses 2 and 3 deal with safe country cases. So there is no need for a reference back under Clause 1, because all cases to which it applies will have been considered substantively. If the special adjudicator disagrees with the Secretary of State, he allows the appeal and refugee status is recognised.
The right reverend Prelate also made reference to Kenya. In 1994 the refusal rate for applicants from Kenya was 100 per cent. We do not have figures for 1995 as a whole; but in November 1995, for example, all applicants from Kenya were refused, and a visa regime was imposed on Kenyan nationals last week. The number of asylum applications from Kenya has dramatically increased, as indeed the right reverend Prelate said. We believe that many of those coming here were driven primarily by economic motives—hence the need, regrettably, for a visa regime. There was no intention to prejudice the consideration of individual asylum applications. That will still take place. The visa position does not affect it.
1034
The right reverend Prelate suggested that everyone's claim should be considered individually. Even when an applicant comes from a country that has been designated generally safe, his claim will still be considered on its individual merits. Designation relates to the Secretary of State's view of the position in the country overall, not in relation to any individual or group of individuals.
The Bill reduces asylum seekers' access to legal rights, legal representation and speed of process. That was suggested, again by the right reverend Prelate, and by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. The Bill does not lead to automatic refusal of any asylum claim. It does not detract from the requirements on the Secretary of State to consider all claims. It does not remove the right of appeal from any asylum seeker, although it makes the appeal non-suspensive where removal is to a third country within the European Union. It does remove the right to an in-country (that is, suspensive) appeal before removal to the country of origin. And it does not in any way detract from existing arrangements for free legal advice and representation.
The accelerated appeal procedure is nothing new. Parliament agreed its introduction when it approved the 1993 Act. This Bill merely extends its use to more manifestly unfounded claims.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred to an increase in judicial review. The provisions in Clause 1 do not deny a right of appeal. They simply provide that people falling into certain categories have no appeal to the tribunal from the adjudicator. Appeal to the tribunal is already "only with leave", so it is not automatic. Most cases are refused leave and already seek judicial review of their refusal. So there is no reason to think that these proposals will result in a significant increase in judicial review applications. We believe that the chief adjudicator, Judge Pearl, shares that view.
Another point was that asylum seekers will not have time to check documents in order to claim. The provision allows appeals to be fast-track as without foundation when an applicant fails to produce a passport without giving a reasonable explanation, or fails to disclose, once he is in the United Kingdom, that his documents are false. That does not affect those who flee without documents or using false documents, only those who do not give an explanation or continue to rely on those documents once they have arrived in the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said that proposals in Clause 1 breach Article 3 of the refugee convention. Article 3 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of nationality in relation to the application of the convention. The convention says nothing about appeal procedures. So identifying particular nationalities for different treatment under Clause 1 cannot infringe Article 3 of the refugee convention.
I see that I am out of time, with a very large number of items yet to be discussed. Therefore, I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I resort to writing to them. I shall deposit letters in the Library so that all noble Lords can see both the points made and my response to them.

1035
The Bill is predicated on the Government's longstanding commitment to maintain effective immigration control. Illegal working, racketeering and growing abuse of asylum procedures pose very real threats to that control. No responsible government could ignore them. Effective procedures and sanctions, whether on asylum or other aspects of immigration control, do not damage race relations. On the contrary, they are a necessary condition for preserving the good race relations that this country has enjoyed and, we hope, will continue to enjoy.
The Government remain totally committed to fair and non-discriminatory asylum and immigration procedures. We are determined to honour this country's well-known tradition of harbouring those who flee here in genuine fear of persecution. We intend to continue complying with our obligations under the 1951 convention. We believe that the Bill is not only compatible with those aims but essential if they are to be achieved. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Contracting Out (Functions in relationto the provision of Guardians Ad Litemand Reporting Officers Panels)Order 1996
8.57 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 61.h February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order is made under the powers of Section 70 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. It enables local authorities to contract out the provision of the guardian ad litem and reporting officer service under the Guardians Ad Litem and Reporting Officers (Panels) Regulations 1991. The order-making power is subject to affirmative resolution.
Guardians ad litem and reporting officers, usually referred to by the rather unattractive acronym, GALROs, are appointed by courts under the Children Act 1989. Their functions are to report to the court on the child's wishes and feelings, to instruct a solicitor to act on behalf of the child and to examine the powers available to the court that will best promote the child's welfare. In adoption proceedings there is a similar duty on guardians to report to the court on matters relating to the application.
A particular feature of the GALRO service is that it has to operate at arm's length from the local authority. It has to be seen by the families and the court as offering impartial and independent professional advice. Courts may appoint only GALROs who are panel members. The proposed order does not alter who may act as guardians, only how the GALRO service is organised. There are restrictions on who can practise as a guardian.
1036
There are about 920 guardians in England. They work exclusively on guardian matters and the court rules debar them from acting in the case if they have been directly concerned in arrangements relating to the care, accommodation or welfare of the child during the five years prior to the commencement of the proceedings.
Nearly 13,000 cases involving nearly 19,000 children were dealt with by the GALRO service in England in 1994–95.
The GALRO service in England is administered through 54 panels. In some areas a single local authority or a consortium of local authorities has arranged for the GALRO service to be provided by a voluntary organisation. There are five panels and between them they cover 30 local authorities in England. However, these arrangements appear in some instances to exceed the legal powers in the Local Government Act 1972. In effect, the local authorities have entered into a contract of service and have delegated the local authority responsibility beyond what is legally permissible. I should perhaps stress that there is no criticism of the voluntary childcare organisations currently involved. All are held in high regard. Guidance issued in 1991 by the Department of Health may have been misleading in s6 far as it could be read to suggest. that all such arrangements were legally permissible.
This statutory instrument enables local authorities to contract out the GALRO service. The instrument also modifies the 1991 panel regulations, so that where the local authority has contracted out any of its functions under these regulations, the membership of the complaints board for that authority is modified. It cannot include the person to whom the function has been contracted out or an employee of that person. Under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, local authorities retain the responsibility for ensuring that the GALRO service is provided, even where the service is contracted out. The effect of the order Rill be to extend the choice available to local authorities in the provision of the service.
It will be entirely up to the local authority to decide which type of arrangements it wishes to have in place. The order enables the local authority to contract out to a voluntary organisation or other organisation which the authority considers appropriate. If it chooses to contract out, it may determine the extent to which some or all of the functions under the panel regulations are retained or contracted out.
Local authorities are responsible for the costs of the GALRO service, which, in 1994–95, were estimated at …18.6 million. Since 1992, there has been a specific grant administered by the Department of Health. That is …6.2 million in the current year. Any contracted-out arrangements will be paid for by the local authorities from within their existing financial resources. The specific grant will continue to be paid to local authorities for as long as the specific grant continues.
Under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, the proposals have to be the subject of consultation. The Association of Directors of Social Services, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities

1037
and the Association of County Councils have each confirmed that they are content with this proposal. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
Lord Rea: My Lords, the noble Baroness explained very clearly the purpose of the order. As she said, it is an enabling procedure, giving a legal framework to a practice which is already in operation and, in general, so far as I am aware, functioning effectively. I am pleased that in her final sentence she mentioned that the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of County Councils are happy with the order.I am quite sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, if she were with us, would, for once, vote with the Government on this measure.
One could say that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of County Councils were happy with the order. They would he, wouldn't they? It endorses what they already do. For the sake of speed, I shall call the subject of the order GALROs, even though it is not a very nice word, as the noble Baroness said. They are very important people who need wisdom and tact to do their job well. Can the noble Baroness tell the House whether she is satisfied that enough people of the right calibre are coming forward? They are appointed by the responsible local authority social services department in most cases, but are they able to be sufficiently independent to criticise that authority if need be?
I wonder whether the Minister could expand a little on whether the order will change anything in financial terms. That is not quite clear to me. If she can help me with those few points, we on this side of the House will have no objection to what is, in effect, a tidying up piece of legislation.
Lord Meston: My Lords, we too would like to thank the noble Baroness for her explanation of the order. Concern can be caused by a brief order such as this one, with an even briefer explanatory note, providing for contracting out the provision of something so important as a panel of guardians ad litem. The noble Baroness provided some reassurance.
One of the major improvements brought about by the Children Act 1989 was the enhancement of the role of the guardian ad litem in a variety of cases. The guardian provides objectivity, critical analysis and appraisal when dealing with sometimes very hurt and bewildered children. More recently, the guardian ad litem may also be required to co-ordinate expert evidence for pending litigation. I understand that the order is intended in part to regularise what happens in practice with the use by local authorities of the voluntary sector, and there can be no possible objection to that.
So far as the order may allow for contracting out the provision of panels as more conventionally provided by local authorities, I am not aware of any particular disquiet, although at first sight it may appear to cause
1038
some concern. My observation in practice is that guardians, while having a good working relationship with local authority social services, are anxious to assert their independence and detachment from the local authority. That is quite right, not just because the guardian provides independent representation for children but also because of the weight usually given by the court to the guardian's views.
The only concern, therefore, that one might have about how the order may work in practice is that there should be machinery to maintain standards. What responsibility in practice will local authorities retain over contracted-out panels and what monitoring in practice will there be to ensure that standards are maintained?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Meston, for their support for the modest proposal that is before us. Perhaps I may just pick up one or two points that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. He was concerned that the right calibre of people should come forward for the very difficult role played by guardians. We know that in nearly all parts of the country at least 90 per cent. of guardians can be appointed within 24 hours of a request from a court. We believe therefore that there are sufficient numbers around.
Independence is a very important point. Indeed, courts throughout the country have expressed complete satisfaction with that aspect of the guardian service. Most social services departments have also found that guardians were able to form an independent judgment and report to the court accordingly. However, I know that research published in 1994 by the Family Rights Group and around the same time by the socio-legal centre in Bristol, showed that certain parents may perceive guardians as not being independent. In their view, all social workers stick together. All those criticisms of a guardian's perceived lack of independence must be balanced by the same research by parents who came to the opposite conclusion. Our conclusions therefore are that they do a good job and remain independent.
The financial aspect of the new proposals is something that local authorities will need to take into consideration when looking at bids for contracting out. It is difficult for us at the moment to quantify the possible savings or perhaps additional costs which can separately be attributed to whether or not the guardian service is contracted out. Most costs will be the same because they relate to the number of cases referred by the courts which require a guardian and the length and complexity of each case. There may be some marginal savings in senior management time in the local authority, which will be less involved in the service. But those too will need to be set against any cost of setting up and monitoring of the contract.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, was anxious to know that the contracts will be properly monitored. I am sure that they will. Local authorities will want to ensure, as they still hold that responsibility, that it is being carried out appropriately. Indeed, the legal responsibility on guardians remains the same. The framework and

1039
national standards of the guardian service were published in October 1995. That also continues to apply, however the service is organised locally.
We believe that it is a good service and that the proposals before your Lordships tonight will give a little more choice to local authorities. The service enjoys a high reputation for skilled and effective work in the courts and the order offers sensible clarification of legal powers to contract out the provision which, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, was saying, many local authorities are already doing. It increases the choice of options available to local authorities which wish to provide the service to a high standard and in as economical a way as possible. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Contracting Out (Functions in relationto the Welfare Food Scheme) Order 1996
9.6 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order is made under the powers at Section 69 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. Its purpose is to streamline and improve procedures for the reimbursement of milk suppliers under the GB health departments' welfare food scheme by allowing the departments' contractor to undertake the whole reimbursement process. Beneficiaries themselves will not be affected in any way.
The welfare food scheme provides a nutritional benefit in kind rather than in cash. One of its main provisions is that families in receipt of income support receive a milk token each week for each child under the age of five. That can be exchanged for seven pints of cows' milk. The token can he exchanged for milk with any milk retailer who chooses to take part in the scheme. Having accepted the token in "payment" for the milk supplied, the supplier gets reimbursed for the token by sending it to the Welfare Food Reimbursement Unit. Until 1993, that reimbursement work was carried out by civil servants in two separate locations.
During 1989–1991, a value-for-money initiative focused on the welfare food scheme. One key recommendation was for reimbursement to be centralised at one site. As part of the Government's Competing for Quality initiative it was also decided to market test the reimbursement function in 1993 so as to improve value for money through competition and private section involvement.
The contract was awarded in 1994 to NCH (Nielsen's Clearing House Ltd). NCH has been successfully running the reimbursement operation on behalf of G13 health departments since then. It runs an efficient operation using modern technology. But we have not been able to gain full advantage of the contractor's services. We are limited by the requirements of the Social Security Act 1988 which reserves the reimbursement function for the Secretary of State or his
1040
officials. It cannot be carried out solely by a private contractor. As a result, contracting out of reimbursement has been less efficient than it could be. DH officials have had formally to approve and authorise around 1,000 claims daily as well as requesting any proof necessary.
Section 69 of the Deregulation and Contracting out Act enables a Minister to make an order contracting out the reimbursement functions, subject to the assent of Parliament. That is the purpose of this order. Once the order has come into effect, a Minister may then issue an authorisation to the department's contractor. This will enable the contractor to carry out the reimbursement. It will also allow us to authorise the contractor to ask for the necessary documentary advice to support the claims.
The use of this procedure will enable us to gain the maximum benefits. It will speed up the reimbursement process providing a more efficient service to milk suppliers. It will also avoid duplication of effort and release officials' time to devote to core health business.
I should like to reassure your Lordships that this will not affect the benefit delivered or welfare food beneficiaries themselves in any way. It is purely an administrative matter. There will be no dilution of standards being applied to welfare food reimbursement claims. We have ensured that the contractor's systems offer robust safeguards for the reimbursement process and for the public purse. Checks by the DH staff, by the DH's internal auditors and by the National Audit Office will continue to subject the system to regular scrutiny.
The order before the House is therefore a straightforward provision enabling us to improve the efficiency of the administration of the welfare food scheme with no detriment to beneficiaries. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
9.15 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for explaining the order. It authorises the claims by retailers for reimbursement under the scheme to be handled by Nielsen's Clearing House Limited through the whole process, part of which until now has occupied the equivalent of one member of the administrative staff of the Department of Health. If the order is passed—I have no intention of opposing it—that function will be left entirely in the hands of the contractor. What I feel we should be sure about is whether the department will still have sufficient evidence to ensure that the process is being carried out to acceptable standards. After all, the taxpayer foots the Bill. Can we be sure that a contractor will not be able at some time in the future to falsify claims?
The welfare food scheme is still, sadly, very necessary, as became clear during exchanges on the Starred Question in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, earlier this afternoon. Children from low-income families often do not get adequate quantities of some nutrients and get too much of others which are less desirable—fat and sugar—so that welfare foods,

1041
which in this case consist of liquid milk, are still very important. I hope the noble Baroness can reaffirm that the smooth operation of the scheme will in no way be adversely affected by the order.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord all the reassurances that he seeks. There will still be weekly checks in the system, the internal auditors and the National Audit Office will still be involved, but we think that under the new system we will get speedier payments. The noble Lord is right to say that there will be savings—of one person's time—but the job is a fairly mindless and soul-destroying job in that it involves checking all the returns that are made—1,000 a day. It is a huge and boring task.
It is right that the House should pass the order. I can assure the noble Lord that we are satisfied that there will be no dilution of standards being applied to the claims and that the contractor system offers robust safeguards for the reimbursement process.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Slavery: Legacy
9.18 p.m.
Lord Gifford Lord Gifford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make appropriate reparation to African nations and to the descendants of Africans for the damage caused by the slave trade and the practice of slavery.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question raises an issue which is being debated with increasing vigour and intensity by African people around the world; and by African people I mean people of African descent, wherever they live, whether in Africa itself, in the United States, in Great Britain or in the Caribbean, where I now live and practise law.
The issue is this. The under-development and poverty which affect the majority of countries in Africa and in the Caribbean, as well as the ghetto conditions in which many black people live in the United States and elsewhere, are not, speaking in general terms, the result of laziness, incompetence or corruption of African people or their governments. They are in a very large measure the consequences—the legacy—of one of the most massive and terrible criminal enterprises in recorded human history; that is, the transatlantic slave trade and the institution of slavery.
The thesis that I advance tonight is that in accordance with international law and with basic human morality, measures of atonement and reparation are due from the successors of those who instigated and carried out the trade and who profited massively from it, to the descendants of the victims of the criminal enterprise who still suffer in many different ways from the effects of the crime.
The horrendous nature of the enterprise of African slavery is well known and documented. Around 20 million young people were kidnapped, taken in chains across the Atlantic and sold into slavery in the
1042
plantations of the New World. Millions more died in transit in the dungeons of the castles such as Goree, Elmina and Cape Coast, or in the hell holes under the decks of the slave ships. It was without doubt, in the fullest sense of the term, a crime against humanity.
A vast proportion of sub-Saharan Africa from Senegal right round to Angola and on the other side from Mozambique into Malawi and Tanzania was depopulated. Its young men and women were taken away. Population estimates show that Africa's population remained static at around 100 million between 1650 and 1850 while in the same period the populations of Europe and Asia increased between twofold and threefold. It is small wonder that the great kingdoms of Africa such as Mali, Songhai and Ghana fell into decline while the slave-trading nations prospered mightily. Whole cities such as Liverpool and Bristol grew wealthy on the triangular trade of manufactured goods going to Africa, slaves going from Africa to the colonies, and sugar coming back from the colonies to Britain. No calculations can measure the loss suffered by the African continent from that massive depopulation of its young people, for which no compensation was ever paid.
African governments today, who have tried to rectify the under-development which they have inherited from history, have borrowed from the financial institutions of the West and are now in a virtually uncontrollable spiral of debt. In reality—and in morality—I suggest that it is the West which is in debt to Africa, not Africa which is debt to the West.
On the other side of the Atlantic, the African captives were cut off from their families, their land and their language. They were forced to be owned as chattels and to work as beasts of burden. When, finally, emancipation day came—in the British colonies, in 1838—the ex-slaves received nothing. It was the ex-slave owners who were compensated for the loss of their property.
The slavery experience has left a bitter legacy which endures to this day in terms of family breakdown, landlessness, under-development and a longing among many to return to the motherland from which their ancestors were taken. Once again, in the Caribbean the need to finance development programmes has bound Caribbean governments and peoples in fresh shackles, the shackles of debt. In Jamaica, where I live, between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. of the national budget has had to be paid out in debt servicing over the past 10 years. In many African countries, the proportion is much higher. The effects are crippling in that every public service, such as schools, health facilities, transport and roads, prisons and justice systems, is so squeezed that it is failing to deliver at even a minimum standard.
As well as the consequences in Africa and the Caribbean, there is a further element in the legacy of the slave trade, which is the damage done within Britain, within the United States and other Western societies. The inhuman philosophy of white supremacy and black inferiority was inculcated into European peoples to

1043
justify the atrocities which were being committed by a Christian people upon fellow human beings. That philosophy continues to poison our society today.
On one short visit back to Britain this month, I come across reports of racism in the Armed Forces and the police. Equal rights legislation has not been enough. It is necessary to look more deeply, to understand why the crimes of the past are poisoning the present for all people, white and black, and then to do something effective to repair the wrong. That will assist both African and European, black and white, to lance the poison and to heal the wounds.
The concept that reparations are payable where a crime against humanity has been committed by one people against another is well established in international law and practice. Germany paid reparations to Israel for the crimes of the Nazi Holocaust. Indeed, the very creation of the State of Israel can be seen as a massive act of reparation for centuries of dispossession and persecution directed against Jews.
Japan apologised only last year, 50 years on, for its wartime atrocities and is still being urged, rightly, to pay compensation to the victims. The USA made apology and restitution for the internment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War. Going further back into history, Her Majesty the Queen, only last November in New Zealand, personally signed the Royal Assent to the Waikato-Raupatu Claims Settlement Bill through which the New Zealand Government paid substantial compensation in land and in money for the seizure of Maori lands by British settlers in 1863. She apologised for the crime and recognised a long-standing grievance of the Maori people. Other indigenous peoples have similar just claims for the dispossession which their ancestors suffered.
African people, too, have a massive and long-standing grievance. It is no use saying that it all happened a long time ago, and we should just forget about it. The period of colonialism which succeeded the period of slavery, continued the exploitation of Africa and the Caribbean in new ways. Further acts of brutality were committed, and the peoples of those regions, until recently, were denied the status of sovereignty and independence with which alone they could themselves demand the redress of the wrongs which were done.
But the wrongs have not been forgotten. The peoples of Africa and the Caribbean live with their consequences still. A group of eminent Africans under the auspices of the Organisation of African Unity is beginning to articulate the claim for reparation.
What is meant by the claim for reparations? The details of a reparations settlement would have to be negotiated with an appropriate body of representatives of African people around the world. I would anticipate that some of the elements of an appropriate package would be, first, as with other precedents, an apology at the highest level for the criminal acts committed against millions of Africans over the centuries of the slave trade. His Holiness the Pope set the example when he visited the slave dungeons of Goree in Senegal in February 1992 when he said:
1044
"From this African sanctuary of black pain, we implore forgiveness from Heaven".
Secondly, there would be the cancellation of the intolerable burden of debt, which has overloaded the economies of Africa and the Caribbean. There are powerful economic and social argurnents for debt cancellation which were most recently deployed by former President Kaunda of Zambia during a visit to Scotland in February 1996. He said of the present state of Africa:
"It is a human tragedy. People are dying by their thousands every day, children are dying. These things bring social disorder to countries".
Thirdly, there would be the return of treasures and works of art which come from the African continent, many of which are to be found in Britain's museums as a result of acts of theft and robbery. I refer, for instance, to the Benin Bronzes in the Museum of Mankind. Fourthly, there would be measures to facilitate the repatriation and resettlement of those who wish to return to Africa. The word "repatriation" has an ugly ring in the mouth of racists who want to drive black people out of Britain. However, it expresses, too, a yearning among many descendants of Africans which is as powerful as was the yearning of the Jewish people for the Promised Land.
Fifthly, there would be a reparations settlement which would involve programmes of development, without strings attached, in Africa, the Caribbean, Brazil and elsewhere, including programmes to promote equal rights and justice within the countries of the West.
As we move to the next millennium, none of us can deny that there is a growing divide between north and south, between black and white, across frontiers and within frontiers. It is in the interests of all of us to recognise that the reasons for that divide lie in a shameful past. If we realise that, we will be on the way to doing something to repair the wrong which was done, even though it may cost heavily in terms of pride and revenue. The steps to be taken will bring a happier world for all our children.
In asking this Question on an issue which may be new and difficult for many of your Lordships, I ask the Government and the Opposition parties for a positive and open-minded response. I believe that this issue will remain with us and will gather momentum. Today's governments and parties are not guilty of fostering the slave trade but they would be responsible if they did nothing to remedy the injustice, the suffering, the poverty and the racism which the slave trade and the institution of slavery inevitably engendered into the present day.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell the House which country first stopped the slave trade?
Lord Gifford: My Lords, after carrying it on and profiting massively from it, the slave trade was stopped by the nations of Europe. I pay tribute to the ancestor of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, who played a leading part in stopping the trade. However, no compensation was paid when it was stopped and the unredressed grievance remains with us today.
9.33 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I fear that seldom have so few people come together to do so little. I respect the noble Lord's concern and no doubt your Lordships were enlightened by his exposé of the slave trade, albeit slightly coloured by his attitude to the Question. However, I too wish to point out to the House that Britain was the first country in Europe to stop the slave trade 30 years before it was stopped in America. It is not remotely realistic to start talking about reparations at this stage. Reparations can be dangerous; one only has to think of the Versailles Treaty to realise what reparations brought in their wake. Reparations breed envy and distrust and stir up hatred. Far better is what we have done, which is to give aid to help countries to rebuild their prosperity and future.
Britain has a good record in relation to aid to sub-Saharan African countries. I have looked up some of the figures. I am able to tell the noble Lord that between 1979 and 1995 Great Britain paid out 11,610,000,000 dollars to sub-Saharan Africa. Even the noble Lord, Lord Judd, might agree that that is not just small change; it is a considerable sum of money. Even if a regrettable amount of that goes into the pockets of neo-Marxist military dictators, it is to be hoped that some of it is properly administered and will help the developing countries in Africa.
If the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, is concerned about slavery, perhaps I may suggest that he should direct his energies towards the countries which are still practising slavery today. A number of countries are doing that, including countries which are more developed; for example, India and China.
While I am on the subject of money, as a fully paid-up member of the taxpayers' club, I wonder whether the Minister will tell me how much it has cost to research the answer to this Question which seems to me to be slightly irrelevant in terms of reality. I respect the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. But is it realistic to talk about reparations when so much has been done by this country and other countries to help Africa? I do not believe that it is. I should like to hear what the noble Lord has to say about that.
I had not intended to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, for asking this Question but I am indebted to him because, looking at the clock, I find that I have missed my train home and I shall claim appropriate reparations by way of an overnight allowance.
9.37 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I am grateful, as no doubt are other noble Lords, for this opportunity to ascertain something of the Government's views on slavery, the slave trade and its consequences, even though I have difficulty with some of the tenor of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford.
I declare at once an interest in this subject as a joint president of Anti-Slavery International. I agree with the noble Lord that, in principle, one cannot object to the idea of the concept of compensation to individuals for wrongs which they have suffered. There is certainly no wrong more grievous, after the wronged loss of life,
1046
than loss of liberty. There is no doubt that compensation has been paid in certain circumstances to individuals who suffered ascertained wrongs. The noble Lord referred rightly to the compensation to the Jews and the Jewish nation which was directed by Chancellor Adenauer and to the compensation paid by sections of German industry to individual Jewish persons and refugees.
There are other cases. The noble Lord mentioned some. One could mention the situation of the Sudeten Germans who have been individually thought to be entitled to compensation. On the Japanese side, it is true, I believe, that Japanese prostitutes in the course of the war have received compensation for the wrongs they endured.
However, in all those cases one finds unquestioned guilt and unquestionable responsibility of a particular person. In the case of the Jews, it was the German state. There are identifiable victims of the wrong and direct and assessable consequences. I do not find that those conditions are satisfied, or anywhere near satisfied, in the present case.
Of course, there is still slavery in Africa. One notices that the Question refers specifically to compensation to African nations and compensation to be paid by the British Government, but not international compensation to a whole mass of people all over the world.
We know that slavery still exists in Africa and that there is still slave trading in the area. But for neither of those things can the responsibility realistically, fairly or properly be laid on Her Majesty's Government. On the contrary, as the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke indicated, ever since 1833 when slavery was abolished in the British Empire (which covered a great many of the states of Africa), British governments have striven by law, by force, by use of their navy, by influence and by the expenditure of money, to have slavery abolished in African countries, to stop the trade in human beings, and to mitigate the consequences. The difficulty of assessing the consequences and reparation were adverted to by the previous speaker. I feel sure that the Minister will deal with that view of the matter supported by facts. I am quite happy to leave that aspect of the matter to him.
However, I believe that we should carry the case a little further. For that I believe we are indebted to the noble Lord who tabled the Question. We can perhaps look wider than the precise narrow point outlined by the noble Lord. I shall put my main point very shortly. However good our historical record may be—and I believe it to be a very good one—however much direct responsibility for the existence of slavery and of the slave trade may rest now upon independent states in Africa and elsewhere, however difficult, indeed impossible, it is to assess compensation or reparation, we nevertheless—and this also applies to other western and first world countries—have a very strong moral responsibility now and always to do two things; first, to bring about as far as possible the abolition of slavery wherever it still exists, and, secondly, to do whatever we can both practically and realistically to alleviate the consequences.

1047
On the first task, we know that slavery exists in Africa. There are the known examples of the Sudan, Mauritania and probably Mozambique. It is worth underlining again, with reference to the noble Lord's Question, that, in the case of Mozambique, responsibility there is entirely that of the Portuguese who ruled the country until 1974. We have no conceivable responsibility either directly or indirectly. On the other hand, our duty is a strictly humanitarian one., owed by man to man.
What we have to do and what we can do as regards abolishing slavery is, first, to establish beyond doubt where it exists and in what countries. That means supporting with money directly and indirectly those organisations, of which ASI is one, which are able to do so. We must support the United Nations with influence and money, particularly its working groups and reporters who are charged with ascertaining the facts. Again, we must support with influence and, if necessary, money, the higher organisations in the United Nations which are able to bring about change. For example, in Mauritania slavery still exists, although it was abolished by law in 1980. However, we know that that is not the end of the matter; indeed, it is only the beginning of the story. What is needed to make progress is land reform, education and a new labour system based on liberty, all of which need strong international support and someone to give a lead. I believe that we can fairly look to Her Majesty's Government in that respect.
Above all, we must press—this is something we can do and which we do do—all countries which have not done so to ratify the supplementary convention of 1956. There are many African countries among the non-signatories. So much, very briefly, for taking action to abolish slavery where it still exists. I have rather confined myself to Africa because that was the tenor of the noble Lord's Question.
We have a moral responsibility—I go along entirely with the noble Lord to that extent—to do what we can to mitigate the consequences of slavery, either of pre-existing slavery, as in 19th century economic slavery, or of existing slavery, as it has been in our time. The main consequences which we can identify and which we are in a position to do something about are well known. They are low prices for commodities and the burden of debt, which is itself a form of slavery. This has been referred to, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, made a persuasive point at Question Time yesterday. The proportion of income from exports that is now needed to pay for debts is impossibly large and is bringing about what is, in effect, a state of economic slavery in many areas. There is also the question of unfair trading, which can be attacked through application of the Uruguay Round. Civil wars which have existed in so many countries, and which still exist in Africa, bring about, inevitably, conditions of slavery, and the consequences of that. I need only mention the Sudan in that connection.
We all know that these consequences of slavery occur. We can see them. I believe that Her Majesty's Government use their influence internationally to mitigate those consequences. I hope that the Minister will comment on the possibility of action to combat
1048
those consequences. Often this matter is discussed in the context of self-interest. It is argued that if we attack forms of slavery, that will bring prosperity to us. I have no objection to the argument of self-interest being used; any argument which helps in this connection is welcome. However, I still believe that the case is basically a moral one based on the history of the western powers and their development—if I may use that colourless word—of Africa and its resources in the past. I believe that the case rests on the drawing of boundaries by the western powers which has led inevitably to stress, wars, poverty and under-development. That point was touched on by the noble Lord who tabled the Question.
I wish to reaffirm that I believe that the case for action and any sort of compensation should not be based on guilt, nor on an expedient expenditure of money. We should base the case for giving help on morality. That is entirely in line with the beliefs of the original great reformers. Just west of this House, in Westminster Abbey, there is a bust of Zachary Macaulay, one of the original strong abolitionists. As your Lordships' know, he was governor of Sierra Leone—a colony of freed slaves. The bust is dedicated to a man,
"who during 40 successive years rescued Africa from the woes, and the British Empire from the guilt of slavery and the slave trade".
The case now is not one of guilt but of morality. I commend it as such to your Lordships.
9.48 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, painted a moving picture of the slave trade, and one cannot argue with the picture he painted. Slavery is an age-old matter. It goes back to the Greeks and the Romans who had slaves on their galleys. Slavery has existed on all continents for as far back as can be recorded. Some people were enslaved by press gangs, or were enslaved after being captured in wars. Others were enslaved as a form of punishment. One must not forget that many slaves were sold into slavery by their parents or by the chiefs of their villages. There is the case of the blacks in the sugar plantations but, as has already been mentioned, slavery has occurred in many countries and people were enslaved in Europe during the past war. It is a phenomenon which is far from confined to the black nations.
As regards compensation, therefore, one has to ask how far it would be proposed to go back in time. The noble Lord suggests that we go back 300 years to the slave trade, and the descendants of those involved. Why not go back 1,000 years to the descendants of the Greeks? Where would it stop? And who would pay compensation? Almost every country was responsible for slavery in those days, including the French, the Spanish and the blacks themselves. Therefore, it is absurd to ask Her Majesty's Government to make reparations for the slave trade.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Of course I recognise that if there were a

1049
positive answer to this Question that would give a lead to the other European governments which profited similarly. It would be a joint international venture.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I appreciate that. However, the suggestion is particularly rich because, as has already been mentioned, the British led the anti-slavery campaign. We can read about Gordon, whose object was entirely anti-slavery. Then there was the struggle for central Africa in the 1880s. Again that was a matter of Europeans going into Africa, and often fighting the Arab slavers who ran the slave trade. A new book entitled The Scramble for Africa paints the whole picture.
The purpose of my speaking was not to go into history but to reinforce the remarks about modern day slavery. We cannot do much about the slavery of old, but we can and we must do something about the slavery that is going on at the moment.
There was a television documentary the other day which showed that, for example, Filipinos were going to Saudi Arabia, having been promised wages. However, when they reached Saudi Arabia their employers took their passports away and they were not paid. If they attempted to escape they were accused of theft, with the obvious consequences if they were found guilty. Slavery of Filipinos in Saudi Arabia is rampant. That is only one example. There are many examples in other countries, which have already been mentioned.
The General Assembly of the United Nations issued a declaration in 1948 about the abolition of slavery, which was fully agreed. However, it has not been implemented by many countries in Africa and in Asia.
All possible action must be taken by the Government to try to stop slavery now. Aid should be restricted to countries where slavery takes place. The Government should bring great pressure on every country where slavery is known to take place even though it may not be legal. It is unacceptable for slavery to be so widespread in 1996.
9.53 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, for giving us the opportunity today to speak on a very complicated subject. I agree broadly with a good deal of what the noble Lord said. I agree also with the noble and learned Lord, but I part company with him to some extent on the tone of his speech, and in particular some of the phrases that he used and the way that he ran some of the issues together, although, in view of the constraints of time, I understand why he did that.
I made my maiden speech in this House some 12 years ago, late at night about this time, on the subject of the problems in sub-Saharan Africa. That is a subject about which I know something because for 10 years I had done a good deal of work in East Africa. In that debate I had the great privilege to have as fellow speakers some very distinguished noble Lords, many of whom are not with us today. One in particular, who became a particular friend of mine in this House, was
1050
the late and great Lord Pitt of Hampstead. If the noble Lord had been alive today, I am sure that he would have spoken in the debate. He himself was the descendant of a slave. He came from the island of Grenada. My father lived in Grenada for some years. Like many of the inhabitants of that island, Lord Pitt had a particular charm and an easy going nature, but underneath a firm resolve to deal with problems of racism and those of sub-Saharan Africa in which he took a close interest.
I have always taken an interest in history and I knew a certain amount about slavery at that time. However, Lord Pitt introduced me to the works of Eric Williams, Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago and perhaps the greatest West Indian historian of his period.
Slavery is a fascinating and at the same time horrifying subject. Apart from the fact of our mercantile growth through slavery over a period of a century or more, one of the great shames is that subsequently in our education in schools so little attention has been paid to slavery as a factor governing the development of this country as we now know it. Barbados was the jewel in the colonial crown at the beginning of the 17th century. One can make a quite clear link between the first importing of slaves from the coast of West Africa into the Caribbean islands, in particular Barbados, and the growth of our mercantile trade and our struggles with other countries which sought to outdo us, through financing the Industrial Revolution to where we find ourselves today. To that degree, I agree absolutely with what the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, said. Where I part company with him is the way in which he has somewhat abbreviated and compressed history.
I agree absolutely that racism has been one of the legacies of slavery. It was not racism that caused slavery, it was economic necessity. Before slaves were taken to Barbados, other West Indian islands and certain colonies in the United States, we used other forms of labour. That has been referred to by other noble Lords. We used petty criminals who had not been condemned for capital offences. We press-ganged—if that is the right word; I believe that it was called "Barbadosing"— vagrants and others who seemed superfluous in our society and bundled them off in ships to the islands where they were to all intents and purposes slaves. Those people were probably treated worse than the slaves themselves because they were there for a limited time and not until perpetuity. The flogging and the misery were suffered as much by those of European origin as by slaves later.
The reason that slavery suddenly developed in our islands was through our race against other nations to develop agricultural products. The great prize of expansion was to replace minerals. There was a great race to develop the sugar crop. Sugar has been and is still the great evil. I have given it up for Lent. Sugar is the crop that perhaps has created the most misery and degradation of all the agricultural crops. It was a luxury product which then became a common product in more advanced countries for sweetening tea and coffee.
The cane sugar plant originally came from Polynesia. It was tried by the Portuguese who first used slaves in Madeira and the Cape Verde Islands. It was then taken

1051
by he British to Barbados but it could only be produced in economic quantities with a supply of labour which was robust and relatively docile. The West Africans filled that bill and thus the great triangular trade began which has been accurately referred to by other noble Lords. There was the movement of goods from Britain, Manchester, down to the west coast of Africa, then slaves to the West Indies and then back again with products. That resulted in about 12 million slaves—I am not sure of the figures—in that trade in the 18th century going from West Africa.
I pay tribute to the great reformers. Presumably one of them was the direct ancestor of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. I must include the Quakers who were persistent opponents of slavery in these islands: the great Joseph Sturge whose descendant, the noble Baroness, Lady Eccles of Moulton, sits in this House today. He was a great and popular Quaker reformer in Bristol.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, the noble Viscount is interesting and erudite in his history, but I am sure he will accept that it was the Danes who were the first European nation legally to abolish the slave trade. We followed them six years later.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, as I am sure are other noble Lords, for answering a point which was put to him. I do not wish to sound cynical but I am sure that there were reasons other than philanthropic ones for abolishing slavery in this country. When it was abolished, the sugar islands became uneconomic. We hastened the end of slavery because we did not wish competitors to continue in the islands which they held which were still marginally fertile. I agree that it was a hideous crime against humanity which was used for economic reasons. A great deal of wealth was created which had a well-known effect on our history.
Reparation was the main drift of the noble Lord's speech. Whether it is appropriate I do not pretend to know. I look forward with anticipation to what the Minister will tell us. Even having heard the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, it seems to me a complicated area. How does one judge whether reparations are appropriate? How much should they be? What mitigating factors should be taken into account? It has not yet been mentioned that the end of slavery in West Africa caused a great deal of upheaval among African native slave traders and the kingdoms because they made a good deal of profit from the trade. In particular, what is now southern Nigeria and the Bight of Benin, a highly populated part of West Africa, found themselves in a position where they had to go back to old and barbaric ways of thinning out their populations. They were paid compensation by the British in many cases for their loss of revenue from the slave trade. I believe that the experiment in palm oil was an agricultural activity promoted—rather like our groundnut scheme centuries later—in order in some way to try to compensate.
1052
That is a different matter from the reparations to which the noble Lord refers. The way we viewed it was that our reparations should be to compensate those who had helped us. That is where I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, when he referred to kidnapping. It would have to be taken into account. If we considered reparations, we would have to calculate the amount of co-operation that took place at that time with the African states.
I shall say no more about the history of slavery. I absolutely agree that it is an appalling episode in the history of the world. It can be explained. It is well documented. I do not like to confuse what we were discussing on that night in 1984—namely the proper support of sub-Saharan countries, with the debt that it is proposed we owe either African nations or others for the slavery period. The need for us to take a completely new, more positive and more constructive look at the need to help the development of Africa stands on its own feet.
The situation facing us in 1984 which we all rightly foresaw, of great famines in Africa which have taken place with horrifying consequences and misery to countless numbers of men, women and children, still exists. The only problem now, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, well knows and may mention, is that, since the world has changed and the great imperatives of East-West confrontation have disappeared, the African problem has become somewhat marginalised. The attention of the world has been turned towards central Europe and the Far East. I am much concerned about the development of southern Africa, except of course for the enormously encouraging events that have taken place in South Africa.
There is another reason why I do not absolutely go along with the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. I have worked for a long time in central and eastern Africa. We have the evidence of what has happened with President Mandela, and before him President Kenyatta. In my experience, the African people are immensely forgiving. They have forgiven the indignities that they suffered in recent times. To encourage the kind of attitude of fervent desire for reparation suggested here would go against the grain, certainly among Africans, because it is not in their nature. What we owe to Africans is a renewed and more energetic attitude, and a greater amount of material, constructive and well thought-out aid for sub-Saharan Africa. Perhaps I may also say that that is true for the Caribbean islands as well. There are slightly different problems there.
I see the issues as quite separate. The issues of slavery need to be open and need to be discussed. We need more debates like this. More children need to know more about the history of their country, about what is good and what is bad. They need to face that appalling period.
I still believe, as did Lord Pitt, in a multi-racial society in this country. It is one of the great tragedies of my life that we have not achieved it. Whether we can achieve it going down the road suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, I do not know. I remain to be persuaded.
10.9 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, all of us should certainly be grateful to my noble friend Lord Gifford for the opportunity of this short debate this evening. It has been a good little debate. When we are debating slavery we all particularly value the thoughts of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce.
My noble friend has always championed human rights and colonial freedom. I recall serving under his chairmanship on the British committee for freedom in Mozambique, Angola and Guinea before the revolution against tyranny in Portugal itself, in the days when Portugal was seen by many in this House and the other place as a NATO ally under no circumstances to be criticised and thereby, paradoxically, provoking the extension of Communist influence among those struggling for their freedom in Africa.
My noble friend speaks in the tradition of George Fox, Glanville, Sharp, William Wilberforce, Josiah Wedgwood, Thomas Clarkson and the other determined Quakers, evangelicals and people of principle and vision who achieved the abolition of the slave trade in the Act of 1807 and the abolition of slavery itself in British colonies between 1834 and 1840.
It was a tough, demanding struggle which required unyielding consistency and integrity. Coupled with the courage of those who sought to emancipate the grotesquely exploited working classes, who, although not categorised as slaves, suffered acutely and enjoyed precious little freedom in our own society, it is a powerful lesson to all of us in the age of sound-bite, spin-doctor politics. We should never forget those who devoted themselves to those struggles. More importantly, we should never forget the appalling plight of the slaves and the exploited themselves. The story of slavery goes back for perhaps 10,000 years to the origins of farming itself and the use of prisoners of war on the land; and, as we have been reminded this evening, it continues in many parts of the world today, together with the associated evil of racism, to which my noble friend so powerfully referred.
We should never be tempted to romanticise. Between the 1500s and 1800s, Europeans shipped about 12 million black slaves in hellish conditions from Africa to the western hemisphere. As my noble friend reminded us, nearly 2 million died in transit. Those who survived to reach the United States and other destinations played a major part in economic development, clearing wildernesses, building canals, roads and railways and, to use the term with meaning, slaving away in cotton and sugar plantations, usually more than 16 hours a day.
I hope that I shall be forgiven if, at this point, I quote from Josiah Henson, who wrote of his experience as a field hand. He said that:
"our dress was of tow-cloth … and a pair of coarse shoes once a year. We lodged in log huts … Wooden floors were an unknown luxury. In a single room were huddled, like cattle, ten or a dozen persons, men, women and children … There were neither bedsteads nor furniture … Our beds were collections of straw and old rags … The wind whistled and the rain and snow blew in through the cracks, and the damp earth soaked in the moisture till the floor was miry as a pig-sty".
1054
Slavery was only legally abolished in the United States as a whole in 1865 and in Latin America some 20 years later. I agree with my noble friend; it is sad that there has never been proper reparation for that cruel evil by the exploiters and their advantaged descendants.
If, on all sides of the House, we take an opportunity to pause and reflect on the sober realities and lessons of history, it is not only slavery but colonialism and indeed its aftermath that we have to examine. In some cases, the colonial period fuelled the growth of ethnic tension from which we are still reaping the results today. In Rwanda, for example, under first the Germans and then the Belgians, the minority Tutsi were favoured in terms of education and posts in the colonial administration over the majority Hutu. At independence, the Belgians switched support to the majority Hutu government. Both those factors have been cited by the interesting and somewhat disturbing multi-agency Rwanda evaluation study that is just being published as contributory factors, among many others, which led to the build up of ethnic hatred and the 1994 genocide.
Following their so-called independence, assistance to African countries was often based on Cold War loyalties, with few questions asked about the governance record of the country in question on the basis, I believe, that "It doesn't matter if he is a bastard, provided he is our bastard". Consequently, large amounts of money were "invested" in propping up some fairly dubious regimes. In retrospect, long-term British assistance to the Banda regime in Malawi was almost certainly one such example, although latterly, greatly to the credit of the noble Baroness, the Minister, we froze aid when it became clear just how cruel and repressive that tyranny had become.
It is, frankly, grimly ironic that, in historic terms, so soon after the age of direct or indirect colonialism, we should see freedom again set aside with ruthless unrepresentative oppressive governments in countries like Sudan, Nigeria, the Gambia and, until now, Sierra Leone—though we all pray that in the case of Sierra Leone the elections and peace negotiations may help to pave the way to a better future.
I am sure we would all agree that the thoughts of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, were particularly interesting. Indeed, he is right. Since the end of the Cold War, sub-Saharan Africa has been of much less strategic importance in the West and, given its limited economic importance, it is increasingly falling off the map of world concern. Declining aid budgets in the United States, Canada, Italy and the United Kingdom reflect declining political support for the principle of development co-operation.
While the Overseas Development Administration's fundamental expenditure review claims to address the problem by proposing to focus 85 per cent. of the bilateral programme on 20 countries in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, I hope the noble Lord opposite will forgive me if I say that there is inevitably strong scepticism—cynicism even—lest that is little more than a smokescreen for managing decline. The Overseas Development Administration's figures demonstrate that, even if the Government moved from 69 per cent. To

1055
85 per cent. being spent in the priority 20 countries over the next two or three years, because country programmes are anyway scheduled to decline over that period the Government would only be able to maintain existing assistance to those 20 countries in cash terms rather than holding it in real terms, let alone increasing it.
In the Caribbean the situation with regard to aid is even worse. The fundamental expenditure review makes it clear that the Caribbean is a non-priority area, despite our historical debt to those islands underlined by the purpose of the debate this evening. The economies of many of those countries are already in peril. Some, having been encouraged by their colonial powers to live off the proceeds of growing a single crop—bananas—now find themselves threatened by the single European market which opens them up to competition from cheaper bananas produced in Latin America. In the face of that, at a time when Britain, as a former colonial power, clearly has a moral duty to assist with diversification, it appears that instead we shall be turning our backs.
The colonial legacy for many African and Caribbean countries has been that the traditional, balanced self-sufficiency, with well-tried coping mechanisms for hard times, has been replaced by over-dependence on a single commodity making them extremely vulnerable to fluctuations in commodity prices on the world market. In sub-Saharan Africa commodities account for 80 per cent. of exports. Between 1980 and 1993 prices for non-oil commodities fell by more than half relative to prices for manufactured goods. The estimated loss to developing countries over that period was 100 billion US dollars—more than twice the total flow of aid in 1990.
Again, Rwanda is a pertinent example. Rwanda is heavily dependent on coffee and the slump in world coffee prices, combined with other factors such as bad weather and economic policies, led to a per capita fall in incomes of 40 per cent. between 1989 and 1993. That hit the Rwandan peasantry particularly hard, increasing social and economic pressure within society—another factor quoted by the multi-agency evaluation report as contributing to the tragic events of 1994.
The conclusion of the last Uruguay Round was held as a triumph which would benefit everyone; everyone, that is, apart from sub-Saharan Africa which, on the basis of OECD figures, will be the only region to be a net loser under the terms of the agreement. Indeed, if we are talking about reparations, what about some compensation to sub-Saharan Africa for what it is going to lose out on under the Uruguay Round?
While no one should deny that adjustment is necessary, the fact remains that the social costs of adjustment in many African countries have been high. Cuts in public expenditure have encouraged the introduction of user fees for basic health and education services, putting them beyond the reach of the poorest sections of society. During the 1980s real per capita spending on education in Africa fell by one-third while two-thirds of the countries in the region also reduced spending on health. Surely it is imperative for essential
1056
social spending to be protected in countries undergoing structural adjustment. It is unforgivable that the innocent should be confronted with the bill for the transgressions of irresponsible—frequently selfish—leaders and equally irresponsible lenders in the past. The poor have no access to those foreign bank accounts.
My noble friend emphasised debt. Perhaps nowhere is our legacy to Africa more apparent than in the spiralling debt burdens under which many countries in sub-Saharan Africa are labouring. Uganda spends 17 dollars per person on debt for every three dollars it is able to spend on health. Zambia spent 37 million dollars on primary education from 1990 to 1993 while it spent 1.3 billion dollars on debt repayments. Tanzania spends twice as much on debt as it spends on access to clean water. The human costs of debt are enormous and existing debt release initiatives have done little to solve the problem. Today's report in the .Financial Times about a new initiative, if true, is encouraging. The IMF/World Bank meeting in April really must end the misery by agreeing a comprehensive solution to the debt crisis incorporating bilateral, multilateral and commercial debt suitably funded from within the multilateral institutions themselves, including the use of World Bank reserves and IMF gold stock and special drawing rights aimed at restoring debt repayments to sustainable levels by the year 2000.
Slavery was abolished as the result of inspired and tireless efforts by the campaigners coupled with a growing doubt about its material economic advantages, a point to which the noble Viscount referred. Similarly, I hope that the efforts of those like my noble friend Lord Gifford—and others like him whom we are able to hear more regularly in this House and the other place—coupled with a growing realisation of the unproductive madness of diverting as much as £3 billion annually, directly or indirectly, from bilateral aid programmes intended to promote sustainable long-term development into debt servicing of multilateral debt, will encourage the Government to work relentlessly for a comprehensive strategy for debt reduction at the forthcoming meeting in April of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. That, I believe, would be a practical first step in the direction so powerfully advocated by my noble friend.
10.23 p.m.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we all agree that slavery was shameful. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, speaking in Cape Town in September 1994, described slavery as a moral outrage. No one can feel proud about the traffic in human beings, a traffic which is still taking place today, as many noble Lords have said, in various parts of the world, including Africa. Indeed, one of the worst aspects of the slavery of which we read today is the encompassment of child prostitution with it. The Government totally deplore that slavery. I can assure the noble and learned Lord,Lord Wilberforce, and my noble friend Lord Gisborough that the Government are doing whatever they can to see that it is stopped wherever it occurs.

1057
I turn now to the Atlantic slave trade. Attributing responsibility for that is difficult; it is not straightforward. Slavery existed in Africa for centuries before outsiders began to engage in the trade, and continued after they had stopped. Far more people were enslaved internally in Africa than were ever exported across the Atlantic. The first outside slave traders were in fact North African Arabs, plying across the Sahara. That took place at least some seven or eight centuries before the first Europeans began to practise the trade. The Atlantic trade first began by tapping that long-standing trans-Saharan slave trade to North Africa. In East Africa, the trade was almost entirely in the hands of Arabs from Oman and the Gulf. Nor, as has been mentioned, is slavery a monopoly of Africa: it existed in the Greek and Roman empires, and in many other parts of the world.
At the height of the transatlantic slave trade, considerable numbers of African slavers and middlemen were involved. African rulers could open and close the market at will, at a time when European penetration of Africa was limited. Traders made their own arrangements with African rulers for slaves, supplied by fellow Africans, and had to pay gifts and taxes to various African rulers along the West African coast. African societies often had control of the slaves until they were loaded on to European ships. That is supported by a large body of academic research.
To claim that the Atlantic slave trade was imposed by Western nations on powerless African communities is to deny Africa's political history. African leaders were themselves active participants with the capacity to determine how trade with Europe developed. Many of the highly impressive African kingdoms and empires in West Africa were built on the foundations of slavery, such as the Asante kingdom in present-day Ghana.
Africans, Arabs and Europeans participated in the slave trade. Responsibility for British involvement in the transatlantic slave trade does not rest on the shoulders of the British Government. British participation in the trade was not conducted by the Government but by individual traders and companies. After the abolition of the slave trade in 1807, the Royal Navy played an honourable part in suppressing the transatlantic slave trade by maintaining naval patrols off the West African coast. British also drew up anti-slavery treaties with African leaders in an attempt to suppress the slave trade. As was written in the Chronicle of Abuju, written in Hausa by the two brothers of the Emir of Abuja in 1945,
"when the British came, those men who had been earning a rich living by this trade saw their prosperity vanish, and they became poor men".
The case for reparations for slavery rests on the premise that the effects of slavery are still being felt on Africans now living in Africa and the Diaspora. There is no evidence of that. Current historical research has revised the thinking on the numbers involved in the Atlantic trade and its effects on demography and depopulation. The main areas of slaving, for example, in the Niger delta and Benin, are now among the most densely populated parts of Africa. The majority of slaves exported were male and not female, and this has
1058
less impact on demography due to the widespread practice of polygamy. A comparison with Europe illustrates that the economic long-term effects of the Atlantic slave trade are often exaggerated. Emigration from southern Europe, particularly from Italy, to the New World between 1880 and 1914 is estimated at about 30 million. The total of the Atlantic slave trade over a far greater period is now generally accepted to number between 20 million and 25 million.
Mention has been made of the growing support for the campaign for reparations for slavery. However, African leaders increasingly accept that many of the economic problems have arisen from policies pursued since independence. As former Nigerian head of state General Obasanjo said in 1991 at the Africa Leadership Forum Conference in Nigeria:
"the major responsibility of our present impasse must be placed squarely on the shoulders of our leaders".
General Obasanjo is currently detained in Nigeria.
Many noble Lords have mentioned the problem of racism, which is an undoubted evil. No one condones it. Any manifestation needs to be fought. To attribute racism to slavery is too simplistic. Racism occurs not just between black and white, but between different ethnic groups all over the world. It is not just a pure black and white problem.
Much has been said about debt relief. We see no linkage between the debts owed by African countries and the legacy of the slave trade. Any practical claim for reparations may serve to undermine the good and widely recognised arguments for reducing Africa's debt burden. The British Government have been active in promoting debt relief for African countries, because such debts constitute a serious obstacle to development.
The British Government have written off the aid debts of 31 of the world's poorest countries to the total value of £1.2 billion. That includes 18 countries in Africa. Additionally, and exceedingly helpfully, for many years all new aid to the poorest countries has been on grant terms so as not to increase their debt burden. The British Government have taken the lead in pressing for solutions to the official bilateral and multilateral debt burdens of the poorest and most indebted countries. At the Paris Club of government creditors, 14 countries benefited from Naples terms' rescheduling.
The British Government have taken the lead also in pressing for action on multilateral debt. At last year's annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank, the Chancellor called upon all international financial institutions to examine further measures to deal with the problems of multilateral debt for the poorest most indebted countries, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. That work is currently under way, and we expect firm proposals at the April 1996 meetings of the World Bank and IMF.
I touched earlier on the responsibility for slavery. I wish to return to that. Arabs, Europeans, Americans and Africans were all directly involved in the trade, but even if it could be decided to whom the bill should be sent, to whom should any proceeds go? Which Africans would benefit and how? Which descendants of slaves living in America, the Caribbean, or the UK should

1059
benefit? To whom, incidentally, should the UK send the bill for the naval squadrons that patrolled the waters of West Africa for half a century to prevent the Spaniards, Brazilians and others from slaving long after we had abolished it?
We should remember also the large percentage of slaves who were prisoners of war in ethnic clashes who would otherwise just have been killed.
I return to the subject of aid: 40 per cent. of our bilateral aid (over £386 million in 1994–95) went to countries in sub-Saharan Africa. We also make a substantial contribution through multilateral aid. The EU's aid programme to sub-Saharan Africa from 1990 to 1995 was the equivalent of £7.6 billion. The UK's share of that was £1.25 billion. However, we are quite aware that the poorest countries of sub-Saharan Africa will continue to require substantial amounts of aid. These countries have been, and will continue to be, a high priority for British aid. Many have embarked on structural re-adjustment and policy reform programmes which take time to bear fruit. Their external funding needs are substantial in order to reconstruct their economies and to provide better living standards.
Comment has been made about international precedents. In May 1991 in Lagos Chief Anyaoku, Secretary General of the Commonwealth, devoted an entire speech to the legacy of slavery. However, he stated that, although the moral case was strong, there was no precedent for reparations outside the post-war settlement. The fact that reparations for war crimes have been paid in this century—for example, Germany, Japan and Iraq—is a red herring. It provides no historic parallel. They were among the terms for peace imposed at once by victors in the wars upon vanquished governments and could be precisely catalogued.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, mentioned the Queen's apology to the Maoris. Her Majesty's apology to a New Zealand Maori tribe for the killings and seizure of land that it suffered under Queen Victoria was at the instigation of her New Zealand Ministers; in other words, the New Zealand Government, which is constitutionally distinct from the British Government. It was not a personal apology from the Queen. It was an acknowledgement of the breach of the treaty signed in 1840. The situation is therefore entirely different. It was not a question of slavery but one of the possession of land resulting from war.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, surprisingly mentioned the fundamental expenditure review. He is aware, as are all noble Lords, that every government must balance the many public expenditure priorities and demands. The ODA's job is to ensure that the resources allocated to development are spent well and make a real difference to the lives of poorer people. The FER concluded that development assistance has, by and large, been effective and there is a continuing need for Britain to provide concessional aid. It reaffirmed both the moral argument for this country being involved in the development effort and that of enlightened self interest. The Government agree.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. If he is drawing on the substance of the fundamental expenditure review, would he not agree that virtually in words of one syllable the authors of that review questioned whether the resour Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. If he is drawing on the substance of the fundamental expenditure review, would he not agree that virtually in words of one syllable the authors of that review questioned whether the resources of our aid programme were now sufficient to meet the commitments which have been undertaken?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I shall be dealing with that point, if I may be allowed to continue. The FER recommended that we should define better our basic purpose and the aims that serve that purpose. We have done so. Our purpose is stated clearly; that is, to improve the quality of life for people in poorer countries by contributing to sustainable development and reducing poverty and suffering. It is important to note that all our work will be directed to meeting that overarching purpose of poverty reduction and sustainable development.
The FER recommended concentration. In principle, I agree with the recommendation that the ODA's bilateral resources should be concentrated. We are working in more countries and undertaking more complex activities than ever before. Focusing our regular bilateral country programmes on fewer recipients will improve the quality and impact of our aid and maximise our influence. Other countries will continue to benefit from British partnership schemes, the heads of mission schemes and smaller-scale projects often provided with local NGOs. I believe that that answers the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
Lord Judd: My Lords, with great respect, I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord for endeavouring to meet the point. However, if he reads carefully what he said, he will see that he has not done so. He talks about concentrating the aid programme and establishing priorities but he has not dealt with the criticism in the report that there are not sufficient resources to meet the commitments. Furthermore, he has not dealt with the point that I raised; namely, that the report talks about the possible need to reduce support in the Caribbean when that the Caribbean, at a time of the single market and the European Community, is facing new challenges as it should be trying to diversify away from exclusive dependence on bananas.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, at this hour, I do not believe that it is appropriate to become involved in a discussion on banana regimes and the EU/ACP Lomé IV agreement which is in existence at the moment and on which a mid-term review was signed in Mauritius in early November of last year.
Of course, as has been said a number of times from this Dispatch Box, the ODA would rather have more funds to expend. However, we have also discussed from the Dispatch Box the restrictions which are imposed by our friends in the Treasury. Therefore, we have decided that as far as possible, we wish to concentrate the funds that we do have in the best possible way.
The return of artefacts was mentioned. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, knows, in this country that is a matter for the trustees of the museums who are

1061
independent. In the past the British Museum has said that it is prevented from disposing of any part of its collection by the British Museum Act 1963.
My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke asked about the cost of researching and preparing for this Question. I do not have those figures, but all Questions are expensive to prepare and research at this time of night. Of course, that should not necessarily discourage any noble Lord from tabling a Question.
To suggest that the Government should make reparations to the African nations and the descendants of Africans for the damage caused by the slave trade is
1062
clearly, from what I have said, not appropriate. A great deal of our aid—40 per cent. of our bilateral country programmes—is accounted for by Africa. That recognises the fact that Africa contains many of the world's poorest countries. Therefore, we are playing a major part in helping Africa to overcome its problems of poverty and under-development. But those problems have nothing to do with the slave trade. Slavery has not had the enduring effect claimed for it and the Government do not accept that there is a case for reparation.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Local Government: Structure
  Local Government: Structure
  London: Advisory Bodies
  London: Advisory Bodies
  GLC Abolition: Cost Effect
  GLC Abolition: Cost Effect
  Asylum Seekers: Help to Local Authorities
  Asylum Seekers: Help to Local Authorities
  Consultant Physicians: Classification
  Consultant Physicians: Classification
  Lloyd's: Compliance
  Lloyd's: Compliance
  ECGD: Payments
  ECGD: Payments
  Ford Motor Company: Subsidy
  Ford Motor Company: Subsidy
  Business Support Agencies
  Business Support Agencies
  Nursery Education Voucher Scheme
  Nursery Education Voucher Scheme
  Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Regulations
  Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Regulations
  Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill [H.L.]
  Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill [H.L.]
  "Sea Empress" Incident
  "Sea Empress" Incident
  Northern Ireland: Resettlement and Rehabilitation Organisations
  Northern Ireland: Resettlement and Rehabilitation Organisations
  Housing Benefit: Arrangements
  Housing Benefit: Arrangements
  Lone Parents Ceasing to Receive Benefit
  Lone Parents Ceasing to Receive Benefit
  Diplomatic Service: Ethnic Minorities
  Diplomatic Service: Ethnic Minorities